Quote:
Originally Posted by ifonline
You may be right, but my take on it is this: I can read my 300 everywhere I could read the 600, and can read it in places I couldn't read the 600. I don't have to think about light source, or angle of the reader, or side lighting... it just works, and it's comfortable.
So while I appreciate that you have taken the time to over-analyse the situation, I think it's absurd that people are going to such great lengths to "prove" that the screen is basically, ok (depending on the available light, where that light is coming from, what angle you are holding the reader, etc.). All these hoops you have to jump through should be proof that there is a problem with the screen.
As I said before, however, tolerance to the screen issues is at different levels for different people, and for those that like the 600 (or 700 for that matter), more power to you.
|
The reason I debate it, and look for causes, is because simply saying 'the PRS-600 is worse than the PRS-505' doesn't address the issue, and is the sort of statement that can be written off by Sony or anyone else as simple whining that is to be ignored as being unimportant. Looking at the reasons we're having the issues to begin with, on the other hand, gives either anyone at Sony who even pretends to care (or perhaps more importantly, the competition to whom Sony will pay much more attention to, and who may be in the mood to trawl through opinions on these devices, looking for ways to deliver a better experience and usurp some of their customers) both valuable feedback as well as the types of real-world usage data which normally improves a third-generation product like the PRS-600/300 series.
Many older touch-screen devices which don't use the capacitative technology of the iPod Touch and iPhones didn't have this level of glare reported (or demonstrated) by a lot of the people in this thread; as an owner of one of these PDA's, I can attest to it, although the antiglare screen protectors helped greatly in situations where there was a lot of sunlight shining directly at the device. So why does the Sony PRS-600, a second-gen touch device and a third-gen eReader, show a lot more glare, despite being newer devices?
I suspect the answer has to do with the ergonomics of the design, and the failure of whatever engineers worked on it, to address usage patterns and the way people can read books or newspapers. With the way the thing's balanced, the non-slip back, and how the controls are laid out, it appears the designers of the PRS-600 decided that everyone read their books and held their readers at an angle like that used to hold and read paperbacks, which appears to be why glare's not as big an issue with some of the users here. The complaints here suggest that people read in a variety of locations, and hold their readers a variety of ways.. which means if you're not one of the people who holds it the way Sony apparently thought everyone SHOULD hold their readers, you get serious readability issues. Given how other touchscreens using similar technology (hell, even the Nokia N700-N800 series tablets) don't demonstrate this level of glare and clarity problems, even if they are using TFT LEDs, it suggests that the materials that Sony's using aren't the most optimal ones for reducing glare.
It actually reminds me of the first-generation Xbox controllers, which appeared to have been designed for 6'3-tall Caucasian males with larger hands, reflecting the original designers' assumptions that everyone who'd use an Xbox would be just like them... and failing to take into account other body-types, children, women, and so forth. Those sorts of assumptions need to be examined, by the customers if not by the companies who make those boneheaded decisions, if only so they can be brought forth and addressed by someone - like their competitors, if not those companies themselves. Otherwise Microsoft would still be bundling those big-ass controllers with the Xbox360, instead of the S-type inspired controllers they come with today...
This doesn't fix the PRS-600's very real issues, but at least by gathering data and looking at why they work for some people and not others is a more useful exercise than complaining that they blew it with the PRS-600... which is definitely the case with the PRS-300, IMO. No memory slots + smaller screen is a bigger issue in my books. Especially when there are other readers the same size which managed to keep the expandable memory for the same price.
Of course, if they didn't shrink the PRS-300 while removing the memory slots, they may have ended up with another PRS-700 style albatross with the Touch Edition if a cheaper, yet still very usable alternative existed, had they not forced this level of differentiation through the pruning of features.