>No. There are no products in this space that can compete with the midrange LCD displays.
Then how can you make such claims? You're just blowing smoke at this point. My take: The are no such products because nobody would buy them, that's why nobody makes them.
If you think the market is wrong, and there's such a huge demand waiting for a product that doesn't yet exist, why not put your money where your mouth is and go all-in funding such a product? If you're right, you'd get rich. Or you're actually wrong, and it will flop massively. Which one is it?
>Yield for smaller displays works differently - areal density of defects being the same, a smaller panel has a smaller chance of having a defect.
Yeah, that's why cutting the e-ink film into smaller displays gets you better yields, since you can throw away the smaller sections with the defects, instead of discarding larger ones, and lower the costs, which, like I said previously, is why you mostly see smaller e-ink displays based products, and why the ones with large screens are so expensive.
>A 20" 200 dpi panel has 4 times more places where something could go wrong than a 100 dpi one
Genuine question: do you have any industry experience working with e-ink displays, or are you just making uninformed assumptions for the sake of an armchair argument? As, that's not how yields scale in e-ink film. Source: I worked designing devices with e-ink displays.
>No. I’m doing math. A 200dpi panel has 4 times more components per area than a 100dpi one. You can check it, if you are not sure.
Defect rates don't scale linearly to density IRL as you assume, and the type of defects changes as well. This is not the same as semiconductor manufacturing though plenty of parallels can be drawn.
>Do you have experience with e-ink panel manufacture?
I have deep insight in this industry due to my development experience with this tech. So the manufacturers tutor us on the nitty gritty details of the tech which stem from the manufacturing limitations, as my employers are making expensive purchases from them.
Of course, you are free to believe that I'm wrong and your kindergarten math is the answer to a profitable product to which the industry are completely oblivious too.
Then how can you make such claims? You're just blowing smoke at this point. My take: The are no such products because nobody would buy them, that's why nobody makes them.
If you think the market is wrong, and there's such a huge demand waiting for a product that doesn't yet exist, why not put your money where your mouth is and go all-in funding such a product? If you're right, you'd get rich. Or you're actually wrong, and it will flop massively. Which one is it?
>Yield for smaller displays works differently - areal density of defects being the same, a smaller panel has a smaller chance of having a defect.
Yeah, that's why cutting the e-ink film into smaller displays gets you better yields, since you can throw away the smaller sections with the defects, instead of discarding larger ones, and lower the costs, which, like I said previously, is why you mostly see smaller e-ink displays based products, and why the ones with large screens are so expensive.
>A 20" 200 dpi panel has 4 times more places where something could go wrong than a 100 dpi one
Genuine question: do you have any industry experience working with e-ink displays, or are you just making uninformed assumptions for the sake of an armchair argument? As, that's not how yields scale in e-ink film. Source: I worked designing devices with e-ink displays.