Kindle still has an advantage over the iPad

[samcraig]

So let me get this straight. You are disputing the fact that E Ink corporation, who make the screens for Kindle and Sony readers, and mention Amazon as a featured customer here, are lying when they describe their technology as e ink here and when they further refer to e ink and e paper displays here. And that in the wikipedia definition of e-ink is similarly wrong, and that howstuffworks which describes it in detail is also wrong, yet only you know "the truth"

Steve - he's both ignorant and arrogant in his opinion as he keeps posting this information as if it were fact.

Aristotle - on top of everything Steve pointed out - do you not think for a second that if you were remotely correct that this "fact" wouldn't be public knowledge?

Jeez - when the original specs for the Nook were an ounce off from when it was released, it made all online forums and news sites - and even had a memo from Barnes and Noble.

So you want us to believe there's a conspiracy here that eInk readers aren't even eInk. LOL. Right. And I supposed APPLE just let that one slide too...

 

[steve-p]

I wonder if Amazon are more worried about Nook than iPad - it looks pretty good for $259. However Amazon are ahead on international sales - Nook is US only for now.

 

[cmaier]

No. e-ink in this case is now a trademark used to sell products. e-ink which was being researched by 3M was considerably different from what this "e-ink" Kindle has. The kindle display is basically LCD like you saw on watches and calculators but with pixels instead of fixed character segments. The Newton and early Apple portables had these types of displays.

No, it's not LCD. It's a display made by a company called eink. It is not at all like LCD. It uses an electric field to cause pigmented particles to move in a fluid.

http://www.eink.com/technology/howitworks.html

 

[mrgreen4242]

No. e-ink in this case is now a trademark used to sell products. e-ink which was being researched by 3M was considerably different from what this "e-ink" Kindle has. The kindle display is basically LCD like you saw on watches and calculators but with pixels instead of fixed character segments. The Newton and early Apple portables had these types of displays.

Have you actually used a Kindle, or a Nook for that matter? You can go see the Nook at B&N and see what the ePaper display is like. It is NOTHING at all like segmented LCD displays. They do make a segmented ePaper screen, though, that is similar to what you are talking about. They used it on the cover of, I think, Esquire magazine. They are very cheap and of limited use, but are very low power and retain the high readability of ePaper. They will have a role in price signs on store shelves, I think.

Either way, as has been pointed out, you are very very wrong.

LOL - really? You get annoyed having to wait maybe a second for the new page to refresh? That's unfortunate for you that you lack ANY patience whatsoever.

As for others who don't like e-Ink. That's fine. There are plenty of us that enjoy the experience far greater than reading off a monitor.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion - and that's exactly what these comments are. Opinions. Which doesn't make anyone's any more or less valid. You don't care for reading on a Kindle. Fine. I love it. Neither one is right or wrong. The area you get into trouble is by generalizing how others feel just because that's how you feel.

I for one hate the Kindle screen. The Nook seems to update a bit faster, but the blanking is very distracting. Actually, blanking would be better... the blacking is incredibly annoying to me.

I was trying to show you that physically turning a page in a book takes considerably less than a second.

Have you tried reading a book on the iPhone or iPod touch? Yes, I do think the pages turn as fast as a physical book on the iDevices. And no, I don't need to win, but I don't want to be slower than reading on a physical book.

It's not the speed. It's the visual distraction that bothers me. It just interrupts the flow of your reading, imo. I don't mind reading on the LCD screen of my touch, either.

 

[aristotle]

I took a look at the Wikipedia page. Yes, I have taken a look at other e-ink displays and yes the technology used in kindle is not exactly the same as LCD of the past but it works in a similar fashion to the old style LCD from an end user's perspective. The underlying technology does not matter but rather what the result is. That is all that the end users who are not techno geeks care about. The problem with the actual implementation of e-ink is that the background is relatively dull compared to paper. You can accomplish a similar look with primitive LCD.

I stand by my assertion that ambient light is the most important factor in having long term readability along with high contrast on the display or medium. Paper has a high contrast between the white of the paper and the black of the ink.

 

[cmaier]

I took a look at the Wikipedia page. Yes, I have taken a look at other e-ink displays and yes the technology used in kindle is not exactly the same as LCD of the past but it works in a similar fashion to the old style LCD from an end user's perspective. The underlying technology does not matter but rather what the result is. That is all that the end users who are not techno geeks care about. The problem with the actual implementation of e-ink is that the background is relatively dull compared to paper. You can accomplish a similar look with primitive LCD.

I stand by my assertion that ambient light is the most important factor in having long term readability along with high contrast on the display or medium. Paper has a high contrast between the white of the paper and the black of the ink.

Huh? What are you saying? How does it "work in a similar fashion ... from an end user's perspective?" It not only operates in a completely different manner, but it appears different to the user. You keep claiming it's the same as LCD (either technically, or visibly, or some other way that we can't figure out), but you've yet to state a single point of similarity.

What, exactly, is "similar" about it?

 

[samcraig]

I took a look at the Wikipedia page. Yes, I have taken a look at other e-ink displays and yes the technology used in kindle is not exactly the same as LCD of the past but it works in a similar fashion to the old style LCD from an end user's perspective. The underlying technology does not matter but rather what the result is. That is all that the end users who are not techno geeks care about. The problem with the actual implementation of e-ink is that the background is relatively dull compared to paper. You can accomplish a similar look with primitive LCD.

I stand by my assertion that ambient light is the most important factor in having long term readability along with high contrast on the display or medium. Paper has a high contrast between the white of the paper and the black of the ink.

You took a look at a wikipedia page? Fantastic. You know I could edit a page on wikipedia and say that the iPad is a product of Atari. Would you then try and convince us of that?!

eInk is nothing like LCD. Try and justify your arrogance any way you want - you're wrong. Doesn't matter if you try and recreate the experience with another technology. Heck - you can make an app on any computer that will "simulate" LCD or other types of displace.

Ambient light IS important - as is high contrast. That much is true.

 

[Sketh]

I think if anything, this thread title should be called "The Kindle still has ONE advantage over the iPad."

And even then, that's a stretch.

 

[cmaier]

I think if anything, this thread title should be called "The Kindle still has ONE advantage over the iPad."

And even then, that's a stretch.

Battery life?

 

[Sketh]

Battery life?

Battery life is just about all the kindle has over the iPad without a doubt.

But even with that the limited uses of a kindle for the price almost makes up for the 10 hours or so battery life of an iPad.

 

[aristotle]

Huh? What are you saying? How does it "work in a similar fashion ... from an end user's perspective?" It not only operates in a completely different manner, but it appears different to the user. You keep claiming it's the same as LCD (either technically, or visibly, or some other way that we can't figure out), but you've yet to state a single point of similarity.

What, exactly, is "similar" about it?

How does it operate differently from a low refresh non-back lit LCD display? Have you ever seen one? Many GPS devices have that type of display. You guys are getting caught up in the hype. Instead of liquid crystals, you have charged balls that flip direction. To the end user, it looks basically the same.

 

[samcraig]

How does it operate differently from a low refresh non-back lit LCD display? Have you ever seen one? Many GPS devices have that type of display. You guys are getting caught up in the hype. Instead of liquid crystals, you have charged balls that flip direction. To the end user, it looks basically the same.

No. to the end user it definitely does NOT look the same. Have you even SEEN eInk? Or maybe you're basing this on images you saw on wikipedia?

 

[cmaier]

How does it operate differently from a low refresh non-back lit LCD display? Have you ever seen one? Many GPS devices have that type of display. You guys are getting caught up in the hype. Instead of liquid crystals, you have charged balls that flip direction. To the end user, it looks basically the same.

I've seen both a kindle and a nook, both of which use the same display. I have never seen a GPS device with a display that looks anything like it. Among other things, there is no feeling with the eink that the print is "floating" above the substrate. It looks like actual ink on the surface of a page. There is no gap between "segments" so the text looks very sharp.

In short, as one would expect given that the technology is completely different, the result is completely different.

Since you are the one claiming that these two very different types of technology produce the same result, a claim that, if true, would be quite unexpected, I think it's incumbent upon you to explain the basis for your contention that these things look the same, and not incumbent upon the rest of us to argue what seems the more likely result.

 

[DaveSW]

i think e-ink is over-rated. Every time i do any extended reading on my iPhone or my macbook i just dim the brightness of my screen. Works great FOR ME.

This is just my experience so feel free to ignore me.

 

[cmaier]

i think e-ink is over-rated. Every time i do any extended reading on my iPhone or my macbook i just dim the brightness of my screen. Works great FOR ME.

This is just my experience so feel free to ignore me.

Don't disagree, really. I am not that impressed with e-ink - at least not enough to be willing to carry a dedicated device.

 

[Casiotone]

i think e-ink is over-rated. Every time i do any extended reading on my iPhone or my macbook i just dim the brightness of my screen. Works great FOR ME.

This is just my experience so feel free to ignore me.

I'm with you on that, I'd like to see someone explain what's the difference between an backlit LCD with the brightness turned down and an e-ink display (aside from the battery life).

It's almost like e-ink proponents think that e-ink emits (or reflects) "magical" photons that don't burn the eyes like the ones from a backlit color LCD.

Seriously, turn down the brightness of an LCD until it matches the light output of an e-ink display reflecting ambient light... what's the difference?

 

[MikhailT]

I'm with you on that, I'd like to see someone explain what's the difference between an backlit LCD with the brightness turned down and an e-ink display (aside from the battery life).

It's almost like e-ink proponents think that e-ink emits (or reflects) "magical" photons that don't burn the eyes like the ones from a backlit color LCD.

Seriously, turn down the brightness of an LCD until it matches the light output of an e-ink display reflecting ambient light... what's the difference?

That's what PixelQi is based on, LCD with a switch to turn off backlighting. That's what Apple should've gone with and I'm still pissed they didn't.

As for the differences, they are the contrast and viewing angles. The contrast on the e-ink while requiring no power to hold the static image, are extremely high with hugh viewing angel where majority of cheap-medium LCDs are crappy and bad viewing angles. You don't want to hold an ebook reader at certain angle all the time as most people adjust it to fit their body position, so that's an issue as well. Luckily Apple went with the IPS panel which could change everything.

 

[Casiotone]

That's what PixelQi is based on, LCD with a switch to turn off backlighting. That's what Apple should've gone with and I'm still pissed they didn't.

As for the differences, they are the contrast and viewing angles. The contrast on the e-ink while requiring no power to hold the static image, are extremely high with hugh viewing angel where majority of cheap-medium LCDs are crappy and bad viewing angles. You don't want to hold an ebook reader at certain angle all the time as most people adjust it to fit their body position, so that's an issue as well. Luckily Apple went with the IPS panel which could change everything.

As you said, Apple went with an IPS LCD panel so your point about viewing angles (and up to a point, contrast) is almost moot.

As for PixelQi, it's an unproven technology and from some early reviews the colors "are not as vivid" as an LCD screen, which may be even truer compared to an IPS screen. I also feel that the few people that had the chance to see a PixelQi screen in person understate the lack of color vividness because of the promise of the low power e-ink like mode.

I'd like to see a side-to-side comparison between the PixelQi screen and an IPS screen. I suspect that the difference in terms of color reproduction will be greater than between an IPS panel and an OLED panel.

Edit: There must be a somewhat valid reason why Apple didn't go with PixelQi, they didn't do that just to piss you off, and I don't see what kind of crazy conspiracy theory people could make up to explain their choice (Aside from: IPS LCD makes it easier to hypnotize people?). I guess you could blame Apple for wanting faithful color reproduction on a device that will do a lot more than e-books.

 

[drtyrell]

The Kindle is an excellent device. Properly priced, not trying to be something its not. I think you're going to see some really cool innovation with this machine in the coming months.

 

[lordhamster]

The kindle Dx is really technologically close to what I want, but cripped software wise.

What I want from it is: a simple email client and or a simple web-browser capable of checking Gmail. With the international wireless capabilities it has, it would be a boon to travelers. But nooooooooo! they had to nerf it.

 

[Bytor65]

Hello, I'm an iPad, and I'm a Kindle...

This is probably the thread I should have found from the beginning as I was looking for an ereader when iPad was announced and after that ereader was dead to me.

I see the iPad as the best ereader for 2010 and that is why I want one, everything else is a bonus. This would be my first Apple product.

I think Kindles market will be impacted depending on how much Apple markets against it.

Imagine if you will:
Hello, I'm an iPad, and I'm a Kindle...

The visual comparison of a B&W display with 1 second response time vs a full color, instant responding, slick touch scrolling will make the Kindle look prehistoric.

I think Apple can make massive inroads to this ereader market if they market against it.

 

[samcraig]

Imagine if you will:
Hello, I'm an iPad, and I'm a Kindle...

The visual comparison of a B&W display with 1 second response time vs a full color, instant responding, slick touch scrolling will make the Kindle look prehistoric.

I think Apple can make massive inroads to this ereader market if they market against it.

Some people still fail to understand that while the Kindle market might be dented, there are still millions of people that don't want/can't afford to spend $499 and up no matter how much more they might get. And that for some people, reading on a Kindle with eInk is something they prefer.

It doesn't matter which device does more. Which looks slicker. Which is in color or not. Some people actually don't care. I know it's hard to understand - especially the younger generations which are "entitled" - but I assure you - there are many who differ. That's not a commentary about the devices but about choices and human beings.

 

[Bytor65]

It doesn't matter which device does more. Which looks slicker. Which is in color or not. Some people actually don't care. I know it's hard to understand - especially the younger generations which are "entitled" - but I assure you - there are many who differ. That's not a commentary about the devices but about choices and human beings.

It doesn't matter, In your opinion. Why do you always assume you are better at gauging the market than everyone else? You are kind of like the Bill O'Rielly of this forum. You speak authoritatively even when you don't know what your are talking about (like netbook displays).

I am sure you might find someone who didn't care about color TV either, but they would be the minority.

I have already switched my purchase decision from a cheaper eReader to an iPad and they haven't even been marketing yet. So I am part of the group I am describing.

If you actually put both in a commercial side by side. The e-ink readers will look comically bad in comparison. I can't remember the last time something was such a lop sided comparison.

I am not claiming there won't be people who stick with e-ink readers, but IMO if you are showing both to someone who doesn't yet have e-ink, the majority would go for an iPad. Which is Faster/slicker/color over prehistoric slow/clunky B&W e-ink.

 

[DaveSW]

Some people still fail to understand that while the Kindle market might be dented, there are still millions of people that don't want/can't afford to spend $499 and up no matter how much more they might get. And that for some people, reading on a Kindle with eInk is something they prefer.

It doesn't matter which device does more. Which looks slicker. Which is in color or not. Some people actually don't care. I know it's hard to understand - especially the younger generations which are "entitled" - but I assure you - there are many who differ. That's not a commentary about the devices but about choices and human beings.

We're not saying the Kindle will disappear. sure people will continue to buy Kindles.

We're saying the iPad is a BETTER e-reader and over-all device than the Kindle.

 

[steve-p]

The visual comparison of a B&W display with 1 second response time vs a full color, instant responding, slick touch scrolling will make the Kindle look prehistoric.

Except that presumably Sony, Amazon and the manufacturers of the other 30+ existing eBook readers all specifically chose to go with eInk as the most suitable technology for an eBook reader, despite it being a more expensive technology. They could easily have used an LCD screen instead, and it would have cost less to make with LCD, but they didn't do that. The Kindle 2's 6" screen is supposed to cost $60 to manufacture, and since the much bigger iPad screen is $80 it would be well under that price for a 6" version.

The bottom line is that regardless of how good the iPad is as an overall device, if someone wants a device just for reading and they don't care about the other stuff, they may still buy a dedicated eBook reader instead.