How much is Amazon missing by not having a waterproof Kindle?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

Our histories influence our search results, so I infer that waterproofing is more important to Zod than Diap.

Actually, in spite of this thread, I'm not particularly interested in waterproofing. It alone wasn't enough to push me from Kobo to Nook.

The difference is likely just between using Bing and Google.

When I use Google, I get the same top three Diap got (Engaget, Macworld and L.A. Times), however, 4, 5 and 6 were Wired, The Verge and c|net, which do mention waterproofing.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Sometimes the reason is somebody's ego plus nothing else whatsoever.

I would say that was the reason for Amazon's refusal to include a bold font for so long. It just made no sense. I guess somebody finally gave in with the release of the new bold font. But how long did it take? Weird. It made no sense.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Proof of that one is the new bigger Kobo sold out in hours.

I think a larger screen Kindle would be a success. The question is why does Amazon show no interest in it? My guess is that many of the target users of a large device would be pdf readers, and that is a format that Amazon cannot really wall-in. So it makes less financial sense for them.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I think a larger screen Kindle would be a success. The question is why does Amazon show no interest in it? My guess is that many of the target users of a large device would be pdf readers, and that is a format that Amazon cannot really wall-in. So it makes less financial sense for them.

Imagine if Apple completely dominated the smart phone business and its only competitors were a few small overseas companies whose phones you can't even buy in store. (This could not happen, of course, smart phones are too popular.) We'd still be stuck with 3.5" phones

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I would say that was the reason for Amazon's refusal to include a bold font for so long. It just made no sense. I guess somebody finally gave in with the release of the new bold font. But how long did it take? Weird. It made no sense.

And they chose Ember, the UI font, rather than Bookerly, the font they made a big typographical deal about for its readability. Not a font most people would choose for long text. And they made it way too bold for most people. It's like they said "you want bold? You want bold? There! Is that bold enough for ya?"

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by Barty

And they chose Ember, the UI font, rather than Bookerly, the font they made a big typographical deal about for its readability. Not a font most people would choose for long text. And they made it way too bold for most people. It's like they said "you want bold? You want bold? There! Is that bold enough for ya?"

It does seem an odd and unpopular choice of font to make bold, though I haven't seen it in person.

[barryem]

I don't think Ember Bold is that bad. I prefer Bookerly and Ember Bold is bolder than I really like, but I'd be happy enough if it was my only choice. I'm glad it's not though.

I think the reason Amazon didn't make a bold font for so long was probably lack of demand. I'm sure they saw a few people asking for it here and there but probably not enough to make it seem worthwhile. And then a few people, David Rothman notable among them, who associated bold with accessibility and that made them want to act. So they made a very bold, highly accessible font.

I suspect that's kind of true with waterproofing as well. They don't see much demand.

In a way the world is in a bad situation with respect to ebook readers. They're made by people who want to sell us ebooks and not by people who want to sell us readers. If we had to buy readers from different people than booksellers we'd get a lot more variety, a lot more of what a few of us want and they'd cost a lot more.

Barry

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think the reason Amazon didn't make a bold font for so long was probably lack of demand. I'm sure they saw a few people asking for it here and there but probably not enough to make it seem worthwhile. And then a few people, David Rothman notable among them, who associated bold with accessibility and that made them want to act. So they made a very bold, highly accessible font.

I suspect that's kind of true with waterproofing as well. They don't see much demand.

The difference with water-proofing and adding a font is that the cost of adding a font costs very little. Adding water-proofing will add cost. But not giving people font choices made little financial sense.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

The difference with water-proofing and adding a font is that the cost of adding a font costs very little.

Do we know this for sure? It's not like fonts are just poofed into existence. Whether existing fonts are being licensed or new ones are being created, there's costs involved.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Do we know this for sure? It's not like fonts are just poofed into existence. Whether existing fonts are being licensed or new ones are being created, there's costs involved.

Amazon already license Caecilia. They can legally use the bold version at no extra cost.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Amazon already license Caecilia. They can legally use the bold version at no extra cost.

You're absolutely certain that distributing several million new copies of Caecilia Bold will be covered by the existing license Amazon has for distributing Caecila?

[kacir]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're absolutely certain that distributing several million new copies of Caecilia Bold will be covered by the existing license Amazon has for distributing Caecila?

No.
But there are plenty of decent fonts that you can distribute legally with no added cost. Such as Roboto or Droid.
Just go to fonts.google.com and have a look.

[barryem]

Since including a new font means a firmware upgrade it's a safe bet it's not cheap. You can be sure that every firmware upgrade involves hours and hours of testing by a lot of people. I'd be amazed if the cost of a firmware upgrade wasn't more than most of us make in a year. Amazon's firmware upgrades have been extremely reliable and that ain't cheap. So there'll be development and testing costs.

Waterproofing involves development costs and testing costs and production costs so maybe it'll cost more than a new font but I doubt the difference in cost is all that great.

I doubt Amazon saw any good financial reason to include a bold font. My guess is they did it to avoid complaints about lack of accessibility.

Barry

[Barty]

The bigger problem is to add more fonts they'll have to modify the UI because the Aa popup is getting pretty crowded. Often a feature isn't added because it complicates the UI.

[shanghaichica]

I would upgrade from my voyage if amazon brought out a waterproof kindle. However that's just me.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I think a larger screen Kindle would be a success. The question is why does Amazon show no interest in it? My guess is that many of the target users of a large device would be pdf readers, and that is a format that Amazon cannot really wall-in. So it makes less financial sense for them.

Amazon has Sony disease. Sony put out a front lit Reader (PRS-700) and it was a failure. So Sony didn't want to do another front lit Reader. Amazon came out with the DX and it was a failure. So no more larger screen Readers.