|
FidgetyRat posted:As an update because I said I would, I had 2 reboots in my non-lighted-case in the past 2 days. Guess they didn't fix the issue. For me it only seems to be when i move around with the kindle (like in a pocket, or in a backpack). I have no issues when I'm just reading which might be why i never noticed till recently. I just had to replace my non-lit cover. Sucks, I'm traveling Monday through Thursday, and will have to go with no cover as the new lit one won't be here in time.
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
manguero posted:I would imagine that the publishers' rationale (besides subsidizing print book costs) is, "Ah yes, with an ebook you get more functionality, therefore it is more valuable, and therefore you pay more! Rationale is this: Publishing a new book has fixed costs, same for ebook as hardcover, except physical printing, shipping and warehousing. So, the discount is, lets call it $3 (this argument is bullshit, but that's their argument). They still sell the ebook at same or higher cost because, a) market will bear it, and b) ebook sales will eat hardcover sales if priced lower, and hence lower profit. This ignores the fact that for the user, the ebook has lower value. Ease of use, yes, but a) you don't own the book, you own a license to read the book, and b) you can't sell/donate/loan the book when you're done. The argument that the costs of production are the same dies when one considers that paperbacks are sold for (now) $9.99. Assuming that the costs of production (typesetting, copyediting, editing) are the same as for the ebook, the ebook should be cost of paperback, minus print/ship/warehouse. So, an ebook can be sold at profit for paperback minus costs. That assumes that publishers make a profit on paperbacks, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2011 15:32
|
|
" Of course, as consumers, we're wondering why prices are higher when costs are actually lower. And arguably the extra functionality (space, weight, searchability, etc.) is outweighed by forgoing the first-sale doctrine (i.e. ability to re-sell or give away the book).
|
FidgetyRat posted:You really want to scratch your head. I was a preorder buyer of the kindle 3, with case. Took me until about a month ago to experience any problems, then had them everyday. Replaced with lighted case, no problems.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 15:14
|
|
|
boo_radley posted:What the gently caress, Barnes and Noble? They lost a $20 credit on my account and charged my bank account for a book, which I can't read because of "order problems" . No record of why any of this happened, just me missing some money and no answer from customer service. gently caress you, jerks. Annnnnd, Amazon wins again. That's one of the reasons I went Kindle. The bookstores are mostly equal, the prices are mostly equal, the readers are mostly equal, but Amazon is my favorite retailer for fixing fuckups.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 14:29
|
|
|
Murodese posted:(UK) Those aren't the prices I'm seeing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 11:47
|
|
|
GigaPeon posted:Isn't Amazon also a 70-30 split? it is now, only after it was forced on them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
It's not in the OP...but was mentioned not too long ago. What's the website that is designed to make web browsing easier on the eink devices?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
Internaut! posted:Seems to me the Nook Color is now a full-blown tablet instead of an e-reader. What do you guys think? Full blown? No. The apps are very limited, very few free, and are supposed to be oriented to the device's purpose, reading. We'll see. It's an ereader that can do more, not a tablet yet. Unless you root it, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
The missing piece in the discussion is this: Paperbacks are profitable. So, the cost of edit/copyedit/print/warehouse and ship can't be assessed fairly on an ebook at the hardback price, but should be more closely aligned to the paperback cost. If they can print and ship a paperback at $9.99 at a profit, then an ebook can be printed and sold at a profit for less than that.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Well, the issue with that is that the ebook comes out at the same time as the hardback and can potentially eat into its sales (it shouldn't really since the people who want to still read books grab the hardback or wait for the paperback while the people with ereaders grab the ebook version, like vinyl and CD/MP3). The publishers have tried two solutions. Staggered releases where the ebook is released months after the hardback (which failed..although that could have been because it was still priced high) and pricing the ebook at the same or higher price than the hardback (which also failed) I agree that's what's driving this...but the argument is over the cost to produce, and everyone points out that the hardback price and works backward. That's incorrect. The cost to produce, that includes copyediting and so forth, is more accurately reflected in a paperback that had no hardback run. fishmech posted:It ignores the reality of book stores. You can almost always buy physical books cheaper on Amazon then in stores. It makes an apples to apples comparison. Those books are sold by online sellers (Walmart to Barnes and Noble to Amazon) all for almost exactly the same price. The suggested retail price is no longer a realistic comparison because you're comparing the highest available price versus the market price. As for shipping costs? You're arguing that we have to act in the most inefficient way possible because it's the only way your argument comes close. I don't know anyone who doesn't factor how to get free shipping into their book buying on Amazon, either thru prime, or $25 or more purchased.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 09:05
|
|
|
smackfu posted:When the publishing industry is crying about their costs being almost the same for eBooks and hardcovers, and that is why they can't charge less for the eBook, who are the ones suggesting there is an equation? Yes. The publishers are the ones that say cost of production drives price. We're pointing out that you are correct, that in fact, they're charging what they think they can get, not charging based on cost.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
I'm not surprised at brand loyalty, I'm more surprised at the "Oh my god, the new touch screen readers are so great!!!" Different strokes and all, but if the touch screen doesn't provide a necessary function, I don't want one. I can't for the life of me see how it's not a step backwards ergonomically to have a touch screen ereader. Hold book, press button to turn page, never move hands. Or, hold book, take hand off book, swipe, put hand back on book, repeat every 15 seconds. I am seeing more and more Ipad owners going back to or going to ereaders. Ipad showed them how nice an ereader is in concept, and how unwieldy the Ipad is for that function. It's the weight that most I've talked to have cited as its big drawback for a day to day reader.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2011 16:19
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:As mentioned, the touch nook still has physical page buttons. I don't use the touch screen to change pages. RightClickSaveAs posted:I'm curious why you'd think you have to take your hand off the book to turn a page though, turning the page with one hand is exactly how you'd use a physical book? Unless you're disabled and have use of only one hand, in which case, you can still use the page turn buttons on the side of the device like before, which can be pressed with one hand. The fact that the nook has physical buttons is great, and makes me wonder, "why is there a touch screen again?" That's my point, what is a touch screen bringing to the game? As for turning the page exactly how I do with a real book? Yeah, that's one of the many advantages an ereader has over a real book. I can read one handed, same hand holding book also turning pages. Can't do that without the buttons, though. I don't wonder that the new readers are great, and smaller. I just wonder about the touch screen being seen as an advantage, when for my purposes it's an obvious zero added value (assuming physical buttons to turn pages). The keyboard on the kindle is useful when I need it, not a factor when I don't. Like I said, to each his own, I just haven't heard any advantage yet to the touch screen, but see several disadvantages.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Again, it's about what it's not bringing to the game. It's a 19% shorter device while keeping the same screen size. If you don't care about a smaller size, fine. Everyone I've shown it to so far has said ereaders have finally matched the paperback. It has quite the effect in person. I've picked one up, and it's fine. But, it's one of those things where it didn't wow me. When I went Kindle 2 to Kindle 3, I was pleasantly surprised, but it just wasn't a big deal. That's the way this is. The current gen readers are all light, thin and ergonomic. Smaller just isn't a leap forward for me. Losing the keyboard just isn't something I care about, and I don't want a touch screen, so it's just a net bleh to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
Mnemosyne posted:What's the disadvantage of having a touch screen? If you don't want to use it, it doesn't take up any extra space, unlike the keyboard on the Kindle. It's almost impossible to turn pages accidentally on my kindle. It uses electricity. Any time I want to use a keyboard, I put fingerprints on my reading surface.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
doctorfrog posted:A contrary viewpoint: I hate the turn page buttons on the Kindle, because they're exactly where my thumbs want to hold it. So I have to either hold it from the bottom, or form my hand into a crab claw to avoid pressing them accidentally. In my view, it's a terrible design having them right on the edge. The 5-way controller is a pain in the rear end for browsing as well, since I also use it to read the news online. I'd much rather have a touchscreen, fingerprints or not. Yeah, the buttons are perfect for me, but you're not the only one I've heard that from. I also hold right there, but I don't have to squeeze, so it's actually a good thing. Hey, it doesn't matter. We've reached a time when the ereaders are all pretty much great devices. I have a nook color (mostly for my son's kids books) and a kindle 3 and my wife has a kindle 3. Now, if we can just get publishers to stop screwing us on the pricing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
commish posted:Well, there's the on-screen keyboard on the nook touch for that. I'm just surprised that people would prefer a physical keyboard on an e-reader. Again: I don't want to be touching my reading screen. I also don't want a screen that's on all the time like that, eating electrons. It serves zero useful purpose on a reader. I find it neither quicker nor more intuitive than the physical keyboard. Frankly, if you put an actual mouse cursor and a 5 way switch, you'd be fine. I play scrabble on my Kindle. Cannot imagine using a touch screen for it. I guess every time I played, I'd have to carry screen wipes with me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
g0del posted:The nook touch provides three ways to turn the page, all of which can be done one-handed. You never have to take your hand off the book to turn the page. The touchscreen doesn't show prints too badly...it does show prints. I've held one, I've seen the prints. My kindle similarly doesn't show them too badly...but it does show them. As for playing scrabble on other touchscreen devices? yeah, there's a reason i don't own a tablet computer (actually I do, but it's to fiddle with, not to use). The prints accumulate, even on the matte screens. How does an Ipad being too heavy make touchscreens make more sense? An kindle 3 does not weight too much, and it has a keyboard. The Ipad weight is completely different issue than touchscreen. But, you've added zero reason to have a touchscreen. No one has yet. You've disputed the drawbacks, but for a book device? What does it bring to the table? Nothing. I just need something to be a book, turn pages, add collections and such. For a tablet? Sure. Reader? No benefit, and no one has yet mentioned a single one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
commish posted:It makes it smaller without sacrificing screen size. You don't understand the benefits of that? Seriously? Yes, that is not a benefit to me. I have a device that is very small, very light, and I don't really need it any smaller. It's kind of a nice size between hardback and softcover, and very light. Why would I want it smaller? Does it have to be negative weight before that's enough? I can see why someone may want a smaller size, so I agree, for some that is an actual benefit. But, talk about diminishing returns. When the K3 came out, I thought, "perfect." Size, battery life. Some software tweeks would be nice, but the hardware? No. Touchscreen has definitive drawbacks for me. It has one advantage I've heard, size by deleting a physical control system, but since I want a physical control system, the downside outweighs a minimal, notional upside.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
spixxor posted:What practical purpose does it serve? I mean really. A Kindle is 7.5" x 4.8" x 0.335" and a Nook Touch is 6.5" x 5.0" x 0.47". That's funny. When I played with the touch, I thought, "hmmm, this feels nice." I didn't think the size jumped out at me, I guess I can see why now. It being more "squat" gives it a smaller feel than it really is, I guess. It's all moot. I'm curious about a) the next gen eInk, and b) the Amazon tablet. I suspect the tablet may be reading centric. Interesting to see if they can make a decent go at it. fishmech posted:Yuck, wider AND thicker? Yes, but it's not a kindle versus touch distinction, but the general benefit of touchscreen allowing you to eliminate keyboard. Don't know why they didn't end up a bit smaller still, but it doesn't moot the point. What's the kobo touch's size?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
commish posted:Right, but the drawbacks you mentioned aren't really drawbacks. As I sit here, I don't see the fingerprint parade on my Nook Touch that you seem to think is prevalent on all Nook Touches. Maybe I have special fingers? You realize you don't have to touch the screen when you're reading, right? What other drawbacks do you have? And sure, there are diminishing returns with decreasing the size of e-readers, but that revolves around decreasing the size of the screen, which isn't an issue here. No, the drawbacks don't bother you. Erect any strawman you want, but it does get fingerprints WHEN the touchscreen is used. Granted, it's not as bad as Ipad/smartphones, but to say none is inaccurate. I'm glad they don't bother you. quote:You realize you don't have to touch the screen when you're reading, right?" And no, it's not just screen size where you don't want it smaller. I like the current feel of all the devices, including the touch. I don't need or want it smaller. That return has diminished to near zero. Tougher is more important now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
commish posted:Well, for one, I've already said that, if you already have a kindle, then maybe it's not enough of a benefit for you to compel you to upgrade. I'm talking about having two devices to choose from - why would you pick the bigger, clunkier device? No one is really giving a real reason why (no - playing scrabble is not a real reason!). I'm just curious. If I had them side by side, I'd take the Kindle. hands down. I do not want a touchscreen. And, calling the kindle "clunkier" is hilarious, and it's actually not bigger, but is smaller and thinner. So, by your logic, they'd chose the kindle? No. If you want a touchscreen, and don't mind losing a keyboard, the nook is obvious. If you don't care, the size is such a negligible difference, I can't imagine anyone choosing based on that. Reason? I DO NOT WANT A TOUCHSCREEN! I like a keyboard. Sheesh. You still haven't put forth a reason for why anyone would want a squatter, bigger device like the touch (just kidding, it feels great, just like the kindle). As for rage? Check out the thread, the early days of Sony versus Nook versus Kindle and then the Ipad, jesus. This is at least an actual different feature comparison argument, which has some merit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
commish posted:Strawman? Anyway, if you did not own an e-reader right now, and you had to pick one, based on hardware alone, which would you choose and why? Also, if fingerprints were truly an issue, isn't it odd that few, if any, reviews mention fingerprints as a negative? Maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't eat and has oil-free hands Easy: I shop on the Kindle a lot. That's why the 3G version was an easy pick for me. Second, I play scrabble, and other word games on the kindle. I occasionally, very, very rarely, read email and do short replies. I can actually read the forums from it, if pressed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
commish posted:None of those things have anything to do with reading a book, though. At it's simple to search for books on Nook with the on-screen keypad. If email, browsing message boards and playing games are important on your e-reader, then I guess it makes it easy for you No, for reading a book, good screen, physical button to turn pages, I'm gold. See, there's no room there for a touchscreen. The things a touchscreen is for (assuming you aren't swiping to turn pages) are done better for me by the keyboard. And, no, it's not as good as the kindle for shopping. Where is the keyboard? It's on the same size screen, so there can't be as much of the store displayed, now can there? The point of the weird LCD screen on the other Nook was that you a) got rid of a keyboard and b) didn't sacrifice screen real estate. For reading, I don't need a keyboard, just a physical turn page button. Neither the touchscreen nor the physical keyboard enter into it. Sort of MY point all along. For a reader, it's a non-issue. For the non-reading stuff, I'd rather have a physical keyboard.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
commish posted:Your post just proves my point - from a pure reading perspective, the physical keyboard is useless and the lack of a keyboard provides a better reading experience. From an e-reader, that is what I want. I spend most of my time READING books, not shopping for them! And, as I'm sure you know, Nook Touch has physical page turn buttons that you can turn with one hand, which is very useful when holding onto a pole while riding the subway. Quite the contrary: The touch screen presents no advantage for reading. It's only for non-reading activities that some, albeit misguided, people may prefer the touchscreen. You don't use either for the reading, and given the size is almost identical (other than the touch being actually, inexplicably larger) and all other things for the reading experience are functionally identical, it's a zero sum game. As I said upfront, it's not a matter of which you may like more, it's a matter of, what does the touchscreen bring to reading? Nothing. For non-reading, the keyboard is a plus for me and all other right thinking people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Xachariah posted:Console war crap all over again, no one wants to admit that the hundred buck gadget they bought is anything less than the best you can get. Sort of, but no. It is a matter of preference, to a great degree. But, touchscreen is a great thing for those that want to hope and vaseline posted:Highlighting, adding notes, one touch dictionary presses, footnote navigation, (in the case of the Kobo) positioning and resizing PDFs, easy navigation and organizing books into shelves... and is a net negative to people like me. It's two great devices, with an actual substantive difference in secondary things that make a real distinction. The "it's smaller" is the tastes great, less filling argument for the 10's. See, I'm dating myself, aren't I?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
Quantify! posted:If you have such fevered opinions on ereaders I don't know that anybody else will be dating you, so perhaps. Show me my "fevered" opinion, I'm interested. I'm willing to discuss a trivial matter, I'm hardly fevered. However, my wife* and I are quite happy with me not dating anyone else. *OK, it's a pillow with a woman drawn on it, but still, we're happy. Now there's a device that could use a touchscreen, if you know what I'm saying. Yeah, uh huh.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
commish posted:He was just joking, you know. I know. Hence the "pillow wife."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Quantify! posted:I'm honestly not sure what you're comparing here. The fonts are at different sizes (and it looks like different fonts in some of them but I'm no typography expert) in each picture. The bigger font looks darker. Okay! Yeah, the "bold" font looks bold. I'm curious if there is an actual, discernible difference in the Nook and Nook Touch. I'd be surprised, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Thanks....also, I thought that I heard that you can get things like Scrabble on your Kindle. Is this games that you can play with people such as Words With Friends as can be found on smartphones? yes, it has multiplayer
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
The Gay Bean posted:It looks like the official scrabble version is just pass and play according to Google. Is there an unofficial app out there that allows Words With Friends / Wordfeud style games? If so, link please. Yeah, as sporadic said. Sorry, I didn't know you meant each holding own device. It's pass and play.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Juanito posted:Consumer Reports ranks a Nook higher than a Kindle for the first time in their ebook reader ratings. Look for the basis of their review and see if it fits for you first. The reading experience is going to be functionally identical these days. The touchscreen is a big deal for some people (see previous arguments in this thread), and if you want one, it's an easy decision. The point that seems to push the Nook up is the library lending feature. For me, that's a neat thing, and I wish they'd all support it, but I'm really never going to use it so it's a non-factor. I picked originally based on the fact that I hate the Barnes and Noble web site, and buying from them was a pain. They're better now, but I still hate their online store through the reader. I have a nook color and just hate buying books through it. Although, it's a great reader (kids books, with animations, it has no competition), so I just buy on my computer and get them on the nook color. Bottom line for me is, the kindle 3 is the best reader and I have no upgrade desires yet...nothing new has tempted me so far.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2011 11:52
|
|
|
commish posted:Yeah, it's no surprise, since just about every review puts the Nook Touch ahead as well. But these things will probably go in circles for years: Nook is better now, next Kindle will ditch the keyboard and top the Nook, following nook will improve and will be on top, etc etc. I'm not sure Kindle will dump the keyboard. Add library support, maybe ePub, but the form factor is hard to beat right now. Battery life and maybe some kind of shopping thru Amazon app that is made for the device/eInk?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
commish posted:I'm pretty certain they will - for most people, it's just not needed for reading an e-book. Of course there are some exceptions, but Amazon will probably focus on the majority. Like everyone else, I think Amazon will move towards two products like B&N - a dedicated reader and a more full featured tablet. I bet both will be keyboard-less, since onscreen keyboards are good enough for 98% of people's usage. And, of course, there's always the need to make things smaller, especially when we are talking about something as portable as an e-reader. A color/backlit e-ink screen would be nice I'm not sure on the "need to make things smaller." In this context, that is. If you drop it to a 1/4 inch bezel, screen the current size, you basically have the smallest you could go. But, since you'd have to case it as it would be otherwise fragile, you really can't replicate actual paperback book. Thinner, tougher, better battery. Everything else is just added doodads. Like the touchscreen is, really. It's only advantage is to make it physically smaller, and I'm not sure that's that advantageous right now. Software updates (library, broader format use, shopping ease maybe) are the most useful. The problem with the lcd/eInk switchables is weight and fragility. They're glass, so they'll fingerprint worse and be heavier and easier to break. But that's the only way I think you'll get them more tablety without being an actual tablet. I'd like to see a good kindle sized android tablet now, but it wouldn't replace the ereaders.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
commish posted:Yeah, it's pretty funny how many people don't realize this. The added thickness actually makes it much better to hold and use (I guess, that kinda stuff doesn't matter to some). But, by volume, the Kindle still "wins"! Hahaha. It is funny. The Kindle is ballasted, because it was too light and felt fragile. Adding thickness for feel makes sense. But when people say the Nook Touch is smaller, they just mean shorter. In every other dimension it's larger. Both feel so good it's a nonsense argument anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
withak posted:Some of us prefer to not soak in a tub of our own filth. Name these people!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
Eyecannon posted:Just got a Nook Touch and loving it so far... makes the Kindle look like quite the beast. See? See what bullshit comments like this cause? Now we're back to "squatter versus shorter" again. Kindle, Kobo Touch, Nook Touch, same same, we likey.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
Eyecannon posted:My Nook Touch works great with Calibre... mobi and epub. Have you had a reader with 3G? Because you're just flat wrong. I've had two now, and would always chose to buy one with 3G. Hotspots are nice, but riding on a bus, or in a car, I can buy what I want. No need to do any setup, just pull the trigger. Useful, and I use it all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2011 12:18
|
|
|
Eyecannon posted:My Nook Touch works great with Calibre... mobi and epub. Have you had a reader with 3G? Because you're just flat wrong. I've had two now, and would always chose to buy one with 3G. Hotspots are nice, but riding on a bus, or in a car, I can buy what I want. No need to do any setup, just pull the trigger. Useful, and I use it all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2011 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
redjenova posted:I imagine this debate/question has come up at least once in this thread, but I scanned the OP and didn't find any relevant information and thought it wouldn't hurt to ask. I have a spare $75 lying around on a gift card and figured I could use it to knock off some of the price of a Kindle Touch. I'd prefer it not to have ads — but I can't decide if the 3G + Wifi version is worth it. Does it really make that much of a difference? Wifi access is pretty much everywhere for me, and I'm not sure if I'd miss it or not. Anyone have any anecdotal experience with that? Any input is appreciated! Travel? Get the 3G. Don't like ads? Get the ad supported anyway, you'll never notice them unless you look for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2012 16:20
|
|