[Hrafn]

Originally Posted by mdp

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.

Does that word salad come with French Dressing?

Yes, generically, NO, not in the case of the resolution, in my opinion.

Special pleading -- fallacious.

I hope that in spring with come out what was supposed to come out in January.

So your basis is nothing more than wishful thinking. I hope that I will be a millionaire in the spring.

What is your basis for stating that it "was supposed to come out in January"?

No you can't, the prototype is a cheap proof of concept of the plan. ( = "cheaper", as needed.)

No, it is not.

"prototype: n.: The first full-size working version of a new vehicle, machine, etc., or a preliminary one made in small numbers so that its performance and methods of mass-production can be evaluated."

Because it is used to evaluate "its performance" and potential for "mass-production", it would be counterproductive to create a prototype that was intentionally inferior ("cheaper") to the intended product that would be based on it.

No, not really - not in simple terms -: you cannot compare simply the evolution of different technologies. Same as for electrowetting and TIR.

Then we know nothing about how long it might take to improve the resolution.

And by this same logic, we cannot even know if the resolution can be improved at all.

I would not call that the result!

It is the only tangible result we have.

Nonetheless, they remain cheap, in the context.

No, per above.

That definition is formal, sterile and meaningless! Whatever one has done before enacting a plan is not representative of the goal.

Words have meanings. If you don't like the meaning, then you're welcome to pick another one.

It's not an improvement ( = "of the technology"). Do not take the prototype as a parameter.

If you make a reader that can play 8 colours, and then make a newer reader that can play 4096, then that is an obvious improvement.

Likewise it is also an improvement to take a technology that only theoretically can produce 4096 colours and create a device that can do in reality. Observable reality is always an improvement over mere theory.

Prototypes are not a goal. They are a proof of concept, I suppose to attract investors.

Prototypes are an immediate goal. They are what allows you to tell if your theory is possible in reality, and is something that is practical to manufacture. That is their main purpose.

I really hope they will be trial-manufacturing following an engineering plan.

A plan that will be based upon their prototype, and what they learned from making and testing it.

No, the factual basis is the engineering plan (plus the patents etc. ... Not to mention the identities composing the team.).

Yes, but as you have not seen the engineering plan, you have no idea as to what is in it. Not having seen this plan, you have absolutely no factual basis for your speculation!