As long as the E-Ink licensing remains the way it is, there won't really be an affordable competitor in this space.
I find it pretty unfortunate, because E-Ink really, really shines in terms of battery life and readability, and I think the current fees are leaving the tech only in niche and high end markets.
I mean simply that E-Ink (EPDs) remains incredibly patent incumbered, and the primary holder does not sell screens cheaply.
Your format and incredibly late reply make me think you're asking some sort of "Gotcha" question here, and I have no idea why.
see:
About E Ink
E Ink is the recognized leader and innovator in electronic ink technology, with over 600 U.S. patents, and 1,374 worldwide patents. E Ink continues to aggressively fund and place corporate priority on innovation, invention, and the *defense of its extensive intellectual property holdings*.
E Ink Corporation was spun out from MIT’s Media Lab in 1997 to commercialize electronic ink and electronic paper display (EPD) technology. In 2009, E Ink Corporation was purchased by Prime View International (PVI), a leading small and medium sized TFT-LCD and EPD provider. PVI was later renamed E Ink Holdings, Inc.
E Ink Holdings Inc. (8069.TWO) is now the world's largest supplier of EPD displays to the eReader market. It has transformed and defined the eReader market and is redefining the signage, architecture and design, mobile, wearable and retail markets with its ePaper technology, enabling a new multi-billion dollar market in less than 10 years. Its corporate philosophy aims to deliver revolutionary products, user experiences, and environmental benefits through advanced technology development. This vision has led to its continuous investments in the field of ePaper displays as well as expanding the use of its technologies into a number of other markets and applications, including smart packaging and fashion. Its EPD products make it the worldwide leader for ePaper. Its Fringe Field Switching (FFS) technologies are a standard for high-end LCD displays and have been licensed to all major liquid crystal display makers in the world. E Ink Holdings is listed in Taiwan's Taipei Exchange (TPEx) and the Luxembourg market. For more information please visit www.eink.com.
---
Edit - I see from your other replies this is clearly intended as a "gotcha" question, but I think you're incorrect in your assumption that volume is the problem. I'd argue that much like 3d printing, the issue is not really costs, but rather patents and licensing... as I clearly alluded to above.
For comparison, Amazon alone is shipping 20+ million EPD products a year through kindles. Most LCD TV manufacturers ship around the same volume, and the industry total is only around 200 million. see: https://www.statista.com/statistics/668519/lcd-tv-shipments-...
Basically - I'm claiming your argument is bullshit. The cost difference is driven by IP protections, not by volume of sales.
Wonder why 2016 saw a rapid increase in EPD devices? It's because they lost that 2015 case in the EU.
-----
So your whole argument boils down to - "they don't do the volume". Which is true but meaningless: Clearly there is demand for these devices, why is the volume not ramping up to match? And I'm saying "Patents and IP restrictions". What are you claiming?
> But there is plenty of evidence, you simply ignore it and then make claims based on your evidence-less "insider" knowledge.
Lets go through the "evidence" you've provided.
> Wired discusses patent restriction here
It doesn't. That paragraph is a quote from Yashar Behzadi, the disgraced ex-CEO of Popslate that stole the money of their indiegogo funders. "Popslate shuts down after raising $1m on Indiegogo". http://oaxis.com/en/popslate-shuts-1m-indiegogo/
> Just look at the relevant patents still being filed by the company here (mostly trash)
I'm not going to debate that with you. But I'm sure you'll consider a patent filed by IBM on linked lists as innovative?
> See patent suits across the globe - Germany:
Yes, good, they lost a patent suit against a 3rd party buyer. I think that indicates the legal system is working properly.
> Here is the position for their patent lawyer,
And what is wrong with that? What exactly is objectionable there?
> Here are articles discussing the 115k yearly buy-in for their tech
Except you've managed to confuse E Ink with the MIT MediaLab Consortium. "MIT Media Lab's News in the Future group and its Things that Think consortium, which consists of about 40 companies, including Microsoft and other heavyweights.
Each of the participating corporations paid up to €115,000 per year and thus obtains the right to use any patents awarded to MIT without paying additional royalties. "
> Wonder why 2016 saw a rapid increase in EPD devices? It's because they lost that 2015 case in the EU.
I haven't seen such a rapid increase.
I remember you used the term "bullshit" to describe my opinions. I've read through your initial claims that were presented with such confidence that any reader would assume they were gospel truth. It is clear to me now that Dunning Kruger is quite in effect with your claims.
I find it pretty unfortunate, because E-Ink really, really shines in terms of battery life and readability, and I think the current fees are leaving the tech only in niche and high end markets.