Discussion about
So it's got an LCD screen?...so basically useless as an e-reader...
So... the computer screen most of us (not sure about you) look at for 8-12 hours a day is somehow not good enough to read on? Huh. So I've been doing it wrong the last 30 years after all...
I've only read the first page of comments so far so most of my opinions have probably mentioned but here are my two cents.
I have to agree that LCD screens do cause eye-strain after hours of use. At my work I stare at a screen for six and half hours a day and I currently don't have a lot of objects in the distance I can focus on to relax my eyes periodically.
My screen is a 22 inch HP with lots of settings for adjusting brightness, contrast, hight, pitch etc but playing with these settings hasn't markedly improved the tendency I have to feel eye strain and see blurriness after long periods of viewing.
I think we prefer to skim when reading on LCDs and only focus on short paragraphs when necessary. It is possible but unpleasant to read novels on an LCD.
I own an e-ink device, the iRex iLiad Second Generation and it is nice for reading novels but as others have pointed out, it is not great for non-linear reading such as research in long business documents or textbooks.
Currently there are some weaknesses with the e-ink devices on the market, slow refresh rate, lack of colour etc. The technology is improving but perhaps not fast enough to make entirely satisfy the average consumes. Many will soon have access to e-ink as the price of devices is dropping.
I do use my iRex iLiad every working day and take it away on holidays to read novels.
I'm very enthusiastic about the potential for Pixel Qi screen technology which may provide the best of both worlds, a colour LCD for computing tasks and video as well as a grey-scale screen to read long documents or for use in sunlit areas. I intend to by the Notion Ink Adam when it becomes available in June. If it performs as promised it may replace both my 10 inch netbook and my iRex iLiad. The Adam has other intriguing features as well such as a rotating camera on the "spine", a touch-pad on the rear of the device, capacitive touchscreen and the Android operating system which I havn't used as yet.
In regards to the Apple iPad, I believe it's LCD will be a minus in terms of reading long texts but access to current iTunes content as well as upcoming customised applications will make it attractive. I would buy it if it had a Pixel Qi screen.
I have to agree that LCD screens do cause eye-strain after hours of use. At my work I stare at a screen for six and half hours a day and I currently don't have a lot of objects in the distance I can focus on to relax my eyes periodically.
My screen is a 22 inch HP with lots of settings for adjusting brightness, contrast, hight, pitch etc but playing with these settings hasn't markedly improved the tendency I have to feel eye strain and see blurriness after long periods of viewing.
I think we prefer to skim when reading on LCDs and only focus on short paragraphs when necessary. It is possible but unpleasant to read novels on an LCD.
I own an e-ink device, the iRex iLiad Second Generation and it is nice for reading novels but as others have pointed out, it is not great for non-linear reading such as research in long business documents or textbooks.
Currently there are some weaknesses with the e-ink devices on the market, slow refresh rate, lack of colour etc. The technology is improving but perhaps not fast enough to make entirely satisfy the average consumes. Many will soon have access to e-ink as the price of devices is dropping.
I do use my iRex iLiad every working day and take it away on holidays to read novels.
I'm very enthusiastic about the potential for Pixel Qi screen technology which may provide the best of both worlds, a colour LCD for computing tasks and video as well as a grey-scale screen to read long documents or for use in sunlit areas. I intend to by the Notion Ink Adam when it becomes available in June. If it performs as promised it may replace both my 10 inch netbook and my iRex iLiad. The Adam has other intriguing features as well such as a rotating camera on the "spine", a touch-pad on the rear of the device, capacitive touchscreen and the Android operating system which I havn't used as yet.
In regards to the Apple iPad, I believe it's LCD will be a minus in terms of reading long texts but access to current iTunes content as well as upcoming customised applications will make it attractive. I would buy it if it had a Pixel Qi screen.
The iPad is not meant to be a primary e-reader. It is instead only one of the many things it has to offer. I think anyone who is serious about investing in an e-reader will opt for one with an e-ink screen. If you have ever tried out an e-ink device you know it is amazing as to how much it feels like you are reading an actual paper book.
Now, if you want the potential for magazines, comic books, text books, etc, than yes, I would invest in an iPad. But if we are talking strictly novels for the time being, I would absolutely purchase an e-ink device.
I went and tried out a Nook at my local Barnes & Noble and was amazed by it. E-ink readers will only get better with future models. And while a lot of people are claiming that reading from an LCD screen for long periods of time is a non-issue, I have my doubts. I'm a writer by trade and when I need to look over a series of pages I've already written (say 20 +) it is not an enjoyable experience. The fact that the iPad is an IPS screen makes no difference when reading text on a white background. To quote an analyst from Forrester Research: "We expect the iPad to only appeal to light readers when it comes to the reading element itself." I agree. If you are a serious reader than e-ink is still the way to go.
Lastly, no one seems to be mentioning the size element. The iPad is the roughly the size of a Kindle DX. I don't want such a big device if all I'm doing with it is reading (my Macbook Pro satisfies my web surfing/email/movie watching needs very nicely). The Kindle/Nook is more in the shape of a paperback. Easier to pack in my bag and much more enjoyable to hold with one hand while I'm standing on the subway holding onto a rail with only one free hand available.
Now, if you want the potential for magazines, comic books, text books, etc, than yes, I would invest in an iPad. But if we are talking strictly novels for the time being, I would absolutely purchase an e-ink device.
I went and tried out a Nook at my local Barnes & Noble and was amazed by it. E-ink readers will only get better with future models. And while a lot of people are claiming that reading from an LCD screen for long periods of time is a non-issue, I have my doubts. I'm a writer by trade and when I need to look over a series of pages I've already written (say 20 +) it is not an enjoyable experience. The fact that the iPad is an IPS screen makes no difference when reading text on a white background. To quote an analyst from Forrester Research: "We expect the iPad to only appeal to light readers when it comes to the reading element itself." I agree. If you are a serious reader than e-ink is still the way to go.
Lastly, no one seems to be mentioning the size element. The iPad is the roughly the size of a Kindle DX. I don't want such a big device if all I'm doing with it is reading (my Macbook Pro satisfies my web surfing/email/movie watching needs very nicely). The Kindle/Nook is more in the shape of a paperback. Easier to pack in my bag and much more enjoyable to hold with one hand while I'm standing on the subway holding onto a rail with only one free hand available.
Just my 2c - but as a regular Sony user, it depends on the lighting, even if you consider both solely as e-readers.
I think that in situations where you would actually sit down to read a book, an e-reader is decidedly superior - and hopefully these will get better, although I have my suspicions that development in this niche might be trampled to death by the iPad juggernaut.
In most other situations, it's largely interchangeable, with LCD having a huge edge in many other scenarios.
The iPad is targeting that usage - while many people will undoubtedly use it as a dedicated e-book reader, it's not specifically intended as such, and furthermore it will work well enough in most such-use situations that all but the most discerning / those not minding multiple devices will consider it a compromise too far.
A practical variable that's highly in question however is realistic battery life, and how the iPad achieves it. Of course the display is going to have variable brightness, and the key factor is how long the machine will last if it's set to offer maximum contrast in any lighting situation. If you have to turn it right down to get usable battery life, then obviously it's going to give you significantly more eyestrain than an e-reader.
I think that in situations where you would actually sit down to read a book, an e-reader is decidedly superior - and hopefully these will get better, although I have my suspicions that development in this niche might be trampled to death by the iPad juggernaut.
In most other situations, it's largely interchangeable, with LCD having a huge edge in many other scenarios.
The iPad is targeting that usage - while many people will undoubtedly use it as a dedicated e-book reader, it's not specifically intended as such, and furthermore it will work well enough in most such-use situations that all but the most discerning / those not minding multiple devices will consider it a compromise too far.
A practical variable that's highly in question however is realistic battery life, and how the iPad achieves it. Of course the display is going to have variable brightness, and the key factor is how long the machine will last if it's set to offer maximum contrast in any lighting situation. If you have to turn it right down to get usable battery life, then obviously it's going to give you significantly more eyestrain than an e-reader.
bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/do-e-readers-cau...
Highlights:
First of all: doctors say that reading on a screen won’t cause any harm.
Professor Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University, said that reducing eye fatigue is less a matter of choosing a specific display than of taking short breaks from looking at the screen.
When we read, Dr. Hedge explained, a series of ocular muscles jump around and can cause strain, regardless of whether we are looking at pixels or paper. “While you’re reading, your eyes make about 10,000 movements an hour. It’s important to take a step back every 20 minutes and let your eyes rest,” he said.
“The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,” Mr. Taussig said. “Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.”
---
My own thoughts... as a mechanical matter, light is light. Your eyes do not have "LCD detectors". Whether the light is reflected off a piece of paper or coming from a screen, if the nits are at the right level compared to ambient lightning there should be no issue.
Highlights:
First of all: doctors say that reading on a screen won’t cause any harm.
Professor Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University, said that reducing eye fatigue is less a matter of choosing a specific display than of taking short breaks from looking at the screen.
When we read, Dr. Hedge explained, a series of ocular muscles jump around and can cause strain, regardless of whether we are looking at pixels or paper. “While you’re reading, your eyes make about 10,000 movements an hour. It’s important to take a step back every 20 minutes and let your eyes rest,” he said.
“The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,” Mr. Taussig said. “Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.”
---
My own thoughts... as a mechanical matter, light is light. Your eyes do not have "LCD detectors". Whether the light is reflected off a piece of paper or coming from a screen, if the nits are at the right level compared to ambient lightning there should be no issue.
“It depends on the viewing circumstances, including the software and typography on the screen,” said Mr. Bove. “Right now E Ink is great in sunlight, but in certain situations, a piece of paper can be a better display than E Ink, and in dim light, an LCD display can be better than all of these technologies.”
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
I think it boils down to this, wait for it to arrive on the market, try it out at an apple store, read and watch some reviews then make an informed decision based on the facts as you see them. It, like most gadgets, some fit an individual needs better than others. Personally, this device fills that 'gap' for me and as such am willing to take that early adopter gamble!
And I think the wider public will judge these devices in the medium term.
Not many people have electronic reading devices at the moment. I think that the opinions of a handful of gadget lovers will mean very little once these devices reach a wider audience. We will see how many people prefer e-ink and similar displays over LCD, and the manufacturers will adjust their tactics accordingly.
I hope there remains a choice as I am currently leaning towards buying a new e-ink reader.
Not many people have electronic reading devices at the moment. I think that the opinions of a handful of gadget lovers will mean very little once these devices reach a wider audience. We will see how many people prefer e-ink and similar displays over LCD, and the manufacturers will adjust their tactics accordingly.
I hope there remains a choice as I am currently leaning towards buying a new e-ink reader.
I find it interesting that the 2-inch screen argument is getting louder than the actual LCD vs eInk debate, oddly enough which would be solved by the larger screen on the iPad, but I digress.
I suffer tremendous eye strain working on a computer all day long and never thought I would be able to handle reading on the iPhone, much less reading long novels on it. But for whatever reason (I'm leaving science out on purpose, because it is a subjective experience it seems) I do not suffer the eye strain on this device the way I do on my monitor (and no I am not still using a CRT).
I now always look for a kindle version for all of the books that I intend to read and I have no desire to purchase an actual Kindle. There is no screen refresh flash on the LCD the way there is on the Kindle so turning the page with a quick thumb flick feels natural, is not visually jarring, and is nearly instantaneous.
So, I'm sold on LCD vs eInk, but I still don't know if the iPad will be able to compete with my iPhone simply because the phone is in my pocket wherever I go.
I suffer tremendous eye strain working on a computer all day long and never thought I would be able to handle reading on the iPhone, much less reading long novels on it. But for whatever reason (I'm leaving science out on purpose, because it is a subjective experience it seems) I do not suffer the eye strain on this device the way I do on my monitor (and no I am not still using a CRT).
I now always look for a kindle version for all of the books that I intend to read and I have no desire to purchase an actual Kindle. There is no screen refresh flash on the LCD the way there is on the Kindle so turning the page with a quick thumb flick feels natural, is not visually jarring, and is nearly instantaneous.
So, I'm sold on LCD vs eInk, but I still don't know if the iPad will be able to compete with my iPhone simply because the phone is in my pocket wherever I go.
Here's my take:
1. Yes, e-ink is a better medium for reading books and other long-form writing than LCD, it's definitely easier on the eyes. I think in a side-by-side comparison most people would pick an ebook reader over an LCD device for reading long-form text.
2. That doesn't mean that plenty of people don't read books on their iPhone or even their laptop. Just because there might be a better option out there doesn't mean that everyone has it available to them (whether by choice or simply because they can't afford another device like an e-book reader).
3. @rrtzmd - I love the spirited debate you're bringing here -- that's why we started gdgt -- but please be more respectful when responding to others who disagree with you.
1. Yes, e-ink is a better medium for reading books and other long-form writing than LCD, it's definitely easier on the eyes. I think in a side-by-side comparison most people would pick an ebook reader over an LCD device for reading long-form text.
2. That doesn't mean that plenty of people don't read books on their iPhone or even their laptop. Just because there might be a better option out there doesn't mean that everyone has it available to them (whether by choice or simply because they can't afford another device like an e-book reader).
3. @rrtzmd - I love the spirited debate you're bringing here -- that's why we started gdgt -- but please be more respectful when responding to others who disagree with you.
I agree. I will not replace my Kindle for the iPad because of the eye strain. You'd think that Mr. Jobs would have thought of that when trying to take the market away from the Kindle, the Nook and Sony's E-Reader. Ooops, but I guess he forgot more than that, did he not?! Not even a USB port on such an important device. I see it as a gigantic iPodTouch, only with a monthly plan.
"Yes, e-ink is a better medium for reading books and other long-form writing than LCD, it's definitely easier on the eyes."
Even assuming the eyes premise is true, specific to the Kindle v. a monitor, in practical use I see the form factor of the Kindle as deleterious to long form reading. Reading in bed is nearly always accompanied by poor posture or issues with lighting described earlier. Reading in a seat or even at a desk results either in perpetually suspended arms and tensed fingers or a curved neck. Reading outdoors- anywhere with seasons- results in changing lightning conditions (causing contrast changes and corresponding eye fatigue) for any duration longer than the outer limits of LCD use (though none exist, let's say 2-4 hours)... and in practice, barring a jobless individual, when does one read outdoors for 5+ hour stretches?
In terms of practical use, ironically, the hysteria over CRT eye strain and CTS and other office afflictions have lead to the prevalence of monitors and chairs used in the ONLY doctor recommended manner of long-form reading. That is, good posture, arms and fingers relaxed, eye-level fixed display, and consistent lighting and contrast. The very inability to use LCDs outdoors largely precludes glare and lighting changes. Does that mean a person enjoys being chained to an ergonomic chair to read properly? Or that a person couldn't construct a stand to get these same benefits out of a Kindle? No on both counts, which is why this is a practical analysis... when you're at a LCD monitor your reading habits are healthier than the typical use of a Kindle, barring eye strain (which is overcome, once again, by good habits).
In essence, the argument for e-Ink is, "This is the best way to read badly." Whereas reading with good habits makes the display technology (past a minimum threshold) a minor issue.
"I think in a side-by-side comparison most people would pick an ebook reader over an LCD device for reading long-form text."
Posed that way I disagree. Put simply, people have had that option for over a decade and it never found widespread acceptance... it is only after Amazon's Kindle did it develop mindshare (but arguably still an extraordinarily niche gadget which gives context to the explosion of e-readers at CES '10 - not because they're widespread and hugely successful, but because the market is small and they're gambling on growth rather than competing in already saturated markets). While e-ink is the excuse and the enabling technology (paper-ish contrast and battery life for days in an affordable light package), it is the branding/ecosystem, content partnerships, and the lifetime wireless that sold the Kindle.
If e-ink alone was enough, Sony's product (and predecessors) would've been more significant rather than relying on Amazon's product (many benefits which have been undercut by competitors- the branding competes with Borders, B&N, and now Apple; content partnerships have evaporated; and the wireless connection is going to be capped with the advent of the Kindle App store).
All balled up and posed to a consumer, post-mindshare shift, suddenly e-ink has more traction and maybe a person would pick e-ink over LCD for long-form reading... but if you were to go back to the pre-Kindle days and bring a next/near-gen LCD slate back in time with you and ask the consumer to choose, I think you'd be surprised how few pick the e-ink display despite the vaunted paper-ish advantages (it's a bit much to say paper-like as none of my books aren't written on glossy grey-ish pages). With a high resolution, quality contrast, IPS display, you would get better Clear Type (and the like) text rendering, thousands of more shades (even if you give up color altogether), responsiveness, and no jarring refreshes to interrupt the reading experience.
More concisely... it's NOT e-ink, it's JUST the Kindle 2.
None of the Sony Readers clear 500 owners on this site (and all but one fail to clear 100 owners)... even the Kindle 1st Gen has a pittance of adopters here. E-ink is receiving retroactive praise based on Kindle 2 gadget-lust not its own inherit properties which no one cared about enough to adopt Sony or even Kindle 1 (and arguably even Kindle 2 barring mindshare- actual sales minuscule compared to other "it" gadgets).
Even assuming the eyes premise is true, specific to the Kindle v. a monitor, in practical use I see the form factor of the Kindle as deleterious to long form reading. Reading in bed is nearly always accompanied by poor posture or issues with lighting described earlier. Reading in a seat or even at a desk results either in perpetually suspended arms and tensed fingers or a curved neck. Reading outdoors- anywhere with seasons- results in changing lightning conditions (causing contrast changes and corresponding eye fatigue) for any duration longer than the outer limits of LCD use (though none exist, let's say 2-4 hours)... and in practice, barring a jobless individual, when does one read outdoors for 5+ hour stretches?
In terms of practical use, ironically, the hysteria over CRT eye strain and CTS and other office afflictions have lead to the prevalence of monitors and chairs used in the ONLY doctor recommended manner of long-form reading. That is, good posture, arms and fingers relaxed, eye-level fixed display, and consistent lighting and contrast. The very inability to use LCDs outdoors largely precludes glare and lighting changes. Does that mean a person enjoys being chained to an ergonomic chair to read properly? Or that a person couldn't construct a stand to get these same benefits out of a Kindle? No on both counts, which is why this is a practical analysis... when you're at a LCD monitor your reading habits are healthier than the typical use of a Kindle, barring eye strain (which is overcome, once again, by good habits).
In essence, the argument for e-Ink is, "This is the best way to read badly." Whereas reading with good habits makes the display technology (past a minimum threshold) a minor issue.
"I think in a side-by-side comparison most people would pick an ebook reader over an LCD device for reading long-form text."
Posed that way I disagree. Put simply, people have had that option for over a decade and it never found widespread acceptance... it is only after Amazon's Kindle did it develop mindshare (but arguably still an extraordinarily niche gadget which gives context to the explosion of e-readers at CES '10 - not because they're widespread and hugely successful, but because the market is small and they're gambling on growth rather than competing in already saturated markets). While e-ink is the excuse and the enabling technology (paper-ish contrast and battery life for days in an affordable light package), it is the branding/ecosystem, content partnerships, and the lifetime wireless that sold the Kindle.
If e-ink alone was enough, Sony's product (and predecessors) would've been more significant rather than relying on Amazon's product (many benefits which have been undercut by competitors- the branding competes with Borders, B&N, and now Apple; content partnerships have evaporated; and the wireless connection is going to be capped with the advent of the Kindle App store).
All balled up and posed to a consumer, post-mindshare shift, suddenly e-ink has more traction and maybe a person would pick e-ink over LCD for long-form reading... but if you were to go back to the pre-Kindle days and bring a next/near-gen LCD slate back in time with you and ask the consumer to choose, I think you'd be surprised how few pick the e-ink display despite the vaunted paper-ish advantages (it's a bit much to say paper-like as none of my books aren't written on glossy grey-ish pages). With a high resolution, quality contrast, IPS display, you would get better Clear Type (and the like) text rendering, thousands of more shades (even if you give up color altogether), responsiveness, and no jarring refreshes to interrupt the reading experience.
More concisely... it's NOT e-ink, it's JUST the Kindle 2.
None of the Sony Readers clear 500 owners on this site (and all but one fail to clear 100 owners)... even the Kindle 1st Gen has a pittance of adopters here. E-ink is receiving retroactive praise based on Kindle 2 gadget-lust not its own inherit properties which no one cared about enough to adopt Sony or even Kindle 1 (and arguably even Kindle 2 barring mindshare- actual sales minuscule compared to other "it" gadgets).
...well, at least you didn't lie out your butt and invent data from imaginary or irrelevant studies to support your argument as in your previous posts...that said, I point to a few things...first:
kindle-reader.try1go.com/do-you-get-eyestrain-when...
...now that may seem like a trivial reference but investigate further and go to the site and read through the posts...for that matter, go to any of the many kindle blogs and read through them...what's MISSING?...NO ONE -- at least no one that I have ever found -- has EVER indicated a preference for reading on anything containing an LCD screen...what do you find with fair frequency?...people reporting how trying to read on LCD screens caused them problems but reading on a Kindle is no problem at all...second, the CPD survey that indicated 93% of the e-book reader owners -- presumably the majority being Kindle owners -- are satisfied with their purchase...third, millions of kindles have been sold...these people, no doubt, had immediate access to laptops, tablets, PDAs, netbooks, and even iphones...any of these devices could have been used to read ebooks -- except, of courser, the iphones...yet they chose to part with a considerable sum of money to buy a homely, little box with a little black and white screen that was tied to a proprietary format...and 93% of them are happy...
kindle-reader.try1go.com/do-you-get-eyestrain-when...
...now that may seem like a trivial reference but investigate further and go to the site and read through the posts...for that matter, go to any of the many kindle blogs and read through them...what's MISSING?...NO ONE -- at least no one that I have ever found -- has EVER indicated a preference for reading on anything containing an LCD screen...what do you find with fair frequency?...people reporting how trying to read on LCD screens caused them problems but reading on a Kindle is no problem at all...second, the CPD survey that indicated 93% of the e-book reader owners -- presumably the majority being Kindle owners -- are satisfied with their purchase...third, millions of kindles have been sold...these people, no doubt, had immediate access to laptops, tablets, PDAs, netbooks, and even iphones...any of these devices could have been used to read ebooks -- except, of courser, the iphones...yet they chose to part with a considerable sum of money to buy a homely, little box with a little black and white screen that was tied to a proprietary format...and 93% of them are happy...
I would say the proof is in the numbers... people read all kinds of media on way more laptops and ipod touch/iphone devices than kindles right now.... the number of people with laptops is way bigger than those with e-readers and thats how they all take in 1) the web 2) school notes 3) comics/manga 4) yes BOOKS!! in essence, everyone who hasn't bought an e-reader has expressed their preference for LCD....
Hilarious, even with two moderator warnings you still are as abrasive as ever, you're such an adorably bitter human.
"now that may seem like a trivial reference"
Yes. It is.
The Kindle 2 sold e-ink. E-ink didn't sell the Kindle 2. Without all the trappings around the device, no one would've given e-ink a second look. The logical fallacy of mindshare or customer satisfaction is like saying, "People prefer stylus input to buttons... look at the sales and satisfaction of the Nintendo DS!" And that's with a dominant product.
LCD is the default. It is the prevailing technology and the preference is proven by the lack of e-ink implementation. It proves that how and what people expect from a reading experience is not what e-ink narrowly provides. And again, in the Kindle form factor the ONLY thing it provides is "a worse than paper, but better than LCD passive long-form experience with BAD READING HABITS." Engage in good reading habits and the advantage more or less slips away. Want a reading experience that isn't long form? Well e-ink can't even compete there.
"now that may seem like a trivial reference"
Yes. It is.
The Kindle 2 sold e-ink. E-ink didn't sell the Kindle 2. Without all the trappings around the device, no one would've given e-ink a second look. The logical fallacy of mindshare or customer satisfaction is like saying, "People prefer stylus input to buttons... look at the sales and satisfaction of the Nintendo DS!" And that's with a dominant product.
LCD is the default. It is the prevailing technology and the preference is proven by the lack of e-ink implementation. It proves that how and what people expect from a reading experience is not what e-ink narrowly provides. And again, in the Kindle form factor the ONLY thing it provides is "a worse than paper, but better than LCD passive long-form experience with BAD READING HABITS." Engage in good reading habits and the advantage more or less slips away. Want a reading experience that isn't long form? Well e-ink can't even compete there.
..."LCD is the default"?... "the prevailing technology??..."the preference"???...among e-readers????...hardly:
wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/E-book_Reader_Matrix
...let's see, I think I found one that has a TFT display -- the "Wistron"..."Wistron" -- now there's a household name for you..and how many others have LCD displays?...hmmmmmm....hmmmmmm...I can't seem to find any others...of course, maybe that's because I'm going blind from trying to read this LCD screen...or maybe all those other manufacturers don't realize the wonders of LCD technology...OR maybe, just MAYBE, they have done their research and their research has determined that e-ink is superior to LCDs for reading books...hey, I'm game -- let the market decide...
wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/E-book_Reader_Matrix
...let's see, I think I found one that has a TFT display -- the "Wistron"..."Wistron" -- now there's a household name for you..and how many others have LCD displays?...hmmmmmm....hmmmmmm...I can't seem to find any others...of course, maybe that's because I'm going blind from trying to read this LCD screen...or maybe all those other manufacturers don't realize the wonders of LCD technology...OR maybe, just MAYBE, they have done their research and their research has determined that e-ink is superior to LCDs for reading books...hey, I'm game -- let the market decide...
lol - as a comedy routine, your posts are brilliant!!
this is all just schtick right??
otherwise its just preference arguing nonsense like I said 97 posts ago....
this is all just schtick right??
otherwise its just preference arguing nonsense like I said 97 posts ago....
..."drawkward" keeps claiming LCDs are just dandy for reading ebooks...it's the "prevailing" technology, he says....well, there's a list of ebook readers...all those manufacturers had a choice of which screen to use...all but one chose e-ink...sure, it's just "preference" -- presumably the CUSTOMERS' preference....otherwise WHY chose it?...presuming the manufacturers didn't simply flip a coin, but did their research and determined that the preference was for e-ink....do you have a better explanation?
How about owning e-ink eyestrain?
Also, LCD is the default [display technology period]. If it needs to be spelled out for you.
Obviously I did not mean e-readers as the very premise of my argument is that e-readers is the product of manufacturers seeking a non-saturated market rather than a genuine benefit or a genuine need.
Look, if you can't even follow a basic argument maybe you should stow the guns a bit. Trying to look credible by flaunting all the e-ink based e-readers (none of which are successful pre-Kindle 2 mind you) when that's not even the argument isn't at all productive. Again, if you're going to post a link, let it be ON POINT or AUTHORITATIVE and actually RELEVANT to the discussion.
That's always been my issue with you posting eyestrain links which were not:
1) On Point (do not act as absolute bar to e-reading, your words "useless")
2) Authoritative (using 1999 links, trite board comments, and biased unscientific and small surveys);
3) Relevant (derailing into an argument about Apple fervor when I've shown no love for the iPad at all)...
Please stop posting until you can get a basic handle on these things.
Also, LCD is the default [display technology period]. If it needs to be spelled out for you.
Obviously I did not mean e-readers as the very premise of my argument is that e-readers is the product of manufacturers seeking a non-saturated market rather than a genuine benefit or a genuine need.
Look, if you can't even follow a basic argument maybe you should stow the guns a bit. Trying to look credible by flaunting all the e-ink based e-readers (none of which are successful pre-Kindle 2 mind you) when that's not even the argument isn't at all productive. Again, if you're going to post a link, let it be ON POINT or AUTHORITATIVE and actually RELEVANT to the discussion.
That's always been my issue with you posting eyestrain links which were not:
1) On Point (do not act as absolute bar to e-reading, your words "useless")
2) Authoritative (using 1999 links, trite board comments, and biased unscientific and small surveys);
3) Relevant (derailing into an argument about Apple fervor when I've shown no love for the iPad at all)...
Please stop posting until you can get a basic handle on these things.
..."Obviously I did not mean e-readers as the very premise of my argument is that e-readers is the product of manufacturers seeking a non-saturated market rather than a genuine benefit or a genuine need."..."did not mean e-readers"??...uh, well, we ARE talking about e-readers, correct??...I presumed you didn't think we were talking about phones or computers...and the " premise of my argument is that e-readers is the product of manufacturers seeking a non-saturated market rather than a genuine benefit or a genuine need."?????????...I'll give you benefit of the doubt and presume you meant "unsaturated"...but wait a minute, let me add some more ?????????????...so the manufacturers started making e-readers despite no need nor benefit...and rather than choosing the "prevailing" technology of LCDs, they choose something as dreary and blah looking as e-ink admittedly is in order to develop a new market for e-ink?...and all those millions of people who have subsequently bought e-ink readers didn't buy them because of a need or benefit but because they were conned?... is that it?...really?
Rude as ever, sigh. Please, grow up. Question marks and incredulous "really"s don't make you any more credible or persuasive.
No, we're not talking about e-reader devices we're talking about e-reading period.
This ought to have been clear when the topic branched off into (1) monitors, (2) phones, and (3) the iPad [the forum your in] which isn't an e-reader, by definition, a device specifically built for reading.
Since the whole point is the contrast e-reading experiences, it's pointless to restrict analysis to the devices which are inherently the same. LCD, by its nature, is versatile and used in a variety of devices making it the default display technology... so it will be on devices that provide e-reading experiences without being e-readers.
I'll say it again, LCD provides e-reading experience without being on e-readers.
As for your market theory this was already addressed twice over. If you don't buy the blue ocean and the DS example (the fallacy that stylus gaming is the preferred method of gaming because of the DS's success in a narrow portable gaming market rather than looking at all input methods for all gaming which prefers buttons- likewise, thinking reading is better in e-ink because e-readers use it when reading on displays as a whole use LCD by default) being more shrill, repetitive, and insulting about your opinion doesn't make it any more effective.
Once again, On Point, Authority, or Relevance. I think I asked you, quite reasonably, to grasp the argument before posting.
No, we're not talking about e-reader devices we're talking about e-reading period.
This ought to have been clear when the topic branched off into (1) monitors, (2) phones, and (3) the iPad [the forum your in] which isn't an e-reader, by definition, a device specifically built for reading.
Since the whole point is the contrast e-reading experiences, it's pointless to restrict analysis to the devices which are inherently the same. LCD, by its nature, is versatile and used in a variety of devices making it the default display technology... so it will be on devices that provide e-reading experiences without being e-readers.
I'll say it again, LCD provides e-reading experience without being on e-readers.
As for your market theory this was already addressed twice over. If you don't buy the blue ocean and the DS example (the fallacy that stylus gaming is the preferred method of gaming because of the DS's success in a narrow portable gaming market rather than looking at all input methods for all gaming which prefers buttons- likewise, thinking reading is better in e-ink because e-readers use it when reading on displays as a whole use LCD by default) being more shrill, repetitive, and insulting about your opinion doesn't make it any more effective.
Once again, On Point, Authority, or Relevance. I think I asked you, quite reasonably, to grasp the argument before posting.
...I think the proof is in all those blogs where no one ever says that having compared reading on a Kindle to reading on any other device with an LCD screen, they prefer LCD screens...at least no one that I can find...but there are a remarkable number of sites like this:
stackoverflow.com/questions/742766/how-do-you-prot...
stackoverflow.com/questions/742766/how-do-you-prot...
Again, your lack of research doesn't entitle you to generalize to the world at large and to the extent you make a citation (either to a study or article) it should either be directly on point or authoritative. You've put up another trite link about LCD eyestrain which, again, has yet to be linked to damage and is not unique to LCDs. Any reading with bad habits or any close up work with bad habits will produce eyestrain.
Lest you think "inability to research" is a slight, it is a mere fact, as the Kindle 2- e-ink and all- has been linked directly to eyestrain by its own users:
www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/04/kindle-2-displa/
Over 1000 comments by Kindle owners discuss the issue here:
www.amazon.com/Amazon-Please-make-darker-Kindle/fo...
jkontherun.com/2009/04/14/kindle-2-causing-eye-str...
The problem? Traced back to the resolution, shades of grey, and text rendering [illustrated quite well here]:
www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/20...
Which are exactly those same AOA factors I addressed so long ago and showed as demonstrably superior in LCDs.
Lest you think "inability to research" is a slight, it is a mere fact, as the Kindle 2- e-ink and all- has been linked directly to eyestrain by its own users:
www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/04/kindle-2-displa/
Over 1000 comments by Kindle owners discuss the issue here:
www.amazon.com/Amazon-Please-make-darker-Kindle/fo...
jkontherun.com/2009/04/14/kindle-2-causing-eye-str...
The problem? Traced back to the resolution, shades of grey, and text rendering [illustrated quite well here]:
www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/20...
Which are exactly those same AOA factors I addressed so long ago and showed as demonstrably superior in LCDs.
personally I prefer movies or video games or music, even comics over reading.... basically anything but books!! LOL
that said, everyone I know who reads - like seriously reads scoffs at e-readers too... they are hard-books or nothing...
and for reading on the go or in the car, they use audiobooks...
again, this is all second-hand info... ;)
that said, everyone I know who reads - like seriously reads scoffs at e-readers too... they are hard-books or nothing...
and for reading on the go or in the car, they use audiobooks...
again, this is all second-hand info... ;)
...oh, wait!...let's let Molly show us how it's done:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPxbNBTnsig&feature=re...
...yeah, right!...the only "fool" is any idiot that claims to read novels on that!...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPxbNBTnsig&feature=re...
...yeah, right!...the only "fool" is any idiot that claims to read novels on that!...
Come on, rrtzmd, tone it down a little. You're not promoting any healthy discussion about the topic so it's much less enjoyable for others to participate.
starxd is right, just because you don't like reading on an LCD doesn't mean that other people don't. Please just leave the topic alone unless there is something constructive that you have to add.
If I were you, I'd spend some time building up your lists and discussing some products in a positive light. It doesn't look good to have nothing in any of your lists while just bullying one product. Just saying it would benefit everyone to be a little more positive.
starxd is right, just because you don't like reading on an LCD doesn't mean that other people don't. Please just leave the topic alone unless there is something constructive that you have to add.
If I were you, I'd spend some time building up your lists and discussing some products in a positive light. It doesn't look good to have nothing in any of your lists while just bullying one product. Just saying it would benefit everyone to be a little more positive.
Wifey has a kindle but since she got an iphone she has been reading her kindle books on the iphone. She says that because it is backlit it is easier to read for her. Go figure. She likes it better than her kindle. I have always read 2-3 ebooks a week on my iphone or prior smartphones. I'm a voracious reader and read whereever I can. The kindle is just too big and inconvenient for me as I can't slip it in a pocket. Will get an ipad and maybe do some ebook reading at home, but I believe I will continue to do most of my reading away from home on the iphone. Ebooks hardly began with Amazon. I have been reading ebooks on PDA.s then smartphones since 2000, I believe. The online bookstores I used were Fictionwise and Peanut Press (now Ereader.com). Havd hundreds of ebooks from those sites before the Kindle came around.
Sue us, but we prefer reading books on the iphone.
Sue us, but we prefer reading books on the iphone.
Whatever works for you works for you. I wish I could read on LCD as comfortably as I can on e-ink because then I wouldn't need to buy a separate device.
Reading your post made a thought occur to me. I am quite sensitive to bright light in general. Things like standby lights on electronics can sometimes keep me awake at night, and when it is really sunny outside (I live in a very hot and sunny city), the light reflecting of light-coloured buildings can be quite annoying even when wearing sunglasses.
I think this must be related to the reasons that I find LCD uncomfortable.
I last had my vision checked about 18 months ago and my vision was 20:20.
Reading your post made a thought occur to me. I am quite sensitive to bright light in general. Things like standby lights on electronics can sometimes keep me awake at night, and when it is really sunny outside (I live in a very hot and sunny city), the light reflecting of light-coloured buildings can be quite annoying even when wearing sunglasses.
I think this must be related to the reasons that I find LCD uncomfortable.
I last had my vision checked about 18 months ago and my vision was 20:20.
...oh, please, that is such heaping big pile of manure...so tell me the type and size of font that you and your wife use to read novels on an iphone...by my experience you can fit what, about 75 words onto that two inch wide screen?...so one sentence takes up maybe a third of the screen?...now bear in mind, of course, I'm not talking about "graphic novels"; but REAL books with hundreds of pages containing paragraph after paragraph of sentences 30-70 words long...and YOU read 2 or 3 of those a week on an iphone...jeezus, Apple seems to breed a special kind of moron who can't recognize the borders of credibility...
I'm not going to join in on the argument. But I just want to say I've wanted an ebook reader for a while now and decided to hold out for Apple's then rumored tablet. When it was announced I was worried about the reading experience due to the backlight. I was hoping I could find a thread like this that would be able to confirm or revoke my fears. That's not going to happen.
I'm just going to buy one and test the damn thing out myself. If my eyes do get strained and it does end up being uncomfortable, I'll return the thing and get some e-ink alternative. I'll just have to wait and see.
I'm just going to buy one and test the damn thing out myself. If my eyes do get strained and it does end up being uncomfortable, I'll return the thing and get some e-ink alternative. I'll just have to wait and see.
...YOURS is the MOST intelligent post on this board -- excluding mine, of course...my only purpose has been to convince people to THINK before they buy into some Apple spiel about color this or touch screen that...Apple could care less if we all went blind trying to read books on LCD screens -- Steve's already expressed HIS opinion that "no one reads anymore"...so why even worry whether someone actually trying to read with the thing might fry their eyes?...the subject probably didn't even come up at planning meetings -- don't want to contradict Steve now, do we?...in any case, first consider what you REALLY intend to do with device...then pick out what you intend to read and sit down and read at least fifteen minutes in environments where you plan to use the device...then chose accordingly...
I wouldn't suggest buying something to test it out. It must be a lot easier to return items in the USA than other places.
But the scientific approach is definitely the way to go. I did the same thing (in a longwinded way) by trying to read books on PC and my PDA for several years before findin e-ink.
It seems clear that some people don't get eyestrain from LCD. I can only speak for myself and people I know (though the consensus is that e-ink is better).
Please read a LOT when doing your test. Don't read a page or two. Read a whole book if you can, then read a similar length book on e-ink. I find that I read a little slower and misread more words on LCD. It seems like I have to work harder to interpret the words. Maybe that's what causes eye strain and fatigue.
But the scientific approach is definitely the way to go. I did the same thing (in a longwinded way) by trying to read books on PC and my PDA for several years before findin e-ink.
It seems clear that some people don't get eyestrain from LCD. I can only speak for myself and people I know (though the consensus is that e-ink is better).
Please read a LOT when doing your test. Don't read a page or two. Read a whole book if you can, then read a similar length book on e-ink. I find that I read a little slower and misread more words on LCD. It seems like I have to work harder to interpret the words. Maybe that's what causes eye strain and fatigue.
Yup, I do plan on reading a lot to test it out. That's why I'm going with the buy/return route rather than going to the store and reading a page or two on a demo unit. I'll be able to take it home and try it out on a couch or in bed - scenarios I would use it in regularly. I guess I could actually do this test with my laptop or something. But where's the fun in that? I wouldn't be able to try out the other features of the iPad =)
...uhhhh -- are you sober?...nowhere in the IJO article that I posted does it mention a cause of CVS...nowhere does it mention contrast or letter definition...on the other hand, it does say:
"The Occupational safety and health administration department of the US Govt. [OSHA] has defined CVS as a "complex of eye and vision problems that are experienced during and related to computer use; it is a repetitive strain disorder that appears to be growing rapidly, with some studies estimating that 90% of the 70 million US workers using computers for more than three hours per day experience CVS in some form."
...but coming from the government, you can take it for whatever you think it's worth but at least they haven't defined a "kindle vision syndrome"...on the other hand, YOU said, ", as the December 2009 Archives of Ophthalmology study (9000 participants spanning 30 years) demonstrated"...but NOW you say you got your information from a wired.com blog?...gosh, why am I not surprised?...and even there, they're talking about a survey regarding the development of NEARSIGHTEDNESS in a population over 30 years...how exactly does that relate to LCDs and eyestrain...I certainly never claimed that LCDs cause nearsightedness....and "fear mongering"???...what on earth are you talking about?...I merely stated that that reading REAL books on a LCD is NOT a pleasant experience....and SOMEBODY claimed that LCD screens didn't cause ANYONE any problems...to which I responded by posting AOA links that suggest that SOMEBODY out there must be having problems...and "the point of posting CVS except to spread the fear that CVS is CAUSED by LCD"????...uhhhh, well, since pretty much all computer screens are LCD; exactly what else would cause CVS?...and the University of Georgia study?...are you talking about this one:
www.grady.uga.edu/resources.php?al1=Resources&... News&page=news2.inc.php|ID=1046
...that wasn't for students to use in their studies; it was to assay opinions regarding reading newspapers on a kindle...and the younger people wanted color -- surprise, surprise...but your reference to the other engadget article merits a full quote:
"The wind sure changes very quickly, eh? Just a week ago the University of Georgia revealed that many of its study participants -- Athens residents who were given a Kindle to play with -- weren't happy with their e-reader experience, but yesterday a new study reported something fairly contrasting. Rather than doling out touchscreen-less e-readers to a group of people, the NPD Group surveyed more than 1,000 e-reader owners in late November last year, and found out that 93 percent of them were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with their devices, while only 2 percent "expressed any level of dissatisfaction." The report also reveals that wireless access is the favorite feature for 60 percent of the users, while only 23 percent chose the touchscreen. Compared to last week's report, this probably shows that consumers who actually buy e-readers don't really care about the touch feature, whereas those on the outer circle are mainly waiting for more -- and no doubt cheaper -- touchscreen e-readers. Seriously though, only 34 percent wanted color screens? Those guys sure are easy to please."
..."easy to please"??...another moron who doesn't understand that people that read REAL books could care less about color!
"The Occupational safety and health administration department of the US Govt. [OSHA] has defined CVS as a "complex of eye and vision problems that are experienced during and related to computer use; it is a repetitive strain disorder that appears to be growing rapidly, with some studies estimating that 90% of the 70 million US workers using computers for more than three hours per day experience CVS in some form."
...but coming from the government, you can take it for whatever you think it's worth but at least they haven't defined a "kindle vision syndrome"...on the other hand, YOU said, ", as the December 2009 Archives of Ophthalmology study (9000 participants spanning 30 years) demonstrated"...but NOW you say you got your information from a wired.com blog?...gosh, why am I not surprised?...and even there, they're talking about a survey regarding the development of NEARSIGHTEDNESS in a population over 30 years...how exactly does that relate to LCDs and eyestrain...I certainly never claimed that LCDs cause nearsightedness....and "fear mongering"???...what on earth are you talking about?...I merely stated that that reading REAL books on a LCD is NOT a pleasant experience....and SOMEBODY claimed that LCD screens didn't cause ANYONE any problems...to which I responded by posting AOA links that suggest that SOMEBODY out there must be having problems...and "the point of posting CVS except to spread the fear that CVS is CAUSED by LCD"????...uhhhh, well, since pretty much all computer screens are LCD; exactly what else would cause CVS?...and the University of Georgia study?...are you talking about this one:
www.grady.uga.edu/resources.php?al1=Resources&... News&page=news2.inc.php|ID=1046
...that wasn't for students to use in their studies; it was to assay opinions regarding reading newspapers on a kindle...and the younger people wanted color -- surprise, surprise...but your reference to the other engadget article merits a full quote:
"The wind sure changes very quickly, eh? Just a week ago the University of Georgia revealed that many of its study participants -- Athens residents who were given a Kindle to play with -- weren't happy with their e-reader experience, but yesterday a new study reported something fairly contrasting. Rather than doling out touchscreen-less e-readers to a group of people, the NPD Group surveyed more than 1,000 e-reader owners in late November last year, and found out that 93 percent of them were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with their devices, while only 2 percent "expressed any level of dissatisfaction." The report also reveals that wireless access is the favorite feature for 60 percent of the users, while only 23 percent chose the touchscreen. Compared to last week's report, this probably shows that consumers who actually buy e-readers don't really care about the touch feature, whereas those on the outer circle are mainly waiting for more -- and no doubt cheaper -- touchscreen e-readers. Seriously though, only 34 percent wanted color screens? Those guys sure are easy to please."
..."easy to please"??...another moron who doesn't understand that people that read REAL books could care less about color!
