I think the "kindle is awesome" crowd are people who use a reader to read novels. The Kindle is simply almost identical to the experience reading a printed book. However good the iPad is as a reader, it is not even close to the same as a printed book mainly because of the backlight.
I use my Kindle to read all sorts of non-fiction works (I very rarely read novels). I'm not sure why everyone assumes it's only fiction readers that would care- there are plenty of non-fiction books that aren't reference books. I find it much preferable to read over the iPad, for all the standard reasons (glare, eye strain, etc.) I also find highlighting to be much preferable on the Kindle (maybe Amazon has updated their iPad app, but the version I have won't let you highlight across page boundaries) as well as going to footnotes and back. Of course I do a lot of my Kindle reading outside (at the pool, at the park, whatever) so that plays a major factor as well, it's like I don't want to use my iPad unless it's dark (this applies to more than just reading) because I hate seeing reflections.
The only times I really use the iPad in place of the Kindle is when I'm in a dark place (I've used it quite a bit outside at the hot tub at night), and I use the iPad for Instapaper usually instead of the Kindle.
Another reason I prefer longer reading (which Instapaper doesn't really fall under, while articles are usually longer form it's not like it's a book) on the Kindle is because with the iPad I find that I'll be too easily tempted to press Home and mess around with something else (I realize this is my own fault and not necessarily a fault of the iPad, but it's something that I'm sure other dual-owners have experienced).
Is the backlight actually all that much of a differentiator? It seems like it should be, but apart from the greater uniformity of a backlight, what are the practical differences? This question of emissive versus reflective light is itself a fuzzy distinction because, with an LCD, you're seeing light bounced through the diffuser behind the liquid crystal, not directly from the CCFL or LED.
There is, however, a surprisingly major difference (at least to me) which is highlighted by this microscope comparison: Dot pitch. The iPad's IPS panel has a pretty average dot pitch, but I was surprised to see that the Kindle's e-ink display has essentially none. Even though the eye compensates for dot pitch, I have to wonder if that still might make a difference.
I am not sure if there is that much of a practical difference between having a backlight or not. As someone who reads a lot of fiction though the Kindle experience feels exactly like a paperback with the added bonus of a dictionary and notes. The iPad may be better for some people but it is not the same thing as reading a printed book like the Kindle is.
In a study by useit (Nielsen's group), they found reading the Kindle is slower than reading the iPad is slower than reading a book.
So, to say that using a Kindle is more like reading a book than an iPad strikes me as bogus. I don't understand how a backlight or not decides an item's bookishness. Certainly, neither has pages.
Have you actually used a Kindle or another device with an e-ink display? It is uncanny how simliar it is to paper. It literally looks like a piece of paper morphs into new page when change page. It is really out of this world.
Anyway, there are many reasons why the Kindle is more like reading a real book besides the display that looks identical to a piece of printed paper. First of all, neither books nor the Kindle have a backlight which does, in fact, make the Kindle more simliar to a book than an iPad despite its lack of pages... You can read a Kindle on the beach or on a deck in the brightest sunlight you can imagine and the screen will just look better. The same goes for a real book. Just try that with iPad with a backlight and you will see a difference there.
Also, due to the lack of backlight the Kindle is much better suited for reading before sleep just like a real book. The backlight of a computer monitor is the reason computer people struggle with falling asleep. A good fiction paper back is the best sleeping pill in the world and you just can't get that effect with a backlight screen.
Finally, just look the article we are commenting on. Do you not notice how similar the Kindle character is to the newspaper, magazine, and book characters at 400x? I would dare sare it is sharper.
Yes, except when I flip pages in a book, they change rather rapidly. I don't have to wait for a second or two per page turn. This delay actually completely kills the Kindle reading experience. I've only read 2 books on my Kindle, but have read over a dozen since getting my iPad.
I got used to hit the "next page" button when reaching the middle of last line, which makes the screen flash at the exact moment when your eyes run back to the top of the page (you have enough time to read about a half-line after pushing the button). Actually I even sometimes hit the button when I'd like instead to re-read a sentence on the current page :)
This, also a rather unfortunate change in the recent firmware (to me, anyway) is that this page turn starts when you press the button instead of when you release it. I was so used to pressing it in anticipation, and releasing when I neared the end of the page that it's caused a bit of a problem with the new update. I'm sure I'll adjust, but I much prefered the previous method.
Yeah, I don't like that change either. But as for the page turn in general. It's not "a second or two" and I guarantee you I can turn a page on the Kindle faster than you can turn a page on a real book. And I can do it one handed while standing in a crowded train. :)
"The iPad measured at 6.2% lower reading speed than the printed book, whereas the Kindle measured at 10.7% slower than print. However, the difference between the two devices was not statistically significant because of the data's fairly high variability.
Thus, the only fair conclusion is that we can't say for sure which device offers the fastest reading speed. In any case, the difference would be so small that it wouldn't be a reason to buy one over the other."
Also, that study wound up being based on 24 subjects reading for about 17 minutes. Hardly a comprehensive test.
Let's not forget turning pages on the Kindle is rather slow, which to me implies that while reading speed may be lower, reading experience isn't neccesarily worse.
Reading speed is not all I care about. In fact, I don't care about it at all, really, so long as it's within acceptable limits.
The only possible way it can strike you as bogus is if you have never taken both of them outside and tried to read them. If the focus group was conducted in an office, then the results are basically meaningless.
I use my kindle on my boat. 99.9% of the time I'm sitting in the sun reading it. I can do that with a book, and I can do that with a kindle. The iPad or anyother backlit screen is just not an option. I can barely see my cell phone or camera screen on the water, but I read the kindle becuase it is a fundamentally different technology.
I got bad reflections on my iPad just sitting on my bed. It's like holding a mirror up in front of your face, and you have to adjust it to not catch distracting things.
This is bit of a deviation, but I am reminded of how my super Nintendo system has turned colors in part because of UV light.
I am curious if the kindle, in your use case, will- at the end of it's life- have distinct hand-prints where the original color is intact (if not physically smoother).
