Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
It's the stupidity of the test using an iPad at FULL brightness for 4 hours. That's just stupid.
|
The brightness has already been addressed in the thread -- a lot of people are what you call stupid, and some are apparently stupider, since they hold their device closer to their eyes than was done in the study.
But the 4 hours part may not been addressed before. From the study:
Quote:
. . . the average teenager in the United States spends 7.5 h per day engaged in recreational media plus time spent on homework—which both occur in the late afternoon/evening, including the hour before bedtime (36), and which both involve exposure to light-emitting screens . . . the 4-h exposure interval used in this study is likely in the range of screen time exposure experienced by millions of Americans each evening.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
Mainly because there IS a conspiracy. It's not grand, by any means, but there IS a strong desire by the status quo to prove either the inferiority and/or the danger of ereading and in ebooks in general.
|
First of all, the author who is most often quoted in the press, Charles Czeisler, is an Apple consultant. Is Apple part of this conspiracy? Perhaps you will say yes, citing the anti-trust case. But it's not plausible that Apple is anti-device.
Second, the plotters did a piss-poor job of organizing this alleged conspiracy against eReading, given that the study authors found
the exact same spectral peak wavelength for eInk and dead-tree paper.
Third, it will be easy for Apple and competitors to address the concern, since at least one freeware author has already paved the way:
https://justgetflux.com/ios.html
P.S. What about the Paperwhite and similar? Are they more like a tablet, or paper/eInk? Now, that's not addressed in the study. I'm thinking the Paperwhite, and Kobo Glo, would be similar, in this respect, to conventional eInk, because the light waves getting to the reader's eyes are reflected back from an eInk display. But I could be wrong.