[Macworld]

Post your comments for First Look: Nook Tablet is the value tablet to beat here

[cowspeak35]

Pretty good.

Funny this look nothing like the iPad or it's OS.

Why can't Samsung do it? or are they going to copy this too.

Original thoughts, Samsung?

[RhymingDesigner]

As I write this, one reader recommends this article and four do not. I have to wonder what those four were thinking. This is a credible review covering the kinds of things prospective buyers want to know; it is not a rehashed press release we sometimes endure on certain sites. So what's the problem? Is it simply that this is not an Apple product and the negative voters can't get past that?

For what it's worth, my ratio of recommending Macworld articles (yes, I know this is not a MW article per se) is about 10-1, for vs. against. If I see little value in an article, I simply move on, knowing that somebody may get something out of it. I especially like to give a positive vote to timely, insightful articles because it lets Macworld know they really got it right this time.

I think my little rant today is brought on by all the times I've seen negative votes on perfectly good articles. So come on, readers, how about practicing a few manners? If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.

[johnnylundy]

Quote

Nook Tablet is missing Bluetooth, stereo speakers, a GPS, and front- and rear-facing cameras. Beyond the basic processing specs, those are the features that Nook Color omitted, and that Nook Tablet--now that it's actually crossing into the territory of calling itself a tablet and trying to compete with tablets--should have added.

Somebody please remind Ms. Perenson that if B&N could have added all those things and kept the price at $250, THEY WOULD HAVE.

[johnnylundy]

Quote

Nook Tablet is missing Bluetooth, stereo speakers, a GPS, and front- and rear-facing cameras. Beyond the basic processing specs, those are the features that Nook Color omitted, and that Nook Tablet—now that it’s actually crossing into the territory of calling itself a tablet and trying to compete with tablets—should have added.

Someone remind Ms. Perenson that if B&N could have added all of those things and still kept the price at $250, THEY WOULD HAVE.

Is she saying that since they need to add all those features, that it would be OK if the price went up to $350 or so?

[icerabbit]

RhymingDesigner, on 07 November 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

As I write this, one reader recommends this article and four do not. I have to wonder what those four were thinking. This is a credible review covering the kinds of things prospective buyers want to know; it is not a rehashed press release we sometimes endure on certain sites. So what's the problem? Is it simply that this is not an Apple product and the negative voters can't get past that?

For what it's worth, my ratio of recommending Macworld articles (yes, I know this is not a MW article per se) is about 10-1, for vs. against. If I see little value in an article, I simply move on, knowing that somebody may get something out of it. I especially like to give a positive vote to timely, insightful articles because it lets Macworld know they really got it right this time.

I think my little rant today is brought on by all the times I've seen negative votes on perfectly good articles. So come on, readers, how about practicing a few manners? If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.

+1 for you
+1 for the article

It is very sad how a few visitors consistently down-rank/-vote any article that covers something other than an Apple product. This was well written, informative and well worth the read.

[markwk52]

Like a lot of people, I already carry a still camera, a video camera, a multi-function computer, a music player, a scanner, a gaming device, and a voice/text/video communicator - also known as my iPhone.
If B&N delivers a smooth "consumption experience" for reading and other media, does Nook need to duplicate a smartphone?

[ppartekim]

Quote

Nook Tablet is missing Bluetooth, stereo speakers, a GPS, and front- and rear-facing cameras. Beyond the basic processing specs, those are the features that Nook Color omitted, and that Nook Tablet--now that it's actually crossing into the territory of calling itself a tablet and trying to compete with tablets--should have added.

The only should have in my opinion, would be Bluetooth. Stereo Speakers - not if there is a headphone port. Cameras - not for a value tablet/ebook reader.

Bluetooth (with appropiate drivers) can over come all those extras (BT speakers, BT keyboards, BT cameras, etc).

[jdb8167]

RhymingDesigner, on 07 November 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

As I write this, one reader recommends this article and four do not. I have to wonder what those four were thinking. This is a credible review covering the kinds of things prospective buyers want to know; it is not a rehashed press release we sometimes endure on certain sites. So what's the problem? Is it simply that this is not an Apple product and the negative voters can't get past that?

I voted down because of the fangirl nature of the article. Statements like:

"The Nook Tablet’s low price will make it appealing to both e-reader and tablet shoppers. In fact, it is priced low enough to potentially sway consumers who might have been considering an iPad 2, which has a larger display, but also costs twice the price. With its competitive price and beefy specs, other so-called “value” tablet makers (that includes Amazon and its Kindle Fire tablet) should be running for the hills right about now."

Really. Amazon should be running for the hills? Only in bizarro land. Did the author not notice that for a value tablet, the Fire has more value? The specs are nearly identical which the article fails to notes Amazon's ecosystem is significantly stronger and has a much more robust application store for the Fire but somehow this tablet is the value leader?

So, yes, I thought the article didn't meet a minimum requirement for facts leading to such strong conclusions. Since it isn't related to Macs or Apple products my tolerance for such articles on Macworld.com is very low. I suspect others will feel the same.