Quote:
Originally Posted by mdp
In those notes, Nate disregarded all of the non-technical progresses - and even the technical ones, so logically he disregarded everything - that make production closer.
|
I have no idea what you mean by "non-technical progresses[sic]", but if ClearInk is making all this
wonderful progress, why haven't they started production yet, like they promised last year,
and the year before?
A screen with faster refresh rate (for example) that is
not in production is no more beneficial to the end consumer than a slower screen that is
likewise not in production.
Has it occurred to you that the problem may be something that cannot be overcome by further tweeking of the prototypes, e.g. the economics of the manufacturing process (cost, yield rates, etc), or lack of sufficient interest from device manufacturers to go into full production?
Quote:
|
And, with all due respect, I think and feel that you (happening to be the commenter) or many others taking CLEARink seriously or not will not dent reality much.
|
No more than will your perpetual cheer-leading dent it. My viewpoint does however have the advantage of not resembling that hoary old Peanuts cartoon featuring Charlie Brown (you), Lucy (ClearInk Inc) and a pulled-away football (production).
Quote:
|
If the message is "don't hold your breath", well, in a world where "Don't dry the cat in the microwave" saves feline lives a number of people probably will be spared of asphyxiation.
|
If you dislike that metaphor, then the English language has a word for this circumstance:
vaporware. Wikipedia defines it as "a product ... that is announced to the general public but is never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled." This would seem to describe the ClearInk limbo to a 'T'.