A new ChangeWave Research survey of Amazon Kindle Fire owners found some disliked the device's lack of 3G/4G capability. When asked to name their top dislikes of the Kindle Fire, the majority (27 percent) said they disliked that there was no volume button, 21 percent said they didn't like the Kindle Fire's lack of a camera, 15 percent bemoaned the device's short battery life and 12 percent said they didn't like that it lacked 3G/4G capability.
Click here for details from ChangeWave's survey.
Overall, the survey, which queried 254 Kindle Fire owners in North America, found that demand for Kindle Fire tablets was strong. When asked what they were most satisfied with, 59 percent of Kindle Fire owners said they liked the price of the Fire, 31 percent liked the color screen and 27 percent liked the ease of use.
Amazon's release of the Kindle Fire tablet, which runs a modified version of Google's Android platform, raised some eyebrows due to the gadget's lack of wide area wireless capabilities. The Kindle Fire currently only supports Wi-Fi wireless connections. Apple's iPad, by contrast, has supported connections to cellular networks (currently Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) and AT&T Mobility (NYSE:T) in the United States) since the launch of the original iPad.
However, there is strong evidence Amazon made a wise choice in forgoing 3G/4G connections in its Kindle Fire (Amazon's first Kindle ereader launched with 3G capability, though the cost of the service was built into the gadget's sale price and it could only access ebooks and not the wider Web). ABI Research found last year that only a quarter of all iPads supported 3G connections--a clear indication that most shoppers don't consider cellular connections a necessity. After all, the addition of 3G connections into the Apple iPad 2 raises the cost by $130.
- see this ChangeWave survey
Flurry: Amazon's Kindle Fire scorches rivals on Android app usage
Amazon launches tablet, new e-readers in full-on assault against Apple
ABI: 25% of iPads sport 3G connections, slightly below industry average