KJK:
Just so we're clear, my point was not to refute the NYT article with Wilcox's claims about the benefits of eInk. This shouldn't be another arbitrary consumer vs. consumer war, in which one person promotes and validates the objects they own by contrasting them favorably with someone else's.
The point is to look at the claims people make about eInk and LCD in two ways: Subjectively, which is what matters most to the user's experience, and scientifically, to better wade through the suppositions and false data used to justify users' experience and sell technologies.
You can point out Wilcox's known reasons for making those claims and fault him for incorrect predictions all you like -- again, those factors are a given. His quote's already been cited on this thread. I'm simply asking if all or any of it is true or was true at the time of the claims and now isn't. And if Wilcox is all of the things you're suggesting, then why would I expect evidence which supported or refuted the validity of his claims to come from him?
It would be nice to read a fair
and detailed examination of the claims made for eInk and newer LCD screens, since people absorb those claims as if they were accepted fact. One problem is that the experts cited are often working for companies invested in one or both technologies, which could be part of the reason so many articles end with the either/or conclusion.
Personally, I'm more interested in the truth than supporting consumer factions or the pseudo-inclusiveness of larger invested corporations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjk
Those are some interesting marketing points about the technology from the former CEO of eInk Holdings.
I'm not sure where the evidence you are asking is, unless Wilcox and Eink Holdings, now PVI, have published some scientific results about them. He mentions parallax, for example. I'm sure some older LCD panels have that issue. But the iPhone 4 or Super AMOLED Plus screens don't.
But maybe Wilcox does have scientific evidence to support his points.
Hopefully it is better data than his marketing data, when he claimed eInk devices would outsell iPads in 2010.
EInk sales in 2010 (12 months): 9-10 million
iPad sales in 2010 (9 months) 14.8 million
I have zero doubt many people find eInk to be more suitable for reading. And I have no reason to doubt some suffer from medical issues from reading on LCDs. I just don't believe there is scientific evidence that supports one technology over the other in all cases, nor that reading on any screens will necessitate a visit to the doctor. |