|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Start-class)|
I was curious as to just how long these have existed (having heard vague pre-kindle mutterings from NDA-bound friends and such, but never knowing how long other models had been available back then, either). Glad to see there is a general page; unfortunate that the depth of its historical information is merely comparing sales in 2010 and 2011. But I understand that the page is rather new! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Unsigned, you are absolutely correct. There used to me a real history section that included my ancient Rocket e-book which is now relegated to a small paragraph on its own page. Someone stripped this article about electronic books from the 1990's entirely. I hope someone has the ability and wherewithal to put all of that info and more (I assume there must be more) back into the article. Mylittlezach (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it true that there are no radiation from an E-book reader (like e.g. Amazon Kindle)? The article states that "E-book readers typically have some form of internet connection". How is the quality of this connection? Does it show pictures and so on? I would assume that in this case it would be a good choice when reading long articles on Wikipedia, which otherwise might give one a heradache because of the radiation. --Oddeivind (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- 2012 - expected: 37 million units - 
- 2011 - 27.1 million units -  or 15 million units 
- 2010 - 13 million units -   or 6.6 million units - 
- 2009 - 3.6 million units - 
- 2008 - 700,000 units - 
Why is the iPad listed as an ebook reader? Unlike the other devices listed, it is not meant primarily as an ereader, aside from not using electronic paper for its display. If the iPad is listed, so should every other tablet, smartphone and PC system which is capable of displaying ebooks in some form or another, so it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The iPad has its own built-in e-reader app called iBooks.
- I have an e-reader app on my PC. Doesn't make my PC an e-reader, does it. 188.8.131.52 is perfectly right. Including the iPad makes no sense. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Tablet versus e-book reader distinction
Hi. I just removed the Kindle Fire on the same basis that another editor removed the iPad earlier. I wanted to see if others agree on consistently excluding devices described as "tablet computers". Personally, I think tablets should be included in this article; Kindle Fires and iPads are e-book readers and then some. Until then... thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. What about Nook Color and Nook Tablet ? I think that a tablet computer may be also an ereader. Some tablets are sell as ereader. And a LCD ereader (tablet computer) is better to read color periodicals like magazines or comics. ChtiKorrigan (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
alarmingly precipitous decline
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57558710-94/rip-e-book-readers-rise-of-tablets-drives-e-reader-drop/ IHS iSuppli said that after "spectacular" growth during the past few years, the e-book reader market is now on an "alarmingly precipitous decline," all thanks to the growing popularity of tablets.
- I added that in and another editor deleted. Can a third party please check to see if this is noteworthy or not? Hcobb (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Hcobb - Thanks for drawing attention to this, I didn't realise e-readers were already declining. I agree that the content is of interest, especially to people using e-readers such as myself. However the edit that was deleted seems more like a follow on to your other edits about the decline of e-readers, therefore the other user who deleted it may have felt a separate section was unnecessary. Try instead to add it to your other edits and see if it gets deleted again. In addition perhaps it could use some re-prhasing so that it doesn't sound so much like original research, i.e. instead of saying "Tablets are moving to take over the e-reader market...", maybe you could say "As of March 2013, there are growing indications from numerous sources  that tablets are moving ....". Also the user who deleted it may be correct in thinking it needs additional verifiable claims indicating a definitive collapse, and because this information is too new it is very likely that an insufficient amount of time has elapsed for it to be considered historically significant from Wikipedia's perspective.