Talk:Comparison of Android e-reader software

Renaming

This article has been moved from Comparison of Android e-book reader software. The current name is more clear for readers and avoids the disambiguation with hardware readers based on Android OS. --Seabay (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison

Currently there are a lot of "?" (dunno) in the comparison matrix. Further verifications are needed to confirm those features. --Seabay (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integration with dictionaries

Integration with dictionaries is surely one of the most important features for some users. The ability to presshold a word and get a definition immediately or within a number of steps within a text, online of offline and in various dictionaries, might be the feature of choice for some users.... If someone is willing to help design the table, please contact me, I can fill it with data.Brinerustle (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this already included in the table 'Edit Tool Features'? Wiki-uk (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

I would like to add the Ebook Reader app to the article, under the EbookDroid row. It would have the following information.

Table 'File formats supported': Developer: Ebook Reader, Formats total #: 02+, then 'No' for every column except .epub and .pdf which would be 'Yes'

Table 'Navigation features': Developer: Ebook Reader, Paging touch screen: Yes, Paging Volume Screen: Yes, Backward-forward: Yes, Contents table: Yes, Bookmarks: Yes, Resume: Yes, Go To: Yes, Search Full Text: Yes, Sync to Cloud: Yes, Autoscroll by pixel: No, Autoscroll by line: No, Autoscroll by page: No, Scroll speed control: No, Rolling blind mode: No, Continuous Scrolling: No

Table 'Display features': Developer: Ebook Reader, Theme: No, Day-night mode: Yes, Brightness control: Yes, Adjust to display size: Yes, Indent paragraph: No, Trim extra blank psaces: Yes, Enable-disable CSS: No, Customize text alignment: No, Customize font scale: Yes, Customize line space: No, Customize color: Yes, Customize Transparent: No, Fading Edge: No, Simulate real page flip: No

Table 'Edit-tool features': Developer: Ebook Reader, Highlight: Yes, Annotate: Yes, Metadata Edit: No, Dictionary online: No, Dictionary offline: No, Wikipedia lookup: No, Translate: No, Share: Yes, Gesture Command: Yes, Support TTS: No, Support DRM: Yes

Table 'Book source management features': Developer: Ebook Reader, Local books: Yes, Book file search: Yes, Epub downloading: Yes, Browser downloading: Yes, OPDS catalog: No, Books tag: Yes, Books sort: Yes, Books manage metadata: No

AlexAtEbooks (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just alphabetised the lists and added the Ebook Reader info per Alex's request - and then reverted myself. Alex works for ebooks.com, the maker of Ebook Reader, and I'm the brother of the CEO, so neither of us should be directly editing the article, per WP:COI. Would someone please look at my edit and consider restoring it if it's OK? (diff) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, CorporateM. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs

Looking at the article for the first time, it could really use some paragraphs describing which are the biggest e-book reader apps by market share, what the different business models are, which have been praised versus criticized in reliable sources. What reviewers say are the most important features to look for. etc. etc. Some paragraph-form analysis I think would be useful to supplement the large grids of specifications. CorporateM (Talk) 03:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Alex mentioned he might overhaul the article in the near future. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reflow

I don't see why the reflow feature is completeley disregarded in this survey. I notice that few people know of its existence, yet this seems like an essential feature for all those that use smartphones to read ebooks more than they do tablets. I do know of people who complain that they can't read anything on their phone as the font gets too small. For all I know, ezPDF is one of the few Android apps implemeting reflow (and this can also be combined with different font colours in night mode). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.62.5 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying apps

I've just gone through and added the app developer as a column in the first table. I also made sure the developer and the product name matched what was found in Google Play. I found that it is actually quite difficult to see if you have the right app, because some of these have two apps named very similarly.

In the process of doing this. I noticed that some of the apps are questionable. I don't want to delete them (especially as this would be a conflict of interest), but it would be good if someone (other than me) could check these apps and verify the correct title and developer as listed in Google Play. So here is what I am querying:

The BookBox app is a hyperlink that redirects to the wikipedia article Beulah_Thumbadoo. Presumably this is a mistake? And from looking at the Google Play store it is not clear which app this is. Is it [Free e-Book] BookBox Reader by MobiUcare or is it BookBox English by BookBox Inc

iReader, I do not know if this is the chinese version by ZHANGYUE, or the english version by Georgia Adreou. Does it make a difference in terms of features?

Then the following apps I was unable to find on Google Play so can't verify them and list their developer: Go Book, Laputa Book Reader, RepliGo Reader

Also, just a note that the Fabrik reader only appears in the Navigation Features table (2nd table), but none of the others. This should either be deleted or added to the other tables. Again this is another app I can't find on Google Play.

AlexAtEbooks (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. Sorry, I haven't been watching these pages as I promised I would. I suggest you go ahead and remove anything from the list that you can't verify clearly with reliable sources, per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. For products you've verified the existence of, if there is little or no reliable information about their features, then I'd consider deleting them too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I filled out what little I know about FBReader since I use it rather a lot and I happened to know some of the info was incorrect. Laputa Ebook Reader doesn't seem to be available in the play store now, and seems to have been removed sometime before June 2011, and their website disappeared completely sometime in 2012-2013; April 13 2012 is the last copy the web archive has available. ⚠Efreak 09:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fix References

I've been looking at the references and the 1st on for the androidsoul.com just seems a bit dodgy. It is used as a reference 7 times, in my opinion unnecessarily. Also the reference isn't even a link through to the actual article that is being referenced:

http://www.theandroidsoul.com/best-android-apps-as-ebook-reader-for-your-android-phone/

I am not really familiar with how to do references, so I'm not the best person to deal with this. But it seems like it needs attention. It definitely doesn't fit in with the other references that seems to be added correctly to the article. AlexAtEbooks (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlexAtEbooks, it does look a little dodgy to me. If it's the only place you can find a listed reader (do a good Google search) then I think you'd be justified in dropping that app from the list. If you can find a better source for an app, replace the theandroidsoul.com reference. I'll clean up the references with proper formatting when you're done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annotations export

If annotations are supported, whether those annotations can then be exported, is certainly critical to me and something I look for. Also in what formats annotations are exported but that seems a little more than this means of comparison could reasonably disclose. I've tried a large proportion of these e-readers and I could probably provide much of the data but I'd like some assent as to whether it should be included before doing so. Graatch (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moon+ Reader?

Why is Moon+ Reader not in the Software reading systems section? It is listed in all the other sections. Rsngfrce (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open multiple documents simultaneously

Can any of discussed reader open multiple different documents at once (simultaneously)? Please, anybody include this information in any compare table! (Thanks) 2A02:AB88:F03:0:28CF:F4C3:C424:B127 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]