IPad and Kindle Reading Speeds | Hacker News Reader

IPad and Kindle Reading Speeds

useit.com

53 pointsHates_21 comments

They mention it in the text, but I would be more interested in performing these tests with longer texts so that the strengths of e-ink could really show.

I'd be interested in performing these tests without just novels (eg include textbooks that require flipping back&forth) so that the strengths of the iPad could really show.

I ordered a kindle yesterday ($250, 1/2 of the iPad price, for a refurbished DX from amazon warehouse deals was just irresistible) and even though I do not have any first hand experience yet, I think that the device has a lot of potential. I have a lot of PDF textbooks that I never get around to read because I just cannot read on a computer for longer periods of time. Therefore, I intend to use the kindle for reading through the textbook the first time I work my way through it (which will likely take a long time and therefore the e-ink comes in handy) and search through the PDF on my computer if I, at some point in the future, need to reference something. As far as I know kindle caches pages before and after the current page and accessing these pages is exactly the type of movement that one performs then reading through a textbook the first time through. Can anyone who has experience with kindle say if my assumptions wrong?

You may want to consider returning the Kindle DX if your use case is PDF reading, particularly if you have any complex graphics, and absolutely if random flipping through the document occurs.

I own a K1 and K2 - and nothing beats them, not even paper, for bright sunlight reading. I had a DX for about a week, but found that the page flipping performance in textbook class PDFs, particularly when I was looking for a random page was poor, and, the Achilles's heel - complex graphics took several seconds to render.

The iPad is a better tool for that use case, and, with dropbox + goodreader, it takes me all of 5 seconds to bounce my PDF onto my iPad for future reading (With the bonus that my iPhone now has access to the same PDFs, and, I have full access to color documents.)

I do 100% of my summer reading outside on my Kindle, though - wouldn't even attempt it on an iPad, even with the matte screen that I've added.

Actually the thing that sold me on kindle was that you can use dropbox with it as well, trough the dropbox website interface. I can imagine that it will be a sub-par experience and probably it will not take 5 seconds but oh well. And yes, the plan was to try it out and return it in the worst case.

The iPad has a dropbox app too. It allows you to open up pdfs, word docs, and other items.

That is a rocking deal. You're right, pretty irresistible. Only reason I haven't already pulled the trigger is I get the feeling a new model will be released soon.

Unfortunately, navigating from page to page on the Kindles is slow. With my Kindle 2, it's like 'click... page load... page refresh.. done', takes about 2-3 seconds. That's a long time when you are flipping through pages. I can't speak for PDF's specifically, but the real limitation is the screen, so I imagine they are about the same.

I bought my father a Kindle DX - he enjoys it, but I would not be able to stand it. Call us the spoiled computing generation - but with complex graphics-laden PDFs, the Kindle can take up to ten seconds to change page. That's ludicrous and, and it alone wipes out any advantage e-ink has over backlit.

The entirety of the Kindle software is really, really slow. I'm not convinced this is simply a matter of the e-ink display - even things that do not force a full refresh of the display incur large wait times.

I wonder how much of the speed differences are due to the time spent turning pages? The iPad generally turns pages faster than the Kindle (no matter what app you're using on the iPad), and most books present more text at once, so you have fewer page-turns to begin with.

I think the Kindle DX would also be a more fair comparison to the iPad (especially the new, twice the contrast ratio DX).

I have both, and actually use both. I would probably go with DX and Netbook if I were cost-constrained. The only time I read books on the iPad vs. the DX is when I'm in bed and don't want to turn on a room light, and even then, it's with the Kindle app. I use the iPad for plenty of non-book applications.

iPad turns pages much faster than the Kindle — I've found that flipping through pages is snappier than even the printed book (i.e., via either repeated taps or swipes). Also, Kindle is plagued (though it better than the B&N Nook I played with) with refresh delays whereas on iPad text is nearly always instantly rendered).

And advancing/rewinding to random points in a text — no comparison as Kindle not suited for that task; but on an iPad, it as easy (or superior) to a printed book.

But regular books have page turns, and they take longer than the Kindle's page turns. And the article still says the iPad and Kindle are both slower than regular books.

So it must be something else.

Studies are good but as a reader it feels like a subjective thing. At the end of the day, I read best on the device that I feel happiest and most successful in reading on. So far, that's the iPad. eInk may or may not have advantages but the usability of eInk devices like the Kindle has felt weak to me. I'll take an inferior screen on a system that feels right over any other. (I guess this explains why I'm a Rubyist too ;-))

Kinda misleading title... "Thus, the only fair conclusion is that we can't say for sure which device offers the fastest reading speed."

"However, the difference between the two devices was not statistically significant because of the data's fairly high variability. "

It would have been better to title it "Electronic and Paper Reading Speeds".

Jakob Nielsen knows that's vague and hard to understand.

Perhaps so, but the comparison between the Kindle and iPad is easily the least interesting part of the article. He didn't discover a significant difference, and that's exactly what we all expected.

Interesting information as always from useit. However, the conclusion of the test, which was that there wasn't a conclusion was chuckle inducing. Too bad they didn't throw the Kindle iPad app into the mix.

There also needs to be a time-to-burnt-retinas speed

> The iPad measured at 6.2% lower reading speed than the printed book, whereas the Kindle measured at 10.7% slower than print.

Wait a minute here... 6.2% slower is proven statistical significance, yet 4.2% slower is almost certainly random noise?

Are all article writers mathematically and statistically illiterate?

summary: the only fair conclusion is that we can't say for sure which device offers the fastest reading speed... But we can say that tablets still haven't beaten the printed book [in speed]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com