3 ms·

I mean, you haven't actually provided any reasons backing up your case. The comment is pure ad hominem with a case of appealing to self-authority. Why hasn't E

I mean, you haven't actually provided any reasons backing up your case. The comment is pure ad hominem with a case of appealing to self-authority. Why hasn't E-Ink display tech gone mass-market? lots of other commenters are arguing the reasons for and against.

robinsoh 6y ago
Allow me to try to explain his/her point. There's been a bunch of comments making really strong claims. Here's some examples just from this post. "They're famous for patent-trolling and disrupting anyone elses effort's to do anything with the tech". When asked for proof of this, there was no reply. "E Ink is part of a consortium that owns all the patents around the technology used in their ePaper displays." When asked for proof of this, there was no reply. "Because there's no real market, the only company "innovating" on the original technology is E-Ink. With a 20-year head start locking down iterative improvements, the technology may never get out of the tarpit. " When asked to back up the claim, at least the response was better in that they accepted it was an assumption based on other comments rather than actually being based on facts. " It is all just an assumption, and I don't have any evidence. Thank you for pointing that out, challenging me, and forcing me to take reconsider my opinion. " So his/her point is that people are alleging a company is a patent troll, even perhaps part of a consortium seeking to control the market and when challenged, they are unable to defend their claims. So your question appears to be asking him for reasons to backup his questioning of other people making claims. Eg, you are acting as Dan in the following itemized list. Alice: We are making a product at price X and volume Y with features Z Bob: Alice is preventing anyone else from making similar products using your patents. Alice is part of a consortium that is evil. A is making enormous profits. A is a patent troll. A is an example of patents gone wild. Charles: Uhm, Bob and buddies? Why are you saying that about Alice? I work in Alice's industry and see nothing like that. You guys shouldn't make such baseless comments as it brings down the quality of our technology forum and level of discussion. Dan: Charles, you're making ad-hominem attacks and appealing to self-authority. > Why hasn't E-Ink display tech gone mass-market? Because their technology (ie: the physics they're reliant on) can't do what competing products like LCD, OLED are able to do. You can't magically make electrophoretic particles that stay in a stable position AND move fast. You can't magically fit millions of color pigments in a pixel when there is NO backlight. Until they can switch to a different technology or physics, they can't compete against LCD/OLED and will never reach high enough volumes to scale to a lower cost structure.
robomartin 6y ago
> The comment is pure ad hominem You got that wrong. Listing the many ways in which someone doesn't know what they are talking about is a statement of fact, not a personal attack. If I argued a bunch of nonsense on HN about an article on biology and someone called me for not having a clue, that would not be a personal attack, they would be factually accurate. Biology is not my thing. Sometimes we just need the truth.

robinsoh 6y ago

Allow me to try to explain his/her point. There's been a bunch of comments making really strong claims. Here's some examples just from this post. "They're famous for patent-trolling and disrupting anyone elses effort's to do anything with the tech". When asked for proof of this, there was no reply. "E Ink is part of a consortium that owns all the patents around the technology used in their ePaper displays." When asked for proof of this, there was no reply. "Because there's no real market, the only company "innovating" on the original technology is E-Ink. With a 20-year head start locking down iterative improvements, the technology may never get out of the tarpit. " When asked to back up the claim, at least the response was better in that they accepted it was an assumption based on other comments rather than actually being based on facts. " It is all just an assumption, and I don't have any evidence. Thank you for pointing that out, challenging me, and forcing me to take reconsider my opinion. " So his/her point is that people are alleging a company is a patent troll, even perhaps part of a consortium seeking to control the market and when challenged, they are unable to defend their claims. So your question appears to be asking him for reasons to backup his questioning of other people making claims. Eg, you are acting as Dan in the following itemized list. Alice: We are making a product at price X and volume Y with features Z Bob: Alice is preventing anyone else from making similar products using your patents. Alice is part of a consortium that is evil. A is making enormous profits. A is a patent troll. A is an example of patents gone wild. Charles: Uhm, Bob and buddies? Why are you saying that about Alice? I work in Alice's industry and see nothing like that. You guys shouldn't make such baseless comments as it brings down the quality of our technology forum and level of discussion. Dan: Charles, you're making ad-hominem attacks and appealing to self-authority. > Why hasn't E-Ink display tech gone mass-market? Because their technology (ie: the physics they're reliant on) can't do what competing products like LCD, OLED are able to do. You can't magically make electrophoretic particles that stay in a stable position AND move fast. You can't magically fit millions of color pigments in a pixel when there is NO backlight. Until they can switch to a different technology or physics, they can't compete against LCD/OLED and will never reach high enough volumes to scale to a lower cost structure.

robomartin 6y ago

> The comment is pure ad hominem You got that wrong. Listing the many ways in which someone doesn't know what they are talking about is a statement of fact, not a personal attack. If I argued a bunch of nonsense on HN about an article on biology and someone called me for not having a clue, that would not be a personal attack, they would be factually accurate. Biology is not my thing. Sometimes we just need the truth.