[PCWorld]

Post your comments for 5 Reasons the Apple IPhone Beats the Amazon Kindle here

[Diff]

I love my iPhone as well. But how can I take this article seriously if the author admits he has never used one of the products he is comparing?
Come on PC World, this is amateur journalism.

[dxhunter]

I agree. Don't you have editors?

[johnnytremain]

5 Reasons Apples Beat Oranges

1. Duh. It's an apple. I've never tried oranges but who cares.

2. Apples are easier to eat.

3. Apples have more flavors.

4. Apples have more carbs.

5. One day soon, Apples will have just as much Vitamin C.

Can I get published now too?

[tmneff]

It's also plain wrong. I own both and the Kindle is a much better book and newspaper reader than the iPhone. Backlighting causes e-book eyestrain. I got a little clip light with my Kindle and it works great. The Kindle has a screen the size of a paperback book.
BOTH appliances download on the fly. Kindle has a much better battery life than iPhone when you're reading ebooks with it. Kindle doesn't try to be all that other stuff, nor should it.
I seriously doubt that either Apple or Amazon considers iPhone and Kindle to be competing products. Looks like "PC Advisor" means just what it says.

[DigitalCHET]

How is this even a fair comparison? It's like comparing proverbial apples and oranges.
The Kindle was not created to compete with the iPhone, "Duh: it's a phone". They are two totally different devices with totally different purposes.
The fact that the iPhone is able to do the same job as the Kindle may be a testament to its wide range of functions but does in no way take away from the Kindle's own benefits.
I put this down to case of another iPhone fanboy comparing every new gadget with the remotest similarity to the object of his worship.

[MarkHernandez]

Rick, your article got negative reviews 4 to 1 because it just isn't helpful. It doesn't help us think about things or decide. Instead, it's more like tabloid journalism meant to incite. You could have spent the time doing what appeared to be an unbiased comparison between the platforms and let the reader decide. But I don't think you care and PC World doesn't seem to care either. All you guys are after are hits. That makes me angry when I go to read something based on its title and then realize I was just a pawn, used for my click so PC World bubbles to the top on Google News. Grrrrrrr.

[DreadPR]

Wow epic fail of an article. I come to PC world because I expect you to actually use the device before comparing it. I could find pointless musings like this on a million forums.

"And I've never had a better e-book experience than with the iPhone ... but if he thinks it can beat the iPhone in a head-to-head match, he's delusional."

Your sentence above is hilarious given your confession that you havent actually used the kindle.

You like a backlit screen of the iphone. We got that. That is unfortunately THE WHOLE reason for the kindle's existence. The screen that looks like paper and doesnt hurt your eyes and doesnt give you a headache after reading for a couple hours.

[Fwippy]

I was going to say exactly what Diff said. I guess I'll have to expand, then.
I have an Ipod Touch, I love it. But in this article your "five points" are actually only two clear advantages.
A) Versatility (which you mention in most sections) and
B) Portability.
The Kindle isn't meant to be a do-everything device. It's meant to be a e-book reader that anyone from your nephew to your grandmother can use and take care of. Because of this, the ease-of-use factor is very high, and the battery life is said to reach two weeks on a single charge.
The Kindle doesn't have a "backlit" screen because it's E-ink. This means it looks like paper, not a lightbulb with black writing on it. I love reading on my Ipod touch, but if I try to do it with the lights off I get a headache in under half an hour. Secondly, the E-ink technology used means that the white part is opaque, so a backlit screen would accomplish about as much as turning on your front porch light to brush your teeth by.
You mention that the iPhone supports downloading on the fly, but neglect to mention how limited the libraries are by comparison. Enough for "voracious readers," perhaps, if they are undiscriminating with regard to genre, quality, or what their friends are reading. A service that offers one hundred books that do not interest me is far worse than one that offers four that do. Amazon's library is simply larger, so the chances of finding the book you want is higher.
I'm not going to touch your fifth argument.
I realize that you're trying to generate some 'news' here, but you don't even attempt to refute the arguments made in favor of the Kindle. Please try to make articles worth reading in the future.

[MegaGrego]

Wow! How does pcworld let someone write a review on a product they never used? This is so hilariously incompetent that I wonder if it's a joke.

[progressquest]

Here is
the reason
that you
don't want
to read
books on
an iPhone.
Here is the reason that you would want
to read books on a Kindle. Do I need
to explain more?

[benisntfunny]

PC World, did your interns already start?

[sticky359]

This gets an epic fail in my news reading for the day.

[dthrasher]

I had to create a login just to comment on how terrible this article is. If I turned in work equivalent to this article at my job I would be fired.

[stellis11]

1 Reason the Apple iPhone is Just as Bad as a PC Monitor for Reading Books:
It's ELECTRONIC PAPER, not a screen. It simulates the written word.
Have the interns started? Probably not. An intern would probably be conscientious enough to check Kindle's Wikipedia article at the least. They should call PC World "Apple's Mouthpiece" from now on.

[JunoonX]

Being an avid e-book reader and user, you are an idiot for comparing a tiny toon's e-book, vs a fullsized e-book. No matter how spiffy the iphone might be, it does not have the same screen real-estate to make for a decent book reading experience. The Kindle on the other hand does. I don't understand how someone with your caliber ever got hired at pcworld and actually gets to publish such a silly argument.
The iPhone is an excellent phone and a really basic computer on the go, but it does not fulfill the needs that a full-sized screen provides.
I suppose you're still fairly young for your age. Start putting on some reading glasses and we'll talk about the iPhone then.

[moo23]

Rick. Your article sucks. (Confession: I never actually read it.)

[uelizino]

I signed up just to be able to comment on this article.

Are you serious Rick Broida? You’ve never tried a Kindle but you are writing an article about it? Is there nobody at PC World who reviews the articles and maybe says: Sorry dude, that’s just stupid. We don’t put that on our website! – Nobody?
Broida probably is one of those Mac apostles. The ones who can’t believe that other companies have good ideas and products. Hey, I’m writing this on a MacBook Pro. Why? Cause I think it’s the best laptop for ME. Maybe it’s not for you, I understand. He’s the kinda guy who waited in line to get his phone on the first release day. And now is upset, because there are other devices who are better than what he is so proud to own. I could give you 10 reasons my phone beats the iPhone. But I don’t. I understand, an almost 800 bucks phone automatically can do more. Maybe I should write that article…. I’m qualified – looking at the standard of PCWorld contributors.

[worstarticleever]

I just created a login just so I could express how bad this article is. It is the epidemy of jumping to conclusions without trying a product. This person should seriously by fired.
MAY BE THE WORST TECH ARTICLE IVE EVER READ.

[EricTetz]

"Confession: I've never actually used one"
End of article.
The Kindle is big, but that's kinda the point -- it's distinguishing feature is the screen, which is large and designed specifically for this application, attempting to emulate emulate ink on paper. "Reviewing" a device you've never used is irresponsible at best.