Is the ereader dead?

[binaryhermit]

In the last 6 months or so, there's been a new model from Amazon and Nook, possibly along with others? As long as there are new models being developed by the big players, I dare say the ebook reader isn't dead yet.

Decllning on the other hand...

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

In the last 6 months or so, there's been a new model from Amazon and Nook, possibly along with others? As long as there are new models being developed by the big players, I dare say the ebook reader isn't dead yet.

Decllning on the other hand...

Despite eink technology having reached pretty much a developmental dead end some time ago and be in decline, they will keep their ereaders going as long as possible. They and their hangers on will extoll their virtues as devices for "real" readers, and continue to parrot misleading memes to the uniformed such as "no light shining in your eyes".

If they don't push their devices, and eink ereaders become like the carthorses of the transportation world (as they will), it would seem to me they will lose their point of differentiation and find themselves in an already pretty much saturated LCD and OLED display market battling the likes of Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, etc. And then further battle with those companies as they bring new display technologies to the market.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I was one of the people who honked at her as she danced off the curb totally oblivious to 2 lanes of traffic turning left on a green left turn signal.

Take a look at photographs of streets taken prior to circa 1910. Pedestrians, and stalls for selling things littered the road.

In most places, it was only after 1920 that pedestrains lost the right of way. A change in laws that was funded by the AAA and automobile manufacturers, becuase they didn't want the didn't want the bad PR of deaths and injuries that result when people walk into moving vehicles.

Amber

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

Take a look at photographs of streets taken prior to circa 1910. Pedestrians, and stalls for selling things littered the road.

In most places, it was only after 1920 that pedestrains lost the right of way. A change in laws that was funded by the AAA and automobile manufacturers, becuase they didn't want the didn't want the bad PR of deaths and injuries that result when people walk into moving vehicles.

Amber

In 1910, the number of automobiles registered in North America was less than 550,000. In 2017, the number was about 275,000,000. When I was a kid, I lived in areas where there were virtually zero automobiles but when we went south for vacation (Edmonton, for example), my parents drilled the kids on stop and look both ways before crossing, if there is a light, pay attention to it, etc., the usual bits of parental wisdom aimed at keeping the kids alive. Later when I took driving lessons, my instructor passed along two bits of wisdom I have treasured:

• assume the other drivers are suicidal morons who want to take you with them
• assume any pedestrian wants to commit suicide by automobile.

Today? We have pedestrians listening to and watching their devices and paying no attention to the world -- a quick search on YouTube for example will find an almost unbelievable number of videos of distracted pedestrians striving to qualify for a Darwin award.

In the case I mentioned, there is a pedestrian crossing signal but for whatever odd reasons, it doesn't give a pedestrian walk signal when the left turn signal light is active.

[GlenBarrington]

This real reader stuff has gotten boring and tiresome. See you all in a different thread!

[crich70]

I think part of the argument is the fact that everyone's eyes are different. Some find it easier to read on an eink reader, some find it easier to read on a tablet, and some find it easier to read on a smart phone or other such gadget. Ultimately the best device is the one that your own eyes finds easiest to deal with. No one wants to suffer from eye strain after all.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by crich70

I think part of the argument is the fact that everyone's eyes are different. Some find it easier to read on an eink reader, some find it easier to read on a tablet, and some find it easier to read on a smart phone or other such gadget. Ultimately the best device is the one that your own eyes finds easiest to deal with. No one wants to suffer from eye strain after all.

Personally, I find it easier reading on e-ink. I just read a lot of content not purchased from Amazon and I find tablets/smartphones more convenient for downloading those so more often than not, I read on LCD devices.

Mind, new/enhanced features such as Night Shift and darken colors has gone a long way in reducing my migraine attacks from reading on LCD.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by latepaul

It can be both true that use of eInk has declined and you and all your friends still use and love eInk devices.

I could also be true that, though fewer eInk eReaders have sold, the reading on eInk eReaders has not declined. In other words, there are fewer people buying new eInk eReaders but those who do buy them, also do a LOT of reading and book buying using them -- nothing in the article would counter that. We also know that tablet sales have dropped, does that mean fewer people are using tablets?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by barryem

In the past decade I've read a lot of reports that, due to tablets, the PC was dead. I've read reports that due to ebooks, print is dead. Others say that ebooks are in decline and probably dead or dying. Phones killed tablets. Tablets killed laptops. And yet in the past year I've bought new ereaders, tablets, laptops and even an MP3 player, which was reported dead long ago. The year before I bought a new phone.

I think when people say a technology is dead they just mean it isn't selling as much this year. It's slang.

Alive means it's the leading edge. Dead means it's just doing okay.

As they say, "figures don't lie, but liars figure." I think if you look closely at who's doing the research (for just about all sides of this argument) you'll nearly always find conflict of interest and inherent bias. Research figures are usually "massaged" to "prove" a point -- the point they researchers started out to prove.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by latepaul

With my lighted eInk readers I often find that the brightness goes from too much, to too little to give decent contrast, in a single step. Which is why, where it's available, the invert feature is invaluable for me.

That may be (one) of my issues with front-lit eInk eReaders. I don't know. I just know my eyes don't work with them well. But I can read all night with an old an eInk eReader and added "book light." I definitely can't do that with an LCD screen.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If he meant "heavy," then he should have said "heavy." I wouldn't have had a problem in the world with that statement. "Heavy" doesn't carry the value judgment that "real" does.

I think you're a bit too touchy. I didn't get that impression at all.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

In the last 6 months or so, there's been a new model from Amazon and Nook, possibly along with others? As long as there are new models being developed by the big players, I dare say the ebook reader isn't dead yet.

Decllning on the other hand...

Declining sales. Not necessarily declining use.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Despite eink technology having reached pretty much a developmental dead end some time ago and be in decline, they will keep their ereaders going as long as possible. They and their hangers on will extoll their virtues as devices for "real" readers, and continue to parrot misleading memes to the uniformed such as "no light shining in your eyes".

If they don't push their devices, and eink ereaders become like the carthorses of the transportation world (as they will), it would seem to me they will lose their point of differentiation and find themselves in an already pretty much saturated LCD and OLED display market battling the likes of Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, etc. And then further battle with those companies as they bring new display technologies to the market.

What hyperbolic ... ahem. I've used both eInk eReaders and smartphones and tablets. It's not a matter of "misleading memes" -- it's a matter of what's more comfortable for reading. No contest for me, eInk eReaders's screens are superior. They also have longer battery lives (by far), are lighter and have the virtue (in my opinion) of being single use. You may disagree with my preferences, that's your prerogative, but the tablets and smartphones you're shilling aren't much newer than eInk eReaders. As a matter of fact, they pretty much grew up together.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by crich70

I think part of the argument is the fact that everyone's eyes are different. Some find it easier to read on an eink reader, some find it easier to read on a tablet, and some find it easier to read on a smart phone or other such gadget. Ultimately the best device is the one that your own eyes finds easiest to deal with. No one wants to suffer from eye strain after all.

Exactly. Use what you like. I (personally) like eInk eReaders of the non-front-lit variety. So I'm even more of a "Luddite" than most here. I can live with it.

[Frenzie]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

continue to parrot misleading memes to the uniformed such as "no light shining in your eyes".

Then inform us. What is misleading and why?

Originally Posted by rcentros

Exactly. Use what you like. I (personally) like eInk eReaders of the non-front-lit variety. So I'm even more of a "Luddite" than most here. I can live with it.

Front-lit ereaders have better hardware (bigger screen, higher DPI, faster — but still snails compared to a cheap phone or tablet), so there's plenty of reason to get them in spite of the "feature". It's just something you turn off and that's the end of it.