Have e-Readers been superseded by Tablets and Phones

[booklover6]

I forgot about the black flash. That's how much I notice it.

[DiapDealer]

I never really DID notice the black flash on eink. Even on the early devices.

[jscarbo]

I have them all (e-ink, tablets and smartphones) and use them all but for reading regular books, my Kindle PW is my go to device. It's smaller, lighter weight, and is optimized for the best reading experience for me. I suspect that most avid readers prefer e-ink although a general purpose tablet suits a wider range of people because it's a multi-purpose device, where as e-ink readers are niche devices, designed to do one thing only, read books, but to provide the best possible reading experience.

I've never seen detailed statistics but suspect that Amazon and other e-book sellers would find that of their customers who buy more than 3 to 5 e-books a week, the majority own and read them on e-ink devices. These customers are by far their best e-book customers and a major source of revenue.

I can't imagine that Amazon, in particular, would ever stop making e-ink Kindles unless a better technology emerges. I'd go back to reading paperbacks before switching over to a tablet for my reading.

[silverraven]

May I ask a question? Does anyone remember the Jetbook Lite ereader? Didn't it have a non lit lcd screen? Or am I mistaken? I had one and I remember how beautiful the screen was. I know, no built in light, but my paper back books don't have built in lights either so that doesn't matter TO ME. And I don't think it had the flash that the eink did, but I might be mistaken on that.
The reason I'm asking this is I get horrible headaches and eye strain from reading on an lit lcd screen, both tablet and laptop. (yes, I take many many breaks during the day from the laptop) I also have astigmatism, which seems to be a recurrent theme here with the eye strain group. So I am wondering, if the Jetbook had an unlit lcd screen, and I got no eye strain form it, is it the light that is the problem? I haven't tried reading on a Paperwhite yet, which is also lit, so I don't know if that causes me eye strain or not.
Just throwing this out there, please don't blast me too harshly. I don't care what anyone reads on, just don't take my eink away please!! I would have to go back to paperback before I could do a tablet. Believe me, I wish my eyes were better, and the older I get, the worse they get. Bummer.
S

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by silverraven

May I ask a question? Does anyone remember the Jetbook Lite ereader? Didn't it have a non lit lcd screen? Or am I mistaken? I had one and I remember how beautiful the screen was. I know, no built in light, but my paper back books don't have built in lights either so that doesn't matter TO ME. And I don't think it had the flash that the eink did, but I might be mistaken on that.
The reason I'm asking this is I get horrible headaches and eye strain from reading on an lit lcd screen, both tablet and laptop. (yes, I take many many breaks during the day from the laptop) I also have astigmatism, which seems to be a recurrent theme here with the eye strain group. So I am wondering, if the Jetbook had an unlit lcd screen, and I got no eye strain form it, is it the light that is the problem? I haven't tried reading on a Paperwhite yet, which is also lit, so I don't know if that causes me eye strain or not.
Just throwing this out there, please don't blast me too harshly. I don't care what anyone reads on, just don't take my eink away please!! I would have to go back to paperback before I could do a tablet. Believe me, I wish my eyes were better, and the older I get, the worse they get. Bummer.
S

I have a JetBook Lite, and it has a non-backlit LCD screen, no flash. It's my first e-reader, which I bought after seeing the flashing Kindle and Nook.

I don't know why the biggies use e-ink instead, since the non-backlit LCD seems to be just as easy on the eyes, without the flash.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm fine with preferences. Everybody's different. Perfectly cool. I'm just tired of those who perpetuate the myth of some sort of divine eink superiority: "'real' readers choose eink" "those who read on tablets must be more casual readers" "how could anyone read whole books on LCD?" There's quantifiable eink snobbery around here (not everyone, of course).

I believe there was a study done in 2012 that concluded it had more to do with the image quality than the screen technology. Linked here at the National Institutes for Health.

I ALSO think that "e-ink superiority" is a myth. Personally, (anecdotally here folks) I think text is FAR clearer on my Fire HDX tablet when reading books than on my Kindle (5-button) OR my Paperwhite 2 that I got rid of earlier this year. Resolution has dramatically improved on the e-readers over the years, but the edges of text still look "watery" or indistinct to me by comparison with the razor sharp text on my Fire HDX.

When it comes to digital books, I think people should use the device that works best for them. FOR ME, it is a combo of my tablet and my e-reader, used throughout different parts of the day depending on lighting conditions, time of day, weight of the device, etc. etc.

Why limit myself to only one device when I can use several devices with their own strengths (including paper)?

[booklover6]

Originally Posted by silverraven

Does anyone remember the Jetbook Lite ereader? Didn't it have a non lit lcd screen?

Yes it is LCD.

From the wiki:

LCD display technology has the distinct advantage over E Ink of instant page turns and on a few devices, color. Since the display is instant, interactive touchscreen features such as search with on-screen keyboard, annotations, and highlighting are possible. Often these devices have an instant boot time due to not using Linux as the OS.

I had one and I remember the screen being dark, almost greenish, and the letters not being as dark, as on modern readers. I wouldn't get one, as they are several years old and even if "new" the batteries are still old.

A Kobo Mini is the ideal replacement for the Jetbook with it's 5" screen and 200 pdi resolution.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by booklover6

I had one and I remember the screen being dark, almost greenish, and the letters not being as dark, as on modern readers. I wouldn't get one, as they are several years old and even if "new" the batteries are still old.

A Kobo Mini is the ideal replacement for the Jetbook with it's 5" screen and 200 pdi resolution.

Yes, the screen is fairly dark, but at the time I bought my JBL, about four years ago, it seemed to look about the same as the e-ink screens. Later I got a backlit-LCD Aluratek Libre Color and found that I much preferred reading on that screen at the lowest possible brightness. Probably because it seemed more like a printed page.

The JBL uses replaceable AA batteries.

[voracious71]

For some reason, lately I have been doing most of my reading on tablets. But, I am not ready to ditch my e-ink devices and will upgrade my Paperwhite when the time comes.

My eyes are fine, it's the battery life of e-ink that I like.

[covingtoncat73]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If a tablet appears that has a battery life of over a week, can be read on the brightest of days and has a matte screen, then I'll ditch my reader in a heartbeat. Before that? No way.

What Kats said. I do use my tablet (it is a 10'' one) for comics/graphic novels, though.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Anthem

I believe there was a study done in 2012 that concluded it had more to do with the image quality than the screen technology. Linked here at the National Institutes for Health.

I ALSO think that "e-ink superiority" is a myth. Personally, (anecdotally here folks) I think text is FAR clearer on my Fire HDX tablet when reading books than on my Kindle (5-button) OR my Paperwhite 2 that I got rid of earlier this year. Resolution has dramatically improved on the e-readers over the years, but the edges of text still look "watery" or indistinct to me by comparison with the razor sharp text on my Fire HDX...

I agree with your thought that "e-ink superiority" is a myth.

The following is a follow on from your link:

An area I have not seen any work on regarding comparison of E ink and LCD (nor with AMOLED) is the effect of contrast on reading comfort. There has been work regarding LCDs on this though.

For people with astigmatism it has been found that they find it more comfortable reading on poorer quality LCD displays and this has been put down to these displays having lower contrast ratios than higher quality ones. On the higher contrast ratio screens the astigmatic eye refocused more frequently with higher contrast screens as the difference in its focus on lines in the vertical and horizontal planes on the display are more obvious to it. For lower contrast displays the difference in focus due to the astigmatism was not so obvious and so the eye was not teased into so many refocussing acts and so less tiring.

E Ink has a very poor contrast ratio performance compared to other displays (which is one reason why they are very poor at handling grey-scale images, for example). LCD is orders of magnitude better than E Ink. So taking the work with LCDs above it may be that the low contrast ratio of E Ink gives a less tiring reading experience for those with astigmatism, and it may be that if one experiences that to be so it is a symptom of astigmatism (or other eye defect).

LCD's contrast ratio, while good, is significantly less than AMOLED. LCDs cannot do pure blacks (because of the backlighting behind the "black" pixels casts them to grey) whereas AMOLED being emissive does do real black (the pixels themselves emit the light and so for black are turned off). Some things perhaps come out of this.

First, for those with astigmatism using an LCD display they may be for reading better off reducing the contrast and adjusting the brightness so that the background tends to grey while doing so. Reducing the brightness may also reduce eyestrain (astigmatic eyes are prone to glare, especially in a low lit environment).

I wonder if those with astigmatic eyes are more comfortable with lower resolution displays? High resolution displays likely having the same effect as high contrast ratio ones?

AMOLED, which has been on high end phones for some years and now appearing on some of Samsung's small tablets, has contrast ratio higher than LCD and I wonder if these displays will be more tiring on faulty eyes? With no back or front lighting glare may be less of a problem though.

Text on paper also has a poor contrast ratio, roughly the same as later E Ink displays, and perhaps this is a reason that most everyone is comfortable reading on paper? But I suspect that those with correct or fully corrected eyesight may be happier with the much higher contrast ratios possible with LCD and AMOLED.

Looking at some of the comments made by some against non E Ink displays regarding reading in lit environments I have to wonder whether they have actually used high quality displays as found on top end phones and tablets. Good modern LCD and AMOLED displays as found on the better small tabs and phones work fine (I can read text easily on my AMOLED phone in sunlight, and good LCDs can do better than AMOLED in that).

For myself, my own order of preference for reading is AMOLED and high quality LCD equal first, then E Ink. My next reader will be a small tablet.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by Anthem

I believe there was a study done in 2012 that concluded it had more to do with the image quality than the screen technology. Linked here at the National Institutes for Health.

I ALSO think that "e-ink superiority" is a myth. Personally, (anecdotally here folks) I think text is FAR clearer on my Fire HDX tablet when reading books than on my Kindle (5-button) OR my Paperwhite 2 that I got rid of earlier this year. Resolution has dramatically improved on the e-readers over the years, but the edges of text still look "watery" or indistinct to me by comparison with the razor sharp text on my Fire HDX.

The resolution is better on a high-quality LCD screen. The contrast is better also. I find reading on a Paperwhite much easier. The difference is the backlight. It's not the text, it's that bright white screen. If I'm playing a console game and the screen goes mostly white, I have to look away from the TV.

I don't see anywhere that the study looked at people who have problems reading on a backlit screen. If the backlight doesn't bother you, then it's not going to bother you. If you study a group of people who aren't bothered by backlights, then the conclusion will be that the backlight doesn't cause any problems.

[cromag]

Originally Posted by silverraven

May I ask a question? Does anyone remember the Jetbook Lite ereader? Didn't it have a non lit lcd screen? Or am I mistaken?
...

I "remember" it, of course, since I use it all the time. I don't know if there's a variation in screen color or if this reflects individual perceptions, but I find the background to be a light bronze-ish color -- not at all objectionable -- and the characters are dark black and stand out well.

The only drawback I've found is that the characters can appear to "jitter" in direct sunlight. I use larger fonts to read, and that seems to minimize the effect, but I've also been able to minimize it (or eliminate it) by reading in the shade. I don't read outdoors often, so this isn't a problem for me, except once or twice on vacation.

I recently bought a used Kobo eReader (I don't know the model name, but it's e-ink, not a tablet) for use during a vacation at Cape May, on the Jersey shore, because I expected to read outdoors. It doesn't have the character jitter in direct sunlight, but it does have the "page flash" and (brief) delay. And, in spite of the criticism the JetBook Lite gets, the page background isn't white -- it's a pale gray. The contrast is about the same as the JBL.

Bottom line: I'll still use the JBL for most of my reading.

[catlight]

Originally Posted by ereadingdotcom

Ultimately, though, I think that e-readers will expire. Someone will invent a less eye-fatiguing setting or or unique screen for tablets and that will be the death knell for dedicated e-readers. How soon that happens, though, is anyone's guess.

Sometimes the best tool just does one thing really, really well.

The best GPS is not a smartphone, it is a dedicated GPS.

The best e-reader is not a tablet, it is a dedicated e-reader with an e-paper screen and a battery life that will let you read five books with the back-light on between charges, and doesn't wash out in bright light.

Which e-reader? Like anything else, it depends. For casual reading where re-flow is available (.epub, .mobi) a 6-7 inch reader is quite adequate. For technical manuals in .pdf format with page sized diagrams and tables, a 10 inch reader is much better.

Tablets are just too heavy with too short a battery life, and too many complications to the interface.

[catlight]

Originally Posted by cromag

I recently bought a used Kobo eReader (I don't know the model name, but it's e-ink, not a tablet) for use during a vacation at Cape May, on the Jersey shore, because I expected to read outdoors.

I'd be curious about the model - your description would fit at least three generations of Kobo.

My first Kobo had a flash, but I got used to it very quickly. My latest (Aura HD) has a whiter background - though still a tad gray, higher resolution, a really good back light that takes surprisingly little power (600 page book, with back light = 15-20% of battery), faster processor, and I don't notice a flash - which may or may not be there. I usually just leave the back light on and ignore changes in ambient lighting...