Kindle Paperwhite, The Second Coming (It's A Winner)

kindle-paperwhite2

Exactly one year ago, I received Amazon’s first illuminated Kindle. And the Paperwhite display did not live up to the breathless marketing hype (and product imagery). I tried to give it a chance, but ultimately the smudgy, cross hatching towards the bottom of the display was more of a distraction than the lighting was a benefit… and the Kindle was returned. So when v2 was announced about a month ago, I wondered aloud if the lighting had been improved – with The Verge Editor-in-Chief assuring me it was. And now that mine has arrived, after only about 3-4 hours of reading, I concur: the $119 Kindle Paperwhite (v2) is a keeper. Screen illumination is significantly more even, no longer a distraction, and touch recognition/responsiveness is similarly improved.

As to my prior Kindle(s), I ended up selling the discontinued 3G Kindle Keyboard to a friend on a tight budget, who hoped his daughter might increase her reading, and had picked up the current base Kindle – which features sharp text in a compact form. My mom is in need of a new Kindle, with updated software and higher resolution display. And I’ve spent enough time with the new Paperwhite to determine that the touchscreen-powered UI isn’t for her. So the plan is to pass along that base Kindle, augmented with a (overpriced) lighted cover. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to operate caseless… other than a small Ziploc bag for transport.

25 thoughts on “Kindle Paperwhite, The Second Coming (It's A Winner)”

  1. I’ve never really gotten the Paperwhite appeal. Assuming one does some sizable portion of one’s reading before bed, haven’t we all read the multiple, rather conclusive studies on backlighted devices interfering with sleep?

    All I want from Amazon on the reader front is to make a dead-simple E Ink Pearl Kindle in a larger form factor, while finding a way to reduce the absurd weight of the (non-Fire) Kindle DX.

  2. I’ve got some OCD for you to go with your ADD.

    I ordered the old Paperwhite around a month ago, and noticed a large bright white spot that only showed when the backlight was on. I sent it in for a replacement, and got a second one with two white spots. I sent THAT one in, and ended up with one with a couple of tiny white spots.

    After doing some research, I learned that it is tiny plastic shavings between the layers… They glow bright when hit by the direct light passing between them.

    Since that was my third “defective” screen, Amazon sent me a refund and I ordered the new Paperwhite. Guess what? Two tiny white specs that glow when the backlight is on. They’re smaller than the previous three, so I’ve just decided to live with it.

  3. Chucky, I do a large percent of reading in bed with dim or no light while my wife watches TV that doesn’t interest me (The Voice, Dancing with the Stars, etc). I’d actually prefer NO touch screen and side buttons for page forward/back. But at least this touchscreen is better than the last… even if I’m still accidentally paging forward when I grab the screen.

  4. “Chucky, I do a large percent of reading in bed with dim or no light”

    Have you considered this as your solution? Won’t interfere with your sleep patterns…

  5. The difference between the old Paperwhite and the new one is very noticeable when comparing them side by side. The crosshatching is gone. It didn’t actually interfere with my reading, as the lighting was still better than any other lighting method I had used. The other thing I noticed was how “blue” the old Paperwhite looks. The new one looks quite a bit warmer.

    Chucky, the Paperwhite is not a backlit technology like and Ipad or Kindle Fire tablets. It is a side/front lighting that reflects off of the surface, so it is much closer to reading a book with a lamp shining on it. I see no effects of eye strain while using it for an hour, while 15 minutes with our iPad is too much for me…

  6. “Been there, done that”

    But you didn’t have the Bill Murray endorsed model. Makes all the difference.

    —–

    “Chucky, the Paperwhite is not a backlit technology like and Ipad or Kindle Fire tablets. It is a side/front lighting that reflects off of the surface, so it is much closer to reading a book with a lamp shining on it. I see no effects of eye strain while using it for an hour, while 15 minutes with our iPad is too much for me…”

    Not backlit. Hmmm…

    My concern here is not eye-strain, (though I’d never switch to an iPad or Fire for that reason), than it is with the well-documented disturbance of REM sleep via backlit devices. So, I guess I’d be more open-minded to the Paperwhite if it truly doesn’t have the sleep-detrimental effects of backlit devices. I’d love to see someone do a study of the Paperwhite’s scheme to see if it eliminates the sleep-detrimental issue.

    OTOH, like Dave, I like the physical page turn buttons, and I also very much like the lower weight of the E Ink Pearl model. (Plus, my significant other and I have a well-working bedroom light policy.) So, I’m probably not in the market for a Paperwhite, even if someone shows it doesn’t cause sleep-disturbance.

  7. I got the paperwhite a few months ago solely for bed reading as I like reading before I go to sleep. My wife hated the reflective light from my iphone when I would read on it. So I got the paperwhite since Amazon claims that it doesn’t give off as much light to the room. Unfortunately, my wife still says that the paperwhite annoys/bothers her when she tries to sleep even on a really low setting (I have the light on 2). Does the new paperwhite do a better job giving off less light to the rest of a dark room?

  8. I liked my old paperwhite quite a lot, and didn’t notice uneven lighting or crosshatch patterns. That said, I switched to a nexus7(2013) for reading when it was released.

    The nexus7 is the same size, fitting in my pocket. It’s a bit heavier, but not so you’d notice. Battery life is lower than the kindle (the “month-long” assumes 30 minutes of reading per day) and standby is much lower, so I do need to charge it every day, I can’t just forget about it for weeks. And of course it’s not great outdoors, but I don’t read outdoors.

    Those are the cons; the pros are that I have a full-powered tablet in my pocket all the time. It does a lot more than just reading. The UI is far superior, too– the eink kindles are fine for actually reading, but organizing books, etc, is horrible.

  9. You bring up some interesting points – tablet vs dedicated e-reader. I also own a Kindle Fire HD. The hardware and experience are both inferior to new Nexus 7, but I also find it (and my wife’s former iPad Mini) a tad too bulky for reading and more of a problem is the distraction by other apps/services. ADD strikes again? Generally speaking I’m down on tablets and prefer my phone or computer (for non-ereading duties). Perhaps I’m the minority.

    (Most of our getaways include beach or pool, so I do read a certain amount outdoors – the Kindle screen is better for that. Also if it gets lost or stolen, it’d be less of a hit on my wallet and productivity.)

  10. You really want a high-DPI display for reading. The 1280×800 on the kindle fire HD doesn’t cut it. Also the new kindle HDX or the nexus7 are much more svelte. The bezels on the HD are just enormous!

    When I’m reading on my android tablet, the reading app (I use moon reader pro) suppresses all notifications, the android soft buttons, and the status bar. All I see is a book, same as an eink kindle. I don’t find the urge to swap out and check twitter or whatever to be a problem, but obviously YMMV.

  11. How does the paperwhite look when reading in the daylight compared to the traditional kindle? Just wondering how the always-on backlight affects the eyes.

  12. It’s not a backlight, it’s a frontlight. In bright daylight you basically can’t tell the light exists. In normal shade outside or indoors, it greatly increases the contrast of the screen so it looks like black on white rather than black on grey.

  13. “Just wondering how the always-on backlight affects the eyes.”

    Rumor has it that this is the result

    —–

    “You really want a high-DPI display for reading.”

    More seriously:

    While this is true, compare the microscope viewings of even high-DPI bitmapped displays versus the non-Fire Kindles…

  14. Actually the e-ink kindles are only 600×800 resolution, but e-ink doesn’t compare directly to LCDs; each “pixel” is either on or off, and there are no subpixels.

  15. “Actually the e-ink kindles are only 600×800 resolution, but e-ink doesn’t compare directly to LCDs; each “pixel” is either on or off, and there are no subpixels.”

    “Doesn’t directly compare” is the understatement of the day. There have been tons of microscope comparisons of high-DPI LCD’s to the non-Fire Kindles, and the non-Fire Kindles win the race by an order of magnitude.

    Here’s one simple microscope comparison, but you can google around to find even more detailed comparisons. In short, in terms of pure readability, you really want e-ink.

  16. Indeed, but I have both, and I do not feel the eink resolution is noticeably superior to a high-DPI screen like the 2013 nexus7.

    Visibility outdoors is an entirely different matter, and reflective screens like eink are easier on the eyes than emissive ones. But the resolution, no, that’s not a problem.

  17. “I have both, and I do not feel the eink resolution is noticeably superior to a high-DPI screen like the 2013 nexus7.”

    What is subjectively “good enough” for you is, of course, up to you.

    But most folks tend to find less eye-strain over time with e-ink than with a high-DPI LCD. And while even that is subjective, (if group-subjective, rather than individually subjective), the microscope is objective.

    In short, carry on happily, but know that e-ink really does objectively provide a better reading resolution, whether it matters to your personal experience or not.

  18. Any word yet on when Amazon Matchbook launches? This might be what it takes to finally push me to get a Kindle. I know it was in October but no date given. I am curious to see how many books show up I previously purchased.

  19. “Any word yet on when Amazon Matchbook launches? This might be what it takes to finally push me to get a Kindle. I know it was in October but no date given. I am curious to see how many books show up I previously purchased.”

    Yeah. As someone who’s been buying books from Amazon since the ’90’s, I’m also very curious to see how wide uptake is.

    Last I read, one of the four (or is it five?) big publishers had definitely signed on. But that’s old info, and more may or may not have signed on since.

    No date is being offered so far other than “October”.

  20. “I am curious to see how many books show up I previously purchased.”

    Worth noting that when Amazon rolled out their similar program for CD purchases a year or so ago, I had around 50 show up as free MP3 downloads. I have no idea how many CD’s I’d purchased from them over the years, but I’d guess the “match” was somewhere around 15% of what I’d bought, with a wide margin of error from my memory of all those years ago.

    However, the book and CD “matches” are different in some significant ways. Music has almost no pricing capacity, while books still do. But, OTOH, the music “match” was completely free for the consumer, while the book “match” is pegged to be either free, or a token $1 to $3 payment.

    So, in short, it’s impossible to extrapolate from the music “match” to the book “match” in terms of how comprehensive it’ll be. But still, it’s an interesting data point.

  21. I have the paperwhite version 1, I consider this device to be a better reading experience than books. Not just because it holds ALL my books or because it is lighter than a paper back. But because it is easier to read onion any light, gives me no eye strain, page turning is quicker so I can more easily keep my attention focused on the material.

    I too wished for mechanical page turn buttons when I first got it, after a bit I adjusted to touching the screen, except for those times when I want to hold it in my left hand.

Comments are closed.