Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
> ...that does not mean that the technology is bound to that resolution...
AGAIN, it is probably just as well that I didn't state that.
|
Probably because you failed to read the sentence for what it meant «that does not mean that the
current possibility of implementation of the technology is bound to that resolution». You cannot state that for now they can produce 100dpi screens - not based on the fact that they did produce one. The equation is: how much does (did) it cost to produce a (single) better screen and how big is the advantage if we do, constrained by the actual resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
And as it this appears to be about the ONLY hard data we have on this technology's capabilities, it is not unreasonable to base analysis
|
Yes, generically, NO, not in the case of the resolution, in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
And the basis for this "hope" is?
|
I hope that in spring with come out what was supposed to come out in January.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
Where the prototype is all we have, it cannot help but be the basis for any analysis of a technology's capabilities
|
No you can't, the prototype is a cheap proof of concept of the plan. ( = "cheaper", as needed.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
In fact the only basis we have for even speculating on such improvements is the speed at which prior technologies achieved them -- hence my eInk discussion -- which you appear to have ignored
|
No, not really - not in simple terms -: you cannot compare simply the evolution of different technologies. Same as for electrowetting and TIR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
I would not call the end result of 5 years and millions of dollars worth of research "cheap"
|
I would not call that the result!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
Prototypes are generally the most expensive single devices a company makes
|
Nonetheless, they remain cheap, in the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
Also, a prototype IS, by definition, the "state of the art". It is the very best implementation of the technology that they have been able to turn from theory into reality
|
That definition is formal, sterile and meaningless! Whatever one has done before enacting a plan is not representative of the goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
If 8 to 4096 color improvement is so easy
|
It's not an improvement ( = "of the technology"). Do not take the prototype as a parameter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
, then why [...] haven't they come out with a new prototype demonstrating this improvement?
|
Prototypes are not a goal. They are a proof of concept, I suppose to attract investors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
then they will be trial-manufacturing based on the original prototype
|
I really hope they will be trial-manufacturing following an engineering plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
Yes, but lacking any factual basis, such speculation is worth about as much as this speculation: next year we will see a new technology, called HrafnInk, that will have 1000dpi, 16M colours, 60fps and negative energy usage (as it will also act as a solar panel).  |
No, the factual basis is the engineering plan (plus the patents etc. ... Not to mention the identities composing the team.).