From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:E-book reader)
Jump to: navigation, search

Getting organized[edit]

This is a relatively new article. Right now it appears to be list. What is a good way to organize and fill out this article? (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


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 (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 - [1]
  • 2011 - 27.1 million units - [2] or 15 million units [3]
  • 2010 - 13 million units - [4] [5] or 6.6 million units - [6]
  • 2009 - 3.6 million units - [7]
  • 2008 - 700,000 units - [8]


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 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The iPad has its own built-in e-reader app called iBooks.

Arthurvasey (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have an e-reader app on my PC. Doesn't make my PC an e-reader, does it. is perfectly right. Including the iPad makes no sense. -- (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Tablet versus e-book reader distinction[edit]

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[edit] 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 [citation needed] 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.
Those are just my thoughts. I may of course be completely be wrong about it. I have added this page to my watchlist. If it does get deleted again perhaps you should post a message on that user's talk page letting them know your thoughts. Jodon | Talk 11:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to E-reader. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

E-book readerE-ReaderWP:COMMONNAME. The term "E-Reader" is a lot more common and recognizable than the purist "E-book reader". A Google search for the latter has 15 million results, while the former has 211 million results, more than ten times as many. Just like how "Linux" is used for the OS instead of "GNU/Linux", it is appropriate to use "E-Reader" for this article. Antithesisx (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Google books hits for "E-Reader": 49,700[9], hits for "E-book reader": 13,300[10]. A factor of 4 difference is sufficient for me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the consensus is to move it should be to E-reader per standard English capitalisation. Jenks24 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request - Expand to / 'reference' (see also) (non-commercial) software and available publications.[edit]

I came to this article expecting (hoping) to work from it out to e-reading software (never having used an ebook, so not understanding anything about the ecosystem), in this case in an expectation (hope) of reading ebooks on my Linux (Kubuntu) laptop.

Nicely, as hoped, there is the see also link to comparison of e-book readers. Sadly, however, that article starts with 'Commercially available devices sold by maker or designer' and does not move or refer beyond commercial availability.

Could this article (or at least the see also) please be expended (with links/references) for the newcomer to guide them towards (a) non-commercial e-reading (software) [let them survey what this ebook thing is all about], and (b) where to get ebooks (survey what's out there)? Assuming a reader comes to this article from a perspective of 'what is this beastie', such references or links would be very useful towards helping them with that.

Although one can breadcrumb out to things like e-book formats, the new reader gets buried in minutiae that they are not yet able to grok - frustrating the reader and having them simply move on, rather than getting their question answered. This becomes chicken and egg - first they must experience finding and viewing an ebook with equipment they already have, before they can appreciate the difference in formats and why the ecosystem is not as simple as people might wish.

Although such an appropriate article might be 'Getting started with e-books', I'm not suggesting that this article should be that, but I am requesting that a link to such an article be included in this one, presumably in the 'see also' area.

Thanks for listening.

BS (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)