I concur. For a device of that price, size, and considering the reading and note-taking use case, only 229 ppi is abysmal. Why cut corners in a key part of the product?
E Ink has a monopoly on microcapsule displays and the prices are incredibly high. The device would be much more expensive if they used the high-density display.
>E Ink has a monopoly on microcapsule displays and the prices are incredibly high
This is either horseshit or very sneakily worded. GoodDisplay sells their DES screens which are also electrophoretic screens, with the only difference being that they use cofferdam tech that directly builds microcapsules onto the underlying substrate, rather than being separately produced and sprinkled on.
>As an example, $449
How is that an example? If you're comparing it to LCD please say so explicitly. LCDs are produced at a rate of billions per quarter, whereas electrophoretic screens are a niche tech used in ereaders and not much else. It wouldn't surprise me if LCDs had 1000x the production, you don't need a monopoly to explain LCDs being cheaper here. It's just raw economy of scale.
> This is either horseshit or very sneakily worded
This comment infringes on HN guidelines. I'd recommend editing it accordingly and remove the accusatory tone.
> with the only difference being that they use cofferdam tech
No. Cofferdam's 11.6" B&W screen is less than 100 dpi (adjusted to 11.8") and cannot reasonably be considered a viable alternative for reading and note-taking.
> How is that an example?
It explains why the “for a device of that price” argument is not relevant here. The screen itself is very expensive and the profit margin of ReMarkable is not as stellar as some people would believe.
