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 glanced through the replies, but no one seems to be mentioning the fact that it's an IPS display. As an everyday user of three IPS 24" panels, (apple cinema display at home, dell and hp models at school labs).
IPS displays are night and day to the standard TN panels you see 99% of the time, believe it or not Apple's 24" LED cinema display is not as outrageously priced to it's competitors as you might think: Dell and HP's IPS displays retail around 550-600, compared to apple's 900. (I got mine refurbed for what I could have gotten a new HP or Dell, which have more input options, but I like the styling, have a mac, and a displayport PC that can pump it).
I'm really excited to choose iPad as my e-reader, it will replace my sony prs-505, and I have no worries about eyestrain. If possible try to get an IPS display sitting next to a standard TN display, you'll see what I mean.
IPS displays are night and day to the standard TN panels you see 99% of the time, believe it or not Apple's 24" LED cinema display is not as outrageously priced to it's competitors as you might think: Dell and HP's IPS displays retail around 550-600, compared to apple's 900. (I got mine refurbed for what I could have gotten a new HP or Dell, which have more input options, but I like the styling, have a mac, and a displayport PC that can pump it).
I'm really excited to choose iPad as my e-reader, it will replace my sony prs-505, and I have no worries about eyestrain. If possible try to get an IPS display sitting next to a standard TN display, you'll see what I mean.
...an "IPS display"?...a backlighted screen by any other name is STILL a backlighted screen...staring into light sources directly -- ANY light source -- results in afterimages...the length of time the afterimages persist is a function of the brightness of the light...but until you turn the light completely off, the afterimages will exist to some extent...processing these is a chore for the brain...hence the "computer vision syndrome" I referenced before in these articles:
www.aoa.org/x5253.xml
www.aoa.org/x8526.xml
...consequently, a backlighted screen will not work for reading REAL books regardless of the type...
www.aoa.org/x5253.xml
www.aoa.org/x8526.xml
...consequently, a backlighted screen will not work for reading REAL books regardless of the type...
You have no credibility and your fear-mongering is sad.
Point to a single place in your cited references that refer to backlighting or afterimages.
Your anti-LCD hysteria has no basis in science even citing a biased association who's first line of defense is to visit them and pay for an eye exam. Beyond that, their recommendations never suggest paper over LCD, much less e-ink. In fact, they go so far as to endorse 2 hours of more or less continual use of LCDs, broken up by no more than 15 minutes of rest after which you're free to go another 2 hours... hardly the terror you're trying to present.
Stop lying.
Point to a single place in your cited references that refer to backlighting or afterimages.
Your anti-LCD hysteria has no basis in science even citing a biased association who's first line of defense is to visit them and pay for an eye exam. Beyond that, their recommendations never suggest paper over LCD, much less e-ink. In fact, they go so far as to endorse 2 hours of more or less continual use of LCDs, broken up by no more than 15 minutes of rest after which you're free to go another 2 hours... hardly the terror you're trying to present.
Stop lying.
[QUOTE]
Apple's 24" LED cinema display is not as outrageously priced to it's competitors as you might think: Dell and HP's IPS displays retail around 550-600, compared to apple's 900.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. Just...wow. 35% price difference is not 'outrageously priced' to you?
Apple's 24" LED cinema display is not as outrageously priced to it's competitors as you might think: Dell and HP's IPS displays retail around 550-600, compared to apple's 900.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. Just...wow. 35% price difference is not 'outrageously priced' to you?
I do 90% of my reading on an LCD screen... like the one I just read this post and all the comments on (my laptop screen). It's a very pleasant experience and I really appreciate the fact that I don't need a SEPARATE light source in order to read. With an LCD, the screen and light source are all in one - what could be more efficient than that?
If you want to know what reading will be like on the iPad, check out "Classics" on the iPhone. It's not black on white, as many people mistakenly say, it's brown on beige which looks really nice. You're also free to adjust the brightness to any level you like. It's a great experience. You should try it before you judge!
And like other people have pointed out, the iPad is SO much more than just a book reader. If that's all you want, then get a Kindle... and a light.
If you want to know what reading will be like on the iPad, check out "Classics" on the iPhone. It's not black on white, as many people mistakenly say, it's brown on beige which looks really nice. You're also free to adjust the brightness to any level you like. It's a great experience. You should try it before you judge!
And like other people have pointed out, the iPad is SO much more than just a book reader. If that's all you want, then get a Kindle... and a light.
..."I just read this post and all the comments on (my laptop screen)"...well, duh!...nevertheless, reading a post is NOT like reading a REAL book...granted, I have never tried reading a REAL book on a 2 inch wide screen, but my vivid imagination scoffs at the idea...I try to imagine reading "War and Peace" on a two inch wide screen and can't help but conjure up a comparison to Chinese water torture...
Dude, what's with this "REAL book" thing? There is nothing magical or special about a book - it's just TEXT! What is the difference between the text in a book and the text in a forum posting like this? Text is text!
Also, your distinction between direct light and reflected light is false. LIGHT IS LIGHT! If you look at direct light and reflected light at an equivalent brightness they will both effect your eyes in exactly the same way. I have suffered tremendous eye strain when trying to read a REAL book at the beach because the white paper reflected the bright sunlight at a very high intensity - higher than an LCD screen could ever display.
The point is, any method of reading text has the potential to cause eye strain. You have to adjust the light source (either reflected or direct) so that it is comfortable, but one technology is not inherently better than the other.
Also, your distinction between direct light and reflected light is false. LIGHT IS LIGHT! If you look at direct light and reflected light at an equivalent brightness they will both effect your eyes in exactly the same way. I have suffered tremendous eye strain when trying to read a REAL book at the beach because the white paper reflected the bright sunlight at a very high intensity - higher than an LCD screen could ever display.
The point is, any method of reading text has the potential to cause eye strain. You have to adjust the light source (either reflected or direct) so that it is comfortable, but one technology is not inherently better than the other.
There is a huge difference between reading short paragraphs broken up by the nature of a forum thread and reading a book consisting on 20-page chapters.
When reading this thread, your eyes are moving more - to the name of the poster, the time it was posted, then a few lines of text, then onto the next comment, etc.
With a 'real book' you are reading a solid block of text for long periods of time.
When reading this thread, your eyes are moving more - to the name of the poster, the time it was posted, then a few lines of text, then onto the next comment, etc.
With a 'real book' you are reading a solid block of text for long periods of time.
No, text isn't text.
I like listening to loud music, but I don't listen at full volume for long periods. There is a fatigue that sets in. The same goes for many people when using LCD screens. Luckily, most LCD usage is in small bite-sized chunks.
There is a huge difference between reading short bites of text while moving your eyes around, switching focus to other things constantly, and so on.
Reading on LCD is broken up by the nature of the content being read. An email is usually a few sentences. A webpage or blog entry is usually 500-1000 words. Your eyes rest in between those things as they are looking around and not focusing on text the whole time.
It may not effect you, but for many people (myself included) reading more than a page or two on an LCD screen is tiring. Reading on paper or e-ink doesn't strain my eyes at all.
I have used computers since I was a child, and I've read on paper for even longer. I tried reading on CRT, LCD, PDAs, phones, etc, but nothing felt right to me until I saw e-ink for the first time.
The fact that e-ink exists shows that people don't want to read on LCD. LCD screens are cheaper, have colour, and can display video. They have higher contrast, etc, all advantages. But people who read a lot are all buying e-ink devices mainly due to the readability of the screens.
I like listening to loud music, but I don't listen at full volume for long periods. There is a fatigue that sets in. The same goes for many people when using LCD screens. Luckily, most LCD usage is in small bite-sized chunks.
There is a huge difference between reading short bites of text while moving your eyes around, switching focus to other things constantly, and so on.
Reading on LCD is broken up by the nature of the content being read. An email is usually a few sentences. A webpage or blog entry is usually 500-1000 words. Your eyes rest in between those things as they are looking around and not focusing on text the whole time.
It may not effect you, but for many people (myself included) reading more than a page or two on an LCD screen is tiring. Reading on paper or e-ink doesn't strain my eyes at all.
I have used computers since I was a child, and I've read on paper for even longer. I tried reading on CRT, LCD, PDAs, phones, etc, but nothing felt right to me until I saw e-ink for the first time.
The fact that e-ink exists shows that people don't want to read on LCD. LCD screens are cheaper, have colour, and can display video. They have higher contrast, etc, all advantages. But people who read a lot are all buying e-ink devices mainly due to the readability of the screens.
... a bit more scientific discussion of "computer vision syndrome" for those curious:
www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2007;vo...
...and bear in mind that the etiology of the syndrome is from looking at backlighted screens...
www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2007;vo...
...and bear in mind that the etiology of the syndrome is from looking at backlighted screens...
Stop being a fear monger throwing out things which don't support your premise at all- that "LCD = useless e-reader".
A "study" from five years ago consisting of 34 survey questions to 300 Indian ophthalmologists? You're getting ridiculous. Again, as the December 2009 Archives of Ophthalmology study (9000 participants spanning 30 years) demonstrated, the effects on the eye are with respect to reading, PERIOD, not the device. Any claims of "uselessness" because of health hazards is like hailing the virtues of "light cigarettes".
Moreover, once again, not ONE of the recommendations was to give up LCDs in favor of e-ink or even printouts (whether of this study or from the AOA). And I doubt you looked it up on a Kindle in the first place (or if you did, explains why you're citing studies which are so sorely lacking).
Even the AOA merely recommends looking away from the screen 20 seconds every 20 minutes and 15 minutes every 2 hours... hardly fearful of catastrophic consequences or burdensome to anyone. To support your premise, their recommendation would have to be to stop LCD usage entirely and switch to paper or e-Ink which doesn't show up even once.
In fact, NONE of their concerns deal with backlighting... their issues are:
- The definition of computer lettering - which is WORSE on the Kindle, which has a resolution than most LCDs and no ability to anti-alias/clear-type because of the lack of color/greyscale bit-depth.
- The contrast of lettering to background - which is SUPERIOR on most LCDs which better contrast ratios and Kindle's off-white background and less-than-black text. Blacklight bleeding is only an issue here if the LCD is poor quality and/or unable to dim.
- Glare, reflections, & viewing angles - Which are still present with the Kindle's shiny screen and- compared with a desktop- the strain on your eyes focusing on a continually moving target is raised with any handheld device.
e-Ink is "useful" for a very very narrow e-reading application... low refresh linear content, external light source absent a glare-causing angle. That's IT. In every other respect LCD matches or is as useful in how we read and what we read.
A "study" from five years ago consisting of 34 survey questions to 300 Indian ophthalmologists? You're getting ridiculous. Again, as the December 2009 Archives of Ophthalmology study (9000 participants spanning 30 years) demonstrated, the effects on the eye are with respect to reading, PERIOD, not the device. Any claims of "uselessness" because of health hazards is like hailing the virtues of "light cigarettes".
Moreover, once again, not ONE of the recommendations was to give up LCDs in favor of e-ink or even printouts (whether of this study or from the AOA). And I doubt you looked it up on a Kindle in the first place (or if you did, explains why you're citing studies which are so sorely lacking).
Even the AOA merely recommends looking away from the screen 20 seconds every 20 minutes and 15 minutes every 2 hours... hardly fearful of catastrophic consequences or burdensome to anyone. To support your premise, their recommendation would have to be to stop LCD usage entirely and switch to paper or e-Ink which doesn't show up even once.
In fact, NONE of their concerns deal with backlighting... their issues are:
- The definition of computer lettering - which is WORSE on the Kindle, which has a resolution than most LCDs and no ability to anti-alias/clear-type because of the lack of color/greyscale bit-depth.
- The contrast of lettering to background - which is SUPERIOR on most LCDs which better contrast ratios and Kindle's off-white background and less-than-black text. Blacklight bleeding is only an issue here if the LCD is poor quality and/or unable to dim.
- Glare, reflections, & viewing angles - Which are still present with the Kindle's shiny screen and- compared with a desktop- the strain on your eyes focusing on a continually moving target is raised with any handheld device.
e-Ink is "useful" for a very very narrow e-reading application... low refresh linear content, external light source absent a glare-causing angle. That's IT. In every other respect LCD matches or is as useful in how we read and what we read.
...exactly which article are you talking about:
archopht.ama-assn.org/content/vol127/issue12/index...
...please don't tell me it's the one about the age related eye disease study...that was related to the etiology of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataracts...perhaps you misunderstand me or perhaps you were struggling to read it on a 2 inch wide screen...regardless, I'm not claiming LCDs cause cataracts or macular degeneration...and no one, including me, recommends giving up LCDs -- I'm using one right now, don't you know...however, they are NOT good for reading REAL books..and your statement that "NONE of their concerns deal with backlighting"...I don't recall any of the articles specifying things like resolution or contrast as a concern...I really don't care, however, since I don't think resolution or contrast has anything to do with it...instead, I think it has to do with afterimages arising from staring at a bare light source and the brain having to process a continuous stream of such images when reading -- something akin to trying to read two lines of type simultaneously...I did find an interesting post at the "unofficial apple weblog":
www.tuaw.com/2010/01/28/ipad-vs-kindle-which-way-t...
...amazing how many of those people who responded don't like LCD screens but are fans of e-ink...I can't find it now but I particularly liked one person who wrote something to this effect:
"I'm a young person who grew up on a computer, and who's been reading e-books on LCDs for almost a decade now, and you can have my e-ink Kindle when you pry it from my cold dead hands."
...I dunno...e-ink lovers seem almost as dedicated as Apple fanatics...
archopht.ama-assn.org/content/vol127/issue12/index...
...please don't tell me it's the one about the age related eye disease study...that was related to the etiology of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataracts...perhaps you misunderstand me or perhaps you were struggling to read it on a 2 inch wide screen...regardless, I'm not claiming LCDs cause cataracts or macular degeneration...and no one, including me, recommends giving up LCDs -- I'm using one right now, don't you know...however, they are NOT good for reading REAL books..and your statement that "NONE of their concerns deal with backlighting"...I don't recall any of the articles specifying things like resolution or contrast as a concern...I really don't care, however, since I don't think resolution or contrast has anything to do with it...instead, I think it has to do with afterimages arising from staring at a bare light source and the brain having to process a continuous stream of such images when reading -- something akin to trying to read two lines of type simultaneously...I did find an interesting post at the "unofficial apple weblog":
www.tuaw.com/2010/01/28/ipad-vs-kindle-which-way-t...
...amazing how many of those people who responded don't like LCD screens but are fans of e-ink...I can't find it now but I particularly liked one person who wrote something to this effect:
"I'm a young person who grew up on a computer, and who's been reading e-books on LCDs for almost a decade now, and you can have my e-ink Kindle when you pry it from my cold dead hands."
...I dunno...e-ink lovers seem almost as dedicated as Apple fanatics...
"...exactly which article are you talking about:"
Your link to:
"Computer vision syndrome: A study of the knowledge, attitudes and practices in Indian Ophthalmologists"
5 year old 34 question survey is not a "study" much less one that proves your point. Your new links are just as absurd. As for your inability to find the study... that's on you, but since you need to be spoonfed it's referenced here in plain english: www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/nearsightedness...
"since I don't think resolution or contrast has anything to do with it"
It's right in the article you posted, under what CAUSES CVS... you know the *actual* cause as opposed to LCD-hysteria. They specifically say, "(1) letters on the computer screen [note the page source is from 1999 BEFORE the widespread advent of LCD and is most likely referring to CRT] are not as precise or sharply defined, (2) the level of contrast of the letters to the background is reduced [much like the grey background of a Kindle], and (3) the presence of glare and reflections on the screen may make viewing difficult [applicable to any device with a shiny screen].
By citing message comments you further prove yourself to be unscientific and unanalytical... in essence, you're picking a position and scrambling to find anything that supports it (but citing documents which don't prove anything- the studies don't say LCD's are bad for e-reading and the comments don't say that either... just that Kindle fans are loyal to their device). The best you can do is fear monger based on a...
COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED fiction about backlighting and afterimages...
...such fear-mongering is A JOKE. Further, your last refuge of argument is mere deflection attempting to claim Apple fanaticism... check my list, no interest in the iPad. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether LCDs are good for e-reading or not. The University of Georgia's study found the Kindle lacking when offered to students as e-readers [to use for their studies for free] a scant 1% opting to purchase their devices, but a separate NPD survey of 1000 found 93% of those happy with their *purchase* [cognitive dissonance, ahoy]. (source: WSJ/Engadget)
Put simply, those who use it for free didn't find it that compelling, but those who bought it are more devout than most cults (which have a retention rate of about 80%)... so if you want to talk about irrational fanatics (given the great gulf between those who paid and didn't in enjoyment)... but again, that's a derail which you've started, the ultimate point is whether LCD is useful for e-reading and they unquestionably are.
If you are claiming that LCDs aren't good for "real books" (a hilarious goal-post moving statement when dealing with e-books) then what's the point of posting CVS except to spread the fear that CVS is CAUSED by LCD?
You're a fear monger and didn't present ANY evidence that CVS is caused by LCDs or that eyesight is any way better of reading on e-ink or even paper (again the December study - 30 years and 8000 patients- shows that ANY close work INCLUDING reading of ANY sort causes eye conditions, there is NO DISTINCTION between e-ink or LCD when they are BOTH close work).
Finally, you've done NOTHING to prove ANY harm related to backlighting or after-images except cite to a 1999 AOA website and a 2005 survey in India NEITHER which refer to that as a cause AT ALL.
Your link to:
"Computer vision syndrome: A study of the knowledge, attitudes and practices in Indian Ophthalmologists"
5 year old 34 question survey is not a "study" much less one that proves your point. Your new links are just as absurd. As for your inability to find the study... that's on you, but since you need to be spoonfed it's referenced here in plain english: www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/nearsightedness...
"since I don't think resolution or contrast has anything to do with it"
It's right in the article you posted, under what CAUSES CVS... you know the *actual* cause as opposed to LCD-hysteria. They specifically say, "(1) letters on the computer screen [note the page source is from 1999 BEFORE the widespread advent of LCD and is most likely referring to CRT] are not as precise or sharply defined, (2) the level of contrast of the letters to the background is reduced [much like the grey background of a Kindle], and (3) the presence of glare and reflections on the screen may make viewing difficult [applicable to any device with a shiny screen].
By citing message comments you further prove yourself to be unscientific and unanalytical... in essence, you're picking a position and scrambling to find anything that supports it (but citing documents which don't prove anything- the studies don't say LCD's are bad for e-reading and the comments don't say that either... just that Kindle fans are loyal to their device). The best you can do is fear monger based on a...
COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED fiction about backlighting and afterimages...
...such fear-mongering is A JOKE. Further, your last refuge of argument is mere deflection attempting to claim Apple fanaticism... check my list, no interest in the iPad. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether LCDs are good for e-reading or not. The University of Georgia's study found the Kindle lacking when offered to students as e-readers [to use for their studies for free] a scant 1% opting to purchase their devices, but a separate NPD survey of 1000 found 93% of those happy with their *purchase* [cognitive dissonance, ahoy]. (source: WSJ/Engadget)
Put simply, those who use it for free didn't find it that compelling, but those who bought it are more devout than most cults (which have a retention rate of about 80%)... so if you want to talk about irrational fanatics (given the great gulf between those who paid and didn't in enjoyment)... but again, that's a derail which you've started, the ultimate point is whether LCD is useful for e-reading and they unquestionably are.
If you are claiming that LCDs aren't good for "real books" (a hilarious goal-post moving statement when dealing with e-books) then what's the point of posting CVS except to spread the fear that CVS is CAUSED by LCD?
You're a fear monger and didn't present ANY evidence that CVS is caused by LCDs or that eyesight is any way better of reading on e-ink or even paper (again the December study - 30 years and 8000 patients- shows that ANY close work INCLUDING reading of ANY sort causes eye conditions, there is NO DISTINCTION between e-ink or LCD when they are BOTH close work).
Finally, you've done NOTHING to prove ANY harm related to backlighting or after-images except cite to a 1999 AOA website and a 2005 survey in India NEITHER which refer to that as a cause AT ALL.
In sum, rrtzmd says:
"I guess you could care less if all the rest of us and our children go blind using LCD screens, right?"
FEAR MONGER.
The only evidence OF BLINDNESS produced? A website from 1999 which undoubtedly refers to a low resolution [by today's standards] CRT whose only caution is to take a break every two hours... and which cites its concerns as poor text definition, contrast, and glare- issues largely eliminated by high resolution, super contrast LCDs used indoors.
ZERO CREDIBILITY.
"I guess you could care less if all the rest of us and our children go blind using LCD screens, right?"
FEAR MONGER.
The only evidence OF BLINDNESS produced? A website from 1999 which undoubtedly refers to a low resolution [by today's standards] CRT whose only caution is to take a break every two hours... and which cites its concerns as poor text definition, contrast, and glare- issues largely eliminated by high resolution, super contrast LCDs used indoors.
ZERO CREDIBILITY.
...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!
Haha, I love it, you're proving you don't even READ YOUR OWN SOURCES!
The quote comes DIRECTLY from the AOA links you've put up FOUR TIMES.
Hilarious. Proof that you just come up with BS and then scramble to find something incidental to it (using a LCD screen no less).
HYSTERICAL (in all senses of the word) when YOU posted this:
"I guess you could care less if all the rest of us and our children go blind using LCD screens, right?" And the "threat [LCD] poses to students:" PURE UNCRITICAL THINKING FEAR MONGERING.
Embarrassingly ridiculous.
Moreover, the AOA links do not cite LCDs at all and were written in 1999.
Further, you failed to find the correct study... sigh. You are basically worthless in supporting your opinion on any level. A total joke.
The quote comes DIRECTLY from the AOA links you've put up FOUR TIMES.
Hilarious. Proof that you just come up with BS and then scramble to find something incidental to it (using a LCD screen no less).
HYSTERICAL (in all senses of the word) when YOU posted this:
"I guess you could care less if all the rest of us and our children go blind using LCD screens, right?" And the "threat [LCD] poses to students:" PURE UNCRITICAL THINKING FEAR MONGERING.
Embarrassingly ridiculous.
Moreover, the AOA links do not cite LCDs at all and were written in 1999.
Further, you failed to find the correct study... sigh. You are basically worthless in supporting your opinion on any level. A total joke.
...the AOA articles don't attribute causality to anything OTHER than reading a computer screen requires the eyes work harder...they then list POSSIBLE reasons why this is so...however, that is my point -- LCD screens force the eyes AND brain to work harder than e-ink...I have MY opinions about why that is; but no one has done in depth studies as to specific causes or cures...as regards timeliness of AOA articles:
"ST. LOUIS, MO, Aug. 7, 2007– The American Optometric Association (AOA) today warned that children heading back to school are at risk for developing Computer Vision Syndrome, which leaves them vulnerable to problems like dry eye, eyestrain and fatigue. According to VSP Vision Care, nearly half of U.S. children spend four hours a day or more using computers or other portable electronic devices."
"ST. LOUIS, MO, March 13, 2008 - The American Optometric Association (AOA) today advised that Americans who use computers daily at work or at home could suffer from computer vision syndrome, which leaves them vulnerable to problems like dry eye, eyestrain, neck and/or backache, light sensitivity and fatigue...."Working at a computer requires a great deal of eye movement and eye focusing," said Dr. Kent Daum, AOA optometrist and Vice President and Dean for Academic Affairs at the Illinois College of Optometry in Chicago. "The constant re-focusing effort stresses the eye muscle, leading to computer-related vision problems. It can have a great impact on individuals' comfort and productivity, whether they are at work, school or home.""
...both articles point out things that MIGHT contribute but don't assign special merit to anything in particular...that makes SENSE since little study has been done in that regard...however, I did point to one paper where the researcher CLAIMS that LCD causes more eyestrain than plasma:
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016981410900...
...on the other hand:
kindle-reader.try1go.com/do-you-get-eyestrain-when...
...and perhaps one should consider those infamous iMac LCDs:
gizmodo.com/5463415/the-faulty-imac-saga-chapter-4...
"ST. LOUIS, MO, Aug. 7, 2007– The American Optometric Association (AOA) today warned that children heading back to school are at risk for developing Computer Vision Syndrome, which leaves them vulnerable to problems like dry eye, eyestrain and fatigue. According to VSP Vision Care, nearly half of U.S. children spend four hours a day or more using computers or other portable electronic devices."
"ST. LOUIS, MO, March 13, 2008 - The American Optometric Association (AOA) today advised that Americans who use computers daily at work or at home could suffer from computer vision syndrome, which leaves them vulnerable to problems like dry eye, eyestrain, neck and/or backache, light sensitivity and fatigue...."Working at a computer requires a great deal of eye movement and eye focusing," said Dr. Kent Daum, AOA optometrist and Vice President and Dean for Academic Affairs at the Illinois College of Optometry in Chicago. "The constant re-focusing effort stresses the eye muscle, leading to computer-related vision problems. It can have a great impact on individuals' comfort and productivity, whether they are at work, school or home.""
...both articles point out things that MIGHT contribute but don't assign special merit to anything in particular...that makes SENSE since little study has been done in that regard...however, I did point to one paper where the researcher CLAIMS that LCD causes more eyestrain than plasma:
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016981410900...
...on the other hand:
kindle-reader.try1go.com/do-you-get-eyestrain-when...
...and perhaps one should consider those infamous iMac LCDs:
gizmodo.com/5463415/the-faulty-imac-saga-chapter-4...
And again you're showing your blatant - "idea first, evidence later" approach in discrediting the AOA's express explanation under the "CAUSES OF CVS" subheading as mere speculation, but meanwhile wholeheartedly embracing the general notion of eyestrain (from a recycled 1999 article) as somehow supportive of your argument barring no reference to e-ink OR EVEN PAPER's superiority with respect to eyestrain. In fact, the only reference to paper is IN the "CAUSES" section which expressly lists criteria all of which are superior in LCDs to e-ink today.
Meanwhile, ZERO references to backlighting or after-images.
But keep digging and pretending you have credibility. You still refuse to own your statements about LCDs bringing harm to students and blindness in children. You call your brand of "attitude first, justify later" approach "thinking" or "intelligence", which is ridiculous. Taking an idea- even one based in personal experience- and touting it as a generalized broad absolute - "USELESS AS AN E-READER" is the VERY OPPOSITE of intelligence and thinking. In fact, it shares much more in common with bigotry and other forms of bias.
Meanwhile, ZERO references to backlighting or after-images.
But keep digging and pretending you have credibility. You still refuse to own your statements about LCDs bringing harm to students and blindness in children. You call your brand of "attitude first, justify later" approach "thinking" or "intelligence", which is ridiculous. Taking an idea- even one based in personal experience- and touting it as a generalized broad absolute - "USELESS AS AN E-READER" is the VERY OPPOSITE of intelligence and thinking. In fact, it shares much more in common with bigotry and other forms of bias.
...well, at least people can examine MY links and decide their merit for themselves...unlike YOU who simply makes up data from references that DON'T exist (e.g. your Archives of Ophthalmology reference) or refers to studies that have no relevance (e.g. your reference to a blog discussing a nearsightedness study)...moreover, I provided at least one link to someone who claims to demonstrate LCDs cause more eyestrain than plasma displays:
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016981410900...
...now maybe he'll get around to comparing LCDs to Kindle and ordinary books and provide some evidence there as well...meanwhile millions of Kindles have sold to people who could just have easily read books on laptops, PDAs, tablet computers, and/or netbooks that they probably ALREADY own...why might that be?...a hint from some quotes from "the kindle-reader.try1go" link I previously provided:
"Don’t worry, there is no eyestrain problem with the Kindle. I think I’ve read over 10 books with my Kindle 2, my experience is very close to reading books."
"I own the Kindle 2, and it is easy for me to say I love it! I think I’ve read a lot on it and have no experienced any sort of eyestrain or likewise symptoms if i were to read the same book on a computer."
"I’m a Kindle 2 owner and I like it very much.
I think I’ve read over 30 books with my Kindle so far, and it’s really like reading actual books. I often read for long hours and don’t feel tired, sometimes I just forgot I’m holding the device…"
...you see, there's a reason why that one survey found 93% of Kindle owners report being satisfied with their purchase...and all I ask is that people not buy into Apple's hype about ipad's capabilities...do a little research and try the products out...MY opinion is that anyone wanting to read REAL books will determine that Kindle or any e-ink based book is what they want...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016981410900...
...now maybe he'll get around to comparing LCDs to Kindle and ordinary books and provide some evidence there as well...meanwhile millions of Kindles have sold to people who could just have easily read books on laptops, PDAs, tablet computers, and/or netbooks that they probably ALREADY own...why might that be?...a hint from some quotes from "the kindle-reader.try1go" link I previously provided:
"Don’t worry, there is no eyestrain problem with the Kindle. I think I’ve read over 10 books with my Kindle 2, my experience is very close to reading books."
"I own the Kindle 2, and it is easy for me to say I love it! I think I’ve read a lot on it and have no experienced any sort of eyestrain or likewise symptoms if i were to read the same book on a computer."
"I’m a Kindle 2 owner and I like it very much.
I think I’ve read over 30 books with my Kindle so far, and it’s really like reading actual books. I often read for long hours and don’t feel tired, sometimes I just forgot I’m holding the device…"
...you see, there's a reason why that one survey found 93% of Kindle owners report being satisfied with their purchase...and all I ask is that people not buy into Apple's hype about ipad's capabilities...do a little research and try the products out...MY opinion is that anyone wanting to read REAL books will determine that Kindle or any e-ink based book is what they want...
rrtzmd described:
0. The maturity of a petulant child. Name calling and boasting.
1. Lies about the causes of eyestrain. Backlighting and afterimages completely unsupported.
2. Refuses to own statements claiming eyestrain = blindness; whereas my study showing actual harm ties to all reading.
3. Has yet to show a shred of empirical scientific evidence that LCD is useless as an e-reader.
4. Thinks that personal experience generalized is a) science and b) justification to be rude, childish, and tout a mere opinion as an absolute truth with religious, bigoted fervor.
5. All around self-embarrassing joke.
You are an idiot, you've posted the same abstract repeatedly which only provides the same dated information that there is eyestrain related to LCDs, which it's already established there is eyestrain related to ANY close up work (and nowhere does it prefer e-ink or paper). Be it reading on e-ink, assembly work, model kits, or contemplating your navel as you're so fond of doing. Even your beloved AOA links allow for HOURS of reading which hardly constitute "useless". And again, your inability to find the correct study is on you, not me... but keep being a fool.
0. The maturity of a petulant child. Name calling and boasting.
1. Lies about the causes of eyestrain. Backlighting and afterimages completely unsupported.
2. Refuses to own statements claiming eyestrain = blindness; whereas my study showing actual harm ties to all reading.
3. Has yet to show a shred of empirical scientific evidence that LCD is useless as an e-reader.
4. Thinks that personal experience generalized is a) science and b) justification to be rude, childish, and tout a mere opinion as an absolute truth with religious, bigoted fervor.
5. All around self-embarrassing joke.
You are an idiot, you've posted the same abstract repeatedly which only provides the same dated information that there is eyestrain related to LCDs, which it's already established there is eyestrain related to ANY close up work (and nowhere does it prefer e-ink or paper). Be it reading on e-ink, assembly work, model kits, or contemplating your navel as you're so fond of doing. Even your beloved AOA links allow for HOURS of reading which hardly constitute "useless". And again, your inability to find the correct study is on you, not me... but keep being a fool.
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 =)
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...
...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.
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.
