Nice, an eBook that can finally replace college text books in page size, assuming there are no pictures needed. eBooks will take off, but first they colour. But to be ideal they will need to have animations and touch manipulation of 3D images would have made my schooling so much easier. But all that is a long way off. Baby steps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
And you don't have any skin?
I believe he was being sarcastic to the previous poster making fun of her non-airbrushed arms showing a natural variation in pigmentation.
If Apple were going to make their own, I think they'd stop that business in its tracks.
Tablets are impractical, expensive jokes. No one wants to type on a full-size virtual keyboard under glass. It works for the iPhone because 1) you're only using your thumbs, 2) comparable physical BlackBerry-style keyboards have resistance that slows down typing (in contrast to the iPhone's virtual keyboard, which has ZERO resistance), 3) the user's eyes are focused on the text field just barely above the virtual on-screen keyboard when typing, and 4) the iPhone can be easily held and typed on simultaneously.
The physical, full-size keyboards Apple uses for their MacBooks only share one of the shortcomings listed above: resistance. That's inherent in all non-virtual keyboards. Otherwise, physical full-size keyboards beat virtual full-size keyboards in every situation I listed above.
Then you factor in just trying to comfortably type on a tablet's on-screen keyboard. If you put it flat on your lap, you're now craning your neck over the screen uncomfortably. If you prop it up at a comfortable viewing angle, now your wrists are positioned up at an uncomfortable angle. There is no way to hold such a large device in your hands like the iPhone either.
Including a wired or wireless physical keyboard in the box is similarly brain dead. Not only do you have to carry around two things, you have to figure out a way to prop up the screen when on a lap or table top as before.
The only realistic solution is to make a dual-screen, DS-like MacBook. If you make the entire lower half of the laptop a touch screen, you'll have to make the virtual keyboard tactile, like those braille readers for the blind. This would likely be expensive and the keyboard might not be as comfortable as Apple's physical keyboards.
So the other ways to implement a touch screen are 1) a tethered iPhone or iPod touch becomes an external pad when connected or 2) replace the glass, MultiTouch trackpads that ship with all Mac laptops today with a glass, MultiTouch display of roughly the same size that would double as a trackpad when switched to a normal "mousing" mode. #2 seems most realistic, affordable, and practical to me, allowing users to pull down maps from the main display into the trackpad display for direct manipulation then throw them back up into the main display when finished. Pull down pictures from iPhoto, doodle on them, add effects, throw them back into the main display when finished. A unique, widget-like UI would not be difficult to do for Apple's apps and third parties could create them for their apps through new APIs in XCode.
Almost everybody is expecting and predicting a larger Touch, and it makes some sense. Still, one of the main features (from a reading experience point of view) is the liquid ink technology used in the Kindle. It is more pleasing to read and easier on the battery. I would not expect Apple to go back to monochromatic displays... Reading pleasure on a backlit device is and will remain limited – it is ok when reading for a few minutes only, but you can do that on the existing iPhone and Touch as well. A bigger Touch does make more sense as a portable video player, Web browser and for e.g. Office-type and note taking applications... eBook reading is rather an afterthought.
It isn't easier to read. This is what they're touting, but when you actually have one in front of you you see it's BS.
Every manufacturer of a technology tries to show why it's better than whatever else is around. With the D-ink, it's reflection.
But so far, it's not white and black. The Kindle and Sony is light grey background with a rather dark grey type. Only in very bright light does it look good. In most other situations it looks like the old LCD's that were used in watches and displays. Not great.
There's this myth about reflected lighted screens being easier on the eyes than backlighted screens. Well, it's not true.
The eye doesn't know the difference. All it sees is the light coming off the surface. How it's generated isn't of importance.
You can adjust your LCD screen any way you want to. The advantage is that except in very bright outdoor light, an area in which OLED has an advantage, LCD screens are far better under more lighting conditions than is D-ink, which is entirely dependent on the level of the light. Unlike real books which have much whiter backgrounds and much blacker type, D-ink's contrast is much more limited so far. It's hard to read under lighting conditions in which paper can be fairly easily read.
The other problem is that these things are still far too expensive to be more than a toy for what they do.
Amazon has refused to release sales numbers, and it's been all over the place with estimates. I've read that anywhere from 250,000 to 750,000 have been sold so far, but we don't know.
Many textbooks have full color photo's and illustrations. Many times the color is a required part of the image. Without it, it's too difficult to understand what's being shown.
In Japan, there's been a color book reader out for well over a year, but the price is ridiculous! Given the features, and the fact that the Japanese like these crazy devices, it sells over there, but they are wisely not bringing it here.
There are supposedly breakthroughs on color D-ink but from what I've seen, the price will also be very high.
Considering that textbooks will cost almost as much for an inferior digital version, I don't see this as becoming popular, when all it can do can be done on a laptop, which those in school will still need.
I found that dark grey on medium grey or light grey was the absolute *worst* situation for readability. I much prefer reading on the (much brighter and clearer), iPhone screen.
I often wonder if this idea is just a holdover from the days when people said that if you watched too much TV your eyes would water. Later people used to say that your eyes got "strained" if you read off of a computer instead of a page, but I never found that to be the case in practice either.
I can't speak for others, but eyesight tends to suffer with age... for me reading on the Kindle (I do not have one, I was only using one for roughly two hours during the Frankfurt book fare) was quite pleasant. I will not buy one anyhow ? as I do no longer go to school or university, I normally only need/read one book at a time, and most of the books I am interested in, are not available for the device anyhow. Having another expensive gadget to watch and take care of is not what I need. Reading a few news pages on the iPhone works fine for me, and I will stick with the paper edition for extensive reading.
There are supposedly breakthroughs on color D-ink but from what I've seen, the price will also be very high.
Considering that textbooks will cost almost as much for an inferior digital version, I don't see this as becoming popular, when all it can do can be done on a laptop, which those in school will still need.
It's about 6 to 7 years off before anything approaching 300 dpi color glossy flexible e-ink displays are possible to manufacture in quantities that would make them a sensible alternative to portable computers. They'll get there, but the technological leaps necessary are still big... battery efficiency and computing power are a large part of the problem.
It will no longer be a matter of if, but when all of the major papers are forced to go e-reader. The economic reality is this: if the New York Times shut down all of it's presses, eliminated it's distribution chain, and fired all staff not directly related to the news gathering and other essential functions necessary to create an electronic version of a newspaper, they would save hundreds of millions of dollars even if they offered a FREE Kindle to every one of their subscribers! This is the result of a recent analysis that was done on the New York Times newspaper. Like I said, it is inevitable that the majority of publishing will go this way.
I don't understand why there's an assumption that it will be some specialized book reader that will do this.
These aren't that much lighter than a light notebook, and certainly no lighter than a medium sized netbook.
Why would people want something like this when for the same price, they can buy something that will actually be useful in a broader sense?
I don't buy the idea that in the long run, say four, five years from now, a bookreader, no matter how advanced, is going to make more than a relatively small audience happy with its limitations.
Remember that this is a computer. As such, it isn't any different from any other computer, other than the fact that it's far more limited, and is designed primarily for reading.
Just a few short years ago people, even here, were stating that no one would want a PDA/phone/music player/video player/book reader/game machine/internet device/computer in one.
Well, we see how that turned out!
These specialized devices are just short term solutions. Just as the PDA went away once phones took over their functions, so will these book readers. I find reading on my iPhone much better than reading on my friend's Kindle. Even he's torn over that.
Computers will continue to get lighter and thinner. What purpose will a book reader serve?
It will no longer be a matter of if, but when all of the major papers are forced to go e-reader. The economic reality is this: if the New York Times shut down all of it's presses, eliminated it's distribution chain, and fired all staff not directly related to the news gathering and other essential functions necessary to create an electronic version of a newspaper, they would save hundreds of millions of dollars even if they offered a FREE Kindle to every one of their subscribers! This is the result of a recent analysis that was done on the New York Times newspaper. Like I said, it is inevitable that the majority of publishing will go this way.
Really ?? You state >>> Like I said, it is inevitable that the majority of publishing will go this <<<< just like the demise of the book ???
People buy and read more books than ever before !!!
Can you really picture million's of stupid jumbo kindle,s ??
Only kidding ..
Apple with whatever kind of tablet they do make will have a kindle inside for free . Just need the app . Why not spend the same money for a mac tablet than a clunky weird looking non-wifi non internet kindle .
What is the future is a flexible thick film like sheet that can be folded and rolled up. That also has solar power and also displays words and pictures for reading .A small shuffle like wifi box would send info to the reading sheet
Amazon isn't a "big-box retailer." The "big box" part refers to the giant warehouse-style building associated with Wal-Marts and Targets. Obviously that's not Amazon. Obviously the point was Amazon isn't a "bookstore," but "big box" isn't the right adjective. How about "on-line retail giant?"
You know what's odd about that picture (which if I understand it is a some other competing device and not the rumored jumbo kindle)? Look at how awkwardly it's digging into her left arm. The general ergonomics for holding it with the left hand/arm look troublesome. I think you'd almost need some sort of handle on the back to make it secure and comfortable. Or maybe it's just a bad picture implying that you need to have to use your whole right hand to interact with it rather than flipping pages with your thumbs.
It's about 6 to 7 years off before anything approaching 300 dpi color glossy flexible e-ink displays are possible to manufacture in quantities that would make them a sensible alternative to portable computers. They'll get there, but the technological leaps necessary are still big... battery efficiency and computing power are a large part of the problem.
We don't need 300 ppi. I'm tired of people saying that.
A typical magazine has 150 dpi, and it's enough for most any purpose other than art books, which are usually about 175.
Unless you look at the page from 9 inches away, anything much over 150 ppi serves no purpose.
The iPhone/iTouch is 160 ppi. Unless you look REAL close, it's more than sharp enough. People aren't going to want to read the 2 point type some programs on the iPhone have for some functions.
but, no matter how you think about it, a book reader is nothing more than a link between the past and the future.
It's been shown to be true that general purpose computers are far more useful for most tasks for dealing with the uses people have for their devices.
Readers will have a short life time, and just merge into regular computers, which will themselves be much more advanced.
It isn't easier to read. This is what they're touting, but when you actually have one in front of you you see it's BS.
...
But so far, it's not white and black. The Kindle and Sony is light grey background with a rather dark grey type. Only in very bright light does it look good. In most other situations it looks like the old LCD's that were used in watches and displays. Not great.
There's this myth about reflected lighted screens being easier on the eyes than backlighted screens. Well, it's not true.
I certainly agree with the price argument... getting some DRM'd bits, which I can't even lend out to friends, for almost the same price as a printed edition, is not attractive at all.
Still, I can't say how big the benefit of e-ink really is ? it may be minor, but some of the arguments do make sense, and I would not call all of them BS...
- Any backlight has a fixed temperature; reading on a backlit device, the eyes and the brain do have to switch between the ambient light and the device all the time.
- People dealing with ergonomics have been arguing against strong contrasts since ages. Actually, quite a few of the most expensive literature editions are printed on tinted paper (mostly chamois) to reduce the contrast. Interior architects specialized in ergonomic workplace design argue against white walls and try to put old-fashioned (yellow) light-bulbs everywhere. If this does really do something, or if this is voodoo, I can't say.
- CVS (Computer Vision Syndrome) is not a myth... it exists, and some companies already spend considerable amounts of money to e.g. abolish reflective screens and avoid scattered light.
You know what's odd about that picture (which if I understand it is a some other competing device and not the rumored jumbo kindle)? Look at how awkwardly it's digging into her left arm. The general ergonomics for holding it with the left hand/arm look troublesome. I think you'd almost need some sort of handle on the back to make it secure and comfortable. Or maybe it's just a bad picture implying that you need to have to use your whole right hand to interact with it rather than flipping pages with your thumbs.
A lot less troublesome than a 10lb textbook,but a more comfortable handle would be nice. Bring on the 3rd-parties once eBooks take off.
If Apple were going to make their own, I think they'd stop that business in its tracks.
Tablets are impractical, expensive jokes. No one wants to type on a full-size virtual keyboard under glass. It works for the iPhone because 1) you're only using your thumbs, 2) comparable physical BlackBerry-style keyboards have resistance that slows down typing (in contrast to the iPhone's virtual keyboard, which has ZERO resistance), 3) the user's eyes are focused on the text field just barely above the virtual on-screen keyboard when typing, and 4) the iPhone can be easily held and typed on simultaneously.
The physical, full-size keyboards Apple uses for their MacBooks only share one of the shortcomings listed above: resistance. That's inherent in all non-virtual keyboards. Otherwise, physical full-size keyboards beat virtual full-size keyboards in every situation I listed above.
Then you factor in just trying to comfortably type on a tablet's on-screen keyboard. If you put it flat on your lap, you're now craning your neck over the screen uncomfortably. If you prop it up at a comfortable viewing angle, now your wrists are positioned up at an uncomfortable angle. There is no way to hold such a large device in your hands like the iPhone either.
Including a wired or wireless physical keyboard in the box is similarly brain dead. Not only do you have to carry around two things, you have to figure out a way to prop up the screen when on a lap or table top as before.
The only realistic solution is to make a dual-screen, DS-like MacBook. If you make the entire lower half of the laptop a touch screen, you'll have to make the virtual keyboard tactile, like those braille readers for the blind. This would likely be expensive and the keyboard might not be as comfortable as Apple's physical keyboards.
So the other ways to implement a touch screen are 1) a tethered iPhone or iPod touch becomes an external pad when connected or 2) replace the glass, MultiTouch trackpads that ship with all Mac laptops today with a glass, MultiTouch display of roughly the same size that would double as a trackpad when switched to a normal "mousing" mode. #2 seems most realistic, affordable, and practical to me, allowing users to pull down maps from the main display into the trackpad display for direct manipulation then throw them back up into the main display when finished. Pull down pictures from iPhoto, doodle on them, add effects, throw them back into the main display when finished. A unique, widget-like UI would not be difficult to do for Apple's apps and third parties could create them for their apps through new APIs in XCode.
Great idea dude .Except a tablet will work just fine .Type or write one handed .Just like a clipboard .And a double screen like thing where you have glass on top and bottom would also be fine , we would adjust . Don't forget the multi touch heralds from a tablet idea first . I think >next < or > be < . All glass all virtual .
I don't see the point of this from Amazon. They already pushed the Kindle as having the ability to read newspapers. This new hardware would be useless for textbooks. No color and lacks the ability to highlight or markup. The Kindle is more locked down than any device that Apple would make. You have to pay just to get your content on the damned thing.
The Kindle is far more hyped by the media than it is actually used by the public. It's way too expensive for what you get and offers EV-DO which for the most part is useless when it can be cheaper with wifi.
If Apple can make a tablet that has good battery life (such as a full day of classes), it is a far better solution for students and magazine readers. As for a book reader, I'll wait for Plastic Logic's $99 alternative. If the Kindle continues down their current path, it will eventually be dead.
Great idea dude .Except a tablet will work just fine .Type or write one handed .Just like a clipboard .And a double screen like thing where you have glass on top and bottom would also be fine , we would adjust . Don't forget the multi touch heralds from a tablet idea first . I think >next < or > be < . All glass all virtual .
I don't understand why there's an assumption that it will be some specialized book reader that will do this.
These aren't that much lighter than a light notebook, and certainly no lighter than a medium sized netbook.
Why would people want something like this when for the same price, they can buy something that will actually be useful in a broader sense?
I don't buy the idea that in the long run, say four, five years from now, a bookreader, no matter how advanced, is going to make more than a relatively small audience happy with its limitations.
Remember that this is a computer. As such, it isn't any different from any other computer, other than the fact that it's far more limited, and is designed primarily for reading.
Just a few short years ago people, even here, were stating that no one would want a PDA/phone/music player/video player/book reader/game machine/internet device/computer in one.
Well, we see how that turned out!
These specialized devices are just short term solutions. Just as the PDA went away once phones took over their functions, so will these book readers. I find reading on my iPhone much better than reading on my friend's Kindle. Even he's torn over that.
Computers will continue to get lighter and thinner. What purpose will a book reader serve?
What purpose? The ideal product would be flexible and approaching the quality of a high-end glossy magazine. As such, it would offer far less interactivity compared to a computer (5, 6 or 7 years in the future), would draw on much less power (since it would be encapsulated color dots that "reset" only when necessary), and it would act functionally like a book, magazine or newspaper.
We don't need 300 ppi. I'm tired of people saying that.
A typical magazine has 150 dpi, and it's enough for most any purpose other than art books, which are usually about 175.
Unless you look at the page from 9 inches away, anything much over 150 ppi serves no purpose.
The iPhone/iTouch is 160 ppi. Unless you look REAL close, it's more than sharp enough. People aren't going to want to read the 2 point type some programs on the iPhone have for some functions.
but, no matter how you think about it, a book reader is nothing more than a link between the past and the future.
It's been shown to be true that general purpose computers are far more useful for most tasks for dealing with the uses people have for their devices.
Readers will have a short life time, and just merge into regular computers, which will themselves be much more advanced.
I mixed up my specifications... I meant 150 lpi (as in screen printing), with the equivalent of 300 dpi... Also, it's very possible that these future displays could utilize something similar to stochastic printing to achieve very high quality with a 'random' e-ink pattern.
It will no longer be a matter of if, but when all of the major papers are forced to go e-reader. The economic reality is this: if the New York Times shut down all of it's presses, eliminated it's distribution chain, and fired all staff not directly related to the news gathering and other essential functions necessary to create an electronic version of a newspaper, they would save hundreds of millions of dollars even if they offered a FREE Kindle to every one of their subscribers! This is the result of a recent analysis that was done on the New York Times newspaper. Like I said, it is inevitable that the majority of publishing will go this way.
And how cool would that be? Never have to buy yesterdays version of a paper I don't like when on holiday. Subscribe to magazines or buy single copies. Paper no longer makes sense.
Too bad the Kindle can't play music- I like listening whilst I read.
Oh well- you can't have everything.
The Kindle 2 has an integrated mp3 player.
"Listen to Music & Podcasts
Transfer MP3 files to Kindle to play as background music while you read. You can quickly and easily transfer MP3 files via USB by connecting Kindle to your computer."
Transfer MP3 files to Kindle to play as background music while you read. You can quickly and easily transfer MP3 files via USB by connecting Kindle to your computer."
Cool- I had no idea. They don't really advertise that part much. I would def now consider a Kindle.
Comments
And you don't have any skin?
I believe he was being sarcastic to the previous poster making fun of her non-airbrushed arms showing a natural variation in pigmentation.
Am I the only expecting Apple to launch a tablet device that is slated not only to be a maxi-iTouch but a Kindle-killer as well?
Watch Apple transform the eBook business just as it has music and video....
There are already tablets running Mac OS X:
http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook
If Apple were going to make their own, I think they'd stop that business in its tracks.
Tablets are impractical, expensive jokes. No one wants to type on a full-size virtual keyboard under glass. It works for the iPhone because 1) you're only using your thumbs, 2) comparable physical BlackBerry-style keyboards have resistance that slows down typing (in contrast to the iPhone's virtual keyboard, which has ZERO resistance), 3) the user's eyes are focused on the text field just barely above the virtual on-screen keyboard when typing, and 4) the iPhone can be easily held and typed on simultaneously.
The physical, full-size keyboards Apple uses for their MacBooks only share one of the shortcomings listed above: resistance. That's inherent in all non-virtual keyboards. Otherwise, physical full-size keyboards beat virtual full-size keyboards in every situation I listed above.
Then you factor in just trying to comfortably type on a tablet's on-screen keyboard. If you put it flat on your lap, you're now craning your neck over the screen uncomfortably. If you prop it up at a comfortable viewing angle, now your wrists are positioned up at an uncomfortable angle. There is no way to hold such a large device in your hands like the iPhone either.
Including a wired or wireless physical keyboard in the box is similarly brain dead. Not only do you have to carry around two things, you have to figure out a way to prop up the screen when on a lap or table top as before.
The only realistic solution is to make a dual-screen, DS-like MacBook. If you make the entire lower half of the laptop a touch screen, you'll have to make the virtual keyboard tactile, like those braille readers for the blind. This would likely be expensive and the keyboard might not be as comfortable as Apple's physical keyboards.
So the other ways to implement a touch screen are 1) a tethered iPhone or iPod touch becomes an external pad when connected or 2) replace the glass, MultiTouch trackpads that ship with all Mac laptops today with a glass, MultiTouch display of roughly the same size that would double as a trackpad when switched to a normal "mousing" mode. #2 seems most realistic, affordable, and practical to me, allowing users to pull down maps from the main display into the trackpad display for direct manipulation then throw them back up into the main display when finished. Pull down pictures from iPhoto, doodle on them, add effects, throw them back into the main display when finished. A unique, widget-like UI would not be difficult to do for Apple's apps and third parties could create them for their apps through new APIs in XCode.
Almost everybody is expecting and predicting a larger Touch, and it makes some sense. Still, one of the main features (from a reading experience point of view) is the liquid ink technology used in the Kindle. It is more pleasing to read and easier on the battery. I would not expect Apple to go back to monochromatic displays... Reading pleasure on a backlit device is and will remain limited – it is ok when reading for a few minutes only, but you can do that on the existing iPhone and Touch as well. A bigger Touch does make more sense as a portable video player, Web browser and for e.g. Office-type and note taking applications... eBook reading is rather an afterthought.
It isn't easier to read. This is what they're touting, but when you actually have one in front of you you see it's BS.
Every manufacturer of a technology tries to show why it's better than whatever else is around. With the D-ink, it's reflection.
But so far, it's not white and black. The Kindle and Sony is light grey background with a rather dark grey type. Only in very bright light does it look good. In most other situations it looks like the old LCD's that were used in watches and displays. Not great.
There's this myth about reflected lighted screens being easier on the eyes than backlighted screens. Well, it's not true.
The eye doesn't know the difference. All it sees is the light coming off the surface. How it's generated isn't of importance.
You can adjust your LCD screen any way you want to. The advantage is that except in very bright outdoor light, an area in which OLED has an advantage, LCD screens are far better under more lighting conditions than is D-ink, which is entirely dependent on the level of the light. Unlike real books which have much whiter backgrounds and much blacker type, D-ink's contrast is much more limited so far. It's hard to read under lighting conditions in which paper can be fairly easily read.
The other problem is that these things are still far too expensive to be more than a toy for what they do.
Amazon has refused to release sales numbers, and it's been all over the place with estimates. I've read that anywhere from 250,000 to 750,000 have been sold so far, but we don't know.
Many textbooks have full color photo's and illustrations. Many times the color is a required part of the image. Without it, it's too difficult to understand what's being shown.
In Japan, there's been a color book reader out for well over a year, but the price is ridiculous! Given the features, and the fact that the Japanese like these crazy devices, it sells over there, but they are wisely not bringing it here.
http://www.dailytech.com/Japan+Gets+...ticle14610.htm
There are supposedly breakthroughs on color D-ink but from what I've seen, the price will also be very high.
Considering that textbooks will cost almost as much for an inferior digital version, I don't see this as becoming popular, when all it can do can be done on a laptop, which those in school will still need.
I found that dark grey on medium grey or light grey was the absolute *worst* situation for readability. I much prefer reading on the (much brighter and clearer), iPhone screen.
I often wonder if this idea is just a holdover from the days when people said that if you watched too much TV your eyes would water. Later people used to say that your eyes got "strained" if you read off of a computer instead of a page, but I never found that to be the case in practice either.
I can't speak for others, but eyesight tends to suffer with age... for me reading on the Kindle (I do not have one, I was only using one for roughly two hours during the Frankfurt book fare) was quite pleasant. I will not buy one anyhow ? as I do no longer go to school or university, I normally only need/read one book at a time, and most of the books I am interested in, are not available for the device anyhow. Having another expensive gadget to watch and take care of is not what I need. Reading a few news pages on the iPhone works fine for me, and I will stick with the paper edition for extensive reading.
There are supposedly breakthroughs on color D-ink but from what I've seen, the price will also be very high.
Considering that textbooks will cost almost as much for an inferior digital version, I don't see this as becoming popular, when all it can do can be done on a laptop, which those in school will still need.
It's about 6 to 7 years off before anything approaching 300 dpi color glossy flexible e-ink displays are possible to manufacture in quantities that would make them a sensible alternative to portable computers. They'll get there, but the technological leaps necessary are still big... battery efficiency and computing power are a large part of the problem.
It will no longer be a matter of if, but when all of the major papers are forced to go e-reader. The economic reality is this: if the New York Times shut down all of it's presses, eliminated it's distribution chain, and fired all staff not directly related to the news gathering and other essential functions necessary to create an electronic version of a newspaper, they would save hundreds of millions of dollars even if they offered a FREE Kindle to every one of their subscribers! This is the result of a recent analysis that was done on the New York Times newspaper. Like I said, it is inevitable that the majority of publishing will go this way.
I don't understand why there's an assumption that it will be some specialized book reader that will do this.
These aren't that much lighter than a light notebook, and certainly no lighter than a medium sized netbook.
Why would people want something like this when for the same price, they can buy something that will actually be useful in a broader sense?
I don't buy the idea that in the long run, say four, five years from now, a bookreader, no matter how advanced, is going to make more than a relatively small audience happy with its limitations.
Remember that this is a computer. As such, it isn't any different from any other computer, other than the fact that it's far more limited, and is designed primarily for reading.
Just a few short years ago people, even here, were stating that no one would want a PDA/phone/music player/video player/book reader/game machine/internet device/computer in one.
Well, we see how that turned out!
These specialized devices are just short term solutions. Just as the PDA went away once phones took over their functions, so will these book readers. I find reading on my iPhone much better than reading on my friend's Kindle. Even he's torn over that.
Computers will continue to get lighter and thinner. What purpose will a book reader serve?
It will no longer be a matter of if, but when all of the major papers are forced to go e-reader. The economic reality is this: if the New York Times shut down all of it's presses, eliminated it's distribution chain, and fired all staff not directly related to the news gathering and other essential functions necessary to create an electronic version of a newspaper, they would save hundreds of millions of dollars even if they offered a FREE Kindle to every one of their subscribers! This is the result of a recent analysis that was done on the New York Times newspaper. Like I said, it is inevitable that the majority of publishing will go this way.
Really ?? You state >>> Like I said, it is inevitable that the majority of publishing will go this <<<< just like the demise of the book ???
People buy and read more books than ever before !!!
Can you really picture million's of stupid jumbo kindle,s ??
Only kidding ..
Apple with whatever kind of tablet they do make will have a kindle inside for free . Just need the app . Why not spend the same money for a mac tablet than a clunky weird looking non-wifi non internet kindle .
What is the future is a flexible thick film like sheet that can be folded and rolled up. That also has solar power and also displays words and pictures for reading .A small shuffle like wifi box would send info to the reading sheet
9
You know what's odd about that picture (which if I understand it is a some other competing device and not the rumored jumbo kindle)? Look at how awkwardly it's digging into her left arm. The general ergonomics for holding it with the left hand/arm look troublesome. I think you'd almost need some sort of handle on the back to make it secure and comfortable. Or maybe it's just a bad picture implying that you need to have to use your whole right hand to interact with it rather than flipping pages with your thumbs.
It's about 6 to 7 years off before anything approaching 300 dpi color glossy flexible e-ink displays are possible to manufacture in quantities that would make them a sensible alternative to portable computers. They'll get there, but the technological leaps necessary are still big... battery efficiency and computing power are a large part of the problem.
We don't need 300 ppi. I'm tired of people saying that.
A typical magazine has 150 dpi, and it's enough for most any purpose other than art books, which are usually about 175.
Unless you look at the page from 9 inches away, anything much over 150 ppi serves no purpose.
The iPhone/iTouch is 160 ppi. Unless you look REAL close, it's more than sharp enough. People aren't going to want to read the 2 point type some programs on the iPhone have for some functions.
but, no matter how you think about it, a book reader is nothing more than a link between the past and the future.
It's been shown to be true that general purpose computers are far more useful for most tasks for dealing with the uses people have for their devices.
Readers will have a short life time, and just merge into regular computers, which will themselves be much more advanced.
It isn't easier to read. This is what they're touting, but when you actually have one in front of you you see it's BS.
...
But so far, it's not white and black. The Kindle and Sony is light grey background with a rather dark grey type. Only in very bright light does it look good. In most other situations it looks like the old LCD's that were used in watches and displays. Not great.
There's this myth about reflected lighted screens being easier on the eyes than backlighted screens. Well, it's not true.
I certainly agree with the price argument... getting some DRM'd bits, which I can't even lend out to friends, for almost the same price as a printed edition, is not attractive at all.
Still, I can't say how big the benefit of e-ink really is ? it may be minor, but some of the arguments do make sense, and I would not call all of them BS...
- Any backlight has a fixed temperature; reading on a backlit device, the eyes and the brain do have to switch between the ambient light and the device all the time.
- People dealing with ergonomics have been arguing against strong contrasts since ages. Actually, quite a few of the most expensive literature editions are printed on tinted paper (mostly chamois) to reduce the contrast. Interior architects specialized in ergonomic workplace design argue against white walls and try to put old-fashioned (yellow) light-bulbs everywhere. If this does really do something, or if this is voodoo, I can't say.
- CVS (Computer Vision Syndrome) is not a myth... it exists, and some companies already spend considerable amounts of money to e.g. abolish reflective screens and avoid scattered light.
You know what's odd about that picture (which if I understand it is a some other competing device and not the rumored jumbo kindle)? Look at how awkwardly it's digging into her left arm. The general ergonomics for holding it with the left hand/arm look troublesome. I think you'd almost need some sort of handle on the back to make it secure and comfortable. Or maybe it's just a bad picture implying that you need to have to use your whole right hand to interact with it rather than flipping pages with your thumbs.
A lot less troublesome than a 10lb textbook,but a more comfortable handle would be nice. Bring on the 3rd-parties once eBooks take off.
There are already tablets running Mac OS X:
http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook
If Apple were going to make their own, I think they'd stop that business in its tracks.
Tablets are impractical, expensive jokes. No one wants to type on a full-size virtual keyboard under glass. It works for the iPhone because 1) you're only using your thumbs, 2) comparable physical BlackBerry-style keyboards have resistance that slows down typing (in contrast to the iPhone's virtual keyboard, which has ZERO resistance), 3) the user's eyes are focused on the text field just barely above the virtual on-screen keyboard when typing, and 4) the iPhone can be easily held and typed on simultaneously.
The physical, full-size keyboards Apple uses for their MacBooks only share one of the shortcomings listed above: resistance. That's inherent in all non-virtual keyboards. Otherwise, physical full-size keyboards beat virtual full-size keyboards in every situation I listed above.
Then you factor in just trying to comfortably type on a tablet's on-screen keyboard. If you put it flat on your lap, you're now craning your neck over the screen uncomfortably. If you prop it up at a comfortable viewing angle, now your wrists are positioned up at an uncomfortable angle. There is no way to hold such a large device in your hands like the iPhone either.
Including a wired or wireless physical keyboard in the box is similarly brain dead. Not only do you have to carry around two things, you have to figure out a way to prop up the screen when on a lap or table top as before.
The only realistic solution is to make a dual-screen, DS-like MacBook. If you make the entire lower half of the laptop a touch screen, you'll have to make the virtual keyboard tactile, like those braille readers for the blind. This would likely be expensive and the keyboard might not be as comfortable as Apple's physical keyboards.
So the other ways to implement a touch screen are 1) a tethered iPhone or iPod touch becomes an external pad when connected or 2) replace the glass, MultiTouch trackpads that ship with all Mac laptops today with a glass, MultiTouch display of roughly the same size that would double as a trackpad when switched to a normal "mousing" mode. #2 seems most realistic, affordable, and practical to me, allowing users to pull down maps from the main display into the trackpad display for direct manipulation then throw them back up into the main display when finished. Pull down pictures from iPhoto, doodle on them, add effects, throw them back into the main display when finished. A unique, widget-like UI would not be difficult to do for Apple's apps and third parties could create them for their apps through new APIs in XCode.
Great idea dude .Except a tablet will work just fine .Type or write one handed .Just like a clipboard .And a double screen like thing where you have glass on top and bottom would also be fine , we would adjust . Don't forget the multi touch heralds from a tablet idea first . I think >next < or > be < . All glass all virtual .
The Kindle is far more hyped by the media than it is actually used by the public. It's way too expensive for what you get and offers EV-DO which for the most part is useless when it can be cheaper with wifi.
If Apple can make a tablet that has good battery life (such as a full day of classes), it is a far better solution for students and magazine readers. As for a book reader, I'll wait for Plastic Logic's $99 alternative. If the Kindle continues down their current path, it will eventually be dead.
Bring it on Apple.....
Great idea dude .Except a tablet will work just fine .Type or write one handed .Just like a clipboard .And a double screen like thing where you have glass on top and bottom would also be fine , we would adjust . Don't forget the multi touch heralds from a tablet idea first . I think >next < or > be < . All glass all virtual .
? http://www.wikihow.com/Use-English-P...tion-Correctly
I don't understand why there's an assumption that it will be some specialized book reader that will do this.
These aren't that much lighter than a light notebook, and certainly no lighter than a medium sized netbook.
Why would people want something like this when for the same price, they can buy something that will actually be useful in a broader sense?
I don't buy the idea that in the long run, say four, five years from now, a bookreader, no matter how advanced, is going to make more than a relatively small audience happy with its limitations.
Remember that this is a computer. As such, it isn't any different from any other computer, other than the fact that it's far more limited, and is designed primarily for reading.
Just a few short years ago people, even here, were stating that no one would want a PDA/phone/music player/video player/book reader/game machine/internet device/computer in one.
Well, we see how that turned out!
These specialized devices are just short term solutions. Just as the PDA went away once phones took over their functions, so will these book readers. I find reading on my iPhone much better than reading on my friend's Kindle. Even he's torn over that.
Computers will continue to get lighter and thinner. What purpose will a book reader serve?
What purpose? The ideal product would be flexible and approaching the quality of a high-end glossy magazine. As such, it would offer far less interactivity compared to a computer (5, 6 or 7 years in the future), would draw on much less power (since it would be encapsulated color dots that "reset" only when necessary), and it would act functionally like a book, magazine or newspaper.
We don't need 300 ppi. I'm tired of people saying that.
A typical magazine has 150 dpi, and it's enough for most any purpose other than art books, which are usually about 175.
Unless you look at the page from 9 inches away, anything much over 150 ppi serves no purpose.
The iPhone/iTouch is 160 ppi. Unless you look REAL close, it's more than sharp enough. People aren't going to want to read the 2 point type some programs on the iPhone have for some functions.
but, no matter how you think about it, a book reader is nothing more than a link between the past and the future.
It's been shown to be true that general purpose computers are far more useful for most tasks for dealing with the uses people have for their devices.
Readers will have a short life time, and just merge into regular computers, which will themselves be much more advanced.
I mixed up my specifications... I meant 150 lpi (as in screen printing), with the equivalent of 300 dpi... Also, it's very possible that these future displays could utilize something similar to stochastic printing to achieve very high quality with a 'random' e-ink pattern.
It will no longer be a matter of if, but when all of the major papers are forced to go e-reader. The economic reality is this: if the New York Times shut down all of it's presses, eliminated it's distribution chain, and fired all staff not directly related to the news gathering and other essential functions necessary to create an electronic version of a newspaper, they would save hundreds of millions of dollars even if they offered a FREE Kindle to every one of their subscribers! This is the result of a recent analysis that was done on the New York Times newspaper. Like I said, it is inevitable that the majority of publishing will go this way.
And how cool would that be? Never have to buy yesterdays version of a paper I don't like when on holiday. Subscribe to magazines or buy single copies. Paper no longer makes sense.
Too bad the Kindle can't play music- I like listening whilst I read.
Oh well- you can't have everything.
The Kindle 2 has an integrated mp3 player.
"Listen to Music & Podcasts
Transfer MP3 files to Kindle to play as background music while you read. You can quickly and easily transfer MP3 files via USB by connecting Kindle to your computer."
The Kindle 2 has an integrated mp3 player.
"Listen to Music & Podcasts
Transfer MP3 files to Kindle to play as background music while you read. You can quickly and easily transfer MP3 files via USB by connecting Kindle to your computer."
Cool- I had no idea. They don't really advertise that part much. I would def now consider a Kindle.