Have e-Readers been superseded by Tablets and Phones

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by saoir

Yes the tablet does the job, technically. But the screen is far far harder on the eyes and it brings a load of other distractions with it.

You forgot to add that this is the case for YOU!

I do everything that you listed on my Note 2 phone. And since I don't suffer from ADHD, I have NO problem staying focused on reading my books, and I don't have any problems with the screen bothering my eyes.

There are scores of us on here that enjoy our books on our tablets and phones. What we don't do is try to shove down every ones throat that reading on anything other than an e-ink is inferior.

There is no right or wrong way here, just different preferences.

[Catlady]

Some of us still prefer to read on paper.

[sl42]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

*sigh*

Can we please stop pretending that resolution doesn't matter? The argument that it may matter on lcd, but not on eink is absurd. It matters on both. It even matters way past the point of your eyes beeing able to distinguish individual pixels.

There is definitely a difference - on an LCD you can see the grid outlining each individual screen pixel if you look closely - not just a jaggedness to curves and lines at odd angles, but a grid outlining each individual pixel even in regions of solid color.

I don't know what the DPI of my little Kobo Mini is, though I'm sure it is much lower than newer and more expensive readers. But I know that even with two rather weak (probably 3x) magnifying glasses staged together I can't tell that there are pixels at all. Partially, I suspect this is because the pixels aren't square edged as on an LCD but possibly a bit rounded/blob like? But I don't really know - I just know that as far as my eyes (well, eye actually) can tell, the resolution might as well be infinite.

I'd imagine there are plenty of improvements to be made to eink - a whiter, less greyish screen would be nice, faster screen updating would be nice. But if you doubled or tripled the resolution, would it actually look any different without a microscope?

On the other hand, the LCD screen I'm looking at now is on a netbook and has a 1024x600 resolution. I'd guess you would have to at least double the resolution in each direction before it would be impossible for me to see pixels with the unaided eye.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Some of us still prefer to read on paper.

Now see ... that's beautiful. Why can't more people just leave their preference at that?

Not "paper is easier on the eyes;" Not "paper is a far superior reading experience to eink/lcd;" not "paper has less distractions;" just "I prefer paper."

[saoir]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

There is no right or wrong way here, just different preferences.

You forgot to say in YOUR opinion!

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by conan50

For reading indoors at least, I'm wondering if the new 6 inch Fire tablet will look as good or better as the new basic Kindle? It doesn't seem much competition to spend a few bucks more for a tablet vs that basic Kindle now. What do you folks think?

Even when eInk devices cost more than tablets, I'll buy the eInk device. I had a tablet, about the only thing I did with it was charge it. I use my eReaders all the time. I like the eInk screen better than an LCD screen.

[sl42]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Even when eInk devices cost more than tablets, I'll buy the eInk device. I had a tablet, about the only thing I did with it was charge it. I use my eReaders all the time. I like the eInk screen better than an LCD screen.

That's about the best way to put it. My Android tablet spent more time on the charger than in use - and couldn't get more than six or maybe seven hours of use at most (with wifi off and screen dimmed as low as it would go).

Since I got my reader, the tablet has remained powered off and will most likely never boot again. It crashed so often when I tried to do anything like, say, run a web browser that it was basically useless for anything but an ereader - and it had nowhere near good enough of a screen or battery for that use.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Now see ... that's beautiful. Why can't more people just leave their preference at that?

Not "paper is easier on the eyes;" Not "paper is a far superior reading experience to eink/lcd;" not "paper has less distractions;" just "I prefer paper."

Obviously, preference is the dominant aspect, and we don't need to add "IMO" every time we express a subjective opinion in a discussion that is all about preferences and opinions, but just to play devil's advocate: What if it isn't only about preference? What if there actually is a "best" way of reading that is scientifically backed? E.g how tiring a given reading method is for the eyes, whether LCD displays keep you awake, etc. I'd include surveys, but those are about preferences, too.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Mivo

Obviously, preference is the dominant aspect, and we don't need to add "IMO" every time we express a subjective opinion in a discussion that is all about preferences and opinions,

Of course I don't think someone needs to add "IMO" every time they expresses a subjective opinion. Especially if it clearly IS a personal subjective opinion. But when it's conveyed in such a way that it implies universality (LCD screens are not good for reading for long periods of time), then it's not about personal opinion any more. You (rhetorical you) believe (or want/need) that to be a universally accepted fact. And it's disingenuous to then turn around and play the "I'm not going to put 'IMO' after everything I say" card -- In my opinion.

but just to play devil's advocate: What if it isn't only about preference? What if there actually is a "best" way of reading that is scientifically backed? E.g how tiring a given reading method is for the eyes, whether LCD displays keep you awake, etc. I'd include surveys, but those are about preferences, too.

What if my aunt grew testicles; would she be my uncle?

My point is; why the apparent need/want for eInk (or any screen technology for that matter) to be the clear, accepted and scientifically proven "Best Way to read electronically" in the first place?

I'm not looking for an end to personal opinion, just an end to the knee-jerk "Tablets are inferior for reading -- period" dogma. Regardless if it comes with an implied or retrofitted "IMO."

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Mivo

but just to play devil's advocate: What if it isn't only about preference? What if there actually is a "best" way of reading that is scientifically backed? E.g how tiring a given reading method is for the eyes, whether LCD displays keep you awake, etc. I'd include surveys, but those are about preferences, too.

Problem is, most of those tests were done with a specific audience in mind.

What if you never read before sleeping?
What if you never read in daylight?
What if you only read 10 minutes every three or four hours?
What if you read about 50 minutes per hour?

What is the best way of reading if there are so many variables to reading itself already? Somebody who can read 16 hours a day (and sleeps the other 8) will have a different "best" way of reading than somebody who can read 20 minutes per day and then has to take care of kids/dogs/cats/partners/work/etc.

If I take myself as an example:
I read both on e-ink devices, with and without light, and tablets. Sometimes I prefer my old BeBook Mini, at other times I'd rather grab my windows tablet, and there are times where my new T68 (with frontlight) is handier.

[booklover6]

Originally Posted by sl42

I don't know what the DPI of my little Kobo Mini is, though I'm sure it is much lower than newer and more expensive readers.

It's 200 dpi.

Originally Posted by sl42

On the other hand, the LCD screen I'm looking at now is on a netbook and has a 1024x600 resolution. I'd guess you would have to at least double the resolution in each direction before it would be impossible for me to see pixels with the unaided eye.

Terrible, isn't it? There are a lot of low-end, mostly older, tablets with that. No comparison to higher quality tabs such as the Nexus 7.2.

[booklover6]

Originally Posted by sl42

That's about the best way to put it. My Android tablet spent more time on the charger than in use - and couldn't get more than six or maybe seven hours of use at most (with wifi off and screen dimmed as low as it would go).

Since I got my reader, the tablet has remained powered off and will most likely never boot again. It crashed so often when I tried to do anything like, say, run a web browser that it was basically useless for anything but an ereader - and it had nowhere near good enough of a screen or battery for that use.

Sounds like a "hunk o' junk." What kind of tablet is it? I can assure you, there are better tablets than what you describe. And the screens of some of them are fantastic.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sl42

There is definitely a difference - on an LCD you can see the grid outlining each individual screen pixel if you look closely - not just a jaggedness to curves and lines at odd angles, but a grid outlining each individual pixel even in regions of solid color.

Not if the resolution is high enough. On a 300+ dpi screen, such as the Nexus 7 and iPad Retina Mini have, you absolutely cannot see the pixel grid with the naked eye.

[sl42]

Originally Posted by booklover6

Sounds like a "hunk o' junk." What kind of tablet is it? I can assure you, there are better tablets than what you describe. And the screens of some of them are fantastic.

It's a Lenovo. I think it's an L2107?? Can't get the model number without charging the thing again and turning it on as the sticker on the back is long gone. If I recall right, it runs Android 4.03? Many many people keep insisting that Android isn't nearly as bad as I describe, and at least one insists this particular release is just horribly buggy and all previous and succeeding releases work great... Hmm... I don't know about that. All I know is that almost every app I run on it crashes constantly with the exceptions of FBreader and a slightly older version of "VIM Touch". Can't use a web browser (any web browser) on it without it crashing a couple times per minute. I have never successfully read a single news article without having to relaunch the browser multiple times to finish reading it, for instance.

As an ereader it at least functioned. FBreader rarely crashes on it, and it was usable indoors for a few hours at a time before the battery ran dead. I couldn't even use the thing while it was plugged in because it has a micro-usb connector which only makes contact when perched at just the right angle with just the right tension on the connector (usually achieved by leaning it against various objects on my desk supported by the connector until it magically works and starts charging). Of course the slightest disturbance would mean that it would loose contact so as often as not I would pick up my tablet which had been charging all night to find it stone cold dead with a completely drained battery.

[QuantumIguana]

So, if you think e-ink is better, you need to add "IMO", however, if you think LCD is better, no such disclaimer is needed. Got it.