Answers.Body: <p>First, I wanted to say: your goal is laudable; there is nothing wrong with wanting a simple ebook reader just for reading rather than a multipurpose device. Keep in mind that for most ebook readers network access will be needed to provide purchased content (Generally, although there are ways to add purchased content via usb for most devices). </p>
  
  <p>The 3 questions I would want to ask are:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>Would you be satisfied with a black and white low-energy device, or do you need color?</li>
  <li>Do you need to read a PDF?</li>
  <li>Do you want to have access to books from the big publishers? </li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>If you need to read a lot of  PDFs, unless you have good eyes, you should try to get a large display 8 inches or more. </p>
  
  <p>If you need to buy books from big publishers, then you probably want to buy a device with DRM on it. Either you want a Kindle or Nook or Kobo device, and you need to load the ebooks manually. </p>
  
  <p>Most of the e-ink devices (even the old ones) are single purpose devices which  work perfectly well, and frankly, even though they have wifi, it's so clunky to surf on it that you might as well be offline. I have owned several kindles, and I don't think I have ever gone surfing on the Net more than 2 or 3 times. </p>
  
  <p>Even though I'm not enthusiastic about the Kindle ebook format, their devices are great, and there is a certain minimalist appeal about the e-ink devices. I would buy any kindle -- I would seek out a certified refurbished version of any model produced from 2014 forward  (I have one from 2010 which I still use!), It's possible to get lost in comparing specs, but the differences between them are rather small. I would pay attention to battery life, whether there are actual buttons on the device (as opposed to virtual ones) and possibly if you are a book fiend, buy one with a SD/microSD memory slot. Also, Kindle has a lot more free and discounted content than other platforms. </p>
  
  <p>You could certainly go used, though unless you are really cost-conscious, I would spend at least 50$. I would recommend that you try to buy a "certified refurbished" model of whatever you like.</p>
  
  <p>If you are buying a device for someone and want to block their ability to surf, keep in mind that both the android tablets and kindle tablets already have parental controls  to set daily quotas on usage. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-04T08:42:07.217Z
Answers.Text: This is general buying process recommendation and doesn't answer the OP question about whether devices *without internet browser* exists **at all**. Maybe you were mislead by the OPs unnecessary verbosity?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Anthon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-03T00:03:13.667Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-04-22T16:52:18.530Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2016-04-22T16:52:18.530Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: idiotprogrammer
Answers.Body: <p><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Z97FOW/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1" rel="nofollow">Sony PRS350</a> series. I have one from that Amazon link. No net or bluetooth connection at all. You have to connect the device to your PC USB port, and it appears as a drive. I got it because I wanted something smaller than my tablet. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-25T19:45:26.750Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-04-25T19:45:26.750Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Bulrush
Body: <p>Does anyone know of an e-Reader that doesn't have any kind of internet browser on it?<br>
  I don't care if I might need to buy an older generation of one. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-04T08:38:37.950Z
Comments.Text: Welcome to Ebooks, please read at least the [tour] and consider condensing all the unnecessary fluff out of your question to improve it. BTW the answer to your question is: yes, such devices exists (one of my Ebook readers has no network connection at all).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Anthon
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-04T11:52:49.897Z
Comments.Text: Anthon, Your comment about there being "unnecessary fluff" in the question is objectively wrong. The question as stated is perfectly clear and concise. What is not clear is the person's motivation or why it's needed to have no browser.
Comments.UserDisplayName: idiotprogrammer
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-08T08:05:07.967Z
Comments.Text: @idiotprogrammer What part of " So here's the thing" makes the original post more easy to understand than the edited version? Or did you completely miss that the comment refers to an older version of the post.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Anthon
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-08T23:00:07.527Z
Comments.Text: Anthon, thank you you for pointing out the edits. Yes, I went back to read the original question, and I felt the original words were helpful for conveying attitude and context. As a professional editor and writer, I frequently feel the temptation to edit online remarks by others. But there can be value in preserving the original phrases -- even if they don't sound polished-- especially  if the original message is properly understood. Aside from typos and punctuation, I typically would prefer not to edit the phrasings of others  without their permission. Context and motivation is important!
Comments.UserDisplayName: idiotprogrammer
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-08T23:13:42.833Z
Comments.Text: I had answered the original question -- not the edited one. An anecdote suffices: I once edited a verbose passage by a well-known author for a book. From an editor's point of view, my  edit made perfect sense, but the author overruled me, pointing out that this prolixity was entirely the point of the passage! (Of course, this was for a short story, not an online forum).
Comments.UserDisplayName: idiotprogrammer
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-05T13:36:59.830Z
Comments.Text: Even the first-gen Kindle had wifi-access (to facilitate buying books online) however the UI was so clunky and slow it was impossible to surf the internet (more of a gentle plod). It doesn't have a web browser as we would know of one today one it. However, even the second and third-gen Kindle's greatly improve on the screen contrast.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user3791372
Tags: <kindle><ebook-readers>
Title: Are there any e-Readers that can't surf the net?
UserDisplayName: molly
ThreadText: # Are there any e-Readers that can't surf the net?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-04-02)
  
  Does anyone know of an e-Reader that doesn't have any kind of internet browser on it?  
  I don't care if I might need to buy an older generation of one.
  
  **Tags:** kindle, ebook-readers
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Welcome to Ebooks, please read at least the [tour] and consider condensing all the unnecessary fluff out of your question to improve it. BTW the answer to your question is: yes, such devices exists (one of my Ebook readers has no network connection at all).  
  > **username_2**: username_1, Your comment about there being "unnecessary fluff" in the question is objectively wrong. The question as stated is perfectly clear and concise. What is not clear is the person's motivation or why it's needed to have no browser.  
  > **username_1**: @username_2 What part of " So here's the thing" makes the original post more easy to understand than the edited version? Or did you completely miss that the comment refers to an older version of the post.  
  > **username_2**: username_1, thank you you for pointing out the edits. Yes, I went back to read the original question, and I felt the original words were helpful for conveying attitude and context. As a professional editor and writer, I frequently feel the temptation to edit online remarks by others. But there can be value in preserving the original phrases -- even if they don't sound polished-- especially  if the original message is properly understood. Aside from typos and punctuation, I typically would prefer not to edit the phrasings of others  without their permission. Context and motivation is important!  
  > **username_2**: I had answered the original question -- not the edited one. An anecdote suffices: I once edited a verbose passage by a well-known author for a book. From an editor's point of view, my  edit made perfect sense, but the author overruled me, pointing out that this prolixity was entirely the point of the passage! (Of course, this was for a short story, not an online forum).  
  > **username_3**: Even the first-gen Kindle had wifi-access (to facilitate buying books online) however the UI was so clunky and slow it was impossible to surf the internet (more of a gentle plod). It doesn't have a web browser as we would know of one today one it. However, even the second and third-gen Kindle's greatly improve on the screen contrast.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-04-03. Score: 1
  
  First, I wanted to say: your goal is laudable; there is nothing wrong with wanting a simple ebook reader just for reading rather than a multipurpose device. Keep in mind that for most ebook readers network access will be needed to provide purchased content (Generally, although there are ways to add purchased content via usb for most devices).
  
  The 3 questions I would want to ask are:
  
  1. Would you be satisfied with a black and white low-energy device, or do you need color?
  2. Do you need to read a PDF?
  3. Do you want to have access to books from the big publishers?
  
  If you need to read a lot of PDFs, unless you have good eyes, you should try to get a large display 8 inches or more.
  
  If you need to buy books from big publishers, then you probably want to buy a device with DRM on it. Either you want a Kindle or Nook or Kobo device, and you need to load the ebooks manually.
  
  Most of the e-ink devices (even the old ones) are single purpose devices which work perfectly well, and frankly, even though they have wifi, it's so clunky to surf on it that you might as well be offline. I have owned several kindles, and I don't think I have ever gone surfing on the Net more than 2 or 3 times.
  
  Even though I'm not enthusiastic about the Kindle ebook format, their devices are great, and there is a certain minimalist appeal about the e-ink devices. I would buy any kindle -- I would seek out a certified refurbished version of any model produced from 2014 forward (I have one from 2010 which I still use!), It's possible to get lost in comparing specs, but the differences between them are rather small. I would pay attention to battery life, whether there are actual buttons on the device (as opposed to virtual ones) and possibly if you are a book fiend, buy one with a SD/microSD memory slot. Also, Kindle has a lot more free and discounted content than other platforms.
  
  You could certainly go used, though unless you are really cost-conscious, I would spend at least 50$. I would recommend that you try to buy a "certified refurbished" model of whatever you like.
  
  If you are buying a device for someone and want to block their ability to surf, keep in mind that both the android tablets and kindle tablets already have parental controls to set daily quotas on usage.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: This is general buying process recommendation and doesn't answer the OP question about whether devices *without internet browser* exists **at all**. Maybe you were mislead by the OPs unnecessary verbosity?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2016-04-25. Score: 0
  
  [Sony PRS350](https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Z97FOW/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) series. I have one from that Amazon link. No net or bluetooth connection at all. You have to connect the device to your PC USB port, and it appears as a drive. I got it because I wanted something smaller than my tablet.
  
  
  ---
  
  