6 ms·

I've always thought the future of newspapers was an iPad sized e-ink reader. One cheap enough for papers to give away to their subscribers. Yet it hasn't happ

by rmason 6y ago

I've always thought the future of newspapers was an iPad sized e-ink reader. One cheap enough for papers to give away to their subscribers. Yet it hasn't happened and I'm left wondering why? I think it's because the newspaper industry has tunnel vision. You might ask what about newspaper apps on phones? First it isn't an ideal screen size for a newspaper. Second they only show a fraction of the articles. They also keep articles on their scroll for days and days. I don't know about you but I don't chose a digital delivery to get days old stories. I think the industry needs a well funded disruptor. Living in Michigan I can tell you that without Elon Musk we'd never be moving toward battery powered automobiles. I've dealt with Gannett's customer service and I have come away convinced that they hate their customers.

BossingAround 6y ago
> Yet it hasn't happened and I'm left wondering why? I thought it had to do more with the patents on a lot of the e-ink technology? I've been waiting for a proper e-ink monitor that wouldn't cost me an arm and a leg for years.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  You and me both. Maybe it's demand that will drive down the price. Now, if you and I each buy one ... I will if you will. ;-)
nafizh 6y ago
It’s the e-ink patent problem. Nothing innovative is happening because of the e-ink parent company.
- AshamedCaptain 6y ago
  Please don't start with this BS again. Every time e-ink is mentioned in this forum, the same. There is absolutely no proof that e-Ink is boycotting their own business, much less using patents. There are eInk devices and manufacturers to spare. eInk is just expensive to manufacture. Personally I think there is just no demand. You could build a large reflective LCD for a fraction of the price; you would have none of the problems of eInk -- such as the bad refresh rate -- and users have a hard time distinguishing an eInk panel from a reflective-LCD panel anyway (see the Pebble). Even accounting for the energy consumption it would probably be a close call in cost, unless you plan on updating the panel only a couple times per week. The fact that no one of the LCD panel manufacturers are doing this even with leftovers from other production lines just shows how little demand there is, outside of HN-welcome hobbyist projects and other low-power areas such as smartwatches.
  - fortran77 6y ago
    The "e-ink patent" trope here is very suspicious. I understand that many people on HN think all intellectual property is bad and would love to throw away parts the U.S. Constitution that provide for that. (Curiously HN gets people who want to be as rich as Elon Musk, but don't think anything should cost money!) But why the obsessive focus on e-ink? This isn't some silly "click a button" software patent. This is a real "invention" that involves complex physics, material science, and expensive specialized manufacturing lines. If anything seems like an "invention" of the sort that the framers of the constitution had in mind, this does. So I must believe that the mention of "patents" whenever e-ink is mentioned is some sort of coordinated FUD attack by a competitor or someone with some sort of agenda. I agree with your conclusion that the reason e-ink seems expensive is lack of demand. More demand could drive production efficiencies and scale.
    - emsimot 6y ago
      > Curiously HN gets people who want to be as rich as Elon Musk, but don't think anything should cost money! Those are different people, just both using HN
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      I think that, in the e-ink case, the monopoly price is outweighting the benefit for society that the monopoly grant brought. I agree it's not a frivolous one, but whatever licensing they do so others can use their tech, seems to be both restrictive and onerous.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fortran77 6y ago
  Cell phones have tens of thousands of patents. Yet the innovations keep coming.
- varispeed 6y ago
  What exactly is patented? Really, nobody else can make e-ink? It doesn't seem like this idea is in any way original.
  - fortran77 6y ago
    You can easily search US Patents here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html > Really, nobody else can make e-ink? It doesn't seem like this idea is in any way original. I must be stupid, because the implementation of e-ink certainly seems novel, original, and useful to me! I would never have thought of it, nor did I see it before I saw the first e-ink display: Here's a description: Small capsules filled with a clear fluid containing tiny particles, each about as wide as a human hair. Each electronic paper display is made up of millions of such capsules in a thin film, with the particles inside the capsules of different colors and different electric charges. Electrodes are placed above and below the capsule film. When a positive or negative electric field is applied to an individual electrode, the color particles with the corresponding charge will move either to the top or bottom of a capsule, making the surface of the e-paper display appear a certain color
    - varispeed 6y ago
      The idea was around since 70s https://www.wired.com/1997/05/ff-digitalink/ https://www.wired.com/1997/05/ff-digitalink/ Just because people had money to implement it, does not mean it should not be available for anyone else. It seems the patents are used to protect investments of privileged people and that's wrong.
      - fortran77 6y ago
        It's in the U.S. Constitution. So implementing your ideal would take quite a bit of doing. What are you proposing? That the State control all labor and property?
        varispeed 6y ago
- robinsoh 6y ago
  > It’s the e-ink patent problem. Nothing innovative is happening because of the e-ink parent company. I guess I give up fighting this trope and I get downvoted even when I politely request a citation to backup such a strong claim. I'll join you then. How about: " Yes, all problems are due to patents. It can't possibly be due to low volume and low demand for these types of displays. It has to be patents. Wipe out all patents and et voila , we'll have 10 cent priced 32 inch bistable displays from all the vendors like eink, clearink, and liquavista, Iridigm will all come back to life and the laws of physics and manufacturing economics will bend to the will of HN posters."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- kalleboo 6y ago
  According the founder of the company making the eInk display used in the post we're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25067359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25067359 > I hate to say it, but the only way we could have brought the price down with current quantities is if we built an inferior product as the price right now is the function of Bill-of-Materials. Doesn't sound like patents is the problem
crazygringo 6y ago
Putting cost aside, I think it's, first, because people don't want a separate device just for newspapers. That's just clutter. I want to read my news on the same device I read magazine articles and novels and blogs. And second, while e-ink devices are really great at sequential reading -- page after page of a novel -- they're not that great at browsing lots of articles, picking the ones you're interested in, just because the refresh rate and scrolling is awfully slow. Most people aren't bothered about reading news on their phone at all. It really is an ideal screen size for accessing bite-sized pieces of news throughout the day when we have short breaks, which honestly is how most people do it these days. If you want leisurely long-form journalism over breakfast, you're really only looking at the Sunday paper, or certain weekly magazines. And so you can splurge to get those on actual paper, or else curl up with your iPad or Kindle.
- falcor84 6y ago
  I for one would be quite interested in a separate device just for newspapers, something that has absolutely no other functions (other than perhaps a built-in glossary) and allows me to just catch up on news as a deliberate action, without getting drawn into various rabbit holes.
- ghaff 6y ago
  And organizations like the NYT have adapted the format of certain stories to be tablet/computer friendly. Honestly the lets have a digital newspaper that imitates the form of a paper newspaper is going back to how people were thinking in the late 90s (fishwrap I think? out of MIT). I honestly don't even reach for my tablet all that much because I'm already on my phone or a laptop. I do like e-ink for flowing text reading and I have a Kindle but I don't have any interest in a different tablet that's just for newspapers absent the newer more dynamic features.
  - AlanYx 6y ago
    >in the late 90s (fishwrap I think? out of MIT) That's a project I haven't heard mentioned in a long while! We're both getting old though... Fishwrap is from the early 90s... got started in 1993 and the main paper on it was published in 1995.
arkh 6y ago
Because it is easier to adapt software to hardware than the opposite. You'd think there would be e-ink devices aimed at mangas nowadays. But the software was adapted to phone usage, that's how you get webtoons and artists playing with the possibilities given by scrolling.
ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
I suspect that the digital news industry is dealing with a similar thing to the streaming industry: Everyone wants to run directly to customers, so customers need to subscribe to every newspaper and magazine they want to see, individually. I subscribe to two digital newspapers. I'd subscribe to a lot more, if they were bundled into aggregators (that didn't push worthless sports pages on customers, like cable systems do). When Apple came out with their AppleNews+, I thought that was it, but then I saw that they don't actually have much that I want. Both streamers and news organizations need to get their shit together, and bundle. I don't see that happening, any time soon, so the options are still dealing with a Balkanized media scene.
- ghaff 6y ago
  The problem is likely related to the one with video. Sure, I can give you an aggregated subscription but it will cost you $1,000+ per year. How many people will pay that? (And that's around what the basic cable TV bundle cost so it's hardly out of line.)
  - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
    I think that if it replaced cable, and it were billed in a similar manner, a lot of folks would definitely consider it. The problem with cable, was that horrible "forced" bundling. Lose that, and it's worth the money.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      For video today, you have the a la carte choice. I dropped my cable bundle and spend less per month for better programming. It means I don't have any live TV but it's a reasonable tradeoff for me. I don't really need an aggregator. I have 3 or 4 monthly charges, any of which I can drop at any time and I'm fine with that. The issue with newspapers/magazines is that there are so many of them and there may be only an article or 2 a month I'm really interested in.
mkl 6y ago
> I've always thought the future of newspapers was an iPad sized e-ink reader. One cheap enough for papers to give away to their subscribers. Yet it hasn't happened and I'm left wondering why There simply aren't any anywhere near that cheap, especially not that big. Besides, everyone in the market for newspapers already has a smartphone or tablet, and those are better at displaying ads, video, etc. The breadth of articles shown is probably of low concern to the newspaper, or they would have fixed it.
m-p-3 6y ago
> I think it's because the newspaper industry has tunnel vision. I don't know about that. Most people who wants to read the news will often opt for a tablet like the iPad because not only they can read on it, they can also watch videos, send messages, etc. It's all about maximizing the use of their money with a device that can do as much as possible. I do have an eReader, but compared to tablet owners it's a small market.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vineyardmike 6y ago
The best digital-first news I have seen is https://pudding.cool/ https://pudding.cool/ (which is very niche). As others mentioned, i think the news-tablet is very "take a newspaper and add internet" view when we everyone already has internet connected devices. It almost seems even more tunnel visioned.
intricatedetail 6y ago
To me it seems like they bought regulation so that Google and others will have to pay for posting excerpts. This means probably they'll get enough money to keep the status quo and won't innovate. Why would they? Money will roll in anyway.

by rmason 6y ago

BossingAround 6y ago

> Yet it hasn't happened and I'm left wondering why? I thought it had to do more with the patents on a lot of the e-ink technology? I've been waiting for a proper e-ink monitor that wouldn't cost me an arm and a leg for years.

JKCalhoun 6y ago
You and me both. Maybe it's demand that will drive down the price. Now, if you and I each buy one ... I will if you will. ;-)

nafizh 6y ago

It’s the e-ink patent problem. Nothing innovative is happening because of the e-ink parent company.

AshamedCaptain 6y ago
Please don't start with this BS again. Every time e-ink is mentioned in this forum, the same. There is absolutely no proof that e-Ink is boycotting their own business, much less using patents. There are eInk devices and manufacturers to spare. eInk is just expensive to manufacture. Personally I think there is just no demand. You could build a large reflective LCD for a fraction of the price; you would have none of the problems of eInk -- such as the bad refresh rate -- and users have a hard time distinguishing an eInk panel from a reflective-LCD panel anyway (see the Pebble). Even accounting for the energy consumption it would probably be a close call in cost, unless you plan on updating the panel only a couple times per week. The fact that no one of the LCD panel manufacturers are doing this even with leftovers from other production lines just shows how little demand there is, outside of HN-welcome hobbyist projects and other low-power areas such as smartwatches.
- fortran77 6y ago
  The "e-ink patent" trope here is very suspicious. I understand that many people on HN think all intellectual property is bad and would love to throw away parts the U.S. Constitution that provide for that. (Curiously HN gets people who want to be as rich as Elon Musk, but don't think anything should cost money!) But why the obsessive focus on e-ink? This isn't some silly "click a button" software patent. This is a real "invention" that involves complex physics, material science, and expensive specialized manufacturing lines. If anything seems like an "invention" of the sort that the framers of the constitution had in mind, this does. So I must believe that the mention of "patents" whenever e-ink is mentioned is some sort of coordinated FUD attack by a competitor or someone with some sort of agenda. I agree with your conclusion that the reason e-ink seems expensive is lack of demand. More demand could drive production efficiencies and scale.
  - emsimot 6y ago
    > Curiously HN gets people who want to be as rich as Elon Musk, but don't think anything should cost money! Those are different people, just both using HN
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    I think that, in the e-ink case, the monopoly price is outweighting the benefit for society that the monopoly grant brought. I agree it's not a frivolous one, but whatever licensing they do so others can use their tech, seems to be both restrictive and onerous.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fortran77 6y ago
Cell phones have tens of thousands of patents. Yet the innovations keep coming.
varispeed 6y ago
What exactly is patented? Really, nobody else can make e-ink? It doesn't seem like this idea is in any way original.
- fortran77 6y ago
  You can easily search US Patents here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html > Really, nobody else can make e-ink? It doesn't seem like this idea is in any way original. I must be stupid, because the implementation of e-ink certainly seems novel, original, and useful to me! I would never have thought of it, nor did I see it before I saw the first e-ink display: Here's a description: Small capsules filled with a clear fluid containing tiny particles, each about as wide as a human hair. Each electronic paper display is made up of millions of such capsules in a thin film, with the particles inside the capsules of different colors and different electric charges. Electrodes are placed above and below the capsule film. When a positive or negative electric field is applied to an individual electrode, the color particles with the corresponding charge will move either to the top or bottom of a capsule, making the surface of the e-paper display appear a certain color
  - varispeed 6y ago
    The idea was around since 70s https://www.wired.com/1997/05/ff-digitalink/ https://www.wired.com/1997/05/ff-digitalink/ Just because people had money to implement it, does not mean it should not be available for anyone else. It seems the patents are used to protect investments of privileged people and that's wrong.
    - fortran77 6y ago
      It's in the U.S. Constitution. So implementing your ideal would take quite a bit of doing. What are you proposing? That the State control all labor and property?
      - varispeed 6y ago
robinsoh 6y ago
> It’s the e-ink patent problem. Nothing innovative is happening because of the e-ink parent company. I guess I give up fighting this trope and I get downvoted even when I politely request a citation to backup such a strong claim. I'll join you then. How about: " Yes, all problems are due to patents. It can't possibly be due to low volume and low demand for these types of displays. It has to be patents. Wipe out all patents and et voila , we'll have 10 cent priced 32 inch bistable displays from all the vendors like eink, clearink, and liquavista, Iridigm will all come back to life and the laws of physics and manufacturing economics will bend to the will of HN posters."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kalleboo 6y ago
According the founder of the company making the eInk display used in the post we're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25067359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25067359 > I hate to say it, but the only way we could have brought the price down with current quantities is if we built an inferior product as the price right now is the function of Bill-of-Materials. Doesn't sound like patents is the problem

crazygringo 6y ago

Putting cost aside, I think it's, first, because people don't want a separate device just for newspapers. That's just clutter. I want to read my news on the same device I read magazine articles and novels and blogs. And second, while e-ink devices are really great at sequential reading -- page after page of a novel -- they're not that great at browsing lots of articles, picking the ones you're interested in, just because the refresh rate and scrolling is awfully slow. Most people aren't bothered about reading news on their phone at all. It really is an ideal screen size for accessing bite-sized pieces of news throughout the day when we have short breaks, which honestly is how most people do it these days. If you want leisurely long-form journalism over breakfast, you're really only looking at the Sunday paper, or certain weekly magazines. And so you can splurge to get those on actual paper, or else curl up with your iPad or Kindle.

falcor84 6y ago
I for one would be quite interested in a separate device just for newspapers, something that has absolutely no other functions (other than perhaps a built-in glossary) and allows me to just catch up on news as a deliberate action, without getting drawn into various rabbit holes.
ghaff 6y ago
And organizations like the NYT have adapted the format of certain stories to be tablet/computer friendly. Honestly the lets have a digital newspaper that imitates the form of a paper newspaper is going back to how people were thinking in the late 90s (fishwrap I think? out of MIT). I honestly don't even reach for my tablet all that much because I'm already on my phone or a laptop. I do like e-ink for flowing text reading and I have a Kindle but I don't have any interest in a different tablet that's just for newspapers absent the newer more dynamic features.
- AlanYx 6y ago
  >in the late 90s (fishwrap I think? out of MIT) That's a project I haven't heard mentioned in a long while! We're both getting old though... Fishwrap is from the early 90s... got started in 1993 and the main paper on it was published in 1995.

arkh 6y ago

Because it is easier to adapt software to hardware than the opposite. You'd think there would be e-ink devices aimed at mangas nowadays. But the software was adapted to phone usage, that's how you get webtoons and artists playing with the possibilities given by scrolling.

ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago

I suspect that the digital news industry is dealing with a similar thing to the streaming industry: Everyone wants to run directly to customers, so customers need to subscribe to every newspaper and magazine they want to see, individually. I subscribe to two digital newspapers. I'd subscribe to a lot more, if they were bundled into aggregators (that didn't push worthless sports pages on customers, like cable systems do). When Apple came out with their AppleNews+, I thought that was it, but then I saw that they don't actually have much that I want. Both streamers and news organizations need to get their shit together, and bundle. I don't see that happening, any time soon, so the options are still dealing with a Balkanized media scene.

ghaff 6y ago
The problem is likely related to the one with video. Sure, I can give you an aggregated subscription but it will cost you $1,000+ per year. How many people will pay that? (And that's around what the basic cable TV bundle cost so it's hardly out of line.)
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  I think that if it replaced cable, and it were billed in a similar manner, a lot of folks would definitely consider it. The problem with cable, was that horrible "forced" bundling. Lose that, and it's worth the money.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    For video today, you have the a la carte choice. I dropped my cable bundle and spend less per month for better programming. It means I don't have any live TV but it's a reasonable tradeoff for me. I don't really need an aggregator. I have 3 or 4 monthly charges, any of which I can drop at any time and I'm fine with that. The issue with newspapers/magazines is that there are so many of them and there may be only an article or 2 a month I'm really interested in.

mkl 6y ago

> I've always thought the future of newspapers was an iPad sized e-ink reader. One cheap enough for papers to give away to their subscribers. Yet it hasn't happened and I'm left wondering why There simply aren't any anywhere near that cheap, especially not that big. Besides, everyone in the market for newspapers already has a smartphone or tablet, and those are better at displaying ads, video, etc. The breadth of articles shown is probably of low concern to the newspaper, or they would have fixed it.

m-p-3 6y ago

> I think it's because the newspaper industry has tunnel vision. I don't know about that. Most people who wants to read the news will often opt for a tablet like the iPad because not only they can read on it, they can also watch videos, send messages, etc. It's all about maximizing the use of their money with a device that can do as much as possible. I do have an eReader, but compared to tablet owners it's a small market.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

vineyardmike 6y ago

The best digital-first news I have seen is https://pudding.cool/ https://pudding.cool/ (which is very niche). As others mentioned, i think the news-tablet is very "take a newspaper and add internet" view when we everyone already has internet connected devices. It almost seems even more tunnel visioned.

intricatedetail 6y ago

To me it seems like they bought regulation so that Google and others will have to pay for posting excerpts. This means probably they'll get enough money to keep the status quo and won't innovate. Why would they? Money will roll in anyway.