Steve Jobs says "You wont read for 10 hours"

[tyler811]

Any one who has ever watched a Steve Jobs keynote knows that he has impeccable stage presence. Shortly after the iPad announcement Walt Mossberg was able to land an impromptu interview with Steve Jobs which showed an unusually flustered Steve Jobs.
The interview, as posted by allthingsd.com, is pasted below and Walt does ask a few tough questions. When Walt asked about the 10 hour battery
Steve Jobs responded, “you're not going to read for 10 hours” and that you would eventually just plug the device in. While true, most people do not read for 10 hours, but anyone who travels across any of the major oceans will tell you that 10 hours of battery life may not cut it for a device being targeted as an eBook reader.
Walt also asks, among other questions, about the pricing difference between the Kindle store and Apple’s book store. There are rumors of the prices being as much as $5 higher than Amazon’s to which Jobs replies “publishers are actually withholding books from Amazon because they're not happy” but he does go on to say that prices will be the same; although that doesn’t clear up if Apple will compete at Amazon’s level or if Amazon will raise their price.

http://www.neowin.net/news/steve-jobs-says-quotyou-wont-read-for-10-hoursquot

 

[nageov3t]

tbh, I just can't imagine the eye strain from looking at a computer screen versus e-ink. and it seems way too big to hold comfortably.

 

[SSSnail]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnT0zp8Ya4

 

[Lonyo]

tbh, I just can't imagine the eye strain from looking at a computer screen versus e-ink. and it seems way too big to hold comfortably.

Yeah.
Jobs is right, you're not gonna read for 10 hours... from a backlit LCD screen.

I wonder if many people like reading from computer screens.
I know that I would much rather print out a journal article or read an actual book than read them on a PC monitor.

 

[JS80]

I think the iPad won't be a success but Steve is right on this one.

 

[rockyct]

To be fair, he is correct. I'd sure as hell not read for 10 hours on that screen. However, this device isn't going to find success as an ebook reader, but as a Apple netbook/tablet. It just doesn't compare to the Kindle for hardcore readers.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnT0zp8Ya4

A friend of mine sent me that earlier today... Awesome.

 

[yllus]

Is battery life on ocean-crossing trips really an issue anymore? I've been on a 767, 747 and a couple of Airbuses lately - all of them had AC power (and sometimes USB) at every seat.

 

[SSSnail]

Yeah, but why if I can just use a fully functional laptop? Faster. Better. More efficient. Multitask. Full keyboard. Oh wait, it doesn't have that "look at me" factor.

 

[Newbian]

Fuck the ipad...

 

[Net]

generally speaking.

but no true for the traveler.

this reminds me of his macbook air speech, "your not going to need a cd-rom." lol, my friend who own's one disagrees.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Like the iPhone, you'll be able to be a battery pack attachment if you need more than 10 hours.

People read from LCD monitors all day long at work then at night, don't understand this argument what's so ever.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Is battery life on ocean-crossing trips really an issue anymore? I've been on a 767, 747 and a couple of Airbuses lately - all of them had AC power (and sometimes USB) at every seat.

It's a hell of a lot more convenient to not need a charger when you're on an airplane.

Speaking as someone who travels a lot, one of the most convenient things about my Reader is that the battery will last for several weeks at a time. This means that I only need to charge it when I am at home. If I have a two-week trip on the road, I don't need to pack a charger or a USB cable for it; I just slip the Reader into my luggage and go. It's one less thing to worry about when I'm on a trip and that's a huge positive.

The iPad is interesting, but it's not going to make it as a reader.

ZV

 

[fleabag]

tbh, I just can't imagine the eye strain from looking at a computer screen versus e-ink. and it seems way too big to hold comfortably.

I can't either because I thankfully don't suffer from eye strain when looking at the computer, whether it be 5 minutes or 5 hours.. I think the longest I've stared at a screen for was like 14 hours and I didn't do it longer because I needed to eat, poop and sleep.

 

[nageov3t]

Like the iPhone, you'll be able to be a battery pack attachment if you need more than 10 hours.

People read from LCD monitors all day long at work then at night, don't understand this argument what's so ever.

you're not really "reading" from an LCD monitor for hours on end. you're looking at pictures, you're interacting with it, etc

reading from an LCD for hours on end is a different experience than just sitting in front of an LCD doing general computer stuffs for the same time frame.

 

[Rubycon]

I can give you 786,432 reasons why this ipad thingy isn't that great. (hint: 786,432 is the product of 1024x768)

Seriously that is so 1997. That screen would be so much better at 1440x900. 1280x800 MINIMUM. Most of the other shortcomings could be fixed in software. But the screen? Forget about it!

 

[Capt Caveman]

you're not really "reading" from an LCD monitor for hours on end. you're looking at pictures, you're interacting with it, etc

reading from an LCD for hours on end is a different experience than just sitting in front of an LCD doing general computer stuffs for the same time frame.

Maybe at your work place but not mine.

 

[SunSamurai]

I can give you 786,432 reasons why this ipad thingy isn't that great. (hint: 786,432 is the product of 1024x768)

Seriously that is so 1997. That screen would be so much better at 1440x900. 1280x800 MINIMUM. Most of the other shortcomings could be fixed in software. But the screen? Forget about it!

I dont think it was an oversight. THis is an indication they dont want to go full throddle in this market and are playing is safe (for apple). The iBook (refuse to call it iPad) part 2 I think will have a much better screen, cost what this does, and this one will be 100-150$ less and apple will have a good a lot of feedback to apply to that version.

 

[Rubycon]

If it had a higher resolution I could see using it for a remote control device for studio/stage. Even 1024x768 is probably good enough but I'm real picky with displays and am nearsighted (20/20L 20/15R) so the smaller the pixel pitch the better!

I wonder how drop resistant it is!

 

[0roo0roo]

I can give you 786,432 reasons why this ipad thingy isn't that great. (hint: 786,432 is the product of 1024x768)

Seriously that is so 1997. That screen would be so much better at 1440x900. 1280x800 MINIMUM. Most of the other shortcomings could be fixed in software. But the screen? Forget about it!

its a 9.7" ips screen.
marginal improvement in resolution at that size is hardly the biggest priority.
whats sad are 19" screens at 1440x900
not 9.7" screens

 

[dguy6789]

People read from LCD monitors all day long at work then at night, don't understand this argument what's so ever.

I don't get it either. An LCD screen is always on. It's clear, consistent, it never flashes or changes. CRTs are the type of screen that causes eye strain because their backlight flashes on and off rapidly. LCDs do not make an eye tired after any period of time because the screen does not flicker or anything. The only time an LCD screen has any change is when something on the screen needs to be updated. Looking at one isn't very different from looking at a wall to the eyes.

<- Reads ebooks on an LCD and has never had a problem

 

[Lonyo]

I don't get it either. An LCD screen is always on. It's clear, consistent, it never flashes or changes. CRTs are the type of screen that causes eye strain because their backlight flashes on and off rapidly. LCDs do not make an eye tired after any period of time because the screen does not flicker or anything. The only time an LCD screen has any change is when something on the screen needs to be updated. Looking at one isn't very different from looking at a wall to the eyes.

<- Reads ebooks on an LCD and has never had a problem

Except for the fact that a wall isn't a light source...

 

[Rubycon]

its a 9.7" ips screen.
marginal improvement in resolution at that size is hardly the biggest priority.
whats sad are 19" screens at 1440x900
not 9.7" screens

Yes but I can tell you I have a Fujitsu Lifebook with a 10" 1200x800 screen and it's just tolerable. 1024x768 is outdated as Windows 2000! Plus in a widescreen (physical) format there is distortion because 1024x768 is a 4:3 ratio.

Does not matter of it's IPS or not, it's physically wrong from the start and thus flawed.

Yes the 19" screens at 1400x900 may have large pixels but at least their aspect ratio is correct.

 

[dguy6789]

Except for the fact that a wall isn't a light source...

Are you trying to make a point or are you just nitpicking? My point still stands: An LCD is perfectly fine for reading off of.

 

[nageov3t]

Are you trying to make a point or are you just nitpicking? My point still stands: An LCD is perfectly fine for reading off of.

for me, it's the light... having light streaming directly into my eyes is more straining than having a light in back of me and reading off of a passive surface like e-ink or a paperback.

working in front of my computer is one thing because you're looking around constantly. glancing down at my keyboard, reaching for a drink, etc... curling up with a book to read for an hour or two before bed is something else.