• Gizmodo
  • bestmodo
  • lifehacker
  • kotaku
  • Profile logout login

#sony#lab2

Gizmodo

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #dealzmodo,
  • #rumors,
  • #broken,
  • #iphoneapps,
  • #apple,
  • etc.

New York, 7:54 PM
Fri Dec 11
66 posts in the last 24 hours

FR | IT | DE | SP | JP | AU | BR

Gizmodo Team

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

Heroes and Friends

Comment Account Questions:

SUBSCRIBE TO Gizmodo RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
9515 Subscribers
Gizmodo
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of madog madog
    04:49 PM

    In reply to The Best Point and Shoot Cameras for Every Purpose
    Anyone have any recommendations for a low end (cheapish) digital camera that takes quick pictures?

    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.
     Reply
    madog was starred madog was unstarred
    Image of madog madog
    04:57 PM

    @madog: They may not literally take 10-15 seconds, but when you're trying to take pictures of a babys smile or something, 7 seconds can feel like an eternity; and the moment may be gone by then.

    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!
     Reply
    Edited by madog at 12/11/09 5:01 PM madog was starred madog was unstarred
    Image of FigNinja FigNinja
    05:07 PM

    @madog: This site has really good reviews:

    [www.dpreview.com]

    They often give list how long all those things take for a given camera. The forums are really helpful, too.
     Reply
    FigNinja was starred FigNinja was unstarred
    Image of TonyWonder TonyWonder
    03:43 PM

    In reply to The Best Point and Shoot Cameras for Every Purpose
    These descriptions sound like something Rod Roddy would say while running down the items on the Showcase Showdown..."all this and more could be yours on the Price Is Right!"
     Reply
    TonyWonder was starred TonyWonder was unstarred
    Image of John_001 John_001
    04:48 PM

    @TonyWonder: That man's voice is cemented in my childhood memories. Much like Robert Stack... Both passed away. R.I.P.
     Reply
    TonyWonder promoted this comment John_001 was starred John_001 was unstarred
    Image of TonyWonder TonyWonder
    04:55 PM

    @John_001: same... remember his insane outfits? and how red in the face he use to get? Lets hope he's doing tons of blow off strippers asses in heaven... thats what he deserves
     Reply
    TonyWonder was starred TonyWonder was unstarred
    Image of kagekiri kagekiri
    02:57 PM

    In reply to The PlayStation 3 Inches Back Towards Not Losing Sony Money
    I would have though the price could be easily charted in steps: each price existed for a certain period of time, not some constant linear drop every month. This graph really doesn't make use of its x-axis, and thus ends up not being very informative or accurate to the real-world.

    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.
     Reply
    kagekiri was starred kagekiri was unstarred
    Image of ceilingFANBOY ceilingFANBOY
    02:52 PM

    In reply to The PlayStation 3 Inches Back Towards Not Losing Sony Money
    $30? They make that back in what, 2 or 3 games sold and one extra controller?
     Reply
    ceilingFANBOY was starred ceilingFANBOY was unstarred
    Image of dagamer34 dagamer34
    02:28 PM

    In reply to The PlayStation 3 Inches Back Towards Not Losing Sony Money
    We're forgetting the benefit that comes from being a console manufacturer: console dev kits and licensing fees. It's the sole reason why they are willing to take a loss on the console. A person will buy a console only once, but get many games.

    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!
     Reply
    dagamer34 was starred dagamer34 was unstarred
    Image of TonyWonder TonyWonder
    01:55 PM

    In reply to The PlayStation 3 Inches Back Towards Not Losing Sony Money
    Perhaps someone who follows consoles closely can tell me but I was wonder when/if another price cut will come? Will it stay at 299 until the PS4 comes out? Or can we expect a 199 price on it? What have other PS's done in the past?
     Reply
    TonyWonder was starred TonyWonder was unstarred
    Image of Charbax2 Charbax2
    01:05 AM

    In reply to Why I Hate Ereaders, And Doubt They'll Ever Hit the Mainstream
    Pixel Qi will make them popular. Pixel Qi has started mass production last week. All e-books will be totally free when "rented" legally through electronic libraries or simply pirated if the legal unlimited use doesn't come at very affordable $5-$10 or less per month for unlimited access to all books, newspapers, blogs and everything.
     Reply
    Charbax2 was starred Charbax2 was unstarred
    Image of Shamoononon:  I shave my legs. Shamoononon: I shave my legs.
    12/10/09

    In reply to Why I Hate Ereaders, And Doubt They'll Ever Hit the Mainstream
    Yeah, I could never really get into those. I spend most of my days staring at computer monitors, googling information and reading online. It has become more of a task than pleasure worthy.

    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.
     Reply
    Edited by Shamoononon: I shave my legs. at 12/10/09 3:55 PM Shamoononon: I shave my legs. was starred Shamoononon: I shave my legs. was unstarred
    Image of Hobolicious Hobolicious
    12/10/09

    In reply to Why I Hate Ereaders, And Doubt They'll Ever Hit the Mainstream
    Replace "ereader" with "iPod", and you've got pretty much the same amount of skeptical vitriol that was flung at that device by people who didn't really see what it brought to the table.

    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]
     Reply
    Hobolicious was starred Hobolicious was unstarred
    Image of NightInfinity NightInfinity
    12/10/09

    @Hobolicious: Do you really read hundreds or thousands of "books" at a time? I can listen to thousands of songs over the course of a week, especially with it on shuffle. But, I wouldn't read even tens of books over the course of a month.
     Reply
    Hobolicious promoted this comment NightInfinity was starred NightInfinity was unstarred
    Image of gbmbg gbmbg
    12/10/09

    @NightInfinity: But others would. I, for example, read at least five books a month, and I usually jump between books.
     Reply
    Hobolicious promoted this comment gbmbg was starred gbmbg was unstarred
    Image of Merricat Merricat
    12/10/09

    @NightInfinity: A week is 7 days long. A day is 24 hours long. An hour is 60 minutes long.

    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.)
     Reply
    Hobolicious promoted this comment Merricat was starred Merricat was unstarred
    Image of NightInfinity NightInfinity
    12/10/09

    @Merricat: How very pretentious of you. I tend to listen to music on shuffle, so make that hundreds of albums. Sorry for possibly exaggerating.
     Reply
    Hobolicious promoted this comment NightInfinity was starred NightInfinity was unstarred
    Image of Merricat Merricat
    12/10/09

    @NightInfinity: Your typical album is 40 minutes long which using the same stats converts to about 200 albums a week. And thus proves my point. If you actually had a clue about what you were talking about, you wouldn't exaggerate your numbers as much as you do.

    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.
     Reply
    Hobolicious promoted this comment Merricat was starred Merricat was unstarred
    Image of NightInfinity NightInfinity
    12/10/09

    @Merricat: Jesus Christ, you're annoying. Fine, call me a liar, then exaggerate(possibly) your numbers. Insinuate that I'm a neanderthal for not reading as much as you. Does that make you uncultured for not listening to as much or as varied music as I? No, that would be stupid.

    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.
     Reply
    Hobolicious promoted this comment NightInfinity was starred NightInfinity was unstarred
    Image of 900pilot 900pilot
    12/10/09

    @Merricat: So let me get this straight: "Hyperbole has it's [sic] place in discussions, but this isn't one of them." People who do not read books, however, are "neanderthals".

    I bet you are so much fun at parties.
     Reply
    Hobolicious promoted this comment 900pilot was starred 900pilot was unstarred
    Image of Merricat Merricat
    12/10/09

    @900pilot: If you are a neaderthal, you don't read books. I don't see anywhere where I state if you don't read books you are a neaderthal. However, if it was implied as such, it wasn't a general statement as much as one directed to the specific individual I was replying to, who stated "I can listen to thousands of songs over the course of a week, especially with it on shuffle. But, I wouldn't read even tens of books over the course of a month." and somehow thought that they were the target market of an electronic device dedicated to allowing someone to carry their entire library of books around in their back pocket and had already tossed some additude my way. If I become disagreable, it is generally in response to disagreable behavior.
     Reply
    Hobolicious promoted this comment Merricat was starred Merricat was unstarred
    Image of Hobolicious Hobolicious
    12/10/09

    @NightInfinity: To answer your question, no, I don't read hundreds or thousands of books at a time, but I don't need to in order to know that the Kindle is a good deal for me.

    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.
     Reply
    Hobolicious was starred Hobolicious was unstarred
    Image of NightInfinity NightInfinity
    12/10/09

    @Hobolicious: Not an attack, but how does it cost more for a physical book than it does an ebook?
     Reply
    NightInfinity was starred NightInfinity was unstarred
    Image of Hobolicious Hobolicious
    12/10/09

    @NightInfinity: New hardcovers cost more than digital versions of the same book, often by between $5-$15.

    "Paperbacks" are often from between $2 and $5 cheaper.

    No shipping costs, either.
     Reply
    Hobolicious was starred Hobolicious was unstarred
    Image of redman042 redman042
    12/10/09

    In reply to Why I Hate Ereaders, And Doubt They'll Ever Hit the Mainstream
    I'm not a fan of e-readers but I have a different take on things. Amazon's e-reader venture is unlikely to create a long-term market for these clunky, expensive devices, but it did enable them to sign on huge numbers of publishers to go digital and create a massive library of e-books, which I and others can happily read on their iPhones, Blackberries and other devices they already have. Just like the iPod allowed Apple to launch the iTunes store and create a massive library of music and movie content.

    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.
     Reply
    redman042 was starred redman042 was unstarred
    Image of Segador Segador
    12/10/09

    In reply to Why I Hate Ereaders, And Doubt They'll Ever Hit the Mainstream
    Kat,

    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.
     Reply
    Segador was starred Segador was unstarred
    Image of Lester-M4ko Lester-M4ko
    12/10/09

    @Segador: I disagree. Books don't work perfectly. The binding keeps most books from opening flat. Books are thick and heavy. Books use TREEs, FFS. I would rather move my Nook than a box of books! Books won't read to you.
     Reply
    Segador promoted this comment Lester-M4ko was starred Lester-M4ko was unstarred
    Image of Segador Segador
    12/10/09

    @Lester-M4ko: To each his own, but I'd wait until you actually get a Nook before making a judgement call.
     Reply
    Segador was starred Segador was unstarred
    Image of Lester-M4ko Lester-M4ko
    12/10/09

    @Segador: True. I didn't pre-order nor am I rushing down to purchase, especially hearing the OS is flawed and slow. I want to hold one and play with it first. Read exactly what the options are after release. I am interested in a Nook for use by me and my family. But, my techno-dollar is waiting on the TabletMac, as I wrote previously.
     Reply
    Lester-M4ko was starred Lester-M4ko was unstarred
    Image of Canoehead Canoehead
    12/10/09

    In reply to Why I Hate Ereaders, And Doubt They'll Ever Hit the Mainstream
    "There's a reason why you don't see people using them on public transport."

    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.
     Reply
    Canoehead was starred Canoehead was unstarred
    Image of phonepap phonepap
    12/10/09

    @Canoehead: Books are small
     Reply
    Canoehead promoted this comment phonepap was starred phonepap was unstarred
    Image of Canoehead Canoehead
    12/10/09

    @phonepap: They add up. I remember that every time I move.
     Reply
    Canoehead was starred Canoehead was unstarred
    Image of weatherman weatherman
    12/10/09

    In reply to Why I Hate Ereaders, And Doubt They'll Ever Hit the Mainstream
    Flamebait. I'm not falling for it.
     Reply
    weatherman was starred weatherman was unstarred
    Image of Kat Hannaford Kat Hannaford
    12/10/09

    @weatherman: Want to come to my house and see how many books I have? And how few ereaders I have?
     Reply
    Kat Hannaford was starred Kat Hannaford was unstarred
    Image of Animal_Chin Animal_Chin
    12/10/09

    @Kat Hannaford: That's a terrible argument - I have well over a thousand books and I also have around 250 ebooks on my Sony Reader. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    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?
     Reply
    Kat Hannaford promoted this comment Animal_Chin was starred Animal_Chin was unstarred
    Image of Kat Hannaford Kat Hannaford
    12/10/09

    @Animal_Chin: But you're not going to read all of his books in one day, are you? So what's the point?
     Reply
    Kat Hannaford was starred Kat Hannaford was unstarred
    Image of InsanePenguin InsanePenguin
    12/10/09

    @Kat Hannaford: Well, I suppose we can't expect everyone to be down for a good discussion. Nah, it's much easier to, in a sea of opposing comments, only reply to three. Three that aren't really all that frightening to you, I guess.

    Shameful. And you're damned right this is ad hominem.
     Reply
    Kat Hannaford promoted this comment InsanePenguin was starred InsanePenguin was unstarred
    Image of Kat Hannaford Kat Hannaford
    12/10/09

    @InsanePenguin: Excuse me, I don't have time to reply to everyone, some of us actually have to work. We can't all be sitting around writing comments on Gizmodo each day.

    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.
     Reply
    Kat Hannaford was starred Kat Hannaford was unstarred
    Image of InsanePenguin InsanePenguin
    12/10/09

    @Kat Hannaford: Plenty of responses were courteous and short.

    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.
     Reply
    InsanePenguin was starred InsanePenguin was unstarred
    Image of Sandeep Murali Sandeep Murali
    12/10/09

    In reply to Why I Hate Ereaders, And Doubt They'll Ever Hit the Mainstream
    I have bought enough paperbacks and hardcovers to have a small library of my own. Every month, something or the other gets published that I want, but I don't buy because I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE PHYSICAL SPACE. I don't want to borrow them from a library because I like to own my copies so that I can read them again whenever I please. I don't like to sell my old books to make room for new ones for the same reason.

    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.
     Reply
    Sandeep Murali was starred Sandeep Murali was unstarred
    Image of travisco_nabisco travisco_nabisco
    12/10/09

    @Sandeep Murali: My sister and brother-in-law have so many books that they have a new rule. If you being a new book home, an old book has to leave. I love books but don't have near that many yet, nor the space for them, though I would love to have a whole room for a library.
     Reply
    Sandeep Murali promoted this comment travisco_nabisco was starred travisco_nabisco was unstarred
    Image of ghmlco ghmlco
    12/10/09

    @Sandeep Murali: "Now read the rest on an LCD equipped device."

    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.
     Reply
    Sandeep Murali promoted this comment ghmlco was starred ghmlco was unstarred
    Image of Sandeep Murali Sandeep Murali
    12/10/09

    @ghmlco: Interesting. Two of my iPhone toting colleagues refuse to read books on that anymore. One has gone ahead and bought a Sony Reader (Which is very nice to read on, actually. I like the contrast ratio and the pages flip pretty fast) and the other is going to get a Nook. I myself have a phone with the same display size as the iPhone with same contrast levels, colors and pixel depth. Read one 400+page book on it, would never repeat that mistake again.

    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.
     Reply
    Sandeep Murali was starred Sandeep Murali was unstarred
    Image of ghmlco ghmlco
    03:33 AM

    @Sandeep Murali: "... under a variety of lighting conditions..."

    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.
     Reply
    ghmlco was starred ghmlco was unstarred
    Image of IN THE FACE! IN THE FACE!
    12/10/09

    In reply to Why I Hate Ereaders, And Doubt They'll Ever Hit the Mainstream
    cuz Mac doesn't make one?
     Reply
    IN THE FACE! was starred IN THE FACE! was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gizmodo account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.