E-Paper Moves Closer 179
squaretorus sent in this story about electronic paper at the BBC. Seems that everytime any of the e-paper, e-ink, e-whatever companies have a new demo unit they run out and call a press conference. But none of it matters until they have ultra-thin, durable, flexible pages that can be manufactured cheaply...
Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:2, Insightful)
F-bacher
Re:Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:1, Insightful)
Imagine. 3rd grade classrooms that have 20 kids and do a "60 math problem in 60 seconds" worksheet once a week. Instead of throwing away 20 sheets a week, 20 "sheets" could be reused for an entire school year or beyond. Multiply those savings by every 3rd grade classroom and you're talking very little e-paper compared to lots and lots of tree-paper. And that's only one incredibly small application in only one grade...
The point was also on environmental benefits. True, books won't cost any less, but books aren't disposable and usually aren't just thrown away. The landfill/rain forest savings would, in deed be grand.
Re:Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:1)
Please remember that computers require POWER. This power comes from powerstations, which require coal, gas, or nuclear power. Environmentally these are just as bad as cutting down rainforests (in fact, when you realise that every tree in the rainforest releases EVERYTHING back into the atmosphere when it dies and rots, you realise that books aren't such a bad thing).
What we really need if we want to be environemental is to look at ways of preserving energy. This includes using renewable sources (such as sunlight and wind power), reducing the amount of power we use (computers are hideously inefficiant), and using the most efficiant sources of energy around. Muscle is good - i.e. writing on blackboards, writing on paper, whatever, pulling a cart along by slaves, etc.
Incidentally, that last one was a joke.
Re:Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:2)
The first one's the bitch in terms of cost (the Master): it's the replication that's the cheap part.
This is not to say, of course, that record companies have been screwing with us for a decade or two: how much does your morning coffee "cost," and how much is the price?
Re:Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:3)
At least when I buy my coffee, I own it.
Re:Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:1)
well, not for very long :)
Re:Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:1)
At least when I buy my coffee, I own it.
Oh sure, right now you do - but wait untill the DMCA (Digital Millenium Coffee Act) gets pushed though by Starbuck's lobbiests and Juan Valdez. Then you'll be buying the right to savor the thick, rich Columbian coffee - but you won't be able to share it with a friend, or add "unapproved" condiments to it. If the EULA (uhm, you did read the fine print on the bottom of the cup, right?) says "no cinnamon" in your latte, then no cinnamon for you!
"If we took the bones out it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?" Monty Python
Re:Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:2)
Actually, if I ran the coffee through a gas chromatograph, I could do so without fear of being chased down and locked up for twenty five years, or at the very least having my livelihood ruined for life. There is precedent in the soft drink industry regarding this.
Re:Think of the savings in $$$! (Score:2, Interesting)
F-bacher
Just imagine.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just imagine.. (Score:2)
Re:Just imagine.. Newspeak... (Score:2)
At least paper books can't be changed remotely to display something different than they did last week.
I believe it when I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I believe it when I see it (Score:2)
That's a bad analogy. A flying car actually *was* produced in the 1960's, I believe. I saw the story of it on the History Channel [historychannel.com]. The problem was not whether it was reproducible cheaply or not, or whether it worked and was viable or anything. The problem was that *consumers* are simply not ready for cars that fly. Most people can barely drive a car that goes in *two* dimensions, let a alone a car that goes in *three*. Take a drive on a freeway in any crowded city in America and you'll see what I mean.
Re:I believe it when I see it (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I believe it when I see it (Score:1)
Etch-A-Sketch (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Etch-A-Sketch (Score:3, Funny)
:-P
Soko
It it truely replaces newspaper (Score:3, Funny)
this doesnt seem to be happening anytime soon (Score:2, Informative)
Would it still have the rights of wooden paper? (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one would like to be able to share my books wooden or electronic.. We've seen the problems that come with the electronic version, for example, the E-Book.. Whats to make it so that the companies dont put more restrictive limitations on the eletronic paper version? Once htey get past those issues and it becomes as common and cheap as the wooden version then heck yeah I'll buy it, but until then, and until they get electronic paper to have the same rights as the wooden version, I'm not going to touch it with a 6 foot stick..
Re:Would it still have the rights of wooden paper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Would it still have the rights of wooden paper? (Score:1)
regards, dkl
the tessellated networks [tessellated.net]
Re:Would it still have the rights of wooden paper? (Score:1)
BUT - i can also remember seeing all those "visions of the future" film reels, promising everyhing from flying cars to auto-polarizing window glass.
Sure, it's cool - cool as hell in fact, but i'm not about to start holding my breath.
Warble://VX
Re:Would it still have the rights of wooden paper? (Score:1, Redundant)
All your shirts are belong to us
Sorry...couldn't resist.
It would be cool to have a shirt I could hook up via USB and drag a jpg from my desktop to the shirt "folder" and whammo - there it is on me. Even better, a GIMP plugin that lets you basically design the shirt and then upload it.
No. (Score:2)
You can do them at the end of a document, sure, but HTML isn't precise enough to guarantee that that matches the end of the physical page on all devices. There's a reason publishers use PDFs instead of HTML, y'know...
A wireless HTML browser on e-paper would be cool, yes, but it alone won't replace books. Actually, the other problem that screams out at me here is annotations. From what they're talking about I can't see a clean, simple way to annotate your copy, which means you instantly knock it out for academic books and quite a lot of non-academic, too. Or end up with a situation similar to the old joke about tippex on the monitor...
Ummm... silly question (Score:2)
You're right in that HTML was never intended to be a layout tool although it has been coerced into being one, but IMO, in and of itself HTML can be a very reasonable way to display information. However, footnotes are placed on the same page to allow the user to see them without flipping around the book. If you are using hyperlinks, you get the same effect.
Re:Would it still have the rights of wooden paper? (Score:1)
So if somebody tries to hand you e-paper, it probably would be a good idea to have a six-foot stick handy.
LCD (Score:2, Insightful)
1 - Somebody gives me old fashioned bills or credit card receipts on paper.
2 - I want to see something at >72dpi.
It's hard to get excited about e-paper... I want to have no-paper, not more-paper, e- or not.
This technology seems like a giant step backwards from where we're headed with lower cost, larger, and higher-res LCD displays.
Re:LCD (Score:2)
Re:LCD (Score:1)
Re:LCD (Score:2)
The only reason large (12-15") LCDs are necessary at this time is because they've got such a crappy resolution.
Most of our paperbacks and textbooks columns no more than 4" to 5" wide. That's because they're high-resolution "displays": the smaller text, at 2400+dpi, more legible than what current LCDs offer.
Now, I'm not expecting 2400dpi LCDs. But I know IBM has demonstrated, several times over the past three years, 200dpi displays.
It's time to have devices with 5" to 7" width displays, at 200dpi. They'd be so much more legible than today's technology that I'm sure a lot of us hold-outs would start considering them as acceptable for bedtime novel-reading.
That they'd be truly novel-sized would be a bonus.
Re:LCD (Score:2)
Actually most novels are lower resolution than that. At tops 300-600 DPI. Cheaper novels are even lower resolution.
Re:LCD (Score:1)
Very, very difficult problem: Designing cheap... (Score:3, Insightful)
"You can actually think about there being a book now because you can actually put some electronics on the back of this thing and it becomes a display..."
The speaker is quickly skipping over a very, very difficult problem: Designing cheap, flexible, fast, digital electronics that can address every one of those pixels so that they can be turned off and on.
Just getting the speed and resolution necessary costs $110 for a Matrox G-450 video card, which is not flexible and doesn't include digital output. The final signal to a monitor is analog.
Re:Very, very difficult problem: Designing cheap.. (Score:1)
The Matrox does a lot more than a video driver for an e-book would need to. 8.5"x11" at 300dpi for e-paper would be a 3300x2550 monochrome display. The G-450 already does 2048x1536 @ 32bpp, so I think Matrox could put together something that did about 2x the resolution with 1/32 fewer bits per pixel without difficulty. Throw out the d-to-a converter, the analog port connectors, most of the memory, the AGP interface, and the 3-D hardware and you'll get something that costs a lot less than $110.
Every pixel must be separately addressable. (Score:2)
But SVDave, if you throw out the Digital to Analog converter, you must provide some way of hooking every row and every column with a separate wire. Every pixel must be separately addressable. Also, to meet the design goal, this wiring must be thin, flexible, cheap, and reliable.
Also, the hardware driver could not use a fan, as does the Matrox G-450. Yes, such a hardware driver could be simpler in some ways, but the problems are still mind-boggling. At least they boggle my mind.
Re:Every pixel must be separately addressable. (Score:1)
And every bit of the main memory of your computer must be separately addressable by the CPU. That doesn't meant that you need to have a wire from the CPU to every bit of memory, nor does it mean that the CPU needs a D-to-A converter to communicate with memory.
Right now, the preferred way for an external LCD to talk to a video board is through a digital interface. If an LCD doesn't need to see an analog signal, why would e-paper need to?
So what? The reason video boards need fans these days (remember, they didn't always need them), is because of the hardware devoted to 3-D. Take that out, and the display circuitry will run a lot cooler. Take out color support, and things get simpler and cooler still.
Every bit is connected with wires. (Score:2, Insightful)
"That doesn't meant that you need to have a wire from the CPU to every bit of memory..."
Yes, the CPU uses binary addressing to communicate with the memory module, so few wires are needed. But, inside the memory module, every bit is connected with wires. And those wires don't have to be flexible.
You are right about the fan.
The basic point I think is valid is that a cell that can be made black or white with the application of a voltage is interesting and important, but is only a small part of the complexity necessary. Designing flexible wires to every pixel, and flexible transistors to control every pixel, if needed, is the bulk of the complexity.
Re:Every bit is connected with wires. (Score:1)
True, but that problem is going to exist whether or not you "throw out the Digital to Analog converter."
Re:Every bit is connected with wires. (Score:1)
The difference is the second time you run it through the paper it can print white as well as black to overwrite what already existed.
Re:Every bit is connected with wires. (Score:1)
Re:Every bit is connected with wires. (Score:2)
Just remove the toner cartridge and fuser, replace the drum with a roll of electronic paper, and that's it. There's a stage at the end of a cycle that applies a uniform charge to the drum in preparation for the laser. That can reset the paper to white.
Not that I've ever seen anything similar in a prototype, oh no...
Re:Very, very difficult problem: Designing cheap.. (Score:1)
in fact, LCD panels are more expensive and complicated because of the need for circuitry that converts analog signal back to digital for display. this constraint would apply to any form of e-paper or other digital display.
this is a legacy issue dating back to the first PCs.
Re:Very, very difficult problem: Designing cheap.. (Score:2)
There is an even bigger factor, though. I could live with a refresh of, like, once per minute. Basically, as long as it can render a line of text faster than I can read it, we're good.
So, we are talking more like an original Hercules mono display at 100 times the res and 100th the refresh or something. (or whatever) Probably not hard to do that without a fan
Oh, and the conversion to analog is an EXTRA step.
-Peter
See the post above, # 2269044 (Score:1)
You are right that the refresh rate could be slower. I think people would want to change pages in about one-half second.
The last paragraph of my post above, #2269044 [slashdot.org] makes the point that there is a lot more complexity than just the pixel that turns black or white.
Re:Very, very difficult problem: Designing cheap.. (Score:2)
Eash pixel must be separately connected. (Score:1)
All true, but each pixel must be separately connected. Those connections must be cheap, durable, and flexible. When I have tried to design something like that, I have thought that it was a very difficult problem.
My use of a video card as an example in my comment above was unfortunate, because it led readers away from my main point.
Re:Eash pixel must be separately connected. (Score:2)
All true, but each pixel must be separately connected. Those connections must be cheap, durable, and flexible. When I have tried to design something like that, I have thought that it was a very difficult problem.
I think you're still missing the point. LVDS takes care of this problem very easily and in a very proven method: it drives every TFT screen on the planet without a problem.
Basically you have a serializer which converts your Row/Column accesses to one or more data streams and a clock stream. Each stream is two physical lines. Then you can have the deserializer within the e-paper. So now you provide power and your serial data and clock. Far fewer lines.
De-serializers require lots of transistors. (Score:1)
Interesting.
However, serializers and de-serializers require lots of transisters. I don't think they can be reliably embedded in a flexible medium, and I don't think they can be cheap. Also, there are still lots of wires.
Digital paper is not feasible at present, I think. The display cells are available, but the electronics is a huge challenge. It is the electronics that is the challenge, not the display cells.
I think the promoters of this technology know that they cannot deliver without a huge amount of expensive additional research. They seem to be hiding that fact from people who are less knowledgeable. It's like the dot-com frauds; people taking advantage of the lesser knowledge of other people.
Re:De-serializers require lots of transistors. (Score:1)
However, serializers and de-serializers require lots of transisters. I don't think they can be reliably embedded in a flexible medium.
Um, that's why they're using flexible plastic transistors in e-paper.
Is the story about digital paper a lie? (Score:1)
My original post did not make clear that I think that digital paper is, effectively, a lie.
The electronics necessary to address the pixels is of the kind used with LCD panels used in laptop computers. This electronics has been available for several years, so it is somewhat mature. It is VERY expensive. A large part of the cost of a laptop is the cost of the LCD panel.
It is true that electronics to drive a black-and-white display would be less complex. But it is still a very expensive problem to solve, especially if it is expected to be flexible.
My guess is that the companies are trying to get funding. My guess is that they know that the electronics is very expensive, and not likely to come down in price without a HUGE amount of additional research. To me, this seems to be a cover-up of the kind we have seen so often recently in connection with the dot-coms. The companies seem to me to be taking advantage of the lack of technical knowledge on the part of the investors.
Re:The complexity in not in the display cells. (Score:2)
"E-paper, on the other hand, is a single layer of circuits on plastic. The process of making e-paper is is very different than the highly expensive process of making an lcd screen."
Yes. However, there seems to me to be a lie in this. Actual e-paper display panels will, in practice, be rigid and complicated because of all the transistors and interconnects involved.
LCD displays are difficult to make, not because laying down layers of liquid crystal is difficult, but because the layers must be integrated with transistors. Addressing pixels separately is a bear of a problem. Having simple display cells reduces the complexity of only the element that was already quite simple.
It seems to me that attaining flexibility is also a huge problem. Flexible things achieve flexibility by being alloewed to pull themselves apart internally. Only things that are very thin achieve durability while being flexed.
I don't see how e-paper can be e-paper. I think that, for the forseeable future, "e-paper" will always be "rigid black-and-white display panel in a world that increasingly demands color".
That's where I see the lie. I think the developers of "e-paper" know what I've said here. A usable product is a lot further away than they are implying. Also, it is likely that, by the time e-paper is reduced in overall cost, color LCD panels will be reduced in cost, also.
Docking station approach (Score:2)
Basically, you'd have a book of e-paper which you would hook to a docking station of some sort - that would render all of the e-paper for the book. It could even take a bit (a few minutes) and people wouldn't mind.
You could have a rnage of ebooks with different form factors and lengths. Seperate from that you could have a range of e-book docking stations with different capbilities - some could be more customized to render in different point sizes, have better fonts or support diagrams. You'd only have to buy one docking station but you could have a variety of e-books to write to, as long as they are made as cheaply as possible I think it would all work out well and be pretty affordable.
nope (Score:2)
I'll know (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'll know (Score:1)
Upon hearing this report... (Score:2, Funny)
...various makers of those little erasable sketch pads for kids scrambled to modify their products to mimic the "e-paper". One company released a statement saying "We're only switching from simple magnets to electromagnets, but in the end we can translate everything into digital media as a result"
Whats the purpose (Score:1)
E paper sounds fine, unless you're affected (as in part of the paper industry).None the less, e-paper may become a reality, but as Xerox predicted a paperless office 25 years ago, the demand has doubled since then. Paper will continue to be used for a LONG time.
I simply don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason is really simple, imo. The e-paper requires a battery, circuitry, special inks, etc. In the end, it will deccay, break down or I might simply drop it into the bath tub while reading it and zap the hell out of me. I've had many electronic devices fail on me, and in all cases all the information stored on them was lost. Completely. The same is true for e-paper. Sooner or later (most likely really soon) it will break down, no matter how well you take care of it.
The same does not apply to normal, paper books. They last. And last. My oldest book is from the early 1900s, and by no means is it old. There are parchments that are thousands of years old. Granted, it's just as easy to destroy normal paper as it might be e-paper, but given proper care, normal paper has an almost endless life.
So if given the choice, I'd rather get an old-fashioned paper book that I can keep for as long as I want rather that a cool e-paper one that will BSOD in a couple of years.
Re:I simply don't like this. (Score:1, Informative)
In its core, as I heard, it's just black and white-colored balls in oil between two transparent plastic sheets.
Re:I simply don't like this. (Score:1)
Given the choice between paper and today's generation of e-paper/ink/whatever, I agree that I choose paper.
But the future of e-paper has the promise to beat physical paper. For example, if you leave your paper book on the top of your car and drive off, you've lost the book. If you leave a piece of e-paper with a copy of the book on the top of the car, you've only lost the e-paper, not the book itself. You can get a new piece of e-paper and load it up with a copy of the book from your computer's hard drive (or whereever).
As for power requirements, I think other comments have pointed out that researchers are working on low-power or non-power versions.
As you point out, a particular technology of e-paper may go out of date, but the book sitting on your harddrive will not. If you get a new generation of e-paper, load up the book on the new generation of e-paper. The important distinction is between the display technology of e-paper and the book reader/rendering software that uses this display.
As other's have pointed out, there are still concerns over excessive restrictions on the formats of electronic books distinct from the display technologies. If the book is available only in an "encrypted" format that works only with a particular display technology, then I'd stick with paper. But if the book is available in clear-text, I'd rather display it on a future version of e-paper that they keep promising us...
Re:I simply don't like this. (Score:1)
That my little friend is the entire point. Any format that has even the potential to be controlled in such a proprietary manner will be. Do you really think publishers will really sell plain-text binary versions of their novels for people to load onto any e-paper they want? Guess again... If you ask me e-paper will be killed by the same people that kill every other new media innovation, media companies If they cannot control with ironclad certainty the use of e-paper, they will not support it, and may even move to have it rebulated into oblivion.
Sure, I would love e-paper that I can load with anything I want. I would love to have text copies of all the books I OWN on my computer to do with them as I please. But unfortunately the current corporate establisment is working very hard to make sure that dream never becomes reality.
Re:I simply don't like this. (Score:2)
Re:I simply don't like this. (Score:1)
While E-ink requires power to write to it, it retains the image even after the power is cut off.
Simply waterproofing the thing would allow you to read it without getting shocked. Heck, then you could even read it underwater if you wanted, while paper would get wet and start to break-up.
And plus paper is organic it will definitily decompose faster than my e-paper would; thousands of years in the future they would still be able to read it. Paper needs very specific conditions to last hundreds of years, and even with the most modern preservation technology I doubt anything could last *thousands* of years. Yeah, I'm sure if you play frisbee or archery practice with my e-paper book it will fail, but I have faith that plastic and metal will last longer than paper.
Re:I simply don't like this. (Score:1)
DD
Re:I simply don't like this. (Score:1)
But yes, I too prefer the genuine article over any of the modern extremely volatile e-replacements.
Basically, the stuff that I use to keep track of what is really important to me (some of those things are just memories "attached" to a book or document that anybody else will regard as "just a pile of old paper") should at least be able to outlast me. With the life expectancy of an average European being somewhere near 75 years, that means any technology that hopes to replace paper must reliably last 60 years before I will consider using it exclusively. And of course it needs to be as convenient as real paper as well.
Franckly, I really don't expect something that satisfies these criteria to show up during my lifefime (and in my family we have a tendency to reach grow very old).
Kind of a shame (Score:2)
Re:Kind of a shame (Score:1)
Paperboy (Score:1)
Right to read (Score:4, Insightful)
This short story illustrates the evils which could be put into play if digital paper is ever realized. The technology itself is a wonderful leap forward, but, I suspect, that the companies controlling the content might get a little greedy.
Although it's doubtful things will get as bad as are described in the story, the technology certainly opens the door for some of it.
Later, GJC
It's a small but existing and growing industry (Score:2, Informative)
Xerox has had this going for a while [xerox.com]. It's been demoed at retail stores (flexible hanging banners with changing messages).
Here's a list of on-line electronic paper resources [slais.ubc.ca] gathered less than a year ago by Shawn Hellenius.
New Reason for not having homework... (Score:2, Funny)
Has there been a comment about DMCA? (Score:2, Funny)
doesn't necessarily need to be cheap (Score:3, Interesting)
But I WON'T buy it if it only supports encrypted content.
Re:doesn't necessarily need to be cheap (Score:1)
The few square feet that monitors provide are just too restricting, and the eyestrain is nasty. If I could have a huge, paper-like display, that would be sweet!
Why use e-paper? (Score:2, Funny)
E-paper has to be perfect (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate reading on the Palm : the screen is too small, the contrast sucks and you have to scroll all the time, but the Palm is small and convenient enough to convince me not to load my suitcase sometimes. The Rocket Ebook was much better, but still not very exciting. The Everybook had that dual A4 color display that was big like an open window, and impressive, but I still was uneasy holding the thing to read.
So, it brought me to think about it : what do I like so much better in a book that even the near-perfect Everybook reader didn't provide ? well, of course, there is the fact that books don't need batteries, they are not nearly as fragile, they are less heavy than the majority of paperback releases (I'm not talking about Dostoyevsky). But there is more : the texture of the paper is gratifying to touch, the turning of a paper page is part of the pleasure of reading, the letters never have staircase effect, even if the printing is crappy, the white of the paper reflects different color shades with the lighting, one can see the sun dance on the pages at dawn or dusk while reading on the train, etc etc ... Even the back, with its different material (cardboard), its artwork and sometimes embossed or golden letters is part of the reading experience.
So, to convince conventional "pleasure" readers, E-paper will have to have all of that : round letters, paper-like light reflection, paper-like texture, the exact same text layout than on a regular book. All of that is part of the joy of reading, and E-paper won't provide that for a long time. I, for one, never read for pleasure on any form of computer device. I read a lot of articles, financial reports, tech manuals, online and the cold screen light doesn't bother me because the reading is only pratical, but I would never read Azimov on anything else but a book.
Re:E-paper has to be perfect (Score:1)
Some people are willing to suffer a little to read a good book they can't get otherwise.
E-books, e-paper, and PDA's are (or will be) used because, their versatility and compactness far outweighs their drawbacks, such as copy restrictions, slow refresh rate, resolution or small screens. Nothing can be recreated artificially and perfectly with different materials.
Just watch in a few years as perfectionists complain that e-paper doesn't work right - not as spare toilet paper or backup fire-kindling.
Re:E-paper has to be perfect (Score:1)
If E-paper or e-ink (whatever it is) can match paper print quality and not have to be backlit. Then it will probably sell really well.
What excites me about e-paper (Score:2)
What excites me about things like e-paper is that I could have different books for different needs.
For travel or general fun reading (in the park, on the couch, etc.) I could have an e-book the size of a normal paperback (hopefully with pages that have similar weight and feel to paper) that I could dock, load with content, undock and take with me anywhere.
For harsher conditions like maps you take out hiking, I could have a more rugged version of the paper that would stand up to wear and weather.
If I wanted to prop up a table, I could have a hardback version of e-paper that I fill up with something like "War & Peace" or "The Breast" (wierd Kafka ripoff, or at least it seems that way to me!). Ok, someone out there might like the hardback form factor. It is better for tech books, hmm...
Anyway, I could have a choice of form factors and load what books I liked into whatever size and shape I like.
As for the person who said a book full of pages of e-paper was a waste, my argument against that is that spatial memory is very powerful, and there are a LOT of times when I've wanted to refer back to some exact spot in the book and the quickest way really is to turn right to the page where you remember it being - you might think some sort of search mechanism could do the same but I think it would be slower. Plus I am in agreement that turning pages is pleasant way to scroll forward through a book.
Coming soon... e-asswipe! (Score:2)
Not the whole story, or not thinking far enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, if you view the epaper as simply a medium through which to display information, you wouldn't need a seperate physical volume for each book - they could all fit into something, say, the size of a PDA (compactflash, etc for removable, expandable storage, and a hookup to the epaper to display -- or even a PDA screen made OF this stuff (thin, light, flexible (foldable?) PDA ^_^ ) - would be insanely useful.
All of this doesn't come with a price, however. If publishing of mainstream works went electronic, there would be no "ownership" of a copy of a work, only a "license". Then, by simply encrypting the contents, by any means, no matter how light, makes it CRIMINAL to build, use and/or distribute a compatible viewer, under the DMCA. So whomever is first to market, wins, and has a larger stranglehold on the publishing industry than M$ has on PC OS's - because noone will *legally* be able to compete in that arena. ("Your honor, our file format, which is used by every major publication, is encrypted, and thus protected under the DMCA. The defendants willfully broke the law when they decrypted the contents of our file format and used it to create their product...")
There are MANY more issues here than just a superthin, flexible, high-contrast display. The article doesn't really touch on the major issues at all, and instead only glosses over the technology involved.
Spatial Memory & Power needs (Score:2)
Spatial memory is quite powerful, and I can often turn to the exact page I'm looking for, or I can't quite remember exactly what I'm looking for textually but know where it was spatially. It might seem like you could just runa search for the same thing in a PDA style reader, but I'm dubious that could ever be made as fast as simply turning to a page when you know where it is.
The great thing about digital books is that for times when a computer-style search is called for, you could use a PDA unit to do that - but when you wanted to read a book in a traditional manner without having to worry about a battery source throughout the period of time you use a book (like while travelling) a book full of e-paper would be amazingly useful.
Even better if when you get your hotel room or other destination if you could upload a new book into your e-book from the PDA.
I'm not going to touch the issues you bring up regarding digital books and ownership - all I can say is that companies seem to be too stupid to see an opportunity for tenfold growth in profits to be able to grab on. They could be selling new books in airports for
if it worked, it was here by now. (Score:1)
But I still like ye olde paper.
Example:
When I buy a program online, all I get is a serial number or a username and password to download it. I always print out a copy of the page. No matter how cool the paperless office might sound, it's damd nice to have it on paper when you just can't find that email where the code was.
Re:if it worked, it was here by now. (Score:1)
But, I do agree with you, a hard copy is a nice thing to have.
Why the paperless office will always be a myth. (Score:1, Funny)
Johnny: Thanks boss!
Boss: You're welcome Johnny. Do you think you'd be able to get the rest of them distributed to the clerks today?
Johnny: Sure no problem.
Boss: One other thing, can you set the network up so that each time someone opens a file on an e-paper, that the Laserjet 10,000 will print it out automatically?
Johnny: I suppose so, but why? *dull look of horro*
Boss: So that they can have a printout too, of course. *silently to himself* "Why do these computer people have to be so dense?!?"
Johnny: *silently to himself* "AAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHH!!! *sob* AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHH!!!"
Unless you care.. (Score:1)
What an assanine comment. I happen to care about it just as I cared about computers before they were able to be manufactured cheaply. Sounds like this guy only cares about being a silly little end user who only wants to be fed little news bites to let him know when he can run over to Circuit City and get one.
Sorry, I'm easily provoked today, move along.
a horrible image... (Score:1)
...the year is something like 2012...
...the transition between paper based documention and electronic paper is on us...
...a child is preparing a project for school...
...scissors in one hand...
...glue in the other...
...
... your electronic newspaper in a zillion pieces pasted to a piece of tagboard!
8-|
new excuse for not doing homework.. (Score:1)
the point of paper: E-Paper should stay expensive! (Score:1)
if You've got some important records, you cant just back up everything to disk. What if there's a power short? Oh, go to another computer? What if lightning hits Nearby?
I guess you could use CD, but that only works so far.
It's already been pointed out that the digital age will have nothing in it for people to find in a thousand years (or more likely, in a couple million years... damn nuclear wessels) and with E-Paper, what less will we have?
Thousands of pages of blank, near-blank, or blotchy.. meaningless pages.
Paper can survive EMP, E-paper cant. No point without regular paper.
Some people might like books with pages on them, I think these people are just avoiding the point that nobody has made a decent datapad yet. The whole "e-paper" idea will be looked at as a horrible joke in 60 years, at which time I'd hope we'd have an acceptable datapad of some sort, somewhere.
In two generations, anyone who doesnt like to read off a screen will be very old. Screen technology will also have changed drasticly, for that matter, so it is unlikely that anyone will give a damn. You want something that looks like paper? turn your monitor up to 2^256 colors, and pick it off the desk for a moment.
in the mean time though, maybe these people can make some money in their meaningless endevor
Eeerr. (Score:1)
I want E-Paper. E-Paper that's almost indistinguishable from actual paper. I want to be able to fold it, write on it, store what I write, dynamically display near anything on it. Something straight out of Neil Stephenson's The Diamond Age. Although something tells me I won't actually have anything like this until nanotechnology actually gets somewhere useful.
E-Paper vs Books (Score:1)
I like the idea of my collection in one nicely bound--yes bound--256 page book. (512 pages also available.) For static text, you want to click 'next' as little as possible. The best interface for books is TURNING THE PAGE.
The book texts should be stored in the e-book; I don't need to worry about my PC trashing my library and I know that I own it. (This is more than knowing that I just have access to a text--even if it's free access.)
For any non-static text, moving images, or anything interactive, use some Trekie datapad.
Eat meat (Score:3, Interesting)
Now skip ahead to the modern times when books are often times written on word processors and a single editor reviews the work accepts and suggests changes then finalizes the draft and sends it to an electronic pre-press. There's far fewer human based errors in modern print books so there's fewer editions from the same publisher printed. The only big changes are the one the author or editor decides to make in terms of actual content of the book. This is perfectly legal and fine for them to do. It is fine because most often if there was an original print of the book it ended up in some library or catalog somewhere. A hardcopy exists of the original work. Say someone actually got a copy of Catcher in the Rye printed with fewer profanities and got it out to the public at large. You'd know it was an edited work because you could go find an original print of the book if you really wanted one. As long as a group of extremists went and burned the original copies of the book you couldn't pass the profanity free copy off as the real thing. Hard copies of things can be difficult to get rid of because they are so entirely physical.
Enter e-books. Ahead fifty years from now, the printing of hard copy paper books is passe so all books are published electronically. Books are are now ethereal constructs. They can be transmitted in less than a fraction of a second to thousands of people and a library of them can be stored in a square inch of physical space. Man how revolutionary! They can also be wiped out by a single keystroke. The ethereal entities that books are can be wiped out or changed with the same whim it takes to transmit or store them in come digital medium. A scratched optical disk or pulled power plug can wipe out an entire strata of contemporary society. Was I the only one who read and understood 1984? Most of the shit you know or think you know is what you've been told. If someone is teeling you bullshit, all you know is bullshit. The books that did exist in Winston Smith's world were rewritten en masse to accord themselves with the contemporary situation at hand. You don't need to be a wild conspiracy theorist to think up some situations where the metaphysical nature of literature is abused. Shit, in computer terms, if a bug exists in code put into a CVS root the rest of the servers pulling from that root will get the same bug. Fouling the source fouls up everything. It's fairly easy to foul up the source if the only source is electronic. How many Gutenburg books have you seen with major typos in them, in fifty years literature students might discuss the poetic use of bad grammar in a work just because the only copy of the book in existance has been a fouled up copy with a typo from some text file that ran afoul of gzip. I'll stick with real paper.
Coming next... (Score:2, Funny)
E-Papercuts. This will be followed by E-Bleeding, as well as the E-Band Aid(tm).
Ouch. That's going to hurt.
What will happen to our history? (Score:2)
The nice thing about paper, from a historian's point of view, is that anyone can obtain data from an actual dead tree or sheepskin.
Electronic Etch-A-Sketch: True Open-Source Epaper? (Score:2)
Might it be possible to place some kind of electronic grid upon the face of the EAS, so that, by activating any given intersection (similar to a telephone "bar-type" switching network) a "dot" of iron filing might appear? Of course, the resultant picture would be fairly low-res, but it *might* be adequate for print. I think that one could achieve at least 320 * 240 pixels, perhaps similar to an old C64 screen.
I am presuming that the grid would connect out of a conventional serial or parallel port from a conventional computer. Any thoughts on the feasability of this?
Re:We need it, but not on Linux (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:We need it, but not on Linux (Score:1)