Sadly, this is not yet true. If all things were equal, then OLEDs are simpler to make, and would be cheaper.
LCD manufacturers, however, have become astoundlingly good at making panels (the newest generation processes glass that's over 2m in diagonal!). OLEDs are not so mature, and manufacturers have to throw away lots of defective panels.
Higher throughput, and better yield, means that for many years to come complicated LCDs will be cheaper than simpler OLEDs.
Their "hybrid" display appears to be what's normally called "transflective". Each pixel has a transmissive area that allows a backlight to shine through, but also has a reflective area that modulates ambient light. So, it dim light it uses the *trans*missive part, and in bright light it uses the re*flective* part.
The color in reflective mode is not so good, but better than a totally washed out backlit display.
They are legal, but the law varies tremendously from state to state. California is the best, as they're not generally enforceable for California residents. Other states almost always side with the employer; I've been told that Texas and Ohio are like that.
It's always good to try to avoid signing a contract with a noncompete clause. Many places will remove the clause if you ask.
It's time to start writing to state, and maybe federal, politicians to get these types of contracts made illegal anyway. These agreements are so lopsided in favor of employers, and have a real potential to stifle economic development.
Things to consider: 1) There are plenty of other laws regarding intellectual property and trade secrets to protect employers. Noncompetes aren't necessary to protect the employer; it just gives them another, easier-to-use club. 2) The mere threat of a lawsuit will prevent some employers from hiring a new employee bound with a noncompete, even if the field is only sort of close. 3) Doctors and lawyers have managed to get themselves exempted from noncompetes in most states. These professions seem to be doing OK. 4) California has had one of the strongest state economies in the US for quite some time. Noncompetes cannot be used in the state. Silicon Valley was built by engineers jumping ship and starting new companies. If noncompetes are so vital, then you'd think that California's economy would be lagging all those states where noncompetes are legal.
It's hard to make an economic argument that these are necessary laws.
That's absolutely and totally wrong. If you bothered reading any of the details, you'd see that the image is totally changeable. They built a thin film transistor array (same as on a laptop LCD screen) but on flexible steel foil. This TFT array drives the electronic ink.
E Ink did have some blinking, static image signs that they sell. You're confusing the two.
A lot of the discussion is a rehash of whether OLED's have advantages in power consumption, response time, viewing angle, and color compared to LCD's (the answer is yes). What no one seems to have noticed is that the point of the announcement is that this display was built using amorphous silicon TFT's. This is the same technology used for active matrix LCDS.
This means that display companies that want to convert some of their LCD production capacity to OLEDs can do so without necessarily the $500,000,000-$1,000,000,000 it takes to put up a polysilicon fab (like Kodak/Sanyo are doing).
So, this means more OLEDs, sooner, for the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
...that the initial post misspells "receive" in the third sentence?
My bad.
An LCD is a liquid crystal display.
Sadly, this is not yet true. If all things were equal, then OLEDs are simpler to make, and would be cheaper. LCD manufacturers, however, have become astoundlingly good at making panels (the newest generation processes glass that's over 2m in diagonal!). OLEDs are not so mature, and manufacturers have to throw away lots of defective panels. Higher throughput, and better yield, means that for many years to come complicated LCDs will be cheaper than simpler OLEDs.
Their "hybrid" display appears to be what's normally called "transflective". Each pixel has a transmissive area that allows a backlight to shine through, but also has a reflective area that modulates ambient light. So, it dim light it uses the *trans*missive part, and in bright light it uses the re*flective* part. The color in reflective mode is not so good, but better than a totally washed out backlit display.
They are legal, but the law varies tremendously from state to state. California is the best, as they're not generally enforceable for California residents. Other states almost always side with the employer; I've been told that Texas and Ohio are like that.
It's always good to try to avoid signing a contract with a noncompete clause. Many places will remove the clause if you ask.
It's time to start writing to state, and maybe federal, politicians to get these types of contracts made illegal anyway. These agreements are so lopsided in favor of employers, and have a real potential to stifle economic development.
Things to consider:
1) There are plenty of other laws regarding intellectual property and trade secrets to protect employers. Noncompetes aren't necessary to protect the employer; it just gives them another, easier-to-use club.
2) The mere threat of a lawsuit will prevent some employers from hiring a new employee bound with a noncompete, even if the field is only sort of close.
3) Doctors and lawyers have managed to get themselves exempted from noncompetes in most states. These professions seem to be doing OK.
4) California has had one of the strongest state economies in the US for quite some time. Noncompetes cannot be used in the state. Silicon Valley was built by engineers jumping ship and starting new companies. If noncompetes are so vital, then you'd think that California's economy would be lagging all those states where noncompetes are legal.
It's hard to make an economic argument that these are necessary laws.
That's absolutely and totally wrong. If you bothered reading any of the details, you'd see that the image is totally changeable. They built a thin film transistor array (same as on a laptop LCD screen) but on flexible steel foil. This TFT array drives the electronic ink. E Ink did have some blinking, static image signs that they sell. You're confusing the two.
A lot of the discussion is a rehash of whether OLED's have advantages in power consumption, response time, viewing angle, and color compared to LCD's (the answer is yes). What no one seems to have noticed is that the point of the announcement is that this display was built using amorphous silicon TFT's. This is the same technology used for active matrix LCDS. This means that display companies that want to convert some of their LCD production capacity to OLEDs can do so without necessarily the $500,000,000-$1,000,000,000 it takes to put up a polysilicon fab (like Kodak/Sanyo are doing). So, this means more OLEDs, sooner, for the masses.