[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.

[goosedragons]

You didn't point out how it's a ridiculous claim. You completely ignored my point how LCD is not replacement for eInk and just decided WELL THEY ARE DIFFERENT DISPLAY STACKUP AND HAVE DIFFERENT VOLUME.

Imagine this. There are 4 LCD manufacturers that combined make a total 1 million units a year. There is 1 eInk manufacturer that also makes 1 million units a year. Assume production costs are the same between the two. The LCDs are all essentially fungible. If a company wants to build a tablet with an LCD screen they can receive bids from multiple manufacturers who may be willing to reduce their margin per unit to land the client. For a company looking to build an eReader they only really have the choice of one company that's not willing to reduce their margin per unit because there's no point to. The eInk displays are more expensive because there is only one option to buy and the manufacturer is keeping a greater percentage as profit.

[robinsoh]

> The eInk displays are more expensive because there is only one option to buy and the manufacturer is keeping a greater percentage as profit.

Again. I keep asking. Your evidence for this appears to be your imagination.