Quote:
Originally Posted by Cdesja5
|
Fair enough, that does make the process a bit simpler for Kobo: 2 layers bonded together instead of 3. Kobo's statement about using a nanopatterned light guide also helps clear some other stuff up. Amazon calls their nanoimprinted, which may sound different, but I am even more convinced that the light guide is pretty much identical. You can use nanoimprinting to get a nanopatterened material for example... and still call it "nanoimprinted" as well. They are being vague on purpose here but are basically describing the same thing. Any variances in the technique would not lead to color blotching, but would more likely lead to light scatter, defocusing, etc. The advantages of the technique tend to fight this sort of thing.
So I still believe that the issue is how the various layers are bonded. Confirmation that Amazon's layers in the display are more complicated (display -> capacitive touch layer -> light guide) means there's more opportunity for the bonding process to be rushed and done incorrectly. Especially since they are the first to try capacitive touch. Personally, I would have put the touch layer behind the eInk display itself on top of the display's substrate, and kick up the sensitivity a bit. But perhaps Amazon can't do it that way if eInk is providing them with displays already on the substrate. Hard to know for sure. In either case, you have light passing from the light guide, through a bonding layer, through the capacitive layer, through another bonding layer, and then reflecting off the display, passing through the other 4 layers a second time. Yikes.
I see Amazon's problems with the Paperwhite more as teething problems on new manufacturing process rather than a design flaw. The first group are easy to fix, companies always incorporate a feedback loop onto their manufacturing. The second group, not so much. PRS-700 anyone?