Nook’s Specs Are Exaggerated, Again
pogue.blogs.nytimes.com
pogue.blogs.nytimes.com
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).
I should be a marketer!
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 iPod headphones & speaker example really showed me that the author was not thinking along these lines. It in my mind is not a lie.
In the end though it rarely matters. Mom and dad will most likely buy whatever looks nicer (as well as what the neighbor has).
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.
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.