Quote:
Originally Posted by boswd
hmmm did you actually read the first part of the review?
The Kindle 3 and Nook Simple Touch cost about the same, weigh about the same, feel about the same, and have the same-generation, same-resolution e-ink screen. (The weight and thickness are both technically different, but the difference isn’t meaningful during use.) The bezels are about the same color and thickness. They both even use the otherwise rare PMN Caecilia font by default, and both display pictures of famous dead authors as “screensavers” when they’re asleep.
Barnes & Noble has copied so many facets of the Kindle that they clearly want consumers to think that this is a Kindle. They’re unquestionably trying to cause confusion in the market, presumably to increase their chances. I’m not a fan of this approach to competition; there’s enough potential differentiation that the runner-up needn’t outright copy the market leader so blatantly.
If that is not having tainted pre determined conclusion I don't know what is.  besides the fact he's just flat out wrong on so many levels. |
Geez, your fanboyism is really blinding you. I think he has a valid point. Nook 2 could also be white, like Kobo Touch. Look, the point of this thread is to discuss screen contrast. Unless you have something constructive to add, like evidence or textual evidence that Nook 2 contrast is no worse than Kindle's, I like to hear it.
If you want to tear the review, start a new thread. Or better yet, I found this review in the Kindle forum. Go to that forum and agitate there. Or go to forum "Which one should I buy" and put down other people's thoughtful discussions and proclaim Nook's greatness. But you probably already have.