Breakthrough could lead to disposable e-readers

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You commented on me saying "But we don't have any device that we are going to be using for at least a decade." with the fact that you were using a 7 year old computer. And it is true that they were making long lasting devices 30 years ago, but that is before I was born. I've only started to have an income 5 years ago, and nothing that I buy is made to last a decade with regular use.

I was pointing out that I do not replace devices as long as they are working for me and still meet my needs instead of always wanting to get the latest and greatest, which was what I saw as being the gist of your original post (below).

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But we don't have any device that we are going to be using for at least a decade. If you would use a reader for only a year before you get a new one with better features, why would it matter that the screen could work forever?

The point is not everyone wants to replace things after only a year's use. I'm still on XP because I want to get my money's worth out of the computer that replaced the seven year old computer (Vista and Win7 won't run on it). I got an XP machine because, at the time, Win7 wasn't out and Vista stinks. I also had an expensive music notation program I used a lot that wouldn't run on Vista. I will continue to use this machine until it or XP dies.

Things are still being made that will last a decade with regular use; you may just have to pay more for them, take better care of them, and make up your mind you will not succumb to wanting the latest and greatest or wanting to keep up with the Joneses.

Of course, if you want to nitpick...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I was pointing out that I do not replace devices as long as they are working for me and still meet my needs instead of always wanting to get the latest and greatest, which was what I saw as being the gist of your original post (below).

First of all laptops are not made to last a decade. If that were the case, the warranty would be longer. I usually take good care of my toys, and I never needed to use the warranty, and the laptop that I use is 3 years old, but it wasn't made to work forever.

And technology becomes obsolete. You might not care about some things if you don't play computer games on your PC, but for most people the fact that the screen of a PC can work for a really long time (if you don't drop it or kick it) doesn't make a difference in how often they buy a new one.

For ereaders this even more important. They will make plastic screens, and they will be lighter and more resistant. By the time I buy a new one they will also have better processors, battery, resolution, color, etc. And the disposable paper ones would be perfect for children.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

...And technology becomes obsolete...

Manufacturers may try to make technology obsolete but, if it still meets one needs, then why discard it? My multimeter still measures voltage, current, and resistance. It was all I needed it for when I bought it and it is still all I need it for. Radio Shack may consider it obsolete but I don't.

I still have an old Commodore C64c. It still works but it is now obsolete. Technically, it was obsolete when the C128 came out in 1985 yet it maintained its popularity. The Amiga was supposed to replace both the 64 and the 128 in 1987 yet both the 64 and the 128 continued to be popular. The C64c I have still functioned fine for me until I got my first PC around nine or ten years ago (I used work PCs prior to that).

As far as warranties go, the length of a warranty doesn't always indicate how long a product will last. At one time auto batteries could be bought with life time full replacement warranties (my daddy milked one for ten years). The batteries, of course, rarely lasted more than a couple of years. Now, batteries last longer but warranties are rarely more than five or six years and are prorated. My '08 Ford F150 has a three year, 36k mile warranty yet Ford trucks, if properly cared for, will last at least 100k, frequently longer, and still be cost effective to maintain.

The JetBook Lite I'm using works fine and meets my needs. One of the biggest advantages it has is I can easily replace the AA batteries it runs on in the field (I carry both the JBL and spare batteries in my purse). I don't have to remember to recharge the JBL (a large problem for me because of ADD) nor do I have to worry about the batteries running down at an inconvenient time since they are easy to replace. Since that one feature is important enough for me, I'll keep using the JBL until it dies since it is highly unlikely anyone else will put out a reader that uses AAs.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

The JetBook Lite I'm using works fine and meets my needs.

So why would you even comment on this thread? Why do you care if they make a disposable ereader? The direction of the technology moves away from your ideal reader so you wouldn't buy what they are making anyway.

[Salgueiros]

I am completely against the concept of disposable consumer goods, except in those areas that are absolutely necessary (like in medical needles and such). They exert an incredible negative impact in our ecosystems that we should reject.

Why have a disposable ereader? I adopted a ereader precisely because i could use it for a long time and avoid having to buy lots of dead tree paper. I don't see the logic here.

As a research subject, i am tottally in favour of this study. As someone pointed before, this technology might find use in ereaders that are not disposable, or lead to improvements in current technology, but implementation of this as a disposable object for mass comsumption, no.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

As a research subject, i am tottally in favour of this study. As someone pointed before, this technology might find use in ereaders that are not disposable, or lead to improvements in current technology, but implementation of this as a disposable object for mass comsumption, no.

I'd like to point out that the *screen* can become disposable. If you read the article, you would see that what the researchers actually said was "In general, this is an elegant method for reducing device complexity and cost, resulting in one-time-use devices that can be totally disposed after use". As far as I know, the processor and battery still weigh in on the cost of an ereader. But I can see that you could have conference posters where you could play an animation instead of being limited to figures.

Plus one of the big advantages is the fact that it is flexible. The problem so far with making screens that can be folded is the fact that they get damaged. If it doesn't cost that much to replace the screen, than we could have devices that can fit in a small purse, but can be unfolded to a 15" screen.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So why would you even comment on this thread? Why do you care if they make a disposable ereader? The direction of the technology moves away from your ideal reader so you wouldn't buy what they are making anyway.

Reread my first post.

[MikeFromHC]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

I am completely against the concept of disposable consumer goods, except in those areas that are absolutely necessary (like in medical needles and such). They exert an incredible negative impact in our ecosystems that we should reject.

Why have a disposable ereader? I adopted a ereader precisely because i could use it for a long time and avoid having to buy lots of dead tree paper. I don't see the logic here.

As a research subject, i am tottally in favour of this study. As someone pointed before, this technology might find use in ereaders that are not disposable, or lead to improvements in current technology, but implementation of this as a disposable object for mass comsumption, no.

Given a choice between using one piece of paper for a book or several hundred which would you pick?
Given that one paper backed piece of paper with attached Li-on battery, electronics, substrates, and "ink" would you be more likely to recycle it than a single sheet of paper?

[Salgueiros]

Originally Posted by MikeFromHC

Given a choice between using one piece of paper for a book or several hundred which would you pick?
Given that one paper backed piece of paper with attached Li-on battery, electronics, substrates, and "ink" would you be more likely to recycle it than a single sheet of paper?

I would not buy a piece of paper with attached battery and electronics if that presupposes a single use. A whole book of paper is easier to recycle than a single sheet of paper with electronic circuits attached, let alone a battery.

If the choice is between a classic book and a paper discardable ebook i would buy a classic book. But between a ereader and (several) paper books, then i choose the ereader.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Reread my first post.

I did, and I still don't get your point. Paper would be cheap, light and flexible. You sugest that they:

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Just put the "paper" behind a plastic screen to protect it from physical damage and put the whole affair in a sturdy case (aluminum?) that won't shatter when dropped.

That would add expenses, weight and make it loose its flexibility. WHY?

[kennyc]

Forget the e-reader just download the book to a chip in your brain. No muss, no fuss.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Forget the e-reader just download the book to a chip in your brain. No muss, no fuss.

or perhaps for some here a chip on a suppository might be a better option. Just remind them to remove the foil before insertion as the foil can interfere with reception of content downloads.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

or perhaps for some here a chip on a suppository might be a better option. Just remind them to remove the foil before insertion as the foil can interfere with reception of content downloads.

That would probably only be for Dan Brown novels

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

I am completely against the concept of disposable consumer goods, except in those areas that are absolutely necessary (like in medical needles and such). They exert an incredible negative impact in our ecosystems that we should reject.
......

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

That would probably only be for Dan Brown novels

Don't leave out those afflicted with Oprahoids...