Do you want a 7.8 inch e-ink ereader?

[dmapr]

Good question. I think that 6.5-7" is the ideal range for me (coming from the 7" Sony readers), so I'd prefer something smaller. It feels like it'll be a bit too big in a 4:3 form factor.

[tnforpaul45]

Yes, and I'd take something even larger. 9".....13"!! I still vehemently believe that the large e-Reader market is still very valuable and just hasn't been properly innovated into. The DPT-S1 is a good start, but I think a company like Kobo could knock it out of the ball park if they wanted to.

I think there is money to be made!

[haydnfan]

Originally Posted by dmapr

It feels like it'll be a bit too big in a 4:3 form factor.

Yes this. 8 in puts it in the same ball park as a pocket book diagonally, but if it is 4:3 it loses portability. I also worry about the weight. They will have to put alot of effort into keeping the weight down.

On top of that it has to be cheaper than an Ipad Mini, else I would feel ripped off.

[pickyaxe]

Yes, I would. I'd love an eInk reader that lets me read pdfs in portrait. I don't mind sacrificing a bit of bulk for that, and I don't value portability all that much (I use a bag).

With my H2O I've been reading pdfs in KOReader in landscape mode. It works for me, but the device is awkward to hold at this orientation, due to weight distribution and uncentered screen. Plus, reading a portrait-oriented document in landscape is awkward in itself because you can't see the entire page on the viewport at once.

The width of a 6.8" 4:3 display in landscape orientation is still 16% longer than the width of a 7.8" screen in portrait orientation. So, realistically, 7.8" is probably too small for comfortable portrait reading, even with an optimal pdf. To get the same width in portrait as my landscape H2O you'd need a 9 inch screen, and that's clearly too big for most people. So I'll have to settle.

[Jason90]

I'm in the yes camp,as long as they manage to keep the weight down to PW3 levels .

If it ends up being double the weight of the voyage of have to pass.

[SCION]

Yes. I don't know if I would use it as much as my Kindle Oasis, but I want one.

[Josieb1]

For me I think it would be too big, I won't rule it out but it certainly wouldn't be a take outside reader.

[dordale]

I voted maybe, other reservation. If a Kobo does release a 7.8" reader, I'd definitely be interested in it, but I want to see the price point and other features (waterproof, screen type, case type, etc) before jumping on board.

[WolfBack]

i voted "Maybe, I'd prefer something smaller."
7.8'' for a e-reader will be great for pdf's, magazines and comics, but I think that 6.8'' of the H2O is the perfect size for indoor and outdoor use. I kept my Aura 6'' on my pocket for outdoor use (and on my vacation). I hope for a 6'' with the specs of H2O, but if this not happen, then I keep my eyes on a Glo HD..

[Willa]

I like the idea of it enough that a trip to the store to have a feel and a lookee see would definitely be on the cards . . that and I am nosey. Price would also play a part . . may have to squeeze David for a loan!

[Xenophon]

I have an Aura HD now. To go for a 7.8" reader I'd need the following:

• Flexible substrate for the screen. A glass substrate that size would be too fragile.
• Resolution (dpi) no worse than the Aura HD
• Battery life no worse than the Aura HD
• Minimal weight increase over the Aura HD -- assuming that the weight is fairly evenly distributed across the entire device. If they use the old Rocket Ebook reader's trick of putting pretty much the entire battery in a bump that goes right in your hand, the weight could go up a fair bit.

Those are my reservations. Satisfy them and I'll run right out to buy one. Fail to satisfy them and I'll stick with my Aura HD for another generation.

[bearymore]

Originally Posted by oren64

The weight is also an issue, H2O 6.8" weigh at 233g it's 53g more than glo hd 6".
So the 7.8" need to be more or less at 300g, it might bother you if you read for long period of time.

Not to make too big a point of it, but I'm always bemused about discussions of e-reader weight. According to the book weight calculator at http://www.lugaru.com/bookweight.html a 300 page 6" x 9" paperback would weigh 441g. Why is a 300g e-reader tiresomely heavy, when an average paperback is almost 50% heavier?

Just curious.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by bearymore

Not to make too big a point of it, but I'm always bemused about discussions of e-reader weight. According to the book weight calculator at http://www.lugaru.com/bookweight.html a 300 page 6" x 9" paperback would weigh 441g. Why is a 300g e-reader tiresomely heavy, when an average paperback is almost 50% heavier?

Just curious.

Not sure if this is an issue for anyone else but when I'm reading a deadtree book, I tend to use both hands whereas I hold my ereader in one hand. OTOH, the hardcover I'm currently reading (1636: The Chronicles of Dr. Gribbleflotz) weighs in at 624g while my H2O in it's cover weighs 366g (230 g. without the cover).

[oren64]

Originally Posted by bearymore

Not to make too big a point of it, but I'm always bemused about discussions of e-reader weight. According to the book weight calculator at http://www.lugaru.com/bookweight.html a 300 page 6" x 9" paperback would weigh 441g. Why is a 300g e-reader tiresomely heavy, when an average paperback is almost 50% heavier?

Just curious.

I don't read alot of paperback so i can't compare, but I read from a tablet that weigh 380g, and it bother me when i read one handed for more that a hour.
But it also depends if you hold the ereader from the bottom or from the side, when you hold the ereader from the side more of weight is on your wrist.

The 300g is only an assumption we don't now what the weight of 7.8".
the avrage of 8" erader is 300g, but you have the inkBOOK 8 that weigh 258g and InkPad 840 that weigh 350g.

[haydnfan]

Originally Posted by bearymore

Not to make too big a point of it, but I'm always bemused about discussions of e-reader weight. According to the book weight calculator at http://www.lugaru.com/bookweight.html a 300 page 6" x 9" paperback would weigh 441g. Why is a 300g e-reader tiresomely heavy, when an average paperback is almost 50% heavier?

Just curious.

When you read one handed you're positioning your hand at the edge of the device instead of over the center-of-gravity. So it's not just that you're counteracting the gravitational force exerted on the book, you're also counteracting the gravitational torque exerted on the book about the end opposite your end.

When holding a physical book your finger tips end up closer to the spine (where the center-of-gravity is), and your thumbs too and the two forces are spread evenly about the center-of-gravity. So not only do you have two hands to half the force individually but this scenario naturally possesses rotational stability making it easier to hold.

For example if you take a wooden beam, it's easier to hold it at the center than it is at the edge.

If you take your ereader or tablet, give it a case with a rigid cover and then hold the cover like a book with two hands you'll suddenly find that it feels much lighter.