How does having a feature that you don't use at all put it in the 'con' category? It would be like saying, "I don't use Google Voice/Siri so that's a con."
Also, isn't much of Amazon's stuff also available for other Android devices? I guess I haven't looked into how Amazon's strategy and content availability differs between the Kindle Fire and other Android tablets. When it was first announced, I was most excited about the Silk browser, but that really didn't amount to anything. If anyone else could tell me what the content difference is between the Fire and other Android tablets I'd be interested to know.
Because Amazon Kindle Fire uses dated forked Android. Unless you're tied in to Amazon ecosystem and use their service, it's vastly inferior OS with limited functionality. I strongly prefer Google services, and unless you hack the tablet, it's not available. Even then it will be buggy with functionality missing or not working. Plus, I can't stand Amazon app store. There are limited apps and the apps that are available are slow to get updates. I have bunch of free paid apps from Amazon app store that I bought again on Google PlayStore just so I can uninstall Amazon app store app. And I'm not the only one. When people will pay money to rebuy the same app that they got for free on Amazon just so they can get away and cut ties with Amazon, that pretty much says it all.
I was interested in the original Kindle Fire because of the hardware and cheap price. I wanted to hack it and run pure Android. Nexus 7 has great hardware, cheap price, and runs latest pure Android with zero hacking involved. And it will receive latest updates immediately directly from Google server and everything will work. So how is the new Kindle Fire attractive to someone who doesn't like Amazon ecosystem and doesn't plan to use it? It's a con because I would have to deal with the hassle of removing it and waiting for buggy pure Android port.
Facebook
Twitter