To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'd probably choose Pixel Qi over e-Ink.
That way, I get all the benefits of an LCD (response time, integrated night-time lighting, color), but I get battery lifetimes in the same ballpark as e-Ink if I shut the backlight off and I've also heard they're working on models that stay color when you switch off the backlight.
(From my experiments with my Sony Reader PRS-505 and my OpenPandora, I'm inclined to believe Pixel Qi's claim that repeatedly changing the page displayed on an e-Ink screen is as electrically expensive as just using an efficient LCD with the backlight turned completely off)
PixelQi doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as e-ink ...kinda closer to it & print, but still much closer to normal LCD.
And on transflective screens colour will be always washed out (but who needs that for reading, anyway?)
It's really too bad that netbooks with PixelQi didn't really arrive, though.
Edited 2012-10-29 00:02 UTC
Actually, no. That's what e-Ink, Pixel-Qi and the likes seek to emulate. Everyone else has realized that it's pointless to try to emulate paper or other cellulose-based objects without a back-light on an electronic device with entirely different characteristics and strong back-lights, and therefore there are so many different products and guidelines for aiding people having to work with both kinds of output medias.





Member since:
2006-03-20
If it is not about clock race and megapixel, why is Apple also making benchmark ?
If I had the option I would choose e-ink for readability (plus I'm pretty sure that looking at backlit display in wrong condition cause more eye strain than low resolution display, because you know ... gameboy)