Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsonescorcio
I think he meant (I know I did) dedicated devices (which is the case).
Off course you can read in a 5" device. Even in a 4" or 3" one! And off course you can enjoy it (millions do everyday)! But that does not change the fact that for a dedicated reading device 6" is, as far as I am concerned, the minimum for reading with real confort. Why do you think paper books have the size thay have? How many paper books smaller than 6" are out there?  |
Well, as I pointed out earlier, I have a 5" dedicated device, and would not want a device that was physically larger. I personally would hate not being able to easily bring my reader with me. I very much doubt that the 6" devices would be able to fit in the front pocket of my jeans.. and certainly don't want to put any of my reading devices in the back pocket of my jeans.
My question was and remains for those who denigrate the 5" screens.. how many of you have actually spent serious time reading with them. A 5" screen has twice the screen real estate as a similarly proportioned 3.5" screen and 56% more than a 4" screen. Having migrated from an iPod Touch, I can tell you that the reading experience is night and day.
As for paper back books, you have to remember that the paperback book size is a compromise on a lot of factors.. and I expect that storage versus visibility played a bigger role in the size of mass market paperbacks than how easy they were to read.
Mind you, I am not saying that anyone is wrong to desire a larger reader. What I am saying is that there is clearly a subset of the e-book reading community that really likes and appreciates the smaller form factor that a 5" screen allows and are glad that some manufacturers are producing dedicated e-book readers in that size range.
--
Bill