Did you buy one of the new Kobos (or do you plan to)?

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Since you're the one disputing the established research, the responsibility is on YOU to offer evidence contradicting the data, for the same reason the burden of proof is on those don't believe in the efficacy of vaccines (for example) to prove their case.

PLEASE do me the courtesy of reading what I write before replying to it.

I did not "dispute the established data", I asked you to provide it. You said "there's a ton of research" and "it's well-established" and provided exactly ZERO proof of the truth of those two assertions. Simply SAYING "there's a ton of research" and "it's well-established" is not actually proof.

I also did NOT "claim that ownership is an asst to objectivity" - in fact I explicitly conceded that it can be an impediment thereto. Finally, those organizations which do "independent tests" actually do OWN the models they test, at least of devices like ereaders, so according to your argument, they suffer the same impediment to objectivity

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Since you're the one disputing the established research, the responsibility is on YOU to offer evidence contradicting the data, for the same reason the burden of proof is on those don't believe in the efficacy of vaccines (for example) to prove their case.

Actually in this case you’re the anti vaxxer claiming there’s tons of evidence to support your claim yet providing none. Using a kernel of truth, that people are more likely to defend a purchase, to purport that ownership is always an impediment to objectively reviewing a product.

You also casually dismiss the reviewers (who you claim are the best sources) who have made claims counter to your own.

I would agree that reviewers who are just given products with no incentive or money exchanged make for the best source of information on the product. However I’d say most people on MR who buy ereaders are a very close second.

Those who don’t own the device and are only going off a data sheet are pretty much replaceable with that data sheet. It’s fine to speculate on the data sheet when the product isn’t available, but once anyone of the general public can get the device the value of information from the data sheet goes down.

To that last point the data sheet for the Sage says it only supports Kobo audiobooks but we’ve found you can load your own and have some playability. It didn’t clearly specify what formats you can note take in, specifically side loaded kepub can not be annotated with the stylus without patching. The weight is higher but it doesn’t tell you how it’ll feel in your hand.

Oh and should you want to see the reviewers you can look through the Sage Opinions thread there’s a decent amount of YouTube videos there including one 70 minute deep dive which I think is a bit excessive personally but it’s there for you if you’d like to actually inform yourself beyond a data sheet and gross speculation that an antenna is the sole culprit in the extra weight.

[Krios]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

And I'm fairly sure they dropped the Mobius screen for good reasons.

If you mean uneven frontlight and strip on the side, it doesn't have to be that way, i used Inkpad X (10" Mobius screen) for a few days, and it doesn't have any problems that Forma has, frontlight is even, no grey strip, contrast is similar to Inkpad 3.

[Martina Schein]

I bought the two new Kobo eBook readers (Kobo Sage and Kobo Libra 2). I am super satisfied with both of them. They have a crisp display and sharp writing. The handling works 1A.

[Sirtel]

I was notified by Amazon.fr today that the Libra 2 is expected to be in stock on November 23.

No date on the Sage power cover yet.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I was notified by Amazon.fr today that the Libra 2 is expected to be in stock on November 23.

No date on the Sage power cover yet.

Thanks. Maybe the UK Amazon will have them then too.

[CAFlanny]

I chose "My current ereaders are fine...". I bought my Libra H2O in May, so I'm not ready to upgrade yet. USB-C and bluetooth would be nice, but not worth it.

[martinot]

.
.
.
.

[martinot]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I did sell my Oasis 2, PW4, and trade in an older Kindle Touch. Managed to get the Oasis 3 for zero. Really pleased with it. Made up for my Sage disappointment.

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I think most people know about my Sage experience. Ironically Kobo have refunded me but not yet sent me a label to send it back. I have ordered a Libra 2 via Amazon, it’s not in stock but I’m in no hurry.

What did you not like with the Sage?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by martinot

What did you not like with the Sage?

Their Sages LEDs were rather off in color, making the regular light very yellow even with the natural light at zero. Pictures can be found here

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

PLEASE do me the courtesy of reading what I write before replying to it.

I did not "dispute the established data", I asked you to provide it. You said "there's a ton of research" and "it's well-established" and provided exactly ZERO proof of the truth of those two assertions. Simply SAYING "there's a ton of research" and "it's well-established" is not actually proof.

I also did NOT "claim that ownership is an asst to objectivity" - in fact I explicitly conceded that it can be an impediment thereto. Finally, those organizations which do "independent tests" actually do OWN the models they test, at least of devices like ereaders, so according to your argument, they suffer the same impediment to objectivity

I do read, but people have a lot of trouble understanding the implications of their statements.

I'm not going to digging up citations of well-established research on an internet message board. My time is more valuable than that. You even go so far as to suggest you acknowledged it (you didn't), thereby conceding the point.

It says everything about your avoidance of the substance of our disagreement that you would suggest independent reviewers like Consumer Reports own the devices they review and are subject to the same degree of bias as people here who often derive self-esteem from their self-perceived "expertise" about e-readers.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I would agree that reviewers who are just given products with no incentive or money exchanged make for the best source of information on the product. However I’d say most people on MR who buy ereaders are a very close second.

So you concede my point and the rest of your post is off-topic? Okay.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

So you concede my point and the rest of your post is off-topic? Okay.

So you’re incapable of providing any evidence to support your claim. And your opinion is based on less than either reviewers or owners, is based solely on text, so people should dismiss it as groundless. Okay.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by martinot

What did you not like with the Sage?

My LEDs were yellow tinged with green. With no natural light.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I do read, but people have a lot of trouble understanding the implications of their statements.

I'm not going to digging up citations of well-established research on an internet message board. My time is more valuable than that.
It says everything about your avoidance of the substance of our disagreement that you would suggest independent reviewers like Consumer Reports own the devices they review and are subject to the same degree of bias as people here who often derive self-esteem from their self-perceived "expertise" about e-readers.

So, YOUR time is too valuable to bother supporting assertions you make, therefore those who read your comments should just believe you uncritically for no other reasons than because YOU say something is so?

"the substance of our disagreement" is very simple: You made an assertion, I asked for proof of its validity, you have explicitly refused to provide it.

I did not "suggest" that independent review organizations own the devices they test, I know that least least some of them do. I know this because I have read descriptions of their purchase process and pleas for funding from some of them,funding they seek in order to buy products for testing purposes. The fact that many of such organizations test items to the point of destruction is also possible only because they bought and paid for them. They buy them, they own them. Ownership, you insist, is an impediment to objectivity. So by your argument they cannot be objective about the products they review because they own them.