Why is Amazon looking to try and compete with the mighty Apple and try and replicate the functionality of the iPad. Surely this is a battle that it is never going to win.
I am a complete Apple Fanboy yet I am finding it hard to justify buying the iPad. Do I want one? - hell yeah - do I need one? - hmmm. I have an iPod touch and for me the thing that excited me most about a tablet was books. However I consider the iPad expensive and not a true e-reader without an e-ink screen so not compelling on this front. I am not sure that getting an iPad is the right thing to do. However given the cost of the Kindle being not sufficiently different I would probable still get the iPad for it's extra functionality.
Here is the crux of the issue - if the Kindle concentrated just on being an e-reader and had a much more reasonable price point then for me it would be a no-brainer - I would get the Kindle. (And as I say I am a complete Apple Fanboy)
Amazon needs to concentrate on competing where it can win - multifunction tablet device - not a chance in hell - quality cheap e-reader - most definitely.
I fear that it is going to take the wrong path and in doing so make itself obsolete.
Do you NEED a bookreader? No. Do you NEED a laptop? No. In fact, you don't really NEED a computer either.
It's rarely a matter of need. That's just people's way of convincing themselves that they should justify buying something.
Do any of those things make life more convenient? Yes. Are they desirable? Yes.
That's the honest way of looking at it. You don't even NEED a computer for a small business, but it sure makes it easier!
So, do you NEED an iPad? No. But it will be useful, and enjoyable to use.
Authors get about 25% of the price of a book. If Amazon ends up cutting the price down to make a profit, everyone will get reduced.
Apple's pricing model is better for everyone long term.
Authors do get a percentage, but I've not seen 25% except maybe for a few big name authors, most figures I've seen are 10% to 15%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Yes, as I said, I have. I see no value in it other than for outside reading. I firmly believe that any so called advantages are psychological in nature. Too many people have their devices turned up too high, and so they're simply too bright. The only reason why e-ink MIGHT seem better is because it's much dimmer. In good light, that works. but in dimmer light, it doesn't. Half of one half of another. If people adjusted their displays properly, there wouldn't be a problem.
People do seem to crank their screen brightness pretty high. I usually set my screens to the bottom quarter of the scale.
If Kindle allows me to buy books that work on multiple platforms, to avoid the "Apple Lock-in", that could work very well. Read my books on a Kindle, Windows, Mac, iPad, iPhone, Gpad etc.
It does not. You are locked into their own format. No computer. In fact, if you lose your Kindle, you lose your books. At least, that's the way it is now. There have been complaints about that. And, unlike Apple's method so far, you cant back up anything on a computer, so no hard backup on a DVD is possible.
Quote:
This is presuming that the price cuts for eBooks doesn't come purely from the printing and distribution proportion of costs, which are largely removed in a eBook model.
Well, if we look at how much the book does cost in a "real" book store, not a Costco, selling just a very small number of titles at a very low price where they lose money, but use it as a price leader to get people in the store, then we see the average selling price is somewhat over $18. small bookstores sell it for more, but the big chains sell it for less.
But the price will be $12.99 to $14.99. That's a bit lower. It's also just the price while the hardcover is at full price. The price drops after that.
The costs are realized during that hardcover sales period. If they aren't, we may never see a trade paperback, and we're less likely to see a pocket version later.
Amazon is paying half the list price for a book, but paying substantially less. What does that say?
If the printing and distributing costs are about 25%, on average, then publishers are doing pretty well with Amazon there. But if Amazon cuts the price to around $7, which they would have to in order to make a profit, that entire model for the industry goes out the window.
At $7, its almost impossible for the publishers to recover costs. If that cuts into hardcover sales in a big way, it will simply make fewer books profitable. That will mean less books published over the year.
The only books that will make money are those by authors such as James Patterson and a few others. Where will the industry be then?
We see talk of people self publishing, and thats a good thing. They can afford to price their own books much lower. But who are these people? How will anyone know if they're good? Do you go by the book reviews in the app store? I've found them, for the most part, to be useless.
What about nurturing new young authors as publishers do? What about editing? What about copy checking and proofing? What about fact checking? What about artists? What about about layout editing and font selection, etc.? Then there are marketing costs.
These are all valid issues.
If a book sold for $25, and the digital edition sold for $19, that would be a good price. It would leave everything in place except print production and distribution. But books are sold much closer to the line. Publishing is not a high profit industry because most of the product loses money.
Aiming for the moon doesn't actually allow for hitting a star.
Kindle is a book reader appliance. It is supposed to be neither game console nor full functional computer.
e-Ink is healthier choice for a book reader in the long run. LED/backlit LCDs will ruin our eyes in the final end.
Make it colorful. Add dynamic content; it may not be sufficiently motion-capable to display video, but a slideshow looks splendidly on the device. Remove stupid buttons and add multitouch screen. Make it look like perfected page of a book. Offer premium content adapted to device capabilities.
Price it as a book reader and not as multi-purpose mobile computer with productivity capabilities.
All of that raises the price.
Remember that the DX, which does none of what you suggest, already costs $489. That's the price of the iPad, which is vastly more. The only reason why the DX does cost that much is the larger e-ink screen which is the size of the iPad screen, but which costs much more.
Unless Amazon is pricing the device well over its cost, which is unlikely, how much more would it cost to do what you suggest?
An e-ink screen is just not suitable for much other than what it does now. Color versions, which have been seen in experimental versions look, quite frankly, lousy. It's not enough having color if it looks faded and inaccurate.
There's also no evidence that LCD's are any worse, if they're properly adjusted.
It does not. You are locked into their own format. No computer. In fact, if you lose your Kindle, you lose your books. At least, that's the way it is now. There have been complaints about that. And, unlike Apple's method so far, you cant back up anything on a computer, so no hard backup on a DVD is possible.
Every account I've seen so far about lost kindle is that they won't remotely brick it or try to triangulate it, but you can de-register it and authorize a new kindle for your account. Just register your account on a new kindle, and you can re-download your purchases. It seems people that say otherwise might be misunderstanding it.
Every time I pay several bucks extra for an eBook, I will fall to my knees and thank iSteve.
I SEE THE LIGHT!
You don't get it, do you? Amazon is trying to fix the price at $9.99 for all books, all the time. That's been their stated goal. Apple and publishers want to have new books at $12.99 to $14.99, but then keep dropping the price as paperbacks come out to $4.99. most of a books life is in paperback. Would you rather alway have to pay $9.99 for a book, or would you rather wait until the paperback came out, and pay much less?
Do you always, assuming that you buy books, get a book as soon as it comes out at the high hardcover price, or do you often wait until it's in paperback, like many, or even most people do, and pay the 40% of the hardcover price?
Would you rather that all paper books cost $12.50 all the time, or would you rather that they were $18 when they first came out, and then dropped to $7.50?
Authors do get a percentage, but I've not seen 25% except maybe for a few big name authors, most figures I've seen are 10% to 15%.
I've never seen 10%. I've seen 15% occasionally. Some of the biggest authors get as much as 30%.
I'm using an average.
Quote:
People do seem to crank their screen brightness pretty high. I usually set my screens to the bottom quarter of the scale.
Most people leave their screen the way it comes from the factory, which is to say, way too bright, too much contrast, and much too blue. All of which can contribute to eye strain.
I'll never say that you can't get eyestrain from a monitor, but it's not the fault of the technology. It's the fault of the people using them who fail to set them properly, and the manufacturers, who know that the brighter, more contrasty, and bluer settings sell more monitors to people who don't know any better, and who then fail to tell their customers the proper way to adjust them.
E-ink seems better to some, because it can't be set too bright, because it has no emitted light. That's the ONLY reason why it MAY seem better. But then, you can get eyestrain from e-ink in dim light where it's not very good. I can barely read my friends Kindle in many settings, and he can't either. When on his couch, he's got to sidle up to the lamp, or he can't see the type. I tried reading it in my bed with my end table lamp, but the reflection (yes, from the matt screen!) and the oblique light placement made it difficult. Outdoors, it's great.
Every account I've seen so far about lost kindle is that they won't remotely brick it or try to triangulate it, but you can de-register it and authorize a new kindle for your account. Just register your account on a new kindle, and you can re-download your purchases. It seems people that say otherwise might be misunderstanding it.
Those are still in beta, so we'll see what happens. But up to now, there was no way. Amazon seems to have responded to the criticism. That's something. There were plenty of complaints about that.
The E-ink display has ultra-low power consumption and causes no eye strain, making it perfect for reading books, but its lack of color and low refresh rate make it useless for other functions. Uninformed consumers also refuse to buy the Kindle based on its grayscale display, without knowing the benefits of E-ink.
No eye-strain? Buaaa haaaa haaa haaa.
That assertion would make an excellent marketing bullet point. But I haven't seen any claims of "no" strain, nor is there consensus on that assertion of less strain.
My personal experience has been that e-ink does not lessen eye strain. Because of the decreased contrast, I actually have to focus on the text harder.
Remember, everyone's physiology is different. Just like mouse usage, some people experience pain with one type of usage but not another... while another person has the exact opposite experience.
As of yet, e-ink has only been proven to have better battery life. But i'm willing to be proven wrong. Can anyone point to a scientific study that empirically proves eye strain levels for LCDs vs e-ink? I'm genuinely interested in such studies if they do indeed exist. Otherwise, I'll stick to my current theory, that lessened eye strain is just marketing hype.
Can anyone point to a scientific study that empirically proves eye strain levels for LCDs vs e-ink? I'm genuinely interested in such studies if they do indeed exist. Otherwise, I'll stick to my current theory, that lessened eye strain is just marketing hype.
I spend twice as many hours a day tied to an LCD than I do sleeping. It's almost all reading, too. These claims have never rang true to me.
That assertion would make an excellent marketing bullet point. But I haven't seen any claims of "no" strain, nor is there consensus on that assertion of less strain.
My personal experience has been that e-ink does not lessen eye strain. Because of the decreased contrast, I actually have to focus on the text harder.
Remember, everyone's physiology is different. Just like mouse usage, some people experience pain with one type of usage but not another... while another person has the exact opposite experience.
As of yet, e-ink has only been proven to have better battery life. But i'm willing to be proven wrong. Can anyone point to a scientific study that empirically proves eye strain levels for LCDs vs e-ink? I'm genuinely interested in such studies if they do indeed exist. Otherwise, I'll stick to my current theory, that lessened eye strain is just marketing hype.
There is no real study, just something that's not a study pointed to by E-ink themselves.
It's a matter of being told that it's better, and of those who want to believe it, believing it.
And it's also a matter of badly adjusted monitors.
There is no real study, just something that's not a study pointed to by E-ink themselves.
It's a matter of being told that it's better, and of those who want to believe it, believing it.
And it's also a matter of badly adjusted monitors.
To be fair, it is a plausible hypothesis. But yeah, it seems to be entirely marketing hyperbole so far.
If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that LCDs vs e-ink, in regard to eye strain, is completely obscured by other factors such as viewing distance, contrast levels, glare, and ambient lighting.
Given that I spend the majority of my waking life staring at LCDs, it is a topic that I take seriously, as I'm sure many others here do as well. For me that means rejecting pure sales-pitches and instead waiting for empirical data. Anecdotal, I've heard reasonable evidence on both sides of the debate. But the anecdotes are just that, anecdotes. E-ink's affect on eyestrain is, as of yet, still just hype.
If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that LCDs vs e-ink, in regard to eye strain, is completely obscured by other factors such as viewing distance, contrast levels, glare, and ambient lighting.
And you don't need lab grant to figure out that the e-ink claim that it can be read in direct sunlight is hugely bigger eyestrain than reading indoors with controlled light sources or in areas that don't have excessive amounts of light reflecting off everything.
And you don't need lab grant to figure out that the e-ink claim that it can be read in direct sunlight is hugely bigger eyestrain than reading indoors with controlled light sources or in areas that don't have excessive light amounts of light reflecting off everything.
That is true. Even reading a book or especially a magazine outdoors in a bright sunny day, leads to some eyestrain from the high brightness. The e-ink screen, in my experience is better in that regard than a magazine with the very bright clay coated stock, but about as good as a book with duller pages. My iPhone is readable out doors if I bring the brightness all the way up, but not so that I can read easily, or for any length of time.
Samsung just made an announcement that they have a new line of 3.3" AMOLED screens that are brighter than backlit LCDs. That will be the first time an AMOLED is not less bright than an LCD, so we'll have to see how that does outdoors, as current AMOLED products are completely useless there. OLEDS have been promised to be better outdoors, but haven't lived up to that yet. This was my main complaint about current AMOLED products; the other being the battery life issue. With Samsung bringing these products out in a few months, can LG, Apple's main supplier, be behind?
Doing anything outdoors can be a problem. That's why there are sunglasses. I'm somewhat light sensitive, and only more so after my eye problems.
Don't worry about eyestrain from e-Ink in direct sunlight.
e-Ink in bright sunlight does not work very well.
e-Ink works by re-organizing little cells of black and white particles. But in very strong sunlight the radiometric force can prevent the little cells from organising.
If you page turn an e-ink device in strong sunlight, the image can fail to form correctly and you see a faded image. Like a photocopy running low on toner.
I took my Sony Reader on vacation and found I had to close the cover for each page turn.
I spend twice as many hours a day tied to an LCD than I do sleeping. It's almost all reading, too. These claims have never rang true to me.
I agree. I don't know from this "eyestrain". I finally looked it up today on some medical site. From what I read there, I have never gotten eyestrain in my life.
Do folks here really get eyestrain? To the point where it bothers you? Under what circumstances?
Do folks here really get eyestrain? To the point where it bothers you? Under what circumstances?
I haven't personally experienced significant eyestrain. However I have witnessed numerous people who say they are experiencing it.
Some of the time it seems that they're likely having headaches and not necessarily eyestrain. Headaches and eyestrain are triggered by similar activities such as keeping the same focal distance for too many consecutive hours.
However I've also witnessed genuine eyestrain. It is a real and potentially severe phenomenon. While I haven't witnessed the most severe of cases, apparently it can be career ending. Some sufferers can no longer look at monitors for an entire workday. This extreme of problem thankfully is quite rare. Or at least that's what personal experience suggests.
Apple has the experience in both hardware, software, marketing, distribution, content, etc.
not to mention Apple's got $40 Billion in cash they can use for marketing, etc.
Amazon's got books. that's it.
The only thing i think Amazon can do is offer content exclusive to the Kindle. and even with that, i don't think it's reason enough to choose the Kindle over the iPad.
Don't worry about eyestrain from e-Ink in direct sunlight.
e-Ink in bright sunlight does not work very well.
e-Ink works by re-organizing little cells of black and white particles. But in very strong sunlight the radiometric force can prevent the little cells from organising.
If you page turn an e-ink device in strong sunlight, the image can fail to form correctly and you see a faded image. Like a photocopy running low on toner.
I took my Sony Reader on vacation and found I had to close the cover for each page turn.
C.
Thats not because of the amount of light. It's because of the temperature. E-ink overheats easily.
I agree. I don't know from this "eyestrain". I finally looked it up today on some medical site. From what I read there, I have never gotten eyestrain in my life.
Do folks here really get eyestrain? To the point where it bothers you? Under what circumstances?
If you have the monitor too high so that you must look up, you will get both neck strain, AND eyestrain. Neckstrain is obvious. but the eyestrain comes from the muscles in the eye sockets having to keep your eyes pointed upwards, a very unnatural position. Eye muscles should only be used in quick bursts, and never for long periods of time.
When we do more natural things, the eyes are in a neutral position, with the muscles lightly counterbalancing the eyeball. but when we look upwards for too long, the muscles are strained. It's like taking a weight and holding it straight out for a time. After a while, your arm gets tired. If you do it for too long, it hurts for some time afterwards.
This is a serious problem because many people think that their monitors should be on a shelf. Unfortunately, this comes from the '80's, when desktop computers really were, and for lack of space on the desk were placed under the monitor, raising it up. It seems as though that's resulted in people thinking that monitors SHOULD be raised, where they shouldn't.
I know I spent a lot of time on that, but I had to solve problems with that over the years with people complaining of neck and eye strain. Lowering the monitor solved a lot of problems.
Lowering the rightness, and color correcting the blue out helps a lot. Eliminating harsh overhead lighting also helps, as does a comfortable chair.
In Europe, there are ergonometric standards that businesses must follow because of this. We don't have that requirement here, though there are guidelines.
Comments
Why is Amazon looking to try and compete with the mighty Apple and try and replicate the functionality of the iPad. Surely this is a battle that it is never going to win.
I am a complete Apple Fanboy yet I am finding it hard to justify buying the iPad. Do I want one? - hell yeah - do I need one? - hmmm. I have an iPod touch and for me the thing that excited me most about a tablet was books. However I consider the iPad expensive and not a true e-reader without an e-ink screen so not compelling on this front. I am not sure that getting an iPad is the right thing to do. However given the cost of the Kindle being not sufficiently different I would probable still get the iPad for it's extra functionality.
Here is the crux of the issue - if the Kindle concentrated just on being an e-reader and had a much more reasonable price point then for me it would be a no-brainer - I would get the Kindle. (And as I say I am a complete Apple Fanboy)
Amazon needs to concentrate on competing where it can win - multifunction tablet device - not a chance in hell - quality cheap e-reader - most definitely.
I fear that it is going to take the wrong path and in doing so make itself obsolete.
Do you NEED a bookreader? No. Do you NEED a laptop? No. In fact, you don't really NEED a computer either.
It's rarely a matter of need. That's just people's way of convincing themselves that they should justify buying something.
Do any of those things make life more convenient? Yes. Are they desirable? Yes.
That's the honest way of looking at it. You don't even NEED a computer for a small business, but it sure makes it easier!
So, do you NEED an iPad? No. But it will be useful, and enjoyable to use.
Authors get about 25% of the price of a book. If Amazon ends up cutting the price down to make a profit, everyone will get reduced.
Apple's pricing model is better for everyone long term.
Authors do get a percentage, but I've not seen 25% except maybe for a few big name authors, most figures I've seen are 10% to 15%.
Yes, as I said, I have. I see no value in it other than for outside reading. I firmly believe that any so called advantages are psychological in nature. Too many people have their devices turned up too high, and so they're simply too bright. The only reason why e-ink MIGHT seem better is because it's much dimmer. In good light, that works. but in dimmer light, it doesn't. Half of one half of another. If people adjusted their displays properly, there wouldn't be a problem.
People do seem to crank their screen brightness pretty high. I usually set my screens to the bottom quarter of the scale.
If Kindle allows me to buy books that work on multiple platforms, to avoid the "Apple Lock-in", that could work very well. Read my books on a Kindle, Windows, Mac, iPad, iPhone, Gpad etc.
It does not. You are locked into their own format. No computer. In fact, if you lose your Kindle, you lose your books. At least, that's the way it is now. There have been complaints about that. And, unlike Apple's method so far, you cant back up anything on a computer, so no hard backup on a DVD is possible.
This is presuming that the price cuts for eBooks doesn't come purely from the printing and distribution proportion of costs, which are largely removed in a eBook model.
Well, if we look at how much the book does cost in a "real" book store, not a Costco, selling just a very small number of titles at a very low price where they lose money, but use it as a price leader to get people in the store, then we see the average selling price is somewhat over $18. small bookstores sell it for more, but the big chains sell it for less.
But the price will be $12.99 to $14.99. That's a bit lower. It's also just the price while the hardcover is at full price. The price drops after that.
The costs are realized during that hardcover sales period. If they aren't, we may never see a trade paperback, and we're less likely to see a pocket version later.
Amazon is paying half the list price for a book, but paying substantially less. What does that say?
If the printing and distributing costs are about 25%, on average, then publishers are doing pretty well with Amazon there. But if Amazon cuts the price to around $7, which they would have to in order to make a profit, that entire model for the industry goes out the window.
At $7, its almost impossible for the publishers to recover costs. If that cuts into hardcover sales in a big way, it will simply make fewer books profitable. That will mean less books published over the year.
The only books that will make money are those by authors such as James Patterson and a few others. Where will the industry be then?
We see talk of people self publishing, and thats a good thing. They can afford to price their own books much lower. But who are these people? How will anyone know if they're good? Do you go by the book reviews in the app store? I've found them, for the most part, to be useless.
What about nurturing new young authors as publishers do? What about editing? What about copy checking and proofing? What about fact checking? What about artists? What about about layout editing and font selection, etc.? Then there are marketing costs.
These are all valid issues.
If a book sold for $25, and the digital edition sold for $19, that would be a good price. It would leave everything in place except print production and distribution. But books are sold much closer to the line. Publishing is not a high profit industry because most of the product loses money.
Aiming for the moon doesn't actually allow for hitting a star.
Kindle is a book reader appliance. It is supposed to be neither game console nor full functional computer.
e-Ink is healthier choice for a book reader in the long run. LED/backlit LCDs will ruin our eyes in the final end.
Make it colorful. Add dynamic content; it may not be sufficiently motion-capable to display video, but a slideshow looks splendidly on the device. Remove stupid buttons and add multitouch screen. Make it look like perfected page of a book. Offer premium content adapted to device capabilities.
Price it as a book reader and not as multi-purpose mobile computer with productivity capabilities.
All of that raises the price.
Remember that the DX, which does none of what you suggest, already costs $489. That's the price of the iPad, which is vastly more. The only reason why the DX does cost that much is the larger e-ink screen which is the size of the iPad screen, but which costs much more.
Unless Amazon is pricing the device well over its cost, which is unlikely, how much more would it cost to do what you suggest?
An e-ink screen is just not suitable for much other than what it does now. Color versions, which have been seen in experimental versions look, quite frankly, lousy. It's not enough having color if it looks faded and inaccurate.
There's also no evidence that LCD's are any worse, if they're properly adjusted.
It does not. You are locked into their own format. No computer. In fact, if you lose your Kindle, you lose your books. At least, that's the way it is now. There have been complaints about that. And, unlike Apple's method so far, you cant back up anything on a computer, so no hard backup on a DVD is possible.
Kindle for Windows:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.htm...cId=1000426311
Kindle for Mac in the works:
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/chri...le-become-open
Every account I've seen so far about lost kindle is that they won't remotely brick it or try to triangulate it, but you can de-register it and authorize a new kindle for your account. Just register your account on a new kindle, and you can re-download your purchases. It seems people that say otherwise might be misunderstanding it.
Every time I pay several bucks extra for an eBook, I will fall to my knees and thank iSteve.
I SEE THE LIGHT!
You don't get it, do you? Amazon is trying to fix the price at $9.99 for all books, all the time. That's been their stated goal. Apple and publishers want to have new books at $12.99 to $14.99, but then keep dropping the price as paperbacks come out to $4.99. most of a books life is in paperback. Would you rather alway have to pay $9.99 for a book, or would you rather wait until the paperback came out, and pay much less?
Do you always, assuming that you buy books, get a book as soon as it comes out at the high hardcover price, or do you often wait until it's in paperback, like many, or even most people do, and pay the 40% of the hardcover price?
Would you rather that all paper books cost $12.50 all the time, or would you rather that they were $18 when they first came out, and then dropped to $7.50?
That;s the difference between the two models.
Authors do get a percentage, but I've not seen 25% except maybe for a few big name authors, most figures I've seen are 10% to 15%.
I've never seen 10%. I've seen 15% occasionally. Some of the biggest authors get as much as 30%.
I'm using an average.
People do seem to crank their screen brightness pretty high. I usually set my screens to the bottom quarter of the scale.
Most people leave their screen the way it comes from the factory, which is to say, way too bright, too much contrast, and much too blue. All of which can contribute to eye strain.
I'll never say that you can't get eyestrain from a monitor, but it's not the fault of the technology. It's the fault of the people using them who fail to set them properly, and the manufacturers, who know that the brighter, more contrasty, and bluer settings sell more monitors to people who don't know any better, and who then fail to tell their customers the proper way to adjust them.
E-ink seems better to some, because it can't be set too bright, because it has no emitted light. That's the ONLY reason why it MAY seem better. But then, you can get eyestrain from e-ink in dim light where it's not very good. I can barely read my friends Kindle in many settings, and he can't either. When on his couch, he's got to sidle up to the lamp, or he can't see the type. I tried reading it in my bed with my end table lamp, but the reflection (yes, from the matt screen!) and the oblique light placement made it difficult. Outdoors, it's great.
Kindle for Windows:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.htm...cId=1000426311
Kindle for Mac in the works:
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/chri...le-become-open
Every account I've seen so far about lost kindle is that they won't remotely brick it or try to triangulate it, but you can de-register it and authorize a new kindle for your account. Just register your account on a new kindle, and you can re-download your purchases. It seems people that say otherwise might be misunderstanding it.
Those are still in beta, so we'll see what happens. But up to now, there was no way. Amazon seems to have responded to the criticism. That's something. There were plenty of complaints about that.
The E-ink display has ultra-low power consumption and causes no eye strain, making it perfect for reading books, but its lack of color and low refresh rate make it useless for other functions. Uninformed consumers also refuse to buy the Kindle based on its grayscale display, without knowing the benefits of E-ink.
No eye-strain? Buaaa haaaa haaa haaa.
That assertion would make an excellent marketing bullet point. But I haven't seen any claims of "no" strain, nor is there consensus on that assertion of less strain.
My personal experience has been that e-ink does not lessen eye strain. Because of the decreased contrast, I actually have to focus on the text harder.
Remember, everyone's physiology is different. Just like mouse usage, some people experience pain with one type of usage but not another... while another person has the exact opposite experience.
As of yet, e-ink has only been proven to have better battery life. But i'm willing to be proven wrong. Can anyone point to a scientific study that empirically proves eye strain levels for LCDs vs e-ink? I'm genuinely interested in such studies if they do indeed exist. Otherwise, I'll stick to my current theory, that lessened eye strain is just marketing hype.
Can anyone point to a scientific study that empirically proves eye strain levels for LCDs vs e-ink? I'm genuinely interested in such studies if they do indeed exist. Otherwise, I'll stick to my current theory, that lessened eye strain is just marketing hype.
I spend twice as many hours a day tied to an LCD than I do sleeping. It's almost all reading, too. These claims have never rang true to me.
No eye-strain? Buaaa haaaa haaa haaa.
That assertion would make an excellent marketing bullet point. But I haven't seen any claims of "no" strain, nor is there consensus on that assertion of less strain.
My personal experience has been that e-ink does not lessen eye strain. Because of the decreased contrast, I actually have to focus on the text harder.
Remember, everyone's physiology is different. Just like mouse usage, some people experience pain with one type of usage but not another... while another person has the exact opposite experience.
As of yet, e-ink has only been proven to have better battery life. But i'm willing to be proven wrong. Can anyone point to a scientific study that empirically proves eye strain levels for LCDs vs e-ink? I'm genuinely interested in such studies if they do indeed exist. Otherwise, I'll stick to my current theory, that lessened eye strain is just marketing hype.
There is no real study, just something that's not a study pointed to by E-ink themselves.
It's a matter of being told that it's better, and of those who want to believe it, believing it.
And it's also a matter of badly adjusted monitors.
There is no real study, just something that's not a study pointed to by E-ink themselves.
It's a matter of being told that it's better, and of those who want to believe it, believing it.
And it's also a matter of badly adjusted monitors.
To be fair, it is a plausible hypothesis. But yeah, it seems to be entirely marketing hyperbole so far.
If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that LCDs vs e-ink, in regard to eye strain, is completely obscured by other factors such as viewing distance, contrast levels, glare, and ambient lighting.
Given that I spend the majority of my waking life staring at LCDs, it is a topic that I take seriously, as I'm sure many others here do as well. For me that means rejecting pure sales-pitches and instead waiting for empirical data. Anecdotal, I've heard reasonable evidence on both sides of the debate. But the anecdotes are just that, anecdotes. E-ink's affect on eyestrain is, as of yet, still just hype.
If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that LCDs vs e-ink, in regard to eye strain, is completely obscured by other factors such as viewing distance, contrast levels, glare, and ambient lighting.
And you don't need lab grant to figure out that the e-ink claim that it can be read in direct sunlight is hugely bigger eyestrain than reading indoors with controlled light sources or in areas that don't have excessive amounts of light reflecting off everything.
And you don't need lab grant to figure out that the e-ink claim that it can be read in direct sunlight is hugely bigger eyestrain than reading indoors with controlled light sources or in areas that don't have excessive light amounts of light reflecting off everything.
That is true. Even reading a book or especially a magazine outdoors in a bright sunny day, leads to some eyestrain from the high brightness. The e-ink screen, in my experience is better in that regard than a magazine with the very bright clay coated stock, but about as good as a book with duller pages. My iPhone is readable out doors if I bring the brightness all the way up, but not so that I can read easily, or for any length of time.
Samsung just made an announcement that they have a new line of 3.3" AMOLED screens that are brighter than backlit LCDs. That will be the first time an AMOLED is not less bright than an LCD, so we'll have to see how that does outdoors, as current AMOLED products are completely useless there. OLEDS have been promised to be better outdoors, but haven't lived up to that yet. This was my main complaint about current AMOLED products; the other being the battery life issue. With Samsung bringing these products out in a few months, can LG, Apple's main supplier, be behind?
Doing anything outdoors can be a problem. That's why there are sunglasses. I'm somewhat light sensitive, and only more so after my eye problems.
e-Ink in bright sunlight does not work very well.
e-Ink works by re-organizing little cells of black and white particles. But in very strong sunlight the radiometric force can prevent the little cells from organising.
If you page turn an e-ink device in strong sunlight, the image can fail to form correctly and you see a faded image. Like a photocopy running low on toner.
I took my Sony Reader on vacation and found I had to close the cover for each page turn.
C.
I spend twice as many hours a day tied to an LCD than I do sleeping. It's almost all reading, too. These claims have never rang true to me.
I agree. I don't know from this "eyestrain". I finally looked it up today on some medical site. From what I read there, I have never gotten eyestrain in my life.
Do folks here really get eyestrain? To the point where it bothers you? Under what circumstances?
Do folks here really get eyestrain? To the point where it bothers you? Under what circumstances?
I haven't personally experienced significant eyestrain. However I have witnessed numerous people who say they are experiencing it.
Some of the time it seems that they're likely having headaches and not necessarily eyestrain. Headaches and eyestrain are triggered by similar activities such as keeping the same focal distance for too many consecutive hours.
However I've also witnessed genuine eyestrain. It is a real and potentially severe phenomenon. While I haven't witnessed the most severe of cases, apparently it can be career ending. Some sufferers can no longer look at monitors for an entire workday. This extreme of problem thankfully is quite rare. Or at least that's what personal experience suggests.
Apple has the experience in both hardware, software, marketing, distribution, content, etc.
not to mention Apple's got $40 Billion in cash they can use for marketing, etc.
Amazon's got books. that's it.
The only thing i think Amazon can do is offer content exclusive to the Kindle. and even with that, i don't think it's reason enough to choose the Kindle over the iPad.
Don't worry about eyestrain from e-Ink in direct sunlight.
e-Ink in bright sunlight does not work very well.
e-Ink works by re-organizing little cells of black and white particles. But in very strong sunlight the radiometric force can prevent the little cells from organising.
If you page turn an e-ink device in strong sunlight, the image can fail to form correctly and you see a faded image. Like a photocopy running low on toner.
I took my Sony Reader on vacation and found I had to close the cover for each page turn.
C.
Thats not because of the amount of light. It's because of the temperature. E-ink overheats easily.
I agree. I don't know from this "eyestrain". I finally looked it up today on some medical site. From what I read there, I have never gotten eyestrain in my life.
Do folks here really get eyestrain? To the point where it bothers you? Under what circumstances?
If you have the monitor too high so that you must look up, you will get both neck strain, AND eyestrain. Neckstrain is obvious. but the eyestrain comes from the muscles in the eye sockets having to keep your eyes pointed upwards, a very unnatural position. Eye muscles should only be used in quick bursts, and never for long periods of time.
When we do more natural things, the eyes are in a neutral position, with the muscles lightly counterbalancing the eyeball. but when we look upwards for too long, the muscles are strained. It's like taking a weight and holding it straight out for a time. After a while, your arm gets tired. If you do it for too long, it hurts for some time afterwards.
This is a serious problem because many people think that their monitors should be on a shelf. Unfortunately, this comes from the '80's, when desktop computers really were, and for lack of space on the desk were placed under the monitor, raising it up. It seems as though that's resulted in people thinking that monitors SHOULD be raised, where they shouldn't.
I know I spent a lot of time on that, but I had to solve problems with that over the years with people complaining of neck and eye strain. Lowering the monitor solved a lot of problems.
Lowering the rightness, and color correcting the blue out helps a lot. Eliminating harsh overhead lighting also helps, as does a comfortable chair.
In Europe, there are ergonometric standards that businesses must follow because of this. We don't have that requirement here, though there are guidelines.