
The future of media isn’t on paper. And a device just dedicated to replicating dead trees is a waste of time. Let me show you why electronic ink’s virtues don’t matter as much as its weaknesses do.

Electronic Ink Uses No Power While the Screen Is Static: Great news for when you go on a long holiday in a place without electricity. Or if you read really slowly. I do neither very often. Of course, it’s impossible to say bad things about long battery life. But the kind of reading I do is generally around the house, and my house has power plugs. And I only need a few hours of battery life in such a device to get my daily reading quota in, so this argument doesn’t hold water for me when on a plane or at the park.

E-Ink Causes Little Eye Strain: Because e-ink is not constantly refreshing like a traditional gadget screen, it doesn’t wear your eyes out. That’s the theory, but yeah, I don’t really complain about reading on LCDs either. And I do that for 12 hours a day. In fact, when LCD monitors came out, the argument for them was that they strained the eye less than CRTs. The youngest generations are already growing up staring at devices with glowing screens—are they all going to go blind as a result? I’m not going to lie, I think that reading e-ink is soothing, but it’s not the most important thing in display tech, especially when I already know I can stare at a computer all day without issues.

The real alternative is LCD. It’s already in colour (in case you never noticed) but it has to improve its power management. The key to this is becoming more transreflective: Some screens are designed to be seen with ambient light (like e-ink) and operate with relatively low power, but when needed, they can get a boost from a nice even backlight. There are plenty of transreflective techs—including panels from Mary Lou Jepsen’s PixelQi, which started out as the screen first seen on OLPC’s XO—that’ll be available in the coming years.


Crippled as these more “advanced” readers are, they still don’t come close to approaching the functionality of a true tablet. The Apple and Microsoft tablets will be capable of decent book presentation, but will also play back TV, movies, music, web pages and hybridised print media. Movements of your finger (in fact, many fingers) will be registered in real time, and if it gets too dark, you’ll be able to bump up the brightness without the screen suddenly looking like a 1930s cinema ticket booth.


















natalie
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 9:03 AMe-book readers are for READERS not gadget nuts. While you may care about that stuff, I really DO want a simple gizmo to replace paper and ink. Call me stupid if you want. But I dont think these things were actually built with you in mind. If you only read around the house then you are not a true reader in ‘carry-a-book-everywhere’ sense. Oh and your comments on reading a screen all day-I used to work in graphic design and can sit LOOKING at a screen all day, but have you ever tried to READ off screen continuously (as in a novel not a blog) for a long period of time? It is agony on the eyes.
Laura
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 9:37 AMI agree completely. I have a bebook reader and it’s awesome. The guy writing this article clearly does not carry around big heavy books around everywhere with him. And seriously arguing that we don’t need then because “kind of reading I do is generally around the house, and my house has power plugs” is ridiculous. Go on holiday or just go to work, it’s so much better to carry a 1cm thin device.
On another note, sure, videos etc are nice but when you extensively browse the internet there comes a point where you just can’t take flashing/moving portions of the screen. That’s why I have adblock, so I don’t have to look at them any more.
There is no reason that the e-reader market cannot continue BESIDE the tablet market. And to title an article “Why I Think E-Ink Readers are Stupid” is insulting to the people that have one. Way to treat your readers, thanks.
Wilson Cheng
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 9:16 AM…the future of media is—kill me for saying this—multimedia. Moving, alive, living and interactive.
are you quite sure that the written will be dead in the near future? If not then how is e-ink a waste of time? Remember the mass public is not quite technologically aware as us.
Carl Manson
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 10:41 AMI think in of the biggest things that will hold back E-Ink periodicals like the Esquire version is the production costs. Not for the reader but for the content. Shifting from a photographer to a cinematographer on feature spreads is going to increase the cost of producing a single spread by a factor of 5 at least (probably more like 10), which means that they would need to sell five times as many issues (or the same number for five times the price).
Alternatively they could increase the cost of advertising substantially (and from my experience, advertising is expensive enough). To give you an idea, Esquire currently charge USD$103,960 for a one-off full-page full-colour ad.
fingerbeats
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 11:43 AMCarl Manson makes an excellent point regarding the costs of producing a full motion feature spread, it’s just not feasible with todays budgets. This, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WeaC5QDUpg
is a great idea in theory but is probably not financially possible for most publishers.
dirk
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 12:28 PMThe production costs for these types of periodicals will shift. Not having to put ink on paper, and ship it all over the world will provide a huge cost saving with digital delivery. However, maintaining a dead-tree edition will mean a lower print-run, and therefore less economies of scale, so the print-edition will become more expensive to produce as people shift to digital delivery. Then there’s the whole problem for publishers where advertisers will be able to measure an ad’s success much like a banner ad.
Sean
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 2:03 PMOverall the product just seems like a step backwards. For every benefit listed, it seems very likely that our technology will allow more advanced screens to mimick that in some kind of “low power mode”, for lack of a better term.
.
One can easily imagine an iPhone-like tablet that does essentially what the phone does now, but allows a low-power reading mode for when the user wants to simply read text. Considering that some of these eReaders are in excess of $600, and netbooks are ~$400 right now, why should such a limited product thrive when something equally priced can do so much more?
.
Seems like soon as Apple or someone else gets the screen tech done, or a software solution to mimick the ease on the eyes, eReaders are a dead item. Especially considering the price.