Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So you are going to argue that the reason people get eyestrain with LCD devices is the angle being fixed as he did? Wow.

I have read books on virtually every kind of device available and the only one that has approached reading on paper is e-ink.

There are also thousands of blog posts comparing Kindle to reading a book on LCD and they almost universally acknowledge that the e-ink display is far superior for text reading than an LCD.

I personally hope that we see high performance hybrid displays sooner rather than later. Give me e-ink with no backlight for reading text and then a vibrant backlit color LCD in the same device for other applications.

Wow yourself--I said the eyestrain is from the constant focus on a plane. The headache and irritability are from the fixed positioning (or maybe the belief in a display methodology that has yet to find many adherents) At least read carefully before you disagree. It's amusing that you can dismiss any display except for e-ink prior to knowing anything about it. I read and write all day long, every day on an iMac display and I don't get eyestrain, headaches or become irritable (at least not more than normal irascibility).

Readability is a combination of many factors, some already mentioned in my first post, and also including the color of the background--is the digital "paper" equal to bleached, coated, high rag, pulp, matte, semi-gloss, glossy, recycled? What is the "white" you are comparing it to? Then how about the font--serif or san-serif? What point size? Thin stroke or medium stroke? Short or long ascenders/descenders? Open or closed counters? Cap heights vs. x-heights? Kerning, tracking, leading....column width, justified or rag right, etc. All this and more go into readability, just on the "mechanical" aspects.

On the physical side, I guarantee you'll get a migraine after an hour reading Chaucer in the original English, no matter what you're reading it on.

Don't confer a champ before everyone is in the ring.
 
Wow yourself--I said the eyestrain is from the constant focus on a plane. The headache and irritability are from the fixed positioning (or maybe the belief in a display methodology that has yet to find many adherents) At least read carefully before you disagree. It's amusing that you can dismiss any display except for e-ink prior to knowing anything about it. I read and write all day long, every day on an iMac display and I don't get eyestrain, headaches or become irritable (at least not more than normal irascibility).

Readability is a combination of many factors, some already mentioned in my first post, and also including the color of the background--is the digital "paper" equal to bleached, coated, high rag, pulp, matte, semi-gloss, glossy, recycled? What is the "white" you are comparing it to? Then how about the font--serif or san-serif? What point size? Thin stroke or medium stroke? Short or long ascenders/descenders? Open or closed counters? Cap heights vs. x-heights? Kerning, tracking, leading....column width, justified or rag right, etc. All this and more go into readability, just on the "mechanical" aspects.

On the physical side, I guarantee you'll get a migraine after an hour reading Chaucer in the original English, no matter what you're reading it on.

Don't confer a champ before everyone is in the ring.

Your original point seemed to be that eyestrain from electronic readers has more to do with the fixed plane focus than the display technology.

I would love to see any evidence of any kind that backs this up.

Everything I have seen on the subject has indicated that most of the eye strain coming from using electronic devices is inherent to the harsh back lighting and subtle flickering from the back lights that happens to the fonts on these devices.

It's great that you can read/write on your Mac all day without a hint of eye strain. I read about one novel a week and don't think I'm in the minority when I say that doing that much reading on an LCD would be terrible.

Reading on the e-ink Kindle is not perfect but it is currently the closest thing to reading real print that we have in the technology realm.
 
By "ever", do you mean 2005?

http://www.eink.com/press/releases/pr86.html

E_Ink_Color_Prototype_Gutenberg_1005_MD.jpg

Sweet,
but is it
a) affordable
b) capable of running video and a swift interface
c) sit in a capacitive touch screen.

C.
 
It was also reported I believe that the best current e-ink color displays are only capable of 256 colors and are very very slow to refresh with a single page draw taking something like a minute.

I'm sure that they have improved since then but since we aren't seeing them in any real products yet they probably are not quite ready for prime time.
 
i guess this could happen. i think it would take a while before this had a huge impact, but i could see apple launching with a few companies on board from each market segment
 
This is excellent news. We've known it was a book reader since last Macworld when a certain 'internationally beloved' journalist got a look at the device. What we've needed is some hint that Apple is doing deals with content providers to make it a success.

The longer the wait for the device, the more we'll hear about deals Apple are courting and the better the device will look to potential buyers.

I'm pleased Apple is proposing multimedia content (as long as it doesn't end up like the web with offensive Flash/HTML 5 ads making you want to turn the damn thing off), but like eastcoastsurfer, I want computer-age access to this content…

The problem with things like the Kindle for textbooks is that it sucks at it. You can't scribble all over the margins, sticky sections well, look at 2 books at the same time, etc...

When I was in school I often had 2-3-4 books open at the same time to figure out a particular topic. By the end of the semester I had pages dog eared, marked with colored tape and margins covered with additional information that was learned throughout the class. Until an ebook reader can get this right, it will not take over in any college.

I want to have 10 books open at once. [Dang! Imagine 3 or 4 tablets on the desk. Imagine being able to drag stuff from one to the other, to your Mac. Now I'm excited!]
I want to be able to scribble all over it, snip it off, search all my snippets and notes, copy/paste, make my own scrapbooks from millions of sources… in short, do everything I can do with a computer to this content.

Now for the rub - iPhone OS won't cut it for this kind of operation & I don't think anything that fits in a 10" slate, even if it is *real* Snow Leopard will be able to do everything I want. Maybe if it transfers my snippets and notes to my Mac for the heavy lifting, it could work…

Dragging print media into the digital age is a legacy Steve Jobs would definitely want to add to his belt of already impossible achievements. And he will do it magnificently!

As for the e-ink debate - I've owned an e-ink phone and iPhone, used them both in extremely bright sunlight and iPhone wins hands-down. OLED would be even better. Now, where were those Apply buying 15" OLED rumours again?
 
If Apple is serious about doing to books what it did to music, it's definitely going to need something e-ink-like to provide to the consumer.

I'm not going to want to read on something that gives me eye strain. Period. For serious readers, for students, bookworms, writers, editors, etc., the flicker is just too much.

Reading 15, 30 minutes at a time? Not bad at all. But when you're talking hours, it's a completely different dynamic.

I hope Apple isn't thinking they can get away with just an LCD (or OLED, if it's just as bad).

It makes me think that perhaps there will be a two screen option, or a combo display that combines something like e-ink with LCD, with a "hot key" of sorts to switch between the two... like PixelQi.

The snag? It needs to be a touchable e-ink-like interface, and I don't think that exists yet.

That makes me think there may be two different screens. Maybe. But I doubt it.

I'm rather hoping for something like PixelQi. A multi-touch interface combo display LCD/E-ink .... the mind boggles.

iPod, iPhone, and now iReader. Apple ubiquity. Quotidian Apple.

And Apple says, "You're quite welcome, once-dying print industry."
 
Sweet,
but is it
a) affordable
b) capable of running video and a swift interface
c) sit in a capacitive touch screen.

C.

Give it a break. In your original post you said: EVER.

No color e-ink, EVER.

Can't backpedal now. :)
 
I want to have 10 books open at once. [Dang! Imagine 3 or 4 tablets on the desk. Imagine being able to drag stuff from one to the other, to your Mac. Now I'm excited!]
I want to be able to scribble all over it, snip it off, search all my snippets and notes, copy/paste, make my own scrapbooks from millions of sources… in short, do everything I can do with a computer to this content.

Now for the rub - iPhone OS won't cut it for this kind of operation & I don't think anything that fits in a 10" slate, even if it is *real* Snow Leopard will be able to do everything I want. Maybe if it transfers my snippets and notes to my Mac for the heavy lifting, it could work…

Dragging print media into the digital age is a legacy Steve Jobs would definitely want to add to his belt of already impossible achievements. And he will do it magnificently!

As for the e-ink debate - I've owned an e-ink phone and iPhone, used them both in extremely bright sunlight and iPhone wins hands-down. OLED would be even better. Now, where were those Apply buying 15" OLED rumours again?

It makes me wonder. Does anyone have any hands on experience with OLED, for hours on end, reading? What would/could make it different from eyestrain-inducing LCD? What could make it comparable to e-ink?

For extended reading, wouldn't we want something that reflects light, rather than produces it?
 
to be honest this doesn't sound like something jobs would do in terms of releasing an entirely new product segment. it strikes me more of what happened with the ipod

- music playing device only

then people started coming up with solutions (blank songs) to have it work as an address book and a small notes app. then people started combining rss feeds with mp3s and playlists to create podcasts. apple slowly started to add these features to the official list of capabilities and it was cool, but it wasn't the primary focus of the device.

again i think apple is releasing a ton of false rumors to obfuscate what's really happening. apple typically releases new products as answers to problems you didn't even realize existed and so far none of the rumors i've read do any of that.

to be honest right now microsoft's courier tablet is exactly what i want, and if i trusted microsoft to be able to translate awesome demos to awesome products (coughvistacough) then i'd probably buy one. as it is i'm hoping apple's attempt is even better.

I think the Apple advantage is they have one thing in mind as a target for every device. There may be others things it can also do well based on serving that prime function, and there may be low hanging fruit of functions that can be added without effecting the main function.

So "print" media maybe the prime target for the tablet, like music was the iPods prime target,... like each product they make has a prime target. That to me is the whole Apple advantage, instead of trying to get everyone and his dog.

"you can please some of the people most of the time,or all of the people none of the time"

So the prime target will direct the marketing and the placement, but other functions will come on board and be just as useful.
 
I wonder if content will only be downloadable from the iTunes store ?

Very doubtful. Depending on what kind of pricing or content Apple can (if they decide to) muster for the iTunes store, their could be a role reversal between, say, Amazon and Apple, where Amazon leverages and maintains the largest share of digital book sales -- something they couldn't do with music.
 
I think we can all agree that apple's version is for sure not going to be affordable. And until they actually have an actual product for purchase, their version is none of these. I personally wouldn't want a tablet just for reading and i think its proven that LCD does not rival e-ink for purpose.

Sweet,
but is it
a) affordable
b) capable of running video and a swift interface
c) sit in a capacitive touch screen.

C.
 
I read a rumor article at Drudge Report that said that Time Warner's print division was being bought out by a "third party". Now I'm wondering if that third party is Apple...

Steve keeps his media holdings under the Disney Umbrella.
 
Allowing the iPhone OS and Apps to operate on the Tablet will allow Apple to include the 2 billion Apps (plus video games!) on the device. But I think a LARGE percentage of the public also wants a computer OS on it. It doesn't have to be the latest Apple OS, but it needs a computer OS (like netbooks have XP). eBooks and a notepad are essential as well if they want to sell a billion of these things.
 
Someone mentioned taking an open-book test with this, and it occurred to me:

How will an open-book test not become an open-internet test with one of these?? Or even without the internet, you could just as easily have other materials on there that would give you an advantage over just a book.

I think that would be a huge concern. Any thoughts?


(Sorry if someone already said this.)
 
Hard on the eyes

if it doesn't have eInk it will be hard on the eyes... if there were another "wonder" technology that decreased eye strain but gave LCD like response times we would have heard about it.

This will be an LCD screen of very high resolution, but in the end will be usable for about an hour or two of intense reading.
 
If Apple is serious about doing to books what it did to music, it's definitely going to need something e-ink-like to provide to the consumer.

I'm not going to want to read on something that gives me eye strain. Period. For serious readers, for students, bookworms, writers, editors, etc., the flicker is just too much.

Reading 15, 30 minutes at a time? Not bad at all. But when you're talking hours, it's a completely different dynamic.

I hope Apple isn't thinking they can get away with just an LCD (or OLED, if it's just as bad).

It makes me think that perhaps there will be a two screen option, or a combo display that combines something like e-ink with LCD, with a "hot key" of sorts to switch between the two... like PixelQi.

The snag? It needs to be a touchable e-ink-like interface, and I don't think that exists yet.

That makes me think there may be two different screens. Maybe. But I doubt it.

I'm rather hoping for something like PixelQi. A multi-touch interface combo display LCD/E-ink .... the mind boggles.

iPod, iPhone, and now iReader. Apple ubiquity. Quotidian Apple.

And Apple says, "You're quite welcome, once-dying print industry."

With all due respect: Your needs are important to you, but I don't think they are to the mass market. Apple will cater to the mass market.

It is Beta vs VHS all over again. The "superior-quality experience" Beta lost to the "more-convenient, more flexible" VHS.

In 10 years, nobody will even remember what eInk was.

Sorry!

*
 
With all due respect: Your needs are important to you, but I don't think they are to the mass market. Apple will cater to the mass market.

It is Beta vs VHS all over again. The "superior-quality experience" Beta lost to the "more-convenient, more flexible" VHS.

In 10 years, nobody will even remember what eInk was.

Sorry!

*

Maybe.

However, with hundreds of thousands of e-ink devices selling currently and no Apple tablets or other LCD based readers selling I wouldn't be quite so smug about it.
 
Reading 15, 30 minutes at a time? Not bad at all. But when you're talking hours, it's a completely different dynamic.

How are you going to convince Apple, where all their software wizards spend 10+ hours a day staring at their Mac/MacBook LCD displays?

Plus Apple's typical customer likely has too short an attention span to read a book for more than 15, 30 minutes at a time. Commercial breaks happen more often than that.

However, with hundreds of thousands of e-ink devices selling currently and no Apple tablets or other LCD based readers selling I wouldn't be quite so smug about it.

For all we know, more people read ebooks on Apple tablets than on e-ink devices. The Kindle app for iPhone is near the top of the popularity charts, and there's also Stanza and a bunch of Bible readers. That could be several million ebook readers running on Apple hardware.
 
How are you going to convince Apple, where all their software wizards spend 10+ hours a day staring at their Mac/MacBook LCD displays?

Plus Apple's typical customer likely has too short an attention span to read a book for more than 15, 30 minutes at a time. Commercial breaks happen more often than that.

Working on code is not at all the same as reading a book. Seeing as I have done both off and on I will comment.

For starters, I would be willing to bet that many Apple developers are working on 30" matte screens. This is a far cry from squinting at a small glossy screen with harsh backlighting and poor resolution.

Additionally you take a lot of breaks when you are working on writing software. Most people who work jobs staring at computer screens for 10 hours a day will tell you that they DO get eye fatigue (and this is on larger screens than a tablet mind you) and that they do break away from their screen quite frequently to give their eyes a rest.

Most ergonomics recommendations are to take a 10 minute break for every hour spent staring at a computer screen.

It very well might be that Apple sees the novel reader as being a bit of a dinosaur and sees people reading in small snippets (blogs, magazine articles, newspaper clips, etc) and feels that for this reason an LCD is totally acceptable and that might be the case.

However, I don't believe that most people will choose to read for an hour or more at a stretch on such a device. Certainly not large numbers of people in any event.
 
Win7

But I think a LARGE percentage of the public also wants a computer OS on it. It doesn't have to be the latest Apple OS, but it needs a computer OS (like netbooks have XP).

Many of us are running Windows 7 on our netbooks - it's actually lighter and faster than XP on these systems.

For me, however, the point isn't "wanting a computer OS" on the netbook.

The point is being able to load my current (and older) applications on the tablet/netbook - and not having to buy all new stuff from the Apple store.

With Win7 (or XP) I can load my Photoshop Element kits on my netbook without any problems.

If the Apple tablet is the Iphone OS on an ARM processor - forget using any app that you already have. Only the Nazis at the Apple Store can sell you an app that works.

...and that "control freak" problem at Apple could kill an interesting device.
 
The point is being able to load my current (and older) applications on the tablet.

Your current apps won't be very usable on a device which is not sitting on a table/lap and also without a keyboard and mouse.

Try it. Load a VNC or Remote Desktop app on your iPhone, connect to your Mac/PC, and see how many hours of work you can get done with your current desktop apps just from the iPhone.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.