New Color E-Reader Tech To Challenge E-Ink Dominance

Technology Review reports from the Consumer Elecronics Show in Las Vegas that potential e-reader competitors to E-Ink are everywhere. The current market leader in e-book displays is greyscale-only, and it takes a long time to change the display ("turn the page"), so video applications are not possible. E-Ink says they will have a color display shipping by late next year, but it will be dimmer than the current greyscale and its response time will still be too slow for video. The wannabe competitors — Pixel Qi, Qualcomm MEMS Technologies, Liquavista, and Kent Displays — all do color and some of them can do video (Pixel Qi, Qualcomm, Liquavista), and some of them (Pixel Qi, Kent) are shipping now.

Comments

Power?

[chill]

The big draw of E-Ink is that it only uses power when doing a page change. Do the color versions mentioned in TFA do that as well? If so, welcome. If not, nice try but fail.

Re:Power?

[PCM2]

The big draw of E-Ink is that it only uses power when doing a page change.

This was my understanding as well. So maybe someone who owns a Kindle or a Nook can answer me something that has bugged me for a while: Why on earth do these things appear to have screensavers? By changing the image when the machine is idle, doesn't a screensaver actually drain the battery where normally there would be no drain at all? Does an e-ink screen really need to be "saved" (i.e. will it burn out/burn in)?

As for the competitors, they are all designed to use very little power. At least one functions in a dual mode, where it can either be an e-ink type monochrome screen or a backlit color screen.

Here's another article, from The Economist.

Re:Power?

[theblondebrunette]

If you did RTFA, on the first page you'd see:
"Switching from the backlit mode, to the reflective one drops the display's power consumption from 2.5 Watts to 0.5 Watts. This is for a refresh rate of 60 Hz--fast enough to display video. Pixel Qi claims that using software to put the display into an e-reader mode--suitable for reading text, where the screen might only update ten times a second--could drop the power consumption to as low as 100 milliwatts."

For the IMOD:
"The height of the air gap between the plates determines the color of light that is reflected from the IMOD. When a voltage is applied, the plates are drawn together by electrostatic forces and the element goes black. When the voltage is removed, the plates separate and color is reflected off the IMOD. A single pixel is made up of several IMODs; adjusting the height of each affects the overall color of the pixel. The plates stay in place, using almost no energy, until the color needs to change again. A plate only has to move a few hundred nanometers to change color and can do it in tens of microseconds--fast enough to show video."

Liquavista:
"The LCD devices are based on a technique called electrowetting, in which a voltage is used to modify the surface tension of colored oil on a solid substrate. In the absence of a voltage, the oil forms a film over the substrate and is visible to the viewer. When a voltage is applied, the pixel becomes transparent. By controlling the voltage of each pixel independently, a picture can be displayed. Unlike E Ink's technology, electrowetting pixels can be switched in a few milliseconds, making them suitable for showing video."

What the article doesn't say, which is easiest on the eyes. My bets are still on e-ink.
Recently I tried this "Libre" LCD-based e-reader, and my eyes were bleeding, it was that horrible, or maybe I'm spoiled by real e-ink, and no, it's not Kindle.

Re:Power?

[seanadams.com]

Why on earth do these things appear to have screensavers?

Kindle does not have an animated screensaver, it just displays some static artwork such as a photograph of a famous author. It's only one refresh when it goes to sleep and one more when you wake it up.

Re:Power?

[elcheesmo]

Why on earth do these things appear to have screensavers?

The Kindle does display an image, usually of a famous author, when it's turned off. While displaying that image does use some power, it's a negligible amount considering how many page turns the thing gets on a single charge. And it looks pretty cool too.

Re:Power?

[maxume]

I imagine they probably decided that the 'neat' was more important than a couple of extra page changes (I think the battery lasts for more than 1,000 page changes).

Re:Power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. The screen draws no power at all to maintain an image.

Re:Power?

[Brandee07]

The screensaver is a static image- it only appears when you put it to sleep, and doesn't change until you wake it up and put it to sleep again. Because eInk isn't a CRT and doesn't actually NEED a screensaver, it's more of a pretty keylock screen than a screensaver.

Re:Power?

[cruff]

With the latest Kindle 2 firmware, I can get almost 2 weeks of heavy reading on a charge (with the wireless turned off for most of that time). Thus displaying the "screensavers" really doesn't impact the usability.

Re:Power?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The display in the OLPC XO-1 is the predecessor of Pixel Qi's current products. I'd say that the comparison between that screen and the e-ink implementation of the kindle is as follows:

Color/video/refresh: The LCD, hands down. E-ink doesn't even rate.

Monochrome/text/reading: Both are a little "greyer" than one would like. E-ink has worse blacks; but a somewhat brighter background(under standard illuminated room conditions). LCD has nicer blacks; but a slightly darker background unless the ambient light is quite bright.

I'd say that E-ink was modestly better in medium light, by virtue of its brighter background; but worse in low light since there is no way to backlight it just a bit. In full sunlight, either was highly readable; but E-ink suffered from its usual slow refresh issues.

Re:Power?

[maxume]

Changing to the image and then back to the text does use some power though, which I think is what the GP meant.

Re:Power?

[Idbar]

A couple of years ago, I had the chance of going to a talk from the guys of E-ink. They showed the B&W and Color displays before the e-readers came out. I was amazed at the picture frame prototype they had, and always wonder what happened to it.

I'm curious about the reason they are holding back the release of color screens and waited for a punch from the competitors. I had it in my hands, so I know it existed way longer than the first Sony reader came to the market.

This is before they took that off of their website

Re:Power?

[maxume]

That article says that they had 12 bit color at 83 ppi. The kindle is something like 170 ppi.

So it was probably more expensive, looked bad compared to displays with better color depth, and it wasn't very crisp.

Re:Power?

[QuantumG]

Please tell me you can disable that feature.

Re:Power?

[Concerned Onlooker]

"Neat" has nothing to do with it. When the Kindle has been idle for a while it displays what people here are calling a screen saver. Except it's not a screen saver. It's really just a way of the Kindle letting you know that you have to unlock it (just a key press combination, not a security code) to start reading. Being in this mode stops the Kindle from doing things when the buttons are accidentally pressed, thereby saving your spot.

Re:Power?

[tlhIngan]

I imagine they probably decided that the 'neat' was more important than a couple of extra page changes (I think the battery lasts for more than 1,000 page changes).

Also as a quick screen lock - in case you're reading something someone else might find embarassing. One push, and poof, incriminating text is gone.

Of course, if the person you're hiding the text from pushes the power button...

But I suppose the other aspect is to pretend you "closed the book" by showing you a "cover"...

Re:Power?

[camperdave]

Why on earth do these things appear to have screensavers?

Perhaps so that people who glance at your device when it's lying on the table won't be able to know what you're reading? You may not want people to know how far along you are in your novel.

Re:Power?

[wvmarle]

A typical problem with displays is that many newly developed display types have very limited life times. Sometimes as short as days or a few changes, deteriorating fast. I can imagine that such a colour version had a short life time, maybe in the order of 100 changes. That's probably good enough for a prototype display to show off, but not for consumer applications.

As another commenter points out the pixel size may have been an issue. Again this is something that makes it sound to me like nice prototype, but that's it.

These two issues - life time and resolution - is what producers were waiting for to mature. In b/w they have matured: hence the Kindle et. al are there. Colour may be next.

Re:Power?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

No, it cannot be disabled. I wish it could be, but it's not a big deal.

Re:Power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a good thing.

It puts the device to sleep, disables the page turn buttons, and updates the server as to what page you are on.(if you use whispersync)

The static "screensaver" let's you know that it is ready to be put in it's case, that the buttons are disabled to prevent accidental page turns (like falling asleep reading a book).

It's less "screensaver" and more "turning off" but it just changes the screen to let you know. It's reallyreally not a big deal.

Re:Power?

[PlazMan]

So maybe someone who owns a Kindle or a Nook can answer me something that has bugged me for a while: Why on earth do these things appear to have screensavers? By changing the image when the machine is idle, doesn't a screensaver actually drain the battery where normally there would be no drain at all? Does an e-ink screen really need to be "saved" (i.e. will it burn out/burn in)?

As far as I can tell from my Kindle, there is no need to "save the screen". It is simply providing a visual indication that it has entered a mode where button presses will be ignored - which is nice since a few inadvertent clicks can cause you to lose your place in whatever you are reading. The power consumed to throw up an image when it goes into this state is pretty negligible, and I believe it offsets that by going into a lower power mode for the wireless connection while in this state. The only way to get out of this state is to activate a slider switch, so there's little to no risk of accidentally flipping pages due to it getting jostled around in a backpack.

That said, I really with it had the ability to increase the time-out or disable the screen saver entirely since I use my Kindle for displaying approach plates while flying and it is really aggravating when I'm in the middle of an approach and it decides to show me a picture of Jane Austen instead of the route that I'm flying.

Re:Power?

[macshit]

"Neat" has nothing to do with it. When the Kindle has been idle for a while it displays what people here are calling a screen saver. Except it's not a screen saver. It's really just a way of the Kindle letting you know that you have to unlock it (just a key press combination, not a security code) to start reading. Being in this mode stops the Kindle from doing things when the buttons are accidentally pressed, thereby saving your spot.

What if you're just a really slow reader, though...? It seems vaguely annoying to have to press a button occasionally just to prevent it from going into a sleep mode, especially given there's no power saving from the sleep mode at all (is there a "nop" button?).

Re:Power?

[Hurricane78]

No it definitely doesn’t. I think he just meant that there are animated screen savers.

Re:Power?

[hitmark]

thing is that unless the system fully powers down between page turns (and even then may bleed some purely from the imperfection in transistors), there is still a cpu in the background, idling and waiting for user input.

the biggest power draw in displays are more often backlight, then maintaining a static image, unless one is using CRT or similar where one continually repaints the pixels.

Re:Power?

[Korin43]

You could use an ARM processor have it draw very little power. Sure, you can't run Windows, but if you're gaming you probably don't care so much about power usage.

Re:Power?

[MemoryDragon]

The screensavers are pointless, my Sony 505 does not have one. And yes they drain the battery.

Re:Power?

[MemoryDragon]

E-Ink charges a fortune per display, the single most expensive part (about 100$ for a 7 inch reader) is the display, and since they have a monopoly or still have one, that is not bound to change, they probably are withholding the color one for exactly that reason.

Re:Power?

[WilliamTS99]

You can't disable it, though you can change the screensaver with a hack.
http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/Kindle_2_Screen_Saver_Hack

Re:Power?

[stasike]

No. You can not disable it. You can not change the pictures of dead authors. There is hack that allows you to use your own photos.

Kindle is not the only device on the market.
On PocketBook e-ink reading device you can configure everything. Including "screensavers".
You can switch those off, you can replace the picture, you can have number of pictures and let the PocketBook to randomly display one of those. I have compiled a nice collection of images from M.C.Escher.

Re:Power?

[value_added]

The Kindle does display an image, usually of a famous author, when it's turned off

Hopefully they'd avoid using an image of George Orwell.

Re:Power?

[hitmark]

from what i can tell, the standby on the next series of intel atom (N4**, iirc) will be comparable to ARM based products.

Re:Power?

[bsDaemon]

Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451) would probably be more apt than Orwell though.

Re:Power?

[TheCarp]

I think its just cuz well...you have to display something when power is off. You don't want to leave the page where it is, that would be confusing when you pick it up again. You could blank it out, but, that requires power to change the screen, so why not just put up an image?

Its not like its a real win any way, as long as the user knows at a glance what "off" looks like.

Re:Power?

[Yamata no Orochi]

Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451) would probably be more apt than Orwell though.

I think he's referring to the 1984 e-book fiasco.

Re:Power?

[KnowOne256]

The purpose of the "screen saver" is to keep you from accidentally turning the page when you set it down or pick it up.

Re:Power?

[bsDaemon]

If I remember correctly, all "approved" reading in F.451 was in electronic format because it could be changed whenever necessary without any "hard" evidence of the "real" version existing, but its been since 10th grade since I read that book.

My senior year, when my sister was in10th grade, she nearly got expelled because when she asked her English teacher if it were true that paper burns at 451F, the teacher said "why don't you try it and find out?" -- so, she stuck her $5 school-issued paperback in the oven when she got home, and sure enough when she took it out and air started moving, major combustion. She stuck it into a biohazard bag she had from the horse vet and brought it back the next morning to a teacher who was none too amused ;-)

Re:Power?

[m1571k]

I wondered about the screen saver when I first got my Kindle, then I noticed the buttons are locked when the screen saver is active. I think the purpose is mostly to let you know, in it's artful way, that you need to unlock it.

Re:Power?

[Bright Apollo]

Actually, the big draw is the ability to read the display in any light conditions, i.e. outside in sunlight. The crossover effect this would have on handhelds for a workforce would be tremendous.

Re:Power?

[Primitive Pete]

You can skip the "screen saver" pictures of authors by holding the switch in the off position for ~5 seconds when turning it off. The screen goes blank (no picture or text). I don't think it saves any power, but at least I don't have to go around with an advertisement for a famous author I don't enjoy.

Re:Power?

[mpicker0]

Yes, they will burn in. I was in Borders recently and looked at one of the Sony demo units. The "home page" of the demo was imprinted on the screen, and was faintly visible when turning the page, or wherever there was significant whitespace.

Re:Power?

[Ephemeriis]

The big draw of E-Ink is that it only uses power when doing a page change. Do the color versions mentioned in TFA do that as well? If so, welcome. If not, nice try but fail.

That is a big part of it... But readability is also a huge bonus with e-ink. The fact of the matter is that a backlight is harder on the eyes than simple reflected light. Most of the ereaders advertise that they're as readable as paper books - largely because of the lack of backlight.

Re:Power?

[Ephemeriis]

So maybe someone who owns a Kindle or a Nook can answer me something that has bugged me for a while: Why on earth do these things appear to have screensavers? By changing the image when the machine is idle, doesn't a screensaver actually drain the battery where normally there would be no drain at all? Does an e-ink screen really need to be "saved" (i.e. will it burn out/burn in)?

I don't know if it's possible to actually burn-in an e-ink display or not... I'm thinking probably not, but that's just a guess.

One reason for the screensaver is a very basic privacy measure. Just like closing a book obscures the text within, a screensaver obscures the text you were reading.

As for the power consumption... Changing the image will draw a tiny amount. If the screensaver is anything like the one on my nook, it'll only change the image once in a great while. So the screensaver itself is hardly going to drain anything. A far bigger draw will be leaving the wireless enabled, or keeping the thing in standby/sleep instead of completely powering it off.

Re:Power?

[thomas.galvin]

I honestly don't know why this isn't the default setting. I actually downloaded the Nook user manual just to see if it was possible to use the cover art (which they already have downloaded, for the CoverFlow-like browsing) as the screen saver, but, no.

I mean, how can I use my Nook to pick up chicks if I can't subtly cue them in to the fact that I'm reading Twilight?

Re:Power?

[jecblackpepper]

With the Bookeen Cybook, you can specify how long before it switches itself off. I have mine set to 30 mins - which allows me to be distracted by a phone call or go and make a cup of tea etc. So it's not a problem for me. I assume the Kindle is similar.

Re:Power?

[CAIMLAS]

I recall seeing news articles about existing color readers long before the Kindle and Sony readers came out, as well.

I suspect it's a number of things:

1) You've got two products which beat everything in the market at paper-like utility; one is better than the other but still not awesome. Keep the one which is better in the back room and improve it (don't show all your cards at once) while the lesser one garners sales.
2) Cost. Realize that these are mainly being targeted at the paper-replacement market (ebook readers and web tablets). There was (is?) no market for color e-Ink yet, so they didn't send them to market. (Things are a little tight now for everyone, so they need to try and turn their research into money.)
3)Competition. Nobody has been able to come even close to the power/use utility of e-Ink yet, so they've not been quick to show their aces.

Re:Power?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Very nice! It works.

Re:Power?

[Eighty7]

There's a hack out that can disable it.

Re:Power?

[steelfood]

There's also the manufacturing cost. It may cost a few thousand dollars to produce one. That cost is fine for a prototype, but not so fine for something to go to production. Something like the B&W screen probably would have to be produced for less than or around $50 for E-Ink to be able to sell it well enough to recoup their research and overhead costs.

Re:Power?

[BillX]

Agreed, I wish TFA were more clear about which were actual bistable (zero-power image retention) displays. But I do know that the E-Ink (electrophoretic) and Kent (cholesteric) screens are bistable. A very interesting fact that is briefly touched on in the article is that the active material in Kent's displays is reflective in its 'lighted' state and optically clear in its 'dark' states respectively, vs. the typical reflective/absorptive states of E-Ink or mirrorbacked LCD - the 'black' you see in the off state is a black paint sprayed on the rear glass. At low refresh rates, the screens can actually become power-budget positive when this black material is replaced by a black thin-film solarcell and a dark-heavy image is displayed. There was a demo of a solar-powered e-reader at the Boston ESC a few years ago; shame that I haven't heard anything about the solar-screen possibility since.

Re:Power?

[tehcyder]

Mod parent doubleplus funny.

Do not want.

[binaryspiral]

The beauty of grayscale eink is that it's very close to paper - making it easy to read for long periods of time. However, the transition time on the Kindle or other grayscale eink devices is long enough to be annoying. Making these transitions longer will decrease my satisfaction in them, making the display dimmer will make them worthless to me.

If I wanted color, I'd hit an iPod touch, tablet PC, or laptop.

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Re:Do not want.

[dagamer34]

CES = test tube experiments shown in broad daylight. They may never hit the market. Remember how 105" LCDs have been shown since 2005? When's the last time you saw one of those at your local Best Buy? Granted, practical applications of technology often do make it to market, but stuff is usually years away from being widespread. The show is more about what "could be" and attracting other companies as clients, not end-consumer oogling for "what's shipping this year".

Re:Do not want.

[shutdown -p now]

If I wanted color, I'd hit an iPod touch, tablet PC, or laptop.

You must be one of those "I want my phone to be just phone" people.

But there's no turning back. Color eInk screens were already demoed, they just aren't production-ready... yet. But they will be. Remember, eInk tech is still in its infancy - the first device that shipped with a screen more advanced than N-segment indicator was Sony Librie, and that was in 2004! We've already got much better contrast since then, and - while it may be hard for people who only saw the current generation of readers to comprehend - page turning speed is actually a fair bit better than it used to be, too.

Don't expect major breakthroughs, but gradual evolutions. Higher DPI, faster refresh, higher contrast, eventually - color screens, with color depth increasing steadily.

So, yes, I fully expect to read color books on an eInk (or whatever it'll be called then) reader in 3-4 years at the latest.

Re:Do not want.

[uradu]

You've been able to buy 120" displays for a couple of years now, though they will probably never be sold at your local BB for two obvious reasons: they're too damn big to fit through most people's doors, and they're too damn expensive. Pixel Qi and Mirasol are definitely imminent, no need to get all cynical about those.

Re:Do not want.

[srothroc]

Perhaps it would be useful for something that doesn't require a lot of transitions in a short time. A few of the things I can think of are picture frames, advertisements/billboards, signs/menus on walls, digital clocks... those big informative posters I used to see in elementary school that were changed out every week.

Re:Do not want.

[JohnBailey]

The transition time on my Sony 300 is less than a second - about the same as physically turning a page.

Same with my Cybook. It takes an instant to wake up fully and get everything sorted, but the actual screen redraw is fine for it's purpose. Obviously, it's never going to be fast enough for the drama queens who simply must have instant screen refresh, and none of that beastly flashing as the display zeros. Personally, I have developed the habit of pressing the next page button when I'm half ways through the last sentence, and it is not disruptive at all. Blink and you'll miss it.

Re:Do not want.

[shutdown -p now]

A book with illustrations in color.

Re:Do not want.

[hitmark]

i suspect that we still do not have computer systems that can adapt silently and correctly in the same way as the human mind can.

what your asking for is more like a proto-ai secretary, that will continually evaluate what your doing and observing.

microsoft have been experimenting with systems like that, based around bayesian math, iirc. Software that can for instance create a calendar entry automatically based on the content of a email.

sadly, the only thing we have seen in product form so far was clippy...

Re:Do not want.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain to me (and I suspect all the rest of us) what a "color book" is?

When you reach kindergarten, some of the books they give you are not printed in color. Instead, the illustrations are just done in solid lines, with nothing filled in. The idea is that you can use your crayons to fill in the color areas yourself. At first this seems counter-intuitive and time-consuming, but it's actually enjoyable once you get the hang of it.

Re:Do not want.

[Sobrique]

Thing is, I can't recall last time I read a book that needed 'colour' - the only colour in it was the front/back cover, and even that would have been fine black and white.
I like my ebook reader to function as an ebook - that means nice sharp black on white text, with a long battery life, and ideally a ruggedized case so it'll survive being dropped. (For bonus points 'survive being dropped in the bath'). As features go, being able to display colour text/pictures is actually very low on the list. Although, I guess slightly ahead of 'can play MP3s'...

Re:Do not want.

[terryducks]

However, the transition time ... is long enough to be annoying.

When I'm "shopping",yes i agree. When I'm reading - I'm usually immersed in the book and can hit the next page a little before i'm done with the sentence and minimize the wait time. This doesn't work for PDFs as i'm scanning for info.

Re:Do not want.

[91degrees]

Well, I've noticed a fraction of a second can take years sometimes depending on the context.

Re:Do not want.

[dangitman]

Thing is, I can't recall last time I read a book that needed 'colour'

You must not have been exposed to very many books in your lifetime, then.

Re:Do not want.

[SilentTristero]

Except... it's not at all close to paper. I've had a Kindle for a year and it's my main reading device, and the fact that the "paper" is about 30% gray, not even *close* to white, is the thing that bugs me the most. Of course the blacks are nowhere near as black as print either, so the overall contrast level is tiny compared to paper. I can easily read a paper book in light levels that are way too low to read my Kindle2. The main way it's "very close to paper" is that it's illuminated by ambient light.

(Not to say I don't love it -- the convenience factor is amazing.)

Re:Do not want.

[FlyingBishop]

If I could have a computer whose display didn't use any power unless it was changing a particular pixel, that would be very valuable.

For some applications (not video, I'd guess) it might present a significant benefit over a standard screen.

Re:Do not want.

[Necroloth]

Thing is, I can't recall last time I read a book that needed 'colour' - the only colour in it was the front/back cover, and even that would have been fine black and white. As features go, being able to display colour text/pictures is actually very low on the list.

one word: textbook

Re:Do not want.

[Kyont]

OK. But now how do I get the crayon markings off my Kindle screen, so I can turn the page?

Re:Do not want.

[bar-agent]

OK. But now how do I get the crayon markings off my Kindle screen, so I can turn the page?

You turn it upside down and shake it. The surface is specially treated so that wax does not adhere.

Re:Do not want.

[binaryspiral]

If I wanted color, I'd hit an iPod touch, tablet PC, or laptop.

You must be one of those "I want my phone to be just phone" people.

Hardly... I have a deep appreciation for multifunctional devices. I'm simply saying that if by introducing color to an e-ink device you make it dimmer and slower - then go home, you're fucking doing it wrong.

Don't cripple the kindle just so it can show a color picture. Make it color, brighter, AND refresh faster - then I'll be interested.

Don't limit the perception of those screens!

[sznupi]

We see in the summary "e-reader", "e-book"...ignoring that those screens (well, at least Pixel Qi one, that I'm sure of) are great also as replacements for screens in netbooks (remember commercials of those depicting them on the beach, in the park or bright cafe?); generally any highly portable device.

Those are the screens which were supposed to be in place all along. Finally we can have them. Who cares about e-book readers?

Re:Don't limit the perception of those screens!

[Chaos Incarnate]

If you're spending days to read a novel, you're doing it wrong. That same battery charge that can get you through 3 movies will get me through 5-plus books, play back music while I'm reading, fit in my pocket, and hold a lot more books than a Kindle or other reader without an SD card slot.

Re:Don't limit the perception of those screens!

[moggie_xev]

If you are reading at more than 120 pages an hour then you are doing something wrong. Most books are 300 or 400 pages.....
My Sony reader gets lot of use and the display is worth it...

Re:Don't limit the perception of those screens!

[sznupi]

Never mind that dead tree format has indeed its advantages (price of e-books is ridiculous; without the possibility of libraries, lending and easy sale/buying of used books - and I don't have much problem carrying two or three, with great battery time)

Consider a netbook (preferably with ARM cpu)...with Pixel Qi screen...in the form of a convertible tablet. What do you have in one of the modes? Oh, right, e-book reader.

Yes, those screens getting into the e-ink ballpark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oawX3wenxNc

Re:Don't limit the perception of those screens!

[mliu]

Absolutely! A lot of these e-readers are running Linux of some flavor such as Android, and I remember reading news about both the Nook and the Kindle having been rooted.

Something that would pretty much instantly open my wallet would be if one of these could be setup with a driver to connect it to a computer and used as an external display. To compensate for the slow refresh, maybe every time a certain key combo was pressed, the contents of the window with focus would be mirrored onto the e-ink display.

I do pretty much 99% of my reading on my computer now. I would definitely pay to have a less eye-strain inducing supplementary display.

Re:Don't limit the perception of those screens!

[sznupi]

See, you've fallen for this artificial categorization too (hey, it's profitable for producers/marketers, I guess...)

The beauty of screens like Pixel Qi lies in approaching the clarity and readability of e-ink...while being just as good as normal LCD screen in things e-ink is a non-starter!

They are perfect as the only screen for a laptop/tablet/etc.

Re:Don't limit the perception of those screens!

[mliu]

Sure, I would absolutely love a computer that has one of those things, no one seems remotely interested in producing a powerful computer (non-netbook) that uses one.

I have also seen nary a word on an external monitor that uses one.

That's why I'm (for now) hoping someone could hack an e-reader to use it as an external monitor.

Re:Sorry, not news.

[uradu]

You should be sorry, because this IS big time news.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/09/qualcomm-mirasol-display-video-hands-on-in-glorious-1080p/

'Nuff said!

flickering with e-ink

[e**(i pi)-1]

the new technology with color, faster page build and better energy efficiency is welcome. My biggest complaint with electronic ink is the "flicking" before a page turn. I was told that it is necessary to remove any traces from the previous text. Its certainly a personal thing, but I find this annoying. Every page flip reminds on how unfinished the current e-ink technology is.

Re:flickering with e-ink

[vcgodinich]

Every time my linux box's windows tear across, or "erase" my screen it reminds me how unfinished that technology is

Re:flickering with e-ink

[MemoryDragon]

Actually the flicking is a thing of getting used to, at first you are annoyed after a while you wont notice anymore, the bigger problem is the contrast, or lack thereof, paper quality is a lie, the contrast you get is more along the lines of 100 year old newspaper with aging ink.
Still good enough, but the media was writing garbage on global scale about the contrast, it does not even come close to a real book.

Re:flickering with e-ink

[Sobrique]

Hmm, I think you have problems with hysteresis there. If I look closely at my ebook reader, I can see an afterimage when it's only redrawn part of the screen - I therefore assume that the 'blank and redraw' is to minimise that effect. It seems slow, but having had my reader for the better part of a year now, it's honestly not that big a deal. At least, not compared to how it's nice to have 'proper' printed text.

Re:flickering with e-ink

[DarkTempes]

Eh, it's not THAT bad (at least not on my kindle). I'd say it's slightly worse than your average mass market paperback book but without the downside of "oh yay, they were running out of ink during print and now I can barely read this" or "oh yay there was too much ink and now this is all blurred and I can barely read this".

However, higher contrast and something even close to a true black would be really really nice. I wouldn't mind being able to read hardcover quality ink without the weight and size of a hardcover book.

Re:flickering with e-ink

[jecblackpepper]

With the Cybook, you can select to have the blank step on or off. On it flashes black to clear the old text and then displays the next page (effectively taking two 'page turns'); off it just draws the next page - but there is a little ghosting left of the previous page where it hasn't completely cleared - no worse than in a real book where you can see the ink from the reverse of the page through the paper.

It can be annoying if the previous page had some graphics on it, but for normal text I hardly notice it.

Re:Sorry, not news.

[biryokumaru]

Maybe it's getting on to time for a -1 Spam. -1 Offtopic isn't always applicable.

I love my kindle

[LlamaZorz]

I have a Kindle2 becasue it enables me to read more than I normally would. Certain things I would only read online like periodicals and hack tutorials were not being read due to eye strain. I didnt want to print these as it would become expensive and wasteful fast. My kindle has really long battery life and I actually get less eye strain with it than with real paper books given the grey background. I love the thing, any gloss or color will just make the device cause more strain and that's now what I wanted.

Re:Sorry, not news.

[uradu]

Yeah, spreading information, shining a light on your dark mind. Perish the thought!

Where is my Harry-Potter newspaper?

[starbugs]

Thin, light, cheap and permanent.
That's what I thought this E-ink would aspire to be.

Why do we but such big ugly boxes around E-ink?
We're just making super-low power tablets with slow screens.

I want a sheet of paper screen that I can crumple up and throw away when I spill coffee on in.
Sure watching videos is nice. But why is it called an E-book?
This is a step in the wrong direction.

I want to end up with something like This (Caprica) or like the display sheets in the show Andromeda instead of just another tablet.

Re:Where is my Harry-Potter newspaper?

[starbugs]

Sorry...
'build' such ugly boxes around E-ink, and spill coffee on 'it'.
Where's my iCaffeine?

Re:Where is my Harry-Potter newspaper?

[gmhowell]

I want a sheet of paper screen that I can crumple up and throw away when I spill coffee on in.

Sure watching videos is nice. But why is it called an E-book?

This is a step in the wrong direction.

You're the reason we can't have nice things!

I'd prefer higher contrast

[JakeD409]

A color eBook reader is something that will really appeal to my girlfriend (who has many art books and comic books). I, on the other hand, use my Kindle to read novels and programming books. There might be a little colored syntax highlighting in my programming books, but that's the extent that color would affect my eBook-reading experience. I'd much prefer a higher-contrast greyscale eBook reader. Currently, the contrast on my Kindle (and, from what I understand, the Nook and the Sony readers) is about the same as that of a dirty newspaper (about 8:1 I believe). It doesn't bother me, but I'd buy one that has paperback book contrast (about 50:1) in a heartbeat.

Re:I'd prefer higher contrast

[mdwh2]

For those into 3D graphics, there are plenty of programming books that use colour too...

Real book page turn times

[Mr. Freeman]

I don't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers. They're designed to be easy to read for the purpose of replacing paper books, not replacing LCD TVs or computer monitors. A real book doesn't have instant page turn times and there's a bit of "flicker" as the page flips up and over the current page. I've used a kindle before and it takes longer to turn a real page than for the kindle to refresh so I don't see a problem here.

Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers can't be used for video. My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO? You should have bought a laptop.

Re:Real book page turn times

[QuantumG]

You just expressed a view that is completely lost of marketing fools who see features features features as the only way to sell units. This is why every ebook reader also has an mp3 player in it.

Re:Real book page turn times

[Rytr23]

+1!! God damn it annoys me when people start whining about the second "page flip". 99% of people don't read fast enough for this to be an issue anyway.

Re:Real book page turn times

[jabbathewocket]

Newsflash, not everyone has the same mix of devices (either at home or portable versions).. Thus to the person with the iphone, and a 17" macbook pro, feature phones look stupid and braindead, netbooks make no sense at all, and having any sort of desktop computer at all seems so ancient an idea.. Change the devices around a bit.. and the guy with a moto razr, and a netbook.. cant comprehend why anyone would bother with an iphone or a high end winmobile device .. much less the idea of a giant laptop at home.. when they can have a desktop pc at home.. Different strokes/different folks.. as far as the reason for the MP3 player in most of these devices is so that they can be compatible with audible.com audiobooks.. not so that you can whip out your kindle DX to listen to some tunes.

Re:Real book page turn times

[warcow105]

You hit the nail right on the head. My sony reader got me reading books again, and thats what I got it for...I didnt wish it could do video, nor did a pause between pages bother me(like you said, it takes longer to turn a real page). Feature bleed is a royal pain, instead of these manufacturers making a device that does 1 thing excellent, they jam as many features in as possible so their sales flier has more bullet points that company b, but it does it all half assed.

Re:Real book page turn times

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

Re:Real book page turn times

[badasscat]

Newsflash, not everyone has the same mix of devices (either at home or portable versions).. Thus to the person with the iphone, and a 17" macbook pro, feature phones look stupid and braindead, netbooks make no sense at all, and having any sort of desktop computer at all seems so ancient an idea.. Change the devices around a bit.. and the guy with a moto razr, and a netbook.. cant comprehend why anyone would bother with an iphone or a high end winmobile device ..

This is not really the point. You're talking about people with devices that can do various things not understanding the point of other devices that do those things. We're talking about two different devices that already serve completely different purposes having features grafted on so one is more like the other. This is not the same as what you're talking about.

To run with your analogy, you would better ask that guy with the netbook and the razr how he'd feel about a new netbook that you could hold up to your ear and make calls with, or the guy with the iphone and the macbook pro how he'd feel about a new iphone with a 14" screen (and therefore the same bulk as his macbook pro). These would be pointless devices to these people too, even though they're fans of these devices in their original forms, and even though this convergence would theoretically allow them to carry one fewer device. But the execution of these features would be so lacking in comparison to the device for which these features were originally intended that nobody in their right mind would actually ditch the devices they're currently carrying in favor of the new ones.

So it is with video-playing e-readers, which sound to me kind of like toast-making washing machines or car-waxing guitars. Sure, I'll bet somebody could adapt these devices to do those things... and maybe one or two people would even find them interesting enough to buy as a result. But I'll bet most people would continue to buy toasters and washing machines separately, as they'd no doubt do the job better.

Not everything in this life needs to converge. We're not going to one day have some super-device that performs every task we need or want to do and does it all from the palm of our hand. It might be a nice dream, but it is not reality. The reality is that we actually have more devices now than ever, because that's what people really want. They may say they want convergence if you phrase it in the "if you could have more features on this product, would you want them?" kind of way, or even the "if you could carry fewer devices and perform the same tasks, would you like that?" kind of way, but this is not the real choice people are asked to make when they actually buy these devices. The real choice is usually between one device that does a bunch of things poorly, or a bunch of devices that each do one thing really well. And the vast majority of people regularly choose the latter.

Re:Real book page turn times

[im_thatoneguy]

Oh I thought that was because I usually listen to music while reading and the two were a natural fit for sitting on an airplane listening to music while reading.

Re:Real book page turn times

[drinkypoo]

This is why every ebook reader also has an mp3 player in it.

No, every eBook reader has an mp3 player in it because every manufacturer wants audio feedback that doesn't sound like an alarm clock being murdered. If you're going to [therefore] skip the bit-banging speaker interface and even FM synthesis and move along to some real audio, it barely costs more to install a codec capable of handling the audio output part; and decoding mp3 is such a trivial task compared to [say] displaying a PDF in a timely fashion that it doesn't even bear mentioning in terms of CPU time... especially since mp3 can be decoded with integer-only math. Also, if you're implementing text-to-speech, mp3 is a joke. Not putting it in would only confuse.

Re:Real book page turn times

[WilliamTS99]

Handicap accessibility and audiobooks are what I think of as far as mp3 capabilities in e-readers.

Re:Real book page turn times

[xtracto]

Good, then lets put a camera, mobile phone, GPS, clock and pager to the e-book rader!

I think this make sense because I usually am waiting for a call while reading and listening for music when I am on a trip. Sometimes I want to know where along the trip am I, what time is it and if I need to take my pills. Oh, and of course I like taking pictures of the places I go to read.

Re:Real book page turn times

[totally bogus dude]

First: why should new technology aspire to be no better than old technology? What's wrong with having or wanting a faster/instant refresh?

Second: the delay on an e-reader is probably more noticeable because you're waiting for it. If you're turning the page of a book, you have something to do to keep you busy until it's done, so it doesn't matter if it takes a while. If your only interaction with the device is to press a "next page" button, you have nothing to do except wait for the display to refresh. Time seems to go much slower if you have nothing to do...

Third: e-readers are purporting to provide the advantages of electronic displays combined with the advantages of real ink on paper. One of the advantages of (other) electronic displays is that they update "instantly", so people may have a preconceived notion that that will be one of the benefits they receive with their shiny new e-reader. That would lead to disappointment when they find it's not.

Fourth: many people are probably conditioned to view a slow refresh as indicative of an underpowered system; e.g. when their word processor takes ages to seek in a file, or their browser struggles to smoothly scroll on a busy website, etc. So a noticeable refresh may trigger a subconscious feeling of unease.

Faster refreshes also provides additional opportunities, for example when reading on my phone I sometimes use the auto-scroll feature so I don't have to keep pressing a button to get the next page. Presumably, an auto-scroll wouldn't really be viable with current e-ink type readers. Which goes to point #1: making things better can make for more opportunities that you wouldn't otherwise consider if your only goal was to make it "as good as" the older technology.

Re:Real book page turn times

[Sobrique]

audio feedback? What is this audio feedback? I'm fairly sure I don't have it on my Sony eReader, and it's not something I've missed. I'm pretty sure it can play MP3s, but I've never done so - everyone I know with an ebook reader of some kind, is also the type of person who already has a phone that plays MP3s, and an MP3 player if they want one. Part of me sort of says that combining functionality is good, so you have the option to use whatever for whatever.
But the other part of me thinks that MP3 playback, and active displays are ... well, essentially actively countering the primary functionality of the device - mp3 playback is a much larger battery drain than reading ebooks, for example.

Re:Real book page turn times

[Mr. Freeman]

"The other issue with refresh is simply the Internet."
You're aware that there exists a device that is designed for such a purpose, yes? It's called a laptop. You might as well bitch about the small screen size or lack of a full keyboard on your internet-enabled phone. The e-ink is designed to be easy to read, it looks almost like actual paper. Much easier on the eyes than a monitor. It's designed for READING, not for video, not for internet, not for making your coffee in the morning, etc.

As for flipping multiple pages, you can type in the page number and it'll take you there. Yeah, it's a little harder to flip through it to find a page, but there's built in bookmarking functionality so it's a minor issue.

Re:Real book page turn times

[itsdapead]

I don't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers.

Its not a problem as long as you're happy with a dedicated device for "page-by-page" reading of traditional books.

My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO?

Put that the other way round: why would you want to buy an e-reader if your media player lets you read books and watch video?

Currently, the answer to that is that e-ink (a) is nicer to read than a backlit display and (b) offers vastly better battery life.

You should have bought a laptop.

...and the most interesting thing about these new screens (if they deliver) is that they could be used in laptops, smartphones and "slates", enabling them to compete with e-readers for display quality and battery life.

If dedicated ebook readers are to survive, the answer is to make them cheaper and lighter so people are prepared to buy & carry them as well as media players - or to have several on the go at once (like the PADDs in Star Trek TNG). That's how dedicated audio players have survived in the face of more sophisticated PMPs. However, "convergence" might be the safer bet for manufacturers.

Re:Real book page turn times

[Mr. Freeman]

"the delay on an e-reader is probably more noticeable because you're waiting for it. If you're turning the page of a book, you have something to do to keep you busy until it's done, so it doesn't matter if it takes a while. If your only interaction with the device is to press a "next page" button, you have nothing to do except wait for the display to refresh. Time seems to go much slower if you have nothing to do..."

Look, we're talking about the time it takes to TURN A BLOODY PAGE. It's not a significant length of time. Jesus christ, how could you be so impatient as to need something to do while the page turns????

Re:Real book page turn times

[grumbel]

Page refresh isn't an issue when you linearly read a book, but if you just want to have a quick glance at what happened a dozens pages back, than refresh quickly becomes a major problem, as there isn't a way you can quickly quickly through pages.

Re:Real book page turn times

[sonamchauhan]

RRRrripp.

that's the sound of your argument overextending.

Re:Real book page turn times

[vlm]

is also the type of person who already has a phone that plays MP3s, and an MP3 player if they want one.

MP3 player is the digital clock of the new millennium. Not even a decade ago, every single freaking kitchen appliance manufactured contained a digital clock. microwave, dishwasher, outdoor thermometer, cooking thermometer, stove, coffee maker, toaster oven, popcorn maker, waffle iron, fridge, stand mixer, all must contain cheap digital clocks. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but I do remember over one dozen clocks in my kitchen. All set to different times. I taped over most of them with electrical tape so I wouldn't be bothered by reading the "wrong" time.

I dread the day when all my appliances will contain MP3 players, just from a noise standpoint.

Re:Real book page turn times

[mdwh2]

Whilst I agree that different people have different needs:

Thus to the person with the iphone, and a 17" macbook pro, feature phones look stupid and braindead

To a person with an Iphone, phones look stupid? The Iphone is a phone, just another phone, the distinction between "smart" phone and "feature" phone is rather arbitrary and a matter of opinion.

The OP was talking about different kinds of products - ebook reader versus mp3 player, perhaps another analogy might be camera versus phone, e.g., the person with a cameraless dumb phone might wonder why people want phones with cameras. I don't think this argument extends to two particular models in the same market - all feature phones, including the Iphone, cover the same type of functions (phone, mp3s, camera, Internet access, running applications).

Re:Real book page turn times

[flatrock]

The e-readers seem to do a good job at displaying text with low eye strain. However it comes at a heafty price tag for a single function device. It's like asking why people needed smart phones when two way pagers, PDAs, and simple cell phones already existed.

Re:Real book page turn times

[zerobytes]

This guy's got it right.

"How come it's not in color and when will it show me video"

translation:

"Where are the pictures in your book, Daddy?"

Some of us bought the bloody thing to READ, not to replace our iPhone.

Re:Real book page turn times

[Ephemeriis]

Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers can't be used for video. My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO? You should have bought a laptop.

I got a nook for the holidays.

Had it at work last week, someone noticed it and asked what it was. I told them it was an ereader, for reading books. They then asked if it could play video too. They looked slightly confused when I indicated that it was just for books.

I think there are two major problems with ereaders right now...

First of all, people have come to expect that electronic gadgets can do a bunch of different things. Typically one of those things is video playback. Many MP3 players can also play video. iTunes (ostensibly a music store) sells video. Many cell phones can play music and video. So the idea of a device that basically does just one thing, and doesn't play video, is a little weird.

The second problem is that not all that many people are familiar with the idea of reading novels for entertainment. When I tell someone that the nook is just for reading books, they usually look at me slightly odd.

Re:Real book page turn times

[GravityStar]

Not a page refresh issue -> it's a interface issue.

Re:Real book page turn times

[GravityStar]

Everyone? No, not everyone. There are people that can and like to read while listening to music, or zen waterfalls, ... And then there are that don't.

With audio playback you can also have a illustrated children's book with sound effects and a narrator.

That said, I would be content with a eInk display that feels like piece of paper, looks like a piece of paper and does nothing besides showing words on pages.

But if companies want to also offer me a Andromeda style plastic paper interface, let them.

(Disclaimer, English is not my first language)

Re:Real book page turn times

[jabbathewocket]

Not at all.. The "new feature" on the block is reading ebooks.. something dedicated readers do "very well" currently.. at a much cheaper cost (not just dollars but also weight, energy err battery life) than any other device on the market.. including macs and pc's and their laptop versions with the kindle app, etc. But just because YOU do not want a converged device, does NOT mean the market doesn't exist.. people will gravitate to the devices that offer *them* the best mix of features for the $$ invested.. You dont like convergence to the point that you mistake the reason for MP3 playing inclusion on ereaders as convergence, when in actual point of fact it is required for audio books.. if the hardware is already capable .. should it really bar use for that purpose? some people like to listen to music WHILE THEY READ.. should that also be banned because you want a single purpose device? Noone is seriously pushing the Kindle as media player, but there are MANY text/technical books which would be VERY helpful to have both color and video within the text.. this is not asking for youtube to work on the kindle 3, its asking for the next step in ereaders.. what happens though is that once you have the hardware on board to be able to do color and video.. and your already connected via 3g wireless.. Why not leverage that for functions that are still pretty painful on smartphones? Why not let it browse the web on a nice 7-10" screen, instead of the 2.7-3.7" smartphone screen? The same is true from the other side (ereader apps on smartphones/pcs) if I buy the books to read on my device of choice, why not let me keep them on whatever device i have handy that is capable of reading them? be it a smartphone, a netbook, a laptop or my desktop? I get the concern about added complexity adding cost/weight/difficulty to single purpose devices.. and that is valid concern, but not one that is insurmountable, nor is it a reason why a small screen greyscale device with limited battery life and slow screen refreshes should be the "ultimate in technology" just because it works. I still think you should consider the great many differences between everyone's opinions on hardware/devices/hell everything... we disagree on this.. i am sure there are hundreds of thousands of others who fall somwhere else on the convergence spectrum.. is it really wrong to ask manufacturers to fill the need expressed by market? As long as they continue to offer a dedicated device for you.. why can't I have my convergent device?

Re:Real book page turn times

[tehcyder]

Oh I thought that was because I usually listen to music while reading and the two were a natural fit for sitting on an airplane listening to music while reading.

You can't listen to music properly and read properly at the same time.

We don't need e-ink

[Flentil]

This e-ink stuff is a marketing gimmick to justify charging outrageous prices. If someone would just release a very basic LCD book reader for $19.99 it would probably sell 100,000 units faster than e-ink sellers could sell 100 units. It would probably put the e-ink people out of business, almost overnight.

Re:We don't need e-ink

[Firehed]

If you're up for wasting some time hacking the software that power those digital picture frames, you'll get pretty close. Maybe not $20, but I spotted a couple on Amazon in the $30-50 range. It would be a bit large and unwieldy (not to mention not even remotely portable, given that they're not battery-powered) but at a vague conceptual level, it's not that far off the mark.

Re:We don't need e-ink

[vcgodinich]

1) Failure to understand the benefits of the technology. CHECK

2) Offer proposal not based in reality (Technical or Fiscal) CHECK

3) Typical "Someone should do something about ..." bitching. CHECK

Three strikes and you are out.

Re:We don't need e-ink

[heson]

Sadly, this ignorant is as ignorant as the general public. The glossy readers based on inferior technology will sell millions (but will not be used)

Re:We don't need e-ink

[Flentil]

Don't think I don't know and understand all about e-ink and it's low power, looks like real printed text selling points. What I'm saying is that there is no lower priced alternative for people who don't mind recharging a battery more often, and don't care if it looks like printed text in the least bit. e-ink is to book readers what monster cables are to cables, if monster cables were the only cables you could buy anywhere with no lower priced competition. I also know that a paperback book sized LCD device could be mass manufactured and sold for $19.99 if they didn't abruptly decide to charge $199.99 at the last minute because that's close to what the competition is selling for. That's what I'm getting at. This is price fixing. Just like simm-chips near the turn of the century. Once someone starts selling a fairly priced LCD alternative, it's all over for the e-ink people as their overpriced gadgets will only be bought by hardcore textophiles.

Re:We don't need e-ink

[Mr. Freeman]

Have you ever actually seen an e-ink display? I agree that they're overpriced, one of the reasons I don't own one, but they are a lot better than an LCD. My friend has one and it looks almost like real paper. At first it's slightly easier to read than an LCD but if you want to sit down for a few hours to read it it'll save you one hell of a headache.

Re:We don't need e-ink

[dangitman]

e-ink is to book readers what monster cables are to cables, if monster cables were the only cables you could buy anywhere with no lower priced competition.

But Monster Cables don't have any advantages over cheaper cables. Electronic Ink displays do have advantages over other types of display.

This is price fixing.

I don't think you know what "price fixing" means.

Once someone starts selling a fairly priced LCD alternative, it's all over for the e-ink people as their overpriced gadgets will only be bought by hardcore textophiles.

So, how can it be "price fixing" if somebody could just make an LCD-based alternative and take over the market? Price fixing implies collusion among industry players not to allow such competition. But in reality, there are lots of different companies competing for this market with different technology. There's not an agreement among them to fix prices.

I also know that a paperback book sized LCD device could be mass manufactured and sold for $19.99

Well, why don't you produce such a device, take over the market, and become wealthy for life, then?

Re:We don't need e-ink

[vlm]

At first it's slightly easier to read than an LCD but if you want to sit down for a few hours to read it it'll save you one hell of a headache.

What is wrong with you slashdotters? Not so much you individually, but in general? Every week we have the required slashvertisement for e-ink based displays, and the astroturfers come out and post unbelievable claims about humans eyes being physically unable to gaze upon LCDs, like they're a medusa's head made of silicon.

It would be laughable if read on time.com or something, but its even worse here. Come on, this is slashdot. Supposedly we all spend 16 hours a day gazing into our L C D computer screens doing programming or sysadmining or WOW or Pr0n or slashdot or whatever. I have spent 40 hours a week at work gazing into my "horrible LCD" since the early 2000s, and prior to that I spent at least a decade or so gazing into CRTs. It doesn't hurt. At all. Its actually kind of nice.

What does hurt, is holding a Sony e-ink reader and being able to read the tiny little page faster than it refreshes, while I squint at gray on gray color scheme and no proper backlight so its always got weird distracting shadows. Its about as appealing as reading a book in a cave with the worlds slowest robot arm turning the pages. I'm sorry if it ruins the slashvertisement, but the product just sucks. It may be useful as a marketing bullet point, after all, the public is trained that if its more expensive, it must be better, look at automotive SUV vs car or pretty much anything else. Marketing wants me to buy e-ink, and there is no other compelling reason to buy e-ink, that's why I bought a LCD based ebook reader. I simply don't care if I have to charge it every second week instead of every fourth week, it looks great, works fast, and its cheap.

If your eyes hurt, see an eye doctor, like TODAY. Spending more on display technology that is heavily marketed is not a good long term solution if you're currently losing your eyesight due to untreated illness. And if its just slashvertising, stop the campaign, its reached annoyance stage.

Re:We don't need e-ink

[mdwh2]

I spend hours every day looking at a computer screen yes, but I'm also needing to take regular breaks (which are recommended for everyone, before you suggest my eyes have a problem).

I'd also argue that looking at video or computer games requires less attention that reading text continually. Even when I'm doing programming at my job, there's a lot of either typing, or thinking, but not much in the way of continual reading.

The amount of time I read from a computer screen is only a fraction of that time. On top of that, on occasions it can be tiring to be looking at a screen all day along, when that happens, I can go and do something else ... like read a book. But what good is it when this applies to reading a book too?

As for your desired device, the most obvious question is, can those video mp3 players also display ebooks? If so, that's your device. No, they don't cost $20, but there's no evidence to suggets they could be made that cheaply. And there's also no reason to think they'd be cheaper if they stripped the mp3 functionality from them (and ebook readers tend to have mp3 functionality in them, anyway).

And it would be slashvertising if it was only one or a few companies that were ever mentioned.

Re:We don't need e-ink

[Ephemeriis]

This e-ink stuff is a marketing gimmick to justify charging outrageous prices. If someone would just release a very basic LCD book reader for $19.99 it would probably sell 100,000 units faster than e-ink sellers could sell 100 units. It would probably put the e-ink people out of business, almost overnight.

You have obviously not spent much time reading books on an LCD.

I've been reading ebooks for literally years now. I started out on a Handspring Visor... Then I moved to a Palm m505... Then to a desktop with a CRT, and a laptop with an LCD... And now I've got a nook with an e-ink display.

There is a huge difference.

The first difference is battery life. I can read for about four days on my nook before I feel the need to recharge it. And I could go much longer than that if I'd turn off the wireless. My netbook, by comparison, is good for about a day. My old PDAs were good for about two days, roughly. Whether you like it or not, e-ink draws significantly less power than an LCD does.

The second difference is readability. When I'm reading a novel I'll be looking at text for a good couple of hours at a time. Reading on a backlit display (like most LCDs) causes more eyestrain than reading something that uses reflected light (like a paper book or e-ink display). While you can do a reflectively-lit LCD (my old Handspring did that) there's still the refresh rate and contrast. Ultimately, if I'm going to spend 8+ hours looking at text on a screen, it'll hurt a lot less if it's e-ink.

Re:We don't need e-ink

[Ephemeriis]

What is wrong with you slashdotters? Not so much you individually, but in general? Every week we have the required slashvertisement for e-ink based displays, and the astroturfers come out and post unbelievable claims about humans eyes being physically unable to gaze upon LCDs, like they're a medusa's head made of silicon.

It would be laughable if read on time.com or something, but its even worse here. Come on, this is slashdot. Supposedly we all spend 16 hours a day gazing into our L C D computer screens doing programming or sysadmining or WOW or Pr0n or slashdot or whatever. I have spent 40 hours a week at work gazing into my "horrible LCD" since the early 2000s, and prior to that I spent at least a decade or so gazing into CRTs. It doesn't hurt. At all. Its actually kind of nice.

Obviously, your mileage will vary...

Myself, I don't generally spend all day long reading text on a screen. I'll read some text, then take a phone call or talk to someone. Then have to leave my desk to go fix a machine. Maybe have to drive somewhere.

When I get home in the evening I might watch something on TV, or I might play a video game... But thatt's not text on a screen either.

On the rare occasions that I do spend all day reading text on a screen, I definitely feel it. It's called eye strain. It doesn't mean that you have an untreated illness any more than your muscles hurting after a strenuous workout means that there's something wrong with you.

I have glasses. I see an optometrist on a fairly regular basis. There is nothing unusually wrong with my eyes.

But the fact of the matter is that eye strain is real.

Reading from a backlit display causes more strain than reading something lit with reflected light.

What does hurt, is holding a Sony e-ink reader and being able to read the tiny little page faster than it refreshes, while I squint at gray on gray color scheme and no proper backlight so its always got weird distracting shadows. Its about as appealing as reading a book in a cave with the worlds slowest robot arm turning the pages. I'm sorry if it ruins the slashvertisement, but the product just sucks.

I agree with your assessment of the Sony device. I shopped around quite a bit recently and I was not impressed with their device. The display refreshed very slowly, the contrast was not good, and the addition of a touchscreen overlay caused odd shadowing.

The lack of a backlight, however, is par for the course. I don't believe any of the ereaders have a backlight, because that would kind of defeat the purpose of a display that uses reflected light.

It is annoying in low-light conditions... I would like to see one with a built-in book light of some sort. Not a back-light, but just a little LED I could flip up to light the thing from the front, like a normal book.

Re:We don't need e-ink

[dangitman]

Oh dear, you just might be incorrect [nytimes.com] in your assessment of what companies have agreed to in the past.

Ummm, what does that have to do with the market for electronic books? And when did I say anything about the flat screen TV market, or other past events?

Maybe there's a place for both

[Azureflare]

I think there is a market for both the PixelQi type screen, as well as traditional e-Ink. The PixelQi type screen can mimic e-Ink for reading length text, but can also revert to a normal looking screen for other stuff. It'll be great on netbooks and tablets for general purpose computing. However, there are many that just want an eReader without anything else. That's where e-Ink does really well.

I find it a little hard to believe that the screens can consume less power than e-Ink, but if they consume less power than existing LCDs I say, awesome! Because that's who the PixelQi et. al. are competing with; existing LCDs (and each other I suppose). But I don't think they really apply to the e-Ink, eReader department. People that enjoy reading will likely still buy kindles, regardless of what new LCD tech is developed.

There's something to be said for simplicity. Personally, I want an all-in-one device so I don't have so many gadgets to forget on the train. But that's just me. I was never interested in a Kindle in the first place, and don't understand the obsession with them. Maybe it's because Kindles don't smell like books. There's something enchanting about the smell of an old book while you're reading it...

Re:Maybe there's a place for both

[HellYeahAutomaton]

Feature request: Replaceable perfume cartridge that smells of Ea d' old booke.
Add that in after unfettered SD support on the Kindle and you may have a winner.

I want a Que device form factor for $199 or basically a device like the Entourage Edge with e-Ink on *both* displays.
But with all the 6inch devices, or 9 inch devices that are crippled its a matter of just waiting out this war and see who emerges the victor.

 

Full color book reader

[damas]

I've had a full color book reader for the last year. It's (of course), an Android phone with FBReaderJ for ePub support. In order to reduce eye strain I use it in reverse color mode (White text on black background). Beats paper books & Kindle for portability and the battery lasts for 2-3 days. A "book reader" is an extremely limited device - why should I buy one when I can read books on my phone?

Re:Full color book reader

[vcgodinich]

Do you have a desktop computer AND a phone? They both can get online, edit documents etc. . . why do you have both? Don't knock ebook readers till you try them. Anyone that has one will laugh at comparing them to reading a book on a phone. LAUGH.

Re:Full color book reader

[Cro Magnon]

My real Kindle is easier on the eyes than my iPhone Kindle. And the iPhone battery MIGHT last for 2-3 days if I'm NOT using it as an ereader. The Kindle battery easily lasts a week, maybe twice that if I turned off the wireless.

I DO read on the iPhone on the road, but at home I prefer the Kindle.

Re:Full color book reader

[DragonWriter]

I've had a full color book reader for the last year. It's (of course), an Android phone with FBReaderJ for ePub support. In order to reduce eye strain I use it in reverse color mode (White text on black background). Beats paper books & Kindle for portability and the battery lasts for 2-3 days. A "book reader" is an extremely limited device - why should I buy one when I can read books on my phone?

Because--and I say this as someone who has both Lexcycle Stanza and the B&N Reader app on my iPhone 3G:
(1) Your phone probably has a much smaller screen than even the "paperback" format eReaders, much less large screen readers, and is therefore far more limited in the kinds of books (content, not file format) it is convenient for reading,
(2) Your phone probably has an LCD display that is less readable in full sunlight than an eInk display.
(3) Sometimes you might want to reference reading material while using your phone as a phone.

Re:Sorry, not news.

[macshit]

The Liquavista stuff looks more interesting though -- in particular, it doesn't need separate pixels for RGB.

(The Liquavista website is not nearly as slick as the mirasol site tho; it looks like the researchers also did the web design...)

MIssing the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that people are forgetting that the entire purpose of these gadgets is for reading books. How many books that are read by adults have significant amounts of color in them? Almost zero have pictures...let alone color pictures. Furthermore, video (while cool) has nothing whatever to do with reading books.

I got a Kindle for Xmas - the older one with the smaller display.

It uses very, VERY little power (I've read about 3000 pages on it - and it still hasn't needed to be recharged) - which is a plus because I want to spend a long time reading books and I don't want a power cord. The reason it uses so little power is that (like an actual book), it doesn't consume power when you're S-L-O-W-L-Y reading through a page because ePaper retains it's image even when the device is switched off - so the kindle pretty much turns everything off until you press a button - then it does what you asked and then turns itself off again.

The page turn time is indeed rather slow - but it's comparable to the time it takes to turn a page on a paper book - which we've already deemed "acceptable"...I only find that a problem when I'm using it for something non-bookish.

The huge range of angles through which you can view the ePaper is useful for reading in bed. The fact that it's reflective lets you read in bright sunlight. It's resolution is good enough to let me get the equivalent of an entire page of a paperback on one screenful. It's super lightweight.

All of those things are what matters for an actual book reader...not color or video.

If you want video and color and that stuff - it's not for book reading - it's for something else. Worse still, the steep increase in power consumption, drop in resolution, increase in weight and failure to be readable in bright sunlight that is required to make that happen makes them dramatically LESS good as book readers. I can read my Kindle in bed (I use a little clip-on white LED light as I do with paper books so as not to disturb my wife with bright lights) - and it's actually dramatically better than an actual paperback because the screen is always at right angles to my line of sight - which is something that's tough to achieve on both the odd and even pages of an actual book. The price of the cheaper Kindle is about the same as my annual book buying budget and because eBooks are about 50% of the price of paper books, it'll pay for itself in 2 years.

I love the Kindle as a book reader.

The only downside is the DRM crap...but I don't imagine for one moment that these new color machines will be any less encumbered than the Kindle in that regard. The Kindle can be persuaded to read free books from Project Guthenburg for $0 - so free books are still free.

I fully realise that it makes a crappy laptop/pda/netbook/cellphone/pizza-oven/etc - but that's OK because what I actually WANTED was an eBook reader. If you're offering me color and video, I'll take it - but only so long as there are zero compromises to the main function of the machine - and that's flat out not true right now.

Re:MIssing the point.

[OrangeTide]

Magazine sales are vastly higher than book sales, and I think ebook reader vendors realize this. Plus there has been sort of a race to color by everyone for publicity's sake.

The display technology used in the Kindle hasn't changed much in the last 5 years, it has only gotten cheap. (so instead of insanely expensive it is simply costly now)

ps- I'm glad you like the Kindle, I certainly enjoyed making it. And I still use one of my prototype Kindle 2 units every day.

Re:MIssing the point.

[Mr. Freeman]

I'd like color. I'd like to use it for my textbooks, most of which have fuckloads of color in them. You'd be surprised, but 3-d colored graphs of calculus-related formulas are quite helpful. Same with physics. Color makes graphs, tables, and images much more readable.

I've studied some BIO a couple years ago and remembering it helping immensely as well.

Re:MIssing the point.

[Paradigm_Complex]

The problem here is that people are forgetting that the entire purpose of these gadgets is for reading books

Not necessarily. The purpose of the e-ink tech is to be a low-power-usage display. However, there's drawbacks (limited/no colors, poor refresh time) that have forced it to be stuffed in to the niche of being a display for books. If/when the technologies improves, it can be used to display other things.

All of those things are what matters for an actual book reader...not color or video.

Other uses for this improved tech aren't going to somehow mean everyone stops using it to read books. All it does is expand the market, which in turn will probably mean more funding for better e-book readers. Use your imagination a little bit. Consider:

I use my netbook in class to type notes in vim. That's *it.* I made a point of disabling pretty much all the background processes possible and underclocked/undervoltaged the CPU - when I'm not hitting a key, the only real power draw is the display. Yet I still have to charge it every night. If the e-ink stuff improves sufficiently, I could use it here. It just needs a slightly better refresh rate, and maybe some colors for syntax highlighting (I take my notes in LaTeX).

Then, as more people buy e-ink-based tech, the prices drop and quality goes up. Soon ebook readers won't cost an arm and a leg as they do today, and will last even longer on the same charge. Imagine going months or even years without having to plug the thing in. AND other people benefit by using the tech for other things.

that's OK because what I actually WANTED was an eBook reader.

The only weird part is, the engineers behind these things aren't forgetting how to make the old tech, and the marketing people aren't forgetting about the money being made by selling ebooks readers. It's almost like ebook readers aren't going to disappear as these gadgets are pushed into new markets! Wouldn't that be horrible - people using technology for things other then what you bless it for?

Re:MIssing the point.

[DragonWriter]

The problem here is that people are forgetting that the entire purpose of these gadgets is for reading books.

No, its really not. Its for reading digital replacement of print material. This includes books, but it also includes newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.

How many books that are read by adults have significant amounts of color in them? Almost zero have pictures...let alone color pictures.

Actually quite a lot have at least spot color and sometimes full color, even if you just consider books (and periodicials often use quite a bit of color.) Novels generally don't, of course, but art & craft books and cookbooks, on the other hand, more often than not do. Textbooks quite often do. And many of the adult books (other than novels) that don't, only don't because for an adult audience, the extra cost of color printing isn't seen as worthwhile. But while a color electronic reader might be (for otherwise similar quality) more expensive than a monochrome reader, there's very little per-copy additional cost for producing and distributing color ebooks vs. monochrome ones, which changes the equation. So, if readers support it, one could expect quite a lot of adult ebooks to use color, even if the equivalent print book wouldn't.

Re:MIssing the point.

[OrangeTide]

It's hard not to agree with your points. But given that magazine sales have gone up, not down in the past 5 years makes us wonder why the web hasn't replaced print magazines.

the market research has shone that people will buy a color ebook reader with basically the same constraints you mentioned, plus one you forgot, that it is not more expensive than current monochrome models.

ps- Kindle DX is almost as big as a magazine. And there are 10-inch and larger EPD/eink readers on the market already. and manufacturers are capable of producing giant panels(17-inch or more) if the market will demand them.

Re:Sorry, not news.

[afidel]

It looks great, if they could just compensate for the yellow cast I would probably buy a netbook with one by the end of this year.

Read again, yes it does

[SuperKendall]

No it definitely doesn't.

Are you saying it doesn't take any power whatsoever to change the screen state?

Because the OP was saying (in a way that I grant was hard to parse) that it's only two page transitions to do the "screen saver" - once to display the author page, once to restore the text.

That most certainly DOES draw power to perform, though it is a small amount and the OP noted that he actually likes that (not having the device I'm not sure why that would be preferable to just having the text you were reading always stay up).

Re:Read again, yes it does

[DarkTempes]

It's useful because otherwise you'd have no easy way to tell the device was in 'sleep' mode (basically off). If it fell asleep with the last screen up you might not know it was asleep, start hitting next page or other buttons and be like 'wth why is this not working?'.

I suppose it could create a notification on unused screen space instead (like the battery indicator). I fail it see why it matters either way, there would still have be to be two screen changes: just one would be the current full screen change and the other would be a partial screen change.

Like you note the power use of two page changes every now and then for sleep mode doesn't really matter anyway because of how little power it is.

Re:Read again, yes it does

[Paul Carver]

If it only uses power when changing the screen why does it need a sleep mode? That seems like a contradiction.

Re:Read again, yes it does

[DarkTempes]

Did I ever state it only uses power when changing the screen? The SCREEN only consumes power when changing the screen, it doesn't need power to hold an image.

I don't know the exact differences between 'off' and 'sleep' (some say off == sleep) and 'normal' but I know that sleep at least disables all of the buttons except for the power switch and turns of the wireless. I assume it does something like 'hibernate' (ram->flash, everything else off) or 'sleep' (keeps ram powered, mostly everything else off) on your standard OS.

Re:Read again, yes it does

[Firethorn]

If it only uses power when changing the screen why does it need a sleep mode? That seems like a contradiction.

The screen doesn't need any power while it's static. However, the electronics 'listening' for a butten push DO need a trickle of power, so if you're going to take a nap or put it away for a while, you can extend battery life by shutting it down.

Sunlight laptop

[jones_supa]

I don't care that much about e-readers, but hey, getting a laptop that could be viewed under full sunlight is just revolutionary for me.

A silly idea

[drinkypoo]

I've whined before about there being no OLED-over-e-Ink displays. I did a little looking back and of course this was discussed before, there would just not be enough light; e-Ink so far has mediocre contrast and OLED is only partly transparent. But what if you could make two OLED layers back-to-back? One of them faces the page and is there to light it in dark conditions. The other is printed over the backlight layer but faces the other direction and provides video. Either way, e-Ink still needs a contrast bump to work, but I hear there's one coming "real soon now" :p

Re:Sorry, not news.

[DrXym]

Nice that there are newcomers to the party, but Amazon hedges its bets with a iPod Touch / iPhone Kindle App. So, you don't need these new things if you want e-books and video on the same device.

That might be fine if you love format restricted, DRM'd up the ass proprietary devices, but not so good if you don't.

Mod parent up, comparision E-ink/OLPC

[BerntB]

Thanks, that was informative. No mod points just now.

Because I need to browse...

[BerntB]

I don't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers.

I want to browse, at least when not reading literature. Also, I want a full A4 with note taking for browsing code (my own and others).

Um, people did.

[aussersterne]

Go on eBay and you can pick up greyscale LCD e-book readers for well under $100, sometimes under $50.

Thing is, they suck. You don't want to read 1,000 pages with a backlight, nor can you sustain a battery for 1,000 pages with a backlight.

Re:Why not just a labtop?

[aussersterne]

(sigh) clearly Slashdot geeks don't read much.

1. You can't easily carry a laptop around with you for six or seven days in a variety of non-office circumstances. Laptops are heavy and fragile.
2. You have to charge a laptop often. You can't pick up War and Peace and read it cover-to-cover on battery power on a laptop.
3. Laptops are obtrusive or not allowed in many circumstances.
4. WHILE READING, laptops require that they sit on your lap or a desk. ebook readers can be read in ANY POSITION.
5. The user interface of a laptop imposes all kinds of extra work; ebook reader you just open and read, no navigation of user interface.

I'm a serious reader. I've probably read 50-100k pages on my Kindle 1. I've had a personal laptop since the late '80s. I never read a single document on a laptop longer than about 50 pages. If I had to do that, I'd just buy the book. Since acquiring Kindle, I only buy academic books in printed form. For all other reading (newspapers, magazines, novels, non-academic nonfiction) I just buy it on Kindle. Easy impulse buy, easy, flexibile tool for reading. I charge maybe once or twice a week. I can carry my Kindle in a tiny messenger bag, wherever I go.

Re:Sorry, not news.

[Gerzel]

Aye. Well this is a race with many dogs, that is going to be hotly contested. Also you know that b/w eInk style displays are only a transitional technology and that color and improved versions are fast on their way; it only makes sense not to tie one's company to a single dog.

It's not only about video

[joh]

Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers can't be used for video. My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO? You should have bought a laptop.

It's not only about video. If you have any user interface a bit more complex than a few buttons around the device you'll need a touchscreen. And with a touchscreen you NEED visual feedback. E-ink is just too slow for that. Even simple things like scrolling through lists totally sucks with e-ink.

Have a look at the Plastic Logic Que reader. The user interface is just unusable. E-ink is fine for just looking at things, but as soon as you have to interact with a device in more ways than just turning a page, it starts to suck with no end.

I hate e-paper

[peter303]

It is too damn slow for me. Thank god, the smarter places like Amazon are also providing much of their ebook tecnology on non-epaper platforms.

Re:Sorry, not news.

[Richard Steiner]

Why do slick web sites matter? I would rather see an informative web site.

Re:Sorry, not news.

[macshit]

Why do slick web sites matter? I would rather see an informative web site.

Oh, I absolutely agree, and the Liquavista website is actually pretty informative (download the pdf there for even more details). For anyone actually interested in the tech, it's a much better site (the mirasol site seems much lighter on actual details, though maybe they've just hidden them well amongst all the flash animations).

Still, in some quarters, a clunky-looking site may hurt them a bit; marketing is still part of the tech business...

Pterodactyls?

[marcus]

Come on, it hasn't been *that* long! ;-)