5 ms·

This has been covered repeatedly on HN. There's no evidence of this. Electrophoresis is slow because of the laws of physics! That's why a 2007 kindle panel's up

This has been covered repeatedly on HN. There's no evidence of this. Electrophoresis is slow because of the laws of physics! That's why a 2007 kindle panel's update speed is the same as a 2021 kindle but the contrast ratio and cost is vastly superior since those are things that aren't violating physics! Companies like ClearInk are trying different methods to get faster speed but to achieve that they are forced to sacrifice bistability. Not sure why this factually incorrect trope about patents keeps getting repeated. You can look at my comment history to see that I've been trying to address this issue repeatedly.

sireat 5y ago
We are talking about two issues - progress and existing availability: 1. Improvement on panels - you are right, physics is holding us back here. It is debatable whether cross-licensing so prevalent elsewhere in the industry would help. Even then I'd say Eink is holding industry back because they've closed avenues for other companies to iterate on Eink's core patents. (Again maybe good for Eink, but not good for everyone else) 2. Variety, use, licensing of existing technology - here Eink corporation is holding everyone else back. They decide on what to manufacture and how to sell it. How can this be good for the consumer / small time startup? There is plenty of anecdata on how hard it is to make a new product with Eink. They are very protective of their technology. LG can't just decide to make 32inch eink panels and license the tech from Eink. Eink practically holds a monopoly in their niche. They've bought most of their competitors in eink industry. SiPix was one of them. They are heavily pushing for vertical integration. My argument is that with more open patent situation in e-ink world, we would see more/different manufacturers, we would see more interesting devices with different sizes/ratios at a lower cost. PS I own 10+ e-ink readers in sizes from 5 inches to 13.3 inches and everything in between that Eink has allowed makers to use. I am convinced that with more competition we would see better variety in large size e-ink device market. I have an open mind, and would love to see an example of some company being a sole patent holder/monopoly for 20+ years in some industry being good for everyone else.
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > I'd say Eink is holding industry back because they've closed avenues for other companies to iterate on Eink's core patents. As I mentioned in my past comments, I work in the display industry and the only people I've heard the above comment from are people who are not in the display industry. It is the equivalent of someone outside software development making an accusation like Microsoft is holding back operating system development because of Microsoft's patents. I hope you can see the point. If not, perhaps you could give some evidence. The rest of your post (monopoly, lack of competition, lack of variety) is based on the same fundamental claim you've made above.
  - sireat 5y ago
    It is good to hear from someone in the display industry! Please do provide some evidence. (not a snark) So often here on HN we hear from experts in some field that common wisdom is wrong but we do not see the evidence. (HFT insiders come to mind) I have been hearing the lamentations on the consumer side of eink for over 10 years . My observation is that there is a dearth of competition and innovation in e-ink display industry. What are the causes? Physics okay, but what else? My hypothesis is that it is caused by Eink corporation choosing to go after a big slice of a relatively small pie. They are trying to grow this pie very slowly in a controlled matter not willing to sacrifice any market share. I would love to hear otherwise. Why are we as consumers only now getting one choice of a 20+ inch eink screen? Analogy would be Mac:PC in the 1980s and their experiences with compatibles. Both Apple and IBM regretted allowing compatible devices. There is also Xerox and before-mentioned 3D printing. So to me it seems E-ink has taken those lessons(closed system good/open bad) to heart.
    - robinsoh 5y ago
      I'm confused by your comment. You're making a claim that E-Ink is suppressing innovation. I state that doesn't seem to be the case in my industry, ie: the display industry. And you're asking me for evidence? Shouldn't the person making a claim that a company is suppressing innovation (ie: you) be the one to provide evidence? This is equivalent to someone saying Microsoft is suppressing innovation in operating systems. I would then respond saying I know a bit about operating systems and I don't see that. Then that person saying where is the proof that there isn't suppression by Microsoft. Do you see how your comment comes across? > Why are we as consumers only now getting one choice of a 20+ inch eink screen? You as a consumer can buy a mile of E Ink fpl if you like. They'll sell it to you. Then you can go and figure out how to laminate a >20" TFT backplane to it. Good luck getting that size in less than 1 million unit MOQ quantities especially now with all the backplane shortages. Good luck trying to convince VCs to fund your display startup with the billions you'll need to construct a physical factory. If they say they'd rather fund an AI, machine learning, internet services startup, tell us what convincing argument you'd use to convince them otherwise. No snark. Genuinely interested to see how you'll solve this problem that we in the display industry genuinely face.

sireat 5y ago

We are talking about two issues - progress and existing availability: 1. Improvement on panels - you are right, physics is holding us back here. It is debatable whether cross-licensing so prevalent elsewhere in the industry would help. Even then I'd say Eink is holding industry back because they've closed avenues for other companies to iterate on Eink's core patents. (Again maybe good for Eink, but not good for everyone else) 2. Variety, use, licensing of existing technology - here Eink corporation is holding everyone else back. They decide on what to manufacture and how to sell it. How can this be good for the consumer / small time startup? There is plenty of anecdata on how hard it is to make a new product with Eink. They are very protective of their technology. LG can't just decide to make 32inch eink panels and license the tech from Eink. Eink practically holds a monopoly in their niche. They've bought most of their competitors in eink industry. SiPix was one of them. They are heavily pushing for vertical integration. My argument is that with more open patent situation in e-ink world, we would see more/different manufacturers, we would see more interesting devices with different sizes/ratios at a lower cost. PS I own 10+ e-ink readers in sizes from 5 inches to 13.3 inches and everything in between that Eink has allowed makers to use. I am convinced that with more competition we would see better variety in large size e-ink device market. I have an open mind, and would love to see an example of some company being a sole patent holder/monopoly for 20+ years in some industry being good for everyone else.

robinsoh 5y ago
> I'd say Eink is holding industry back because they've closed avenues for other companies to iterate on Eink's core patents. As I mentioned in my past comments, I work in the display industry and the only people I've heard the above comment from are people who are not in the display industry. It is the equivalent of someone outside software development making an accusation like Microsoft is holding back operating system development because of Microsoft's patents. I hope you can see the point. If not, perhaps you could give some evidence. The rest of your post (monopoly, lack of competition, lack of variety) is based on the same fundamental claim you've made above.
- sireat 5y ago
  It is good to hear from someone in the display industry! Please do provide some evidence. (not a snark) So often here on HN we hear from experts in some field that common wisdom is wrong but we do not see the evidence. (HFT insiders come to mind) I have been hearing the lamentations on the consumer side of eink for over 10 years . My observation is that there is a dearth of competition and innovation in e-ink display industry. What are the causes? Physics okay, but what else? My hypothesis is that it is caused by Eink corporation choosing to go after a big slice of a relatively small pie. They are trying to grow this pie very slowly in a controlled matter not willing to sacrifice any market share. I would love to hear otherwise. Why are we as consumers only now getting one choice of a 20+ inch eink screen? Analogy would be Mac:PC in the 1980s and their experiences with compatibles. Both Apple and IBM regretted allowing compatible devices. There is also Xerox and before-mentioned 3D printing. So to me it seems E-ink has taken those lessons(closed system good/open bad) to heart.
  - robinsoh 5y ago
    I'm confused by your comment. You're making a claim that E-Ink is suppressing innovation. I state that doesn't seem to be the case in my industry, ie: the display industry. And you're asking me for evidence? Shouldn't the person making a claim that a company is suppressing innovation (ie: you) be the one to provide evidence? This is equivalent to someone saying Microsoft is suppressing innovation in operating systems. I would then respond saying I know a bit about operating systems and I don't see that. Then that person saying where is the proof that there isn't suppression by Microsoft. Do you see how your comment comes across? > Why are we as consumers only now getting one choice of a 20+ inch eink screen? You as a consumer can buy a mile of E Ink fpl if you like. They'll sell it to you. Then you can go and figure out how to laminate a >20" TFT backplane to it. Good luck getting that size in less than 1 million unit MOQ quantities especially now with all the backplane shortages. Good luck trying to convince VCs to fund your display startup with the billions you'll need to construct a physical factory. If they say they'd rather fund an AI, machine learning, internet services startup, tell us what convincing argument you'd use to convince them otherwise. No snark. Genuinely interested to see how you'll solve this problem that we in the display industry genuinely face.