Wow, I'm glad to see that person is getting some more recognition for this work.

A claim in the video that I can't verify but makes economic/logistic sense is that the speed problem isn't the panels but the controllers. The current crop of controllers are optimized for low power, which fits the e-reader use case but that is not optimal for the interactive use case.

▲

jolmg an hour ago | parent [-]

> The current crop of controllers are optimized for low power, which fits the e-reader use case but that is not optimal for the interactive use case.

Why try to contort the technology for something it's not good at, instead of using a more appropriate technology like transflective LCDs? Eink isn't the only option for reflective displays. If you increase the power use of eink to get better refresh rates, I imagine you'd end up using more power than (and still end up with lower refresh rates than) an MIP display.

I don't understand the growth of the market as a whole for eink monitors, when tLCDs exist and are disappearing from the market.

	▲	enragedcacti 13 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm pretty sure e-ink has a much higher ceiling for reflectance than TLCDs/RLCDs, so you'll be able to use it comfortably without a frontlight in a lot more situations which could more than make up for increased power usage. I think they are also naturally better in terms of glare compared to any type of LCD.
	▲	adolph an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It isn't clear to me that eink's underlying display technology isn't good at the interactive computing use case so much as the implementations aren't optimized for it. There could be a position where more power than an eink reader is used but still far less than traditional active displays since unchanged pixels aren't driven.