Breakthrough could lead to disposable e-readers

[leebase]

Count me in the "what's the point?" crowd. You'd still need all the electronics and battery and housing to generate the signals that appear on the paper. So why would you want something a flimsy as paper to be the actual display?

Lee

[wodin]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Don't we?

Well ... yes ... and no. Have you ever tried to dispose of a computer in an environmentally responsible way?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

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?

If I find an electronic product that satisfactorily meets my needs, I'll use it as long as I can. I don't have to have all the latest bells, whistles, and bling. My cell phone is a pay as you go bare bones Oystr (sic) that does little more than make and take phone calls, which is all I need. I wouldn't mind having the features of a smart phone but I don't need them nor the bill that comes with them. My last computer lasted me about seven years. I replaced it when my needs exceeded its ability to meet them. I upgrade software only when the upgrade has features I need or I'm forced to by obsolescence.

[AHMavrick]

We already have disposable readers. They are called books, magazines and newspaper. They are also recyclable.

There is no need to make disposable electronic readers, just files. Recycling 1's and 0's is far less expensive and friendly to the environment to boot.

[Worldwalker]

I'm not planning to replace my reader until the screen quits working. It had the features I wanted when I bought it ... it was what I wanted ... so why should the fact that other readers have different (even "better") features now make me change my mind? There are cars that are faster than mine, too, but I'm not about to throw my car away just to buy a faster one. This idea that something we have suddenly isn't good enough, that we-who-were made a bad decision when we bought it, leads to a lot of spending, and a lot of disposable ... everything ... but does it really make us happier? Would I be happier if I got rid of a perfectly good e-book reader and bought a new one, out of some kind of misguided buyer's remorse?

I look for what works, and I use it. "New for the sake of the new" has never done anything for me. Not only does this save a lot of stress, but it saves a lot of money I can spend on different gadgets (or more books) instead of buying the ones I already own over and over again.

My next ebook reader hasn't been made yet. It'll be magazine-sized and full color. I'll use it, of course, to read colorful magazines. As long as my current one keeps working, I see no reason to replace it for reading books.

[Maggie Leung]

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?

I still use a TV from 1994, lol. I use it for the occasional DVD, because I don't watch regular TV. As long as it works and meets my needs, I'm using it.

That said, I'm not against this kinda research. Maybe it'll lead to lighter-weight readers, even if they're not disposable.

[adjangs]

This technology is exciting because it might lead to ereaders with refresh rates fast enough for smooth video, or even better looking e ink. I don't understand how it can directly lead to cheap "disposable" ereaders though because the paper requires electric fields be applied to it in a very precise way. Perhaps the researchers were referring to throwing just the paper screen away and not the entire device. That would be nice and actually moves us away from disposability. You spilled juice on your ereader? It dosn't matter, just change the 10-cent paper screen.

[snipenekkid]

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?

I fully expect every reading device I own to last a minimum of a decade. My PDA's already nearly a decade old and works fine and my first Kindle is still just as horrible looking a display as the day I bought it. I also have laptops I bought as old as 2001 which I still use daily. Typing is typing and nothing other than a backlight to replace maybe once in that timespan. Of course the battery issue is the same for any device. Personally I feel any device with a non-user replaceable battery should have a 100% levy added to them.

Cell phones which have a live expectancy or less than a decade also need a 100% fee, based on MSRP, added to the cost. Maybe then rather than promising things these parasitic companies would begin to deliver service improvements rather than promise or ever newer and "better" technology, the idea that everything in life is disposable and if it's over 6-months old it's no longer of any use.

Any reader which lasts less than a decade should be considered to have a environmental footprint well in excess of the printed versions. Hence the need to use forced compliance of the tax for such non-trivial things like a user replaceable battery.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

My reaction is the same as the commenters. Inexpensive is great, but what is the point of disposing the device after a week?

Depends on the arrangement. I could easily see disposing of the flexible display screen, something like a laminated sheet of paper that gets "wrinkles" with use, and keeping a small processor/battery pack about the size of an MP3 player.

If it's not too hard on the environment in the breakdown, it might be nice to have something that shows color magazines & newspapers at a decent-size resolution.

And hey, if the display is attached to the processor, and breaks down over time, there's no reason not to resell ebooks; then they "degrade" with use just like physical ones, and you get rid of the argument that every copy is perfect. Or if the device only holds a limited amount of content & can't be reloaded, that could be the reason for making it disposable.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

If I find an electronic product that satisfactorily meets my needs, I'll use it as long as I can. I don't have to have all the latest bells, whistles, and bling. My cell phone is a pay as you go bare bones Oystr (sic) that does little more than make and take phone calls, which is all I need. I wouldn't mind having the features of a smart phone but I don't need them nor the bill that comes with them. My last computer lasted me about seven years. I replaced it when my needs exceeded its ability to meet them. I upgrade software only when the upgrade has features I need or I'm forced to by obsolescence.

But they still aren't over a decade old.

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

I still use a TV from 1994, lol. I use it for the occasional DVD, because I don't watch regular TV. As long as it works and meets my needs, I'm using it.

That said, I'm not against this kinda research. Maybe it'll lead to lighter-weight readers, even if they're not disposable.

OK, you got me. My parents sent a very old black&white small TV to the country to get the ocassional evening news when they go there. But that goes in the category of <it's not broken so we can't throw it away, but we don't want it in the house> category.

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

I fully expect every reading device I own to last a minimum of a decade. My PDA's already nearly a decade old and works fine and my first Kindle is still just as horrible looking a display as the day I bought it. I also have laptops I bought as old as 2001 which I still use daily. Typing is typing and nothing other than a backlight to replace maybe once in that timespan. Of course the battery issue is the same for any device. Personally I feel any device with a non-user replaceable battery should have a 100% levy added to them.

I don't see your PDA in the list of reading devices. You can't be that worried about the environmental footprint if you use that many devices just for reading.
And I'm impressed that you have a laptop from 2001. So is it in the original form or did you add RAM, changed the processor etc? And if it works, why did you get another one?

[Russell Brooks]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Don't we?

If you're buying a new computer every week, then you're purchasing from the wrong vendor.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But they still aren't over a decade old..

So? They are still well over a year old.

Btw, I forgot to mention the Micronta (old Radio Shack brand) multimeter I have, and still use, that's at least 30 years old (it was one of the first, if not the first, digital multimeter Radio shack ever sold). It still works just fine and I'll keep using it until it dies.

[Viseguy]

Dog bites man. Someone should invent a biodegradable e-reader. Now that would be news.

[jumpjack]

Originally Posted by Whipet

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-...e-readers.html

Not to talk about COLOR and ANIMATION support!

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

So? They are still well over a year old.

Btw, I forgot to mention the Micronta (old Radio Shack brand) multimeter I have, and still use, that's at least 30 years old (it was one of the first, if not the first, digital multimeter Radio shack ever sold). It still works just fine and I'll keep using it until it dies.

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.