as an ebook reader, what's better? kindle or ipad?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

opinions from those that have used both?

 

[pm]

I have a fair bit of experience with an iPad as an e-reader, some experience with Sony's e-ink e-reader and about 20 minutes worth of Kindle experience when my friend here at work demo'd it for me and then let me play with it for a while.

First, there's the objective stuff:
1. Kindle is cheaper (unless, Kindle DX, in which case it's a wash)
2. Kindle is lighter and thinner (unless Kindle DX, in which it's almost the same as well)
3. Kindle has better battery life
4. With Kindle you can buy books without a WiFi signal or a 3G subscription
5. iPad supports more formats
6. iPad is color (handy for things like comic books, textbooks, kids books)
7. iPad is better for other things like apps, games, email and web surfing

Then there's the more subjective discussion about e-ink vs. LCD. For a lot of people this is the deal-breaker. They want e-ink because they like it more and so that takes the iPad out of the running entirely and leaves it up to Nook, Kindle, Sony and any other ones. Personally, I really like LCD's - when my wife turns off the light and I want to read more, I need something with a backlight (or to get up and go to another room) and so Kindle was never even on my list. For the majority of people, they'd likely say the opposite - that e-ink looks better, is (argueably) easier on the eyes, and looks better outside (no arguement there).

I think first you need to decide if you want e-ink or LCD or if you don't care. If you don't have an opinion, go to Best Buy and try both an e-ink reader and an iPad. If you still don't have an opinion, then you are a rare individual among humanity.

 

[Spoooon]

Or Target, once Kindle hits the B&M stores.

Have a Nook and think it's awesome.

 

[coolVariable]

Kindle or any other eInk reader (I think the Kobo for $149 does everything you need)
iPad is NOT an ebook reader. (Unless you like reading off a crappy screen - good luck reading outside)

 

[zerocool84]

Without a doubt eInk is the best way to read for any extended period of time. Sure you can read on an lcd but it`s far from ideal. Once you`ve tried an eInk device you won`t want to go back to lcd. Also it`s hands down better for your eyes no one can argue that plus battery life is obviously great.

 

[Deeko]

For as much as people complain about the lack of a backlight for the Kindle, I bought a little $10 clip on light for mine and I can read it in the dark just fine.

 

[TheWart]

Without a doubt eInk is the best way to read for any extended period of time. Sure you can read on an lcd but it`s far from ideal. Once you`ve tried an eInk device you won`t want to go back to lcd. Also it`s hands down better for your eyes no one can argue that plus battery life is obviously great.

hmm, except for maybe doctors:

When we read, Dr. Hedge explained, a series of ocular muscles jump around and can cause strain, regardless of whether we are looking at pixels or paper. “While you’re reading, your eyes make about 10,000 movements an hour. It’s important to take a step back every 20 minutes and let your eyes rest,” he said.

Today’s screens are definitely less tiring to look at than older displays, which refreshed the image much less frequently, causing a flicker. Carl Taussig, director of Hewlett-Packard’s Information Surfaces Lab, said the 120 Hz refresh rate typical of modern screens is much quicker than our eyes can even see.

“The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,” Mr. Taussig said. “Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.”

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/do-e-readers-cause-eye-strain/


The whole 'lcd screens are so bad for your eyes' claim makes me chuckle as it has been typed by someone on their laptop or desktop that almost certainly has - gasp - an LCD screen [and if posted on AT, they have been staring at the screen for 12+ hours no doubt]. Most white collar jobs in america require staring at an LCD screen for 8+ hours a day, so reading a book for a few hours on an LCD tablet is hardly torture.

The key is to give your eyes breaks, regardless of what screen type you are using. We aren't talking about those horrid low-refresh CRT's here...

 

[Deeko]

hmm, except for maybe doctors:



http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/do-e-readers-cause-eye-strain/


The whole 'lcd screens are so bad for your eyes' claim makes me chuckle as it has been typed by someone on their laptop or desktop that almost certainly has - gasp - an LCD screen [and if posted on AT, they have been staring at the screen for 12+ hours no doubt]. Most white collar jobs in america require staring at an LCD screen for 8+ hours a day, so reading a book for a few hours on an LCD tablet is hardly torture.

The key is to give your eyes breaks, regardless of what screen type you are using. We aren't talking about those horrid low-refresh CRT's here...

I don't think LCDs are torture on your eyes or anything, but I do like the look of e-ink better, and you really can't deny how much better it is outdoors. Personally, I do at least 50% of my reading outdoors, with most of the rest in well lit spaces, so I'll take e-ink over the alternative every time.

 

[MJinZ]

Uh, LCDs are backlit. It's like staring into a light.

Of course it's not as great as reading a book, where you get light reflected off of the pages.

 

[zerocool84]

hmm, except for maybe doctors:



http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/do-e-readers-cause-eye-strain/


The whole 'lcd screens are so bad for your eyes' claim makes me chuckle as it has been typed by someone on their laptop or desktop that almost certainly has - gasp - an LCD screen [and if posted on AT, they have been staring at the screen for 12+ hours no doubt]. Most white collar jobs in america require staring at an LCD screen for 8+ hours a day, so reading a book for a few hours on an LCD tablet is hardly torture.

The key is to give your eyes breaks, regardless of what screen type you are using. We aren't talking about those horrid low-refresh CRT's here...

That article is bs cus there is not one consumer available lcd screen that is 8 milliseconds refresh. Not even TN screens are that fast. All are much slower. That doctor is talking about their advertised speed not their true speed. All lcd screens are infinitely slower than that. Him saying 120hz makes it even more laughable. No lcd screen is that fast and no lcd screen out today is comparable to eInk. Also the screen in an iPad isn`t even capable of anything close to 8 milliseconds. It`s a slower tehcnology on the screen. TN isn`t capable of anything close to 8 milliseconds and the screen in the iPad is much much much slower. All that doctor knows is the marketing specs not what the screens can actually do.

 

[pm]

First, I can honestly (truthfully) say that I really have no preference for e-ink vs. LCD for indoors reading under normal lighting conditions. I honestly truly don't care.

People talk about eye strain but I don't see it myself because I spend 8+ hours a day reading on an LCD screen here at work - and my job generally involves real reading... often tedious 1's and 0's. I read on LCD's the whole time except for occassional breaks. If I'm not reading, then I'm writing, which to me is pretty much the same thing as reading. I will admit to being very picky about the LCD that I use to do all these reading and writing. It took me three sets of monitors (and one very irritated IT worker who swapped them for me) before I settled on my current pair of LCD displays. But aside from being picky... I don't get headaches, and I don't believe that I get eyestrain and I really don't care which type of display that I have. I was even happy with my old 22" trinitron CRT's.

So indoors I have no preference, and I don't get eyestrain from reading on LCD's.

Outdoors, the LCD on an iPad is totally useless - the screen is too glossy and unless you concentrate all you see is the sky. So outside e-ink isn't merely better, e-ink is the only thing that works.

And then in very low light (an international flight, my bedroom), yes there are those clip on lights... but I don't like them. I don't like them with regular (paper) books, and I can't imagine that I'll like them on an e-ink reader. You can say that I'm being inconsistent or whatever, but I don't like the light from those clip on things and I never have. I like LCD's in the dark. They don't bother me, the look nice. As long as I can dial the brightness, I prefer LCD's to little clip-lights.

Still, to me this is what I like. This isn't about "the best", it's about what we want. It's like someone saying "vanilla milk shakes are the best", and for lots of people that's probably true. But if someone likes strawberry milkshakes that doesn't make them wrong. Most people prefer e-ink - I'm one of the few who don't really care and to some small extent slightly prefer LCDs. That doesn't make me wrong. Just unusual.


As far as the science discussion, I don't understand how refresh rates play into this discussion at all. LCD's don't refresh except when they change. And when you are reading text, nothing changes. If we really wanted to compare refresh rates, e-ink refresh rates are appalling - like 750ms. But they don't refresh unless you change the image, so it doesn't really matter.

I agree with Zerocool that it doesn't appear like the scientist being quoted knows what he's talking about. Even if I do agree with his conclusion.


Back to the original question, if all someone wants is an e-reader and the only choices are a Kindle and an iPad, and they aren't looking at a Kindle DX, then I think the choice is fairly obvious because of the price difference, and the answer of what's better is Kindle. If we are comparing the Kindle DX and the iPad directly, since the price and dimensions are basically the same for both, and if we are still only considering usage as an e-reader, then it comes down to LCD vs. e-ink. And if there's still no winner because someone is like me and doesn't care, then I'll award the winner of "best" to iPad because it supports more formats than Kindle and it's color.

Still if I was going to get an e-ink reader, I'd go for something cheaper and more open than a Kindle and something that has an SD slot.

 

[Bateluer]

Anything eInk is going to be far superior to the iPad for reading books. The iPad will be better at other things, but as an eBooker reader, it fails completely. Plus, the Kindle and Nook have essentially free 3G for their 260 dollar price tags. With the iPad, you have to pay per month under AT&T's new data plans, 250MB or 2GB.

I have a nook myself, and its a fantastic device, now that its gotten most of its software glitches ironed out.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

That article is bs cus there is not one consumer available lcd screen that is 8 milliseconds refresh. Not even TN screens are that fast. All are much slower. That doctor is talking about their advertised speed not their true speed. All lcd screens are infinitely slower than that. Him saying 120hz makes it even more laughable. No lcd screen is that fast and no lcd screen out today is comparable to eInk. Also the screen in an iPad isn`t even capable of anything close to 8 milliseconds. It`s a slower tehcnology on the screen. TN isn`t capable of anything close to 8 milliseconds and the screen in the iPad is much much much slower. All that doctor knows is the marketing specs not what the screens can actually do.

Could you define "infinitely slower"? using the ghosting response time test at http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/response_time.php#response_time_gif

My 2408 WFP has a 16 ms black-gray-black response time and less than 16 ms black-white-black response time. Somehow, I don't think 16 ms and less is "infinitely slower" than 8 ms.

As for iPad vs e-Ink, I like reading on my iPad just fine and it never hurts or fatigues my eyes nor do I get any headaches. Outdoors it does suck, but who wants a matte finish on a touchscreen? That would feel like crap.

 

[zerocool84]

Could you define "infinitely slower"? using the ghosting response time test at http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/response_time.php#response_time_gif

My 2408 WFP has a 16 ms black-gray-black response time and less than 16 ms black-white-black response time. Somehow, I don't think 16 ms and less is "infinitely slower" than 8 ms.

As for iPad vs e-Ink, I like reading on my iPad just fine and it never hurts or fatigues my eyes nor do I get any headaches. Outdoors it does suck, but who wants a matte finish on a touchscreen? That would feel like crap.

This article helps explain how response time and many other things on displays that manufacturers claim are bs. It's a long read but a good one.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/display_myths_shattered

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

This article helps explain how response time and many other things on displays that manufacturers claim are bs. It's a long read but a good one.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/display_myths_shattered

This has nothing to do with the manufacturer claimed response time, this is actual data from testing I did.

I'm not defending stated specifications from manufacturers, we should all know by now they pick the best and fastest response times to advertise.

 

[jman19]

For as much as people complain about the lack of a backlight for the Kindle, I bought a little $10 clip on light for mine and I can read it in the dark just fine.

This.

 

[zerocool84]

This has nothing to do with the manufacturer claimed response time, this is actual data from testing I did.

I'm not defending stated specifications from manufacturers, we should all know by now they pick the best and fastest response times to advertise.

Read it don't read it doesn't matter to me but you don't have 16ms response time with that PVA panel.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

Read it don't read it doesn't matter to me but you don't have 16ms response time with that PVA panel.

You do understand there are different response times for different pixel changes? The ones tested in their LCD shootout are gray-black-gray and gray-white-gray.

Unfortunately I can't test gray-black-gray with this benchmark, I can test gray-white-gray (128-255-128), and my results show 30-35 ms* response time.

As much as you'd like to troll and troll bashing LCD's and brag about how wonderful e-Ink is (Probably to advance your motives against iPad), even LCD manufacturers don't lie. They find the single fastest pixel transition and advertise that as the response time. It's not inaccurate, just misleading.

(I tried testing iPad's response time, unfortunately the processor isn't fast enough to properly display the tests)

As far as the entire topic of this thread, response times mean nothing because if you're looking at a page of a book, the pixels are not changing. If you're looking for an ebook reader, you need to come up with the answer to a few questions.

1) How much are you looking to spend?
2) Are you okay with ONLY using it to read books?
3) Where do you spend most of your time reading?
4) Do you have any issues reading long periods of time on LCD's?
5) How important is battery life to you?

If you look at your answers to all of these, you will figure out what product best fits your needs.

*I retested as I discovered that by default Windows 7 had set my refresh rate to 59 Hz, which interferes with the 60 FPS display of the benchmark.

 

[QueBert]

Kindle is easier on the eyes, but the iPad wins because it has kick ass page turn animations when you flip a page. I'm a sucker for shit like that. Also reading on an LCD doesn't bother my eyes much, hell I read a good portion of a Texas Hold Em book on my iPod Touch

 

[zerocool84]

You do understand there are different response times for different pixel changes? The ones tested in their LCD shootout are gray-black-gray and gray-white-gray.

Unfortunately I can't test gray-black-gray with this benchmark, I can test gray-white-gray (128-255-128), and my results show 30-35 ms* response time.

As much as you'd like to troll and troll bashing LCD's and brag about how wonderful e-Ink is (Probably to advance your motives against iPad), even LCD manufacturers don't lie. They find the single fastest pixel transition and advertise that as the response time. It's not inaccurate, just misleading.

(I tried testing iPad's response time, unfortunately the processor isn't fast enough to properly display the tests)

As far as the entire topic of this thread, response times mean nothing because if you're looking at a page of a book, the pixels are not changing. If you're looking for an ebook reader, you need to come up with the answer to a few questions.

1) How much are you looking to spend?
2) Are you okay with ONLY using it to read books?
3) Where do you spend most of your time reading?
4) Do you have any issues reading long periods of time on LCD's?
5) How important is battery life to you?

If you look at your answers to all of these, you will figure out what product best fits your needs.

*I retested as I discovered that by default Windows 7 had set my refresh rate to 59 Hz, which interferes with the 60 FPS display of the benchmark.

I wasn`t the one who tried to bring in refresh times in here in the first place and whether I like the iPad or not has nothing to do with the inherent technology in their displays. Fact of the matter is that eInk is better for reading. It has nothing to do with iPad vs Kindle and only has to do with eInk being better for reading then an LCD is.

 

[TheWart]

I wasn`t the one who tried to bring in refresh times in here in the first place and whether I like the iPad or not has nothing to do with the inherent technology in their displays. Fact of the matter is that eInk is better for reading. It has nothing to do with iPad vs Kindle and only has to do with eInk being better for reading then an LCD is.

I think the point people are trying to make is that it depends. In some situations, an LCD would be preferable, while in others, an e-ink display is objectively better.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

I was flying over mem day weekend through LAX, Atlanta and NY. I counted 27 Kindles and 2 iPads. Both iPads were bring used by some hipster looking douchebags in NY. Most business travellers had Kindles/Sony e-readers

 

[Spoooon]

I was flying over mem day weekend through LAX, Atlanta and NY. I counted 27 Kindles and 2 iPads. Both iPads were bring used by some hipster looking douchebags in NY. Most business travellers had Kindles/Sony e-readers

And this means what for the op? Don't buy an iPad lest you look like a douche? I better warn my dad.

 

[mosco]

I think the first reply is the best one so far.

It Depends.

I have experience with the both, with the edge going to the iPad.

LCD/eInk: I think that people overstate the LCD/eInk issue. I do lower the brightness on the iPad when I use it for reading, and thats easy to do from within the reader app itself. I don't generally read outside, so the screen reflection doesn't really bother me. I think there are screen guards that can help with that it but I have never tried them.

Weight: The ipad weight could be an issue depending on how you use it. It's certainly not heavy but I could see how some people wouldn't feel comfortable holding 1.5 pounds with one hand. I am usually sitting, so its not a big deal to me either way.

Battery Life: I use mine about 2.5 hours a day on a commuter rail train to/from work. I usually charge it about once or twice a week depending on usage (browsing, movies, music, reading, games, etc). Games obviously drain the battery the most. If you think you need it to last longer, than it could be an issue.

Non Reading: Apps are great and certainly nothing on the kindle can compare to those. iPad apps are more expensive than iphone apps, so if you aren't comfortable with forking over a couple bucks for nice apps, then that might not be as big a draw for you.

My new favorite app: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw5jH8GN12U

 

[QueBert]

I was flying over mem day weekend through LAX, Atlanta and NY. I counted 27 Kindles and 2 iPads. Both iPads were bring used by some hipster looking douchebags in NY. Most business travellers had Kindles/Sony e-readers

That could have been because in many areas iPads are still very hard to get. Locally the only options I have would be to pay way more than retail on Craigslist, because all the local stores are completely sold out. Many people still refuse to buy shit online, especially something as expensive as an iPad.