[Hrafn]

Originally Posted by mdp

As you know, there's no product.
"Onyx, reading is clearly not the future... Why have you not hexachrome in your screens?" Sorry, I am bad at absurd, I can never beat natural samples.

My apologies for addressing the actual topic of this thread.

What certainly cannot be stated, is that their product would be "100dpi" or anything - It would be utterly false. There is no product!

Then it is probably just as well that I didn't state that.

What I did state is that the technology is at 106dpi now, and suggested that it would take time (during which the market will inevitably evolve, both with other new technologies entering, and customer needs and expectations evolving) and money to improve it.

The showcase demo cannot be representative - it is there to prove the technology, not represent possible product specifications. They remain on paper until production.

That a technology can be 'proved' to exist (which is all the "showcase demo" did) does not prove that it has the potential to be competitive.

Liquavista's technology also exists, as does Mirasol's, and bare existence hasn't done either much good. Showcase demos are far more frequent in this market than demos that turn into viable products.

I think probably very little time and very little unplanned costs... I do not see why their technology should be limited to that amount of ppi. The showcase demo does not count.

I congratulate you on your boundless optimism.

I wish I could share it, but you appear to be 'whistling past the graveyard' (of moribund technologies).

I would also suspect that, if resolution improvements were just around the corner, that CI would be pushing that fact.

ADDENDUM: The fact that CI has been around since 2012 would seem to indicate that progress is slow, and that we are unlikely to see sudden jumps in resolution. It took eInk 10 years to get from its original patent to its first commercial product (150ppi) eInk Vizplex, and then a further 7 years to get to 300ppi (eInk Carta HD).

We do not really have the specs...

And that is really the problem. No specs = no idea whether this technology can be competitive.

Until we have specs, we have little more than vaporware and speculation.

It's not the same technology.

Then it is probably just as well that I didn't state that.

I stated that it was "a technology" (which it clearly is), which was backed by a series of industry heavyweights. CI, on the other hand is getting investment from far smaller players. When a product isn't ready for (non-trial) production, deep pockets matter.

Higher than what? Current widespread targets are more than sufficient.

Higher than the only confirmed resolution we have for CI: 106dpi.

What "widespread targets" are you talking about? How are they applicable?