The review could have gone farther in detail, but I believe it to be one well aimed at the general ebook reading public. Good points though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anak
Personally I don't find this a very good review. Too general, it doesn't show that the reviewer did some heavy testing.
If he did heavy testing I at least would expect
• annotations: sorting order problems (well known bug)
• display of sub families of embedded fonts not always correct (also well known bug)*
Seems to me he took a lot at face value without testing it.
Doesn't say thas much if the speed is not actually measured and/or is not compared with other readers. Is it faster than the Aura HD, or newer Kobo readers like the Aura?
On the other hand it doesn't come as a surprise either. The core components of the H2O are the same as the Aura HD, which is known to be not one of the fastest ereaders around. Actually, non of the Kobo devices are very fast, as many reviews have proven that many competitive devices are faster than Kobos.
Let's just assume the device is fast and smooth enough for daily use and therefore it isn't necessarily a con. However, if you come from non Kobo device, well, then you could notice that the H2O is slightly or notably slower but doesn't necessarily make the device less useful.
It is safe to say that the H2O will not claim the #1 spot in reviews if page turn speed or overall speed is measured.
Size of header and footer
The comment of Barty is correct but I would not call it "stupidly. You may like or dislike the size of the header and footer on Kobo devices but a good reviewer should have at least mentioned that these are taking a large portion of the screen and the positioning of the displayed info is quite far from the screen edge. Repositioning the text closer to the screen edge doesn't decrease readability.
Ceteris paribus, he could and probably should have said that competitive devices do a better job at this (and wait for a non Kobo 6.8" reader with the same screen dpi) and that many non Kobo 6" devices can display the same amount of text on the screen albeit the lower resolution and dpi of the screen and therfore the text doesn't look as crisp, clear or smooth.
Dimensions and weight
The device is heavier but not that much (about the same weight of older 6" devices [2010]) not necessarily a "con" but the size of the screen is slightly larger too.
"still larger than Kindle Paperwhite": this is a total non argument. Why should a KPW be the standard? I'm pretty sure the KWP(2) isn't the smallest, leanest or lightest 6" ereader around.
Okay, it's a (North) American website. In those territories the choice of ereaders is very limited when compared to i.e. the European market. Even said that, "still larger than Kindle Paperwhite" remains non argument.
* note: fw 3.8.0 almost solves this fonts issue but I don't know which fw the reviewer test with.
|