Barnes & Noble e-reader rumored to be merging of Kindle, iPhone

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 81
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Can you try to explain how the eye "knows" that photons coming from the surface of a screen are bouncing off it, or are coming through it?



    They can't.



    Not to really weigh in on either side of this issue but, a) "eye-strain" isn't strain of the retinas and, b) clearly the brain can recognize reflected vs. transmitted images, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that reflected light can have a different effect -- i.e., cause more or less muscle strain around the eyes -- than transmitted light.
  • Reply 62 of 81
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Not to really weigh in on either side of this issue but, a) "eye-strain" isn't strain of the retinas and, b) clearly the brain can recognize reflected vs. transmitted images, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that reflected light can have a different effect -- i.e., cause more or less muscle strain around the eyes -- than transmitted light.



    Yes. It's muscle strain. The iris is also affected very strongly.



    The brightness of the light, and the contrast differences do that. Also focus changes at short distances can cause strain.



    The fact that can recognize reflected vs transmitted images has nothing to do with it. We recognize many things.



    The brain doesn't think "Ooh, a transmitted image, wow! What a headache I'm going to get from that!"



    Light is light. It's the amount that the problem.
  • Reply 63 of 81
    habihabi Posts: 317member
    wonder how they made multitouch on the device and if so is apple going to act on it? Even if its not direct competition. But they seemed to have made a lot of fuzz about their patents but nobody so far has stepped so much into multitouch side so i wonder if they are just scared of getting into legal trouble. Nokia implemented a screw zoom etc... But is see that if apple isnt going to defend their patents then others will start moving into that territory... That said this device might have produced some other methods of multitouch.....
  • Reply 64 of 81
    I think this brewing battle of the e-readers is going to be more about content, pricing and accessibility than screen quality or eyestrain. iTunes always worked great with our own rips of previously-bought music and I suspect that an Apple e-reader will be designed to work better with our existing libraries. Not that everyone is going to go out and buy a book scanner but whoever charges the least for their downloads of new and public-domain digital copies will figure largely in this. I think that will mean Project Gutenberg and Google Books too, both places I'm not sure Amazon or Barnes and Noble want you going to.
  • Reply 65 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    and let's make this our mantra too for the changing times:



    NO DRM for BOOKS, FREE DIGITAL COPY for EVERY PHYSICAL BOUGHT.



    this is VERY important because amazon and publishers want to pull a fast on us like the music biz, to have us buy our books like vinyl and cd twice over. It's INEXCUSABLE how the have de facto managed to sell us physical copies of books without a free digital version if available and how they expect us to buy twice a book just for the priviledge of having a lighter bag and reading some pages of a book you already have on the go.



    DEMAND IT NOW. NO DRM, NO DOUBLE PRICE.



    I'm not sure I really understand this argument. If I'm buying a physical book, I don't expect a free download of the audiobook version. If I'm buying a Blu-Ray disc, I don't expect to get a digital download of it for free.



    If the world was how you wanted it, maybe we'd all be living in a communist society where you could trade up media formats from ten or two thousand years ago for free...



    It's your choice whether to buy something twice or not...and surely e-readers and their content are designed to replace books anyway Stick to one format or the other, and don't switch between the two part way through the book is surely the answer.



    And where do you draw the line? If I bought a Penguin physical copy of A Tale Of Two Cities, could I have the digital download if the only one available was the Wordsworth Classic edition? After all, it's the same book, based on your argument...
  • Reply 66 of 81
    I happened to look at these comments (admittedly, I wondered why the heck anyone thought they even needed to "comment" on a column about a potential reading device from B&N) and found some of the comments hysterical. The self-important declarations about trivialities are a riot, as are the efforts to "one-up" those with different positions. But without calling out screen handles, some of you sound like the biggest dorks in the world, with way too much time to puzzle about things that will be irrelevant in six months. I have a feeling there aren't many readers of Foreign Policy in this group.



    I mean, taking time to point out that someone misspelled a word. Are you kidding me?
  • Reply 67 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    I am sorry. This is incorrect. LCD screens cause eye strain to me personally and to many people I know, not because of their ergonomics but because of the nature of how they function emitting light. I find it impossible to read for any length on them. I have two wink devices and they are great to read on. that said I am eagerly awaiting for apples tablet. just for an internet on the go device it will be great, much better than this bastardized barnes and noble thing. And I hope apple come up with a great screen and a very usable device, I am sure they will. but it will be for casual reading not booklengthwise. e ink is the way of the future and anyone who's used such a device will attest to how easier it is to read on it than LCD screens.



    and let's make this our mantra too for the changing times:



    NO DRM for BOOKS, FREE DIGITAL COPY for EVERY PHYSICAL BOUGHT.



    this is VERY important because amazon and publishers want to pull a fast on us like the music biz, to have us buy our books like vinyl and cd twice over. It's INEXCUSABLE how the have de facto managed to sell us physical copies of books without a free digital version if available and how they expect us to buy twice a book just for the priviledge of having a lighter bag and reading some pages of a book you already have on the go.



    DEMAND IT NOW. NO DRM, NO DOUBLE PRICE.



    I am over 70 (years, lbs, inches, MPH...). I have been looking at computer displays since the 1960s (IBM 2260 CRT terminal with orange characters on a dark gray screen-- AIR, 20 lines of 60 7x9-dot characters & no graphics).



    I sit at a computer probably 8 hrs a day. In spurts, I read lots of books. I write code-- presently iPhone apps and [experimenting with] iTunes LPs. I am constantly surfing or reading reference material.



    I used to do this on microfiche or technical manuals (with mono-spaced text for code) reproduced from dot-matrix printers or core dumps from computer line printers).



    I don't get eyestrain from LCDs. In the bad old days (above) I was able to avoid eyestrain (and stay awake) by looking away, periodically, and taking a moment to digest what I just read. This has become a habit that serves me well for most reading-- I find it more enjoyable and have much better comprehension and retention.



    I like reading books on the iPhone, because:



    1) I can read in bed, at night, in any position, without fiddling with lights.



    2) my books are always with me, exactly where I left off



    3) I like to look at the pictures, especially the color ones



    4) I can adjust the type face, type size, background, brightness, etc., and pan/zoom when desired.



    5) I can get a new book in minutes without even getting up from my chair



    6) it is more convenient, less expensive, more efficient.





    As to the DRM. I have the Kindle app for the iPhone, and it allows a single-copy-purchased eBook to be read concurrently on at least 5 devices.



    That seems more than fair to me!



    *
  • Reply 68 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post


    So, we now get Barnes and Noble news too? This isn't about Apple!



    @camroidv2 from signature

    I am free from the confines of Apple's small little world.

    Apple free since '09! Go Linux, Stay Open.



    If you are free from Apple why worry about what AI reports - I would think you would be much more interested in a Linux site!



    P.S. I know what a hemorrhoid is but what is a camroid?
  • Reply 69 of 81
    kishankishan Posts: 732member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by star-fish View Post


    I'm not sure I really understand this argument. If I'm buying a physical book, I don't expect a free download of the audiobook version. If I'm buying a Blu-Ray disc, I don't expect to get a digital download of it for free.



    If the world was how you wanted it, maybe we'd all be living in a communist society where you could trade up media formats from ten or two thousand years ago for free...



    It's your choice whether to buy something twice or not...and surely e-readers and their content are designed to replace books anyway Stick to one format or the other, and don't switch between the two part way through the book is surely the answer.



    And where do you draw the line? If I bought a Penguin physical copy of A Tale Of Two Cities, could I have the digital download if the only one available was the Wordsworth Classic edition? After all, it's the same book, based on your argument...



    And if we do what the media companies want, we'd be purchasing separate versions of media for consumption on our home computer, mobile computer, iPod, iPhone, Television and so forth. While I might agree that purchasing a physical book does not entitle me to a digital copy, I do believe that once I have a digital copy, I ought to be able to use it on any digital device that I own.
  • Reply 70 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    It also pointing out how long Apple has taken to get in the game IMO. First the iTab was to take on Netbooks now its to take on e-readers. It has a lot to live up to at this point.

    But as we all know Apple will do it right and it will all just work at least by the 2nd or 3rd gen.



    @teckstud

    As far as I am aware Apple has announced nothing about ANY tablet. Your spew about "1st Netbooks, now eBooks..." is all RUMOR. Don't blame it on Apple - blame it on the media and rumor-whores like yourself.
  • Reply 71 of 81
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Yes. It's muscle strain. The iris is also affected very strongly.



    The brightness of the light, and the contrast differences do that. Also focus changes at short distances can cause strain.



    The fact that can recognize reflected vs transmitted images has nothing to do with it. We recognize many things.



    The brain doesn't think "Ooh, a transmitted image, wow! What a headache I'm going to get from that!"



    Light is light. It's the amount that the problem.



    I think you're being more than a bit naive here. The point is that there are obviously differences in transmitted and reflected light. It's also a bit ridiculous to think that one's brain (consciously or unconsciously) has to 'think', "... What a headache I'm going to get from that!" for you to get a headache. If you can distinguish between the two, that means they are in some way not identical and there may be effects on the related muscles of which you are unaware.



    As you rightly admit, it's muscle strain. As you also say, "...focus changes at short distances can cause strain." One difference between reflected and transmitted images is that when one is in focus the other is often out, so, one possibility is that reflections cause one to rapidly shift one's focus between the reflected and transmitted image, resulting in muscle strain. Reflected light is also more scattered than transmitted light so that the overall effect of the two may have different effects. If I bothered to take the time, I could probably produce a very long list of differences, and there are many possible effects that could be occurring of which we are unaware.



    So, while you could be correct in your overall argument, the assertion that reflected and transmitted light can't possibly have different effects because the individual photons are indistinguishable is utterly unsubstantiated, rash, and indefensible.
  • Reply 72 of 81
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post


    I happened to look at these comments (admittedly, I wondered why the heck anyone thought they even needed to "comment" on a column about a potential reading device from B&N) and found some of the comments hysterical. The self-important declarations about trivialities are a riot, as are the efforts to "one-up" those with different positions. But without calling out screen handles, some of you sound like the biggest dorks in the world, with way too much time to puzzle about things that will be irrelevant in six months. I have a feeling there aren't many readers of Foreign Policy in this group.



    I mean, taking time to point out that someone misspelled a word. Are you kidding me?



    So what is your contribution? Every thread on every web site has pointless comments. This is no different.



    Did yours just ADD to the discussion, or was it just more of the same?
  • Reply 73 of 81
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    I think you're being more than a bit naive here. The point is that there are obviously differences in transmitted and reflected light. It's also a bit ridiculous to think that one's brain (consciously or unconsciously) has to 'think', "... What a headache I'm going to get from that!" for you to get a headache. If you can distinguish between the two, that means they are in some way not identical and there may be effects on the related muscles of which you are unaware.



    As you rightly admit, it's muscle strain. As you also say, "...focus changes at short distances can cause strain." One difference between reflected and transmitted images is that when one is in focus the other is often out, so, one possibility is that reflections cause one to rapidly shift one's focus between the reflected and transmitted image, resulting in muscle strain. Reflected light is also more scattered than transmitted light so that the overall effect of the two may have different effects. If I bothered to take the time, I could probably produce a very long list of differences, and there are many possible effects that could be occurring of which we are unaware.



    So, while you could be correct in your overall argument, the assertion that reflected and transmitted light can't possibly have different effects because the individual photons are indistinguishable is utterly unsubstantiated, rash, and indefensible.



    I don't think I'm that naive. I have a Masters in biology, a Masters in psychology, and have been in the commercial photography and publishing industries since 1969.



    You are making an assumption that makes no sense whatsoever. If you can actually prove what you say, then please do so.
  • Reply 74 of 81
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't think I'm that naive. I have a Masters in biology, a Masters in psychology, and have been in the commercial photography and publishing industries since 1969.



    You are making an assumption that makes no sense whatsoever. If you can actually prove what you say, then please do so.



    Well, you are the one making the unsubstantiated claim. I'm the one saying you have no foundation to support it. If you do have the foundation to support it, then present it. Otherwise, don't make the claim. So far you haven't presented anything to back it up other than "photons are photons" and I don't think, for reasons already given, that justifies the assertion. However, I'm not claiming that there absolutely is a difference, just that you've given no evidence to support the claim that there isn't, and I've pointed to a couple, of many, possibilities as to why you could possibly be wrong in your assertion. So, in this instance, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
  • Reply 75 of 81
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, you are the one making the unsubstantiated claim. I'm the one saying you have no foundation to support it. If you do have the foundation to support it, then present it. Otherwise, don't make the claim. So far you haven't presented anything to back it up other than "photons are photons" and I don't think, for reasons already given, that justifies the assertion. However, I'm not claiming that there absolutely is a difference, just that you've given no evidence to support the claim that there isn't, and I've pointed to a couple, of many, possibilities as to why you could possibly be wrong in your assertion. So, in this instance, the burden of proof is on you, not me.



    The problem is that it doesn't work that way.



    Users of e-ink devices are the ones, along with the manufacturers of such devices, who are making the claims. Therefor you are the ones responsible for proving them.



    I can offer a rebuttal, but you are the one required to bring the proof.



    If you, and others didn't FIRST make the claim about the screens readability qualities, I, and others here, wouldn't have posted replies.



    The ball is in your court. You can't weasel out of that.
  • Reply 76 of 81
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The problem is that it doesn't work that way.



    Users of e-ink devices are the ones, along with the manufacturers of such devices, who are making the claims. Therefor you are the ones responsible for proving them.



    I can offer a rebuttal, but you are the one required to bring the proof.



    If you, and others didn't FIRST make the claim about the screens readability qualities, I, and others here, wouldn't have posted replies.



    The ball is in your court. You can't weasel out of that.



    No, the ball is most definitely in your court. Here's the claim you made:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It's a complete fallacy that emitting light has anything to do with eyestrain.



    Can you try to explain how the eye "knows" that photons coming from the surface of a screen are bouncing off it, or are coming through it?



    They can't. It has nothing to do with it. It's all a matter of brightness, contrast, distance, angle of view, and other factors.



    Your key point being that unless the eye can somehow distinguish the source of individual photons that, "It has nothing to do with it."



    You've offered no evidence that the ability of the eye to distinguish the source of individual photons is at all key, or even relevant, to whether reflected light is, or that reflected images are, identical in its/their effects to transmitted light. It's at least plausible, and I think probable, that your assertion is incorrect. However, I'm not asserting the opposite, just saying that you haven't offered any supporting evidence for your assertion, nor probably made any effort to empirically verify it. There's really nothing here for me to prove, other that there are possibilities that you would need to rule out to be able to state the above assertion as fact, and I've done that.



    Simply put in other terms, I have not asserted that there is a difference, while you have asserted there is none, and I believe it's usually customary for the one making the assertion to support it.
  • Reply 77 of 81
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    No, the ball is most definitely in your court. Here's the claim you made:







    Your key point being that unless the eye can somehow distinguish the source of individual photons that, "It has nothing to do with it."



    You've offered no evidence that the ability of the eye to distinguish the source of individual photons is at all key, or even relevant, to whether reflected light is, or that reflected images are, identical in its/their effects to transmitted light. It's at least plausible, and I think probable, that your assertion is incorrect. However, I'm not asserting the opposite, just saying that you haven't offered any supporting evidence for your assertion, nor probably made any effort to empirically verify it. There's really nothing here for me to prove, other that there are possibilities that you would need to rule out to be able to state the above assertion as fact, and I've done that.



    Again, you don't understand.



    YOU are the one claiming that it can. YOU have to offer proof that it does. I can tell you that you're wrong as many times as I like, but YOU must first prove your claim. If I disagree with that proof, then I must offer an alternative.



    That's the way it works.



    Quote:

    Simply put in other terms, I have not asserted that there is a difference, while you have asserted there is none, and I believe it's usually customary for the one making the assertion to support it.



    But you have.
  • Reply 78 of 81
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Again, you don't understand.



    YOU are the one claiming that it can. YOU have to offer proof that it does. I can tell you that you're wrong as many times as I like, but YOU must first prove your claim. If I disagree with that proof, then I must offer an alternative.



    That's the way it works.







    But you have.



    It's a sad state of affairs when the moderators start to sound like techstud.



    Please point out where I made a claim one way or the other, as opposed to criticizing yours, your categorical claim that it cannot, as unfounded.
  • Reply 79 of 81
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    It's a sad state of affairs when the moderators start to sound like techstud.



    Please point out where I made a claim one way or the other, as opposed to criticizing yours, your categorical claim that it cannot, as unfounded.



    A quote from you:



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse

    Not to really weigh in on either side of this issue but, a) "eye-strain" isn't strain of the retinas and, b) clearly the brain can recognize reflected vs. transmitted images, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that reflected light can have a different effect -- i.e., cause more or less muscle strain around the eyes -- than transmitted light.



    I believe that's how the two of us started this.



    It's those who have e-ink devices who have started this debate about viewing quality, and reflected vs. transmitted light, whether it was you or someone else doesn't matter.



    Whoever takes the side of those beginning the argument is required to prove it, either as a group, or singly, it doesn't matter.



    You've taken up their argument, I've just been responding to it.



    So, if you have any real evidence, please show it.



    Don't play a game of saying that I'm the new Techstud. That's silly, and doesn't win you any points.
  • Reply 80 of 81
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    A quote from you:







    I believe that's how the two of us started this.



    It's those who have e-ink devices who have started this debate about viewing quality, and reflected vs. transmitted light, whether it was you or someone else doesn't matter.



    Whoever takes the side of those beginning the argument is required to prove it, either as a group, or singly, it doesn't matter.



    You've taken up their argument, I've just been responding to it.



    So, if you have any real evidence, please show it.



    Don't play a game of saying that I'm the new Techstud. That's silly, and doesn't win you any points.



    First of all, you will perhaps notice, in the post you quoted that I am not taking a side, but merely objecting to an unsubstantiated assertion.



    Secondly, your notion that only one side in a discussion needs to substantiate its claims is ridiculuous to say the least. Although, it's an interesting comment for other reasons.



    Lastly, I didn't say that you were the new techstud, but that you were starting to sound like him. Something for you to think about perhaps.
Sign In or Register to comment.