B&N CEO on the future of Nook

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

If you're comparing the Voyage's 300 dpi screen against everybody else, everybody had "significant" lag. Not that significant, though. To single out Nook here is just absurd. Of course, if you're talking about water resistance or warm light, Amazon had significant lag at any price point. Again, there are fewer Nook models made. When they were released, they came out with the newer technology. If you single out Nook, you have to show that they lagged against everyone, not just against Kindles in one category.

Actually no I don’t. The claim I was refuting was Zods when he said Nook has always had the best hardware. You’ve demonstrated yourself that they have lagged behind both Kobo and Kindle in various ways to various degrees.

Again releasing less hardware doesn’t get you off the hook if the claim is always having the best. If anything it puts a hell of a lot more stress on the devices you do put out. And sorry but again Nook has been playing catch up in hardware across the board in features. At best equaling the competition when they catch up*.


* I don’t count Zods claim of a wider orange spectrum being objectively better in the same way I don’t count Kobo offering a wider array of screen sizes as objectively better. Some will care some won’t.

[j.p.s]

Some don't care about screen dpi.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Some don't care about screen dpi.

A clearer screen vs a foggier screen is objectively better, regardless of if people do or do not care about the DPI.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I’ll give that Nook were the first major brand to have the light at all. And that early on they outpaced Amazon or at least kept up. Kobo was outdistanced at this time with their clunkier design. But Nook has wavered and fallen behind at points. The glowlight 3 might be better hardware though from memory most if not all your praise of the hardware would fall into the subjective category.

Maybe I was unclear in my point:

When I say "Nook has always had superior hardware design to their competitors," 'competitors' would be similarly priced ereaders available for sale where Nooks are sold. So Kindles and Kobos.

To me, the Kobo Forma isn't a competitor to the basic Kindle anymore than a Porsche 911 is a competitor to a Ford Festiva.

At any rate, if my opinions on the hardware are subjective, there's this:

Originally Posted by MGlitch

A clearer screen vs a foggier screen is objectively better, regardless of if people do or do not care about the DPI.

The Glowlight 3 does have a better screen than the current Kindle Paperwhite or the Kobo Clara. Read any post from a Nook Glowlight 3 owner whether they love the device or hate it. The screen is nicer.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that Nooks should be doing better. I don't buy books from B&N because of their download difficulties. I also wish the firmware were improved. So I am not claiming that Nooks are the best readers out there.

But they do get some things right and I would like to see the 'new' B&N try to turn the ship around.

Edit:

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I don’t count Zods claim of a wider orange spectrum being objectively better in the same way I don’t count Kobo offering a wider array of screen sizes as objectively better..

Why doesn't this count? If two devices do the same thing, like turn the screen orange, and one has a wider range than the other, it doesn't seem like a leap to say that one does the job better.

My Glowlight 3 can match every level of 'orangeness' that my Clara does. And when the Clara is maxed out, the Glowlight 3 is only at the 50% mark. Seems objective to me.

Edit again:
I compared the Glowlight 3 to the Clara. It's tough because of the the natural difference in color to begin with. But at any rate, the max orange of the Clara is about the 75% mark of the Glowlight 3. When I tried to take comparison photos, you couldn't even see that the Clara (at max) was orange.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

So, where does Nook stand?
With all tech stuff outsourced they're most likely OEMing a pre-existent design. Every years there's a couple dozen asian designs that never make it west so theirs no quick way of telling, if they're rebadging a design or not. But since they're not exactly cutting edge hardware the odds of it being a custom job like the first Nooks is very low.

Sorry professor, for all of your very long post, you still have no further proof than 'maybe this happens' based on nothing that you've bothered to show here.

Well, hey, I claim that B&N actually gets their technology from UFOs and that is why the Nook design is so different. And I have as much proof as you do.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Maybe I was unclear in my point:

When I say "Nook has always had superior hardware design to their competitors," 'competitors' would be similarly priced ereaders available for sale where Nooks are sold. So Kindles and Kobos.

To me, the Kobo Forma isn't a competitor to the basic Kindle anymore than a Porsche 911 is a competitor to a Ford Festiva.

Fair then, on a one to one basis comparing generation devices to each other I'd still argue Nook mostly walks along side the rest.

At any rate, if my opinions on the hardware are subjective, there's this:


The Glowlight 3 does have a better screen than the current Kindle Paperwhite or the Kobo Clara. Read any post from a Nook Glowlight 3 owner whether they love the device or hate it. The screen is nicer.

Also fair, though I did specify that screen quality -wasn't- subjective.

[/Quote]
Why doesn't this count? If two devices do the same thing, like turn the screen orange, and one has a wider range than the other, it doesn't seem like a leap to say that one does the job better.

My Glowlight 3 can match every level of 'orangeness' that my Clara does. And when the Clara is maxed out, the Glowlight 3 is only at the 50% mark. Seems objective to me.[/QUOTE]

Getting more orange isn't inherently better, it's a preference some will like others wont. By the same token as screen size wasn't counted. More screen for text should be better, but some folks like the smaller form factor, others like the screen being bigger. Both are valid desires.

Unlike with screen quality where regardless of if it's important to you, if given an option between fuzzy and clear everyone will pick the clear option.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Getting more orange isn't inherently better, it's a preference some will like others wont. By the same token as screen size wasn't counted. More screen for text should be better, but some folks like the smaller form factor, others like the screen being bigger. Both are valid desires.

I disagree. Screen size is a tangible, physical thing. If you don't want a 7.8" reader, don't buy one with a 7.8" screen. It's not like if you compare to 7.8" readers one will somehow be more 7.8" or something.

But, if you are looking for the feature of an orange light and you compare two readers, the one with more range is objectively better. If, let's say the Kobo could get less orange than the Glowlight 3, then both would be doing different things and it would be a subjective decision. But the Glowlight 3 can reach every level of orangeness that the Kobo can. And then it can go further. The results are observable and can be replicated in lab conditions. There's no subjectivity about it.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Unlike with screen quality where regardless of if it's important to you, if given an option between fuzzy and clear everyone will pick the clear option.

IMO, (and I am not inclined to discuss it,) your criteria for what is objective and subjective, and what preferences are valid, are themselves subjective.

You must know that there are families where one faction refuses to learn how to find the HD version of a channel on television instead of the SD version and strenuously claim to see no difference (on > 50" screens on high end TVs).

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I disagree. Screen size is a tangible, physical thing. If you don't want a 7.8" reader, don't buy one with a 7.8" screen. It's not like if you compare to 7.8" readers one will somehow be more 7.8" or something.

But, if you are looking for the feature of an orange light and you compare two readers, the one with more range is objectively better. If, let's say the Kobo could get less orange than the Glowlight 3, then both would be doing different things and it would be a subjective decision. But the Glowlight 3 can reach every level of orangeness that the Kobo can. And then it can go further. The results are observable and can be replicated in lab conditions. There's no subjectivity about it.

Only if that wider range is actually appealing to you. Which amounts to the same argument about screen size. Thus why both are subjective features rather than objective ones.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

IMO, (and I am not inclined to discuss it,) your criteria for what is objective and subjective, and what preferences are valid, are themselves subjective.

You must know that there are families where one faction refuses to learn how to find the HD version of a channel on television instead of the SD version and strenuously claim to see no difference (on > 50" screens on high end TVs).

There are also people who insist the world is flat. I can recognize they exist while also recognizing their opinion is invalid.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Only if that wider range is actually appealing to you. Which amounts to the same argument about screen size. Thus why both are subjective features rather than objective ones.

You're trying. You are. But honestly, you are just wrong.

I mean, using your rational, you could apply it to anything. Case in point:

Originally Posted by MGlitch

A clearer screen vs a foggier screen is objectively better, regardless of if people do or do not care about the DPI.

Only if that clarity is actually appealing to you. Which amounts to the same argument about orangeness. Thus why both are subjective features rather than objective ones.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You're trying. You are. But honestly, you are just wrong.

I mean, using your rational, you could apply it to anything. Case in point:



Only if that clarity is actually appealing to you. Which amounts to the same argument about orangeness. Thus why both are subjective features rather than objective ones.

I'll lay you odds if you go up to Joe Schmoe on the street and ask them if a clearer/sharper display is good or bad, you'll get an overwhelming majority agreeing that yes it is.

Wax poetic all you wish about the orange light, but there's no consensus on if it's actually a proffered feature let alone getting into the nitty gritty of levels of orange.

But sure, I'll toss both out as subjective, which still puts Nook as marching side by side in terms of hardware. Not being decisively better. Which was the claim I took issue with.

[ZodWallop]

You say one thing here:

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I'll lay you odds if you go up to Joe Schmoe on the street and ask them if a clearer/sharper display is good or bad, you'll get an overwhelming majority agreeing that yes it is.

And the exact opposite here:

Wax poetic all you wish about the orange light, but there's no consensus on if it's actually a proffered feature let alone getting into the nitty gritty of levels of orange.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were saying that something is objective if you acree with it and it's subjective if you don't

But sure, I'll toss both out as subjective, which still puts Nook as marching side by side in terms of hardware. Not being decisively better. Which was the claim I took issue with.

Well hey, if we're going by your standards, all ereaders and their attached ecosystems are exactly the same and there's no objective difference between any of them.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Well hey, if we're going by your standards, all ereaders and their attached ecosystems are exactly the same and there's no objective difference between any of them.

I laid out different features, which Nook lagged behind the others in adding. They eventually did add them. They were the first between them and Kindle to add the light, possibly the first to do so commercially I can't recall right now.

My point is that each of the three biggies with ecosystems (Nook, Kindle, Kobo) have all added hardware features the others had to play catch up with. They've all been the best at one thing or another.

You are the one who claimed Nook has universally had better hardware, and haven't presented anything other than the current generation to back that claim. And even with the current generation Nook is as ever hardware lite in terms of its offerings. The single model they offer may be good, but they aren't versatile.

Which is where Kobo, and Kindle shine, they have a ereader that's right for you, rather than one which you work around.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

IMO, (and I am not inclined to discuss it,) your criteria for what is objective and subjective, and what preferences are valid, are themselves subjective.

You must know that there are families where one faction refuses to learn how to find the HD version of a channel on television instead of the SD version and strenuously claim to see no difference (on > 50" screens on high end TVs).

That's my son...but he goes further than that. He insists that the SD version looks better than the HD. My husband thinks it's because he mostly watches Anime, but I think it's because he just likes being contrary.

Shari