2 ms·
It's roughly 10 US$/inch, and is not that there that many uses for the smaller 4.2" model, the US$ 70 for the 7" model is IMHO more than "not cheap", "rather ex
by jaclaz 7y ago
It's roughly 10 US$/inch, and is not that there that many uses for the smaller 4.2" model, the US$ 70 for the 7" model is IMHO more than "not cheap", "rather expensive".
I guess that for the "this week recipe" a more traditional printed paper remains cheaper and more practical.
For "daily" or more frequent need of refresh, maybe it may become a valid choice.
- reaperducer 7y agoI see at least one good use for the smaller one: Price tags at a supermarket. Instead of a team of clerks changing the labels for three hours at night, you can have one guy do the whole store in that time. The savings in labor would quickly make up for the initial expense.
- bleuarff 7y agoI don't know where you live, but here in France I haven't seen a paper price tag for years. Every chain store has been using e-ink tags for a long time.
- com2kid 7y agoOnly one of the grocery stores near me uses LCD price tags. There is a constant hiss/buzz from the power and I presume they aren't OLED because I can see the inconsistent backlight that goes out in places along the strip. Feels cheap and crappy overall.
- jaclaz 7y agoSure, but - all in all - it is not that the batteries will make a difference, if you have to change them - say - once every 1 to 5 years. Comparable "normal" e-ink labels cost much less than these (like 50-60%) AFAIK.
- boomlinde 7y agoE-ink shelf labels are quite common here. NFC in that case seems like a much worse option than longer distance radio communication powered by a small battery lasting a few years. As the article notes, this is probably best for information that needs to be updated relatively infrequently, if you're doing it so often that labor cost is at all much of a concern. Updating displays one by one manually using NFC seems like it would be nearly as labor intensive as swapping paper labels.