Talk:Amazon Kindle/Archive 2

Images of kindle book text and copyright
The current main image image for the Kindle has the text blurred because it is a copyrighted work. Maybe we can replace the image with text from a public domain work such as Shakespeare or a John Donne poem.

The image I added to the page with the sample of large text is the opening lines to the novel Paul Clifford which was published in 1830 --T1980 (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Should The Kindle 2 Have Its Own Article?
Just thining that a new article should be made for the Kindle 2 instead of having the topic within the broader article, just to eliminate some confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Top2percent (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the two devices are so similar and closely related that it's more helpful to keep them together in one article.JimC1946 (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Table of version comparisons
I was thinking of a table such as below, to help compare the different versions. Any comments? I don't have the Kindle 1 specs handy, so the text is just placeholders. I think something like this would be useful.

Comparison between versions

Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are more than a few specs to compare on it maybe more appropriate to use the different models as columns rather than rows so as to prevent a very wide table. Also long and thin will allow for more detail in each cell.

E.g.

-- Web H amster  21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks fine. I think there are probably about five specs that are more useful to compare in this manner, so the table won't be too big. I'll let this stew a few days, just in case anyone else wants to comment. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The size of Kindle screen
On the right side there is a picture that only gives information on the size of Kindle screen in local American measuring units. It would be good to have some information in international measuring units (mm!).Crex1 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add them as a parenthetical stat, keeping in mind Mos. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Checked Mos and as far as I see it so long as Kindle is only sold in The States it should indeed be imperial units. This would of course change if Kindle is ever sold outside the US - then SI would take preference. --Krischik T 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing structure of this article
This article as it currently stands is an odd mixture of device specification, platform description and so on - the info box is a prime example of this - do we plan to list every device in it? Maybe we need a platform article - that covers the platform and it's history and a device article that covers the hardware? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no reason why a custom infobox couldn't be created, one that fits the generic specs of the devices, since they're fairly similar. I'd break the "Kindle", "Kindle 2", etc, into 3rd level headings under "Revisions" or something. And TBH, I'd not sectionize the new DX. Other than a larger screen, it is basically a "special edition" of the Kindle 2, and isn't meant to replace the Kindle 2, like the K2 did to the original. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Source code release
Are you sure Amazon released all the source code, or only that of the gpl applications involved? Amazon stated "Amazon is pleased to make available to you for download an archive file of the machine readable source code ("Source Code") corresponding to modified software packages used in the Kindle device. By downloading the Source Code, you agree to the following"- (Bolds ar mine). Package seems to contain only pre-existing free applications (but I am not sure). Inconexo (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kindle considered a Vertical Marketing System (VMS) ...
I'd like to add a section noting that an Amazon Kindle is essentially a vertical marketing system (VMS), in that a Kindle (Amazon, actually) comprises a producer, wholesaler and retailer acting as a unified system. Anyone else see Kindles in that light? If you're not knowledgeable about Amazon's Digital Text Platform, that should also be included in the discussion. Thanks in advance for disagreement or agreement. :-)Seankinn (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, the Kindle system does not constitute a VMS because most book authors would not have anything to do with the distribution beyond their agreement with the publisher. Only Amazon and the publishers would be in a discussion of what goes into the Kindle, and indeed, on Amazon. Anyway, in the strictest definition of VMS, it would not apply because Amazon does not author books. In any case, I believe this information would not belong in the article on wikipedia. --Mizst (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'd like to note that in the Digital Text Platform, the authors do not own Amazon and cannot change how it works for their mutual benefits. Furthermore, Amazon is effectively bypassing traditional publishers with this platform, thus competing at the publishers' expense. As members of the channel are competing with one another, it is not VMS. --Mizst (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sales?
Has Amazon ever released any numbers on how many Kindles have been sold?JimC1946 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kindle is not available outside the US due to import/export laws and other restrictions.
I can not think of any law that restrict Amazon from selling Kindle the device outside US. The reference only points to the Amazon FAQ which can not be considered to be interdependent prove that there are laws involved. As far as I see it the quoted reference is just marketing talk to cover up an unpopular business strategy.

What might not have made headline news in the US it the fact that Amazon tried to sell in Germany and the deal did not fail because of laws but because of the cost for the OTA delivery.

I suggest to remove the "import/export laws" part and explain what the "other restrictions" relay are.--Krischik T 06:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mysteriously removing books
Incorporate this into the page somewhere?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/amazoncom-plays-big-brother-with-a-famous-e-book/?ref=technology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.95.59 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also this: "Amazon to World: We are Not Evil Totalitarians" by Derek Thompson of the Atlantic on Jul 20 2009 (link is to theatlantic.com). R. Baley (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Content sources
I just notice the "Content sources" and think they are over optimistic. For example I regularly follow the Mobipocket forums and I can say that only the demos are Kindle Kindle compatible - the actual books which you have to pay for are not. For a while a Kindle customer a day has asked for a refund (Now the forum is dead as customer service is done via E-Mail).

The notes too are misleading - yes Amazon owns Mobipocket so they can sell books in both shops - but that does not mean the user has more choice in books. I think Mobipocket should be removed.

Also the fictionwise notes should state that ony DRM-free books are suitable for Kindle

For me this does look like Amazon Advocates wanting an extra long list no matter what. --Krischik T 09:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I merged that in from another page. That doesn't mean it needs to stay- please feel free to prune as necessary. tedder (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File Formats
Just to make it known, the Kindle (Kindle 2, at least) has support for .cbz comic archives. Wiiguy5 (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sill international an US only versions?
From what I can see here Amazon is now only selling the international version of the Kindle 2 and DX. Maybe someone can confirm this and update the sections about it. cu AssetBurned (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section
The Criticism section is a wee bit dodgy! All of the points mentioned are probably valid and indeed easily found on the reviews on Amazon.com, but I'm not sure that's an acceptable source? Should the section just be wikified and merged into the general body of text?? Conor (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CRITICISM has some guidance on this. I prefer to retain the separate section. Amazon.com reviews seem weak as a citation because they're not really published as described in WP:NOTE, nor attributed to a real-world person. Brianhe (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed everything lacking a verifiable source. There have been a couple of reviews published by credible sources so far, but things like "it costs as much as the iPhone but isn't as good" (paraphrased) are not useful. White 720 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The bit about justification without hyphenation is a good catch! I'm glad someone brought it up because it indeed is a bit of an oversight. On the bright side, I imagine it shouldn't be too hard to remedy with a wireless software upgrade, if Amazon so chooses. I hope they do. -cp 00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism should not be a part of this article, it is merely trolling. We should have a serious discussions about the merits of a criticism section this early in a product launch, and also what are the general grounds for adding a criticism section when there are no authoritative sources of criticism at this time. To make the issue clear, would the reverse section "positive benefits of Kindle" or some such section be appropriate? If not, then the "criticism" section should be removed. This article should, at the present time, only present the facts of the device and leave off troll bait criticism (and praise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.253.144 (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be very important to add a criticism section. They are using DRM to lock-in users. A souce for this is a site by the FSF http://www.defectivebydesign.org/KindleSwindle. I think it's a problem that there is NO mentioning on DRM in the article at the moment. --Stefon (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for mentioning the capabilities of the Kindle in the article, including the "DRM" that is built into the device, but putting it under a 'criticism' section is disingenuous for many reasons and should not be in an encyclopedia. I could site a source of a major environmentalist group who endorses the Kindle for it's movement away from paper for newspapers and other traditional print media - but that does not warrent a whole section called "Positive effects of Kindle". We all know Richard Stallman and Co. are against DRM, but the fact is that does not belong in an Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.253.144 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe in the fact that DRM is a negative thing. But I agree with you that wikipedia is not the right place to decide it. But mentioning the DRM system is an important (wether positive or negative) aspect of the system. Do you agree with adding it to the Technical specifications paragraph? --Stefon (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Details of the DRM employed should go in the article on AZW file format though its impact on the Kindle device & its users would be appropriate for this article. Brianhe (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys DRM is only negative if you are in favor of totally opensource digital content, but the fact is that there is a huge debate about the merits of that. Having intellectual property rights gives creators a benefit for the labor they put into creating it. DRM is a way of protecting the rights of authors, publishers and owners to get some money from people who wish to use their products. DRM is arguably a positive thing from the perspective of those who favor intellectual property rights. If you look at it from an international perspective, technologies like DRM favor America and Europe who are major producers of intellectual content from countries that don't believe such things deserve to be respected, such as China. But if you think about it, would it be fair if we could go online and download chinese goods and property for free illegally? Imagine if you could download chinese toys or electronic parts online instead of buying them, would that be fair to the chinese who design and build them? (No :-P) --Wmspareaccount (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it belongs under 'Technical Specifications' or 'Content', but absolutely agree a mention of DRM should be made somewhere in the article. I'm leaning more towards the content section, since the only media actually DRM'd is the AZW files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.253.144 (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to mention the DRM under the content section or should I add it? Btw. I think THIS external link ttp://kindlegeek.com/ is not really neutral... Or whats the difference between this and the FSF link?! --Stefon (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the comment about the zooming around documents, you can't "zoom" in kindle, whoever wrote that clearly doesn't use it or maybe even own it. What you can do is change the text size, but whatever he was trying to say was clearly wrong. Kindle displays digital text, not an image as in a PDF document, so there is no way that you could "zoom" like you would an image in photoshop. It's not like the Illiad or other readers that can display PDFs as images. Kindle can display images but it's more like the images that show up on a word document or on project Gutenberg, not like the more flat, unalerable image that you'd see on a PDF. --Wmspareaccount (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC) I noticed that someone put it back up to day, but the fact that it's not even sourced should be a good indicator of how reliable that zooming coment is. There is no zooming in Kindle, so whoever put that in there is making it up.--Wmspareaccount (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can, indeed, "zoom" on the Kindle when it comes to images. From the user's guide for Kindle 2: "Increasing the Size of a Picture: If you’d like to see a larger size of a picture or image you encounter in your reading material, simply follow these steps to zoom temporarily on the image." 7 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.198.226 (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done a lot of editing on the criticisms, including commenting out the part which compares the Kindle's price to other devices unfairly. In my opinion, such criticisms should be moved to an entirely separate page unto itself. St33med (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

The use of the passive voice in the "Criticism" section (e.g., "There is concern," "Other criticisms involve") is substandard and should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.200.59.50 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The criticism "Web browser limitations" is inaccurate and contradicts the information on Amazon's website. (http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Reading-Display-Generation/dp/B0015T963C#kindle-features-wireless) I removed this section once but see it is back again, why? Trufflewasp (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it wrong? The article says:

In most countries, Amazon restricts Kindle owners from accessing any web content apart from Amazon's e-book store (to view and purchase books and magazine subscriptions) and the English Wikipedia., the amazon page you cite leads to another page that says

''blogs and the experimental web browser are currently not available for your country. You will have free access to Wikipedia if wireless is available.''

So how is it inaccurate? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting, Cameron. Amazon also says the experimental web browser is not available in my country (Brazil) either, yet my Kindle 2 has no trouble browsing the entire Internet. Anyone else outside of the U.S. able to test this? Trufflewasp (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we delete the Criticism header and work the content into the main flow of the article please? So limitations on what you can browse on the web would go under a web browsing section, etc.  Hcobb (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have a go later. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions?
What are the dimensions of this item? It says that the diagonal of the Kindle DX is 9.7 in. Does this only include the display area, or also the plastic around it? I've done some measurements with some papers, and found out that an A5 paper has a diagonal about 1 cm longer than the Kindle DX diagonal. Are the height/width quotient the same as for an A5 paper, or does it differ in some way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Links
I deleted an "external link" which was linked to the webcomic XKCD, apparently a strip with some tangential reference to the Kindle Device. I cannot in any way see how the webcomic entry was relevant just because it mentioned the device. Furthermore, I don't think linking to a comic-strip is meaningful for an encyclopedia entry on the device itself. If one wished to reference the device's cultural applicability or some such, then this might be a valid link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.201.172 (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

iSlate comparison in the intro
To avoid an edit war, I thought it best to discuss the issue here... I think it's completely inappropriate to include mention of a rumoured device in the intro of another device. It is crystal balling at its most clear cut. Wikipedia articles are meant to be about what is - not what is rumoured to be. Nothing is known about the "iSlate" beyond rumour, even its name, and I think mentioning it in the article at all is a mistake, never mind the lede. TastyCakes (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kindle Default Dictionaries
The Content section of the article contains an incorrect statement:

"The device is sold with electronic editions of its owner's manual and the New Oxford American Dictionary. Unfortunately, owners cannot use a dictionary in a language other than English as the 'default lookup dictionary'."

The Amazon website sells dictionaries in Spanish, French, and German that can be made the default dictionary. I have purchased the Spanish and French dictionaries, and have been able to use them as my default dictionaries.

In addition to these foreign languages, Amazon sells specialized English-language dictionaries (e.g., dictionary of medical terms, a dictionary of terms that appear in the Bible) that can be made the Kindle default dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erodriguezcustodio (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not me, it does seem to be getting too long and it doesn't look like anyone wants to go and manually archive this stuff.. TastyCakes (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Content Sources
What is the criterion here? I see my posted link to www.retroread.com was edited as a "spam email collection site" -- ?

It happens to be a legitimate site to convert Google epubs to the Kindle and requires registration of email to do what it does -- email books to the Kindle. Starting with Amazon on down, any number of other sites listed collect email addresses as well. What objective standard is being applied?

Retroscribe (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't fit anyway, an external link should provide more information about the subject of an article - so an article in The Economist that discussed (for example), the marketing strategy of amazon when releasing the kindle in some detail would be fine, an link to a service telling people how to market their books for the kindle would not. That link provides no useful information about the Kindle, it's position in the market, it's history, it's future. It offers a service for Kindle users and that's the sort of link we don't use in an EL, in the same way, someone selling carry-cases would have their link removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I follow you here so far, although the ostensible purpose of the "Content Sources" table in which this is included, as far as I can discern, is to provide links to online content providers for Kindle. The Retroread site provides content for the Kindle, actually in two ways: by allowing a user to first convert content from books.google.com, secondly by forwarding it direct to the Kindle. Any and all books converted that way then become statically available in the same sense that books from manybooks.net are. So here I lose you. Zinepal, just to choose another link, does the same kind of on-line content generation. So again, I don't see an objective application of a criterion. The fact is none of the links in "Content Sources" provide "useful information about the Kindle, it's position in the market, it's history, it's future". I can see from a Wikipedia purist's pov (strict noob here myself) that perhaps the whole "Content Sources" section is dubious, but within that, can we please apply one set of rules? 63.81.0.20 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 63.81.0.20 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC) -- oops, logging in to sign above note: Retroscribe (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes the whole table should be deleted and replaced with prose. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This would seem to be a rather broad reaching edit around which I would presume a certain consensus should exist. Within the context of the de facto consensus of the continued existence of the table in its present form, I'm not hearing a basis to exclude the original entry -- so barring further comment, may I request that you either undo your edit, or refrain from deleting it in future subject to discussion / resoluton of the fate of the table as a whole.

Regarding your suggestion "replaced with prose" -- regarding content sources? Seems to lend itself to tabular presentation, there also certainly seems ample precedent wiki-elsewhere for, for example, links to implementations of a subject software technology, etc., which seems somewhat analogous. David Eyes aka retroscribe 05:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retroscribe (talk • contribs)

As a rule of thumb, if a content source is not notable enough to have an article of it's own, why is it in the article? - we provide an overview of an area not an inexhaustible list. Also, don't waste my time in future with questions to which you don't actually want an answer, it's a rather sad (and I've seen it a million times before) tactic. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking into the article history and talk archive, the table was simply dumbed here to stop it being deleted elsewhere and no consensus exists to keep it in it's current form, indeed, the only comments I can find ask a) why is it here? and b) why don't we get rid of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel I've wasted your time. If you had rather replied perhaps a bit more thoughtfully in the first place, we might have gotten here sooner. The status of the section as stands at present vis a vis inclusion of notable vs less notable is consistent and more to the point equitable. Rather than trying to diminish my voice here, you might appreciate that you've been motivated to improve the article, at any rate at least, by your lights.David Eyes aka retroscribe 05:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retroscribe (talk • contribs)

It's not that you've wasted my time in asking but you've phrased the question in a certain way because you want a response that was "yes let's stick your site in", your response when you didn't get that answer is pretty plain to see. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Split
This article is really about 3 devices, the Kindle, the Kindle 2, and the Kindle DX. These should each have their own pages -- this article is attempting to do far too much. Common points between the devices can be left in "Amazon Kindle" acceptably, but the device specific information should be moved out. Does anyone strongly object to doing that? Billyoneal (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

New kindle display
The article makes out that Amazon do not advertise the better display of the latest kindle. This is false: Kindle DX info. 81.153.204.18 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Whom?
What is the purpose to the 'according to whom?' tag attached to the '16-level gray scale display' specification of the Kindle 2? Why is that particular specification picked out for special consideration? The spec comes from Amazon's own technical specs which is cited. It sounds like some sort of editorial comment to me and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachi292 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)