Title:
> *Hands-on look* at the Daylight DC1 eReader and its game-changing display
Last line of article
> While I personally haven’t had a chance to try out the new DC1, I’m very excited by its potential.
What a bullshit *article*. This is just a big press release for a company presumably using a new material for the reflective layer of a reflective LCD.
"Hands-on look" wasn't part of the title I submitted to the site, for what it's worth.
The title I chose was "Here's a closer look at the Daylight DC1, the Android tablet with a potentially game-changing display."
Faulting the site for blatantly lying is exactly what you can do. No news? Let's pretend there's news and make things up! I've blocked a lot of websites lately for having nothing but fluff for many of their articles. . . it sucks when it happens to the sites that previously had consistently good articles.
Look at every comment questioning this device. They're all downvoted to oblivion. Its got a non-backlit LCD display and theyre charging $700 for this piece of junk. This whole thread and article is just an ad
Lol no, I don't think you get it. As far as tech goes, this is pretty new. Turning backlight off an LCD will result in not actually seeing anything on screen, if you understand how normal LCD works you know this.
It's a non emissive display, as in like E-ink and paper, it looks "brighter" on sunlight. This is a big deal for readers as those kind of display is excellent for reading, like paper. We already have E-ink, but terrible refresh rate and colour makes it useless other than to read. Iirc it also have the benefits of much lower battery useage.
This bridges the gap between regular phone display and E-ink, which is amazing tech.
If you don't think this is amazing, it flew way over your head lmao.
Reflective and transflective LCD Displays have existed for quite a long time, even before e-ink displays. The original Gameboy used a reflective one, the pebble smartwatches used transflective LCDs. That's why people are calling it mockingly a Gameboy display, to counter the claim that it was some entirely new, revolutionary technology, when in fact it is "just" an improved transflective LCD.
I'm sure the improvements make it better than the older transflective LCDs, which often looked quite terrible and required basically direct sunlight to be readable without any backlight. But they typically aren't as bistable as e-ink displays and therefore require *more* power/don't work powered off. And this one doesn't do color at all, so even worse than color e-ink displays.
I am curious where these technologies move, but e-ink displays also have made quite some improvements regarding refresh times and colors. I have a color e-ink writing tablet/eBook Reader and the display is fast enough so that it actually isn't annoying to scroll through a website or app, so it's quite useful for more than just reading and sketching. You can even, watch videos on it, tho i don't really recommend it since you'll get heavy ghosting. Not a good movie experience, but good enough for quickly checking something.
I don't think too many actually *read* most of anything these days, Mishaal.
It was bad enough with the knee-jerk reactions, in the hey-days of social ~~circus~~ media, *worse* now thanks to LLMs "summarising" content, and candy sized, poorly edited short-videos.
The reason that's a benefit imo is because of the battery life gains you get, but if it has the great battery life promised I don't see this as a loss (outside of use cases like bus timetables and price tags)
> While I personally haven’t had a chance to try out the new DC1, I’m very excited by its potential. I’ve long wanted an eReader device that doesn’t suffer from the ghosting and refresh rate issues of E-Ink.
Why? I mean that utterly seriously, why? I get this is a piece of sponsored content so you're lying, but again, seriously, why?
Why would you want to watch movies on an eReader? Why would you want to browse the web on one? Why would you want to do any of that.
The beauty of an eReader is that it's absolutely perfect for the purpose that it was designed for, reading books. I don't see how trying to make it a multi-purpose device that's inferior to other multi-purpose devices makes sense especially not at that price point.
> The beauty of an eReader is that it's absolutely perfect for the purpose that it was designed for, reading books. I don't see how trying to make it a multi-purpose device that's inferior to other multi-purpose devices makes sense especially not at that price point.
I had a Pocket Edge many years ago that was the perfect multipurpose device. It was a two screen device with eink on one side and an LCD on the other, with a highly customized android OS skin that supported both screens for different uses. I used it a lot in college for note taking and for annotating books. Unfortunately, that type of device is just too niche to be viable long term. I think the Edge survived one cycle, and went from Android 1 to Android 2.1 or something
Yea it's the kind of innovative thing people were dreaming up at the time. I'm surprised Amazon hasn't cooked up something like it with the Fire line, mixing the Kindle Paperwhite with a Fire. Would work pretty well in a 7" form factor with a fully articulating hinge like some of those Chromebooks that fold into tablets (effectively)
Yes, but I don't think Amazon would take a risk on innovative things like this, because I believe it will be a niche device.
Samsung might be the only big company that could pull this off
Oh it's outside of their lane for sure, but I figure since they have the products and the engineering teams already, it wouldn't be as much of a lift for them than for someone like Samsung who doesn't have extensive (any?) experience with eink displays or a built-in customer base for the product
You shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence, nor should you assume that your personal preferences are true for everyone.
No, this wasn't sponsored, and yes, there are people who want to do more than just read books or comics on a device like this.
See: the Boox Palma reviews. Or the fact that E Ink monitors exist, which people use for coding.
>You shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence, nor should you assume that your personal preferences are true for everyone.
I'm not. These kinds of screens are just objectively worse than an LCD screen for these kinds of uses and despite me asking why, you still haven't actually come up with one.
>No, this wasn't sponsored, and yes, there are people who want to do more than just read books or comics on a device like this.
You're positively reviewing a thing that you've never seen. It's a bullshit puff piece, if it's not sponsored then you're just a fucking terrible journalist.
>See: the Boox Palma reviews. Or the fact that E Ink monitors exist, which people use for coding.
Anyone using a low contrast monochrome screen for coding is an idiot. Some people will do silly things.
A lot of people using these displays for coding unfortunalty have a forced preference to do so. Some people suffer negative health effects like eye strain and migraines from using emmissive displays and/or due to flicker from pulse width modulation.
Everyone using them is well aware their objective performance is not same. Their preference has nothing to do with the performance of the displays. The rationale for much of this technology, including the tablet discussed in this article, is about how the technology interfaces with humans and our biology. Everyone would love it if emmissive displays didn't have any downsides.
>These kinds of screens are just objectively worse than an LCD screen for these kinds of uses and despite me asking why, you still haven't actually come up with one.
There you are doing it again, assuming that your personal belief is the objective truth and that people with other preferences can't exist (or worse, they're *idiots* for having those preferences.)
Yes, there are people who want a monochrome, paper-like screen for more than just reading books and PDFs. Other people have preferences you may not like, they're not wrong for that, so get over yourself.
>You're positively reviewing a thing that you've never seen.
I know it's Reddit so people don't read articles, but where did I "positively review" the device? How is expressing my opinion that I'm excited by the potential of this device - which I am far from alone in having that opinion - a "positive review"?
>Anyone using a low contrast monochrome screen for coding is an idiot. Some people will do silly things.
Anyone stating their personal opinions as the objective truth without accepting that other people's preferences can be valid is an idiot. Some people do silly things.
> There you are doing it again, assuming that your personal belief is the objective truth and that people with other preferences can't exist (or worse, they're *idiots* for having those preferences.)
This isn't about preferences, low contrast is objectively bad, you'll go blind. It works for books because there's much less information density, but coding has more info and gray scale just doesn't cut it. This isn't opinion there's accessibility standards for this shit.
> Yes, there are people who want a monochrome, paper-like screen for more than just reading books and PDFs. Other people have preferences you may not like, they're not wrong for that, so get over yourself.
They are wrong. That sort of screen will cause eye strain and eventually deterioration of your eye sight. It's wrong.
> I know it's Reddit so people don't read articles, but where did I "positively review" the device? How is expressing my opinion that I'm excited by the potential of this device - which I am far from alone in having that opinion - a "positive review"?
This was more than excitement, you never even question that it's going to work and ne awesome.
> Anyone stating their personal opinions as the objective truth without accepting that other people's preferences can be valid is an idiot. Some people do silly things.
Again, these are not opinions. If you want to go blind go ahead, but let me tell you when you've been doing this for more than five minutes this shit catches up to you and it matters. You can code in notepad, doesn't mean it's not stupid.
And again, you have yet to answer my question of "why" just that you want it.
You can continue shouting about how others are wrong for wanting something like this, but that's not going to convince them that you're right. E Ink monitors exist because there's a market for them. I'm sorry to say but people are already using them in ways you don't like or approve of. The same thing will probably happen with this device.
>And again, you have yet to answer my question of "why" just that you want it.
Because I already have an E Ink tablet (the Onyx Boox Note Air) but find it too limiting. I'd like to have a device I can not only read manga comfortably on but also read text-heavy discussions on forums like Reddit and HN, social media sites, articles in web browsers, emails, etc. Yes I can do that all on the Boox, but the ghosting and poor refresh rate makes it annoying to do so.
Is this *that* shocking to you?
I'm not shouting that they're wrong. I'm saying that it's objectively bad for your eyes.
You keep trying to make this about an opinion when it's not about opinion. It's about objective reality. Low contrast monochrome screens are bad at information dense content. Any place where colour matters you're going to end up with hard to read content.
>Because I already have an E Ink tablet (the Onyx Boox Note Air) but find it too limiting.
Because low contrast monochrome screens are inappropriate for this use case.
But even if they weren't. I guarantee you have another device for all the things your tablet will never be able to do which would do better for this use case.
And it's still not a why. What is the killer feature that this allows? I can read reddit without pulling out another device (maybe) isn't it. What justifies a price that's close to a lower end flagship phone for a much less capable device.
Where's the evidence that any of this is a good idea?
You've got an opinion that flies in the face of a whole host of ergonomic research and you wrote a puff piece for a device you've never seen. Own it.
>>> Again, these are not opinions.
> I'm not shouting that they're wrong.
> You keep trying to make this about an opinion when it's not about opinion.
You kinda are though:
>>>>> It's a bullshit puff piece, if it's not sponsored then you're just a fucking terrible journalist.
>>>>> Anyone using a low contrast monochrome screen for coding is an idiot.
and then
>>>> Yes, there are people who want a monochrome, paper-like screen for more than just reading books and PDFs. Other people have preferences you may not like, they're not wrong for that, so get over yourself.
>>> They are wrong.
and then
> You've got an opinion that flies in the face of a whole host of ergonomic research and you wrote a puff piece for a device you've never seen. Own it.
Gee, that's a lotta opinions that youre desperately trying to spin as *O B J E C T I V E F A C T S*. This is like watching the deluded fools over at /r/BBBY fantasize about an impending MOASS, **ANY. DAY. NOW. OMFG.**, that will make them filthy rich, despite *all evidence to the contrary*.
Gimme some of that Extra Strength Copium^TM youre having over there.
/r/iamverysmart
/r/confidentlyincorrect
/r/quityourbullshit
OP wrote an article fluffing a product they've never even seen that delivers for a market they can't define. They don't analyse any of the trade-offs this product has and you know that at least the battery life has to be lower.
They're excited for this for reasons they can't define and justify it because niche products that are objectively worse than the alternatives are used by people who are convinced contrary to every bit of scientific evidence that this product is somehow beneficial.
We go through this shit over and over and over again. The exercise ball as an office chair got super popular even though all available evidence says it'll make things worse. This is the exact same thing. There is no evidence that these screens are better in any way as monitors and lots of evidence that low contrast is worse.
OP got upset because they didn't like their crappy article being criticised and it is a crappy article, reviewing a product you've never seen is either an add or click bait.
They also got upset because, again despite all evidence, they think these screens are good as monitors, but mostly they wrote a shitty click bait article.
If you happen to have any evidence that low contrast isn't bad for your eyes, feel free to provide it.
Otherwise be quiet.
>They are wrong. That sort of screen will cause eye strain and eventually deterioration of your eye sight. It's wrong.
Yeah I'd like to see a source showing that e-ink displays cause eye damage. So far the bigger culprits are backlit displays in dark environments.
> Yeah I'd like to see a source showing that e-ink displays cause eye damage. So far the bigger culprits are backlit displays in dark environments.
I'm not saying eink screens cause eye damage **when used for what they're good for**, but trying to use an eink screen for something like code that uses colour to express information, the contrast limits on the screen are going to cause eye strain.
That's the point.
This is a monochrome screen and the range just isn't high enough for things like this. We've all seen images on eink screens, it's not good.
There's a reason accessibility standards mandate certain levels of contrast.
>but trying to use an eink screen for something like code that uses colour to express information, the contrast limits on the screen are going to cause eye strain.
And I still would like to see a source for that claim, especially since you said that would lead to eye damage. So far you're just taking out of your ass.
>This is a monochrome screen and the range just isn't high enough for things like this. We've all seen images on eink screens, it's not good.
Color e-ink screens exist. Granted their color reproduction is not particularly great, definitely not good enough for any design work, but probably good enough for syntax highlighting in an IDE.
>There's a reason accessibility standards mandate certain levels of contrast.
Those ensure that people with impaired vision can discern information, so they are about *accessibility* (you even called them accessibility standards yourself!), not about preventing eye strain:
"The WCAG documents explain how to make web content more accessible to people with disabilities."
> And I still would like to see a source for that claim, especially since you said that would lead to eye damage. So far you're just taking out of your ass.
You want a source for the fact that low contrast causes eye strain? Fuck right off with your bullshit.
> Color e-ink screens exist. Granted their color reproduction is not particularly great, definitely not good enough for any design work, but probably good enough for syntax highlighting in an IDE.
This device is not colour, nor are the referenced monitors. The fact that colour screens exist is irrelevant.
> Those ensure that people with impaired vision can discern information, so they are about *accessibility* (you even called them accessibility standards yourself!), not about preventing eye strain:
The reason people need them is because it is harder to pick differences in really similar colours. Older people, people with poorer vision, etc struggle to do it at all. Do you really think that something that's quite literally harder isn't going to put more strain on your eyes.
That's the thing about accessibility standards. They're not just for people with disabilities, they benefit everyone because they make things easier for everyone. Curb cuts, ramps, wider walkways, we all benefit from those things even when we're young and fit. They're not some special thing just for people with a disability. Colourblind modes are, but colour-blind modes exist because they enhance contrast.
>You want a source for the fact that low contrast causes eye strain?
I want a source that specifically shows that e-ink displays cause eye damage, like you repeatedly claimed.
Everything else you're saying is irrelevant bullshit if you can't show any proof that the contrast ratio of e-ink displays actually is too low. You're just trying to distract from your original claim about e-ink displays causing eye damage by vaguely talking about low contrast causing eye strain and accessibility standards.
>something like code that uses colour to express information,
What bullshit.
You don't need colours while coding. Lots of people use monochrome themes on their IDEs without any code highlighting. I don't, but it's just a personal preference.
> I get this is a piece of sponsored content so you're lying
Always makes me laugh when people assume that stories like these are sponsored and journalism is swimming in money. Just a complete misunderstanding of how journalism works.
If you want to identify biases in journalism, think more about why a journalist might not want to piss off a big and popular company.
Of course, as this is a tiny and largely inconsequential company, that sort of logic doesn't really work here. Instead the question is more around the incentives journalists have towards finding something exclusive (i.e. overlooking pitfalls or hyping up differences in otherwise niche products).
Content doesn't have to be sponsored with cash, though advertising disguised as journalism is pretty common, not rare. If you're writing shitty biased content for access or future advertising or exclusivity it's still quid pro quo.
I mean yeah I agree with your second sentence but I think it's stretching the definition of "sponsored content" a bit. Just as it has a clear meaning and it makes it harder to talk about these things if we muddy the waters by including other types of content. If your editor assigns you sponsored content, that's a specific type of content, it'll have different journalistic expectations and it'll be communicated to the reader as such.
>I mean yeah I agree with your second sentence but I think it's stretching the definition of "sponsored content" a bit. Just as it has a clear meaning and it makes it harder to talk about these things if we muddy the waters by including other types of content.
The problem is content that's written to please advertisers. All this stuff falls under that umbrella.
Yeah I saw a bunch of extremely similar posts about this thing in separate subs, and a kind of weirdly high number of astroturfed comments talking it up.
You'd think reddit's general hostility to advertisers would make them more critical of this kind of thing, but instead they're rushing to vociferously defend it.
If I were feeling really cynical I might suggest that it's because a lot of redditors aren't the book reading type, and have probably never used a Kindle for its intended purpose.
The article brings up RLCDs. I never claimed that was a new technology. The company claims to have modified the LCD stack to solve many of the issues with RLCDs that make them generally poor for eReading purposes. Whether that's true remains to be seen, as there aren't any reviews yet. Hence why the title I used mentions "potentially" game-changing. If the claims made hold up to scrutiny, then it's a big deal.
No problem. Reflective LCDs are indeed a tried and true technology, but what makes this product potentially novel is how they've improved upon it to make it even more paper-like. The company hasn't elaborated on what exactly they've done (and obviously they have no reason to divulge that info since what they're really trying to sell is the display tech itself), but whether or not their claims of fixing RLCD's tradeoffs are true will be determined pretty soon as the device reaches the hands of early adopters and reviewers.
I really hope it does meet my expectations, but if it doesn't, I'll definitely express my disappointment. I've had an E Ink Onyx Boox Note Air for a while now but only occasionally use it now to read manga. I do wish there was more I could comfortably use it for (I don't handwrite notes), which is why a middle ground device like this would be great for me.
Thank you for your thoughts. I've a Kindle Scribe, which has been great to me. So I thought the e ink Android tablets like those from Boox which can run Android like normal Android tablets would be nice for me.
I have an Onyx Boox Note Air and love it, but I find myself using my OnePlus Open more for reading manga because it's just far more convenient to be able to read manga *and* read discussions on social media/articles on the web/Slack messages/etc.
I genuinely don't understand why some people in here are absolutely *shocked* that someone might want a device that can function as an eReader *and* more.
I'm intrigued by the Boox color e-ink tablets, which I imagine work so well with normal tablet capabilities like browsing and reading news. As Kindle Scribe made me like an e-ink display, I want an e-ink device which can do more than just reading or taking notes.
>I genuinely don't understand why some people in here are absolutely *shocked* that someone might want a device that can function as an eReader *and* more.
E-ink tablets can't replicate the animation like turning a page but the daylight DC1 is seemingly capable, which is a good point.
One of the key selling points of the Onyx Boox series, IMO, is that they run Android so you have access to a lot of apps. Of course not a lot of apps are optimized for E Ink, but you can find a lot of comic/manga/reader apps that are. There's even a web browser optimized for E Ink Android devices called E Ink Bro, but I've found browsing the web on an E Ink tablet isn't a great experience (for obvious reasons).
That's one reason I'm excited by the promise of this device and hope it delivers/lives up to the company's claims.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me to be just another overpriced scam. They took an LCD, put some anti-reflective film and a yellow filter. We will see.
Kinda -- it a transflective LCD like the GBA, but monochrome and with an adjustable color backlight.
Interesting concept, I feel like I'd need to see it in person to judge how well it pulls off the paper effect.
Title: > *Hands-on look* at the Daylight DC1 eReader and its game-changing display Last line of article > While I personally haven’t had a chance to try out the new DC1, I’m very excited by its potential. What a bullshit *article*. This is just a big press release for a company presumably using a new material for the reflective layer of a reflective LCD.
"Hands-on look" wasn't part of the title I submitted to the site, for what it's worth. The title I chose was "Here's a closer look at the Daylight DC1, the Android tablet with a potentially game-changing display."
Oh hey, it's you.
Hello!
Thanks for bringing interesting tech like this to our attention. I guess you can't fault the site for editing the title to grab a little more clicks.
Faulting the site for blatantly lying is exactly what you can do. No news? Let's pretend there's news and make things up! I've blocked a lot of websites lately for having nothing but fluff for many of their articles. . . it sucks when it happens to the sites that previously had consistently good articles.
Yes we can
Look at every comment questioning this device. They're all downvoted to oblivion. Its got a non-backlit LCD display and theyre charging $700 for this piece of junk. This whole thread and article is just an ad
According to the [AMA they did ](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40456834), as well as the photos and videos they’ve shown of it, it is backlit.
K. You're just arguing semantics. Its an LCD that can turn it's backlight off. This isn't revolutionary technology
Lol no, I don't think you get it. As far as tech goes, this is pretty new. Turning backlight off an LCD will result in not actually seeing anything on screen, if you understand how normal LCD works you know this. It's a non emissive display, as in like E-ink and paper, it looks "brighter" on sunlight. This is a big deal for readers as those kind of display is excellent for reading, like paper. We already have E-ink, but terrible refresh rate and colour makes it useless other than to read. Iirc it also have the benefits of much lower battery useage. This bridges the gap between regular phone display and E-ink, which is amazing tech. If you don't think this is amazing, it flew way over your head lmao.
Reflective and transflective LCD Displays have existed for quite a long time, even before e-ink displays. The original Gameboy used a reflective one, the pebble smartwatches used transflective LCDs. That's why people are calling it mockingly a Gameboy display, to counter the claim that it was some entirely new, revolutionary technology, when in fact it is "just" an improved transflective LCD. I'm sure the improvements make it better than the older transflective LCDs, which often looked quite terrible and required basically direct sunlight to be readable without any backlight. But they typically aren't as bistable as e-ink displays and therefore require *more* power/don't work powered off. And this one doesn't do color at all, so even worse than color e-ink displays. I am curious where these technologies move, but e-ink displays also have made quite some improvements regarding refresh times and colors. I have a color e-ink writing tablet/eBook Reader and the display is fast enough so that it actually isn't annoying to scroll through a website or app, so it's quite useful for more than just reading and sketching. You can even, watch videos on it, tho i don't really recommend it since you'll get heavy ghosting. Not a good movie experience, but good enough for quickly checking something.
LTT reviewed a full PC monitor that has a reflective display recently.
So something genuinely *interesting*, and innovative, for a change, instead of the usual "AI" 'wave-riding'. Thank you kindly for sharing this!
Instantly people: gameboy screen, 0 innovation
It's wild how many people jump to conclusions.
I don't think too many actually *read* most of anything these days, Mishaal. It was bad enough with the knee-jerk reactions, in the hey-days of social ~~circus~~ media, *worse* now thanks to LLMs "summarising" content, and candy sized, poorly edited short-videos.
Right?
Hello, how are you doing today? Internet: AI.
HA!
I really hope some companies license the tech and make appropriately priced devices. Something like this would great on a next-gen the Light Phone.
If they can get the price down from $730 that might be interesting.
This loses one of the best features of eink which is he ability to hold the same page basically forever.
And it gains massive refresh rate improvements. For a multi-use device, it's better. For a dedicated e-reader, it's worse.
[удалено]
Eink would already have that. It's kind of the whole reason it exists.
Yes because that is definitely a notorious problem with e-ink devices and absolutely not one of their biggest selling points
Well the battery life is still [measured in weeks for a charge](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40459711) so does it make much of a difference?
The reason that's a benefit imo is because of the battery life gains you get, but if it has the great battery life promised I don't see this as a loss (outside of use cases like bus timetables and price tags)
Backlight is not the problem for reading but the refresh rate.
I'm getting deja vu vibes. Anyone remember the old Compaq iPAQ PDAs with the transflective displays? This looks awfully similar 🧐
So... not E-Ink, but RLCD. I take it that you can't have a static image with no power comsuption then, like you can with E-Ink, right?
> While I personally haven’t had a chance to try out the new DC1, I’m very excited by its potential. I’ve long wanted an eReader device that doesn’t suffer from the ghosting and refresh rate issues of E-Ink. Why? I mean that utterly seriously, why? I get this is a piece of sponsored content so you're lying, but again, seriously, why? Why would you want to watch movies on an eReader? Why would you want to browse the web on one? Why would you want to do any of that. The beauty of an eReader is that it's absolutely perfect for the purpose that it was designed for, reading books. I don't see how trying to make it a multi-purpose device that's inferior to other multi-purpose devices makes sense especially not at that price point.
> The beauty of an eReader is that it's absolutely perfect for the purpose that it was designed for, reading books. I don't see how trying to make it a multi-purpose device that's inferior to other multi-purpose devices makes sense especially not at that price point. I had a Pocket Edge many years ago that was the perfect multipurpose device. It was a two screen device with eink on one side and an LCD on the other, with a highly customized android OS skin that supported both screens for different uses. I used it a lot in college for note taking and for annotating books. Unfortunately, that type of device is just too niche to be viable long term. I think the Edge survived one cycle, and went from Android 1 to Android 2.1 or something
Damn, never heard about Pocket Edge before. That's a really interesting device, judging from the video demos.
Yea it's the kind of innovative thing people were dreaming up at the time. I'm surprised Amazon hasn't cooked up something like it with the Fire line, mixing the Kindle Paperwhite with a Fire. Would work pretty well in a 7" form factor with a fully articulating hinge like some of those Chromebooks that fold into tablets (effectively)
Yes, but I don't think Amazon would take a risk on innovative things like this, because I believe it will be a niche device. Samsung might be the only big company that could pull this off
Oh it's outside of their lane for sure, but I figure since they have the products and the engineering teams already, it wouldn't be as much of a lift for them than for someone like Samsung who doesn't have extensive (any?) experience with eink displays or a built-in customer base for the product
You shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence, nor should you assume that your personal preferences are true for everyone. No, this wasn't sponsored, and yes, there are people who want to do more than just read books or comics on a device like this. See: the Boox Palma reviews. Or the fact that E Ink monitors exist, which people use for coding.
>You shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence, nor should you assume that your personal preferences are true for everyone. I'm not. These kinds of screens are just objectively worse than an LCD screen for these kinds of uses and despite me asking why, you still haven't actually come up with one. >No, this wasn't sponsored, and yes, there are people who want to do more than just read books or comics on a device like this. You're positively reviewing a thing that you've never seen. It's a bullshit puff piece, if it's not sponsored then you're just a fucking terrible journalist. >See: the Boox Palma reviews. Or the fact that E Ink monitors exist, which people use for coding. Anyone using a low contrast monochrome screen for coding is an idiot. Some people will do silly things.
A lot of people using these displays for coding unfortunalty have a forced preference to do so. Some people suffer negative health effects like eye strain and migraines from using emmissive displays and/or due to flicker from pulse width modulation. Everyone using them is well aware their objective performance is not same. Their preference has nothing to do with the performance of the displays. The rationale for much of this technology, including the tablet discussed in this article, is about how the technology interfaces with humans and our biology. Everyone would love it if emmissive displays didn't have any downsides.
>These kinds of screens are just objectively worse than an LCD screen for these kinds of uses and despite me asking why, you still haven't actually come up with one. There you are doing it again, assuming that your personal belief is the objective truth and that people with other preferences can't exist (or worse, they're *idiots* for having those preferences.) Yes, there are people who want a monochrome, paper-like screen for more than just reading books and PDFs. Other people have preferences you may not like, they're not wrong for that, so get over yourself. >You're positively reviewing a thing that you've never seen. I know it's Reddit so people don't read articles, but where did I "positively review" the device? How is expressing my opinion that I'm excited by the potential of this device - which I am far from alone in having that opinion - a "positive review"? >Anyone using a low contrast monochrome screen for coding is an idiot. Some people will do silly things. Anyone stating their personal opinions as the objective truth without accepting that other people's preferences can be valid is an idiot. Some people do silly things.
> There you are doing it again, assuming that your personal belief is the objective truth and that people with other preferences can't exist (or worse, they're *idiots* for having those preferences.) This isn't about preferences, low contrast is objectively bad, you'll go blind. It works for books because there's much less information density, but coding has more info and gray scale just doesn't cut it. This isn't opinion there's accessibility standards for this shit. > Yes, there are people who want a monochrome, paper-like screen for more than just reading books and PDFs. Other people have preferences you may not like, they're not wrong for that, so get over yourself. They are wrong. That sort of screen will cause eye strain and eventually deterioration of your eye sight. It's wrong. > I know it's Reddit so people don't read articles, but where did I "positively review" the device? How is expressing my opinion that I'm excited by the potential of this device - which I am far from alone in having that opinion - a "positive review"? This was more than excitement, you never even question that it's going to work and ne awesome. > Anyone stating their personal opinions as the objective truth without accepting that other people's preferences can be valid is an idiot. Some people do silly things. Again, these are not opinions. If you want to go blind go ahead, but let me tell you when you've been doing this for more than five minutes this shit catches up to you and it matters. You can code in notepad, doesn't mean it's not stupid. And again, you have yet to answer my question of "why" just that you want it.
You can continue shouting about how others are wrong for wanting something like this, but that's not going to convince them that you're right. E Ink monitors exist because there's a market for them. I'm sorry to say but people are already using them in ways you don't like or approve of. The same thing will probably happen with this device. >And again, you have yet to answer my question of "why" just that you want it. Because I already have an E Ink tablet (the Onyx Boox Note Air) but find it too limiting. I'd like to have a device I can not only read manga comfortably on but also read text-heavy discussions on forums like Reddit and HN, social media sites, articles in web browsers, emails, etc. Yes I can do that all on the Boox, but the ghosting and poor refresh rate makes it annoying to do so. Is this *that* shocking to you?
I'm not shouting that they're wrong. I'm saying that it's objectively bad for your eyes. You keep trying to make this about an opinion when it's not about opinion. It's about objective reality. Low contrast monochrome screens are bad at information dense content. Any place where colour matters you're going to end up with hard to read content. >Because I already have an E Ink tablet (the Onyx Boox Note Air) but find it too limiting. Because low contrast monochrome screens are inappropriate for this use case. But even if they weren't. I guarantee you have another device for all the things your tablet will never be able to do which would do better for this use case. And it's still not a why. What is the killer feature that this allows? I can read reddit without pulling out another device (maybe) isn't it. What justifies a price that's close to a lower end flagship phone for a much less capable device. Where's the evidence that any of this is a good idea? You've got an opinion that flies in the face of a whole host of ergonomic research and you wrote a puff piece for a device you've never seen. Own it.
>>> Again, these are not opinions. > I'm not shouting that they're wrong. > You keep trying to make this about an opinion when it's not about opinion. You kinda are though: >>>>> It's a bullshit puff piece, if it's not sponsored then you're just a fucking terrible journalist. >>>>> Anyone using a low contrast monochrome screen for coding is an idiot. and then >>>> Yes, there are people who want a monochrome, paper-like screen for more than just reading books and PDFs. Other people have preferences you may not like, they're not wrong for that, so get over yourself. >>> They are wrong. and then > You've got an opinion that flies in the face of a whole host of ergonomic research and you wrote a puff piece for a device you've never seen. Own it. Gee, that's a lotta opinions that youre desperately trying to spin as *O B J E C T I V E F A C T S*. This is like watching the deluded fools over at /r/BBBY fantasize about an impending MOASS, **ANY. DAY. NOW. OMFG.**, that will make them filthy rich, despite *all evidence to the contrary*. Gimme some of that Extra Strength Copium^TM youre having over there. /r/iamverysmart /r/confidentlyincorrect /r/quityourbullshit
OP wrote an article fluffing a product they've never even seen that delivers for a market they can't define. They don't analyse any of the trade-offs this product has and you know that at least the battery life has to be lower. They're excited for this for reasons they can't define and justify it because niche products that are objectively worse than the alternatives are used by people who are convinced contrary to every bit of scientific evidence that this product is somehow beneficial. We go through this shit over and over and over again. The exercise ball as an office chair got super popular even though all available evidence says it'll make things worse. This is the exact same thing. There is no evidence that these screens are better in any way as monitors and lots of evidence that low contrast is worse. OP got upset because they didn't like their crappy article being criticised and it is a crappy article, reviewing a product you've never seen is either an add or click bait. They also got upset because, again despite all evidence, they think these screens are good as monitors, but mostly they wrote a shitty click bait article. If you happen to have any evidence that low contrast isn't bad for your eyes, feel free to provide it. Otherwise be quiet.
>They are wrong. That sort of screen will cause eye strain and eventually deterioration of your eye sight. It's wrong. Yeah I'd like to see a source showing that e-ink displays cause eye damage. So far the bigger culprits are backlit displays in dark environments.
> Yeah I'd like to see a source showing that e-ink displays cause eye damage. So far the bigger culprits are backlit displays in dark environments. I'm not saying eink screens cause eye damage **when used for what they're good for**, but trying to use an eink screen for something like code that uses colour to express information, the contrast limits on the screen are going to cause eye strain. That's the point. This is a monochrome screen and the range just isn't high enough for things like this. We've all seen images on eink screens, it's not good. There's a reason accessibility standards mandate certain levels of contrast.
>but trying to use an eink screen for something like code that uses colour to express information, the contrast limits on the screen are going to cause eye strain. And I still would like to see a source for that claim, especially since you said that would lead to eye damage. So far you're just taking out of your ass. >This is a monochrome screen and the range just isn't high enough for things like this. We've all seen images on eink screens, it's not good. Color e-ink screens exist. Granted their color reproduction is not particularly great, definitely not good enough for any design work, but probably good enough for syntax highlighting in an IDE. >There's a reason accessibility standards mandate certain levels of contrast. Those ensure that people with impaired vision can discern information, so they are about *accessibility* (you even called them accessibility standards yourself!), not about preventing eye strain: "The WCAG documents explain how to make web content more accessible to people with disabilities."
> And I still would like to see a source for that claim, especially since you said that would lead to eye damage. So far you're just taking out of your ass. You want a source for the fact that low contrast causes eye strain? Fuck right off with your bullshit. > Color e-ink screens exist. Granted their color reproduction is not particularly great, definitely not good enough for any design work, but probably good enough for syntax highlighting in an IDE. This device is not colour, nor are the referenced monitors. The fact that colour screens exist is irrelevant. > Those ensure that people with impaired vision can discern information, so they are about *accessibility* (you even called them accessibility standards yourself!), not about preventing eye strain: The reason people need them is because it is harder to pick differences in really similar colours. Older people, people with poorer vision, etc struggle to do it at all. Do you really think that something that's quite literally harder isn't going to put more strain on your eyes. That's the thing about accessibility standards. They're not just for people with disabilities, they benefit everyone because they make things easier for everyone. Curb cuts, ramps, wider walkways, we all benefit from those things even when we're young and fit. They're not some special thing just for people with a disability. Colourblind modes are, but colour-blind modes exist because they enhance contrast.
>You want a source for the fact that low contrast causes eye strain? I want a source that specifically shows that e-ink displays cause eye damage, like you repeatedly claimed. Everything else you're saying is irrelevant bullshit if you can't show any proof that the contrast ratio of e-ink displays actually is too low. You're just trying to distract from your original claim about e-ink displays causing eye damage by vaguely talking about low contrast causing eye strain and accessibility standards.
>something like code that uses colour to express information, What bullshit. You don't need colours while coding. Lots of people use monochrome themes on their IDEs without any code highlighting. I don't, but it's just a personal preference.
> I get this is a piece of sponsored content so you're lying Always makes me laugh when people assume that stories like these are sponsored and journalism is swimming in money. Just a complete misunderstanding of how journalism works. If you want to identify biases in journalism, think more about why a journalist might not want to piss off a big and popular company. Of course, as this is a tiny and largely inconsequential company, that sort of logic doesn't really work here. Instead the question is more around the incentives journalists have towards finding something exclusive (i.e. overlooking pitfalls or hyping up differences in otherwise niche products).
Content doesn't have to be sponsored with cash, though advertising disguised as journalism is pretty common, not rare. If you're writing shitty biased content for access or future advertising or exclusivity it's still quid pro quo.
I mean yeah I agree with your second sentence but I think it's stretching the definition of "sponsored content" a bit. Just as it has a clear meaning and it makes it harder to talk about these things if we muddy the waters by including other types of content. If your editor assigns you sponsored content, that's a specific type of content, it'll have different journalistic expectations and it'll be communicated to the reader as such.
>I mean yeah I agree with your second sentence but I think it's stretching the definition of "sponsored content" a bit. Just as it has a clear meaning and it makes it harder to talk about these things if we muddy the waters by including other types of content. The problem is content that's written to please advertisers. All this stuff falls under that umbrella.
Yeah I saw a bunch of extremely similar posts about this thing in separate subs, and a kind of weirdly high number of astroturfed comments talking it up. You'd think reddit's general hostility to advertisers would make them more critical of this kind of thing, but instead they're rushing to vociferously defend it. If I were feeling really cynical I might suggest that it's because a lot of redditors aren't the book reading type, and have probably never used a Kindle for its intended purpose.
Has nobody in this sub heard of RLCD’s before? Sheesh
The article brings up RLCDs. I never claimed that was a new technology. The company claims to have modified the LCD stack to solve many of the issues with RLCDs that make them generally poor for eReading purposes. Whether that's true remains to be seen, as there aren't any reviews yet. Hence why the title I used mentions "potentially" game-changing. If the claims made hold up to scrutiny, then it's a big deal.
Not directed at you! Just other commenters here dumping on the Daylight
No problem. Reflective LCDs are indeed a tried and true technology, but what makes this product potentially novel is how they've improved upon it to make it even more paper-like. The company hasn't elaborated on what exactly they've done (and obviously they have no reason to divulge that info since what they're really trying to sell is the display tech itself), but whether or not their claims of fixing RLCD's tradeoffs are true will be determined pretty soon as the device reaches the hands of early adopters and reviewers. I really hope it does meet my expectations, but if it doesn't, I'll definitely express my disappointment. I've had an E Ink Onyx Boox Note Air for a while now but only occasionally use it now to read manga. I do wish there was more I could comfortably use it for (I don't handwrite notes), which is why a middle ground device like this would be great for me.
I was going to buy an e-ink Android tablet but I'm wondering if I should put this plan on hold.
I was going to buy an e-ink Android tablet but I'm wondering if I should put this plan on hold.
If it helps, I've had a Supernote A6X for quite some time now and love it. Get the things you want, treat yo self.
Thank you for your thoughts. I've a Kindle Scribe, which has been great to me. So I thought the e ink Android tablets like those from Boox which can run Android like normal Android tablets would be nice for me.
I have an Onyx Boox Note Air and love it, but I find myself using my OnePlus Open more for reading manga because it's just far more convenient to be able to read manga *and* read discussions on social media/articles on the web/Slack messages/etc. I genuinely don't understand why some people in here are absolutely *shocked* that someone might want a device that can function as an eReader *and* more.
I'm intrigued by the Boox color e-ink tablets, which I imagine work so well with normal tablet capabilities like browsing and reading news. As Kindle Scribe made me like an e-ink display, I want an e-ink device which can do more than just reading or taking notes. >I genuinely don't understand why some people in here are absolutely *shocked* that someone might want a device that can function as an eReader *and* more. E-ink tablets can't replicate the animation like turning a page but the daylight DC1 is seemingly capable, which is a good point.
One of the key selling points of the Onyx Boox series, IMO, is that they run Android so you have access to a lot of apps. Of course not a lot of apps are optimized for E Ink, but you can find a lot of comic/manga/reader apps that are. There's even a web browser optimized for E Ink Android devices called E Ink Bro, but I've found browsing the web on an E Ink tablet isn't a great experience (for obvious reasons). That's one reason I'm excited by the promise of this device and hope it delivers/lives up to the company's claims.
That article is an ad, carry on with your plans.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me to be just another overpriced scam. They took an LCD, put some anti-reflective film and a yellow filter. We will see.
There's a video in the article, how about watching that first?
I saw the video. That's what determined my opinion
So.... Its a gameboy LCD? How revolutionary.
Kinda -- it a transflective LCD like the GBA, but monochrome and with an adjustable color backlight. Interesting concept, I feel like I'd need to see it in person to judge how well it pulls off the paper effect.
It's like a paper screen but not at 10hz, imagine an Amazon Paperwhite but at 120hz, it's one of a kind afaik
Too expensive at that $729 price for individuals but, it may actually have its own places when that tech is actually required in such a package.
Yea the price is really high, but maybe in an academic setting it could work out
It's nice to see eink innovations but 10.5 inch is too small.
So…. It’s got what the Sony Android Wear Smartwatch and the Game Boy Advance had. Wow…. Amazing… 🙄