Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

eliot.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#191

Post by FirmwareBurner »

tough wrote: post #140
Qwertious wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As long as e-ink has been around, all I've ever heard were the patent issues. If you're saying it's actually manufacturing difficulties, can you provide any links or additional info? For the record, the "patents" think has no links to back it up either. But to answer your question: E-ink screens are less than $100 (depending on the size), that's already pretty cheap. They're only expensive when compared to LCDs . LC…

Sounds kinda like a problem looking for a solution, you could emagine e-ink taking off for a lot of thing sthat currently are not digital, but it would need to be also cheaper. If e-ink was x100 cheaper, we could use it in x1000 more use-cases

>If e-ink was x100 cheaper, we could use it in x1000 more use-cases

For example? What untapped use cases would be if e-ink displays which can only show B/W images and refresh at 1HZ, unable to show full motion video, and suffer from terrible ghosting, would be cheaper?

I think you're deluding yourself here. Cheaper prices won't magically fix the major limitation of this technology that hinder its expansion outside of its existing niches: e-readers and price tags. All the other display markets have been conquered by LCD, MIP and OLED already because those technologies work better in those cases and e-ink works better where it already is.

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#192

Post by TaylorAlexander »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #190
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think patents do far more harm than good in our economy. In aggregate they slow down innovation significantly by carving a huge moat around every new advancement. Without patents, there’s still loads of natural incentives to innovate. The difference is that instead of fewer larger leaps, there would be many more smaller leaps. You can always make money if you develop a new technology in secret and then sta…

>Actually I think patents do far more harm than good in our economy. How so? Nobody would bother investing in R&D if after all their labor and toil, someone else would be legally allowed to copy it for free and get all the profits without having had any of the expenses and risk that come with hardware R&D. The (US)patent system has its flaws, but without one it would be even worse.

> Nobody would bother investing in R&D if after all their labor and toil, someone else would be legally allowed to copy it for free and get all the profits without having had any of the expenses and risk that come with hardware R&D.

People say this all the time without presenting any evidence, as if it is common sense. I don’t actually think this is correct! Of course the character of investment would change. Instead of a small number of large investments, we would see a large number of smaller investments. If your competition is churning out some widget and you can make a $10,000 investment in your factory to lower your production costs below theirs and out compete them, you will make that investment.

My point is that I believe in this case, natural market mechanisms are adequate to stimulate investment. Meanwhile proponents of patents must justify the enormous cost to society caused by heavily restricting innovation with legal penalties, building a 20 year moat around every new invention. That massively hampers incremental process, and raises the cost required for investments to succeed. Without patents, smaller incremental investments will pay off, but there will be much more competition. Unless you think markets cannot function without the massive government intervention which is intellectual property restrictions.

And heck don’t take my word for it. The folks at the free market Mises Institute hate IP restrictions:

https://youtu.be/cWShFz4d2RY?si=z9EmhyFFyUl_-vu4

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#193

Post by solardev »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #191
tough wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds kinda like a problem looking for a solution, you could emagine e-ink taking off for a lot of thing sthat currently are not digital, but it would need to be also cheaper. If e-ink was x100 cheaper, we could use it in x1000 more use-cases

>If e-ink was x100 cheaper, we could use it in x1000 more use-cases For example? What untapped use cases would be if e-ink displays which can only show B/W images and refresh at 1HZ, unable to show full motion video, and suffer from terrible ghosting, would be cheaper? I think you're deluding yourself here. Cheaper prices won't magically fix the major limitation of this technology that hinder its expansion outside of…

I'd love e-ink smartwatches, reusable/programmable name tags, fridge calendars, board game pieces (like little keepers for score, life, buffs, debuffs etc), packet handouts at conferences, whatever. Basically anything that DOESN'T need a fast refresh but could still benefit from long battery life and programmability.

I don't know if there is a big market for any of that stuff, but certainly there's not a lack of ideas. A lot of things that aren't worth it at the current price point become viable if the display weren't so expensive.

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#194

Post by wahnfrieden »

maushu wrote: post #131
wahnfrieden wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low market interest

With those prices I'm not surprised.

Negative outlook on market interest at scale/investment needed for low unit cost

Even niche early adopter users at current prices don’t love the tech

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#195

Post by braunboffel »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #147
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For comparison a 42" full-color 60fps TV with remote, speakers, wifi, etc. etc. is $140. Because it's a lot easier and cheaper to manufacture large LCD panels at scale than E-ink film. >It seems like the patent holder could be making a lot more money if they dropped the price. I don't know any company or shareholders that would say no to making more money so if this would actually be true then it would, but that's n…

Question for you. I always saw the problem as: only one company or limited companies can manufacture them. Those companies are having issues manufacturing them so the price is high. But if more companies were allowed to manufacture them, wouldn’t we see more people solving production problems and lowering prices? If there is one company with low yields and high prices, if everyone is allowed to make them then there i…

> I always saw the problem as: only one company or limited companies can manufacture them.

That is a really odd assumption. There are multiple companies making electrophoretic displays and multiple different technologies, of which only one is really commercially effective so far in a very limited niche space. Why don't you think physics is the limitation? I mean, don't you think above would be the equivalent of me saying that the reason we don't have daily flights to Mars is because SpaceX is the only manufacturer of Falcon Heavy.

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#196

Post by wayfinder »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #192
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Actually I think patents do far more harm than good in our economy. How so? Nobody would bother investing in R&D if after all their labor and toil, someone else would be legally allowed to copy it for free and get all the profits without having had any of the expenses and risk that come with hardware R&D. The (US)patent system has its flaws, but without one it would be even worse.

> Nobody would bother investing in R&D if after all their labor and toil, someone else would be legally allowed to copy it for free and get all the profits without having had any of the expenses and risk that come with hardware R&D. People say this all the time without presenting any evidence, as if it is common sense. I don’t actually think this is correct! Of course the character of investment would change. Instead…

There will always be investment.

But it’s not black and white. Some people will do things for $10, others $20, others $50. We all have a different price.

With patents, it’s basically offering $50 so you get the most people doing it as possible.

If we did away with patents, it would be like offering $20. Sure, R&D will still happen… just less.

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#197

Post by TaylorAlexander »

wayfinder wrote: post #196
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody would bother investing in R&D if after all their labor and toil, someone else would be legally allowed to copy it for free and get all the profits without having had any of the expenses and risk that come with hardware R&D. People say this all the time without presenting any evidence, as if it is common sense. I don’t actually think this is correct! Of course the character of investment would change. Instead…

There will always be investment. But it’s not black and white. Some people will do things for $10, others $20, others $50. We all have a different price. With patents, it’s basically offering $50 so you get the most people doing it as possible. If we did away with patents, it would be like offering $20. Sure, R&D will still happen… just less.

It's not just doing one thing.

Innovators who succeed at getting a patent might get more money for their innovation. But now only one person or org can legally make incremental improvements to those ideas. Without patents, the value per innovation might be lower to an individual innovator, but there are more innovations to be made because everything is on the table.

You are not just saying "you get $50 for this innovation" you are additionally saying "this innovation is now off limits for 20 years", and there may be hundreds of potential innovators who would have invested in improvements which have been legally barred from doing so.

My classic example is the 3D printer. They were $50,000 when first sold under patent, then 13 years later they were $25,000 still under patent. Then the patents expired and within 3 years they were under $2000. Ten years after patent expiration they were $250. So the price dropped only 50% in 13 years under patent. Then with no patent it dropped 90% in three years. In ten years it dropped 99%. It takes a lot of innovation to make a $25,000 3D printer work for just $250, and absolutely none of that innovation happened with the benefit of patents. Innovation will always happen! We do not need massive government intervention to make it happen.

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#198

Post by FirmwareBurner »

solardev wrote: post #193
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If e-ink was x100 cheaper, we could use it in x1000 more use-cases For example? What untapped use cases would be if e-ink displays which can only show B/W images and refresh at 1HZ, unable to show full motion video, and suffer from terrible ghosting, would be cheaper? I think you're deluding yourself here. Cheaper prices won't magically fix the major limitation of this technology that hinder its expansion outside of…

I'd love e-ink smartwatches, reusable/programmable name tags, fridge calendars, board game pieces (like little keepers for score, life, buffs, debuffs etc), packet handouts at conferences, whatever. Basically anything that DOESN'T need a fast refresh but could still benefit from long battery life and programmability. I don't know if there is a big market for any of that stuff, but certainly there's not a lack of idea…

>I'd love e-ink smartwatches, reusable/programmable name tags, fridge calendars, board game pieces

We'd all like many things, but that doesn't mean there's a mass market for them to warrant significant investments that would guarantee a decent profit for the investors.

It seems that you have a e-ink hammer so everything looks like a nail to you, but sometimes pen and paper or a plastic white-board and a felt pen are better and cheaper than a big e-ink display that needs to be recharged.

And E-ink smart watches have been made in the past but sold much more poorly than OLED one so manufacturers dropped in favor of OLED. MIP is a thing though in some Garmins.

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#199

Post by wayfinder »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #197
wayfinder wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will always be investment. But it’s not black and white. Some people will do things for $10, others $20, others $50. We all have a different price. With patents, it’s basically offering $50 so you get the most people doing it as possible. If we did away with patents, it would be like offering $20. Sure, R&D will still happen… just less.

It's not just doing one thing. Innovators who succeed at getting a patent might get more money for their innovation. But now only one person or org can legally make incremental improvements to those ideas. Without patents, the value per innovation might be lower to an individual innovator, but there are more innovations to be made because everything is on the table. You are not just saying "you get $50 for this innov…

Personally I think the innovation required to refine something pales in comparison to first inventing something new. It’s just so less risky and so less expensive. You start with something that already know works and that’s huge.

If you’ve ever tried to DIY something, it’s so so much harder if you can’t find someone who has done it already.

So to me, the people who may have made 3D printing cheaper aren’t exactly in the same class of innovation and risk.

Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art

#200

Post by FirmwareBurner »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #197
wayfinder wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will always be investment. But it’s not black and white. Some people will do things for $10, others $20, others $50. We all have a different price. With patents, it’s basically offering $50 so you get the most people doing it as possible. If we did away with patents, it would be like offering $20. Sure, R&D will still happen… just less.

It's not just doing one thing. Innovators who succeed at getting a patent might get more money for their innovation. But now only one person or org can legally make incremental improvements to those ideas. Without patents, the value per innovation might be lower to an individual innovator, but there are more innovations to be made because everything is on the table. You are not just saying "you get $50 for this innov…

>My classic example is the 3D printer.

It may be your favorite example but in this case it's a very poor one. You keep harping it as if it proves the point that patents are always the biggest problem holding all tech back, but in this case you're comparing apples to pickup trucks and omitting the forest from the montains.

The price of 3D printers dropped because the demand for 3D printers is huuuuge and they're also very easy to manufacture meaning in that case it actually was the patens holding the technology back and not the manufacturing challenges, but E-ink film is both tricky to manufacture and the demand for this kind of limited technology is very niche beyond e-readers and price tags meaning there's no economies of scale.

I built a 3d printer with a work colleague over 10 years ago in his garage using aluminum rails, stepper motors and an Arduino. I can't build E-ink film in a garage.

With your example you'd also think that the reason we don't have mass adoption of 3nm chips everywhere must be because of TSMC's patents and not because that sort of tech is tricky to master at scale.

Your 3d printer example just does not work in this case so please be so king as to reflect on the matter and update your viewpoint accordingly.

Post reply on HN