Techcrunch reviews the Aura H2O

[tnforpaul45]

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/12/kobo-aura-h2o-review/



Highlights:

"Where it surpasses the Kindle is in screen resolution, which bumps up the rendering of text to the point where everything looks crisp, and that’s only going to make it feel more akin to reading a traditional book."
.
.
My experience with Paperwhite devices has always been that the lighting is slightly stronger in some areas than others, but Kobo’s tech (the ‘Aura’ in the device’s name) seems consistent and superior.
.
.
The battery on the device is truly impressive so far, as I still have about half a charge left after a couple of weeks of heavy testing.
.
.
Kobo’s offering is the peak in terms of e-reader hardware right now – Amazon’s device is slightly smaller and lighter, but you get a far superior screen from the Aura H2O, as well as the built-in water resistance and superior reading light.

[robko]

Good review. One thing I have an issue with a lot these reviews is that as a "CON" they list that it's bigger than a PW. Fair enough, it is bigger. But duh, it has a BIGGER SCREEN!! If it had a bigger bezel, was thicker and weighed more than a PW and had the same screen size then calling that a CON would be fair game, but the extra screen real estate makes this a neutral or PRO (bigger screen being the PRO).

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by robko

Good review. One thing I have an issue with a lot these reviews is that as a "CON" they list that it's bigger than a PW. Fair enough, it is bigger. But duh, it has a BIGGER SCREEN!! If it had a bigger bezel, was thicker and weighed more than a PW and had the same screen size then calling that a CON would be fair game, but the extra screen real estate makes this a neutral or PRO (bigger screen being the PRO).

For some people, the increase in size and weight could be an issue. Personally, the larger screen outweighs the size and weight but for my wife, the Aura is her choice as it fits her hands better.

Regards,

David

[tnforpaul45]

I am just happy to see positive press for Kobo breaking into the "mainstream" tech sites. Amazon is starting to feel the heat (I hope!).

[Barty]

Originally Posted by robko

Good review. One thing I have an issue with a lot these reviews is that as a "CON" they list that it's bigger than a PW. Fair enough, it is bigger. But duh, it has a BIGGER SCREEN!! If it had a bigger bezel, was thicker and weighed more than a PW and had the same screen size then calling that a CON would be fair game, but the extra screen real estate makes this a neutral or PRO (bigger screen being the PRO).

Well, if the stupidly huge margins and wasted space on top and bottom as they show in the pictures don't allow you to have much more text on screen, then yes it is a CON.

Will kobo ever get a clue?

[Canuck_in_Japan]

Originally Posted by Barty

Well, if the stupidly huge margins and wasted space on top and bottom as they show in the pictures don't allow you to have much more text on screen, then yes it is a CON.

Will kobo ever get a clue?

Actually that has nothing to do with screen size.

[Anak]

Personally I don't find this a very good review. Too general, it doesn't show that the reviewer did some heavy testing.

after a couple of weeks of heavy testing

If he did heavy testing I at least would expect
• annotations: sorting order problems (well known bug)
• display of sub families of embedded fonts not always correct (also well known bug)*

Seems to me he took a lot at face value without testing it.

which is to say it’s very fast at turning pages and screen

Doesn't say thas much if the speed is not actually measured and/or is not compared with other readers. Is it faster than the Aura HD, or newer Kobo readers like the Aura?
On the other hand it doesn't come as a surprise either. The core components of the H2O are the same as the Aura HD, which is known to be not one of the fastest ereaders around. Actually, non of the Kobo devices are very fast, as many reviews have proven that many competitive devices are faster than Kobos.
Let's just assume the device is fast and smooth enough for daily use and therefore it isn't necessarily a con. However, if you come from non Kobo device, well, then you could notice that the H2O is slightly or notably slower but doesn't necessarily make the device less useful.
It is safe to say that the H2O will not claim the #1 spot in reviews if page turn speed or overall speed is measured.

Size of header and footer
The comment of Barty is correct but I would not call it "stupidly. You may like or dislike the size of the header and footer on Kobo devices but a good reviewer should have at least mentioned that these are taking a large portion of the screen and the positioning of the displayed info is quite far from the screen edge. Repositioning the text closer to the screen edge doesn't decrease readability.

Ceteris paribus, he could and probably should have said that competitive devices do a better job at this (and wait for a non Kobo 6.8" reader with the same screen dpi) and that many non Kobo 6" devices can display the same amount of text on the screen albeit the lower resolution and dpi of the screen and therfore the text doesn't look as crisp, clear or smooth.

Dimensions and weight
The device is heavier but not that much (about the same weight of older 6" devices [2010]) not necessarily a "con" but the size of the screen is slightly larger too.
"still larger than Kindle Paperwhite": this is a total non argument. Why should a KPW be the standard? I'm pretty sure the KWP(2) isn't the smallest, leanest or lightest 6" ereader around.
Okay, it's a (North) American website. In those territories the choice of ereaders is very limited when compared to i.e. the European market. Even said that, "still larger than Kindle Paperwhite" remains non argument.


* note: fw 3.8.0 almost solves this fonts issue but I don't know which fw the reviewer test with.

[Canuck_in_Japan]

Originally Posted by Anak

Personally I don't find this a very good review. Too general, it doesn't show that the reviewer did some heavy testing.


If he did heavy testing I at least would expect
• annotations: sorting order problems (well known bug)
• display of sub families of embedded fonts not always correct (also well known bug)*

Seems to me he took a lot at face value without testing it.

I'm a fairly hardcore ereader user and I don't even know what you're talking about! This is a review for normal people, not Mobile Read members. I can guarantee that there will not be a single reference to that on any upcoming H2O reviews.

[violent23]

Originally Posted by Canuck_in_Japan

I'm a fairly hardcore ereader user and I don't even know what you're talking about! This is a review for normal people, not Mobile Read members. I can guarantee that there will not be a single reference to that on any upcoming H2O reviews.

Maybe the reviewer should have tested all of the features of the device because if he had he would have run into a lot of bugs including the problem with annotations and bookmarks. These are core features and any competent reviewer would have tested them.

Beyond that I don't really expect a Techcrunch review to find the embedded font issue nor the cut off fonts, no italics and bold on some fonts in .epub or the widow and orphan issues when using .epubs as he most likely never even tested .epubs on the device or really delved as deep as some of us enthusiasts have into the firmware of said device. Not that it is an excuse to not find these problems as it really is his job.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by Canuck_in_Japan

I'm a fairly hardcore ereader user and I don't even know what you're talking about! This is a review for normal people, not Mobile Read members. I can guarantee that there will not be a single reference to that on any upcoming H2O reviews.

Anak is referring to two well documented bugs. A bug in annotations handling means the sorting gets messed up and some of the supplied fonts don't work properly. Both only affect epubs and unless you do a lot of annotations and font changes, you probably won't notice them. People who have been using the devices heavily for years don't notice these bugs, so it doesn't surprise me that someone hasn't after only a couple of weeks.

[booklover6]

The software is the same, so the bugs will be the same, right?

I just want to see side by side pictures of the Aura HD and the Aura H2O. (With the room light on!). I want to see views of all 6 sides of the H2O. I want hardware review and comparison. I already know about the software!

[Anak]

Originally Posted by Canuck_in_Japan

I'm a fairly hardcore ereader user and I don't even know what you're talking about! This is a review for normal people, not Mobile Read members. I can guarantee that there will not be a single reference to that on any upcoming H2O reviews.

I disagree, because average readers don't change fonts* and don't take notes or highlight text**?
These are basic features not requiring any technical skill and part of the stock firmware.
These functions should work flawlessly* no matter what or an average user uses them or not. And if the reviewer had really done a critical review he would have noticed.

* limited to embedded fonts only (requires no technical knowledge) and not related to poor book formatting by a publisher (which very likely would break the option to change fonts all together).

** I'll bet the reviewer didn't bother to take notes or highlight text at all. He totally assumed it would work.
Which is indeed correct for basic OEM/ODM stock firmware on Chinese ereading devices and their branded versions for Western markets. The drawbacks with some of the OEM/ODM stock firmwares are that these might be less ergonomic or less intuitive to use. But the basic functions do work.

Note: this is not meaned to be rant or any like it against Kobo. No reader is perfect (if you change from ereader brand you'll win and lose some, which is not a dealbreaker per se. If you are aware of the possible "cons" beforehand to make an informed decision.)
And

The only point I'm making here is that many reviews are very not so critical or don't deliver facts but you probably have to own a device or be familar with the brand.
Especially when the reviewer claims to have done some "heavy testing" I expect more.
And the font and annotation issues are well known and documented.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by violent23

Maybe the reviewer should have tested all of the features of the device because if he had he would have run into a lot of bugs including the problem with annotations and bookmarks. These are core features and any competent reviewer would have tested them.

Beyond that I don't really expect a Techcrunch review to find the embedded font issue nor the cut off fonts, no italics and bold on some fonts in .epub or the widow and orphan issues when using .epubs as he most likely never even tested .epubs on the device or really delved as deep as some of us enthusiasts have into the firmware of said device. Not that it is an excuse to not find these problems as it really is his job.

Personally, I would expect a reviewer to see the font problems before the annotation problems. Part of that is visibility, and part is that I consider the display of the book a much more important function than recording annotations. When I saw that the Kobo devices could highlight text and store annotations, my thought was, "That's a nice extra function".

And if you think the reason they didn't notice the font issues was because they didn't read epubs, then that would also explain why they didn't see any annotations problems. I can't think of a bug in the annotations handling that is not an epub related bug. In fact, the bug that Anak referred to only happens if you annotate an epub that is stored on the main memory and close and reopen it.

[tnforpaul45]

The review could have gone farther in detail, but I believe it to be one well aimed at the general ebook reading public. Good points though.

Originally Posted by Anak

Personally I don't find this a very good review. Too general, it doesn't show that the reviewer did some heavy testing.


If he did heavy testing I at least would expect
• annotations: sorting order problems (well known bug)
• display of sub families of embedded fonts not always correct (also well known bug)*

Seems to me he took a lot at face value without testing it.


Doesn't say thas much if the speed is not actually measured and/or is not compared with other readers. Is it faster than the Aura HD, or newer Kobo readers like the Aura?
On the other hand it doesn't come as a surprise either. The core components of the H2O are the same as the Aura HD, which is known to be not one of the fastest ereaders around. Actually, non of the Kobo devices are very fast, as many reviews have proven that many competitive devices are faster than Kobos.
Let's just assume the device is fast and smooth enough for daily use and therefore it isn't necessarily a con. However, if you come from non Kobo device, well, then you could notice that the H2O is slightly or notably slower but doesn't necessarily make the device less useful.
It is safe to say that the H2O will not claim the #1 spot in reviews if page turn speed or overall speed is measured.

Size of header and footer
The comment of Barty is correct but I would not call it "stupidly. You may like or dislike the size of the header and footer on Kobo devices but a good reviewer should have at least mentioned that these are taking a large portion of the screen and the positioning of the displayed info is quite far from the screen edge. Repositioning the text closer to the screen edge doesn't decrease readability.

Ceteris paribus, he could and probably should have said that competitive devices do a better job at this (and wait for a non Kobo 6.8" reader with the same screen dpi) and that many non Kobo 6" devices can display the same amount of text on the screen albeit the lower resolution and dpi of the screen and therfore the text doesn't look as crisp, clear or smooth.

Dimensions and weight
The device is heavier but not that much (about the same weight of older 6" devices [2010]) not necessarily a "con" but the size of the screen is slightly larger too.
"still larger than Kindle Paperwhite": this is a total non argument. Why should a KPW be the standard? I'm pretty sure the KWP(2) isn't the smallest, leanest or lightest 6" ereader around.
Okay, it's a (North) American website. In those territories the choice of ereaders is very limited when compared to i.e. the European market. Even said that, "still larger than Kindle Paperwhite" remains non argument.


* note: fw 3.8.0 almost solves this fonts issue but I don't know which fw the reviewer test with.

[Anak]

@tnforpaul45. Don't worry, you'll get paid by posting and starting topics in forums like these. Good luck with generating a online buzz for this new Kobo product.
I took a quick look at your other posts too. Nice. Your creative writing skills have certainly improved.