4 ms·

I've read over 80 novels on my iPad. Love it. I haven't tried a Kindle. I don't doubt that it's a better device for just book reading. But my iPad suits me

I've read over 80 novels on my iPad. Love it. I haven't tried a Kindle. I don't doubt that it's a better device for just book reading. But my iPad suits me well.

GFischer 14y ago
I've read over 150 books on my Kindle. Before that, I've tried a lot of other devices - CRTs, LCD, LED screens, Android and Symbian cell phones, I even read quite a few books on a secondhand Palm III. The Kindle is light-years better. I used to get my eyes tired from reading on CRTs and LCDs, I did manage to read a lot of books on them but that's because I was too poor to afford them (shipping to Uruguay is incredibly expensive). As other posters said, e-ink is truly better for reading, and the almost eternal battery and form factor and light weight do make for a much better reading experience. While the iPad is very nice, and has a lot of advantages, I think that if you're a book lover, you'd get a lot of mileage out of a Kindle or equivalent e-ink reader. (especially if you've read 80 books on your iPad already!)
sliverstorm 14y ago
But, how much do you read in one sitting? I tend to read half a book to a book in a sitting, which I can't imagine doing with an LCD.
bryanlarsen 14y ago
I'm willing to bet you already have a better device for reading novels. My favourite device for reading novels is my phone. It's really comfortable to hold, its small size completely eliminates eye-scanning, and the small size means that on appropriate settings it doesn't emit enough light to cause eye strain or keep me awake, yet emits enough that you can read in the dark. The other nice thing about the phone is that it's always on me, I don't have to remember to throw it in my bag. There are certainly situations where I prefer my epaper device. In sunlight, for example, or when the battery on my phone is dead or dying. The iPad is great for reading non-fiction (aka PDFs with diagrams), but it's a horrible device for reading novels.
- dpark 14y ago
  Depends on what kind of phone you're carrying. The iPhone with it's 3.5" screen is not a great size for reading books. The screen is just too small, meaning you either get tiny letters or a tiny amount of text on each page. I've read a novel on my phone, but I wouldn't do it regularly. The iPad on the other hand works well, for me at least. The screen gives me about as much space as a hardback book, and I set the font size to match. With white-on-black, it's quite easy on the eyes. Sucks in the sun, though.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    I completely disagree. I used to read novels on my Palm Pilot with its 3" screen. Its lower resolution also meant that I had to use a bigger font. Your eyes don't scan more than about 3-5 words simultaneously, so a screen width any wider than that is suboptimal. The only problem with small screens is that you have to page more often. You can work around that by using autoscroll or using an app that lets you page easily (for instance, by using the volume buttons). If you're stuck using swipe to page, that would get annoying very quickly...
    - dpark 14y ago
      I didn't say it's impossible. I said it's not a great size. You could read a novel one word at a time on a digital wristwatch, too, but it'd be a pretty subpar experience. > Your eyes don't scan more than about 3-5 words simultaneously, so a screen width any wider than that is suboptimal. The fact that your eyes can't consume 20 words at once does not mean that a line length of 5 is optimal. Your brain gets context from the surrounding words. If 5 words in a line is optimal for giving context to the center word, it's decidedly suboptimal for the other words in the line, which necessarily have less surrounding context. Your eyes also don't really read more than one line at a time. Does that make it optimal to limit the display to one line? Also, autoscroll sucks. It's not natural to read at a fixed pace. As your level of wakefulness, concentration, interest, etc. changes, so does your reading pace. Beyond that, some lines simply take more or less time to read than others.

I've read over 80 novels on my iPad. Love it. I haven't tried a Kindle. I don't doubt that it's a better device for just book reading. But my iPad suits me well.

GFischer 14y ago

I've read over 150 books on my Kindle. Before that, I've tried a lot of other devices - CRTs, LCD, LED screens, Android and Symbian cell phones, I even read quite a few books on a secondhand Palm III. The Kindle is light-years better. I used to get my eyes tired from reading on CRTs and LCDs, I did manage to read a lot of books on them but that's because I was too poor to afford them (shipping to Uruguay is incredibly expensive). As other posters said, e-ink is truly better for reading, and the almost eternal battery and form factor and light weight do make for a much better reading experience. While the iPad is very nice, and has a lot of advantages, I think that if you're a book lover, you'd get a lot of mileage out of a Kindle or equivalent e-ink reader. (especially if you've read 80 books on your iPad already!)

sliverstorm 14y ago

But, how much do you read in one sitting? I tend to read half a book to a book in a sitting, which I can't imagine doing with an LCD.

bryanlarsen 14y ago

I'm willing to bet you already have a better device for reading novels. My favourite device for reading novels is my phone. It's really comfortable to hold, its small size completely eliminates eye-scanning, and the small size means that on appropriate settings it doesn't emit enough light to cause eye strain or keep me awake, yet emits enough that you can read in the dark. The other nice thing about the phone is that it's always on me, I don't have to remember to throw it in my bag. There are certainly situations where I prefer my epaper device. In sunlight, for example, or when the battery on my phone is dead or dying. The iPad is great for reading non-fiction (aka PDFs with diagrams), but it's a horrible device for reading novels.

dpark 14y ago
Depends on what kind of phone you're carrying. The iPhone with it's 3.5" screen is not a great size for reading books. The screen is just too small, meaning you either get tiny letters or a tiny amount of text on each page. I've read a novel on my phone, but I wouldn't do it regularly. The iPad on the other hand works well, for me at least. The screen gives me about as much space as a hardback book, and I set the font size to match. With white-on-black, it's quite easy on the eyes. Sucks in the sun, though.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  I completely disagree. I used to read novels on my Palm Pilot with its 3" screen. Its lower resolution also meant that I had to use a bigger font. Your eyes don't scan more than about 3-5 words simultaneously, so a screen width any wider than that is suboptimal. The only problem with small screens is that you have to page more often. You can work around that by using autoscroll or using an app that lets you page easily (for instance, by using the volume buttons). If you're stuck using swipe to page, that would get annoying very quickly...
  - dpark 14y ago
    I didn't say it's impossible. I said it's not a great size. You could read a novel one word at a time on a digital wristwatch, too, but it'd be a pretty subpar experience. > Your eyes don't scan more than about 3-5 words simultaneously, so a screen width any wider than that is suboptimal. The fact that your eyes can't consume 20 words at once does not mean that a line length of 5 is optimal. Your brain gets context from the surrounding words. If 5 words in a line is optimal for giving context to the center word, it's decidedly suboptimal for the other words in the line, which necessarily have less surrounding context. Your eyes also don't really read more than one line at a time. Does that make it optimal to limit the display to one line? Also, autoscroll sucks. It's not natural to read at a fixed pace. As your level of wakefulness, concentration, interest, etc. changes, so does your reading pace. Beyond that, some lines simply take more or less time to read than others.