Uses Too Many Big Words
Contention
abfarid
joined 2 years ago
How can one be chronologically disappointed? Did you mean "chronically"?
I have 1GB/m and rarely use half of it. I just don't watch YT when I'm outside. And it's plenty for looking at beans on Lemmy.
It was obviously sarcasm with that 100ths precision rating.
Your mom ends in butt.
O
I'm not criticizing the screens, they are ok and I loved my Pebble Time Steel until the battery swelled and popped off the screen. I'm just saying that calling these e-paper is a deceptive marketing strategy.
From the Verge article:
The first watch that Migicovsky and Core plan to ship is called the Core 2 Duo (not to be confused with the old Intel processor), which Migicovsky says will cost $149 and will ship in July. [...] It has the exact same black-and-white e-paper display as the old Pebble 2 (technically a transflective LCD, if you’re curious)
As I mentioned earlier, whether a screen type is considered e-paper is subjective. And in my opinion, reflective LCD isn't a type of e-paper. You may disagree, but it's not "categorically" wrong.
Quote is from Wikipedia. You can see it's the case for both models here:
Besides, I own a Pebble Time watch and can tell you, it doesn't perform like a typical e-paper. It has the bad viewing angles of LCD and screen goes blank when power is lost.
The watch featured a 32-millimetre (1.26 in) 144 × 168 pixel black and white memory LCD using an ultra low-power "transflective LCD"
The problem is that e-paper is a category of displays, and some companies label reflective LCDs as "e-paper". Which is subjective (and I personally heavily disagree with that categorization, cause then LCD clocks and Gameboys have "e-paper" displays, too).
But in the comment I responded to it was said Pebble has "eink" display, which is categorically wrong, as that is a very specific proprietary technology, which is e-paper in traditional sense, like the ones in Kindles.
Don't you use a flathead for that?