Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pixel Qi Says Next-Gen Displays Meet or Beat iPad 3 Screen Quality

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the picking-nits dept.

Displays 157

New submitter seb42 writes "Pixel Qi announces new screens that can match or exceed the image quality of the screen in the iPad3, with a very low power mode that runs at a full 100X power reduction from the peak power consumed by the iPad3 screen. Hope the Google tablet has this tech." The claims are pretty bold, and specific: "We have a new architecture that matches the resolution of the ipad3 screen, and its full image quality including matching or exceeding contrast, color saturation, the viewing angle and so forth with massive power savings."

cancel ×

157 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Problems...? (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39758071)

What's their refresh rate? Is the 100x power saving only in direct sunlight with the backlight turned off?

Re:Problems...? (2)

poly_pusher (1004145) | about 2 years ago | (#39758107)

If they made a screen which had the qualities mentioned in the article and was also able to be backlit or reflective for outdoor use this would be an even bigger deal.

Re:Problems...? (4, Insightful)

poly_pusher (1004145) | about 2 years ago | (#39758175)

Well crap, it looks like that's what they may be claiming to have done. The graph shows lower power usage in outdoor environments compared with indoor. My understanding is that creating a display which can reflect light in bright environments or be backlit in darker environments was a very big problem. Maybe that's what they have figured out.

Re:Problems...? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758243)

Well, except for having ridiculous (and I mean that in a good way) pixel density, that's exactly what Pixel Qi displays to date have all been about -- with one caveat.

The problem, with a conventional LCD, is the color filters -- each one blocks out perhaps 70% of white light (you can block more for better gamut, less for worse gamut, but reduced light consumption). That means you get, at best, 30% albedo for your display in a white state, and that assumes your filter doesn't cost any extra on the second pass (a theoretical brickwall filter) -- real filters will lose some. So, ditch the color filters and win, but this makes your display black-and-white. Pixel Qi gets best-of-both-worlds capabilities by generating colors in the backlight (using a diffraction grating), allowing low-res (since you need multiple subpixels to make one pixel) backlit color display, or high-res (1 subpixel = 1 pixel) reflective grayscale display. That's the catch -- of course, with a powerful enough backlight, you can still make the colors shine through in daylight (though they will be washed out by the reflective light, reducing saturation), but then you don't get the power savings.

Back-lighting consumes power (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760207)

No matter it's 70% or 30% or even 90%, back-lighting itself wastes a lot of power

transflective displays are easy to make (2)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39759281)

That's a display that can be viewed with reflected light (light from the front) or with a backlight (light from the back).

You've probably owned at least one. Blackberries and iPods used to have them.

The problem is that they don't have good contrast ratios. This is because when you make the display reflective, it reflects room lighting. This raises the black level (darkest a pixel can be), and so the contrast ratio (which is brightest to darkest pixel) drops.

So displays went to transmissive only to increase contrast. That's why you can't see the display on your portable device if the backlight is off anymore.

It's rather unlikely Pixel Qi has overcome this issue. More likely they just use testing environments that make it look like their displays are better than they actually are in normal use. That's de rigeur in the LCD (or displays in general) business anyway.

Re:Problems...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39760209)

Wow, just amazing, someone is able to come out with some new technology. I just can't believe it, its like amazing, almost like magic, as though no one ever comes out with new technology. I mean, like the iPad 3 hasn't even been released, oh wait it was released a month ago and probably designed about 6+ months ago. Good grief...not sure why someone coming out with some type of new technology is such a surprise...

Re:Problems...? (4, Funny)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#39758139)

Yea, I hear all this bitching about battery life, but mine lasts for ages; I just have to leave it turned off.

Re:Problems...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758351)

RTFA

http://pixelqi.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/nextgen_pixelqi_display.jpg

Re:Problems...? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#39758419)

They are readable under normal (indoor) light. That's the way screens should be, like looking at colour magazine or book.

Re:Problems...? (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760797)

The "100X power reduction" line makes no sense. 1 power reduction means no power. 100X means it's making 99X power. I know that they mean either 100% power reduction or 0.01% power usage, but c'mon, just say that.

it's even better than that. (0)

ne0n (884282) | more than 2 years ago | (#39758077)

Comes with full cold fusion blueprints too IIRC.

Vaporware (2, Insightful)

jjcushen (1637385) | more than 2 years ago | (#39758085)

I was never able to get my hands on one of the original screens. The idea is great on paper, I just don't believe we will ever see widespread availability.

Re:Vaporware (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758177)

The original screens were in no way vaporware. I have three and love them all. (No, the picture quality is not on par with a normal screen, but the power savings and daylight use far far far outweigh that (minor) drawback.)

Re:Vaporware (1, Troll)

Briareos (21163) | about 2 years ago | (#39758397)

If only they had been in real, useable products instead of overhyped shite like the OLPCs...

Re:Vaporware (2)

Marc_Hawke (130338) | about 2 years ago | (#39758491)

I have a Pixel Qi screen in my Adam tablet, (Notion Ink). If I wanted to leave the screen off most the time, I'd have to pick a high-contrast theme for ICS, which I haven't really run into 'themes' at all. It works well for e-Reader apps if there is a lot of light, (outdoors on a sunny day) but everything else requires that I have the backlight on. The viewing angles are also not up to par.

However, this screen is a couple years old now, so maybe Pixel Qi have come up with some new magic.

(You do notice the battery savings with the screen turned off though.)

Re:Vaporware (4, Informative)

caseih (160668) | about 2 years ago | (#39758837)

There are a few examples of this screen out there but I think the reason it's so hard to get a hold of is that the current Pixel Qi screen, well, kind of sucks. The color saturation, contrast, etc just aren't that great. Turns out the screen isn't that good at any of the things it was hyped to be: good color inside, good b&w outside.

Re:Vaporware (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760585)

Turns out the screen isn't that good at any of the things it was hyped to be: good color inside, good b&w outside.

Those are not the main qualities Pixel Qi displays are designed for. Their big thing is very good sunlight readability outdoors.

Oh yeah... (-1, Redundant)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39758093)

Well my dad... he's a racing car driver. Yep, he really is.

Put up or shut up Pixel QI.

Good price! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758147)

Only $50,000 each.

If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative (3, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | about 2 years ago | (#39758155)

exclusivity contract with Apple for the iPad/iPhone.

Get some nice margins in before it becomes just another commodity component on the electronic marketplace.

Re:If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | about 2 years ago | (#39759183)

I'd be fine with this. Let the Macheads subsidize the future for the rest of us.

If the technology makes Pixel a butt-ton of money (but we have to wait a few years to get it in other devices), so much the better in my book. Just the fact that "Apple uses it" will create an insane demand for it to be in everything with a screen.

Re:If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39760309)

Why the fuck would they do that??? I'd rather become the supplier of 10 laptop companies than signing only one.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758197)

If they're so good, why isn't Apple buying from them?

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

isdnip (49656) | about 2 years ago | (#39758237)

Apple isn't using them because a) they're not out yet, b) they aren't mass-produced the way Apple needs them, and c) Apple has volume contracts for screens with its great friend Samsung.

(Yes, the irony is real -- they are suing Samsung while simultaneously buying tons from them.)

Re:Why? (2)

toriver (11308) | about 2 years ago | (#39758403)

Screen-maker-Samsung is not the same company as cellphone-maker-Samsung though they have the same owner.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758519)

Uhh, that makes them the same company.

Re:Why? (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 2 years ago | (#39758581)

eehhh NO... From a jurisdiction point of view, no. Let's say that I own corporation A, and corporation A has a controlling stake in corporation B. Then A is entitled to all of its profits, but not its liabilities since corporation B is its own legal entity. Let's twist this even further shall we...

Let's say corporation A, owns controlling stakes in both B and C. Along comes a company and sues C, but buys from B. Since each of these corporations are independent, and B or C have zero legal ties to each other then suing C and buying from B is in fact two separate corporations...

Welcome to the world of conglomerates!

THUS... they are not the same company.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Shoten (260439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39759733)

Look for "Samsung" on the stock exchange. No, not NYSE or NASDAQ; they are only traded in Korea. And there's only one of them on KOSPI (the Korean stock exchange), under the identifier "005930". The rest is all wholly owned subsidiaries, all of whom belong entirely to the same master corporation and report to the same single CEO and Board of Directors. It's one company. All major multinational corporations work this way, and a lot of smaller ones do too. For example, most power companies work like this...there'll be a company that handles fossil-based (aka, coal oil and gas) power generation, another for nuclear generation (if applicable), another still for transmission and distribution...but they all roll up under the main organization.

Re:Why? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39759401)

No, it doesn't. That's not how huge multinational conglomerates work. They are basically semi-autonomous companies under an umbrella company but they most likely interact very indirectly at best. This is why it's also silly to try to conflate Sony BMI with the division that makes Playstations when they are very far removed from each other.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39759745)

That's especially not how Korean companies work. They take "huge multinational" to a ridiculous level. Each of the major Korean companies has their fingers in hundreds of different pies, including their government's.

Re:Why? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#39758467)

There are two other important reasons. Although the image quality is similar in terms of resolution and even colour the Pixel Qi screens are not glossy and ultra-bright like Samsung's are, so they don't fit with the Apple gleaming-white-shiny look. Actually most manufacturers prefer to have their screens set to brightness level 11 and glossy, but I'm sure someone will be willing to give the Pixel Qi panel a try.

The other reason is that the OS would need some modification to deal with the different requirements of this screen. I have no idea how easily iOS could do that.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | about 2 years ago | (#39758531)

Not glossy is a huge advantage if you ask me. I HATE glossy screens. Sure, they're sharp, but the reflections are annoying. In side-by-side comparisons at an Apple Store with glossy and non-glare screens, I found I can set the brightness lower on the non-glare screen, the glossy has to be brighter to overcome the reflections. So, that makes the non-glare not only visually preferable, but lower power in practice.

And, as someone with sensitive eyes, I don't want a screen at 500nits. 300+ is handy in bright sunlight, but indoors, my screen is usually around 150nits daytime, 60-80 nits nighttime. And with a good AR coating, you don't need extreme brightness even in sunlight.

So, while I have yet to see a Pixel Qi screen in person, I am very much looking forward to seeing their technology.

Re:Why? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#39758783)

glossy is nice if you're in a totally dark room wearing a gimp suit, otherwise it's crap.

and from what I gather from pixel qi is that it's not exactly just the resolution of their screens they need to get up, but production lines and affordability, same thing with mirasol. nice tech but so what if it's not on the screens I could buy.

a perfect screen when it's black would eat up all the light that goes to it.. that's sort of obvious. I find that even matte(marketed as such, and definitely not as glossy as tv's which are really glossy) tv's reflect too much(sure the reflection is smudged, but it still reflects somewhat, noticiable with bright lights in the room).

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39759149)

Having worked with e Pixel Qi screen (on the XO-1) I would love to have a iPad sized (and res) screen like that to play with outside

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39759957)

I'm with you on the brightness. I like my monitors areound 90-100 nits. It's getting harder to find monitors that will go that dim now while still having decent color.

Re:Why? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760287)

Funny, I actually love glossy screens. They provide better contrast ratios and color depth. So crisp and clean. But that's ok, I know other people that hate them too. It all comes down to personal preference. Though it would be interesting to see the breakdown of that on the next slashdot poll.

Re:Why? (2)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760391)

Actually, they don't have better contrast, or color depth, or gamut. What they do have is greater color saturation, sharper edges, and often higher brightness. They're also notorious for greater delta-E (color accuracy). The "sharper edges" isn't a major advantage. What most grabs people's attention about them is the higher brightness and greater saturation. It's like the difference between Kodak and Fuji film, Kodak was more realistic and "natural", but many people preferred the over-saturated colors of Fuji film. Higher brightness is an attention getter, but it can be an advantage or a disadvantage.

I also hate finger prints on my screen, and glossy screens make those more obvious.

However, after spending some time on a MBP with a glossy screen, I think I could tolerate it, but I definitely prefer an AR or matte screen. Glossy screens and dark/black backgrounds are not a good combination, but if you use bright backgrounds, they're not as bad. The only bad scenario for a matte screen is very bright ambient (e.g. sunlight) directly hitting the screen. If you can turn so the light must reflect off a non-mirrored surface, the matte screen will be great. True AR coatings are superior to frosted "matte" surfaces. They're somewhat more expensive, but they're the best option overall.

Re:Why? (2)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760483)

Glass is required for the digitizer in current capacitive touch screens.

So like it or not, you're getting a glossy glass covered screen in a tablet (which this display is intended for it seems.)

The better case to kill Apple's volume practices. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | about 2 years ago | (#39759027)


c) Apple has volume contracts for screens with its great friend Samsung.

Start bringing the penalties for monopoly powers to Apple (which would kill this practice PDQ), expand the monopoly definition to include Apple's characteristics (no, successful is not one of them), or otherwise make blocking competitors by volume a non-starter(perhaps by stating that such products must be equally available to all at a given price - which would also apply to Apple).

Re:The better case to kill Apple's volume practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39759677)

Actually, wouldn't Samsung need to be the one to be punished? In order for there to be an antitrust concern re Apple, it would have to involve a competitor to Apple. It's Samsung's competitors that are being blocked, not Apple's. After all, Apple doesn't care where it gets the parts they need; they only care about price (and quality of course). Volume pricing is a cornerstone of business; what you're describing is essentially government mandated price fixing, something which is illegal.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39759063)

And d) their web site [pixelqi.com] is so ugly that Apple blocks it at the firewall.

Yay future (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758207)

So... something that's not out yet is better than something that is? Shocking.

Translation Required (0)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | about 2 years ago | (#39758221)

'100X' is blog-talk for 0100, 0o04, 4, or 0x04.

Re:Translation Required (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758279)

>'100X' is blog-talk for 0100, 0o04, 4, or 0x04.

Slashdot is a Blog since 2001.

Re:Translation Required (1, Offtopic)

Savantissimo (893682) | more than 2 years ago | (#39759545)

1997.

What about desktop screens? (3)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 2 years ago | (#39758225)

/me wants 24" or smaller desktop screen with 2048*1536 pixels or more.

Re:What about desktop screens? (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | about 2 years ago | (#39758257)

I don't understand why they don't already have these, the technology exists for pixel density that high. Just make a 4x1080p monitor that has 4 inputs. Everyone with the Nvidia/ATI multiscreen setups will gobble them up.

Re:What about desktop screens? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758315)

They did it once.

Sorta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

Re:What about desktop screens? (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | about 2 years ago | (#39758407)

Digital TV happened. Now monitors and TVs come off the same assembly lines, and 1080p is "good enough" for most people buying screens (that's High Def, right, so that's the best!)

On the plus side, it means that you can get a decent computer monitor for under $200. On the downside, better monitors have become a niche product, and there seems to be positive feedback - the price difference pushes more people to the "standard" models, further nichifying the high resolution models, increasing the price gap...

Re:What about desktop screens? (2)

jpapon (1877296) | about 2 years ago | (#39758527)

Or just get the Dell 27", it's a great display. 2560x1440 is nice, and the brightness and viewing angle are amazing. The only problem I have with it is that it consumes way too much power. The thing keeps my hands warm in winter...

Re:What about desktop screens? (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | about 2 years ago | (#39759221)

27" is too big for what I want and that really isn't near the resolution I want either. Also some may think the Dell quality is good but it really isn't up to par with what I want.
I would be willing to pay $800 for a 4x180p 24" 120hz screen. I figure it would be worth 4 $200 screens. Maybe the market just isn't there for screens like that, but it doesn't seem to stop video card makers from putting out $2k cards so I'm still a little surprised there aren't any monitors like that out there.

Re:What about desktop screens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758529)

What, do you live under a rock? They have and do, for years even. [amazon.com]

Re:What about desktop screens? (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 2 years ago | (#39758591)

Ok let's rephrase this. How about these screens at affordable prices?

Re:What about desktop screens? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about 2 years ago | (#39759137)

How often do you plan on replacing your screen? It's actually the only part of a PC you can amortize over >4 years. Get a good warranty, say 5 years or so and spend the money. You'll get to enjoy it for a long time.

Re:What about desktop screens? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760559)

On Friday I just replaced two Sony Trinitrons from my office desk - one was dated 1997 and the "new" flat one was from 2000 :)

Re:What about desktop screens? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39759421)

Because they are mostly a niche product.

Re:What about desktop screens? (1)

loosescrews (1916996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39759749)

You can get them for around less than $350 shipped from South Korea. Just do an ebay search for '2560 1440 27"' [ebay.com] . You should find a lot of really nice high resolution IPS monitors.

Re:What about desktop screens? (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760427)

Good to know.
These look like dead-pixel rejects, but the first LCD monitor I bought was back in the dead-pixel-expected days, and it (and it's two factory dead pixels) is still in use.

So if saving $500 is worth a few dead pixels, then you've got a bargain.

Re:What about desktop screens? (1)

gwking (869658) | about 2 years ago | (#39758693)

I think he lives under the rock where people read what he wrote before replying. :) He said the high res at a lower size; you linked to all 27" screens, he said 24" or smaller, which would be my preference too. I really like the quality of my 4S screen, my desktop 24" Samsung is nice, but after using the 4S screen I notice the pixel-yness on the 24" at only 1920x1280.

Pixel Q = Vaporware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758281)

For the last 4-5 years, news about pixel Q display are popping up left and right.
Glorious youtube demos, showing screen being usable under direct sunlight.........

Not quite (2)

maroberts (15852) | about 2 years ago | (#39758339)

They've shipped 2.5 million to 3 million screens but they don't seem to have got the world beating product that shifts by the tens of millions out yet.

The problem is that Apple have a lead and by the time PixelQI get the product to market, Apple will be on the next generation of their product.

yea yea yea... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758295)

another "we have this", "We have that", but in fact you have nothing available but more viper vaporware.

Re:moD 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39760649)

What kind of method did you use to generate that text? What were your motives posting it?

Apple is Gold Standard? (1)

AramblingMan (2623215) | about 2 years ago | (#39758321)

Is Apple the uncontested standard for screen specs? Its not exactly innovative if pixel qi picks their competitor's product and says hey we just beat them by an inch. Perhaps they should follow Apple's lead and set a different standard. The power savings issue is nice but not all that breathtaking like a retina display.

Re:Apple is Gold Standard? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 2 years ago | (#39758417)

If they did that, they'd be working on Mirasol [mirasoldisplays.com] ...

Re:Apple is Gold Standard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758471)

1. They have to have been working on this for a while now.
2. Apple doesn't make LCDs

So, if you ignore facts, then sure. Your right ;)

Re:Apple is Gold Standard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758725)

The one way to guarantee a product gets a slagging on line these days is to say you're better than Apple. You'll immediately attract every Apple fag condeming you as worse than Hitler.

I was going to write a fake headline for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758357)

I was going to write a fake headline for this, making fun of the idea that of course a next generation product will meet or exceed a current product. That's how technology works, for chrissake. Then I realized that was the real headline. Doesn't this story belong in the "Duh" section of slashdot?

Re:I was going to write a fake headline for this (1)

toriver (11308) | about 2 years ago | (#39758433)

This is the new Slashdot where they will post "Water: now wet!" if it can get some ad impressions.

Re:I was going to write a fake headline for this (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#39758823)

I was going to write a fake headline for this, making fun of the idea that of course a next generation product will meet or exceed a current product. That's how technology works, for chrissake. Then I realized that was the real headline. Doesn't this story belong in the "Duh" section of slashdot?

So Slashdot shouldn't post any articles on new and more advanced products? Does that mean when Intel comes out with the Haswell, or AMD with the Trinity, Slashdot shouldn't have articles on those either? After all, "of course" as next generation products they will be better than the current generation. (Well, hopefully - the Bulldozer was inferior to Llano and even Phenom II in some ways.)

Re:I was going to write a fake headline for this (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760657)

I was going to write a fake headline for this, making fun of the idea that of course a next generation product will meet or exceed a current product. That's how technology works, for chrissake. Then I realized that was the real headline. Doesn't this story belong in the "Duh" section of slashdot?

That's not the point here. What makes the story interesting is that another rather small company is rivaling Apple's cutting edge technology.

Re:I was going to write a fake headline for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39760715)

Then how do you explaing computer screen resolutions getting worse and worse over the years? That's why this is news - it's no longer just Apple bucking the trend.

Important comparison factor missing (1)

ilyag (572316) | about 2 years ago | (#39758453)

How does the screen compare on price?

Re:Important comparison factor missing (1)

seb42 (920797) | about 2 years ago | (#39758973)

"How does the screen compare on price?" The beauty of Pixel Qi is they use the existing LCD Fab, it does cost a million dollar or so to start a run of displays. So price is dependent on the how many displays you want to make in one go. I have this ($275) 1st gen pixel qi 10.1 screen replacement screens in my netbook, works great only issue is one of the viewing angles is bad, I think from the left. http://www.makershed.com/Pixel_Qi_display_p/mkpq01.htm [makershed.com] Out in the sun with the backlight off it goes from 1024x600xRGB (transmissive) to 3072x600 (reflective) sort of grey scale. So the battery life is very good with the back light off or down low. I do wonder what touch screen tech Pixel Qi people recommend to use with the new display.

Power consumption of Qi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758463)

Doesn't a 100x power reduction (I assume you mean 100%) mean that the Qi works on 0 Power?

Re:Power consumption of Qi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39760665)

I think they actually mean "hundred times". Anyway, when you can switch the backlight off outdoors, you already get huge power savings.

The only remaining downside is shipping. (0)

shess (31691) | about 2 years ago | (#39758475)

How much volume did Pixel Qi do last year? One week of iPad3 sales? One day? One *hour*?

Hell, even OLED displays have beaten these guys into volume production, and I didn't think that would ever happen.

They really don't say much. (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 2 years ago | (#39758493)

I am all for advancing display tech. But I'll believe it when I see it. Pixel Q has made a lot of headlines over the last few years with little to show. All they do in this release is say how much better it is than iPad 3 display --- over and over again. Trying to generate some hype maybe? They could have been a little more subtle with their hype and drawn comparisons from other screens on leading devices.

Re:They really don't say much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758541)

Based on the description && details sounds like an e-ink color display. If so, would explain the "hype" with delay.

Re:They really don't say much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39760689)

They already have products that you can buy right now. Even Slashdot has ran a story [slashdot.org] about DIY retrofit screens. Also the Notion Ink Adam had a Pixel Qi display. You can see their full product line-up [pixelqi.com] at their homepages.

Yes But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758495)

It will be nothing in comparison to the New, New, New IPad

That sounds great! But... (2)

sootman (158191) | about 2 years ago | (#39758533)

... I won't believe it until I see it.

Soo.. (2)

Wovel (964431) | about 2 years ago | (#39758551)

Make a shipping product or it doesn't really exist.

There is no such thing as an iPad 3. (-1, Troll)

David_The_Expert (2563031) | about 2 years ago | (#39758565)

There is no such thing as an iPad 3. Or if there ever will be, it hasn't been released yet. The latest iPad is called "The New iPad." Why do the Slashdot editors have so much hate against Apple?

Re:There is no such thing as an iPad 3. (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 2 years ago | (#39758685)

It's officially "iPad, third generation", a.k.a. iPad 3.

For a b!ch3r, you sure can't b!ch3 right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758697)

Just to educate you .... the iPad 3rd Gen is called iPad HD.

Re:There is no such thing as an iPad 3. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39759653)

The latest iPad is called "The New iPad." Why do the Slashdot editors have so much hate against Apple?

Why does Apple have so much hatred for names that make sense? You can choose to buy into their marketing tricks, or just call it iPad 3. Everyone will understand you either way.

But what about Laptop screens?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39758621)

The Pixel Qi is just for other companies making touchpad computers.

What I want to know is when and who will bring out a laptop with this resolution screen?

Re:But what about Laptop screens?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39760057)

There are rumours that Apple is working on "retina" displays for their Macbooks. Once they are out, we'll probably have to wait a year or two before PCs can match them. Fortunately you can install Linux or Windows on a Mac these days, so as far as I am concerned the PC makers can go screw themselves by then.

Possible issue as touch screen (3, Interesting)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39759773)

Touch screens may complicate things for Pixel Qi, their screens have always relied on AR coatings. Touch screens need a capacitive (better) or resistive layer over the screen, and they need an oliophobic coating to resist finger prints. How will those affect the Pixel Qi screens?

Re:Possible issue as touch screen (2)

Scorch_Mechanic (1879132) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760753)

Not all "touchscreen" technology actually requires you to "touch" the screen. My PRS-T1 uses infrared light to detect when and where I'm "touching" the screen, and it does everything "real" touchscreens can do, and a few things they can't (depending on the technology used).

You raise a valid point, but the implementation of the screen itself my obviate the problem anyways.

So their 'Next-Gen' display will 'meet' the iPad3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39759845)

I would expect next-gen displays so significantly BEAT what the iPad 3 has, not just MEET.

Any manufacturers put this in their products yet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39759883)

rant/

Alright, I'm getting figuratively sick and tired about seeing all these posts about the supposedly amazing "Pixel Qi screen" plastered all over tech news sites for at least 3 years now.

I have yet to see ONE SINGLE MAJOR MANUFACTURER include these screen by default in their products. It's driving me crazy!

Any tablets made by major brands such as Samsung, Sony, LG, or even Apple out there with this? No? Any computers with this? NO?!

WHY THE HECK DO TECH NEWS SITES KEEP GOING ON ABOUT THIS PRODUCT THAT ISN'T EVEN OUT ON THE *MAINSTREAM* MARKET YET???

Until I see some sort product that can be bought at a Best Buy, Fry's, or *insert favorite tech store here* with a Pixel Qi screen already installed, I can't regard Pixel Qi as a serious brand and type of screen.

And NO! I don't feel like taking the risk of cracking open my computer or tablet to exchange the OEM screen with the appropriately sized Pixel Qi screen, even with instructions on how to do it.

If I am a mainstream consumer, I want to buy it without doing any dirty work. Though most on the folks on /. probably get a serious kick out of getting the chance to crack open their laptop or tablet to put in a superior part. .../rant

*deep breath* Alright, I'm good now.

Re:Any manufacturers put this in their products ye (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760747)

Though most on the folks on /. probably get a serious kick out of getting the chance to crack open their laptop or tablet to put in a superior part.

The screen that your laptop came with is *already* superior, unless you are in the 0.01% of people who use their laptop on a beach.

There certainly are valid applications for such screens. For example, outdoor hardware - for construction, surveying, military. It might be good even in a common car. A typical notebook isn't one of them.

I personally wouldn't be interested in a tablet or an ebook reader that works best under the sunlight. I just don't read in those conditions. I read in the evening, with external lights off.

Really? Time brought new tech? Wow. (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760625)

Assuming it's not vaporware, it's a little late to the party. I predict next year there'll be better screens yet. Look at me go.

Anyways, they're sticking it in golf stroke training systems and carwash controls, so maybe they'll find a niche. But as for tablets, wake me when one thrives for a couple of months in the market.

Really? (1)

Oceanplexian (807998) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760629)

I'm as excited as anyone at the prospect of a better performing high-res screen and despite PixelQIs history of delivering, this doesn't actually exist until I'm looking at the teardown pictures.

It seems that history repeats itself. Apple invents and mass-produces a new technology. they release it into something perfectly usable that you can go down to your local shop and buy with real money. A matter of weeks/months/years later, everybody else starts claiming they've come up with something revolutionary and better without any physical proof that it exists.

Finally, after months/years of waiting, the competition finally comes up with something that was 20% of what was promised, 100% more expensive, and then oh, look, Apple has already released the next-gen product at my local Walmart and it creates yet another paradigm-shift in new technology.

tl;dr to Apple's competition: Shut up about your new product until it's deliverable.

Sunlight-readability (2)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39760729)

This iPad vs. Pixel Qi [alltouchtablet.com] comparison picture really shows the important difference. The Qi might not have the best colors, but for text and simple images it is good. The iPad and most other laptops and tablets are hard to use outdoors. See this demo image [pixelqi.com] , too.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?