Quote:
Originally Posted by harryE123
yeah but I presume it's far cheaper than capacitative ones, and to be honest they had to change the tec because the previous screens had horrible reflections. I think therefore it was a financial choice since they HAD to change from what they had, and the capac. ones cost more. BTW I am not that happy with using the atm screens.
|
A big chunk of the accuracy/polish of this tech is software as well. ATMs haven't really evolved since the design was created, and you have a curved CRT surface that messes with the technology quite a bit. The devices I got to play with in store were actually quite good. I couldn't tell the difference between it and a good capacitive/resistive device.
Capacitive displays are cheaper because more devices use them, and the components required are simpler. And they are used everywhere these days because they are cheap.
There is another big reason to not use capacitive displays in the Sony, and that is you lose the ability to use an accurate stylus. If they wanted to keep the ability to accurately select text on an e-Ink screen that has a low refresh rate, they needed to keep the ability to use a stylus. There really isn't any other tech right now other than resistive (which has the glare issue) that works for both a stylus and finger at the same time.