3 ms·

I don't disagree that an iPad is more capable but, after reading the whitepaper just now, they're not positioning it as a tablet or e-reader so that's not a mea

I don't disagree that an iPad is more capable but, after reading the whitepaper just now, they're not positioning it as a tablet or e-reader so that's not a meaningful comparison. It seems to be intended as something like an external monitor with stylus input so it's more comparable to the Dasung Paperlike HD-FT or Wacom Cintiq / Wacom One. If it's not crazy for the Wacom One to exist, then it isn't that crazy for this to exist either.

rbanffy 5y ago
I can understand the value proposition of both Wacom and Cintiq. I'm not sure I understand this one's though. The former ones are tools for directly manipulating images, but this one is limited to grayscale, with the slow response time of e-paper. To be fair, I'd be mostly OK if it had a simple reader/annotator, a battery and required a wireless connection to something else to do anything more complicated. As stated, at 13", the Wacom One seems to be a much better value unless you are really bothered by the backlight of the screen. And that if software support is good. The folks at e-ink look like they want to milk their patents until the market bleeds.
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > The folks at e-ink look like they want to milk their patents until the market bleeds. Here we go again. Based on what? I have no clue what you're referring to. But I see this kind of comment on HN again and again. There was a couple of throwaway accounts used to make allegations about them, and then a blogger who cited those throwaway posts and then HN posts that cited the blogger (infinite loop of "evidence"!) and when I asked for at least some explanation of their claims(because I actually work in the display industry), I never got a reply. Look at my comment history. Nobody has ever given me an answer to above that is even remotely believable.

3 ms·

I don't disagree that an iPad is more capable but, after reading the whitepaper just now, they're not positioning it as a tablet or e-reader so that's not a mea

by ThrowawayR2 5y ago

rbanffy 5y ago
I can understand the value proposition of both Wacom and Cintiq. I'm not sure I understand this one's though. The former ones are tools for directly manipulating images, but this one is limited to grayscale, with the slow response time of e-paper. To be fair, I'd be mostly OK if it had a simple reader/annotator, a battery and required a wireless connection to something else to do anything more complicated. As stated, at 13", the Wacom One seems to be a much better value unless you are really bothered by the backlight of the screen. And that if software support is good. The folks at e-ink look like they want to milk their patents until the market bleeds.
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > The folks at e-ink look like they want to milk their patents until the market bleeds. Here we go again. Based on what? I have no clue what you're referring to. But I see this kind of comment on HN again and again. There was a couple of throwaway accounts used to make allegations about them, and then a blogger who cited those throwaway posts and then HN posts that cited the blogger (infinite loop of "evidence"!) and when I asked for at least some explanation of their claims(because I actually work in the display industry), I never got a reply. Look at my comment history. Nobody has ever given me an answer to above that is even remotely believable.