These niche displays are offering less and less benefit compared to more mass-produced display technologies as time goes on.
All of the upsides of transreflexive displays that are downsides for other displays can be overcome with a $10 battery pack, or by doing things like making the processing and LED backlighting/OLED displays more power efficient.
How is transflexive LCD going to compete with emerging technologies like tandem OLED in terms of overall picture quality, brightness, and certainly having reasonable enough power efficiency? If you can surf the web for 10 hours without plugging in your iPad Pro what aspect of a transflexive LCD device is going to convince you to give up the best looking display on the market?
Are there any devices currently rating 2,000+ nits?
In the past, my comment has always been, "Trying to outbright the sun on a battery-powered device is a stupid strategy" --- what device would you suggest trying to change my mind?
Cheap E Ink readers are such a natural fit for sun and sand.
And yep - iPhone 15 and up have 1000 nits typical, 2000 in high brightness mode. Keep in mind it’s a logarithmic scale.
Wonderfully chosen limit, as the newest iPhone model now has a 2,000 nit screen.
Will look forward to trying that when someone I know gets one, and look forward to the replacement for my Galaxy Note 10+ having a similar screen.
- they're dim (in comparison to an otherwise equivalent display)
- they don't showroom well (because they're dim)
- marketing them is difficult --- not many folks are willing to pay a premium to avoid the need to do the "hipster dance" and shade their screen (or just wait a bit to use their device)
The ideal would be for a retailer to set up a daylight viewing booth in all their spaces (expensive) and then convince folks to test/compare devices in what is essentially a suntan booth (health implications).
I wish that someone would revisit the Lenovo Yogabook which had a secondary e-ink display as keyboard/drawing area/e-ink tablet as a reasonable compromise.