Silk Browser discussion

[Bateluer]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5139/...ess-bandwidth-consumed-but-slower-performance

AT's got a short write up on the Silk browser now, though the full Fire review is still coming. For a feature that Amazon really hyped up, claiming increased performance and reduced bandwidth, Silk doesn't seem to deliver. Most of us have seen the choppy, laggy browser videos on the Fire on Engadget or some other place. Its almost pathetic that even single core, 2 year old SoCs can deliver smoother browser performance than Silk. The Silk browser was clearly bested by iOS's Safari, Android Browser, and Opera Mobile. I haven't seen a videos of Dolphin HD against it yet though.

But there are the first hard numbers I've seen so far, and they are extremely disappointing. Here's hoping Amazon pushes out some decent updates. Quickly.

Edit - Even with its cheap 200 dollar price tag, Amazon is banking to make more profit on the sale of content on the Fire. Catch is, if the Fire's unpleasant to use, its going to sit and collect dust. People aren't going to be buying anything on it if its unpleasant to do simple things on.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I think the real reason behind Silk is to very carefully monitor your surfing/buying habits...

And I really don't mind, they're taking a hit on the device, although it concerns me that many people may not be aware of the detail of info Amazon will be gathering on their use of the Fire...

 

[MrX8503]

I think the real reason behind Silk is to very carefully monitor your surfing/buying habits...

And I really don't mind, they're taking a hit on the device, although it concerns me that many people may not be aware of the detail of info Amazon will be gathering on their use of the Fire...

I didn't think of this, but I think you're right. Information is quite valuable and no wonder Amazon can sell the Fire at a loss. They want your data!

Too bad that Amazon is willing to go to that level and release a shoddy browser to do so.

 

[Necrolezbeast]

Color me blind... but as long as they're not doing intrusive digging, which I'm sure they won't be.. watching your internet habits is no different than every other advertising company out there... If you're afraid of that you should probably just stop using the internet, or going to big named stores, or filling out a census sheet, etc...

 

[Deeko]

Look - we all know by now that you don't like the Kindle line and prefer the Nook line, but much of what you touted in your OP has nothing to do with this article. Silk has nothing to do with smoothness. Of course Safari and Opera run smoother than Amazon's browser...they make the default Android browser look pathetic too. That said, your statement about single core running default Android being smoother is simply untrue - Amazon's browser is not as smooth as one of the other browsers mentioned, but it absolutely runs circles around the browser on my Vibrant.

All that said (none of which has an ounce to do with this article), I agree with Anandtech's findings - page loading is faster with accelerated loading disabled. Amazon isn't the first to do this - Google had a desktop client long before Chrome existed that did the same thing - and it didn't work well then, either. Its obvious why any company would do it - the data mining - and its just one of the reasons I use Opera on my Fire.

The Fire is far from "unpleasant" to use, for what its worth. They have already sold millions, and they will sell millions more. Hate to burst your bubble on that one.

 

[podspi]

All that said (none of which has an ounce to do with this article), I agree with Anandtech's findings - page loading is faster with accelerated loading disabled. Amazon isn't the first to do this - Google had a desktop client long before Chrome existed that did the same thing - and it didn't work well then, either. Its obvious why any company would do it - the data mining - and its just one of the reasons I use Opera on my Fire.

Interesting that you mention Opera, because they have a "Turbo" feature which does essentially the same thing, and its pretty awesome imho. When tethered with my laptop, it makes it feel like your are on a more or less normal connection (imho).

My guess is:

1) They are ramping up the Silk network, so speeds will improve

2) They are going to aggressively cache things, but need to collect data first (preload webpages, etc)

3) Shameless data-grab.

I plan on getting one soon. And I will likely use 'cloud' accelerated browsing on it as well. Just not from Amazon

 

[Deeko]

Yes - Amazon is far from the first to use this concept. As I mentioned, Google had it years ago, Opera does it, BlackBerry does it...not a new concept. Amazon claims it will.get better with time...I am inclined to shrug and keep using Opera, but yea...definitely been done before.

 

[Bateluer]

Look - we all know by now that you don't like the Kindle line and prefer the Nook line, but much of what you touted in your OP has nothing to do with this article. Silk has nothing to do with smoothness. Of course Safari and Opera run smoother than Amazon's browser...they make the default Android browser look pathetic too. That said, your statement about single core running default Android being smoother is simply untrue - Amazon's browser is not as smooth as one of the other browsers mentioned, but it absolutely runs circles around the browser on my Vibrant.

While its true I do prefer the Nook Tablet, as its a better device with better content behind it, the rest of your paragraph is false. Amazon claimed that Silk would be a faster browser than competitors and advertised it as such. It has not delivered.

Not sure whats up with your Vibrant, possibly a TouchWiz problem, but the stock Froyo and Gingerbread browsers on my old Droid 1 was far smoother than Silk. Several co workers have LG Optimus One variants, namely the V variant on Virgin Mobile. Its 600Mhz Qualcomm SoC is very smooth on the stock Froyo browser.

All that said (none of which has an ounce to do with this article), I agree with Anandtech's findings - page loading is faster with accelerated loading disabled. Amazon isn't the first to do this - Google had a desktop client long before Chrome existed that did the same thing - and it didn't work well then, either. Its obvious why any company would do it - the data mining - and its just one of the reasons I use Opera on my Fire.

. . . don't follow your comments. I pointed out that Amazon advertised Silk as being faster than its competitors and as a reason to buy the Fire, but the AT article shows that disabling their 'features' that were intended to speed up browsing in fact slow it down. I tried not to bring up the data mining, since AT members normally have no problems sacrificing all their private data and ridicule those who don't.

The Fire is far from "unpleasant" to use, for what its worth. They have already sold millions, and they will sell millions more. Hate to burst your bubble on that one.

I don't think you followed me there. They can still sell millions, but since they're selling the Fire at a barely break even price, they need to sell content to make the platform profitable. With a slow laggy browser, as Silk is now, people will stop using the device. Any, AFAIK, they've built and shipped millions. Haven't actually 'sold' millions yet. But Amazon never releases sales numbers for any Kindle product.

Again, hopefully we see some updates to correct this problem. It wouldn't be the first time a company shipped a product before the software was ready to make the holiday shopping season, and the Fire's issues certainly pale compared to other tablet flops like the Playbook and Touchpad.

 

[Doppel]

2) They are going to aggressively cache things, but need to collect data first (preload webpages, etc)

CNN gets craploads of traffic; must have had thousands of requests from silk users on the first day. If it's not already cached I don't see why it ever would be.

It is strange Amazon would release the browser like this. Clearly, at this time, it's a piece of sh*t. Makes surfing slower, plus the very vague comments from Amazon about use privacy.

 

[Deeko]

While its true I do prefer the Nook Tablet, as its a better device with better content behind it, the rest of your paragraph is false. Amazon claimed that Silk would be a faster browser than competitors and advertised it as such. It has not delivered.

No, it is not false. You ranted about smoothness, referred to the lack of smoothness as "pathetic". Amazon made no claims to smoothness. You're correct that page load speeds have not seen the claimed advantages, I already agreed with that one, but the paragraph tirade about smoothness has nothing to do with what Amazon says you get from Silk.

Not sure whats up with your Vibrant, possibly a TouchWiz problem, but the stock Froyo and Gingerbread browsers on my old Droid 1 was far smoother than Silk. Several co workers have LG Optimus One variants, namely the V variant on Virgin Mobile. Its 600Mhz Qualcomm SoC is very smooth on the stock Froyo browser.

It has nothing to do with TW - I'm running CM7. The Fire's browser is smoother than my girlfriends' Tab as well. Also, I had a Droid 1....I find it extremely hard to believe that it was smoother than the Fire. Have you even used the Fire, or are you just extrapolated based on a review on the internet that says "its sluggish"? Its not as smooth as other devices with better GPU acceleration...my Focus and Bold are both better in that department...but its certainly as smooth or smoother than other Gingerbread devices, on which its software is based.

. . . don't follow your comments. I pointed out that Amazon advertised Silk as being faster than its competitors and as a reason to buy the Fire, but the AT article shows that disabling their 'features' that were intended to speed up browsing in fact slow it down. I tried not to bring up the data mining, since AT members normally have no problems sacrificing all their private data and ridicule those who don't.

Read it again then? What don't you follow? I agreed that Silk isn't necessarily improving download speeds and that its obvious why they - and other companies - do it.

I don't think you followed me there. They can still sell millions, but since they're selling the Fire at a barely break even price, they need to sell content to make the platform profitable. With a slow laggy browser, as Silk is now, people will stop using the device. Any, AFAIK, they've built and shipped millions. Haven't actually 'sold' millions yet. But Amazon never releases sales numbers for any Kindle product.

As I've already said - the browser really isn't that laggy. Certainly not enough to turn off the average person from using the device entirely. Plus, a large number of people are not buying this to be a browser, they're buying it to consume content - books, music, video, etc. The things they buy from Amazon. And it does those things plenty well.

Again, hopefully we see some updates to correct this problem. It wouldn't be the first time a company shipped a product before the software was ready to make the holiday shopping season, and the Fire's issues certainly pale compared to other tablet flops like the Playbook and Touchpad.

Almost every tablet has gotten better with software updates, so I imagine we'll see some of those sooner or later.

 

[Bateluer]

No, it is not false. You ranted about smoothness, referred to the lack of smoothness as "pathetic". Amazon made no claims to smoothness. You're correct that page load speeds have not seen the claimed advantages, I already agreed with that one, but the paragraph tirade about smoothness has nothing to do with what Amazon says you get from Silk.

It was third place in page loads too, plus it was stuttery and laggy after the page was fully loaded. That was the basis for my statements. Silk is rough, and thats optimistic.

It has nothing to do with TW - I'm running CM7. The Fire's browser is smoother than my girlfriends' Tab as well. Also, I had a Droid 1....I find it extremely hard to believe that it was smoother than the Fire. Have you even used the Fire, or are you just extrapolated based on a review on the internet that says "its sluggish"? Its not as smooth as other devices with better GPU acceleration...my Focus and Bold are both better in that department...but its certainly as smooth or smoother than other Gingerbread devices, on which its software is based.

I'm basing my stance on videos and reviews of the Fire, I have not yet used one myself. Seeing the browser stutter on pages that I can load on my T-bolt, which is considerably less powerful, with a single bar of 3G signal does not reflect well on Silk. I'm holding a coworkers Optimus T right now, on TMO's EDGE network. It uses the 600Mhz Qualcomm and Adreno 200, and its pinching/zooming just fine on CNN.com on the stock browser. Once the page is loaded anyway. When I had a Droid 1, which was admittedly overclocked to 1Ghz, I never experienced browser lag like what the Fire displays. Once the Droid 1 actually had its multitouch support enabled, that is.

I don't know what you're doing with your browsers on your phones, they should be running rings around Silk.

Read it again then? What don't you follow? I agreed that Silk isn't necessarily improving download speeds and that its obvious why they - and other companies - do it.

As I've already said - the browser really isn't that laggy. Certainly not enough to turn off the average person from using the device entirely. Plus, a large number of people are not buying this to be a browser, they're buying it to consume content - books, music, video, etc. The things they buy from Amazon. And it does those things plenty well.

Almost every tablet has gotten better with software updates, so I imagine we'll see some of those sooner or later.

Your stances makes no sense. You attack me for saying that Silk is stuttery and laggy, that the hard numbers show it to be slower, and even slower when its acceleration features are turned on, but then claim that your CM Vibrant is slower than Silk, a claim that makes no sense at all . . . come in from the left field, man. At least, turn your head towards the action and away from the Apple/Amazon billboards. You're missing the actual game.

As I said, I have no doubt that Amazon will improve Silk with updates. There's just no reason to release a tablet so half baked. In 12 months, after all the kinks have been ironed out of Silk and the Fire, we'll all be talking about the sub-300 dollar Tegra 3 tablets, the next gen iPad, Tegra 4, and OMAP5. It'll be yesterday's news and not relevant in the marketplace.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I am glad this thread started, but honestly I loathe the idea of the Silk Browser.

First of all, in regards to technical merits, it seems to be worthless. What webpages are so large that they benefit from caching? Now something like caching youtube or Netflix, I get that. But html webpages? That seems like a waste, which explains why silk doesn't blow away other browsers. It also indicates that silk exists really for its other purpose- to collect our data.

That is the part I loathe. When Google gave us Chrome they could have done the same thing- used its data to track what we did. But they didn't, because even they have a little respect for privacy. Opera has the same technology to speed up webpages (Opera Turbo), but at least on Opera Mobile you can turn it off.

Amazon Silk is basically spyware built onto the machine, and that is not cool.

What is even less cool is Deeko's statement that you can't download Opera Mobile from the Amazon market on the Fire. So not only are they forcing you to use a spyware browser, they don't let you have an alternative.

If my mom wasn't knee deep in Amazon music purchases (thanks to me), I would get her a Nook Tablet for XMas for this reason. Instead I will be spending XMas morning sideloading Opera Mobile while preaching to my mom to never use Silk ever because this new awesome toy I just bought her has evil built in. Again, not cool Amazon.

 

[ponyo]

I am glad this thread started, but honestly I loathe the idea of the Silk Browser.

First of all, in regards to technical merits, it seems to be worthless. What webpages are so large that they benefit from caching? Now something like caching youtube or Netflix, I get that. But html webpages? That seems like a waste, which explains why silk doesn't blow away other browsers. It also indicates that silk exists really for its other purpose- to collect our data.

That is the part I loathe. When Google gave us Chrome they could have done the same thing- used its data to track what we did. But they didn't, because even they have a little respect for privacy. Opera has the same technology to speed up webpages (Opera Turbo), but at least on Opera Mobile you can turn it off.

Amazon Silk is basically spyware built onto the machine, and that is not cool.

What is even less cool is Deeko's statement that you can't download Opera Mobile from the Amazon market on the Fire. So not only are they forcing you to use a spyware browser, they don't let you have an alternative.

If my mom wasn't knee deep in Amazon music purchases (thanks to me), I would get her a Nook Tablet for XMas for this reason. Instead I will be spending XMas morning sideloading Opera Mobile while preaching to my mom to never use Silk ever because this new awesome toy I just bought her has evil built in. Again, not cool Amazon.

I approve this message. :thumbsup:

 

[Bateluer]

If my mom wasn't knee deep in Amazon music purchases (thanks to me), I would get her a Nook Tablet for XMas for this reason. Instead I will be spending XMas morning sideloading Opera Mobile while preaching to my mom to never use Silk ever because this new awesome toy I just bought her has evil built in. Again, not cool Amazon.

I agree with your post almost entirely. But, I have a LOT of MP3s bought from Amazon. They are DRM free. They'll play just as easily on the Nook Tab as they will on your PC, your iPod, your Transformer, your laptop, etc.

 

[Deeko]

I'm basing my stance on videos and reviews of the Fire, I have not yet used one myself. Seeing the browser stutter on pages that I can load on my T-bolt, which is considerably less powerful, with a single bar of 3G signal does not reflect well on Silk. I'm holding a coworkers Optimus T right now, on TMO's EDGE network. It uses the 600Mhz Qualcomm and Adreno 200, and its pinching/zooming just fine on CNN.com on the stock browser. Once the page is loaded anyway. When I had a Droid 1, which was admittedly overclocked to 1Ghz, I never experienced browser lag like what the Fire displays. Once the Droid 1 actually had its multitouch support enabled, that is.

I don't know what you're doing with your browsers on your phones, they should be running rings around Silk.

Ahhh yes, naturally it’s my fault. First it was TouchWiz, now it’s me. It can’t just be that it’s true that the Fire browser outperforms the Vibrant. Nope…not possible, huh!

Anyway, no, they shouldn't, because Amazon's browser isn't nearly as bad as you make it seem. It really isn't. You can sit here and pound your fist on the table over and over again that its slow and stuttery, but look...its not that bad. Not compared to other Gingerbread devices.

Think about this logically for a second. Do you really think Amazon built their browser from the ground up? Of course not. Considering its a webkit browser, and the Fire is based on Android which also uses a webkit browser, it seems pretty clear that they took the stock Android browser, reskinned the UI components, and added Silk connectivity to the back end. I highly doubt they made massive (if any) changes to the pinch zoom architecture, especially not if those changes made performance worse. What you’re looking at is the performance if Gingerbread, that’s it.

Your stances makes no sense. You attack me for saying that Silk is stuttery and laggy, that the hard numbers show it to be slower, and even slower when its acceleration features are turned on, but then claim that your CM Vibrant is slower than Silk, a claim that makes no sense at all . . . come in from the left field, man. At least, turn your head towards the action and away from the Apple/Amazon billboards. You're missing the actual game.

How quickly a browser downloads and renders a page is a completely different metric from the frame rate while scrolling, panning, and zooming. Completely, 100% different. The Silk architecture - and the Anandtech article - refer to page load speed. Your rant about the Fire being "pathetic", and my rebuttal regarding my Vibrant, is regarding "smoothness", aka frame rate when manipulating the UI.

Therefore, if I say "yes, Silk does not seem to enhance page load speed, but no, the browser is not any worse in the UI performance than other Gingerbread browsers" I am not contradicting myself. I'm making two, independent observations about two completely different things.

 

[fumanstan0]

Catch is, if the Fire's unpleasant to use, its going to sit and collect dust. People aren't going to be buying anything on it if its unpleasant to do simple things on.

With a slow laggy browser, as Silk is now, people will stop using the device.

I don't think the browser is anywhere close to as bad an experience as you make it out to be, let alone to make users stop using the device altogether.

 

[alent1234]

It was third place in page loads too, plus it was stuttery and laggy after the page was fully loaded. That was the basis for my statements. Silk is rough, and thats optimistic.



I'm basing my stance on videos and reviews of the Fire, I have not yet used one myself. Seeing the browser stutter on pages that I can load on my T-bolt, which is considerably less powerful, with a single bar of 3G signal does not reflect well on Silk. I'm holding a coworkers Optimus T right now, on TMO's EDGE network. It uses the 600Mhz Qualcomm and Adreno 200, and its pinching/zooming just fine on CNN.com on the stock browser. Once the page is loaded anyway. When I had a Droid 1, which was admittedly overclocked to 1Ghz, I never experienced browser lag like what the Fire displays. Once the Droid 1 actually had its multitouch support enabled, that is.

I don't know what you're doing with your browsers on your phones, they should be running rings around Silk.



Your stances makes no sense. You attack me for saying that Silk is stuttery and laggy, that the hard numbers show it to be slower, and even slower when its acceleration features are turned on, but then claim that your CM Vibrant is slower than Silk, a claim that makes no sense at all . . . come in from the left field, man. At least, turn your head towards the action and away from the Apple/Amazon billboards. You're missing the actual game.

As I said, I have no doubt that Amazon will improve Silk with updates. There's just no reason to release a tablet so half baked. In 12 months, after all the kinks have been ironed out of Silk and the Fire, we'll all be talking about the sub-300 dollar Tegra 3 tablets, the next gen iPad, Tegra 4, and OMAP5. It'll be yesterday's news and not relevant in the marketplace.

The Fire is $199 and will be mostly used for
1. reading books
2. listening to music
3. watching netflix of amazon video

the fact or theory that the browser is slower won't be a concern for most of the people buying it

 

[Bateluer]

Ahhh yes, naturally it’s my fault. First it was TouchWiz, now it’s me. It can’t just be that it’s true that the Fire browser outperforms the Vibrant. Nope…not possible, huh!

Anyway, no, they shouldn't, because Amazon's browser isn't nearly as bad as you make it seem. It really isn't. You can sit here and pound your fist on the table over and over again that its slow and stuttery, but look...its not that bad. Not compared to other Gingerbread devices.

Think about this logically for a second. Do you really think Amazon built their browser from the ground up? Of course not. Considering its a webkit browser, and the Fire is based on Android which also uses a webkit browser, it seems pretty clear that they took the stock Android browser, reskinned the UI components, and added Silk connectivity to the back end. I highly doubt they made massive (if any) changes to the pinch zoom architecture, especially not if those changes made performance worse. What you’re looking at is the performance if Gingerbread, that’s it.

How quickly a browser downloads and renders a page is a completely different metric from the frame rate while scrolling, panning, and zooming. Completely, 100% different. The Silk architecture - and the Anandtech article - refer to page load speed. Your rant about the Fire being "pathetic", and my rebuttal regarding my Vibrant, is regarding "smoothness", aka frame rate when manipulating the UI.

Therefore, if I say "yes, Silk does not seem to enhance page load speed, but no, the browser is not any worse in the UI performance than other Gingerbread browsers" I am not contradicting myself. I'm making two, independent observations about two completely different things.

You're all over the map here. I have yet to find a Froyo or Gingerbread browser that displays the same sluggishness as the Fire does. I have no idea why your Vibrant has issues. The Fire's hardware is clearly better, but its performance doesn't exactly show that off.

I'm not quite following you either, you're not making sense. The Fire is the slowest browser in various tests, losing to older tablets and phones, and yet you claim its not that bad. But, if every single Android related thread where the topic of browsers come up, you're among the first to bash Android for having a sluggish and stuttery browser, a statement that has been proven false so many times its not even funny.

But, back on topic.

Amazon advertised the Fire heavily on its Silk browser's performance. Performance that isn't there yet. Perhaps with a few updates? I guess Amazon is the new Apple, where they can release a software product with problems and its perfectly OK. So long as they patch it up in an acceptable time frame.

I don't think the browser is anywhere close to as bad an experience as you make it out to be, let alone to make users stop using the device altogether.

Perhaps. Those using the device as an e-reader won't think much of it because browsing would be limited anyway. I've made no secret of my opinion that Nook Tablet is a far better device, even with the price premium. I'll be picking up one before Christmas, and I'll enjoy it equally for reading and browsing.

 

[fumanstan0]

Perhaps. Those using the device as an e-reader won't think much of it because browsing would be limited anyway. I've made no secret of my opinion that Nook Tablet is a far better device, even with the price premium. I'll be picking up one before Christmas, and I'll enjoy it equally for reading and browsing.

Except it's not really limited at all. I think the Nook Tablet is a better overall device as well, but you act like the browser on the Fire is unusable, which it isn't. I've had my Fire since release day and while its definitely a bit laggy, it's perfectly usable for everyday browsing use.

 

[Deeko]

You're all over the map here. I have yet to find a Froyo or Gingerbread browser that displays the same sluggishness as the Fire does. I have no idea why your Vibrant has issues. The Fire's hardware is clearly better, but its performance doesn't exactly show that off.

I'm not quite following you either, you're not making sense. The Fire is the slowest browser in various tests, losing to older tablets and phones, and yet you claim its not that bad. But, if every single Android related thread where the topic of browsers come up, you're among the first to bash Android for having a sluggish and stuttery browser, a statement that has been proven false so many times its not even funny.

*sigh* You are really struggling to grasp this, and I'm not sure why.

1) You still seem to fail to discern the difference between page load time and UI responsiveness frame rate. I am not all over the map. I am being completely consistent. These are separate metrics. I'm really not sure what's so hard to grasp about this.

2) You're correct, I've chastised the responsiveness of Android browsers in the past, however, I'm not being inconsistent with that, either. If you'll note in my posts, I've said several times "compared to other Gingerbread browsers", and I've noted that other platforms are still superior in this department.

Like I said earlier in this thread - the browser is still more laggy than my Focus or my Bold, however, it is a considerable improvement over the Vibrant, the Tab, the Droid, the Epic 4G, the HD2 w/ Android, or the G1 (all of which I've owned, by the way). I also maintain that this has little to do with the Amazon browser (which I stated likely hasn't changed much from stock here), but rather its simply due to the Fire being more powerful.

I will reiterate for you, one more time...its not the smoothest browser performance in the world, but its comperable for the software its using, and its usable, particularly for the price point.

But, back on topic.

Amazon advertised the Fire heavily on its Silk browser's performance. Performance that isn't there yet. Perhaps with a few updates? I guess Amazon is the new Apple, where they can release a software product with problems and its perfectly OK. So long as they patch it up in an acceptable time frame.

You're......you're kidding, right? This part of your post is a joke, right? It has to be. Amazon is the new Apple because they release unfinished, problematic software? Have you ever heard of the G1? I had one on launch day - you'd be kind to call that beta software. It really wasn't until Eclair that Android began to felt like a complete product, and its not until ICS that it was truly cohesive.

Point being...they ALL do this. Every single one of them. It is incredibly hypocritical to try to single out the companies you don't like.

 

[Bateluer]

Except it's not really limited at all. I think the Nook Tablet is a better overall device as well, but you act like the browser on the Fire is unusable, which it isn't. I've had my Fire since release day and while its definitely a bit laggy, it's perfectly usable for everyday browsing use.

Check the original Fire thread, where the Engadget videos were first posted. You'll find several people, Deeko included, calling it unusable and sad. Amazon will improve, at least, I hope so. There's no reason for Silk to be that slow, when SoCs with less than 1/4th the processing power(Cortex A8 core@550-600Mhz vs dual A9@1Ghz) can run multiple browsers that load pages faster and render them more smoothly when the load is complete.

*sigh* You are really struggling to grasp this, and I'm not sure why.

1) You still seem to fail to discern the difference between page load time and UI responsiveness frame rate. I am not all over the map. I am being completely consistent. These are separate metrics. I'm really not sure what's so hard to grasp about this.

*Sigh* Again, I shall try. Silk loads pages slower on equal data connections. Silk renders pages in a slow and choppy manner. This information is not indispute. You can see the hard numbers in the AT article and reference the myriad of Fire videos on Youtube. They may be different 'metrics' as you suggest, but the Fire still falls flat on both. Competing browsers load pages faster and render them more smoothly, stock Gingerbread included. The iOS crowd likes to hard on Android for this . . . not sure why the Fire gets a free pass.

2) You're correct, I've chastised the responsiveness of Android browsers in the past, however, I'm not being inconsistent with that, either. If you'll note in my posts, I've said several times "compared to other Gingerbread browsers", and I've noted that other platforms are still superior in this department.

. . . Silk is slower than the Froyo browser. And has ~4x the processing power. Same amount of RAM though. Silk takes longer to load the page. Silk renders it choppily. Granted, Silk has to render it at 1024x600 while the 600Mhz Qualcomm only has to do 480x320. But, remember that the Nook Color runs rings around it, all the HoneyComb tablets run rings around it, iOS Safari runs rings around it. If my co-worked was still here, I'd snap a video of the Optimus T scrolling/pinching/zooming on CNN.com. He'll be back tomorrow morning.

Like I said earlier in this thread - the browser is still more laggy than my Focus or my Bold, however, it is a considerable improvement over the Vibrant, the Tab, the Droid, the Epic 4G, the HD2 w/ Android, or the G1 (all of which I've owned, by the way). I also maintain that this has little to do with the Amazon browser (which I stated likely hasn't changed much from stock here), but rather its simply due to the Fire being more powerful.

I can't comment on the Focus or Bold, but the Epic 4G, Driod 1 and Tab10.1/7/7+/8.9 all make the Fire look terrible. With regard to browsing anway. The Fire has its strengths, but browsing is NOT one of them. The T-Bolt Ithats sitting in front of me right now is pinching/zooming/scrolling, at 1 bar of 3G, at cnn.com and Anandtech.com in separate tabs with none of the lag the Fire displays. I have no idea why your Vibrant has issues, but its the exception, not the rule.

I will reiterate for you, one more time...its not the smoothest browser performance in the world, but its comparable for the software its using, and its usable, particularly for the price point.

You're......you're kidding, right? This part of your post is a joke, right? It has to be. Amazon is the new Apple because they release unfinished, problematic software? Have you ever heard of the G1? I had one on launch day - you'd be kind to call that beta software. It really wasn't until Eclair that Android began to felt like a complete product, and its not until ICS that it was truly cohesive.

Point being...they ALL do this. Every single one of them. It is incredibly hypocritical to try to single out the companies you don't like.

1) The Fire is the slowest browser of all first tier tablets currently shipping, and lags phones too. Its not in the same league as even tablets competing in same market segment.

2) Seeing how you didn't understand my Amazon/Apple analogy, I'll explain it. Though it loses something when you have to dumb it down like this. Apple fans are usually extremely hypocritical of other products and companies. When Apple releases a product with issues, such as the 3GS overheating, the 4's broken antenna, and 4S's battery life, they are glossed over and ignored because 'its Apple, its perfect'. Other companies release a product with similar, or worse issues, and they get raked over the coals and never forgiven, with people spouting anti-sentiments sometimes years later. But, with Apple, its OK. Its the epitome of hypocrisy and rose colored glasses. I referenced Amazon as the New Apple because, even though you attacked the Fire's Silk browser in other Fire threads, people are ignoring a blatant problem with the Fire, namely, the browser's dismal performance. Since browser performance is always attacked in Android/iOS threads, ignoring it now is extreme hypocrisy. Also, CNN ran an article a few weeks back comparing Jeff Bezos to Steve Jobs, but I don't believe I posted it.

 

[fumanstan0]

Check the original Fire thread, where the Engadget videos were first posted. You'll find several people, Deeko included, calling it unusable and sad. Amazon will improve, at least, I hope so. There's no reason for Silk to be that slow, when SoCs with less than 1/4th the processing power(Cortex A8 core@550-600Mhz vs dual A9@1Ghz) can run multiple browsers that load pages faster and render them more smoothly when the load is complete.

Initial reactions like that aren't surprising, but real world use for probably 95% of the folks out there will be just fine. If it was as unusable as those early opinions you're basing your judgement on, there would be a far bigger outcry and user reviews would be far poorer (currently 4 stars on Amazon's site itself).

Given how prominent web browsing is, if it were bad enough to make users stop using the Fire I think the noise about it would be far more prominent.

I don't disagree that its slow and disappointing, I just think the conclusions you're making based on what you've heard it quite the exaggeration.

 

[Deeko]

*Sigh* Again, I shall try. Silk loads pages slower on equal data connections. Silk renders pages in a slow and choppy manner. This information is not indispute. You can see the hard numbers in the AT article and reference the myriad of Fire videos on Youtube. They may be different 'metrics' as you suggest, but the Fire still falls flat on both. Competing browsers load pages faster and render them more smoothly, stock Gingerbread included. The iOS crowd likes to hard on Android for this . . . not sure why the Fire gets a free pass.

Define "render more smoothly", it sounds to me like you're trying to change the definition that most people use when referring to "smoothness". If you're just rewording the speed at which it loads, you said that already. If you're referring to UI responsiveness and frame rate, which is what everyone else means when referring to smoothness, you are incorrect to claim the Fire is worse than other Gingerbread devices.

. . . Silk is slower than the Froyo browser. And has ~4x the processing power. Same amount of RAM though. Silk takes longer to load the page. Silk renders it choppily. Granted, Silk has to render it at 1024x600 while the 600Mhz Qualcomm only has to do 480x320. But, remember that the Nook Color runs rings around it, all the HoneyComb tablets run rings around it, iOS Safari runs rings around it. If my co-worked was still here, I'd snap a video of the Optimus T scrolling/pinching/zooming on CNN.com. He'll be back tomorrow morning.

The Nook Color does not run rings around the Fire. This is simply not true. If you'd like I can record a video to compare the browser performance to the PlayBook, 1st gen Tab, Focus, Venue Pro, G2, Vibrant, and BB Bold. However, when the video backs up my claims, you'll just say "you don't know what I did to my Vibrant" and act like I broke something on all of those Android devices, even though it proves my point...so why even bother?

I can't comment on the Focus or Bold, but the Epic 4G, Driod 1 and Tab10.1/7/7+/8.9 all make the Fire look terrible. With regard to browsing anway.

Again - this is simply incorrect. The 2nd gen Tabs, sure, but not the other devices in your list.

The Fire has its strengths, but browsing is NOT one of them.

You're right, I never said it was. However, it’s not even remotely close to as bad as you're claiming. Not at all.

The T-Bolt Ithats sitting in front of me right now is pinching/zooming/scrolling, at 1 bar of 3G, at cnn.com and Anandtech.com in separate tabs with none of the lag the Fire displays. I have no idea why your Vibrant has issues, but its the exception, not the rule

So you have a Fire sitting on your desk too? Otherwise I don't know how you're making that comparison, in any legitimate form. Also, it’s laughable that you discount my Vibrant as being an exception, and yet you don’t even consider that could also be the case for whatever video review you’re using – seeing as you’ve never actually touched the device you think you know so well. You do realize my Android history isn’t just one rogue device that didn’t perform well? I already posted this list, but I own or owned the G1, Droid, Epic 4G, Vibrant, G2, Galaxy Tab, and had Android on the HD2. I’ve used stock Android, TouchWiz, and a litany of custom ROMs. This is not an isolated incident.

Also, I’m not sure what 1 bar of 3G has anything to do with UI responsiveness. Do you do your UI tests while the page is still rendering? That wouldn’t make very much sense.

1) The Fire is the slowest browser of all first tier tablets currently shipping, and lags phones too. Its not in the same league as even tablets competing in same market segment.

I've pointed this out plenty of times before....it damn well better lag behind the "1st tier" tablets. It costs anywhere from 40-60% less. If an iPad or Tab 2nd gen can't beat the Fire's performance at over 2x the cost, something is seriously wrong with those devices.

As for "tablets in the same market segment", well, you must be meaning the PlayBook, and you're correct, the PlayBook does have better browsing performance than the Fire. I've pointed that out already in other threads. If you’re referring to the no-name budget tablets you can buy at your local store for under $200…well, I’ve never used one to say for sure, but I’m going to say that claim is dubious.

2) Seeing how you didn't understand my Amazon/Apple analogy, I'll explain it. Though it loses something when you have to dumb it down like this. Apple fans are usually extremely hypocritical of other products and companies. When Apple releases a product with issues, such as the 3GS overheating, the 4's broken antenna, and 4S's battery life, they are glossed over and ignored because 'its Apple, its perfect'. Other companies release a product with similar, or worse issues, and they get raked over the coals and never forgiven, with people spouting anti-sentiments sometimes years later. But, with Apple, its OK. Its the epitome of hypocrisy and rose colored glasses. I referenced Amazon as the New Apple because, even though you attacked the Fire's Silk browser in other Fire threads, people are ignoring a blatant problem with the Fire, namely, the browser's dismal performance. Since browser performance is always attacked in Android/iOS threads, ignoring it now is extreme hypocrisy. Also, CNN ran an article a few weeks back comparing Jeff Bezos to Steve Jobs, but I don't believe I posted it.

Now…this might come as a shock to you, but pretty much every company has its fanboys, and they all act that way. It’s not exclusively an Apple thing, you just happen to not like them, and therefore single them out. You think there aren’t Android people that will gloss over Android’s fault and instead shout its virtues? Same for RIM, WP7, HTC, others? You’re fooling yourself if you don’t think so. Other companies get “raked over the coals” and Apple doesn’t? Then why are we (and the tech blogs) still talking about the antenna issues on the iPhone 4? It’s the same with everyone.

I never “attacked” the Fire’s browser because it isn’t “dismal”. That’s what you don’t seem to be getting here. No one – not myself or anyone else in this thread – is stating that the Kindle Fire has a browser that’s as good as the top devices. I’ve said quite a few times now flat out that it is not. However, no matter what Ricky Bobby tells you, this isn’t a “first or last” situation. Just because something else is better at that feature, doesn’t mean the Fire’s is “terrible”, “dismal”, “pathetic”, or any of the other words you’ve chosen in this thread. The Fire has an acceptable browser, particularly for the price, and your claims that people are going to stop using their Fire’s entirely because the browser is so bad just doesn’t make any sense. That’s all.

 

[Deeko]

Check the original Fire thread, where the Engadget videos were first posted. You'll find several people, Deeko included, calling it unusable and sad. Amazon will improve, at least, I hope so. There's no reason for Silk to be that slow, when SoCs with less than 1/4th the processing power(Cortex A8 core@550-600Mhz vs dual A9@1Ghz) can run multiple browsers that load pages faster and render them more smoothly when the load is complete.

I missed this egregious misquotation. Would you like to see my posts from that thread, where you claim I called the browser unusable?

So I just watched the Engadget video of the browser performance - and anyone that refers to the zooming/panning experience as "ghastly" is obviously not very experienced with Gingerbread. I've posted this before, but this is an example of "ghastly" performance from Gingerbread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pny3oZvGltE

I've long agreed that other platforms like iOS, WP7, and WebOS are superior in terms of smoothness, thanks to their implementation of GPU acceleration. Clearly, that is still the case with the Fire....however, its really NOT that bad, not compared to some other devices. Plus, Opera Mobile is available on the Amazon app store.

It is a little disappointing that almost the exact same software runs so much smoother with QNX...but it really could have been a lot worse. For $199, this is still very usable, especially for the market they're targeting.

I'm not comparing it to $500-$800 tablets, that's foolish and I don't understand why so many reviewers are trying to do so. Direct competition for the Kindle Fire is the Nook tablet and other sub $300 tablets (of which there aren't a lot). Compared to the Nook, Touchpad, PlayBook, and various random budget Android tablets, I would say the Fire is the most complete, solid product out of the box.

5) The browser really isn't as bad as people made it seem. No - scrolling/panning is not iOS/WP7/QNX smooth. However, its the smoothest stock Android browser I've used yet.

As you can see, not only have I been completely consistent with my comments in that thread, you are now guilty of false accusations. I will accept your apology for this mistake, or this discussion is over.