Kindle Review – Kindle Fire Review, Kindle 4 Review

Let’s start with the free book -

• When You Need a Miracle: Daily Readings by Ann Spangler.

Next, let’s look at something that may be of little interest except to people planning a political campaign.

Attacking eReaders without seeming to attack them

One of my earlier posts making fun of New York Times’ post about eReader readability had some people thinking (and commenting) I’d misinterpreted the intentions of the author.

They’re probably right.

Here’s my question though – What’s the more likely scenario?

1. Did NY Times send out an ill-conceived article that serves little purpose?
2. Did NY Times take a perceived eInk strength over LCD and very intelligently cast doubt on it?

Given the past behavior of the New York Times (it’s attacked Kindle in the past) and where it’s best interests lie (weaken Amazon’s hold on electronic publishing) you really have to wonder.

Was the NY Times article’s real aim casting doubt on eInk’s superiority over LCD

Whether or not NY Times planned to cast doubt on eInk that’s exactly what’s happening. Consider Gizmodo writing – LCDs or eReaders, Which are worse for your eyes?

The commenters’ response are very interesting – most of them aren’t buying NY Times’ misdirection.

I stare at big beautiful LCD displays all day, and I read lots of stuff on them, but I’ve never been able to comfortably read for pleasure on an LCD. But on a Kindle or Sony Reader, or Nook, it’s a completely pleasurable experience

And this (from an Apple fan) -

I get ocular migraines from staring at my MacBookPro screen for too long. If I don’t take breaks the world becomes a disco ball for about 20 minutes and I am essentially blind.

I can sit and read my Kindle for 6 hours without taking a break and I have no such symptoms. E-ink wins for me. Other people’s opinions (including doctors) don’t matter much when I have first hand evidence and experience.

Sadly, I still want an iPad (god I hate the name), just not for reading. What can a fanboy do?

What TechCrunch commenters are saying

In the comments thread of a post on TechCrunch about eBook Apps in the iTunes App Store a commenter uses the NY Times article to attack the post author’s writing i.e.

“And while it’s true that e-ink is easier on your eyes…”

Not true. See: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/do-e-readers-cause-eye-strain/

Of course not everyone is falling for the NY Times’ veiled attacks on eInk -

So a few engineers with vested interests in the success of LCD (Bove holds a number of patents, and an HP employee can hardly be expected to be impartial about LCDs), speaking to a publication with a vested interest in the success of the iPad, say that LCDs are better than e-ink and paper. Shocking.

The NY Times article is having exactly the effect it would if it intended to cast doubt on eInk’s superior readability over LCD and to serve as a rallying point for people who dislike eReaders.

Why a disguised attack on eReaders is brilliant

There are so many advantages to a disguised attack you have to admire the brilliance -

1. If someone points out the attack and the irrational parts of the attack the attacker can claim that they were just comparing or that they brought up pros and cons.
2. You don’t have to have facts.
3. You can just get comments from ‘experts’ without backing it up with research.
4. You can make blanket statements i.e. Doctors say LCDs are not bad for reading and can’t hurt your eyes.

After that you just hide behind the fact that your article is supposed to discuss readability in general.

People who read aren’t stupid. They know they can try out eInk themselves.

The only reason to write about the NY times article is that a lot of people have never tried eInk so they’re going to take the NY Times at its word. They’ll never test out whether they prefer reading on eInk because NY Times said it’s the same.

It wouldn’t take much effort to write -

eInk is great for reading in sunlight, in decent lighting conditions and most users who read on eInk prefer it over LCD.

LCD screens have color and video and they’re great if you don’t read that much.

LCD comes with a backlight so it’s great since you can read it in the dark. For a book or for an eReader you’d need a reading light.

For some people eInk is less stressful than LCD. For some people LCD and eInk are the same.

Try both out and see what suits you better.

However that would be much too accurate - it might even get people to go try out eReaders instead of just buying the device that suits the NY Times’ interests more.

Closing Thought – Innocent Poorly researched Article or Intelligent Veiled Attack?

It’s too bad NY Times didn’t research enough to figure out that a book and an eReader can be read in bright sunlight and LCDs can’t. It’s too bad that 2 of the ‘experts’ they used have vested interest in the success of LCDs and the failure of eReaders.

It’s up to you – If you like NY Times or LCDs then it’s a great article. If you like eReaders and give the NY Times the benefit of the doubt it’s just a poorly researched article. The third option is that it’s a very intelligent, disguised attack.

Filed under: thoughts Tagged: | due diligence, lack thereof