«

Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle
Screener

I am curious to know if any other people here share my concerns about
the need for a new word in English, and other languages, too, for
READING ONLINE, to differentiate this activity from reading on paper,
which is a very different animal.

See two blogs I am on here: one in China, the other in USA:

http://zippy1300.blogspot.com

http://www.36pr.com/2009/02/27/6-on-...-on-screening/

AND in other languages, how does one different reading text on paper
surface to reading text on a screen online? Do tell.

Email me offline for any followups too.

danbloom AT gmail DOT com

I do NOT share your concern. To me the term reading does not limit the
medium. I read writing on billboards, movie screens, CRTs, or whatever.

I never could see why keyboarding was not typing

danbloom wrote:
> Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle
> Screener
>
> I am curious to know if any other people here share my concerns about
> the need for a new word in English, and other languages, too, for
> READING ONLINE, to differentiate this activity from reading on paper,
> which is a very different animal.
>
> See two blogs I am on here: one in China, the other in USA:
>
> http://zippy1300.blogspot.com
>
> http://www.36pr.com/2009/02/27/6-on-...-on-screening/
>
> AND in other languages, how does one different reading text on paper
> surface to reading text on a screen online? Do tell.
>
> Email me offline for any followups too.
>
> danbloom AT gmail DOT com

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:23:05 -0800 (PST), danbloom wrote:
>
> I am curious to know if any other people here share my concerns about
> the need for a new word in English, and other languages, too, for
> READING ONLINE,

sigh... Another frickin' google groper.

I am curious *why you think this is On Topic in rec.photo.digital* !!

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:25:07 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I do virtually all my reading from the computer screen. While the
> Kindle is a step in the right direction, technologically, marketing-wise
> it is unsupportable. The initial cost is outrageously high. If it is
> possible to build, and sell, a laptop computer with HD and color screen,
> and DVD drive, and Wi-Fi, and all the other features normally found in
> them, including a keyboard, for $350, why is it that the Kindle sells
> for the same price?

When CD drives finally arrived (after what seemed like a decade of
hype) they cost more than most people could afford. A few years
later prices dropped from their stratospheric level and for only
several hundred dollars, I owned my first CD drive. I don't recall
if it was 1x or 2x. Another couple of years later I bought a very
nice external 3x NEC CD drive, also for several hundred dollars. As
more and more people bought the things, they became commodities and
prices plunged. Your memory must be declining rapidly if you don't
recall that early adopters almost always pay outrageously high
prices. The Kindle's price is on the low side of outrageous, but if
it catches on, it (and Sony's Reader) will eventually sell for well
under $100.


> If the people selling the Kindle would use the Gillette marketing
> principle, and sell the Kindle for $89, and make their money selling
> access to newly released novels, then they would make more money,
> and printed books would be on their way into history.

You aren't familiar with Kindle sales. The demand greatly exceeds
Amazon's ability to produce and sell them. Since they were
introduced most of those that bought them had to get on a waiting
list and wait several weeks to a month or two to get one. That's
the main reason why I haven't bought a Kindle. When I was tempted
last November, the chances of one arriving before Christmas seemed
pretty low. Many people (on Amazon's own Kindle "forum") told of
being quoted a 4 to 6 week wait, and a month after ordering one,
were told the wait would be at least another 4 to 6 weeks.


> As it is now, I don't have the least interest in one.

Amazon probably hasn't the least interest in selling you one. For
now. <g>

It's not only about reading novels. If you subscribe to many
newspapers and magazines, it takes only a couple of seconds to
download the latest copies each morning using the built-in (free)
wireless hardware. The just introduced new version (Kindle 2?) can
also save you the effort of reading, but its electronic voice sounds
pretty awful according to Jeff Bezos. That will also improve with
time if the Kindle survives. For now, I have little interest in
this feature, but many others with extremely poor vision probably
think differently.

Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>I do virtually all my reading from the computer screen. While the
>Kindle is a step in the right direction, technologically, marketing-wise
>it is unsupportable. The initial cost is outrageously high.

$360 is "outrageously high"?

How much did you pay for your camera?

> If it is
>possible to build, and sell, a laptop computer with HD and color screen,
>and DVD drive, and Wi-Fi, and all the other features normally found in
>them, including a keyboard, for $350, why is it that the Kindle sells
>for the same price?

It's NOT a computer. It's a book reader. The technonology is very different.
For example: How many days does a laptop battery last?

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>> I do virtually all my reading from the computer screen. While the
>> Kindle is a step in the right direction, technologically,
>> marketing-wise it is unsupportable. The initial cost is
>> outrageously high.
>
> $360 is "outrageously high"?
>
> How much did you pay for your camera?

What difference does that make? That's like saying that the price of a
frying pan is not "outrageously high" because it doesn't cost more than
one's airplane. A Kindle is not a camera. It is a poor replacement for a
paperback book.

>> If it is
>> possible to build, and sell, a laptop computer with HD and color
>> screen, and DVD drive, and Wi-Fi, and all the other features
>> normally found in them, including a keyboard, for $350, why is it
>> that the Kindle sells for the same price?
>
> It's NOT a computer. It's a book reader. The technonology is very
> different. For example: How many days does a laptop battery last?

Well, actually it _is_ a computer. It's a crippled computer that doesn't do
anything but download and display books but it's a computer. As for the the
technology being "very different", no, it's not. It's digital electronics.
The battery life comes from using some kind of specialized display and
limiting both the available storage and the performance.

Amazon's problem with it is that (a) they don't seem to be able to get
production ramped up and (b) it's really something best suited to a
razor/blades marketing model.

J. Clarke <> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <> wrote:

>>> I do virtually all my reading from the computer screen. While the
>>> Kindle is a step in the right direction, technologically,
>>> marketing-wise it is unsupportable. The initial cost is
>>> outrageously high.
>>
>> $360 is "outrageously high"?
>>
>> How much did you pay for your camera?
>
>What difference does that make? That's like saying that the price of a
>frying pan is not "outrageously high" because it doesn't cost more than
>one's airplane. A Kindle is not a camera. It is a poor replacement for a
>paperback book.

Is it a "poor replacement" for a thousand paperback books,
several newspapers, and a bookstore?

>>> If it is
>>> possible to build, and sell, a laptop computer with HD and color
>>> screen, and DVD drive, and Wi-Fi, and all the other features
>>> normally found in them, including a keyboard, for $350, why is it
>>> that the Kindle sells for the same price?
>>
>> It's NOT a computer. It's a book reader. The technonology is very
>> different. For example: How many days does a laptop battery last?
>
>Well, actually it _is_ a computer.

Don't play word games with me. I don't have the patience.

> It's a crippled computer that doesn't do
>anything but download and display books but it's a computer.

Just like a microwave oven is a crippled computer than doesn't do
anything by heat food and act as a timer.

> As for the the
>technology being "very different", no, it's not.

How many days does your laptop battery last?

--
Ray Fischer

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:44:18 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> What difference does that make? That's like saying that the price of a
> frying pan is not "outrageously high" because it doesn't cost more than
> one's airplane. A Kindle is not a camera. It is a poor replacement for a
> paperback book.

It's not for everyone, but as a publisher mentioned several months
ago (during an interview on CSPAN's Book-TV) most people in the
industry now use Kindles and Sony Readers, which among other things
means that many of them no longer have to trudge from home to the
office and back with one or several dozen books. I don't recall the
exact percentage mentioned, but it was either 95% or 98%. This does
seem like an exaggeration, but that's what she said, and probably is
true at least in spirit.

As far as being a poor replacement for *any* kind of book is
concerned, I recall being frustrated years before the advent of
personal computers by not being able to easily find some phrases or
passages in books that I was reading. Being able to search is one
reasons why I almost exclusively go to my computer to read PDF
camera manuals instead of the paper variety (which often aren't
included). I've got all of my camera, flash, lens and other PDF
manuals on my Sony Reader, and it's about as portable as a single
thin, large format paperback.


>> It's NOT a computer. It's a book reader. The technonology is very
>> different. For example: How many days does a laptop battery last?
>
> Well, actually it _is_ a computer. It's a crippled computer that doesn't do
> anything but download and display books but it's a computer. As for the the
> technology being "very different", no, it's not. It's digital electronics.
> The battery life comes from using some kind of specialized display and
> limiting both the available storage and the performance.

That's almost totally wrong. Would you describe electronic
watches, coffee makers, toasters and other appliances, autos,
portable radios and TVs as being "crippled" computers? The built-in
memory can hold dozens of large novels, and by using expansion cards
(Sony's reader allows Memory Sticks and SDHC cards to be used
simultaneously) you can go much higher, up to thousands of books per
card. Of course there's a limit there, but it's more than most
people will read in a lifetime. The Kindle also uses cellular phone
technology, but unlike with the phones, there's no monthly or yearly
data subscription plan to buy. It's free, other than the cost of
the books, newspapers or magazines that you pay for. And you don't
have to even pay for any books if you'll be satisfied with DOC
files, unencrypted PDF files, text files and any of hundreds of
thousands of free/public domain ebooks.

The battery life is huge (at least for the Sony Readers) because
the battery usage is almost non-existent for anything but turning
pages. Battery life isn't measured in hours, days, weeks or months.
It's measure in "page turns", and the batteries are good for about
7,000 pages changes per charge. Whether you take 5 seconds or 5
minutes to read a page, the batteries won't really notice, unlike
most laptops and PDAs. To save battery power the reader CPU is
intentionally throttled, so turning a page can take a second or so.
That's certainly acceptable to me if the alternative would be faster
page turns but with only 1/2 the number of turned pages per charge.

The readers can also act as mp3 players (at increased battery
usage) and photo viewers, albeit with poor image quality and no
color, for now at least.

Rich wrote:
> danbloom <> wrote in
> news:b89512dc-a146-4439-a133-:
>
>> Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle
>> Screener
>>
>> I am curious to know if any other people here share my concerns about
>> the need for a new word in English, and other languages, too, for
>> READING ONLINE, to differentiate this activity from reading on paper,
>> which is a very different animal.
>>
>> See two blogs I am on here: one in China, the other in USA:
>>
>> http://zippy1300.blogspot.com
>>
>> http://www.36pr.com/2009/02/27/6-on-...ed-reporter-da
>> n-bloom-on-screening/
>>
>> AND in other languages, how does one different reading text on paper
>> surface to reading text on a screen online? Do tell.
>>
>> Email me offline for any followups too.
>>
>> danbloom AT gmail DOT com
>
> Kindle = overpriced piece of s---. Just another toy for Americans to buy
> to get deeper into credit debt.

Another well thought out response from one often proffering such little
gems of bias.
I did some searching on the subject a while back but for me it would be
a luxury. I did conclude that if you are loading from the computer, the
Sony is the better choice. Be aware though that there is an outfit
developing a plastic display unit which would be less fragile than
current offerings.
As for overpriced toy, for college kids sporting a backbreaking load of
books, it could be rather an attractive toy if someone makes material
available.
Dave Cohen

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> Maybe schools should become interested in it as a way to buy
> textbooks, and reduce the outrageous load our children cart around in
> the backpacks these days....

Feel lucky the school-children can read. Many here cannot, despite
schooling, and probably even more cannot do simple maths. As for
operating a camera correctly....

David