6GB Storage? No thanks. (Score 1)

I can't see how this competes with the iPad with only 6GB of local storage. The Kindle only has 3GB, but it's only storing text. 6GB just doesn't cut it when they position this as a general media player, not when accessing more of your data/content is dependent on wi-fi availability tm get at the Amazon cloud services. I was looking forward to this as a possible competitor to the iPad, and while this article and others suggest it may be, I just don't see it. There's no way I can guarantee I'll only want to use this in places where I can get wi-fi, especially when traveling for business or pleasure. It may keep the price down, and result in silly articles like this that say it's low price and Amazon brand name make it a competitor to the iPad. In reality though it doesn't compete or compare at all - much less storage, no camera, dependent on access to the cloud for effective usability. When I read the MG Siegler article a few weeks ago that this article includes a link to I lost any interest in the Kindle tablet. I'll stick to the dedicated reader version of the Kindle I already have and either get an iPad 2 or wait for the iPad 3. It's a shame though. A viable alternative would be nice if only to give Apple a competitor that might keep them innovating and improving the iPad.