iPad 3 vs Kindle reading expereince

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,753
142
I never thought I would want a Kindle after they released the iPad but I simply love the Kindle. At $79 you cannot go wrong but more so because that e ink deal is amazing. I usually tire from reading on my iPad and find it hard to lay down and read sometimes because my hands are trying to hold that weight of the iPad. On the Kindle, I don't feel that way. It is very nice. My eyes also don't feel like they tire much.

I think if you intend on reading only occasionally then a Kindle isn't really necessary but if you're an avid reader then I would highly recommend it. Also, I will take the Kindle with me around town and sometimes to the doggie park and I'm not always able to get myself a place in the shade making the iPad hard to use in the sunlight.
 

SandboxGeneral

Moderator emeritus
Sep 8, 2010
25,561
8,406
Detroit
I never thought I would want a Kindle after they released the iPad but I simply love the Kindle. At $79 you cannot go wrong but more so because that e ink deal is amazing. I usually tire from reading on my iPad and find it hard to lay down and read sometimes because my hands are trying to hold that weight of the iPad. On the Kindle, I don't feel that way. It is very nice. My eyes also don't feel like they tire much.

I think if you intend on reading only occasionally then a Kindle isn't really necessary but if you're an avid reader then I would highly recommend it. Also, I will take the Kindle with me around town and sometimes to the doggie park and I'm not always able to get myself a place in the shade making the iPad hard to use in the sunlight.
My thoughts precisely. I love my new iPad and I equally love my Kindle for strictly reading books.
 

andrewfee

macrumors 6502
Aug 29, 2004
467
2
I would say that text on the new iPad is actually sharper now, and font rendering is better than the Kindle.

One of the biggest advantages that E-Ink had over LCDs, other than being great to read in sunlight, was that there was no pixel grid on the screen. The new iPad doesn't have that problem either.

The screen on the new iPad can go dimmer than the iPad 2 (which already went dimmer than the original iPad) which makes it more comfortable to read in the dark than it was before.

The iPad is a considerably faster device as well. Even page turning is slow on a Kindle. (personally, I need to have it refresh every page, because it loses too much contrast otherwise)

The iPad doesn't need a light source to read books, whereas the Kindle needs quite a lot of light—far more than a paper book or magazine.

The iPad is significantly better for anything other than plain text books, be it PDFs, illustrations, colour etc.


But I'm still keeping my Kindle. While it needs a lot of light, it's still perfectly readable in bright sunlight, or other situations where the iPad is unreadable due to reflections & glare.

The iPad Kindle app doesn't really offer any font customisation, and still uses justified text without hypenation, which leads to huge gaps between words and "rivers" in the text. (the Kindle does this by default too, but it can be changed via the "Kindle Collections" plugin for Calibre) I don't have any problem reading on the new LCD (at least when there is some light in the room) but can't stand reading text presented in this manner.

Contrast ratio and viewing angles still suck on LCD panels. While it might be a nice thought to be able to use a dim sepia display, or white text on black, in the dark there are very noticeable shifts in contrast across the display when held at an angle, which I find distracting when reading a book.

The iPad is a much bigger and heavier device. While I find the new iPad to be better balanced than the iPad 2, I still don't like holding it for long periods of time when reading books. (the size may be an advantage to some though)

The battery life is terrible on the iPad, at least when compared to the Kindle. With an iPad you're going to get 10 hours, or maybe a little more if you're at a low brightness and get lucky. The Kindle will last a week or two on a single charge.


The biggest thing for me though, is that the iPad is a much more capable, always-connected device. When I'm reading a book I can get email notifications, messages from friends, alerts for other tasks. I'm two taps away from the internet, from watching a video, from playing a game.

The Kindle is a single purpose device that only does reading. You aren't going to be bothered by emails, and you don't really have the option of doing anything but reading on a Kindle.
 

noteple

macrumors 65816
Aug 30, 2011
1,407
323
Love the Kindle e-ink.

But for flight manuals, catalogs, magazines, and books with any sort of graphs, diagrams, charts, or color picture you can't beat the iPad
 

mcl

macrumors regular
Dec 5, 2002
154
0
I have a 2nd-generation Kindle, and the new iPad.

I won't be switching to using the iPad to read.

Reasons:
* My kindle can go a month without needing to be recharged, even when using it several hours a day.
* The kindle is lighter and more comfortable to hold in various positions (including lying down) for long periods of time
* The kindle (with an additional light) is perfect for bedtime reading, as the light is focused on the screen, rather than the screen emitting light and keeping my partner awake
* The kindle is easier on my eyes (there is no refresh rate on e-ink, and thus zero eyestrain).
 

andrewfee

macrumors 6502
Aug 29, 2004
467
2
The kindle is easier on my eyes (there is no refresh rate on e-ink, and thus zero eyestrain).
LCDs are "sample and hold" type displays, so if there is no update to the image, the panel remains unchanged. There's no 60Hz flicker as you would see on a CRT for example.

You may prefer to read a reflective display like the Kindle, but refresh rate is not the cause of eye strain with LCD.

Actually, studies have shown no more eyestrain from LCD than e-ink, it's purely a preference. I have noticed that most people have LCDs much brighter than the page of a book would be, which probably has a lot to do with it. (I find that looking at a bright screen in a dark room leads to eyestrain)
 

Idgit

macrumors 6502
Mar 14, 2004
417
24
Yep. I really tried to like Kindles, but the contrast wasn't high enough. It felt a little like reading print on recycled paper. Gave me a headache after 10 minutes.
This has been my experience, too. Still, for reading novels, I think the Kobo/Kindle/Nook is preferable to the iPad for most people.

But e-ink readers are next to useless for PDFs, comics, technical manuals, and textbooks.
 

random person

macrumors 6502a
Feb 28, 2008
569
9
I've owned every generation of the kindle except the fire and I've owned every iPad.

I have to say that with this latest iteration of the iPad that I have ditched all my kindles. By comparison the kindle is just plain dog slow for everything -- page turning, etc. th screen is so small that if you are a fast reader you find yourself tapping the page turn beforyou hit the end of the page because it is just a pain to wait for the page to change. It feels overall just like a clunky piece of inferior technology, and in particular the touch version is balky and unresponsive.

Yes if I were prone to reading at the beach I'd take the kindle. But for my habits -- two to three books a week -- the new iPad is by far the preferred device. The retina screen is crisper than the kindle and it is just a better experience all around. That tiny kindle screen is just too small and the dx is just clunker big and equally primitive.
 

G5isAlive

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2003
807
1,015
I have a 2nd-generation Kindle, and the new iPad.

I won't be switching to using the iPad to read.

Reasons:
* My kindle can go a month without needing to be recharged, even when using it several hours a day.
* The kindle is lighter and more comfortable to hold in various positions (including lying down) for long periods of time
* The kindle (with an additional light) is perfect for bedtime reading, as the light is focused on the screen, rather than the screen emitting light and keeping my partner awake
* The kindle is easier on my eyes (there is no refresh rate on e-ink, and thus zero eyestrain).
I have no idea why when discussing reading people like to comment on the battery lasting for a month (other than to say the kindle is better at batter life, so what). I sleep at night and don't have a problem charging my iPad. I don't ever remember a time when a book got interrupted by my iPad running out of power. Perversely, my kindle DID run out of power on me twice because I am not in the habit of charging it. Where did that cord go now?

The kindle is lighter. True, but no more comfortable for me when lying down and I hate its small screen. I prefer a larger screen when sitting.

I hate the slow refresh of e-ink. I tolerate it when I have to (outside) but otherwise I prefer my iPad.

Speaking of outside, I typically am not reading outside but doing something. The times I want to read outside are projects and I upload the manual into the kindle. That works much better than my iPad.

I sleep with both my new kindle and iPad by the bed. Even when it was the iPad 2, the iPad 2 was my go to device for reading books. And now that I have the new iPad? Not even a question.

It cracks me up to think of buying some cheesey add on light for night reading on my slow kindle with the small screen. like reading with a flashlight under your covers as a teenager worried your parents would catch you. and not great for your eyes btw. pass.

of course, I know, different people different needs.

For mine, its not even close. I prefer reading on the iPad 3. And I charge it over night.
 

mcl

macrumors regular
Dec 5, 2002
154
0
I have no idea why when discussing reading people like to comment on the battery lasting for a month
Because not having to charge the kindle every night, or several times a day, is an incredible benefit.

I hate the slow refresh of e-ink. I tolerate it when I have to (outside) but otherwise I prefer my iPad.
I'm not so impatient that I get antsy waiting the 0.5 seconds it takes for a kindle to flip a page. And that is the only time the e-ink needs to refresh. I don't use it to play games, browse the web, or anything else. I use it to read books without pictures.

Speaking of outside, I typically am not reading outside but doing something. The times I want to read outside are projects and I upload the manual into the kindle. That works much better than my iPad.
I'm not reading outside either. I have a clip on book light for my kindle. It focuses light on the screen, and makes the contrast perfect in any situation.

It cracks me up to think of buying some cheesey add on light for night reading on my slow kindle with the small screen. like reading with a flashlight under your covers as a teenager worried your parents would catch you. and not great for your eyes btw. pass.
People did it for years with books, and books have an even slower refresh rate than the kindle. Seemed to work for many, many generations. And it's fine for your eyes. I have 20/5 vision (as measured by a specialist), I'm 42, and my visual acuity hasn't declined at all. I read constantly, and often using a single light source in an otherwise dark room.
 

Seamaster

macrumors 65816
Feb 24, 2003
1,081
123
If you're a voracious reader, nothing beats a Kindle. And that's the bottom line and end of story.
 

G5isAlive

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2003
807
1,015
I'm not so impatient that I get antsy waiting the 0.5 seconds it takes for a kindle to flip a page. And that is the only time the e-ink needs to refresh. I don't use it to play games, browse the web, or anything else. I use it to read books without pictures.
.
and yet you are so impatient you can't take the 2 seconds to plug a device in at night when you go to sleep.

A faster refresh is an advantage. Plain and simple.

Another advantage of the iPad, which outweighs a discussion on battery life (because 10 hours is sufficient) is that I CAN if I choose 'play games, browse the web, or anything else' I don't have to JUST use it to read plain text. And FOR ME (and I do seem to be in the minority here) I find the iPad a superior way to read EVEN just plain text. I read my fair share of books. If for me the kindle was better, seeing as how its sitting right there on the same night stand as my iBook, I would use it.

The original question was, which was the best one for reading. For me its the iPad3.

Do you even own an iPad 3? I own both the iPad and Kindle.
 

Night Spring

macrumors G5
Jul 17, 2008
13,073
5,102
books have an even slower refresh rate than the kindle.
:confused::confused::confused:
What are you talking about? I always thought books had the fastest refresh rate -- as in none. Even if you are talking about page flipping, I don't know about you, but I turn pages faster than the Kindle.
 

Ndhusmc

macrumors newbie
Jun 11, 2011
20
1
I can't wait until its practical to utilize color e-ink type technology on an iPad!
 

jojoba

macrumors 68000
Dec 9, 2011
1,582
21
I don't really understand the insane urge to define or render illegitimate other people's preferences. Some people prefer to read on a Kindle, some on an iPad. Both are perfectly valid choices.
 

mcl

macrumors regular
Dec 5, 2002
154
0
:confused::confused::confused:
What are you talking about? I always thought books had the fastest refresh rate -- as in none. Even if you are talking about page flipping, I don't know about you, but I turn pages faster than the Kindle.
Kindles also have no refresh rate, unless you're turning a page. And that takes less than a second. Are you people really so impatient that the difference of a few milliseconds in a page turn is crucial to your reading experience?

When I read a book, I have to:
1) Reach up with the hand not holding the book
2) reposition the fingers of the hand holding the book
3) grab the page to be turned with the hand not holding the book
4) turn the page
5) reposition the fingers of the hand holding the book
6) return the non-book-holding hand to original position.

When I read on the kindle, I have to:
1) move the thumb of the hand holding the book to the "next page" button
2) press the button.

The latter takes less effort, and the actual screen refresh to display the new page takes less time than the former.

I challenge you to actually turn a physical page faster than the kindle's screen refresh. I think you'll find that your hyperbole doesn't match reality.

----------

and yet you are so impatient you can't take the 2 seconds to plug a device in at night when you go to sleep.

A faster refresh is an advantage. Plain and simple.
When reading a book, the refresh rate is irrelevant. The action of reading takes place when the screen is NOT refreshing.

Another advantage of the iPad, which outweighs a discussion on battery life (because 10 hours is sufficient) is that I CAN if I choose 'play games, browse the web, or anything else' I don't have to JUST use it to read plain text. And FOR ME (and I do seem to be in the minority here) I find the iPad a superior way to read EVEN just plain text. I read my fair share of books. If for me the kindle was better, seeing as how its sitting right there on the same night stand as my iBook, I would use it.

The original question was, which was the best one for reading. For me its the iPad3.
And yet the paragraph of argument you just put forth has to do with anything but reading.

Do you even own an iPad 3? I own both the iPad and Kindle.
So do I. iPad 3 32GB Verizon, Kindle 2nd generation. Perhaps you're using the kindle wrong. Because the refresh rate when reading a book is miniscule, trivial, and irrelevant. Are you sure you're not mistaking it for a tablet or web browser?
 

fertilized-egg

macrumors 68020
Dec 18, 2009
2,095
10
I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer reading on LCD screens over ereader any day, not just iPad. I once tried to really like ereaders since I wanted something cheap on the go but the low contrast, slow refreshing rate and the smaller display size of Kindle, Kobo and Sony eReaders I've tried just left me unimpressed.

As for eye strain, I read things all day on my computers and haven't had trouble with them yet.
 

ninaco

macrumors 6502
Mar 11, 2012
289
73
VA
I don't feel it's an either/or situation. Both the iPad & the Kindle have a lot going for them.

The Kindle will remain my go-to device for reading books without illustrations or photos. The e-ink is easy on the eyes, it's light weight, the battery lasts a long time, and nothing beats the Kindle for reading in bright sunlight.

I read a lot of biographies, and I'm looking forward to reading them on the iPad. Until now, I've usually bought the DTB version of biographies because photos don't look great on the Kindle.

I doubt I will ever purchase a book via iBook. Buying through Amazon gives customers a lot more flexibility! And, I love the way it synchronizes your place in the book among devices.
 

Night Spring

macrumors G5
Jul 17, 2008
13,073
5,102
Kindles also have no refresh rate, unless you're turning a page. And that takes less than a second. Are you people really so impatient that the difference of a few milliseconds in a page turn is crucial to your reading experience?
It's not so much impatience, but if a page ends in the middle of a sentence, as it often does, then when I have to wait for the page to refresh, by the time the last part of the sentence comes up, I've frequently lost my place in the sentence. Not sure why this doesn't happen with physical books, maybe I'm just more used to it. And while it's true that turning a page takes more discrete steps on a physical book, you also don't have to do it all at once. As I get toward the end of the page I start doing your step 1, step 2... By the time i read the last word, all I have to do is flip the page. Then I continue reading the top of the next page while I reposition my hand. So while I haven't actually measured the time, last time I tried using a Kindle, it did feel slower than turning the page on a physical book.
 

bp1000

macrumors 65816
Jul 7, 2011
1,333
47
The kindle is a godsend to me

No surprise but I find the kindle much easier on the eyes and much easier to hold for long periods of time. Let alone reading in bright environments.

I do still use my iPad to read but only rarely and not usually for long periods either. Maybe only a chapter on the toilet. :)

Only thing I don't like about the kindle is the letter bleed that only goes when the screen refreshes which is perhaps every 10 page turns. Can't complain for the price!
 

anjinha

macrumors 604
Oct 21, 2006
7,271
62
San Francisco, CA
Because not having to charge the kindle every night, or several times a day, is an incredible benefit.
You don't have to charge the iPad several times a day either.

And also, Amazon's stated battery life for the Kindle touch is one month if you're using it for half an hour a day with wifi off, three weeks if you're using it for half an hour a day with wifi on.

The iPad gets 10 hours of usage with wifi on. 10 hours is 20 days if being used for half an hour a day, i.e. three weeks.


So saying that the Kindle has much better battery life than the iPad is just not true, you're just more likely to use the iPad more.
 

AdonisSMU

macrumors 604
Oct 23, 2010
6,577
2,139
I have a kindle and the new iPad and while the new iPad is great for reading in dark environments the kindle will still be better than it for long reading sessions. As for iBooks vs Amazon's library, stick with Amazon. Their library is larger and it is easier to have all your purchases in the same place.
I'll stick with the publishers thank you. I'd rather download books directly from the publishers. They give me lots of free and pre release books and I'm not paying some middle man big bucks while the publishers and writers starve. Plus I like being able to read outside of Amazons walled garden.
 
Last edited:

mcl

macrumors regular
Dec 5, 2002
154
0
You don't have to charge the iPad several times a day either.

And also, Amazon's stated battery life for the Kindle touch is one month if you're using it for half an hour a day with wifi off, three weeks if you're using it for half an hour a day with wifi on.

The iPad gets 10 hours of usage with wifi on. 10 hours is 20 days if being used for half an hour a day, i.e. three weeks.


So saying that the Kindle has much better battery life than the iPad is just not true, you're just more likely to use the iPad more.
I don't need to have wifi turned on on the kindle if I'm reading. And the kindle's life with 3g on (as I already mentioned, I have a 2nd-generation kindle. They do not have wifi) is measured in hours, not weeks.

We're discussing the kindle vs. the ipad as an ereader. Not the kindle as an ereader vs the ipad as an ereader and everything else.

The kindle needs no wireless to be enabled to be used for reading. Nor does the ipad. Even so, both devices with all networking disabled still have a vastly disparate battery life. My kindle, being read 1-2 hours a day, every day, last about a month before needing a recharge. The ipad will not. Period. Forget to charge it? Oh, well. Guess I won't be reading anything that day. Spend all day using the iPad and then want to curl up with a book at night? No can do; you need to charge it. And the included cord is far too short to have plugged into a wall and yet lay in bed and use the iPad while it charges. Plus, the iPad 3's display draws a significant amount of current while it's on, adding additional charging time if you try to use it while it's charging (see today's Consumer Reports tests).

----------

I'll stick with the publishers thank you. I'd rather download books directly from the publishers. They give me lots of free and pre release books and I'm not paying some middle man big bucks while the publishers and writers starve. Plus I like being able to read outside of Amazons walled garden.
*snicker*

You seem to have forgotten, or were perhaps never aware, that Amazon's prices were significantly LOWER than those the publishers wanted. And yet the writers still got paid exactly what they would have gotten paid from the publisher anyway, because Amazon bought the books from the publisher. The author's cut comes out of that contract with the publisher; it has nothing to do with who bought the books.

Publishers starving? Only because they're fighting tooth and nail to preserve a dying business model, in much the same way the RIAA and MPAA and broadcast networks are.

----------

It's not so much impatience, but if a page ends in the middle of a sentence, as it often does, then when I have to wait for the page to refresh, by the time the last part of the sentence comes up, I've frequently lost my place in the sentence. Not sure why this doesn't happen with physical books, maybe I'm just more used to it. And while it's true that turning a page takes more discrete steps on a physical book, you also don't have to do it all at once. As I get toward the end of the page I start doing your step 1, step 2... By the time i read the last word, all I have to do is flip the page. Then I continue reading the top of the next page while I reposition my hand. So while I haven't actually measured the time, last time I tried using a Kindle, it did feel slower than turning the page on a physical book.
I must have better short term memory than you.

Seriously; I did my master's and Ph.D work on reading comprehension in narrative and expository texts (yes, it's an extremely small, niche field of study, but it does exist), and I speak with some degree of authority when I say that having difficulty maintaining the contents of a sentence fragment in working memory while waiting less than a second for the rest of the sentence to appear is abnormal.
 

anjinha

macrumors 604
Oct 21, 2006
7,271
62
San Francisco, CA
We're discussing the kindle vs. the ipad as an ereader. Not the kindle as an ereader vs the ipad as an ereader and everything else.
And that's exactly what I was comparing, the iPad vs. the Kindle's battery life when used in the same situation, purely for reading.

The kindle needs no wireless to be enabled to be used for reading. Nor does the ipad. Even so, both devices with all networking disabled still have a vastly disparate battery life. My kindle, being read 1-2 hours a day, every day, last about a month before needing a recharge.
That's not what Amazon says:



The ipad will not. Period.
Being used in the same situation (wifi on, used for half an hour a day) the battery life is about the same. Period. We don't have specs for usage for the iPad with wifi off so it's not fair to compare but it makes sense that usage will be greater than with wifi on, and therefore being pretty close to the Kindle usage in the same situation.

Forget to charge it? Oh, well. Guess I won't be reading anything that day.
What if you forget to charge your Kindle when it starts to run low on battery? Oh no!


My point isn't that the iPad is a better solution for reading, that depends on each user's needs and preferences. But I do think the battery life argument is flawed because you would get similar battery life from the iPad if you used it in the same manner as the Kindle.
 

mcl

macrumors regular
Dec 5, 2002
154
0
That's not what Amazon says:

Image



Being used in the same situation (wifi on, used for half an hour a day) the battery life is about the same. Period. We don't have specs for usage for the iPad with wifi off so it's not fair to compare but it makes sense that usage will be greater than with wifi on, and therefore being pretty close to the Kindle usage in the same situation.
That's not the specs for my kindle. unlike you, I'm actually speaking from experience.


What if you forget to charge your Kindle when it starts to run low on battery? Oh no!
First, it reminds me. Second, once it reminds me, I still have two or three days before it actually needs to be charged.

My point isn't that the iPad is a better solution for reading, that depends on each user's needs and preferences. But I do think the battery life argument is flawed because you would get similar battery life from the iPad if you used it in the same manner as the Kindle.
No, you wouldn't. Turn all networking off on both devices. Start reading a novel. Call me in a day when you need to recharge the iPad. Call me again in about a month when you need to recharge the kindle.