[echelon]

> I personally love this.

The tech is awesome, but the E-Ink company is holding it back.

We would have had large and cost effective displays well over a decade ago if E-Ink (the company) didn't patent patrol the technology. It's impossible to do anything in this space without touching their patents, and so independent of their direct involvement and licensing, there's no third party innovation or competition happening.

These displays have had so much promise, but they've taken decades to evolve into diverse shapes and sizes. And they still cost an arm and a leg relative to other display technologies.

Other commentary:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143779

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26173409

[AshamedCaptain]

Why is this _always_ repeated? Where are these patents? Where are the examples of eInk going against their competition??? Because you have a _myriad_ eink-like technologies from many other companies, most of them literally better than eink, that were available but were abandoned after they failed in the market.

One example I particularly liked is Mirasol, who was abandoned despite being owned by Qualcomm out of all companies (HIGHLY unlikely to be scared by a patent troll, considering Qualcomm could be arguably described as a patent troll themselves).

It's simply ridiculous to think that eInk would torpedo their own technology out of incompetence/malice/whatever yet these ideas keep being parroted here without _any evidence whatsoever_ as if it was gospel from the gods.

The real reason, of course, is that this technology is hard (plain physics), and that there's little investment because most consumers could not care less. The supposed advantages of eink are paper-thin at best (contrast sucks and keeps getting _worse_ after each generation, and that is without taking into account the color ones), customers have a hard time distinguishing it from other technologies such as reflective/memory LCDs (which practically beat them in every metric you can think of, even power usage -- except for long enough periods of idleness which are not of interest to any consumer), and at the end of the day most people will choose a backlighted LCD over all these alternatives anyway...

See Garmin, which started with reflective LCD watches for outdoor usage, and the moment they experimented with a plain old fugly backlighted LCD they decided to replace most of their series, _even the ones for primarily outdoor usage_, with backlighted LCDs (e.g. Fenix 8). Customers just buy shiny flashy screens more, what can you do about that?

eInk survives because they're actually one of the cheaper techs, which is the only reason talking about "billboards" is even remotely plausible, and even then they're having a hard time.

[gamblor956]

There's a lot wrong in this comment.

Eink B&W screen contrast has been improving dramatically with every generation, but there was a significant backward step in the jump to color eink screens (due to how the current Kaleido technology works). The Gallery technology does not suffer this lack of contrast, but the trade-off is that screen refresh times are slower than 1st generation e-ink panels.

Garmin still uses reflective LCDs, even on the Fenix 8. The AMOLED is a separate SKU.

Eink is superior to transflective LCDs in terms of power use as it only needs to be refreshed when content changes; an LCD must be refreshed multiple times per second. Only bistable LCDs can display an image without power but this comes at the cost of resolution and contrast.

[AshamedCaptain]

> Eink B&W screen contrast has been improving dramatically with every generation,

No: https://blog.the-ebook-reader.com/2021/01/20/contrast-on-e-i...

Ever since Carta it has been stuck at 15:1 and it is trivial to see that e.g. Remarkable has better contrast than the newer (B&W) Kobos.

As I said, this has _nothing_ to do with the color screens where the contrast is even further reduced, _even_ in Gallery (by eink's own specsheet, as well as by plain observation on a newer remarkable color).

> Garmin still uses reflective LCDs, even on the Fenix 8. The AMOLED is a separate SKU.

No. The _reflective LCD_ one is the one which has become the different SKU (it is now called the 'solar'; the main series now all use backlight), and guess which new SKU is neither stocked nor displayed on stores. It used to be that "Epix" was the AMOLED version of the Fenix, but now it has replaced the mainstream Fenix. As a fan of the reflective LCD garmin watches (since the 1st generation Fenix), the writing is on the wall.

> Eink is superior to transflective LCDs in terms of power use as it only needs to be refreshed when content changes; an LCD must be refreshed multiple times per second.

However eInk requires _significantly more_ power when refreshing than an LCD, not to mention a more complex controller, while at the same time the power required for refresh by a memory LCD is practically negligible. So, as I said, unless your usecase involves the eink panel staying static for _days at a time_, LCD will win.

And no customer really wants a screen that is only refresh once every week; it defies the point of a screen. I could even say the same of a "dynamic" billboard. There's a reason even price stickers at shops use LCDs.

Is there nowadays at least some eink watch that can surpass the battery life of the reflective LCD Garmin watches? (measured in months even with at least one screen refresh per minute). Note that many "eink" smartwatches actually use memory LCD, and not a eink panel, behind the scenes. (e.g. Pebble). Furthering my "users cannot even distinguish eink from reflective LCD" argument.

[gamblor956]

Ever since Carta it has been stuck at 15:1 and it is trivial to see that e.g. Remarkable has better contrast than the newer (B&W) Kobos.

This is false. Carta is the B&W family of eink Panels...The most recent one (the Carta 1300) has significantly improved contrast over the 2021 era panel, the Carta 1000. It's trivial to see that, and nobody looking at the most recent Kobo B&W would claim that it has less contrast than a 2021-era device. The Remarkable 1 uses a custom co-developed version of the Canvas panel which has reduced the thickness of the touchscreen layers and other layers above the eink panel, which is the primary cause of reduced contrast in e-ink devices (including the Remarkable 1). (Remarkable 2 uses a custom co-developed version of Gallery, which has greater contrast and amazing color but slower refresh times than Carta or Kaleido.) If you ever get your hands on the eink hardware itself, you would be amazed at how much contrast even the 1st gen panels have...and how much contrast you lose to all the layers that get added above the panels to make them durable and usable in handheld devices.

The _reflective LCD_ one is the one which has become the different SKU... and guess which new SKU is neither stocked nor displayed on stores.

Both the AMOLED and the Solar Watch are separate SKUs with the display in the name. There is no "base" Fenix 8 anymore. And on that note, the closest 5 Best Buys and REIs to me all stock both SKUs for immediate pickup.

So, as I said, unless your usecase involves the eink panel staying static for _days at a time_, plain old LCD will win by far.

This is also false. There have been a number of transflective ereader devices on the market. They get worse battery life and have significantly worse contrast (without backlighting) than their eink counterparts. Seriously dude, if tranflective LCDs got better battery life and had competitive contrast to eink panels, do you really think that every ereader company including Amazon would still be using eink panels over cheaper transflective LCD panels?

[AshamedCaptain]

> The most recent one (the Carta 1300) has significantly improved contrast over the 2021 era panel, the Carta 1000. It's trivial to see that, and nobody looking at the most recent Kobo B&W would claim that it has less contrast than a 2021-era device.

Well, I have linked an article making such claim. But how much has Carta 1300 improved the contrast, exactly? eink has stopped publicizing the contrast ratio on the public specs, just the marking BS that says the contrast ratio is improved (over what?), so I'm fearing the worst. I bet you it's still 15:1 (as Carta was on 2013) on paper or rounding-error level close to that, which explains why most users would see contrast as becoming worse.

> The Remarkable 1 uses a custom co-developed version of the Canvas panel [...] has reduced the thickness of the touchscreen layers and other layers above the eink pane

This is marketing BS. No such thing as canvas panel. It's Carta.

Also, RM1 has no other layers. Stylus input is wacom (below substrate) and there is no frontlight. On RM color pro they made stylus input capacitive AND added frontlight which may arguably have increased touchscreen layer thickness, leading to the perceived reduction in contrast. But ironically enough even eInk spec says Gallery has lower contrast than Carta (around 1:12 for Gallery 3), so no comparison is needed there. Unsurprisingly, all reviews say contrast has taken a hit.

> you would be amazed at how much contrast even the 1st gen panels have

The early panels were utter crap. There's a reason you couldn't not even put glass on top of them and things like "infrared touchscreens" were a thing on ancient e-readers (google for them, if you're curious). The improvements since ancient panels have been significant -- they used to have contrast ratios worse than 8:1, and Pearl and Carta raised that to 15:1. However, it is still ridiculous compared to contrast in most other screen technologies (even memory LCD can reach 20:1 https://www1.futureelectronics.com/doc/SHARP/LS013B7DH03.pdf). And has it improved at all in the last decade?

Not blaming eInk: there is a physical limit to contrast for their tech.

> Both the AMOLED and the Solar Watch are separate SKUs with the display in the name. There is no "base" Fenix 8 anymore

If you google, or if you click on the product, you or if you choose the cheapest one, or if you walk to a physical store... you will be offered the AMOLED one. It used to be that you had to go out of your way to get the AMOLED line. Now it's all in your face. I do not have product sales numbers but it's still rather obvious to me they're focusing on the AMOLED one.

> Seriously dude, if tranflective LCDs got better battery life and had competitive contrast to eink panels, do you really think that every ereader company including Amazon would still be using eink panels over cheaper transflective LCD panels?

Memory LCD panels are _not_ cheaper, and most definitely not at this size. I'm not even sure they are manufactured at such sizes, either.

ebooks are the only thing that defies the overall trend, maybe because e-ink practically defines the product line; but they are becoming even more of a niche market -- most people seem to have no problem doing their reading on a backlighted LCD iPad.

[gamblor956]

Yeah, I mistyped with the Remarkable 1 display. I meant to say it's just a custom co-developed Carta panel that they were calling Canvas because it had significant proprietary changes from Remarkable.

even memory LCD can reach 20:1

For a screen 1.25" diagonal. Not competitive unless your ereader is dedicated to haikus. Carta 1000 was 15:1, Carta 1200 claimed a 20% improvement, and Carta 1300 claimed another 15% improvement, which puts Carta 1300 at a 20:1 ratio, which is about right based on real-world reviews of the most recent Kobos. And this is for devices with 7 to 13 inch screens, not 1.25 inch screens. Kaleido adds a color layer on top, which reduces contrast in Kaleido devices. Gallery has higher contrast when using color (but you would be correct that when sticking to B&W only Gallery has lower contrast).

And has it improved at all in the last decade?

Yes, significantly. You have decided it does not and reject all evidence to the contrary.

If you google, or if you click on the product, you or if you choose the cheapest one, or if you walk to a physical store... you will be offered the AMOLED one.

Definitely false. REI will try to sell you the Solar one (for obvious reasons). Best Buy will sell you whichever one you want, but will try to steer people toward cheaper watches like the Forerunner or Instinct that people are more likely to actually buy.

Memory LCD panels are _not_ cheaper, and most definitely not at this size. I'm not even sure they are manufactured at such sizes, either.

Alibaba says otherwise, and that's just a 5-second search. It appears that I can order 10 10-inch transflective displays for $200....which is about what it costs to acquire a single 10-inch Kaleido 3 screen. Or in other words, transflective screens are about 1/10th the cost of a comparably sized e-ink panel. Which brings us back to this: If transflective LCDs were actually superior to eInk panels for the e-reader use case, why is every ereader company sticking to eink? Why is notoriously cost-conscious Amazon sticking to eInk, when transflective LCDs would be far cheaper to make at scale? (Hint: it's because eInk is better for the ereader use case.)

[grishka]

Shouldn't the first of those patents start expiring soon?