Your inside source for this 'no intention' knowledge at Apple is ...?
It could well be a feature that will be see on iPads as a user option in the future. Maybe it can even be partially done in an iOS update. A slider to modify a page or an area of a page to be monochrome with a lower contrast ration between back ground and text and over all brightness should be doable. Perhaps even the current hardware is improvable for those that prefer e-Ink although a new generation of iPad could mix software and hardware mods to totally emulate e-ink where required.
Actually, I was expecting this preference feature with iPad1, and I can't believe why it couldn't be implemented system-wide, meaning from one app to the next, or from Apple's apps, automatically until the user changes the preference.
Apple could accomplish this by having a translucent e-ink display that would be placed on top of the traditional LCD or OLED screen on an iPad. The top screen would allow users to see past it, so that video content in full color could be displayed on the screen below. And of course, atop all that would be a touch panel, allowing users to interact with the device.
Or they could skip the second display and achieve the same goals with way better light sensors (perhaps even putting in more than one), way better back lights and using a top screen that has at least some anti-glare to it. I"m not talking necessarily the full amount that is on their laptops but say something halfway between that and the full glossy.
The problem with this is that Dualmode LCD/Eink Displays already exist. So Amazon wouldn't have to worry about this patent if they wanted to make a dual mode device.
The PixelQI display is the one that comes to mind. Granted, it's not exactly like this patent. The point is that the technology exists already, so This patent applications shouldn't hinder development at all.
Quote:
Personally I never "got" eInk from a consumer point of view. Dark grey text on lighter grey paper is not "easier to read" IMO and I do a hell of a lot of reading.
The new "Pearl" eInk technology found in the Kindle 3 and Kindle DX is VERY easy to read. Traditional books arn't white pages with deep black text. The contrast is softer than that. The New kindle screens are insanely easy to read, easier than a "real" book even, and a hell of a lot easier than any form of LCD.
Quote:
The eInk display looks as if someone was trying to replicate the experience of reading an old pulp paperback in a dimly lit room. I prefer reading crisp black text on snowy white paper in a good light which is kind of what it's like reading on the iPhone. I almost prefer the iPhone over the iPad because of the crispness and brightness but iPad wins in most situations because of the size.
Reading on the iphone isn't bad because of pixel density, but it's still prone to strain if you read it for long periods of time. For myself, I like reading in the early morning or at late night. I don't want my pages lighting up the room around me.
Apple is not in the business of licensing hardware patents to competitors.
They don't have to be. The tech already exists. It has for at least a year. This is a new take on it, granted. But dual mode eink/LCD screens is not something Apple came up with. Amazon can make a functional screen without having to license anything from apple as long as they don't directly copy the tech (unless said tech has prior art)
With their enormous amount of cash on hand, Apple should just buy Pixel Qi. I'm sure that little company can be had for a pittance, by Apple standards.
That is true mainly for mostly text books. How would e-Readers, like Kindle handle image rich books.
People don't buy the Kindle to read image-rich books. They buy the Kindle for reading Novels. For reading Novels the iPad is not the way to go. For many, many, many reasons.
Electronic paper sounded like a good idea when people started talking about it, but after seeing the Kindle, I'm totally underwhelmed. They need to boost the contrast ratio about 100 times and increase the resolution to at least 300 dpi (maybe dithered to look like 600, the way printers do), and increase the screen size to 6" x 9" (or at least 5.5" x 8.5") before they become any kind of substitute for a real book.
Even then, most of the ebooks I've downloaded (heavily illustrated HTML and scanned PDF, not to mention DjVu) couldn't be read on a Kindle (or an iPad either, for that matter). My computer screen works fine though. Why can a lighted display get away with coarser resolution than paper? I don't know, but it does.
I'd like to see e-ink deliver on its promise, but it's not remotely there yet.
P.S. Why couldn't someone come up with a tablet with an LCD or OLED screen on one side and e-ink on the other?
Electronic paper sounded like a good idea when people started talking about it, but after seeing the Kindle, I'm totally underwhelmed. They need to boost the contrast ratio about 100 times and increase the resolution to at least 300 dpi (maybe dithered to look like 600, the way printers do), and increase the screen size to 6" x 9" (or at least 5.5" x 8.5") before they become any kind of substitute for a real book.
Even then, most of the ebooks I've downloaded (heavily illustrated HTML and scanned PDF, not to mention DjVu) couldn't be read on a Kindle (or an iPad either, for that matter). My computer screen works fine though. Why can a lighted display get away with coarser resolution than paper? I don't know, but it does.
I'd like to see e-ink deliver on its promise, but it's not remotely there yet.
P.S. Why couldn't someone come up with a tablet with an LCD or OLED screen on one side and e-ink on the other?
So they need to have a higher res than a real book, a bigger size than a real book... just to compete with a real book?
The Kindle3's Screen has crisper text than most printed paperbacks, and the size of the page is comparable to a mass market paperback. The Kindle exists for Text based content, not HTML or scanned PDF's. Those arn't even Ebooks in the traditional sense.
The latest hardare is the Kindle 3. It's poorly built and poorly designed. Even the most important part of the product, besides the display - the page buttons, are terrible. Like REALLY terrible! Steve Jobs wouldn't let that crap out the door. Not to mention the software. It's amazingly abysmal. And the keyboard, it sucks.
The three things that don't suck about the Kindle 3 are its weight, its slimness and its display. The display is too small though. It should be around or at least 7". Even small paperback novellas are 8" measured diagonally. The thing just wasn't properly thought through.
Weird. I find it well made and thought out. Accidentally dropped it from 4 feet onto concrete with no damage at all. Complain all you want that it doesn't have a touchscreen for input, because...
Quote:
Apple could accomplish this by having a translucent e-ink display that would be placed on top of the traditional LCD or OLED screen on an iPad. The top screen would allow users to see past it, so that video content in full color could be displayed on the screen below. And of course, atop all that would be a touch panel, allowing users to interact with the device.
Apparently apple doesn't understand why Amazon hasn't put in a backlight or touchscreen on their kindle: It screws around with readability. The text on the screen is right there without any glare or interference or distortion due to glass.
Unless apple managed to break the laws of physics this screen will suck. They can have a static non powered image to save energy, but that won't meet the goal of readability.
The kindle does what it is meant to do best: be an e-reader, that's it. It neither attempts to be an ipad or tablet in any meaningful form.
So they need to have a higher res than a real book, a bigger size than a real book... just to compete with a real book?
The Kindle3's Screen has crisper text than most printed paperbacks, and the size of the page is comparable to a mass market paperback. The Kindle exists for Text based content, not HTML or scanned PDF's. Those arn't even Ebooks in the traditional sense.
What the hell "traditional sense" are you talking about? Call Project Gutenberg or Google Books or the Internet Archive and tell them their Ebooks aren't Ebooks?until you can change their mind, they are.
And 300 or 600 dpi is much lower resolution than a real book?they range from 1200 for regular novel-type books to over 2400 for slick color-illustrated books. I was trying to give them a break. A normal octavo book is nearly 6" x 9" in page size?maybe 5.5" x 8.5" after trimming?they could cut some off the margins and get down to 5 x 8, I suppose, but the tiny, gray-on-gray display of the Kindle doesn't begin to do the job.
Oh, so now you are saying they will make a new tablet that doesn?t use eInk, but will drop the popular and ubiquitous Kindle branding while at the same time artificially disallow it from being an eBook reader.
And 300 or 600 dpi is much lower resolution than a real book?they range from 1200 for regular novel-type books to over 2400 for slick color-illustrated books. I was trying to give them a break. A normal octavo book is nearly 6" x 9" in page size?maybe 5.5" x 8.5" after trimming?they could cut some off the margins and get down to 5 x 8, I suppose, but the tiny, gray-on-gray display of the Kindle doesn't begin to do the job.
2400 dpi? Have you looked closely at any printed material???
Oh, so now you are saying they will make a new tablet that doesn?t use eInk, but will drop the popular and ubiquitous Kindle branding while at the same time artificially disallow it from being an eBook reader.
2400 dpi? Have you looked closely at any printed material???
Plain text at 600 dpi black and white is perfect.
2540 dpi would equal 100 lines/mm?about the best photographic film can do?and fine rotogravure printing can reproduce that exactly (they quote 2400, though). But of course, that's a small part of the publishing industry. I said 600 dpi was fine for an e-book reader. Of course, half-tone illustrations are going to be pretty bad?it really should be 1200 for that. There is more to books than plaintext, you know.
Comments
Your inside source for this 'no intention' knowledge at Apple is ...?
It could well be a feature that will be see on iPads as a user option in the future. Maybe it can even be partially done in an iOS update. A slider to modify a page or an area of a page to be monochrome with a lower contrast ration between back ground and text and over all brightness should be doable. Perhaps even the current hardware is improvable for those that prefer e-Ink although a new generation of iPad could mix software and hardware mods to totally emulate e-ink where required.
Actually, I was expecting this preference feature with iPad1, and I can't believe why it couldn't be implemented system-wide, meaning from one app to the next, or from Apple's apps, automatically until the user changes the preference.
Definitely a worthwhile addition to iOS5!
Apple could accomplish this by having a translucent e-ink display that would be placed on top of the traditional LCD or OLED screen on an iPad. The top screen would allow users to see past it, so that video content in full color could be displayed on the screen below. And of course, atop all that would be a touch panel, allowing users to interact with the device.
Or they could skip the second display and achieve the same goals with way better light sensors (perhaps even putting in more than one), way better back lights and using a top screen that has at least some anti-glare to it. I"m not talking necessarily the full amount that is on their laptops but say something halfway between that and the full glossy.
The might get sued if next Kindle uses that design, if Apple does receive that patent a couple years done the road.
Not if Amazon licenses the tech from Apple.
Not if Amazon licenses the tech from Apple.
Apple is not in the business of licensing hardware patents to competitors.
Too bad Apple just patented it then.
The problem with this is that Dualmode LCD/Eink Displays already exist. So Amazon wouldn't have to worry about this patent if they wanted to make a dual mode device.
The PixelQI display is the one that comes to mind. Granted, it's not exactly like this patent. The point is that the technology exists already, so This patent applications shouldn't hinder development at all.
Personally I never "got" eInk from a consumer point of view. Dark grey text on lighter grey paper is not "easier to read" IMO and I do a hell of a lot of reading.
The new "Pearl" eInk technology found in the Kindle 3 and Kindle DX is VERY easy to read. Traditional books arn't white pages with deep black text. The contrast is softer than that. The New kindle screens are insanely easy to read, easier than a "real" book even, and a hell of a lot easier than any form of LCD.
The eInk display looks as if someone was trying to replicate the experience of reading an old pulp paperback in a dimly lit room. I prefer reading crisp black text on snowy white paper in a good light which is kind of what it's like reading on the iPhone. I almost prefer the iPhone over the iPad because of the crispness and brightness but iPad wins in most situations because of the size.
Reading on the iphone isn't bad because of pixel density, but it's still prone to strain if you read it for long periods of time. For myself, I like reading in the early morning or at late night. I don't want my pages lighting up the room around me.
Apple is not in the business of licensing hardware patents to competitors.
They don't have to be. The tech already exists. It has for at least a year. This is a new take on it, granted. But dual mode eink/LCD screens is not something Apple came up with. Amazon can make a functional screen without having to license anything from apple as long as they don't directly copy the tech (unless said tech has prior art)
http://www.applepatent.com/2011/04/o...of-patent.html
With their enormous amount of cash on hand, Apple should just buy Pixel Qi. I'm sure that little company can be had for a pittance, by Apple standards.
Those displays are not good at either.
That is true mainly for mostly text books. How would e-Readers, like Kindle handle image rich books.
People don't buy the Kindle to read image-rich books. They buy the Kindle for reading Novels. For reading Novels the iPad is not the way to go. For many, many, many reasons.
Even then, most of the ebooks I've downloaded (heavily illustrated HTML and scanned PDF, not to mention DjVu) couldn't be read on a Kindle (or an iPad either, for that matter). My computer screen works fine though. Why can a lighted display get away with coarser resolution than paper? I don't know, but it does.
I'd like to see e-ink deliver on its promise, but it's not remotely there yet.
P.S. Why couldn't someone come up with a tablet with an LCD or OLED screen on one side and e-ink on the other?
Electronic paper sounded like a good idea when people started talking about it, but after seeing the Kindle, I'm totally underwhelmed. They need to boost the contrast ratio about 100 times and increase the resolution to at least 300 dpi (maybe dithered to look like 600, the way printers do), and increase the screen size to 6" x 9" (or at least 5.5" x 8.5") before they become any kind of substitute for a real book.
Even then, most of the ebooks I've downloaded (heavily illustrated HTML and scanned PDF, not to mention DjVu) couldn't be read on a Kindle (or an iPad either, for that matter). My computer screen works fine though. Why can a lighted display get away with coarser resolution than paper? I don't know, but it does.
I'd like to see e-ink deliver on its promise, but it's not remotely there yet.
P.S. Why couldn't someone come up with a tablet with an LCD or OLED screen on one side and e-ink on the other?
So they need to have a higher res than a real book, a bigger size than a real book... just to compete with a real book?
The Kindle3's Screen has crisper text than most printed paperbacks, and the size of the page is comparable to a mass market paperback. The Kindle exists for Text based content, not HTML or scanned PDF's. Those arn't even Ebooks in the traditional sense.
The latest hardare is the Kindle 3. It's poorly built and poorly designed. Even the most important part of the product, besides the display - the page buttons, are terrible. Like REALLY terrible! Steve Jobs wouldn't let that crap out the door. Not to mention the software. It's amazingly abysmal. And the keyboard, it sucks.
The three things that don't suck about the Kindle 3 are its weight, its slimness and its display. The display is too small though. It should be around or at least 7". Even small paperback novellas are 8" measured diagonally. The thing just wasn't properly thought through.
Weird. I find it well made and thought out. Accidentally dropped it from 4 feet onto concrete with no damage at all. Complain all you want that it doesn't have a touchscreen for input, because...
Apple could accomplish this by having a translucent e-ink display that would be placed on top of the traditional LCD or OLED screen on an iPad. The top screen would allow users to see past it, so that video content in full color could be displayed on the screen below. And of course, atop all that would be a touch panel, allowing users to interact with the device.
Apparently apple doesn't understand why Amazon hasn't put in a backlight or touchscreen on their kindle: It screws around with readability. The text on the screen is right there without any glare or interference or distortion due to glass.
Unless apple managed to break the laws of physics this screen will suck. They can have a static non powered image to save energy, but that won't meet the goal of readability.
The kindle does what it is meant to do best: be an e-reader, that's it. It neither attempts to be an ipad or tablet in any meaningful form.
So they need to have a higher res than a real book, a bigger size than a real book... just to compete with a real book?
The Kindle3's Screen has crisper text than most printed paperbacks, and the size of the page is comparable to a mass market paperback. The Kindle exists for Text based content, not HTML or scanned PDF's. Those arn't even Ebooks in the traditional sense.
What the hell "traditional sense" are you talking about? Call Project Gutenberg or Google Books or the Internet Archive and tell them their Ebooks aren't Ebooks?until you can change their mind, they are.
And 300 or 600 dpi is much lower resolution than a real book?they range from 1200 for regular novel-type books to over 2400 for slick color-illustrated books. I was trying to give them a break. A normal octavo book is nearly 6" x 9" in page size?maybe 5.5" x 8.5" after trimming?they could cut some off the margins and get down to 5 x 8, I suppose, but the tiny, gray-on-gray display of the Kindle doesn't begin to do the job.
The kindle does what it is meant to do best: be an e-reader, that's it. It neither attempts to be an ipad or tablet in any meaningful form.
Your claims that Amazon will not make an device that varies from a simple eInk eReader has been marked.
Your claims that Amazon will not make an device that varies from a simple eInk eReader has been marked.
Then it wouldn't be a kindle/ereader
Then it wouldn't be a kindle/ereader
Oh, so now you are saying they will make a new tablet that doesn?t use eInk, but will drop the popular and ubiquitous Kindle branding while at the same time artificially disallow it from being an eBook reader.
Good luck with all that.
And 300 or 600 dpi is much lower resolution than a real book?they range from 1200 for regular novel-type books to over 2400 for slick color-illustrated books. I was trying to give them a break. A normal octavo book is nearly 6" x 9" in page size?maybe 5.5" x 8.5" after trimming?they could cut some off the margins and get down to 5 x 8, I suppose, but the tiny, gray-on-gray display of the Kindle doesn't begin to do the job.
2400 dpi? Have you looked closely at any printed material???
Plain text at 600 dpi black and white is perfect.
Oh, so now you are saying they will make a new tablet that doesn?t use eInk, but will drop the popular and ubiquitous Kindle branding while at the same time artificially disallow it from being an eBook reader.
Good luck with all that.
Stop putting shit into my mouth.
2400 dpi? Have you looked closely at any printed material???
Plain text at 600 dpi black and white is perfect.
2540 dpi would equal 100 lines/mm?about the best photographic film can do?and fine rotogravure printing can reproduce that exactly (they quote 2400, though). But of course, that's a small part of the publishing industry. I said 600 dpi was fine for an e-book reader. Of course, half-tone illustrations are going to be pretty bad?it really should be 1200 for that. There is more to books than plaintext, you know.