The future eReader

[Kevans]

This may be more tech, feel free to kick it over. Grin

Current eReaders are okay, but cumbersome.

What should the mature eReader have?

My list,

It needs full functionality as a phone/computer/reader.

Twenty to thirty day of battery life, with recharging independent of the electric grid.

Expandable from something the size of a pocket watch to a comfortable reading size, and light weight.

And lastly, it must be inexpensive.

The last point is key, we are competing for the average readers beer money after all.

I have half an idea on how to do each of these things, but I write SF/F after all. Grin


Regards,
Kevin

[movieman]

I was reading a news story about a flexible cellphone recently, so the days when you can fold up an e-reader and put it in your pocket may not be so far off. The battery would probably be the limiting factor.

[KevinMcLaughlin]

Yup, I was just reading about a Canadian company working on a flexible LCD screen. In the long run, they plan to make one you can roll up or fold up in your pocket, like a big plastic-like piece of paper.

The book, "Physics of the Future" (oh, gotta read that if you're an SF writer!), talks about folks who've already developed contact lenses with a small LCD grid. They're working on making the grid bigger, and in a few years hope to be able to manufacture contacts that are transparent when not in use, but have a full computer screen display. Yeah, there's some cool stuff coming down the pipe.

[missouridalton]

Why not, we have roll up keyboards. Though, admittedly, I prefer my gadgets to do the one thing they were designed to do. I want my cellphone to be a phone, not a camera/music player/doomsday device.

I may be a touch old-fashioned.

[AmericaMadeMe]

I'm not sure there is a future for eReaders, which essentially are very slow, very inflexible tablets. It won't be long before display technology combines the characteristics of e-Ink and LCD displays. Yes, you can have the battery life of e-Ink, as well as a vibrant color capacitive touchscreen. The technology is already there but it just hasn't reached mass production. Why? Because iPads are selling out and there isn't a single successful iPad competitor. Apple doesn't have any incentive to push forward with dual mode reflective/transmissive screen technology and there are no viable competitors at the moment.

[movieman]

I'm not sure there is a future for eReaders, which essentially are very slow, very inflexible tablets.

Why would I want to pay $600 for an iPad if I can read the book on a $99 e-reader instead?

[kuwisdelu]

Why would I want to pay $600 for an iPad if I can read the book on a $99 e-reader instead?

My reason? I don't want to carry both a tablet and a dedicated e-reader.

P.S., new, current-generation iPads start at $500, not $600.

[movieman]

I don't want to carry both a tablet and a dedicated e-reader.

Sure, but you actually want a tablet and ebook reading is a secondary use for it; just as I read ebooks on my $1000 laptop. That doesn't mean that someone who wants to read ebooks is going to buy a $1000 laptop or even a $500 iPad.

I have little to no interest in a tablet, so I see no reason to buy one to read ebooks. Dedicated readers are only likely to get cheaper and have longer battery life for their size precisely because they don't need much processing power or storage. Plus, as a result, you could potentially make one that folds up to fit in your pocket, which you're not going to see a tablet do any time soon.

[kuwisdelu]

Sure, but you actually want a tablet and ebook reading is a secondary use for it; just as I read ebooks on my $1000 laptop. That doesn't mean that someone who wants to read ebooks is going to buy a $1000 laptop or even a $500 iPad.

I have little to no interest in a tablet, so I see no reason to buy one to read ebooks. Dedicated readers are only likely to get cheaper and have longer battery life for their size precisely because they don't need much processing power or storage. Plus, as a result, you could potentially make one that folds up to fit in your pocket, which you're not going to see a tablet do any time soon.

Well certainly not everyone has the same needs. I was just pointing out why many people like myself would prefer one over the other, since you asked.

[JSSchley]

I think refresh rate is going to be the barrier, not color vs. black and white. This is why I don't see eInk and LCD merging or being used for the same things. eInk will never do what LCD can do, no matter how vivid it is, because it doesn't have that 75Hz refresh rate. Without the refresh rate, you don't get full capacity for animation and the kinds of things a tablet can do; with it, you get eyestrain.

That's why I use eInk, and why I'll champion it as the superior reading technology until something that works the same way comes along. If someone can find a way for something to essentially do what LCD does without causing it to refresh so much that it hurts, I'd be all for it, but right now, that's the main advantage of eInk. As someone who does a great deal of reading on both a convertible tablet laptop and an ereader, I know that no matter how "still" an image I feel I'm seeing on an LCD, my brain knows it's anything but.

[kuwisdelu]

*shrug*

Everyone's eyes are different. I can read fine on an LCD screen. And what's ironic to me is that despite that Kindle commercial about glare and sunlight, 90% of my reading is done in a dim room rather than a bright beach, so a backlit screen is an advantage to me.

[movieman]

I mostly read ebooks on an LCD screen indoors, but that's precisely because I can't read the screen if I take the laptop outside.

[JSSchley]

I didn't mean that to say some people won't prefer LCD, but just that I think because of the way LCD vs. eInk works, we're not going to see a merge that will satisfy the hardcore eInk crowd. That stable image makes a lot more difference than people realize, and you can't have that kind of image and still retain the qualities that make LCD useful for computing.

[Tirjasdyn]

Layered screens. :) That's my prediction.

[AmericaMadeMe]

Why would I want to pay $600 for an iPad if I can read the book on a $99 e-reader instead?

Because the $99 e-reader has some very slow hardware, a dull, gray-on-gray display and a sluggish or dated interface. Why buy a functionally limited, single purpose device? In contrast, a real fully functional tablet, and there is only one at the moment, the iPad, represents a multipurpose device. You can even stream HD content to your giant living room flat screen, which speaks volumes about the graphics capabilities of embedded processors. I'm not an iPad fan, but I get it. It works. It isn't a fully computer, but it's useful. In contrast, an e-reader is just another gadget. No thanks. I've got enough single purpose gadgets and I don't need another.

[AmericaMadeMe]

Layered screens. :) That's my prediction.

Why bother with layers when you have you can turn the backlight off in an LCD? Low power consumption and long battery life while you read with just reflected light - and you can still turn the backlight on to watch a video. Layers only add complications. That's why touchscreen e-ink readers are so awful. You need the a resistive touch layer because e-ink doesn't natively support a toughscreen, but the tough response is awful because it's resistive and the resistive layer makes the e-ink screen blurry. Yes, you can try to make a better resistive layer and make the screen less blurry, but e-ink touchscreens are still awful.

[AmericaMadeMe]

I think refresh rate is going to be the barrier, not color vs. black and white. This is why I don't see eInk and LCD merging or being used for the same things. eInk will never do what LCD can do, no matter how vivid it is, because it doesn't have that 75Hz refresh rate. Without the refresh rate, you don't get full capacity for animation and the kinds of things a tablet can do; with it, you get eyestrain.

That's why I use eInk, and why I'll champion it as the superior reading technology until something that works the same way comes along. If someone can find a way for something to essentially do what LCD does without causing it to refresh so much that it hurts, I'd be all for it, but right now, that's the main advantage of eInk. As someone who does a great deal of reading on both a convertible tablet laptop and an ereader, I know that no matter how "still" an image I feel I'm seeing on an LCD, my brain knows it's anything but.

Ever hear of the Entourage Edge? That was a convertible with both an e-ink screen and a LCD. It wasn't a exactly a hit and the concept looks moribund.

[movieman]

Because the $99 e-reader has some very slow hardware, a dull, gray-on-gray display and a sluggish or dated interface. Why buy a functionally limited, single purpose device?

Because I want something that's good for reading books, is light to carry, has a long battery life and doesn't cost much?

I could watch DVDs on my $1000 laptop, but the $30 DVD player does a much better job.

[kuwisdelu]

Because I want something that's good for reading books, is light to carry, has a long battery life and doesn't cost much?

I could watch DVDs on my $1000 laptop, but the $30 DVD player does a much better job.

I get your point if you only want to do one thing. Many such people exist. Me? I don't want to carry an e-reader, a portable DVD player, and a tablet everywhere when the tablet can take of the former two's uses.

Of course there are many people who go a step further and would just use their smartphone for all of those things, but I like the bigger screen. Just like some prefer eInk. Or hauling around a bunch of DVD's. :tongue