robinsoh

39 ms·

361.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> I understand that now nobody can make e-ink display without paying fees, which I find insane as it is not an original idea What exactly do you mean when you say "make e-ink display"? That's exactly like saying "nobo
362.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> AKA, is this a $2,500 product because it's a niche with comparatively low demand, or would it still cost $2,500 to produce even at much larger volumes? Because it is niche and hand made. You can probably buy the fpl material for d
363.
by 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&#x27
364.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> The e-Ink people have got to get their costs down. I work in the display industry. No vendor can get their cost down unless they're able to get their volumes up to millions of units per quarter. It's a power scaling law. I do
365.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> he eInk company itself needs to have its patents expire so the tech isn't held up, Citation needed. Really. Please read my past comments. The speed of electrophoresis is held back by physics. Not patents. If you know of even a the
366.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> Without the patents. Because let's be real: zero carbon is more important than the ego of a monopoly-rights -holder, the propertied-class owner of a bloated company which has made use of publicly funded research from day one. I&#x
367.
by robinsoh 6y ago
I don't know what you're asking. What does "license e-ink technology" mean specifically? It would be equivalent to asking how much does it cost to license Microsoft technology or Google technology? I hope you can see how
368.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> If you are pro-patent, then that's that. :-) I wouldn't describe myself as pro-patent. I would say I'm pro-fair play. If Alice spends years in front of a fume hood developing a new ITO coating or polymer that reduces cos
369.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> This sounds like a chicken or egg argument. I don't follow. I also don't see how it is different than any other industry be it bricks or CPUs. Buy a few and the per unit price is high. Buy millions and the per unit price is l
370.
by robinsoh 6y ago
Yes, it would lose the image once the display is no longer driven. The main attraction is the removal of the need for a backlight and the sunlight readability and all the other advantages that come from using actual pigments.
371.
by 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. Rightfu
372.
by robinsoh 6y ago
Clearink does not rely on the foreground pigment particles coming to "rest" at a fixed position relative to the background pigment, ie: achieving a stable state. Instead they rely on driving the field for as long as the foreground
373.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> From what I read, the way eInk conducts their business, it is very difficult to launch new eInk products. I have not read such claims. What I have read are individual small-scale customers approaching base layer producers like E-Ink an
374.
by robinsoh 6y ago
Correct, still about 500ms to get decent levels of separable reproducible grayscale. Claims of 10Hz like Dasung's A2 are often marketing interpretations of unstable 1-bit states. This is a limit of the physics of electrophoresis. To ma
375.
by 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 imp
376.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> 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 di
377.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> The PixelQi display spun from the OLPC project was really good and clearly affordable, I am curious if you work in the display industry. Do you know what the pricing for PQi displays actually was? Did you actually use a PixelQi display
378.
by robinsoh 6y ago
It is sad to see that this article itself is literally citing a throwaway HN comment about patents and E-Ink as if it was a fact. I questioned the veracity of that claim and never got a response from the poster. I'll paste what I last
379.
by robinsoh 6y ago
As I have stated, I was looking for evidence or proof for OP's claim about patents and did not find it, nor does OP appear to be able or willing to back up his/her claim. My opinion is that display pricing is driven primarily by v
380.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> Oops, just checked, mine has a backlight, and the ReMarkable is even more Closed than my MobiScribe, fail. Are you certain about this? I was told that remarkable is open source. But I have not verified this myself. But I see tools like
381.
by robinsoh 6y ago
Sigh... I work in the display industry and interact with competitors as well as partners of EInk. The first link is a reddit post. I leave it to others to work out why a lot of these comments blaming patents are completely wrong. I've
382.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> eInk displays are expensive as fuck thanks to patents. Citation please.
383.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> the price will still be high because of the stranglehold of e-ink patents This mistaken claim keeps getting repeated again and again. Patents are not what keeps prices high. Volume. Volume. Volume. E-Ink displays used to be 100x even
384.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> I can point at the 3D printing industry as an example. Several years ago, some critical patents expired, resulting in a burst of innovation Yes, I've read that as well from magazines but I must admit I've never checked the jo
385.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> Most of my information on the topic so far has come from HN and reddit. That being said, what is being said on HN/reddit does appear to match up with what's going on, at least from the consumers perspective. Sigh.... I give u
386.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> had they allowed more innovation in the space. This has already been covered repeatedly. There's no "had they allowed". The problem is physics! Please read about electrophoresis. It is pigment particles moving physically
387.
by robinsoh 6y ago
Yes, of course. Shopkit is E-ink's devkit sales. They'd never undercut their own distributors. It would be like expecting Samsung to be selling LCD screens at a lower price to mom and pop buyers than to Apple.
388.
by robinsoh 6y ago
> However their poor business decision of ultra-high pricing I work in the display industry and what I know for sure is that they can't make big 20", 32", 42" displays. Something about factory production issues so the
389.
by robinsoh 6y ago
I challenged that post. You can see my reply asking for any proof and they never replied. I work in the industry. I've attended SID and hung out both with competitors and partners of EInk and I've never ever heard of any of the th
390.
by 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 effor

More ›