Liquavista: Threat to E-Ink?

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by BeTaRe

I'm of the same opinion. Liquavista only stated that they rewrote the algorithms to make their screen much more efficient. They still would require power to produce a screen image as the screen is based on LCD tech.

To my knowledge the only color displays that use power only when the screen change is Mirasol and the Bridgestone QR-LPD screen. Mirasol displays color by changing the distance between the film and reflective layer the light bounces off and QR-LPD uses liquid powder that charges to the screen. Both require no energy to continue to display the page.

So far I haven't seen anything from Liquavista stating their displays work that way.

Well Mirasol requires a bias voltage run across it to maintain a hold state, but it's very small.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

But, isn't the question... Does this slow down your reading speed?

I assume with a palm you are turning the page 2 or maybe 3 times per and eInk page on a 6inch reader. Also, I know my Kindle (slow eink) turns the page faster then I did when I read a pbook.

Also, my Camry is slower than a Porsche 911 yet we can both drive down the highway side by side at 75 MPH.

BOb

Comparing with paper? Paper is much faster and more responsive. By far. It only lacks keyword searching.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

But, isn't the question... Does this slow down your reading speed?

BOb

For me its not the speed, its the distraction factor.

[anurag]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Everything I have read, including the description you just posted, says that this is false. Liquavista still needs power to maintain the image.

I goofed up, thanks for pointing this out guys. Post updated.

[Lemurion]

I think I'm like many people here. I don't care so much about the technology behind my reader's display as much as the characteristics of the display. I also don't want the same display for all situations.

When it's time for me to replace my 505 I'll look at what's available and decide then. I may go with E-Ink, or with some other technology - it depends on the device. I know low power and a stable display are more important to me than either color or instantaneous refresh.

Right now, an E-Ink device comes closest to meeting my needs even if it isn't perfect.

[Dylrob]

Even if eInk/EPD does disappear from the realm of ebook readers I think the technology overall still has a bright future ahead of it. Specifically in applications where speed is not critical and the bistable nature clearly benefits... like signs or shelf labels.

Also we've yet to see flexible versions of these recent alternatives. It seems like it would be especially difficult with Liquavista.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

And I don't quite get this multi-purpose vs. single-purpose antagonism some people are pushing on MR.

It's largely a reaction to the clueless geek sites that constantly whine about how convergence is the second coming and single-use devices are all doomed. Several single-use devices that each perform their function well are better than one multi-use device that does everything in a mediocre fashion.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

But, isn't the question... Does this slow down your reading speed?

I sometimes find myself paging back through a book to refresh my memory of a particular passage. I know the place simply in terms of the narrative flow (so a keyword search is useless, and chapters are only vaguely helpful) and page back and forth until I find the spot I want to reread. These are the times when I really would like devices to be more responsive. Of course, the speed of eInk is only part of that, since a significant element of the sluggishness of a 505, for example, is down to the very low-powered processor.


As I've pointed out many times already, none of these new display technologies offer any improvement in terms of resolution. They're all newsprint-quality, which is adequate for text, but laughable if you actually want to rival print for displaying images.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by charleski

It's largely a reaction to the clueless geek sites that constantly whine about how convergence is the second coming and single-use devices are all doomed. Several single-use devices that each perform their function well are better than one multi-use device that does everything in a mediocre fashion.

Be kind to em, Charleski. They're technophiles, and have a low save vs shiny. Like me, you evidently believe in tech-as-a-tool, and I'd agree you're quite right that properly designed single-function devices are often better...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Be kind to em, Charleski. They're technophiles, and have a low save vs shiny. Like me, you evidently believe in tech-as-a-tool, and I'd agree you're quite right that properly designed single-function devices are often better...

Of course, tech is a tool. Even though you can enjoy using it, and there is nothing wrong with making tech products a little more attractive. Disclaimer: I am not an Apple fan, far from it. I love no-compromise convergence. When I buy a phone it must be able to do virtually everything. And a phone can be a no compromise MP3 player, a no compromise e-mail device, and is still useful for occasional browsing, video, TV, and reading. But what good is convergence like a netbook for browsing and reading when it seriously compromises the reading function? On my phone that function is a stop gap, for those times when I have nothing else with me. I will buy a tablet for reading when it is at least every bit as good as my e-ink reader is now for what the e-ink does. Or I may buy it when it is very good for reading those kinds of materials that the e-ink reader is lousy at AND it is good enough to replace my laptop, when the time comes.