Amazon aims to launch front-lit Kindle in July

Originally Posted by mewmartigan

My guess is that it will be the same exact Touch we have now, but with the extra production step of adding the light and the extra software to control it.

In fact, if the report is accurate there is only a $10 or even $0 price increase, I bet the existing Touch will go away.

I don't know if the contrast difference would be enough to justify the logistics behind two very similar models and those that don't want the light could just never turn it on.

Now if the price is more than a $10 difference, then they would probably keep both Touch models.

On or Off the contrast will still take a hit due to the substrate.

[soondai]

Originally Posted by jswinden

On or Off the contrast will still take a hit due to the substrate.

Incorrect. The contrast on the Nooklit is superior to a regular Pearl screen if the light is left on and set low (say 10-20 percent), even in a regularly lit room. If Amazon delivers a screen lighting system that only requires 1 or 2 LEDs as rumored (opposed to the 8 on the Nook) it might well deliver the best screen contrast on an e-reader to date without a big hit to battery life.

I am worried that the speculation is correct that this lighted kindle will just be the same model with the lighting added.

Reading in bed I am going to fall asleep and drop the thing. I need one of the plastic substrate screens that are possible now. Given the number of kindles with brokey screeens that Amazon seems to replace, it would be in their best interest as well.

[alwaysrox]

I am looking to buy a Kindle Touch 3 today...Advice? Online is the way I plan to go. A couple of questions: I read, in the description, that the "Touch" is not touch...What is meant by that? And also it talks about having an onscreen keyboard. That's a touch keyboard, right? No plastic keys outside the touchscreen, right?

Originally Posted by alwaysrox

I am looking to buy a Kindle Touch 3 today...Advice? Online is the way I plan to go. A couple of questions: I read, in the description, that the "Touch" is not touch...What is meant by that? And also it talks about having an onscreen keyboard. That's a touch keyboard, right? No plastic keys outside the touchscreen, right?

Here is a link to the Kindle Touch on Amazon. This is their only touch model, though it comes in WiFi only and WiFi plus 3G. There is no #3 in the Kindle Touch name as they are sometimes referred to as the 4th generation. The 3rd generation of Kindles did not have a touch screen and they had a physical keyboard. I'm thinking you might have been looking at the 4th generation model simply called the "Kindle" and it does not have a touch screen.

• The non-touch screen Kindle is $79 in WiFi only.
• The Kindle Touch with touch screen is $99 in WiFi only.

Originally Posted by soondai

Incorrect. The contrast on the Nooklit is superior to a regular Pearl screen if the light is left on and set low (say 10-20 percent), even in a regularly lit room....

No offense intended, but I would have to see that to believe it. I'm seriously skeptical, especially since I doubt you tried that at home. Once again, lighting in stores is MUCH different than lighting in most peoples' homes. So unless they allowed you to go into a dark closet to test it, I wouldn't put much stake in the test.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jswinden

No offense intended, but I would have to see that to believe it. I'm seriously skeptical, especially since I doubt you tried that at home. Once again, lighting in stores is MUCH different than lighting in most peoples' homes. So unless they allowed you to go into a dark closet to test it, I wouldn't put much stake in the test.

There are lots of people in the nook forum who are using it for real and who say the same thing. Go and take a look in that forum.

Originally Posted by HarryT

There are lots of people in the nook forum who are using it for real and who say the same thing. Go and take a look in that forum.

Don't care too as I'm not in the market for self-lighted eInk reader. Nor would I take their word either as it is subjective. People often see what they want to see, especially when brand loyalty is involved. I read a lot of Sony PRS-600 users claiming the then new touchscreen was as good as the PRS-505. It wasn't; not by a long shot. The next generation of PRS-x50 models were better, but they still noticeably degraded the contast. I do hope this new technology is good enough to not degrade the contrast, but I won't believe it until I see it because any time you add a layer on top of the eInk screen it will cause some degradation. Whether the degradation is noticeable or not is subjective.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jswinden

Don't care too as I'm not in the market for self-lighted eInk reader. Nor would I take their word either as it is subjective. People often see what they want to see, especially when brand loyalty is involved. I read a lot of Sony PRS-600 users claiming the then new touchscreen was as good as the PRS-505. It wasn't; not by a long shot. The next generation of PRS-x50 models were better, but they still noticeably degraded the contast.

Sorry, Jack, but I'm a little puzzled by this. You claim that the touchscreen on the PRS-350 and 650 "noticeably degraded the contrast". These devices have IR touchscreens, just like the Kindle Touch does. There is no physical layer on top of the screen to degrade the image. Can you explain, please, what the mechanism is by which it's degraded? I have a Sony PRS-350 and the screen quality appears excellent to me.

[soondai]

Originally Posted by jswinden

No offense intended, but I would have to see that to believe it. I'm seriously skeptical, especially since I doubt you tried that at home. Once again, lighting in stores is MUCH different than lighting in most peoples' homes. So unless they allowed you to go into a dark closet to test it, I wouldn't put much stake in the test.

No offense taken. I did only try it in the store, but the effect seemed quite pronounced to me. And it wasn't a case of the power of suggestion-- I think I'm the first person who mentioned it around here the day after launch.

You definitely are right that the screen-protector/light-spreader layer affects the contrast slightly when the light is off.

I am anxious to see what amazon has coming. My money is on a carbon copy of the current touch with the light added. If so, my money stays in my pocket.

C'mon someone, give us the tough and flexible screen.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by jswinden

Add another +1! I don't even want to know how much money I've spent on readers!

• Quite a few PalmOS and WM PDAs during the pre-eInk reader era.
• Kindles owned: K2, two K3's (gifted one), K4NT, KT, KF.
• Sonys owned: Bookman in 1992, PRS505, PRS300, PRS600, PRS900, PRS350, PRS950. (Our Penguin troll would be proud of this.)
• Kobo Touch.
• And some early tablets.

Yes I know, I need help...

If you need help getting rid of them I'd be happy to take them off of your hands!


I also do not regret even a penny of the money that I have spent on ebook readers. The enjoyment that they have given me is priceless.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, Jack, but I'm a little puzzled by this. You claim that the touchscreen on the PRS-350 and 650 "noticeably degraded the contrast". These devices have IR touchscreens, just like the Kindle Touch does. There is no physical layer on top of the screen to degrade the image. Can you explain, please, what the mechanism is by which it's degraded? I have a Sony PRS-350 and the screen quality appears excellent to me.

I'm unsure of what was meant by the degraded contrast as well - my PRS-350 has the best e-ink screen I've ever seen.

[booklover6]

Originally Posted by soondai

I am anxious to see what amazon has coming. My money is on a carbon copy of the current touch with the light added. If so, my money stays in my pocket.

That's how I feel, too. I want a 2nd gen Touch, not a first gen, I can take or leave the light.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by soondai

Incorrect. The contrast on the Nooklit is superior to a regular Pearl screen if the light is left on and set low (say 10-20 percent), even in a regularly lit room.

Using the NSTWGL in-store, I looked at the display under various conditions by changing its proximity and exposure to the window and overhead light. While I did like the bleaching effect of the internal light on the background of the screen, the text looked more faded than on the original ST, and that I didn't like.

And yes, I did try various internal light settings under varying degrees of external light and shadow.

I'm a fan of the ST's form as long as accessories aren't involved. But the moment one adds a jacket and light, the whole thing becomes too cumbrous. If B&N's jacket solutions were as slim as Sony's, I might have gotten an ST and ignored the NSTWGL completely.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

I'm hoping there will also be a non-touch model with the front light.

Me too. After dealing with fingerprints on my KFire, I hate going to another touch reader.

[Stingo]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Me too. After dealing with fingerprints on my KFire, I hate going to another touch reader.

I have the touch and never really notice fingerprints. Something about the mat pearl screen hides them really well.

[Shopaholic]

Originally Posted by Stingo

I have the touch and never really notice fingerprints. Something about the mat pearl screen hides them really well.

Yep! Same for the touch screen on the Sonys. I didn't want a touch reader for that reason too. I don't see fingerprints at all. If you eat greasy food & touch it you will or use hand cream but general use with non-greasy fingers, nope. But I do notice dust. Even on the Kindle NT.