[robinsoh]

> Very few companies are making eInk like displays which is why prices are so high.

Very few customers are buying electrophoretic displays because of their many limitations. That's the real reason why prices are so high.

In 2006, a 6" display would have cost maybe 10 grand, maybe even more. Today it is in the order of $25 in volume and that's purely because of the volume behind it. Step off the volume path and into hand kerfed like the 42" you mentioned and suddenly it'll be $2000. It is all about volume.

If you want it cheaper, put an order in for a million displays and that'll justify someone's effort to build an actual automated production line for it and it will drop the price by an order of magnitude.

[goosedragons]

I don't think Sony was losing several thousand dollars on each Sony Librie and PRS-500 they produced.

I understand volume . Part of it is having competitors though. If there's literally 1 company making the display you want for your product they're only going to lower the price per unit so much. Where else are you going to go?

[robinsoh]

> I understand volume . Part of it is having competitors though. If there's literally 1 company making the display you want for your product they're only going to lower the price per unit so much. Where else are you going to go?

I don't understand the point you are making. There are many many materials, products where there are only single or a few suppliers in the whole world. Not just in the display industry, but even your software industry like Google, Microsoft, etc. Could you elaborate what exactly you're trying to say? It is completely unclear.

[goosedragons]

If there's multiple competitors for a product they compete and prices are lower overall? If there are no competitors you can charge a higher price. There really isn't much alternatives for eInk that don't totally alter the product. A Kindle with an LCD screen would just be a shitty limited tablet and so Amazon is forced to pay a higher price per unit for an eInk screen than a similar sized LCD.

[robinsoh]

> If there's multiple competitors for a product they compete and prices are lower overall?

Sure, race to the bottom, but that's got nothing to do with OP's original claim of "expensive", nor the costs to actually manufacture electrophoretic displays, nor patents. How many competitors are there for Microsoft Windows? How many competitors are there for Google search?

What price do you think is "not expensive"? How did you determine that price?

> Amazon is forced to pay a higher price per unit for an eInk screen than a similar sized LCD.

Again the comparison to LCD despite all my multiple comments to explain that the two technologies are no where the same in terms of physical stackup, and volumes of multiple order of magnitudes of difference. It is like comparing coca cola to wine, or a toyota corolla to feraris. By the way to claim Amazon is "forced" is ridiculous. In fact, Amazon's volumes is what has enabled electrophoretics stackup to seriously commerciallize and bring prices down at least by an order of magnitude.

[goosedragons]

OKAY. Monopolies aren't a thing in your book. Got it. Everyone always charges bottom dollar given enough volume despite the fact it might literally be the only option that meets the requirements.

Microsoft Windows is pretty expensive for an OS...its main competitors are literally free. But since they aren't a near-perfect replacement for Windows, Microsoft can charge more per unit. This is pretty similar to how LCDs are not a near-perfect replacement for eInk displays and that there's essentially only 1 mature supplier they can charge more per unit than an LCD manufacturer can.

Since again, the display tech is essentially what defines a Kindle Amazon is somewhat forced to use eInk displays despite their higher cost otherwise it would not be the same product.

[robinsoh]

> Since again, the display tech is essentially what defines a Kindle Amazon is somewhat forced to use eInk displays despite their higher cost otherwise it would not be the same product.

Since Again? Again. You didn't address any of the questions I asked about the justification for the claims about "expensive", "patents", none of which are substantiated. You've jumped again to this "somewhat forced" which I already pointed out is a ridiculous claim and "higher cost" despite what I already tried to clarify about how the display stackup and production volume is completely different. I've already rested my explanation, no point repeating myself.