Quote:
Originally Posted by jackau
E-readers in 2010 must have 9 inch + screens and 1024 + resolutions, approx 200g in weight, good battery plus good software.
|
We really must get away from "pixel count WxH" resolutions. That worked for years (okay, decades) for computer screens, but this is a new class of device, more akin to a book than a computer (although, as time progresses, the distinction will blur). But regardless, when talking about the display resolution, I think it's much more useful to talk about the DPI (dots per inch) than the absolute count of number of pixels. Current 6" readers are pretty much all 166 DPI, whereas the 5" devices are 200 DPI. I hesitate to say that any resolution higher than that is wasted, but it's certainly a case of "diminishing returns". So, if you want to think in terms of absolute pixel count, then figure a 9" display is going to be roughly 5" x 8". At 166 DPI, that's around 830x1328 pixels. (9.7, which seems to be popular for some reason, would be slightly higher, around 5.4x8.6, or about 900x1430 pixels. At 200 DPI it would be 1000x1600 for 5x8 and 1080x1720 for the 9.7. But DPI is much easier to think about than absolute WxH pixels. Who cares how many pixels it has, WxH-wise, if the DPI stays the same and the display gets bigger, that's really all you need to know.
Quote:
|
All the respond time and stuff has little impact unlike normal LCDs. customer really want is bigger screen, easier to use, better page display layout... n Off course: CHEAPER!
|
Well, for right
now, I'd agree with you. But long term, it's inevitable that people will want more and more functionality from these devices, as the line between "e-book readers" and "tablet computers" starts to blur (which it will, inevitably). So, long term, yes, "response time" and things like that
will matter. Even now, folks complain about page-turn times of more than a second and the "black flash."