Amazon and Barnes & Noble Jostle Over Battery Life Figures for Nook, Kindle
destinyland writes "Amazon just doubled the reported battery life for their Kindle digital readers — but they did it by cutting the estimated daily usage in half. Monday Amazon's competitor Barnes and Noble released a new touch-screen version of their Nook reader, and C|Net notes that apparently Amazon 'took issue with how its competitor was calculating and presenting its battery life numbers.' When Barnes and Noble claimed that the Nook's charge lasted twice as long based on a half hour a day of usage, Amazon simply recalculated the Kindle's battery life using the same formula. By Wednesday, Barnes and Noble was insisting that the Nook's charge still lasted twice as long as the Kindle's. 'If that's true, then Barnes and Noble mangled the launch of their touch-screen Nook,' reports one Kindle blog, 'by botching their description of one of its main selling points.'"
How about stating the battery life in actual hours of continuous use instead of estimated days based on estimated usage? Is that really so hard?
(fine print: at 2 microseconds per day)
I own the original Nook, and get in at least an hour, usually two or more, spread throughout the day. Do people buying dedicated e-readers (as opposed to color tablets) really only get in a half hour every day? I'd thought the market was mostly for readers like me.
Then again Amazon is no saint here either, with their "50% higher contrast Kindle 3!" which in reality only had 6% darker (to the eye) blacks.
Given that the next page button in my original Nook broke just after the warranty period ended (which makes it a bit hard to use to read books, unless you like reading them backwards)...
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Just say "it allows for 20000 page turns"
That way it's not a relative time, but a real number people can evaluate.
It's like saying my Mac can stay on for 30 days and not mentioning the fact that it's on standby.
Because Amazon weren't the pioneers of hassle free reading (sarcasm)
Also, the kindle is available everywhere. Literally free 3g everywhere in the world.
I dropped my kindle once and Amazon replaced it, no questions asked.
Not saying the nook is bad, but the Kindle and Amazons' customer service just bought them a lifetime customer
Whoever came up with this comparison chart will be first up against a wall when the revolution comes:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/shasta/photos/image-battery-life.gif
If they did some easy to understand common sense metric it might reveal how much the battery life sucks. Sounds to me like they ALL are trying to hide something.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
Literally free 3g everywhere in the world.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that 3g isn't available everywhere in the world. Hell, I can drive through parts of major cities in the US and lose 3g.
I brought my Kindle 3 to China. It's a long flight, so I read a lot in the airplane. A couple of days I read only 30 minutes, and for three days, I stayed in the hostel because I got sick of something I ate. So in those three days, I read up to 6 hours per day. All in all, the holiday lasted 12 days and I had about 25% charge left at the end of the holiday.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
So, why do we have a consumer protection agency?
DO we even have a consumer protection agency? I'm getting the feeling lately we consumers are being pretty much abandoned, with Apple pulling all those dirty misleading walled-garden tricks, Google successfully using the tagline "do no evil", and now this.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
The big difference is obviously standby time. If the use pattern includes less standby time...the user pushing the next page button every minute continuously until the battery is dead...then the Nook gets far superior battery life. If the usage pattern includes more standby time...the user reads 30 minutes a day and leaves it off for a long time...the battery life is close to equal. The Nook has a far lower power page turn power cost than the Kindle. Either the standby power use dominates in the 30 minute-a-day scenario or the Kindle has superior standby time.
It doesn't make sense to spec the battery life on continuous use because no one does that. 30 minutes per day is far more accurate than continuous use. One could argue that 1 hour per day use is more accurate. Ironically, it's B&N that pushed the spec to 30 minutes rather than the 1 hour that Amazon chose. Basically, B&N tried to fool the less savvy buyers by appearing to have double the battery life in a different scenario. Amazon cried foul and pointed out that the battery life is equal in the exact scenario. B&N responds by saying they do really have double the battery life, but only in a ridiculous scenario.
I also greatly appreciate that Amazon makes the battery life with wireless on and wireless off easily available. B&N does not. My use model has wireless on all the time, so I care about that spec.
You have at least two or three variables, depending:
1) Is your wireless/3G on? That drains more quickly than just reading does.
2) How many page-flips?
3) Do you have the fancy cover with the pop-out LED light that draws from the Kindle battery, and how much do you use it?
4) How much time spend actually reading, vs. in standby? Not a whole lot of power savings in standby, but the CPU's at least in deeper sleep.
With the light and the wireless on, I can drain a battery in several hours' continuous usage, or (more likely) two to three days on my normal schedule. I don't normally leave the wireless on, though. I understand Amazon claimed a month of usage without wireless or light, but that obviously depends on how many books you'll read in a month.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
This is an Android-based device for $139. It has an e-Ink display and a touch screen. I'm buying one the day after it's rooted.
Does anyone know enough about the touch-screen method this uses to tell me whether it can present two datapoints at a time? (Can the hardware be used to do multi-touch?)
,i>Given that the next page button in my original Nook broke just after the warranty period ended (which makes it a bit hard to use to read books, unless you like reading them backwards)
I call troll on this one First of all, Nooks have two -- count 'em!--two! each of Fwd and Rev buttons. Second, once the LCD goes dormant, a swipe gesture will turn the pages for you.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
I take it you haven't actually compared the two in any sort of meaningful way. The displays are the same, the build quality on both are really good. But where Nook really shines over Kindle is in the little details like swipe to turn on top of the other sets of buttons, the micro SD card slot and the ability to buy books from pretty much everybody except Amazon. With Amazon being too much of a bitch to offer books in a standard format.
And Kindle 3G isn't free, the policy with that is identical to the one that B&N has over its 3G Nook, the 3G is only free when used to access the respective store and any other use can end with the owner being sent a bill to cover the extra cost.
*most countries of the civilized world.
there, happy? :)
never charged me anything (granted, I don't browse the web with it, just the ocasional e-mail)
I was answering to this (that actually didn't compare anything)
"Amazon... Who filled the internet with ads, And was a little bitch over the wikileaks thing...
Or b&n... The provider of many many hours of enjoyable reading."
I have countless hours of enjoyable reading on my kindle, and amazon's service has been nothing short of awesome so far. That was my whole point.
PS: And if you want to use books in other formats you can. It already reads pdf's and ePub's can be converted to mobipocket with 2 clicks. That's a non-issue, I think.
I said "most", not all. You're one of those where it's not :P
I don't live in the US, so I have no idea how good or bad it is, I know that in europe conditions are pretty sweet every country I've been in.
"it only uses power when you turn the page (or connect to WIFI or 3G)."
Then provide the power consumption for 1000 pages turned , or for constant wifi usage. That way, you can do estimate.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I knew someone would bring that up. However, you most likely have a dominant hand. And, if you've ever used a Nook, you'll notice that: 1. You almost always hold it in one hand, and 2. it's nearly impossible to do the swipe gesture while holding the Nook in one hand.
Oh, and it's overly easy to accidentally hit the "n" and turn the touchscreen back on, which turns the "next page" gesture into a "do something random" gesture. (As hitting the "n" as part of the swipe gesture doesn't count as "next page.")
However, none of that really matters, because the next page button should never have broken in the first place!
This is like trying to excuse a keyboard where the left control routinely breaks by saying that "well, you always have the right control key, and you can just use sticky keys to emulate the control key." It's still a shoddy piece of crap.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Umm then why bother even getting a reader?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
My books don't consume electricity. The oldest ones I have are physical prints which are more than 50 years old. Still working and looking splendit ... without electricity. I know, I might be a troll here .... but I never understood the reason for e-books....
Less physical clutter.
Less cost to move all those books to a new place.
The ability to resize the text on the fly to make it easier to read. This is probably the most desirable feature for me.
Bring a dozen books on a trip, without having to find room for all of them in my luggage.
For cover-to-cover reading (not random access, think fiction / novels) and not books with a lot of figures or that require color to explain things, it's very nice to read on. The Sony readers were very good at getting out of the way and letting you focus on the content.
I still prefer physical hard copy for reference works.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Let me put in a +1 for that. I travelled in India and it was a godsend, far cheaper than paying the $20/mb my cell provider was attempting to screw me over with.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Clearly, they will not calculate in same scenarios or with same or with reasonable use figures. Maybe pageflips matters more, or standby time, or whether wi-fi is on, or some combination of them. Nook also claims it fits "thousands... of songs" in 8 GB (and decimal ones, at that) of space; an average song in my music library is about 9MB (and that's with a lot of old low-bitrate stuff) so that doesn't quite add up either. Pretty sure their amount of books fitting in memory is based on like fifty-page text files.
What we really want to see if a comparison, done under EXACTLY same conditions, by an independent source, run on all the different devices. It can be multiple tests, i.e. separately done pageflips and continuous use and standby and some sort of use scenario. The important part is that the measurements are done in same way for the results to be comparable, and then from there you can estimate which one works better for you. This is a good chance for Wired or CNet or PCMag or gizmodo or any of scores of others to step in - if you trust them to be independent of course.
I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll