Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
04:49 PM
Useless information/rant follows if you're bored (all I have is free time at the moment):
My mom has one that is ready to snap photos just a few seconds after it's turned on, but requires nearly 15 seconds to take another. I borrowed that one because my wife's camera takes 10-15 seconds to power up, and also takes too long in between photos (I have gone through different modes and settings). Then, my camcorder takes decent photos as quickly as you can take them, but there is no flash and it's something I don't want to always carry with me.
I never realized how slow they were until I tried taking spur-of-the-moment pictures of my baby ("I formed babby").
I hate this need for splash screen startups, or automatic picture review after one is taken (I also don't like how people, especially my wife, feel they need to review every single photo immediately after. You were just there!), and know I don't need a 30 megapixel camera with three displays and YouTube, Facebook, or other built-in fad support.
04:57 PM
I also don't know anything about cameras so I don't know if they specifically rate that or have categories for a digital camera that works as fast as one from 15 years ago that took pics as fast as you could wind the film.
Any information about it would be greatly appreciated!
05:07 PM
[www.dpreview.com]
They often give list how long all those things take for a given camera. The forums are really helpful, too.
03:43 PM
04:48 PM
04:55 PM
02:57 PM
Not to mention that the dates are spaced evenly even though one is a 14 month gap while the other is a 23 month gap, making the lines even more misleading.
E.g. if the 600 price was dropped straight to 400 in a single price change, that means the PS3 would have actually been profitable for a period of time pass that intersection; same with the drop from 400 to 300. They should not be treated as simple lines.
02:52 PM
02:28 PM
Plus, it's also important to point out that if a person has replace a console because a previous one broke (or RRoD before the 3-year warranty), they've lost money. Sales on consoles may look better, but more consoles don't immediately mean more games.
Lastly, since the PS3 is the most popular and cost-efficient Blu-ray player out there, it gets quite a few sales. And with Sony being the primary pioneer of the format, it gets licensing fees from that too. And more likely than not, Microsoft is going to stick Blu-ray in it's next gen system, as I don't see any way around it (in 2012, Blu-ray will just be another "format", instead of Sony co-owned property, but Microsoft will still have to pay).
So build price of unit - sales price != simple profit or loss. Business isn't checkers, it's chess!
01:55 PM
01:05 AM
12/10/09
One of my favorite things to do is setting into bed or the bath with a nice Novel, something I don't often have the time to do.
Reading from a book has always felt more personal and relaxing. No batteries needed.
12/10/09
And take Sony out of the equation, please - they (and their DRM schemes) are the Mr. Burns of the tech world at the moment.
Your argument about cost of books is not really valid, either. I can buy plenty of books from the price of "free" to $14.99. Most of the books I buy are in the $0 to $4.99 range. And how often do you "buy" your mp3s? The same sort of arrangement is available for books, too, if you know where to look.
People will buy ereaders in increasing quantities for the following reasons:
1) Decreasing cost
2) Increasing presence in "real life" - people will be more apt to buy one if they've actually seen one
3) Mp3s and streaming Netflix have begun to train us to be more interested in the content itself rather than the package it arrives in. Books are no different.
Finally, here's a graphical representation of someone who might hate ereaders:
[www.marriedtothesea.com]
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
There are 10,080 minutes in a week.
The most aggressive "sleep vs wake" time schedule that I've ever run into is the "Uberman" polyphasic sleep schedule where you nap for 30 minutes every 3.5 hours. So if you used this sleep schedule, you lose 1,260 of those minutes to sleep leaving 8,820 minutes left.
If you listened to average length songs (average length of the 6 gigs of music on my iPod is just about 5 minutes per song), that means that you have time to listen to 1,764 songs a week, if you listen non-stop with the most abusive sleep schedule possible while remaining healthy and sane.
Conversely, when I was younger and not seduced by the power of video games, dvd's and sleep. I would work my way through a book of Tolkien, McCaffery, or Heinlein length in a day. In fact, I would regularly cycle through my whole collection in half a year.
Hyperbole has it's place in discussions, but this isn't one of them.
Realistically, eReaders will come into their own once we have
A.) A standardized format or a well enough established company doing the 'publishing' that people feel like paying money for the eBook version isn't making a gamble that the book or the company will disappear in five years.
B.) We have eReaders which can actually display the books as well as paper (i.e. color, glare, and etc.)
12/10/09
12/10/09
You vastly over state the amount of music a typical person would listen to in a week. In reality, if you are an average audiophile with normal listening habits, you probably listen to about 20-40 albums worth of music in a week.
Similarly, you under state the average bibliophile's reading habits. If you are a neaderthal and don't read books, the yes for fucks sake, an eReader isn't for you.
On the other hand, if you are the sort of person who reads a book a day, and it isn't that hard or uncommon to, the value statement in having a single tablet sized gadget with a large portion of your collection available vs having to pick one or two 'favored' books out of your collection to carry around is the same one that launched the iPod and other MP3 players.
You attempt to make the argument that where this is valuable with your 'iPod', it's somehow worthless with a 'Kindle'. And you pull numbers out of your ass to support it. It isn't pretentious to call you on it, in fact I'm simply pointing out your own pretentious behavior in respect to this.
12/10/09
8+ hours a day I used to listen to my iPod, 7 days a week. That's 56 hours a week, 3,360 minutes. Average song length is ~3 minutes. That's about 1000 songs a week.
It's still far easier to carry 1-2 books with you in a day than it is to carry ten CDs, CD player, and batteries. Put iPod in pocket, go. Through book in bag, go. Same ease of use.
12/10/09
I bet you are so much fun at parties.
12/10/09
12/10/09
At the rate I read, it costs me more to buy actual books than it does for me to acquire digital copies.
If you don't read a lot, the Kindle is not for you, and yeah, you ARE better off buying books, because it would be a waste of money for you to buy an ereader.
The dude who buys only vinyl from the local record store has no need for an iPod, either, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. No math or insults are required.
The basic point of my post was that it's kinda silly to say that you hate ereaders WHEN YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO USE FOR THEM.
As content becomes increasingly digitized and more widely available outside the traditional format, people will put it on devices that are tailored for their favorite kind of content.
The Kindle works for me because it puts a solid chunk of change back in my wallet every month, it gets the iPod out of my pocket because the Kindle can play music, and I can check my Gmail, my feeds, etc.
I love books because of the stories they tell, not because of the paper. I have an emotional attachment to the WORDS, not the wood fiber.
12/10/09
12/10/09
"Paperbacks" are often from between $2 and $5 cheaper.
No shipping costs, either.
12/10/09
The devices don't matter as much as the media. There's still a lot of evolution left to occur for the media, particularly DRM and sharing ability. I for one would like to see the next step be that paper books are sold with a digital copy for your device, just like Disney Blu-Rays. They should let us have both for one price. Then we can enjoy the convenience of e-books and still have a traditional paper copy too.
12/10/09
I share the same angry reluctrance to give up books that you do. They work perfectly, and they're still the best reading experience, bar none. You can have my books when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
That said, I love my, um, Kindle. Cough.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
Uh-huh - I guess that the NY Subway and the PATH don't count? I see at least a couple on each almost every day. NYers tend to have higher disposable income, so it isn't a representative national sample, true.
NYers also tend to have small apartments, with limited room to store dead tree books.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
I like to buy the latest potboiler in physical form, but I like to catch up on the classics (Jules Verne, etc) on my ebook because I can get them for free from Project Gutenberg.
Who wants to lug a hardback around when you can have the collected works of Arthur Conan Doyle in your messenger bag?
12/10/09
12/10/09
Shameful. And you're damned right this is ad hominem.
12/10/09
And true, I'm much more inclined to write 10-second replies to people who are actually courteous and civil rather than to someone who calls me a "troll." That's no way to get my attention.
12/10/09
And you don't need to reply to everyone. Pretty much every complaint was the same. One would have sufficed. I was just curious what you think. Would it have taken you that long to answer my question, or was your article just not well thought-out enough?
Sorry, but you're just skipping around anyone who disagrees with you, apparently.
Also, we all have jobs, some of us have jobs and school.
12/10/09
In short, I'm the person e-book reader makers are targeting.
Do I have one now? No. Because I'm waiting for the tech to improve and provide better resolution and refresh rates. I would most definitely buy one in a year's time. I'd still buy the odd physical book that I really, really love, but most of my purchases would be electronic. I can guarantee you that.
I'm sorry Kat, if you think reading e-books on a phone or a tablet is perfectly fine, you clearly haven't flipped enough e-pages. Go on, give that damned Sony reader or a kindle a go. Read Mario Puzo's Godfather halfway on it. Now read the rest on an LCD equipped device. Then and only then would you appreciate the marvel that is e-ink.
...and I'm not even talking about battery life here.
Lastly, I'm staying away from the Betamax/ miniDisc argument in this thread. I answered those questions elsewhere on this site the other day and I don't want to derail this thread with that can of worms.
12/10/09
12/10/09
Have hundreds on books on my iPhone between the Kindle app and Stanza. Have read LOTR and Weber's entire Harringtion series on it. In short, I read constantly.
The iPhone's screen is bright and sharp and quick and high-contrast. The Kindle's is dull, fuzzy, slow, and (at 75% gray text on a 20% gray background) the very definition of low contrast.
In fact, the contrast is so bad that I had to bump up the font size to a point where the iPhone showed more words-per-page than did the Kindle. Not to mention that "hey-let's-flip-the-whole-page-black-just-to-turn-a-page" flicker.
The only marvel behind eInk is that people put up with it.
12/10/09
If you read my post again, it says I'm going to wait till the tech improves. But as of now, e-ink s still way easier on the eyes under a variety of lighting conditions than any cellphone display out there. Not to mention how e-readers last for close to a week on one charge while the phone crashes and burns by the end of the day with some spirited reading.
03:33 AM
Except low light. I read in a lot of restaurants and so on where the backlit screen is the only thing allowing me to do so. And low-light is where the two Kindles I had (and returned) bit the dust big time.
12/10/09