Nook’s Specs Are Exaggerated, Again(pogue.blogs.nytimes.com)
pogue.blogs.nytimes.com
Nook’s Specs Are Exaggerated, Again
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/nooks-specs-are-exaggerated-again
7 comments
[deleted](1)
Note that they never say you can watch videos in HD. They always say you can watch HD videos or HD content or HD entertainment. You're just watching that HD stuff on a non-HD screen.
I should be a marketer!
I should be a marketer!
NYT article is link bait. Things that can play/receive in HD don't always necessarily display in HD. Nook is not the first or last manufacturer to do this. If only "true" HD devices were allowed to decode HD video, that would eliminate virtually all mobile video devices, including the iPhone 4S which records in 1080, but only has a 960 display.
While technically true, it is extremely misleading to your average potential purchaser. At the very least a difference like that should be spelled out clearly in terms the target audiance would understand.
IMHO, that sounds ever more confusing to consumers... Compare the confusing packaging at Best Buy with grids of tech specs to the simple and easy to understand packaging at the Apple Store. I'm turning boxes at Best Buy upside-down and inside-out just to figure out what the asterisk is referring to! Consumers don't need more asterisks.
The fact that a famous tech blogger for the NYT can't even understand that distinction doesn't give me hope for the general public. Tech-savvy consumers will go to the website and clearly see that the tech specs for the Nook tablet lists a resolution of 1024x600.
The fact that a famous tech blogger for the NYT can't even understand that distinction doesn't give me hope for the general public. Tech-savvy consumers will go to the website and clearly see that the tech specs for the Nook tablet lists a resolution of 1024x600.
I made the same note when reading the article.
That something can play a file with HD content is actually somewhat of a feature, especially with a smaller screen. I'd rather not have to re-encode like I did with my old video iPod.
The iPod headphones & speaker example really showed me that the author was not thinking along these lines. It in my mind is not a lie.
The iPod headphones & speaker example really showed me that the author was not thinking along these lines. It in my mind is not a lie.
I think that manufacturers that try to overly massage the specs in their favor should be raked over the coals. The specifications are there for a reason.
In the end though it rarely matters. Mom and dad will most likely buy whatever looks nicer (as well as what the neighbor has).
In the end though it rarely matters. Mom and dad will most likely buy whatever looks nicer (as well as what the neighbor has).
"(I’m not sure what you’d use the memory card for, considering that Barnes & Noble doesn’t even have a downloadable-movie store. But whatever.)"
There's possibly a thrifty caveman or two who rips his own DVDs. Let us ignore those poor little people who don't re-buy their movies as needed.
(They may have also bought "HD ready" 1366x768 screens, the poor dears. Haha.)
I don't like being lied to, but I enjoy snob snark even less.
There's possibly a thrifty caveman or two who rips his own DVDs. Let us ignore those poor little people who don't re-buy their movies as needed.
(They may have also bought "HD ready" 1366x768 screens, the poor dears. Haha.)
I don't like being lied to, but I enjoy snob snark even less.
Yeah, that was a weird editorial. Especially considering that B&N has said that you can only store 1GB of non-B&N-purchased content on the device itself. Anyone ripping their own content or purchasing unprotected content elsewhere will likely make heavy use of that SD card.
This seems like a case of non-tech PR/marketing selling a tech product without sufficient understanding of the industry terms they're throwing around.
It's not like these are even particularly technical terms, though. Anyone who has shopped for a TV in the last five years should know what "1080" and "720" are, even if they don't quite grok the "i" and the "p". Not everybody understands what HDTV is, but... I'd say a majority of the working age male population does.
I gotta admit that they fooled me; I saw this new Nook advertised at B&N the other day, and was impressed to note that it was capable of full HD video. It didn't occur to me that that might be a total lie.
I gotta admit that they fooled me; I saw this new Nook advertised at B&N the other day, and was impressed to note that it was capable of full HD video. It didn't occur to me that that might be a total lie.
Basically all smartphone and tablet manufacturers are guilty of this exact same thing. (Except the Galaxy Nexus and Rezound)
On a 7" screen, I bet you could barely, if at all, tell the difference between 1280x720 and 1024x600 playing a 720p video, so I don't think that's really a good argument against the device.
However, you CAN tell the difference between a 720p video playing at 600p versus a 480p video being upscaled to 600p. You retain much more quality when downconverting than upconverting. I do a lot of video conversion (re-encoding my BluRay and DVDs for XBMC) and believe me, a BluRay downconverted to 720p looks immensely better than a 480p DVD upconverted.
So, I say "Fantastic!" Now I don't have to re-encode all my x264 encoded 720p BluRay files to watch them on my Nook (well, it probably doesn't support MKV or AC3, but that's another topic).