Aris Silzard

The Power of a Story… For even the most ambitious and work motivated among us, there comes a time when reading another technical journal or working on another e-mail becomes simply too much.  For me that sometimes happens after a long day of on-site consulting work while taking the last evening flight back to Seattle.  The last leg from Denver, or Chicago, back to Seattle can be the toughest part of the entire trip.  It is then when one begins to wonder how to spend those last few, exceedingly long, hours. Even under these circumstances, it is seldom that I resort to watching the complimentary movies offered by the airlines.  However, on a recent trip home, I did just that.  The aircraft was an Airbus A320 with the small LCD screens that fold down from the overhead compartments.  The audio was provided by a well used complimentary headset.  The LCD screens installed in these aircraft are most certainly no longer “state of the art”.  The images are of marginal clarity, and the colors usually vary from one display to the next.  I would estimate that the gray scale capability of these monitors is something on the order of 8 levels – not 8 bits.  The audio quality is similarly limited.  This limited audio frequency response is further “enhanced” by the background noise of the airplane in full flight.   It’s difficult to imagine a more challenging viewing environment.  Yet, in spite of all these limitations, in less than fifteen minutes I found myself becoming engrossed in the story that I was watching.   Even though I had to strain to hear all of the dialogue, my emotions were responding to the message and not to the quality with which it was being delivered.  The happy parts of the movie made me smile and the sad parts made me get quite teary-eyed.  I had quite effectively been drawn into this world of make-believe by the emotions so skillfully conveyed by the actors.   Not only that, even after the end of the movie and the end of the flight, I was still feeling the emotions that had captured me so effectively during these otherwise boring hours.  How could this be?  Basically, everything was wrong with the conditions under which this story was being presented.  I was sitting in an uncomfortable seat, in a disturbingly noisy environment.  People were moving about, reading lights were on, the display was barely good enough to make out the images, the colors were all wrong, and the audio was barely intelligible.   Nevertheless, the power of the story was sufficient to draw me into its own fantasy world — even through a window into this world that was distorted and barely useable.  If such a poor environment is sufficient to do this, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that seeing the same story under more favorable conditions would have a much greater impact?  To test this concept, I decided to purchase a DVD version of this movie and repeat the viewing experience using my high-quality video monitor together with a sound system emulating a movie-theater experience.  And what happened?  Well, my emotional reaction was exactly the same as I had experienced on my late-night flight home. No better, no worse.  Equally intense — the same.   Of course, given the choice, it’s obvious which viewing environment I would prefer.  Yet, it’s an important lesson that a marginal viewing environment will not prevent a good story from coming through and perhaps conversely an excellent viewing environment may not create a strong emotional reaction if the story line is poor.   Quite a few years ago, I had the pleasure of seeing the play Annie in New York.  I enjoyed it very much.  Not too long after that, this play was made into a movie, and with great anticipation I went to see it as well.  But I came home disappointed.  The movie had more realistic scenery and a number of special effects had been added.  Unfortunately, for me, this additional “reality” intruded on the story rather than enhancing it. The added embellishments were more than I needed or wanted to enjoy the emotional message conveyed by this story. Our brains seem to be incredibly good at filling in details from the sketchiest of inputs.  I suppose that is why children still want to be read bedtime stories.  From just hearing their parent’s voice, a whole fantasy world can be created.  Similarly, at a theater production with limited visual cues, we can become emotionally engrossed in the story being conveyed by skilled actors.  The continued popularity of live theater productions speaks well to the fact that we don’t always want or need all the details to be filled in for us. Perhaps what this means to us in the display community is that there is a range of opportunities for how we use displays to convey information, stories, and create the resulting emotional impacts.  Small displays of limited capability may be effective in environments where that is all that can be used.  Larger video displays with reasonably good quality may be entirely adequate for most home use.   And for the most spectacular viewing experiences we may want the giant IMAX screens and similar displays.  What about the addition of stereo 3D?  Wouldn’t that be a great enhancement to every viewing experience?  Perhaps not.  For some fantasy or science fiction stories, it may indeed be a great addition, but for others the effect may be like my experience with the theater and movie versions of Annie.  More is not always better.  And for all of these viewing experiences, it is clear that a great display cannot salvage a bad story.  But the converse is apparently not equally true.  An inferior display may still be good enough to convey the emotions stimulated by a good story.  We display technology developers may not like to hear such a conclusion, but I am afraid it is the correct one.  How good is your imagination?  Do you like to fill

So Wrong, and Yet So Famous… Wouldn’t it be great to be able to see into the future? No, I’m not thinking about the fortune-telling kind of predictions, but the more general understanding of how technology will evolve and how our lives will change as a result. From a personal standpoint, this could be beneficial because we would know what to expect and could adjust our behaviors accordingly – or not. From a business standpoint, it could be a significant competitive advantage to know which technologies will succeed and which will struggle. Beyond these logical and practical reasons, there is perhaps something else that is not so easy to explain that makes us all wonder about what is going to come next. Human beings seem to have an innate curiosity about the future. Perhaps this has been exacerbated in the last century by the rapid technology changes we have all experienced in our lives. Perhaps it’s the same curiosity that makes us look to the stars and try to unravel the laws of nature. We thirst to know – what is and what will be. Lake ChelanBecause of my own interest in this area, over at least the last thirty years, I have tracked predictions by a number of futurists, and have made predictions of my own regarding the evolution of the display industry. And then I have tracked many of these predictions against what eventually happened. I have shared my own views of how display technology will continue to evolve with many of you at various technical conferences, seminars, and through the publication of these columns. It has never been my intent to put these observations into written reports that are offered for sale. That, of course, is not the case with others who consider themselves professional futurists. For these folks, it’s necessary to come up with predictions that will catch people’s attention and cause them to purchase these studies. The paradoxical conclusion that I end up with is that accurate predictions of the future are not sufficiently exciting to sell reports or books. An accurate prediction — by definition — comes to pass, and when that happens, everyone accepts it as an obvious outcome. Aren’t portable music players obvious? Now they are. But how many companies anticipated this new way of providing musical entertainment? Flat panel televisions — another obvious product. But wasn’t it just a few years ago, that we were all trying to determine how small the incremental price differential would have to be for people to buy a flat panel television instead of a CRT-based one? And could an LCD TV ever be larger than about twenty inches diagonal? Highly unlikely! But now the large-screen future is here and the insightful and accurate predictions of yesteryear are no longer interesting. They have turned into “obvious” outcomes. Ah, but let’s make some really audacious predictions and then see what happens. In order to do this, let’s step into our time machine and return back to 1999. That way we can make some predictions about the year 2009 and then fast-forward to see how we did. But let’s not be the conservative fuddy-duddies who are overly conservative and too boringly accurate to sell books. Let’s go for a visit to our local 1999-era bookstore and buy a book that is by someone famous for his technical accomplishments and see what he has to say. Aha, here is the perfect tome, a book called The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil. We could not have found a more recognized and respected technologist, innovator, and futurist. Mr. Kurzweil has received just about every award and honor that can be bestowed on a human being, including the National Medal of Technology, and over a dozen Honorary Doctorates. He has started a number of successful companies and seems to know just about everything that one human being can possibly be expected to know. If he can’t make accurate predictions of the future then can there be any hope for the rest of us? With our special interest in display technology, let’s see what Mr. Kurzweil expected us to accomplish by the year 2009. “Computer displays have all the display qualities of paper – high resolution, high contrast, large viewing angle, and no flicker. Books, magazines, and newspapers are now routinely read on displays that are the size of, well, small books. Computer displays built into eyeglasses are also used. These specialized glasses allow users to see the normal visual environment, while creating a virtual image that appears to hover in front of the viewer. The virtual images are created by a tiny laser built into the glasses that projects the images directly onto the user’s retina. Computers routinely include moving picture image cameras and are able to reliably identify their owners from their faces.” “Students of all ages typically have a computer of their own, which is a thin tabletlike device weighing under a pound with a very high resolution display suitable for reading. Students interact with their computers primarily by voice and by pointing with a device that looks like a pencil. Keyboards still exist, but most textual language is created by speaking.” “Beyond music recordings, images, and movie videos, the most popular type of digital entertainment object is virtual experience software. These interactive virtual environments allow you to go whitewater rafting on virtual rivers, to hang-glide in a virtual Grand Canyon, or to engage in intimate encounters with your favorite movie star. Users also experience fantasy environments with no counterpart in the physical world. The visual and auditory experience of virtual reality is compelling, but tactile interactions is still limited.” What happened here? Did we end up living on a different planet from the one Mr. Kurzweil envisioned? Mr. Kurzweil’s view of 2009 doesn’t sound very much like what we expect to be experiencing just a few months from now. And if you agree with me that these predictions are a bit off the mark, you should

A Look in the Mirror… This morning I looked into a parallel universe that seemed very much like the one in which we find ourselves. As best I can tell, it’s populated by beings just like us and all the observable features appear to be precise duplicates of what we have here on earth. The large window through which I was looking showed a room just like the one I was in and on the other side looking back at me was someone who I would swear was my identical twin. My twin was able to replicate my every movement and stayed in front of his window for precisely the same amount of time as I stayed in front of mine. The only peculiarity I could detect was that the people in this other universe had their left and right hands mixed up – or maybe I’m the one who didn’t have it quite right. I tried to have a conversation with my other-world twin, but unfortunately I could only see his lips moving. The window into this parallel universe apparently blocks all sound. However, other people who moved in and out of the room I was observing also seemed to have identical twins in the world on my side of this window. What an incredible experience – to be able to see into another world that looks like ours in every detail — and through a window as clear as glass! Wouldn’t it be great if we could create other virtual worlds like this one at will? What would it take? Aren’t we almost there with the latest developments in 3D displays? Don’t we wish! With 2D images, we have been able to approach and even exceed the resolution and color sensing abilities of our visual systems. We can produce images that at normal viewing distances are better than our eyes can resolve and the color palettes can be highly accurate reproductions of the real objects. And we can do this almost as well in real time video. Given this, it would seem that adding the third dimension of depth to these images would be a reasonable and doable next step. If we can get an accurate and entirely realistic 3D image just by looking into a mirror, what could possibly be so difficult about doing it with a camera or video recording device? It certainly seems like an obvious enhancement. Unfortunately, there are some surprisingly challenging complications that come into the “picture” when we try to add the third dimension. It turns out that an accurate perception of the third dimension depends on much more than just our eyes as visual sensors. How can that be? The complicating factor is that in the “real” world of three dimensions, we use a variety of clues to tell us what is going on and how we are positioned in relationship to other objects. Our eyes are not able to take in the entire scene with just one look. To make up for this limitation, we are continually scanning and probing the 3D space in which we find ourselves. Because we have this very limited solid angle where objects are in focus and in full color, we have to construct the complete scene from these rapidly acquired snippets of visual data by using our highly developed intelligence to do the necessary signal processing and integration. Everything outside of our narrow visual cone is out of focus. As we scan to take in the entire scene, our eyes accommodate objects closer and further away by changing their relative viewing angle. And to further establish the relative position of objects closer and further away, we additionally rely on the sensory feedback from our head movement to enhance and confirm the stereoscopic effect generated by our two eyes. (To verify how important this effect is, take a look at objects that are at distances of hundreds of feet away and move your head side to side.) This complex interaction of eye movement, head movement and visual input is what we use to construct the “reality” that surrounds us. If any of these sensory inputs is missing or in conflict with the others, we immediately conclude that something is not right. How we react can depend on how “not right” it is. We may simply decide that the image is phony. Or we may try to accept the conflicting inputs and end up getting a stress-induced headache. Or worse yet, our senses may be so conflicted that we get seriously nauseous. (Out of curiosity, I once asked a medical doctor why a conflicting visual experience would make us feel sick to our stomachs. He explained that this comes from our caveman days when dizziness indicated having eaten something poisonous and becoming nauseous is our bodies’ way of trying to get rid of the poison.) In order to create an artificial, but believable, 3D experience we, therefore, need to accurately simulate not only the stereoscopic effect, but also realistically model the scene based on a viewer’s eye position as well as head movement. Only then does the prospect of creating a believable 3D virtual reality experience begin to look feasible. But this would be for just one viewer. All this would be required for each and every observer. Given this level of complexity and customization, the prospect of creating a virtual experience for an audience of many viewers begins to look like an impossible task — at least for the next few decades. Are we, therefore, kidding ourselves that stereoscopic 3D can be a useful future direction for the next generation of display technologies? I think we are if we expect to see widespread use of 3D technology in movies, television, and other applications with story lines or events that depict life as we typically experience it. Adding a stereoscopic effect to these programs will be perceived as more of a confusing distraction rather than an enhancement. On the other hand, for inherently artificial environments

Are We Forgetting Something?… We have entered the era when “green is in”. The elimination of toxic materials and the savings of energy have become important consumer issues. For us in the display community this trend started rather quietly some years ago with the push to eliminate Lead-based solder in circuit boards. Then someone noticed that CRT glass has Lead in it as well. So even though the Lead is chemically bound up well enough to be used in wine glasses and decanters, with no harm to users, the implication was that somehow this heavy metal could leach out and get into the environment — and that this too was a “bad thing”. Then we were told that we should eliminate materials such as Cadmium, and more recently Mercury. In all of this earlier modest activity there did not seem to be any great urgency and consumers were certainly not making buying decisions based on which materials – or not – were used in televisions, display monitors, or other display-based products. But now, with the interest in environmentally friendly products growing, we are seeing a few unusual behaviors along with the good results that are beginning to come our way. Perhaps the silliest overreaction I have encountered was recently reported in the Seattle newspaper. A lady telephoned the Hazardous Materials clean-up hotline because she had broken one of her new “squiggly” fluorescent light bulbs and was worried about all the Mercury she had spilled. And guess what, these folks dutifully responded to her call and after inspecting the premises told her that it would cost at least $30K to clean up her home to make it “safe” again. Of course, once this made the paper, more rational minds were somehow located and the problem was resolved by the common sense method known as “sweep up the broken pieces and open your window for a few hours”. In spite of these occasional bizarre events, recently we are beginning to see changes that may soon lead to buying decisions being influenced by how “green” we can make a display product. This new direction in product development became quite evident at the recent SID Display Week in Los Angeles. A number of major display manufacturers were showing flat panel televisions featuring reduced power consumption. The reduced power was prominently featured with large numerical displays next to “before” and “after” comparisons. Clearly this was intended as a product feature soon to be promoted along with display quality, styling, and price. Seeing these more efficient displays reminded me of all the articles I have recently read about how conventional tungsten light bulbs will be gone in a few years replaced by the “squiggly” fluorescent ones that cause people to worry about how to dispose of them safely. There even seems to be a push in some parts of the world to introduce new laws that will make it illegal to sell or buy tungsten filament “energy inefficient” light sources. This of course got me thinking – are we really getting the benefits that are being touted? If a fluorescent bulb gives off the same amount of light as a 60-watt tungsten bulb but only uses 13 watts, do we really get a 47-watt saving? And likewise is this also true for a more efficient flat panel television? Where does the extra power lost in a tungsten lamp go? How much do I really save if the fluorescent light source costs several times more than the tungsten light bulb? It should be no great surprise to any of us that the power consumed by a 60-watt tungsten light bulb shows up as either light or heat. The emission spectrum is simply that of a black body radiator that has a temperature of roughly 2300 degrees Kelvin. So a light bulb will give us a relatively small percentage of its energy as light and all the rest will be radiated as heat into our environment. But is that necessarily environmentally bad? Are we paying a 47-watt penalty for the use of a tungsten light source as compared to the “squiggly” one? As it turns out — that depends on where you live and how warm you like to be. Here in Seattle for 10 months of the year the average daytime high temperature is at or below 70º F. In cities such as New York, Denver, Boston, and San Francisco the average daytime high is at or below 70º F for 8 months of each year. Even in places such as Los Angeles and Kansas City the average daytime high doesn’t exceed 70º F for 7 months of the year. It’s only in places like Atlanta (5 months) and Austin (3 months), and of course cities in Florida and Hawaii where the daytime highs are consistently above 70º F. But this is the daytime high temperature that in most locations typically occurs for only a few hours each day – it’s not the average temperature. Therefore, it seems to me that in many locations — not just in the US but worldwide – most of the energy from a conventional tungsten bulb is not wasted at all. It’s used to supplement whatever other energy source is used to heat the home. And even in the summer months when the temperatures are higher, the days are also longer and there is less need for artificial light. The worst case of course is in climates where air conditioning is used on a regular basis. Then the extra heat energy produced by the 60-watt bulb is not only wasted but there is a double penalty because even more energy has to be consumed by the air conditioner to remove this extra heat. There is certainly nothing wrong with improving the efficiency of all of our products – from light bulbs to televisions, and especially to battery powered portable devices. However, it’s inaccurate to promote this saving’s as an absolute value based simply on the relative power consumed by these devices. For

Elegant Simplicity… A few days ago, I went to the store on a very simple errand — I needed some shampoo and toothpaste. Now, I’m not a connoisseur of either of these items but I do know what brand is my favorite in each. A secondary goal in performing such errands is to accomplish them as quickly as possible. Thus, my expectation was that this task would take no more than a few minutes to locate the items and head for the check-stand. Ah, but life was about to throw me an unexpected and complicating curve. It didn’t take much time at all to locate the desired brands of both the shampoo and the toothpaste. But instead of finding what I thought I wanted, I was confronted with a dozen bewildering choices. The same brand of shampoo now came in many varieties for hair types that I didn’t even know existed. And the same for the toothpaste. I had no idea that people could have so many different kinds of teeth! I personally have just the regular kind that I use mostly for chewing and eating. I ended my shopping errand making my best guess at the toothpaste that I thought would match what I have been using for the past year or so. As for the shampoo, I had no idea which one it was that had become my favorite. I had to return home empty-handed to make a more careful study of the nearly empty bottle to see if I could find a match the next day. And yes, on the second trip, I succeeded! Clearly, our lives have become more complicated. Choices are good. But is it useful to populate store shelves with products that are virtually indistinguishable?Is it possible that the marketing departments in these companies are getting a bit carried away in trying to come up with new ways to sell these products? Of course, we in the display industry would never be caught doing anything so silly. Well, maybe not, but we need to be careful because we may be getting uncomfortably close to it. Consider this quote from a recent article in the Seattle PI newspaper. “Before they ship PCs to retailers such as Best Buy, computer makers load them up with lots of free software. For $30, Best Buy will get rid of it for you.” How about that? We now have to pay to unclutter a product before it will perform its intended tasks as efficiently as originally designed. Another article, this one in Popular Science magazine, describes a new trend to compact, lower-power desktop computers that perform all the tasks we normally need without the noisy cooling fans and large footprints of the traditional “towers” that intrude into our work areas. The only limitation of these new computer designs is that they are not optimal for heavy-duty video gaming – not something that I have ever contemplated doing with my office computer. Over the past year, Microsoft has had a struggle to convince the world that Vista is the next great operating system. Could it be that this Windows version has become so bloated with “features” that for many of us these extra features begin to look like unnecessary and burdensome clutter. What about displays? Are we immune from all this feature proliferation? Do we just make elegant products that are simple to use? Well, almost. I recently examined the latest model of an LCD television. I found 26 input connections on the back – 27 if you include the power plug. To the typical consumer, some of these connections are fairly obvious while others are not. Then, of course, there is the menu on the remote control that in intended to “help” the user select the proper combinations of these inputs to display the desired image. Does “INPUT 7” showing up on the screen menu help when there is nothing labeled “Input 7” on the back of the television? I had to resort to the printed manual to sort out how all this was intended to work. Wasn’t DVI, and/or other new interconnection standards, supposed to fix these problems? Well, this particular state-of-the-art LCD television has a VGA connector as one of the 26 choices, but not a DVI. The ancient RCA plug still seems to dominate – at least by counting the number of openings to “stick something into”. Looking from the more important side of the display – the image making side — the major remaining challenge appears to be the variety of formats and how consumers are asked to choose them. Should they take the typical 4:3 image and show it as is? Do they stretch everything uniformly and make everyone look fat? Do they do a proportional stretch to emphasize the border regions and have scrolling text along the bottom look strange? Or should we expect the typical television watcher to just ignore these image distortions and put up with whatever setting happens to come up first? In time, as the digital formats become more prevalent and as the majority of the world becomes populated with wide-screen displays, this problem should begin to go away. But the next decade is going to be especially challenging as we struggle to accomplish the transition from analog to digital transmission. Off-the-air signals will soon go all-digital, but the majority of US viewers get their television programs from cable or other sources. And those signals are not going all-digital anytime soon. So the format and signal quality issues will stay with us for much longer than perhaps we engineers would like to see. As we are beginning to experience in the personal computer market, product elegance and simplicity are likely to become more important as consumers figure out that too many features and too many choices are not necessarily a benefit. It is great to see companies become increasingly aware of this trend. The challenge for the product manufacturers and sellers will be that simplicity does not always

Finally, I Saw One… For many months now, we have heard about a new product so popular and so in demand that it is, most of the time, “sold out”. Given such popularity one would expect to begin to see this item in widespread use. Since the key feature of this product is a new display technology, it’s natural that we in the display industry would have a keen interest in following its success. The product to which I am referring is, of course, the new electronic book reader from Amazon – the Kindle™. Given that I spend considerable time in airports and on airplanes, where better to see such new products in action than where crowds of people are sitting around in confined spaces — with nothing else to do but work on their computers, watch a barely viewable movie, or read a book. These activities, interspersed with sleeping, seem to be about equally popular. With all of this time-passing going on, one would expect that airports and airplanes should be prime usage areas for a new product such as an E-book. Therefore, if the Kindle is so popular and so much in demand, shouldn’t we be seeing them just about “everywhere”? Over the last few months, I have made a point to watch for this developing phenomenon. But so far it’s been a search in futility. That is up until my most recent trip from Washington DC to Seattle – well, by way of Portland actually, a detour not in my original plan. Maybe it was fate that took me on this unplanned detour so I could finally see a real Kindle in action. This particular Kindle was in the possession of a nice, professional-looking lady who had perhaps done a considerable amount of business entertaining over ample dinners. From what I could observe, her size actually made it easier to position the Kindle for convenient reading — which to me, incidentally, has an uncanny resemblance to a small etch-a-sketch. My observation point for studying the ergonomic aspects of this new product was quite ideal since she was sitting one row ahead of me and in the opposite aisle seat. Thus, I was able to do a thorough but unobtrusive study regarding the ease of using this new method of reading. For a nice comparison, sitting next to her was a gentleman reading an “old-fashioned” conventional book. Given the quality of lighting in airplanes, with a combination of partial window light mixed with the not-so-great overhead reading lights, the display on the E-book was readable but not nearly as crisp as the conventional paper book being read by the passenger next to her. The contrast ratio was not nearly as high as it was for the conventional book and while the text on the E-book was readable it had a hazy washed-out appearance. The overall sense I had was that positioning the display of the E-reader was fairly important to avoid surface reflections from the surrounding ambient light. By comparison this was of little importance for the conventional book. My second observation was that holding the E-book was not nearly as convenient or comfortable as an old-style printed book. All of us have developed a variety of easy and comfortable ways for holding conventional books. We can use the one-handed thumb-in-front approach. Or we can use both hands in various positions. Or we can simply lay the book down on the tray table in front of us. Holding the pages open by the edges or even in the middle is, of course, entirely acceptable. There are no finger smudges to worry about. With the E-reader, I noticed that the only really acceptable position seemed to be to hold it by its sides with one hand on each edge and with the E-reader tilted in a near-orthogonal position to the reader’s eyes. I also noted that over a several hour period this required frequent changes of hand position and the resting of one hand while the other hand maintained the E-reader in its optimum viewing position. Thus, the obvious question arises why would anyone seek out and purchase such a product — especially since it cannot be tossed away after several hours of rough handling and being tucked into various damage-prone locations such as the outer pocket of a purse or briefcase. The obvious advantage that an E-book provides is that it can become any book that you want it to be – or even many books all at once. All it takes is some time to download, for a typically lower price than the purchase of a conventional book. So are we willing to give up some visual comfort and convenience for the lower cost of an E-book? That doesn’t seem like a sufficiently good reason. It will take at least a few dozen book purchases before break-even is reached. Most of us don’t read more than perhaps one full-length book per month so that’s several years’ worth of casual airplane reading material. By then, the E-reader may be ready for a replacement. On the other hand, if we need reference material that encompasses several volumes, then isn’t it easier to have this available on our laptop computers? Is the advantage of the E-book that it has more hours of battery life? That doesn’t seem like a sufficiently compelling reason either. As I reviewed my observations, I was left to wonder what exactly is so great about this product that would cause it to be in presumably such high demand. Portable music players and portable movie players I understand. Cell phones – built-in cameras and all – I too understand. People sitting in coffee shops on Saturday mornings staring at their laptop computers, I also understand. But the E-reader, in its present state of development, I don’t understand. It’s good for us in the display industry because it’s providing an entry point for a new display technology, in perhaps a similar way that laptop computers did for

A Lesson from History… It can be very beneficial to be able to predict the future. It makes business decisions ever so much easier. It makes career choices less risky. And it should improve the utilization of engineering resources. Why, for example, would any of us want to work on a technology that is doomed to never make it into a practical application? But can we really see into the future well enough to accurately assess how the world will evolve and which technologies are most likely to succeed? We know from reading the popular press, and watching television talk shows, that there are plenty of prognosticators who make audacious predictions that seem to have the primary goal of creating fame and fortune for their authors — with little connection to the reality we will be experiencing in the years to come. Consider, for example, Nanobots that will soon circulate in our bodies to eliminate diseases, imminent eternal life, and computers that are about to replace human intelligence. These are just a few of the fundamentally flawed predictions that have been put forth in an attempt to capture our imaginations. Can we do better? I believe we can. However, the unfortunate result of being more accurate and more astute is likely to be that – even when the eventual reality precisely matches our analysis — the end result will be perceived as “boringly obvious”. What then is the reward for being right? By the time the future happens and matches precisely what we said (no matter how contrary and brilliant our predictions might have been at the time) it will look like an obvious outcome. Nevertheless, perhaps we can learn and apply a few lessons from history. Over twenty years ago, in 1986, I prepared a presentation to try to look ahead at where I thought the world of displays would be in ten years – in 1996. Certainly from our viewpoint of 2008 we should be able to assess what happened according to our expectations and what did not come about as we thought it would. So return with me back to 1986 and let’s see what the display world looked like at the time. In 1986, the worldwide display marketplace for Electronic Displays totaled $8.39 billion and of this total CRT displays constituted $6.57 billion. LCDs of all types were in third place behind LEDs with a total market of $0.613 billion. Plasma panels of all types had a total worldwide market of $0.083 billion. The US market for CRT displays was $1.65 billion and the total US market for LCDs was $0.097 billion. Given this CRT dominated world, with LCD sales less than 1% of what they are today, here are the predictions that I made for what I thought we would be experiencing when we arrived ten years later – in 1996. Information vs. Time The quantity of information is going to be increasing. Information “velocity” is increasing. We tend to attack the greatest impediment. Time to create, duplicate, transmit, understand, organize, and/or respond. Teleconference Will remain a CRT-based technology except for a small segment of portable personal computers – Quality will be acceptable. Will evolve as a byproduct of computer terminals and personal computers. Excellent market for B&W as well as color hardcopy devices. Need for convenient data input devices. No replacement for existing activities such as conference travel New applications will evolve – Transmission of computer data. People will not look at each other – Computers will. The Electronic Office As presently conceived, it won’t happen. Electronics will supplement paper. Electronics used to analyze and reconfigure databases. Color readily available for copying or output from electronic databases. There will be more paper than today. Personal and Business Computers Trend to full color and high resolution Excellent market for color hard-copy Need for convenient data input devices Continuation of CRT dominance Color will become universally accepted Portable personal computers will only have a small market share Portables will use LCD matrix-addressed flat-panel technology for low power Plasma, Thin Film EL, and Vacuum Fluorescent Displays will be used in some applications. Input & Output Devices Major obstacle to PC usage Voice input and output will replace the keyboard Intelligent image acquisition and analysis will be available Users will have a choice of voice, visual, hard copy, or data stream I/O. High Definition TV CRT is only viable technology Broadcast standards are a very significant obstacle First success will be through video disc or video tape Direct satellite broadcast will follow using signal compression and decoding Standard TV will probably never convert to high-definition Helped by home computers and complex video games — Home video center Large Screen Home Displays CRT-based front and rear projection Technology still improving rapidly – Need ~1500 lines of resolution Potential for fast growth – More companies entering business – Increasing competition Rear projection beginning to dominate 40-50 inches the major competition Costs need to come down from the $2500 – $4000 range to $1000 – $1500 for large market penetration Home video center 3-D only in lab experiments Image Simulation Good use of high-definition TV and/or projection Complex video games Instructional use (Learn to fly an airplane) CRT dominance Greatest need is software development and fast memory Automotive Applications – transportation Best new market for display technology Major changeover in next 3 – 5 years Back-lit LCD will be the primary technology Biggest market for flat panels Map projection and position location via satellite will happen in early 90s Automotive displays will be inexpensive but will include matrix-addressed portions Avionics – high resolution color CRTs (Military also will change from B&W to color) “Wearable” Electronics Proliferation of all technologies Many approaches – None dominant (Mini CRTs, LCD, EL) Excellent growth potential as replacement for audio marketplace In-stadium broadcasts From our current viewpoint of 2008, it’s really quite interesting to see how well we did in predicting 1996. We’re not that far off even for 2008. The biggest miss — in

Could This Be the Answer?… As a reader of these columns, perhaps you have already noted that on several occasions I have expressed doubts about the anticipated commercial success of electronic books. In my travels, I have seen only a few in actual use and it’s not at all clear to me what compelling advantage they have or what existing problem they solve. A conventional book has always seemed much better suited to the cramped environment of an airplane — or even as a comfortable object to curl up with in front of the proverbial fire on a dreary winter day. However, something in the last few days caught my eye that could perhaps change my currently somewhat negative opinion of E-books. At this year’s FPD International show in Japan, Samsung showed an OLED display that folds down the middle — just like a conventional book. Actually, the photo that I saw of this display looks even better than a printed book because the left and right images are almost perfectly matched with only a barely visible seam. Whoa… Suddenly, this looks like a real live book, but maybe even better. Even if the two displays are not flexible, this concept could create a breakthrough for the E-book application. The possibility of carrying and using an electronic book that folds into a sturdy clamshell and then opens to reveal two pages of text — just like a “real” book — takes on an appeal that the current models don’t come close to offering. Think about it. With this display we can emulate the way a printed book looks and feels. We can create a resistive “hinge” that would allow the two displays to be held partly folded just like a regular book. Two pages can be displayed at the same time also like a printed book. And full color images can be displayed just like the best quality printed magazines. Touch sensitive surfaces could provide the feel of turning pages. However, with this display we can do all this and then much more. We could instantly convert from reading a book to watching a movie. We could connect to any computer or Internet device. And we can do all this in full color, high resolution, and with full-motion video capability. This concept of “foldability” to create a rugged portable clam-shell display combined with the use of OLED technology — rather than an alternative that does not produce full color or is limited to slow refresh rates — creates an entirely new opportunity that simply begs to be exploited. We have already entered the era where we are evermore dependent on having various communication devices with us at all times. Some of us are so addicted to this non-stop world of staying “in touch” that we cannot even stow our carry- on luggage without desperately grasping at the cell phone squeezed between our shoulder and ear. Or having our hand-held e-mail devices ready for instant access as the plane lands and begins to exit the active runway. In this environment, an electronic book that can be opened and closed like a printed book and that can instantly display information of our choosing could become an indispensable travel companion. To have a portable device that can be used to access text from a book, a full-color magazine, a movie, a game, or even a work-related document, all in a two-page format — now that’s a gadget that I could readily wish for Santa Claus to bring me this Christmas. Often the difference between a mediocre product and one that proves to be truly successful is a seemingly small modification. As we have seen time and again, the folks at Apple seem to know how to do this better than most others. Perhaps they or someone else will finally refine this E-book concept into something truly exciting. For that, I can hardly wait. Given such great opportunities for the development of new exciting products, we in the worldwide display community have much to be thankful for this Christmas Season. We have many wonderful and as yet unidentified opportunities before us. For consumers in all parts of the world, we are the Elves in Santa’s workshop who help to create all the great new products that make their lives more interesting. And for that we can thank the Santa Clauses of our choice for giving us these unlimited opportunities to make such valuable contributions. I close this month’s column with my warmest wishes to each and every one of you this Holiday Season. Should you wish to discuss any of these topics with me, it would be my pleasure to hear from you through this web-site, directly via HYPERLINK silzars@attglobal.net, or by phone at 425-898-9117.  

It Can’t be Fixed… Christmas has come and gone – all too quickly as usual. Was Santa Claus good to you? Did you receive a few new electronic gadgets and gizmos? Have you been able to uncover all of the multi-level menus and unravel all of the “features” built into these electronic wonders? If you have, you are in a very small and exclusive minority. It seems that even the simplest of gadgets must now come with a digital processor and a multiplicity of capabilities that can only be accessed by a thorough study of a mostly confusing instruction manual. For example, last year for Christmas, I received a new electric shaver. Now, one would think that it would be sufficient for an electric shaver to have an on-off switch and a simple mechanical assembly to activate the hair trimmer. But apparently, such elegant simplicity no longer results in a product that can be sold as a Christmas present. Thus, my new shaver came with an indicator to show me when the rechargeable battery was low, and also an indicator to tell me when the shaving head needed replacing. Up to now, I had always thought that this was a rather obvious situation indicated by when the shaver was taking way too long to do it’s intended function and/or felt like my face was getting a rubdown with a sheet of sandpaper. In addition to these electronic indicators, there was an electronically activated cleaning bath assembly that needed a special solution that “automatically” performed the function of transferring the accumulated beard particles from the shaver into the solution that then had to be periodically replaced. This “feature” was the greatest puzzle to me. How did it become more convenient for a user to have to clean the cleaning solution instead of just cleaning the shaver? Needless to say, I did not put this part of my Christmas present into use. Thus, after a few weeks of experimenting, I finally made peace with this electronic marvel and for a number of months we lived in mostly user-friendly harmony. But then suddenly one day in October, the shaver quit working. No matter how many times I flipped the switch, there was no response whatsoever. Dead as can be. Well, being the typical engineer, I decided that a quick repair was in order. What could it be? Perhaps a faulty switch or a rechargeable battery gone bad? That shouldn’t be so hard to fix. My first hint of the challenge that lay ahead should have been the apparent lack of any obvious way to disassemble the outer case. However, having considerable experience with other products such as the display modules on laptop computers, I started searching for the typical hidden snap fittings. Given this knowledge, it didn’t take all that long to figure out how the various outer casing pieces came apart. Next came the examination of the switch and the batteries — nothing wrong with either one. The batteries were fully charged and the on/off switch was working just fine. And since the batteries were charged and functioning, the charging circuit also had to be working. It was then that I encountered the insurmountable obstacle. The shaver contained a small circuit board with about two dozen surface mount components including one custom logic chip in the middle of it all. Why would a shaver need a logic chip and all this circuitry? Well, of course. It was there to keep track of and operate all the “features” that I wasn’t using. So after an hour or so of attempted repairs, I had to give up and toss this feature-laden but non-functioning shaver into the trash. So much for “green technology” and saving the environment. Unfortunately, this same experience will be repeated over and over again with our current electronic gadgets — be they cameras, cell phones, music players, computers, or even large screen televisions. Circuit boards using tiny surface mount components – many specially made for that product – are simply not repairable at the component level. The user has to depend on the manufacturers’ willingness to stock the various boards so that a repair can be made at the board level. Given the number of products that are introduced each year, it is highly unlikely that replacement boards will be available for more than a few years at best — and then only for complex products such as large screen televisions. In spite of all the efforts to develop “green technology”, and the stated desires to conserve the environment, over the last few decades we have taken a major step backward from the time when electronic devices contained circuit boards with standard discrete components. The other sad result is that we are no longer able to buy products such as cameras expecting to use them for many years to come. A traditional mechanical 35mm camera could be expected to function for at least 20 or 30 years and even 50 year-old cameras are still useable. That will not be the case with the current models. Once an electronic component fails there will be no replacement available – and there will be no stock of custom flexible circuit boards for every model that has been introduced with each passing year. Recently, I was asked about a repair that had been made to an almost-new flat panel television. The service technician had explained that both the power supply and signal processing boards needed replacement. My first question was; how did the service technician know that the signal processing board was bad if the power supply wasn’t working? My suspicion is that the typical approach is to replace everything that could possibly be causing a problem so that a second visit is not required. (I have encountered this same approach in getting anything electronics-related repaired on my car). Almost imperceptibly, our electronic world has changed and most of us hardly noticed. We can no longer go to the local electronics supplier and buy

A Family’s Evening Out — In the Year 2024… Jeff was happy to be turning into his driveway after another typically busy day working for a large electronics module company. Commute traffic had been heavy, as usual, and the last few years at work had been especially difficult with the demands being made by management to improve the capabilities of the latest micro-modules. The growing acceptance of these miniature plug-in modules, popularly known as “knowledge cubes,” had really made his electronic packaging skills vital. It wasn’t much of a surprise that these hardware modules had, over the last few years, become the robust replacements for what had previously been done with downloaded software that had become ever more susceptible to viruses and hackers. While he liked the idea of being a packaging engineer highly in demand, he didn’t like the high-pressure environment, and he didn’t like having to continually meet such tight schedules for new product introductions. Sure, it was great for consumers to be able to acquire the latest voice-recognition, image-manipulation, or text-processing capabilities, configured as plug-in modules in cute little cubes, but introducing several new products each week was becoming quite a challenge for him and for his company. What did everyone think? That these little cubes could be created like popcorn? Sure, they were easy to use and fun to collect, but didn’t people realize all the engineering that had to go into the development of each one of them? Thus, it was quite understandable that Jeff was glad to be home. He was also glad that his wife Diane was there to greet him. Maybe she would give him some sympathy after his tough day. But just as he was about to say, “Would you like to hear the latest my boss came up with today?” his wife beat him to it with her own opening comment, “You wouldn’t believe what one of my clients did to me today. I don’t even want to talk about it. I’ve decided that we can just take the kids and go out this evening.” Well, this wasn’t exactly what Jeff had in mind, but being a pretty understanding guy, and quick at assessing such family situations, he responded with, “Hey, that’s just what I was thinking on my way home. How about going for a quick dinner and a movie?” “OK, I’ll get the kids and we’ll join you in the car in a few minutes,” responded Diane. Actually, Jeff didn’t mind this abrupt change in plans all that much. Whether at home or in the car, this would give the family some time together. And in any case, cars over the last few years had evolved to be quite suitable for these kinds of family gatherings. Jeff could still remember the time, around the turn of the century, when the new and dramatically redesigned VW Beetle had made such a hit and when behemoth-sized Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) became ever more popular. And even though the car companies had never been known as brilliant innovators, there had been a gradual evolution to vehicles that were comfortable and functional, with lots of entertainment options. Remembering back to that time, when he was just entering college, brought a smile to Jeff’s face. He had bought a well-worn VW Beetle to drive while getting his EE degree and here he was driving a vehicle some twenty years later that had all the appearances of having been cross-bred between that VW Beetle and the SUVs of that era. The family’s first stop that evening was at a popular drive-in restaurant offering the typical menu of custom-made burgers and sandwiches, a variety of drinks including all the shakes, floats, and sodas known to mankind, and a variety of other menu choices for those with more sophisticated or substantial appetites. Their server took their order, entering it via a portable remote terminal, and in a few minutes returned with the tray holding their meals. The tray was placed onto their partly lowered driver-side window — just as drive-in restaurants have done for the last 75 or 80 years. Jeff and Diane always found it interesting how these park-while-you-eat drive-in restaurants had made such a comeback over the past 20 years while drive-through fast-food chains so popular at the turn-of-the-century were no longer as ubiquitous. When they were younger, they had watched movies about how teenagers used to use drive-in restaurants as gathering places in the 1950s and 60s, but they hadn’t really anticipated that they, as adults, would enjoy these drive-ins as much as they now did. Maybe it had something to do with the children being at an age where more traditional restaurants weren’t that well suited for them. However, looking at the other cars, people of all ages and all group-sizes seemed to be similarly enjoying their evening out. Perhaps it was because cars were now so comfortable and capable of providing all the entertainment and wireless communications capability that kept both adults and kids fully occupied. After finishing their meal, it was time to take in the main event, a movie carefully selected by Diane to appeal both to them and to their two teenage children — they hoped. As they pulled into the drive-in theater, they were asked if they needed an audio-receive module or if they would like to use their car’s audio system. Almost everyone opted for using their own audio systems with only a few of the older cars — those without high-capacity storage cells — plugging into the variable-voltage power sources provided at every parking spot. Even though Diane was pretty sure that the kids would enjoy the movie and stay in the vehicle with their parents, she had come prepared with a back-up strategy. If the movie became too boring for them, the kids could go to the nearby game arcade and play the newest virtual reality games while Mom and Dad watched the movie. Of course, she and Jeff also enjoyed many of