The new $80 Kindle e-reader is flopping with Amazon reviewers, earning just 2.7 out of 5 stars, compared to the ratings of 4 and above for other E Ink Kindles.
A shocking 30 percent of the customer ratings give the basic E Ink model a measly one star, and a mere 20 percent are bestowing five stars.
One of the biggest gripes, after the Kindle’s release July 7, is that the screen background is just too bloody dark.
That, in turn, reduces the contrast, which, with E Ink, is still less than optimal even under the best circumstances.
While just 30 reviews are up as of this writing, the results are so lopsided that they are still worthy of notice, especially when the complaints jibe with my contrast-related hassles with the $80 Kindle so far.
For years I have been calling for optional all-text boldface, a way to increase the perceived contrast for people who need it, but from firstname.lastname@example.org on down, the company has been deaf despite the obvious benefits. Now Amazon may get payback for its pig-headedness, if the rotten reviews of the latest E Inker are any indication of future sales. Contrast does count. The question arises of whether Amazon could get away without the bold option if it didn’t dominate U.S. ereader sales. Rival Kobo ereaders offer it.
On top of other problems, Amazon’s promo for the $80 Kindle is at least accidentally misleading some customers and perhaps violating the spirit if not the letter of Federal Trade Commission guidelines in regard to truth in advertising.
The FTC, which I’ll be querying via email, says: “A claim can be misleading if relevant information is left out or if the claim implies something that’s not true.” Amazon asserts: “No eye strain, reads like real paper.” Now compare this to the readability complaints of actual customer-reviewers. I’m saddened. As a booster of inexpensive readers to help close the digital divide, I was rooting for Amazon to get the $80 E Ink Kindle right. All-text bold wouldn’t solve the entire problem. But it would help.
Why the new model is a flop: The photo-vs.-reality factor and more
The unhappiness with the $80 Kindle has arisen partly because many customers take it for granted that Amazon ereaders come with front lighting, a feature of the other models. Wrong! But in context, it’s easy to understand why these ebook lovers would make that assumption.
Alas, the problem goes beyond this. Even when people know that front lighting is AWOL, Amazon’s promotional photographs may mislead them into into thinking that the screen still will be readable enough. Photos of ereader screens, including the Rothman-taken one below comparing my newly purchased $80 Kindle with my Kindle Keyboard from 2010, tend to exaggerate contrast. Not just to comply with the spirit of FTC guidelines but also to avoid the ill will of disappointed customer, ads for E Ink Kindles should very conspicuously warn about this exaggeration even if it is not intentional (my hunch is that it isn’t).
One partial explanation of the Kindle’s problems might be quality control issues. I have a second $80 Kindle on its way to me to see if a replacement will be easier to read from.
For now, I’m underwhelmed. Significantly, even if the photograph exaggerates the contrast of the newer Kindle, you’ll notice that my ancient Kindle Keyboard actually is more readable in the picture. In fairness to Amazon, I myself recommended the new Kindle for most customers in my “First Look” review—while thinking that the device would be fine for people without the contrast-sensitivity issues I experience. But whether for QC reasons or because people expect front lighting, contrast-related problems seem to be far more common than even I would have expected.
Not everyone is grumpy about the new model, and a customer self-identified as B said: “Light and easy to read,” an opinion shared by certain others. But far more typical are complaints.
So now back to the possible quality control issue. “There were dark lines across the screen, particularly when showing special offers, that looked like ruled paper and were distracting,” wrote Neurodoc. “I was concerned that if there were already problems with the screen out of the box for 1 day, it could get even worse over time.” Neruodoc himself thinks that the dark screens themselves are not a QC issue—that the screens are no worse than on older models—but the above photo suggests that he is wrong. The main argument I’m making here is that as long as we’re talking QC, its absence could be a reason for the dark screens. Amazon tech support as of last night could or would not tell me whether QC was a factor. If it isn’t, then shame on Amazon for knowingly releasing a new Kindle less readable than even a 2010 model without front lighting.
Major letdown for customers: ‘Screen is way too dark’
Whatever the explanation, the new Kindle is a major letdown for many. “Received it yesterday,” wrote PB, “but it’s already on its way back. I loved how small a light weight the device is but that’s about it. The resolution is terrible and the screen is way too dark. I went through the setups with my bed side lamp on but it was very hard to read.”
“I just sent this kindle back because it has no light,” said Harley 1380 in a review headlined “Buyer Beware.”
“For me the screen is to dark to read,” Harley complained. “I read a lot at night in bed and i need a flashlight to read this kindle in a dark room.”
M. King fired back at Harley for not understanding what he was buying: “If you want the option for a built in light, go with the Paperwhite. My guess is that you opted for this because of its lower cost (although I may be wrong on that), but understand that a lower cost generally means less frills…including a built in light. That’s why it’s important to read what you’re buying, especially with electronics. Giving a one star review because you didn’t read the information isn’t really justified in my opinion. Sure, you can remind buyers about the lack of a built-in light. But of course the correct way of informing them has already been done by Amazon.”
“M. King you are right,” Harley conceded. “It was my fault. I did not look at the comparison chart. I have 2 Kindles and both came with built-in lights.”
Then, almost surely speaking for many customers and hence raising issues about whether the Amazon ads might be misleading and of possible concern to the FTC when we consider the product in context, Harley wrote: “I just took it for granted that all Kindles came with built-in lights. When I bought it, it was for the low price and I did not think I needed to compare it at the time. Maybe if they put that it does not have the built-in lights at the top of the page were the features are then i would not of bought it. As far as the unfairly one star, how about 2 stars or how many stars would be fair to you? You tell me. For me Its still to dark to read, I guess if I just read under a shade tree then it would be a good buy, but forget it in a dark room. And im a buyer and i try to always be bewared, but not this time. So again buyer beware or how about buyer be carefully or whats the correct way of letting buyers know about the product before they buy it, because like me they might not check out the comparison chart…”
Ideally Amazon can FTC-proof its ads by (1) more conspicuously calling attention to the lack of front lighting and (2) warning that photographs may exaggerate screen contrast and thus readability. I’m reproducing an Amazon shot below of the $80 Kindle. Studying it, you’d never guess that customers would encounter contrast and readability issues with the screen. What’s more, accidentally or not, the screen looks a lot better than in the above photo I took in a room with typical lighting. Sure, Amazon can respond: “Use the right reading lamp.” But then, its caveat needs be be up front in ads, in the tradition of the “your mileage may vary” language that car makers may use. Top of the page, ideally—just like “no front lighting provided.”
TTS interface another disappointment
Another issue is that the text to speech is less than optimal for sighted people. “Unfortunately the text to speech is a disappointment,” said Lannie, “as it can’t be used separately from voice navigation overall, plus I can’t get it to pair with blue tooth in the car.” Laudably, in designing the text to speech, Amazon put the needs of the blind first. But along the way, it forgot about commuters, exercisers and sighted people with dyslexia and other challenges—and a need for TTS. I remain baffled how this generally customer-friendly company can be so callous in regard to such issues as TTS and the need for an all-text bolding option and more typographical choices in general. That is what Amazon should do to offer a truly accessible device.
Meanwhile let me pass on four TTS-related tip for Kindle owners:
- Your Echo can play TTS from many and perhaps most books you’ve loaded on your Kindle.
- Also, to repeat an earlier tip, some people, at least, may find the new Kindle and other E Ink devices to be more readable under fluorescent lights. I have.
- You can use Calibre to add boldface to nonDRMed books. Of course, a U.S. law against circumvention of DRM will prevent this in the case of “protected” books. Furthermore, this is a hassle for many, especially nontechies on the wrong side of the digital divide. But it’s at least some relief for certain customers.
- If you’re cash-strapped and really in need of a basic Kindle with no social media distractions and with a longer battery life than Amazon’s $50 LCD tablets, you might actually be better buying a $30 used Kindle Keyboard—yes, the model you see in the photo. The apparently superior display isn’t the only advantage. The oldie will come with built-in TTS, even a loudspeaker. Unlike owners of the latest and supposedly greatest basic Kindle, you won’t need a Bluetooth headset or speaker. Back to the future, anyone?
Despite the above workarounds, the related contrast and readability issues are not going away. Come on, Jeff. As a long-time Kindle fan despite the devices’ oft-vexing shortcomings, I’m confident you can do much better. Just look at your own product-review page. 2.7 out of five stars as of this writing? Substandard.
Note: I actually expect the rating of the $80 Kindle to improve, maybe greatly, since people with complaints are often the first ones most likely to write in with reviews. Still, I think enough one-star verdicts exist for me to make my point.
Correction: What would eventually be named the Kindle Keyboard actually came out in 2010, not 2007, and I’ve tweaked the post accordingly. That said, half a dozen years is still eons by tech standards.
I wonder how much of Amazon’s TTS non-performance is due to a desire to avoid the enmity of rights holders who want to get paid for both text and audible versions of a work. As well, Amazon could also be protecting their own audio book business (Amazon Audible).
Actually, your picture reminded me of a typical optical illusion and does show one thing – Amazon should never have offered the Kindle in white. The white border exaggerates and makes the background look a lot grayer. If you hold up a dark object to obscure the borders between the two readers, the contrast difference becomes a lot less pronounced.
Frode: Thanks, but, no, it isn’t the white border. I’m sorry I can’t beam you here to see the difference in person. If nothing else, keep in mind that photos can exaggerate contrast. So the new model gets a bit of a free ride. If nothing else, read the linked reviews on the Amazon site to understand how I’m far from the only one with the contrast issue. David
@Frank: Rights holders can use Kindle DRM to block TTS on individual titles. At least by logic – so often not the way the book industry thinks – that shouldn’t be a factor. Regarding the Audible subsidiary and TTS, I’ve mentioned this in my just-sent query to the FTC. Among other things, the FTC says it is empowered to promote consumer choice. The effect of the Amazon-Audible connection could be the opposite, at least in a TTS context.
Addendum: If nothing else, I think you’ll agree that it’s unlikely that the new model’s screen contrast would be as good as the contrast in the Amazon promo photo I’ve reproduced. Misleading! Needless to say, this problem isn’t limited to the $80 model. Amazon needs to clean up its act and warn that the photos are not accurate depictions of the extent of readability.
My hunch is that this isn’t a quality-control issue. Amazon is either losing or not making much on these devices, so they’re cutting corners on this one to put it into the green. What you get is what Amazon intends for you to get, a second-rate screen. In a world of good, better and best, this is the “good.” Having conditioned the public to subsidized prices, the $80 for this one now seems too much for what they get.
Amazon did pull a sneaky on the lack of backlighting, toting it as offering the advantage of no sleep-depriving blue light. That’s a bit like selling a car that lacks air conditioning as offering the chance to enjoy the breeze coming in your windows. I can’t see that being false advertising though.
As much as I’d like to see a stable market for epaper devices stretching out into the future, the cost/benefit for them just isn’t there. Most people would be much happier doubling that $80 and applying it toward a low-end Android tablet or a refurb iPad like these:
With epaper Kindles you get little more than a Kindle ebook reader. With a tablet, you get that and the best of hundreds of thousands of apps doing almost anything imaginable, including other ebook reader apps. Yes, the battery life of a tablet is shorter. But most people have daily access to recharging and those who don’t can get a USB battery charger pack quite cheaply.
The tragedy of epaper readers is that the market for them is dominated by Amazon, which has shown no interest in innovating that market. I’ve gripped many times that the WiFi chip could also handle a Bluetooth keyboard and a page-turning BT mouse. No such luck. And the fact that you can use a BT keyboard with almost any tablet is another plus in their favor.
I agree with David. I like my Kindle 3/Keyboard. If you want the TTS features of this new model, you’re better off buying the older model for about $30, either from Amazon or through eBay. You’ll get a better screen and listening through ordinary earphones is less hassle and expense that dealing with a BT headset.
Why would they need to double the $80 for a low-end Android tablet? Android tablets can be had for half the price of the new Kindle. Amazon’s own 7″ Fire tablet is $50 by default, and frequently on sale for less.
First, this is a misleading article based upon a small number of 30 and you can’t tell *anything* from a sample size of 30.
Second, a quick read of the reviews finds very few who had this complaint. Of the 11 since your published story, not one mentioned the dark screen. One complained that the horizontal size wasn’t 6″ (?), one complained they cannot play games on it, and one complained about its lack of text to speech (?, since it *does* have that). All the others were quite positive. The takeaway is that reviewer comments are often nonsensical.
Third, of those with the complaint about the “dark screen” it seems they are simply complaining about the lack of a light because it will display exactly the same — given the low res screen — as any other e-ink reader with the light turned off. How is that a misrepresentation? Turn on a light in the room and the screen will be visible.
Personally, I wouldn’t buy this but this is a perfectly valid device for some. Misleading articles like this don’t do anything constructive.
The first thing I noticed, looking at the side by side comparison picture, was not the background of the new Kindle, but the extra wide left margin of the text. It gives more gray space the then the older Kindle and could throw off judgements. Granted, this could be due to using different texts of the same novel – or a problem with the default format style? – but nonetheless it’s a faulty comparison. It would be to have the same text with all the same user options.
@BDR: 43 reviews now, not 30, and only 3.1 of five stars. The most recent review awards just one star next to this headline: “Are you kidding me? No night reading capability.” And of course my post make clear that I was not exactly talking about thousands of reviews.
Just as importantly, both my wife and and I have beheld the screen ourselves, unlike you, I’d suspect; and we are not ecstatic. Side by side with an ancient Kindle Keyboard from 2010, the new model loses.
Oh, well, at least I knew that the $80 Kindle didn’t come with front lighting. What about all the trusting Amazon customers who took it for granted that the new Kindle would be frontlit? Amazon’s promo failed to alert them sufficiently that the front lighting was AWOL. If the promo had been more up front and consumer-friendly, then there wouldn’t have been so many complaints like the one in the most recent review from today.
Beyond that, as I’ve noted, the page promoting the $80 Kindle is misleading, if you go by the quality of the screen as shown next to the specs. The screen looks much better than it does typically in real life. I have no doubt that certain Amazon customers are lowering the rating of the $80 Kindle because of this discrepancy. This isn’t about just front lighting vs. no front lighting. It’s also about how good the screen is. I find the advertising to be deceptive without a big disclaimer next to the pretty image of the screen, in the YMMV tradition of automakers.
Meanwhile, to return to the percentage of negative reviews, I myself suspect they will go down as more people get the truth from word of mouth and otherwise as opposed to relying on the misleading product hype on the Amazon site.
Hey, Amazon and its products have many positives. But this particular Kindle disappoints.
@Greg: Reading use on an iPad or the equivalent? Here’s some homework for you to help interpret what my photograph is saying. Place a finger over the bezels of the two adjoining devices in the photo, get close, and focus on the screens next to your finger. The Kindle Keyboard’s screen, on the right, will still come across as having a lighter background and more readable text. Furthermore, in person, the difference is actually more noticeable. As for the font, as best I can tell, it’s the same. Even if that’s not the case, however, the ultimate result is that the Kindle Keyboard is more readable with the font set at the identical or near-identical size.