3 ms·

> Demand doesn't bring prices down. Or not much anyway. In my experience in the display industry, the main driver of price is cost and the main driver of cost

> Demand doesn't bring prices down. Or not much anyway. In my experience in the display industry, the main driver of price is cost and the main driver of cost is volume. If a customer puts in a signed escrowed order for a million displays lilke what Apple did, then processes get scaled, factories get built, and per-unit prices go down. That my understanding of how 6" matrix E-Ink displays went from costing thousands of dollars per display when they were being built in low volumes of hundreds of displays to costing sub-50 when they were being built for Sony, Amazon and others in volumes of hundreds of thousands of displays. The same is true of the LCD industry and the OLED industry. The same is true of the cellphone industry. > And with patents competition is impossible I can't understand what exactly you're talking about. Is this the E-Ink-is-expensive-because-of-patents trope? I've asked before whenever I see this trope on HN, what specific patent are you referring to? Patent thicket? This extraordinary claim requires evidence. I go to SID, never heard anyone claiming this kind of stuff. Tonnes of competition but physics, featureset, costs, volume, customer demand gets in the way. It is why even well funded companies like Liquavista-Amazon and Mirasol-Qualcom didn't make it.

coldtea 6y ago
>I can't understand what exactly you're talking about. I'm talking about exactly this: if a company holds patents on a technology, other companies can't improve the same technology (using parts of the patented tech and improving specific aspects with inventions of their own) without licensing it. >This extraordinary claim requires evidence. Nothing extraordinary, and it's not about E-ink being cheap or expensive, it's just an invariant where there are patents.
- robinsoh 6y ago
  > if a company holds patents on a technology, other companies can't improve the same technology You're making a claim equivalent to saying Microsoft holds patents on operating system technologies, other companies can't improve the same technology. I'm guessing you're not actually involved in the display industry because you chose not to reply with a clearly defined specific problem that is blocked by patents. I actually work in the display industry so I just see the repetition and self-citation claims (OP's article refers to yet another HN throwaway post) on HN as being disappointing.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >You're making a claim equivalent to saying Microsoft holds patents on operating system technologies, other companies can't improve the same technology. No, I'm stating the fact that other companies can't improve the same exact technology (as defined in the patent). If Microsoft has patents on aspects X, Y, Z of filesystems, other companies can still make filesystems, even improved ones. But they can't make a filesystem that also leverages X, Y, Z (or any combination of them) unless they license, and also can't make a filesystem with an improved version of X, Y, or Z lest they infringe on the X, Y, Z pattent. So this isn't about other companies still being able to make improved eg. OSes in the general sense, but if they can build improved OSes that also leverage the same patented techniques where needed (and they can't).
    - robinsoh 6y ago
      > I'm stating the fact that other companies can't improve the same exact technology (as defined in the patent). That's equivalent to saying Samsung can't improve the same exact technology used by AU Optronics. Rightfully so. > So this isn't about other companies still being able to make improved eg. OSes in the general sense, but if they can build improved OSes that also leverage the same patented techniques where needed (and they can't) I think I've explained my point clearly enough. I'll wait for you to give some factual evidence as to which patent you believe is giving rise to your statement of "they can't".
      - fortran77 6y ago
        Thanks for taking the time to argue with this person. I withheld--despite the downvote brigade--because I presume he has some other agenda for promoting this story.
        coldtea 6y ago
        Thanks for passive aggresively talking to a third party about me as "this person" and thanking them for the courage to discuss with me. Thanks for having some persecution syndrome or conspiracy theory about "the downvote brigade" and about me having "some other agenda for promoting this story". In actually, I don't give a duck about the E-ink industry, but I do dislike the effect patents have in general, and am talking out of general principles about that. You might be happy with E-ink patents in particular or patens in general. You might also be an E-ink industry insider (wouldn't that make you the one that is more possible to have an "agenda" ot at least a vested interest?), and have far more information that me, a mere e-ink consumer, about the impact of patents there. You could still respond (or not respond) on a thread about the impact on patents (on e-ink and in general) without being rude and second-guessing the other person. How about that?

coldtea 6y ago

>I can't understand what exactly you're talking about. I'm talking about exactly this: if a company holds patents on a technology, other companies can't improve the same technology (using parts of the patented tech and improving specific aspects with inventions of their own) without licensing it. >This extraordinary claim requires evidence. Nothing extraordinary, and it's not about E-ink being cheap or expensive, it's just an invariant where there are patents.

robinsoh 6y ago
> if a company holds patents on a technology, other companies can't improve the same technology You're making a claim equivalent to saying Microsoft holds patents on operating system technologies, other companies can't improve the same technology. I'm guessing you're not actually involved in the display industry because you chose not to reply with a clearly defined specific problem that is blocked by patents. I actually work in the display industry so I just see the repetition and self-citation claims (OP's article refers to yet another HN throwaway post) on HN as being disappointing.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >You're making a claim equivalent to saying Microsoft holds patents on operating system technologies, other companies can't improve the same technology. No, I'm stating the fact that other companies can't improve the same exact technology (as defined in the patent). If Microsoft has patents on aspects X, Y, Z of filesystems, other companies can still make filesystems, even improved ones. But they can't make a filesystem that also leverages X, Y, Z (or any combination of them) unless they license, and also can't make a filesystem with an improved version of X, Y, or Z lest they infringe on the X, Y, Z pattent. So this isn't about other companies still being able to make improved eg. OSes in the general sense, but if they can build improved OSes that also leverage the same patented techniques where needed (and they can't).
  - robinsoh 6y ago
    > I'm stating the fact that other companies can't improve the same exact technology (as defined in the patent). That's equivalent to saying Samsung can't improve the same exact technology used by AU Optronics. Rightfully so. > So this isn't about other companies still being able to make improved eg. OSes in the general sense, but if they can build improved OSes that also leverage the same patented techniques where needed (and they can't) I think I've explained my point clearly enough. I'll wait for you to give some factual evidence as to which patent you believe is giving rise to your statement of "they can't".
    - fortran77 6y ago
      Thanks for taking the time to argue with this person. I withheld--despite the downvote brigade--because I presume he has some other agenda for promoting this story.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        Thanks for passive aggresively talking to a third party about me as "this person" and thanking them for the courage to discuss with me. Thanks for having some persecution syndrome or conspiracy theory about "the downvote brigade" and about me having "some other agenda for promoting this story". In actually, I don't give a duck about the E-ink industry, but I do dislike the effect patents have in general, and am talking out of general principles about that. You might be happy with E-ink patents in particular or patens in general. You might also be an E-ink industry insider (wouldn't that make you the one that is more possible to have an "agenda" ot at least a vested interest?), and have far more information that me, a mere e-ink consumer, about the impact of patents there. You could still respond (or not respond) on a thread about the impact on patents (on e-ink and in general) without being rude and second-guessing the other person. How about that?