Barnes & Noble Nook dual-screen reader officially announced... for real
By Nilay Patel 
posted October 20th 2009 4:27PM
posted October 20th 2009 4:27PM
Update: Malcom Gladwell is on stage, talking about syphilis in Baltimore. People are clapping -- it's a little odd. But the first Nook buyers will get a free copy of The Tipping Point, so that's nice.
Update 2: "Ladies and gentlemen, the bar is now open." That's all for now -- we've got a Q&A session coming up, we'll let you know what we find out after the break.
Update 3: Barnes & Noble just pinged us to say that they were wrong during the event -- the Nook's WiFi will work anywhere, not just in-store.
Notes from the Q&A:
- They like Android, but they're not doing open app development -- they just like the optimizations for the small screen. It sounded like apps are a possibility, through.
- There's no browser, they think E-ink browsing is clunky.
- The Nook has 2GB of built-in storage, but there's an SD slot as well.
- The WiFi will only work in Barnes & Noble stores at launch.
- The in-store book browsing doesn't download books, it "streams" them. Uh, sure -- we'll see about that.
- The screen is capacitive touch -- "just like the iPhone."
- They're looking at an actual Android app for the future, no commitments made.
- Nook will mount as mass storage over USB.
- Only some books can be lended, and they'll be branded with a LendMe logo on the ebook store. It's up to the publishers, but B&N says they're working to enable as many as they can.
- They plan to support Windows Mobile in the future.
I give it up for the Nookie!
wait... it seriously has Android? All android functionality uncrippled? And AT&T 3G data is included?
Or is it exclusively 3G data, when buying a book from B&N? Will AT&T be offering a separate data plan for web browsing?
Is the bottom display to be used ONLY for browsing for new content? There is no support for viewing content INSIDE that display?
I just want to know why Garfunkel is announcing this device. This isn't an iPod release...
I wonder how quickly it will be hacked to run a full blown Android OS, especially since it runs off AT&T's 3G network.
"Nook will mount as mass storage over USB."
Just like the iPhone.... Wait...
Fscking ebooks do it better than the iphone...
@Crawdad689
The AT&T 3G is listed as free. AT&T also provides the wifi for the B&N stores. They probably get a kick back on each book bought for the nook plus a small kickback for each nook (this is all conjecture). But it's free so there ya go.
The nook (what a frickin' name) has almost everything I want in an ebook reader, but I wish it would allow for word doc support like the Kindle and all for other formats to be thrown in.
I'm gonna wait till they open it up to Android apps, that'd make it super sweet.
Buy one. The trees thank you.
what trees? the trees at the paper tree farms which are grown and regrown? and have nothing to do with what recycling propanganda mafe you think was related to deforestation?
Trees are an infinite renewable resource. There is never a need to save trees.
I'd also like to add that if you're an avid Gore/Global Climate Change advocate (I'm not, btw), buying books actually permanently fixes carbon into a particular source. Unless of course you enjoy burning books...
Nevertheless, trees have no soul, so no need to worry about killing them.
Uhh, yeah, actually there is. Apart from the time it takes to regrow them, the soil only contains so much nutrients. If you don't at least put the detritus that makes up your books back into the Earth, eventually trees WILL stop growing.
On the other hand, that could take thousands of years, so bring on the tinder! :D
Either we use farm-grown trees for books or we pollute like heck to make the
plastic and components for this. Take your pick.
@mmm....dohnuts:
I'm guessing from your post that you have no background in soil science, forestry, horticulture, or botany.
Having two degrees that covers all of these topics, I have the authority to say you have no idea what you're talking about.
Trees need to be cut down and used before they die. Because when they die and are left to rot, they release all the CO2 they have absorbed back into the atmosphere.
However al gore and green piece will never tell you that because it doesn't fit their agenda.
Please continue, this is great!
*pops popcorn*
@rickjamess04: Why is he wrong? I genuinely want to know :) Even if trees are a renewable resource, it does take a long time for a tree to grow right? Also, if not saving trees, eBook readers will cut down on the carbon emissions from transportation from the millions of newspapers and magazines and the costs of recycling them.
@ something clever:
Actually, the president of Green Peace came out and made the point you said about a year ago (maybe longer)--I read an article about it but not sure if I can find the link. He made it in response to that Leonardo DiCaprio Eco-Documentary that came out sometime ago since Leo was advocating that we protect virgin forests. Also, older trees produce more CO2 than younger trees--hence people are now advocating cutting into virgin forests.
Again, I'm not a climate change supporter, so I'm not really sure why I'm furthering their cause.
Ok, I can't/don't really have the time to address everyone's comments, but I'll try to do so briefly:
1) @bootareen: I'm no paper expert, but from what I have learned in school, there is actually quite a bit of clay put into paper now-a-days, so it greatly reduces the amount of trees needed to produce a sheet of paper. Also, not all trees are slow growing--ever heard of empress tree (Paulownia tomentosa)? It has been known to grow 20 feet in one growing season. Not saying that people would actively grow this species for paper production, but plants are highly renewable resources. But I was mainly disagreeign with Dohnut's belief that the soil only has so many nutrients--the soil has more nutrients for plant growth than they will ever need. I'd be more worried about the sun running out of energy for them to photosynthesize.
2) @why should I...
I'm not going to argue the energy inputs with you to produce a book/books, however you have to figure that there are probably just as many energy inputs for this e-reader. And as far as the carbon being locked into a living tree...If it is a young tree, then I guess so but I already stated that it is a well known fact that older trees actually give off more CO2 in respiration than younger trees do. Plants not only produce O2, but they also give CO2 off.
@rickjamess04
"I'm guessing from your post that you have no background in soil science, forestry, horticulture, or botany.
Having two degrees that covers all of these topics, I have the authority to say you have no idea what you're talking about."
-- So you're saying you're a shill for the lumber industry who will be out of a job if the industry declines through the use of intelligent alternatives?
I see your point.
BTW, I just ran to the dump (waste management facility) before I posted this, and there was a shitload of paper that didn't make it to the recycling center. I wonder how it got there. Oh yeah, there's one diesel belching truck that brings it there, and another that buries it.
@why should I....
I don't work for the lumber industry nor do I work for anything remotely related to the lumber or paper trade. I am a researcher for a biotech company and I do work with plants every single day.
My issue with these posts is that it seems that several of the people that are posting here do not know the science behind plants and trees and the fact that they are highly renewable resources. We should be utilizing them because they are biodegradable and easily obtained. I never said that paper should be thrown away in a landfill where it will sit for a long ass time withouth breaking down and returning to the ecosystem. But it seems to me that you are an environmentalist with very little science background and your are basing your opinions based on what the popular media and other environmentalists have said is the the truth in formulating your opinions. Me, I rely on science and thats how it should be.
Look, I'm no "nature-lover". Quite the contrary. Nature gives me allergies. Plus, I'm self-loathing, so, in a sense, even nature doesn't like itself.
However, it seems obvious to me that, as long as you don't buy a new eBook reader every week like it's an iPod or something, you probably will be doing the environment a favor IF you buy a lot of new books since, this is one reader vs a lot of books.
So, although I might normally advocate whatever it is that kills nature, in this case, there's a cool gadget involved; so, this once, I'm siding with nature.
Environmentalist? Ha. I think Al Gore is full of steam. We should use him for Geo-thermal energy production.
So lets be clear, you believe that over the course of owning this reader, if would be more overall environmentally friendly in terms of energy use and the management of greenhouse gases (whether or not you believe human activities are contributing) to grow, process, print, deliver and recycle (if lucky) or dispose of say ... 500-1000 books then it would be to use this reader (which will hopefully be recycled itself and uses very little energy compared to a printing press etc).
It's not just the trees but all the energy necessary to grow, manufacture, and distribute a tree based product. Trees are heavy. To distribute data on a piece of parchment just doesn't make sense anymore. Lumber has its place. I use it frequently. I just don't need to read words on it.
* sticks head into room, shakes head *
@rick et al: Yes, Trees that die do re-release the carbon back into the atmosphere. However, in there are a lot of considerations you are not accounting for.
1) We need carbon sinks, which means living flora, to offset the fossil carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere. Trees are among the best at this sort of thing.
2) Trees typically live for several dozen to several hundred years. Farmed trees rarely get beyond 30 years old, so we're not maximizing carbon sink potential of these trees.
3) De-forestation means there are fewer trees on the planet, especially in one of the best carbon sinks in the world, the Amazon rainforest. Trees elsewhere can help offset THAT damage.
4) The amount of carbon it takes to make a tree into paper is significant, and cannot be overlooked.
5) As global temperature rises, the sink capability of the worlds oceans falls, making the need for trees even greater. Think warm soda versus cold soda, and which holds carbonation better.
I assume that the Nook has its own carbon impact. That said, after purchase, the carbon impact of the books you buy becomes very small. In the long run, you're saving trees, energy, and local environmental damage that paper production causes.
@rickjamess04
"Me, I rely on science and thats how it should be."
Yes, I'm sure the entire global scientific community backs you when you advocate for the continued distribution of data on paper.
You mean like what, live updates on this page, amirite?
Wouldn't it be mildly useful to link to some further information on the Nook somewhere other than within Engadget? Like, say, perhaps the Barnes & Noble Nook page?
It was up earlier today, but they have since took the nook page down.
If others saw it earlier, it still may be saved in your cookies/history unless you delete them every other ten minutes like you're supposed to.
I'd imagine it will be back up within a matter of hours, if not minutes.
Is it just us or overhyped.
Android? Didn't expect that one. Sweet.
does it mean future Google docs integration?
I don't know a whole lot about Android...but I keep hearing that the Nook running it is a feature. Could someone explain what benefits Android gives the reader?
@Chris:
It's just a small plus, I think. With 1.6, Android got the ability to resize apps independent of screen resolution. Now whether this means that the Nook will get access to the Android Market remains to be seen, but it should serve as a basic platform for the introduction and hopefully continuation of a separate (or hopefully, integrated to the Android Market) app store for the device.
But this might just be wishful thinking.
Ah I see so it's not the e-reader that had a color touch screen that we saw a few days ago instead it's one that's exactly the same.
Well, I was going to get a kindle 2...now I'm torn. WTF. Someone review this bitch for me so I can decide.
This won't be available until end of November, so you've got some time.
The deciding factor for me is what formats the nook can read. epub and pdf...i'm sold.
As per their website the formats are:
EPUB and eReader Formats
PDFs load easily and look great.
PDFs, MP3s and graphics load to your nook from your computer or micro SD card.
Use JPEG, GIF, PNG, BMP files to create personal screensavers
Thanks, Doug.
I finally just got to see the nook website. I'm totally sold.
i think the content will be the deciding difference... looking at some of the titles in each store, it seems like amazon is usually 10-20% less in pricing for older books. that kind of adds up
If this is running andriod, does that mean one could port android apps and/or widgets on this device? or are you locked into only those functions related to the ebook reader?
$100?
Then I'm in.
=( its $260
i would be in too, but that will never happen..
Well this is a surprise.
Does it have a browser? I will pre-order right now if this is confirmed.
This is also what I'm waiting to find out. No mention of it on the official Nook website or FAQs. I have a Kindle 1 and was going to upgrade to the new International version, and find I actually use the web browser quite a bit sitting at the airport. (Better experience than browsing on my phone)
I want to know this too.
RTFP
quote: "There's no browser, they think E-ink browsing is clunky."
@Andrew don't be a dick. They added that to the article after we commented.
I can't believe they released the Nook e-reader with a straight face ! I do like the dual screen and think it will sell very well. Nice Job B&N.