I don't see how this is going to help. Papers will sell this at a lower cost to those who are willing to pay for a long term subscription. What does that mean? Three years? Five years?
We subscribe the the NY Times and the WSJ, but for one year at a time. I subscribe to magazines for three years at a time, but magazine subscriptions are so very much cheaper.
The WSJ subscription costs us $300 a year, and the NY Times, which we pay in two installments, costs $500 for a year, including the Sunday Times edition.
That's a lot of money.
I think the electronic versions are (or will be) much less expensive. The publishing costs
are much lower with no paper, no newsstands, many fewer union employees, etc.
My wife has the Kindle 2 and it is very nice. Amazon has taken some cues from Apple and have a hit on their hands. They went from book store to wireless delivery system that is easy to use and read. Apple went from iPod to iTunes to deliver content to their users. I want a DX. For Apple to compete, iTunes would have to add books and periodicals to their offerings. Amazon has a substantial lead. And, wispersync is so much better then that crappy AT&T 3G. I agree with others that it is a shame that Apple did not make a deal with Sprint or Verizon. I love my iPhone but hate AT&T. Before Apple looks into a e-reader, I want them to look into either improving AT&T service or getting another provider.
Sorry for my bad english and the typos, i'm not native english speaking.
But here are my thoughts:
The future will be color, handy device, very thin, maybe about 10", maybe aluminum/carbon-fibre, OLED, and all the functionality of the iPhone / iPod-Touch.
My guess is that Apple's R&D hasn't been sleeping all these years. It was very obvious that something like this would be important.
Maybe we'll have to wait for one or two years.
But there will be definitely something better than the Kindle.
I can do all of that and so much more on my iphone. Only difference is battery life.
Screen size is another big difference. Not everyone wants a robust A/V media player or access to 40k apps or any of the other things that the iPhone/Touch, or even a notebook, offers. Amazon seems to be targeting heavy print readers who don't care about being tied to the internet with emails and forums and websites all the time. This device doesn't fit my needs and the market seems way too small for Apple to care about, but I do think the device the device works for its intended market. I bought my 10yo nephew the Sony PRS-700BC Reader Digital Book for Christmas. He's a heavy reader so anything to encourage that is worth the expense, IMO. He didn't take to it immediately but now he plans ahead and stores countless books on them. He'll be gone all summer so this will come in very handy. It's good that we different products for different needs.
I am 70 years old but have used computers as a pharmacist since the mid 70'. I think the larger Kindle DX is a great idea; however, it is too expensive for me. Like most electronic items they start out expensive and drop in price with acceptance. I was burned by buying a Sony Betamax in 1978.
For texts in my fields (Biology & Chemistry), color illustrations and diagrams are critical to understanding the material. Grayscale isn't going to cut it.
And yes, I don't care that the technology isn't there yet for color e-paper. This kindle isn't very useful for my purposes and others without color.
That was my very first thought when seeing this! Color in this day and age is critical for photos, diagrams charts, illustrations, etc.
Having said that, I do applaud Amazon and Apple....anything we can do to get the costs down of textbooks and save trees is welcome!
I know I will prefer Apple's interpretation (when it comes) over Amazon's current iteration even though it will undoubtably be more expensive.
More junk for the government agencies to purchase with taxpayer dollars. Wait and watch a public school near you will be asking for 1.5 million for Kindles. How about some paperback textbooks, but then Houghton Mifflin would have a cardiac.
More junk for the government agencies to purchase with taxpayer dollars. Wait and watch a public school near you will be asking for 1.5 million for Kindles. How about some paperback textbooks, but then Houghton Mifflin would have a cardiac.
Junk? And when they bought white MacBooks and eMacs that was different- right?
Junk? And when they bought white MacBooks and eMacs that was different- right?
Well, I don't think that there was an alternative method of getting online and becoming computer literate. But we do have a lot of books already in print, recyclable and they DON'T REQUIRE electricity to run.
Show me the cost savings, show me the energy savings... but PLEASE we don't need it because it's DIFFERENT.
I can do all of that and so much more on my iphone. Only difference is battery life.
No you can't. I know you, and most other people here like to diss almost all non-Apple gear, but really, the Kindle is nothing like anything Apple has and in my opinion, in its own right, the Kindle is awesome. The Kindle DX is even better and when / if it gets color it will be even more amazing. If you read only on the bus or train on your way to work, or whatever, there is no need for a Kindle, the iPhone / Touch will do. But if you are a voracious reader, and there are many of them about - the kindle is superior by a large margin. Primarily because of the screen, but also because of the ability to access Amazon, read reviews, preview chapters, quick downloads, etc etc. Combine that with the ability to read newspapers, and when color arrives, surf the net and you have a really cool device. Now if we only could get the damn thing in Canada, there would be at least one in my house.
I don't think people who read newspapers are such a small group. The problems newspapers are having are related more to the drop in advertising, than dropping readership, though that has declined.
You're right in that I probably overstated that a tad, but I was careful to say "get their news from" newspapers, not "read newspapers" even though I definitely implied "readership." Also, these kinds of things would clearly vary from area to area, and country to country as well so your mileage may vary as they say.
I would argue that while lots of people may still read newspapers, that in most cases it's neither the main source, nor the first source for news in that group. What I see in my area is that almost everyone has switched to the "free" newspapers, which are now handed out at every bus, train, and transit station. You actually have to dodge around these idiots handing out the papers and perhaps throw a few karate chops just to make it to the bus most days.
If the readers had to pay for the paper, only something like one in a hundred would do so IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
... We subscribe the the NY Times and the WSJ, but for one year at a time. I subscribe to magazines for three years at a time, but magazine subscriptions are so very much cheaper. ...
It certainly makes a difference where you live in that if I lived in New York I might be tempted to buy the paper simply because it's a better paper. The two main "pay for" papers in my town are horrible rags that are almost the same format and mostly the same information as the free papers.
I would still argue that you are in a minority in spending so much money per year for newspapers and magazine subscriptions. Other than a single obscure and very unique magazine that I get from the UK (because it's the only source of that information), I haven't bought or read a magazine in at least 15 years, and I'm a huge reader with a vast book collection etc. so it's not like I fill up my time by watching TV or something.
I think the newspapers did this to themselves to a degree in that the only real reason to pay for a paper over getting the news for free on the internet, is the analysis, not the news itself. The news The NY Times and the WSJ are some of the best traditional news sources for that reason.
What I see is that the majority of TV and newspaper news outlets have been moving more and more into the entertainment realm over the last couple of decades and backing away from any kind of editorial positions or analysis of the news. Now that this same news can be had on the net for free, they are up against the wall because (WSJ and NYT excluded) they don't really offer anything that the consumer can't get for free on the internet.
Well, I don't think that there was an alternative method of getting online and becoming computer literate. But we do have a lot of books already in print, recyclable and they DON'T REQUIRE electricity to run.
Show me the cost savings, show me the energy savings... but PLEASE we don't need it because it's DIFFERENT.
You are kidding right? You honestly can't see how this would save paper? Cost the cost of producttion in printing costs, etc?
Actually, the larger Kindle's profile in that image of it on that ladies palm in the AI post kind of looks like the bottom half of the MacBook Air just a different color.
You are kidding right? You honestly can't see how this would save paper? Cost the cost of producttion in printing costs, etc?
Move from Wood to Hemp. Hemp grows rapidly, is a highly dense per acre product, longer lasting and a fraction of the cost to harvest and move to pulp for textiles and the print industry.
If the US Government would get out of the way on this issue the clothing and print industry would save massive amounts of money and Trees would be focused more for construction and not for our work and leisure print media.
The very name "Kindle" to me describes Amazon's vision. This isn't the fire, it's not the fuel, it's just the little bit to get the fire started!
My biggest gripe is that the publishers see this as a way to make massively more money. eBooks have massively less manufacturing and distribution costs, cannot be resold (or, it seems, transferred from one device to another?), and have inherently less value. The price for the consumer should be far less than a paper copy.
Fix the business model, and mature the readers (bigger, faster, cheaper, color screens), and it just might catch on!
No you can't. I know you, and most other people here like to diss almost all non-Apple gear, but really, the Kindle is nothing like anything Apple has and in my opinion, in its own right, the Kindle is awesome. The Kindle DX is even better and when / if it gets color it will be even more amazing. If you read only on the bus or train on your way to work, or whatever, there is no need for a Kindle, the iPhone / Touch will do. But if you are a voracious reader, and there are many of them about - the kindle is superior by a large margin. Primarily because of the screen, but also because of the ability to access Amazon, read reviews, preview chapters, quick downloads, etc etc. Combine that with the ability to read newspapers, and when color arrives, surf the net and you have a really cool device. Now if we only could get the damn thing in Canada, there would be at least one in my house.
The price of color would have shot this up $200-$400 more or they would have put it in. The 4 hours to charge is a joke. Obviously, Apple R&D on battery design will be particularly useful, as well their Chip designers, Industrial Designers and much more when coming out with an actual Tablet that does more than read books, journals and newspapers at 150ppi on 16 bit Grayscale.
Everyone knocking the display seems to ignore the 2 huge advantages of e-ink over a back-lit screen:
1. Eye-fatigue
2. Ability to read in bright sunlight.
No doubt it sucks these things are only in B&W, but who cares if it's in color if you can't see the damn thing or you don't want to look at it any longer because it hurts to do so. I don't know how any new tablet device from Apple will overcome that problem.
Would I pay that much for it? Probably not, not without a stylus to mark up the docs (assuming this would be another limitation of the e-ink technology). But as a law student, I drool at the idea of ditching my textbooks for something like this.
Just thought I'd throw two links in about Kindle demographics...
In a nutshell, Kindle seems to have about a 50 yr. old median age, and 70% are above 40 yrs. old.
The second link has interesting comments and feedback.
Based on the target of education, it seems Amazon is aiming to shift their demographic, but I still say it won't find traction until it addresses 3 things: lower price, color, and multi-function (calendar, email, to-do/organizer, and possibly Office document editing).
I guess the real proof will be if they can develop the Kindle, while selling enough to keep this moving forward.
Comments
I don't see how this is going to help. Papers will sell this at a lower cost to those who are willing to pay for a long term subscription. What does that mean? Three years? Five years?
We subscribe the the NY Times and the WSJ, but for one year at a time. I subscribe to magazines for three years at a time, but magazine subscriptions are so very much cheaper.
The WSJ subscription costs us $300 a year, and the NY Times, which we pay in two installments, costs $500 for a year, including the Sunday Times edition.
That's a lot of money.
I think the electronic versions are (or will be) much less expensive. The publishing costs
are much lower with no paper, no newsstands, many fewer union employees, etc.
Sorry had to finally register to say that.
Sorry for my bad english and the typos, i'm not native english speaking.
But here are my thoughts:
The future will be color, handy device, very thin, maybe about 10", maybe aluminum/carbon-fibre, OLED, and all the functionality of the iPhone / iPod-Touch.
My guess is that Apple's R&D hasn't been sleeping all these years. It was very obvious that something like this would be important.
Maybe we'll have to wait for one or two years.
But there will be definitely something better than the Kindle.
what do you think?
I can do all of that and so much more on my iphone. Only difference is battery life.
Screen size is another big difference. Not everyone wants a robust A/V media player or access to 40k apps or any of the other things that the iPhone/Touch, or even a notebook, offers. Amazon seems to be targeting heavy print readers who don't care about being tied to the internet with emails and forums and websites all the time. This device doesn't fit my needs and the market seems way too small for Apple to care about, but I do think the device the device works for its intended market. I bought my 10yo nephew the Sony PRS-700BC Reader Digital Book for Christmas. He's a heavy reader so anything to encourage that is worth the expense, IMO. He didn't take to it immediately but now he plans ahead and stores countless books on them. He'll be gone all summer so this will come in very handy. It's good that we different products for different needs.
I can do all of that and so much more on my iphone. Only difference is battery life.
That is so obnoxious.
How do you view a 9.7" image without scolling or expanding your fingers on your iPhone?
For texts in my fields (Biology & Chemistry), color illustrations and diagrams are critical to understanding the material. Grayscale isn't going to cut it.
And yes, I don't care that the technology isn't there yet for color e-paper. This kindle isn't very useful for my purposes and others without color.
That was my very first thought when seeing this! Color in this day and age is critical for photos, diagrams charts, illustrations, etc.
Having said that, I do applaud Amazon and Apple....anything we can do to get the costs down of textbooks and save trees is welcome!
I know I will prefer Apple's interpretation (when it comes) over Amazon's current iteration even though it will undoubtably be more expensive.
More junk for the government agencies to purchase with taxpayer dollars. Wait and watch a public school near you will be asking for 1.5 million for Kindles. How about some paperback textbooks, but then Houghton Mifflin would have a cardiac.
Junk? And when they bought white MacBooks and eMacs that was different- right?
Junk? And when they bought white MacBooks and eMacs that was different- right?
Well, I don't think that there was an alternative method of getting online and becoming computer literate. But we do have a lot of books already in print, recyclable and they DON'T REQUIRE electricity to run.
Show me the cost savings, show me the energy savings... but PLEASE we don't need it because it's DIFFERENT.
I can do all of that and so much more on my iphone. Only difference is battery life.
No you can't. I know you, and most other people here like to diss almost all non-Apple gear, but really, the Kindle is nothing like anything Apple has and in my opinion, in its own right, the Kindle is awesome. The Kindle DX is even better and when / if it gets color it will be even more amazing. If you read only on the bus or train on your way to work, or whatever, there is no need for a Kindle, the iPhone / Touch will do. But if you are a voracious reader, and there are many of them about - the kindle is superior by a large margin. Primarily because of the screen, but also because of the ability to access Amazon, read reviews, preview chapters, quick downloads, etc etc. Combine that with the ability to read newspapers, and when color arrives, surf the net and you have a really cool device. Now if we only could get the damn thing in Canada, there would be at least one in my house.
I don't think people who read newspapers are such a small group. The problems newspapers are having are related more to the drop in advertising, than dropping readership, though that has declined.
You're right in that I probably overstated that a tad, but I was careful to say "get their news from" newspapers, not "read newspapers" even though I definitely implied "readership." Also, these kinds of things would clearly vary from area to area, and country to country as well so your mileage may vary as they say.
I would argue that while lots of people may still read newspapers, that in most cases it's neither the main source, nor the first source for news in that group. What I see in my area is that almost everyone has switched to the "free" newspapers, which are now handed out at every bus, train, and transit station. You actually have to dodge around these idiots handing out the papers and perhaps throw a few karate chops just to make it to the bus most days.
If the readers had to pay for the paper, only something like one in a hundred would do so IMO.
... We subscribe the the NY Times and the WSJ, but for one year at a time. I subscribe to magazines for three years at a time, but magazine subscriptions are so very much cheaper. ...
It certainly makes a difference where you live in that if I lived in New York I might be tempted to buy the paper simply because it's a better paper. The two main "pay for" papers in my town are horrible rags that are almost the same format and mostly the same information as the free papers.
I would still argue that you are in a minority in spending so much money per year for newspapers and magazine subscriptions. Other than a single obscure and very unique magazine that I get from the UK (because it's the only source of that information), I haven't bought or read a magazine in at least 15 years, and I'm a huge reader with a vast book collection etc. so it's not like I fill up my time by watching TV or something.
I think the newspapers did this to themselves to a degree in that the only real reason to pay for a paper over getting the news for free on the internet, is the analysis, not the news itself. The news The NY Times and the WSJ are some of the best traditional news sources for that reason.
What I see is that the majority of TV and newspaper news outlets have been moving more and more into the entertainment realm over the last couple of decades and backing away from any kind of editorial positions or analysis of the news. Now that this same news can be had on the net for free, they are up against the wall because (WSJ and NYT excluded) they don't really offer anything that the consumer can't get for free on the internet.
Well, I don't think that there was an alternative method of getting online and becoming computer literate. But we do have a lot of books already in print, recyclable and they DON'T REQUIRE electricity to run.
Show me the cost savings, show me the energy savings... but PLEASE we don't need it because it's DIFFERENT.
You are kidding right? You honestly can't see how this would save paper? Cost the cost of producttion in printing costs, etc?
Actually, the larger Kindle's profile in that image of it on that ladies palm in the AI post kind of looks like the bottom half of the MacBook Air just a different color.
Google started their copiers!
You mean Amazon, right?
You are kidding right? You honestly can't see how this would save paper? Cost the cost of producttion in printing costs, etc?
Move from Wood to Hemp. Hemp grows rapidly, is a highly dense per acre product, longer lasting and a fraction of the cost to harvest and move to pulp for textiles and the print industry.
If the US Government would get out of the way on this issue the clothing and print industry would save massive amounts of money and Trees would be focused more for construction and not for our work and leisure print media.
..doesn't mean Kindle will follow the same arc, but I'm watching the pioneers take the arrows with interest.....
Pioneer, yes. Perfect world-changing solution, no.
The very name "Kindle" to me describes Amazon's vision. This isn't the fire, it's not the fuel, it's just the little bit to get the fire started!
My biggest gripe is that the publishers see this as a way to make massively more money. eBooks have massively less manufacturing and distribution costs, cannot be resold (or, it seems, transferred from one device to another?), and have inherently less value. The price for the consumer should be far less than a paper copy.
Fix the business model, and mature the readers (bigger, faster, cheaper, color screens), and it just might catch on!
No you can't. I know you, and most other people here like to diss almost all non-Apple gear, but really, the Kindle is nothing like anything Apple has and in my opinion, in its own right, the Kindle is awesome. The Kindle DX is even better and when / if it gets color it will be even more amazing. If you read only on the bus or train on your way to work, or whatever, there is no need for a Kindle, the iPhone / Touch will do. But if you are a voracious reader, and there are many of them about - the kindle is superior by a large margin. Primarily because of the screen, but also because of the ability to access Amazon, read reviews, preview chapters, quick downloads, etc etc. Combine that with the ability to read newspapers, and when color arrives, surf the net and you have a really cool device. Now if we only could get the damn thing in Canada, there would be at least one in my house.
The price of color would have shot this up $200-$400 more or they would have put it in. The 4 hours to charge is a joke. Obviously, Apple R&D on battery design will be particularly useful, as well their Chip designers, Industrial Designers and much more when coming out with an actual Tablet that does more than read books, journals and newspapers at 150ppi on 16 bit Grayscale.
1. Eye-fatigue
2. Ability to read in bright sunlight.
No doubt it sucks these things are only in B&W, but who cares if it's in color if you can't see the damn thing or you don't want to look at it any longer because it hurts to do so. I don't know how any new tablet device from Apple will overcome that problem.
Would I pay that much for it? Probably not, not without a stylus to mark up the docs (assuming this would be another limitation of the e-ink technology). But as a law student, I drool at the idea of ditching my textbooks for something like this.
In a nutshell, Kindle seems to have about a 50 yr. old median age, and 70% are above 40 yrs. old.
The second link has interesting comments and feedback.
Based on the target of education, it seems Amazon is aiming to shift their demographic, but I still say it won't find traction until it addresses 3 things: lower price, color, and multi-function (calendar, email, to-do/organizer, and possibly Office document editing).
I guess the real proof will be if they can develop the Kindle, while selling enough to keep this moving forward.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=3845
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10170028-1.html