[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by MR. Pockets

One reason I like the Kindle so much is that Amazon has shown itself to be dedicated to the Kindle being an ereader first and foremost. But will that change once ereaders have the option of adding other things (like video)?

Well, of course it will. When you have a device that is capable of rich media in addition to merely displaying text, why would Amazon or any other company artificially limit it to text display? That's just leaving money on the table - marketing an ereader with the ability to also browse the full-on web with email, etc., is a huge plus. Are you saying you would refuse to buy such a product simply because it had those added capabilities in addition to being able to read books? Because then, you know, ah, you sort of have, well, an iPad... Hmmm.

By then what an ereader is will have changed. They will still be easy on the eyes, and (hopefully) still be devoted to being an ereader, not a mini computer. I personally won't be happy with an "ereader" that thinks it is a "mini computer"/tablet until they can be and still be great at reading on (good interface mainly).

So when we boil through all the chaff, what you're really saying is your definition of an ereader is something with an eInk screen. So long as the product has eInk versus LCD, you'll happily adjust your personal definition (and consequent level of irritation) to accommodate a newer generation of products that bill themselves as readers, but with all the capabilities of a tablet computer (but shhhh, we're keeping that part a secret; even though this new 5th generation Kindle is basically an iPad with an eInk screen, we don't want to call it a tablet, because that might offend the pedants on MobileRead - we need to keep calling it a reader so those people won't think it's a tablet, even though every single last one of them who buys it from us is going to use it just like a tablet...).

For you, yes, but for most (I'll admit I'm guessing here) people, reading on a backlit screen for any long period of time is unbearable. I bought an ereader partly because I can't stand to read on a computer screen for long at all. So, yes, for you it is great, but for a lot of people it wouldn't work at all.

Yet again, truth is in the eye of the user (literally). This tiresome debate over LCD versus eInk has raged here on MR for ages. You're certainly not the first, and equally certainly won't be the last, on MR to basically make the claim that anything that isn't eInk can't possibly be useful for reading books. However, the truth is that reading backlit LCD doesn't bother vast swaths of the reading public, and some (*gasp*) even prefer it! I've used both, and they both have their pluses. I like the way eInk looks on the screen, just like text. It's a nifty effect. It doesn't make it easier for me to read, and it does have the drawback of requiring an external light source, which is at times most inconvenient. I've come to the conclusion that I prefer LCD for the time being, and if Apple does ever produce either a second generation iPad or a 7" iPad-like device with a super high-density display like the iPhone 4, that will make it a perfect reader for me. But of course, we can't call it a reader. Not until Amazon makes a Kindle with a high pixel density color eInk screen with high refresh to make the full-on web possible on it. But then, since it's eInk...that will make it a reader. Got it.

BTW, can you explain to me why anyone would choose PDF as the format of choice over, say, ePub or Mobi?

Because ePub and Mobi are child-like efforts at typography that produce disgusting formatting that is so entirely irritating and distracting that a satisfying reading experience is simply impossible for me. To me, part of reading a well-written book is the appreciation of the visual art of good typography. EPub and Mobi are years away from being able to do that. The formatted text produced by these infantile layout engines looks like something a kid slapped together on TextEdit. But then, that's just me.