Aris Silzard

Flexible Displays – Why?… For over two thousand years we have had flexible displays. From my imprecise recollection of history, it would appear that papyrus roll-to-roll displays were around for quite some time before we decided to put written information onto “pages” in the shapes and sizes that resemble today’s books. Over many centuries, techniques for making these “pages” improved and new uses were found. Gradually, these flexible displays evolved into the variety of useful formats that we see today – books and magazines on paper, signs and banners on cloth and a variety of other materials, and even “wearable” flexible displays such as T-shirts and other articles of clothing. The one obvious limitation of all these display formats is that they cannot be readily and frequently updated. If we are finished reading a magazine and would like new information, we have to discard the old one and find a place that sells us a new one. Of course this information that we so casually discard is potentially reusable by someone else who has not seen it yet. As for the T-shirt slogans that were so cute just a few months ago, they may no longer fit into the latest fashion or political statement. This leads one to the “obvious” conclusion that a combination of flexibility and change-ability should be something that many of us wish to have.Some years ago, I was taught in a marketing class that the fundamental path to business success is to “find a need and meet it”. So what could more clearly be a need — if flexibility is good and change-ability is also good then the two together should be really good? This combination, therefore, surely must meet new needs that neither flexible non-changeable displays nor non-flexible changeable displays can satisfy. For the moment, let’s accept this premise. Given this assumption we are, however, still left with a “minor” nagging problem. Namely, once we have created our superbly flexible displays, how do we get new information into them? At this stage of our display technology development, the only way we know how to do high-information-content two-dimensional displays, that can be updated with a wide variety of images, is to use rows and columns with the junctures representing the information points we can address. That means that every row and every column must have a connection to it, and this connection must lead to some kind of electronic circuitry that will provide the voltages and currents to put the information into all of the pixels of our flexible display.With this requirement, our up-to-now elegant display medium has suddenly acquired a complicated umbilical cord. We could, of course, assume that there must be a way to make the electronics also flexible and easy to integrate into or onto the display itself. If we do that, then we will still need a connection to the information source, but the connection will be much simpler.However, by the time we have added the drive electronics and a power source, such as a battery pack, the promise of a display that will have the look and feel of a piece of high-quality paper is met only if we ignore these extra items needed to make it work. We may also be disappointed that the display does not really look and feel like “real” paper, and that the resolution is limited by the fixed format of the rows and columns.Nevertheless, if there is a market potential such inconveniences should not get in the way. An excellent example of this is the laptop computer. The early LC displays for these computers were truly awful. They were monochrome with poor contrast and virtually no gray scale. They were slow to respond and had limited resolution. But these rudimentary passive matrix-addressed LCDs were the only way to make a laptop computer. And we all wanted one! Therefore, in spite of all the imperfections, the technology was used and a revolutionary product was successfully brought to market. Is there such an opportunity for flexible displays?What could be some new applications where flexibility combined with updateable information is so important that we will make use of such a product even in its early stages of development? Hmmm… Books and magazines seem to be doing just fine in their existing formats. So far all of the attempts to make them “electronic” have not had much success. There is something very convenient and comforting about a book, and the turning of pages gives one a satisfying measure of progress. The cost of the paper medium is so low that buying a new one is not a concern. Posters and banners may benefit from flexibility along with updating capability but it may have to be at a cost that will have to be competitive with conventional printing. And, in any case, that may be a limited market because billboards and other “boards” that are not flexible can provide the desired information content in most applications. Well then, how about “wearable” displays or displays for portable electronic appliances? We are becoming more and more connected through cell phones and the Internet. But what advantage will we gain from flexibility? It seems to me that flexibility in itself may not do that much for us. However, suppose you could have a display that is not only flexible but is very thin. Suppose you can have a display that is emissive, i.e. does not require a back light, and that is in addition so thin that it can easily be implemented into all kinds of portable and “wearable” electronic appliances. And suppose that these displays can be scaled up to larger sizes and used almost like wallpaper. Perhaps now, we may be onto something. The interesting answer may not lie in flexibility but in thinness. Would this satisfy the marketing fundamental of “finding a need and meeting it”? I certainly would not hesitate to consider a business venture that could bring to market displays that are very thin and can be

In Search of Something… Have you ever wandered around a bookstore looking for something to spark your interest? Have you ever had to look for information on a topic that was unfamiliar to you and you didn’t know quite where to start? Or have you ever been looking for something but then got distracted by another item that turned out to be even more interesting? Or do you sometimes just like to look at the “new and different” because it can be an inspiration to you? Just today I received a mini-catalog from a large industrial supply company. It’s a company that considers me a regular customer. At that moment, I really couldn’t think of anything I needed, but decided to browse through the catalog anyway while waiting for a pre-arranged telephone conference to begin. Well, guess what? I found several interesting items that up until then I didn’t realize I “needed”. I suppose to be precise, I still really don’t “need” them but they sure would be nice to have. By casually browsing through this catalog, I learned about some new machining capabilities. I added to my knowledge of what is available in the world of machine tools – an area where I don’t consider myself an expert. The common thread in all of the above is that sometimes we don’t really know what we want. This could simply be because we are bored and/or spoiled by the many “toys” we already have, or it could be a more legitimate reason that we are undertaking a search for knowledge in an area relatively new to us. To me this demonstrates that there is a benefit — perhaps one difficult to quantify – of being exposed to new information that is outside our normal range of interests. It can be a stimulant for new ideas and a way to enhance the creative application of the knowledge base in our already established areas of expertise. With all the recent emphasis on search engines, and in placing virtually all the world’s knowledge onto electronic data bases, should we be prepared to give up on printed material all together? Is there an imminent alternative that will replace my catalog browsing experience?For all the great things that Google and other search engines have already done for us, I predict that there is still going to be a place for information in the well-known printed format. It seems to me that computer and communications technology have enhanced what we can do but have not yet proven adept at taking over all of our information gathering and presentation tasks. And I don’t see anything that is likely to change that in at least the next decade. The market for electronic books turned out to be mostly a dud. Internet commerce has grown, but in a way that closely parallels traditional mail order shopping – with an on-line catalog that is typically harder to use, but perhaps more up to date. Ebay has opened up the entire world to those of us who are always searching for some specialized piece of scientific or test equipment. The various search engines allow me to find information on products, companies, and individuals from the convenience of my desk.But what if I really don’t know what I want? How can I use my computer to find out about things that have not even occurred to me? That is where I would suggest we benefit from printed books, catalogs, and advertisements. That is also where we benefit from conventional stores, product exhibitions, and random real-life experiences. Why do most of us still attend technical conferences? The technical information presented can be purchases on CDs and in printed Proceedings. For me, the real reason for attending is in the personal contacts and the one-on-one discussions that lead me to insights behind and beyond the purely technical presentations. By interacting and participating, I hear ideas and interpretations of what is going on that otherwise would never come my way. These end up being the real stimulants that guide my future thinking. As it turns out, it was one of these discussions that prompted this column. The comment was made that members of the “younger generation” no longer want to read technical information in the “old fashioned” printed format. Instead, they just use their computers to search for whatever they think they need to know. On the surface that seems like a very efficient process – except that it eliminates the creative stimulant that can come from learning about things that perhaps at that moment are not so important but later on could lead to a combination of ideas into something truly innovative. Are we reducing the creativity of this new generation of engineers by limiting their experiences to only the immediate tasks at hand? Prior to graduate school, my own college education was at a liberal arts college with a strong emphasis on non-technical subjects. Therefore, even though I graduated with a BA degree in Physics, I was exposed to many subjects that at the time seemed unimportant to my future. But so much of what I then considered “useless” effort has proven to be exactly the opposite. There is more to learning and gaining life experiences than keeping oneself confined to the immediate needs of an engineering class or a narrow technical discipline.Printed information will, of course, change over time in response to what is available through electronic media. And perhaps someday we will have displays that can immerse us into browsing environments that are even more effective than reading printed information or visiting a bookstore. But that will require displays that are nearly as large as all the walls of an entire room and have multi-Gigapixel capability. Perhaps it will also require realistic 3D capability. At the present time, these are challenges that we in the display industry are just beginning to think about. We are in our infancy in the development of such large and high information content displays –

A Wonderful Uncertainty… This year’s Christmas shopping season is in full swing. Merchants are doing their best to get us to spend, spend, spend. Some stores are opening at ridiculous hours such as 5:00 am with special bargains to get people to stand in line for hours even before that. Fights are erupting as these grumpy sleep-deprived early risers try to get to the specially priced items that enticed them there to begin with. The “word” is out that this will be the year of electronic purchases and especially flat panel televisions. A few days ago, I saw an ad for a 32” LCD TV for $697! Have flat panels now dropped so far in price as to compete with, and even under-price, CRT televisions? More and more popular magazines are coming out with articles trying to explain the differences between LCD, Plasma, rear and front projection technologies, and how these may compare to the traditional CRT televisions. Almost all of these articles are full of technical errors and misstatements that most likely will do more harm than good. (I read one just today that implied that all flat panel televisions were HDTV while CRT sets were not.) The no-longer-valid statements that plasma displays use much more power and have problems with image burn-in are continuing to be emphasized. Nevertheless, accurate or not, these articles are adding to the shopping frenzy that seems to be engulfing the display industry. The convergence of digital recording media, digital television, and flat panel technologies is becoming like the forces in a perfect storm. Quite suddenly it seems, nearly everyone in the world has awakened to a “need” for a flat panel television. The perception is that the great new flat panel technologies are an absolute must for all kinds of video entertainment viewing. Since this “need” is now so “obvious” to everyone, the rational product evaluation processes that normally might apply have been abandoned. Consumers have mostly given up on trying to figure out the real benefits of one technology over another and are making purchases based on the pure desire to own a product with “great new digital flat-panel technology”. The only operative limitation seems to be how much one is able to spend. Are the credit cards “maxed out” yet? This emotion-driven market does not yield well to rational analysis. Which products and which technologies will be the most popular? How quickly will sales grow? Can the CRT still keep a market share with a bulkier but higher-quality image at a lower price? Or will the emotion-driven desire for a flat-panel technology send it to a premature death? Wow! What confusion! What uncertainty! But what a great Christmas present for the display industry! And this will be a gift that keeps on giving for years to come. Along with this great blessing comes the frustration of not being able to figure out just how this will all turn out. For a business enterprise making major investments in plant and equipment this uncertainty can constitute a life or death decision. From a rational economic and scientific viewpoint, there should be a future where CRT technology continues to provide excellent viewing at the lowest price. Then, the smaller size flat panel displays for computers and televisions should end up being dominated by LCD technology and the larger flat panels should continue to be the natural turf of plasma displays. Also, in this rational world, the lower-priced large screens should continue to be based on rear projection technologies, and the really large home theaters are most likely implemented with front projectors installed in rooms having controlled illumination. And then, over several years, we should expect to see the gradual introduction of OLED technology that nicely establishes it’s own market — beginning with energy efficient portable devices. Is this scenario too obvious and too comfortable? What if LCD technology takes it all? Not one of the other technologies has the major support base of laptop and desktop displays — plus all of the even smaller displays in portable devices. Will this broad product base allow for the funding of so much development activity that the scale-up to larger sizes will become ever more cost effective? Will plasma and rear-projection technologies be relegated to ever-smaller market segments? Since personally I like variety, I sincerely hope not. But consumer behavior at the present time is so darn unpredictable. Poorly explained statements in newspapers and magazines such as “burn-in”, “runs hot”, and “uses lots of power” take on a life of their own. Most consumers seem unable to perceive the differences in image quality even among the products within a given technology. Therefore, an LCD television with 480-line resolution and inferior circuitry, but an attractive price, may end up in someone’s living room and be shown off to friends as their “great new flat-panel digital HDTV”. Perhaps over the next year, consumers will become more sophisticated and knowledgeable as the initial emotional enthusiasm dissipates. We in the display industry can do more to help. The promotional literature should teach as well as sell. Too many ads still emphasize a single meaningless number such as contrast ratio. We can do better. Nevertheless, the message this Christmas for the worldwide display community — and for many Christmases to come — is one of great joy, incredible growth, and the promise of even greater opportunities in the years ahead. Should you have some opinions on what the future holds for the display industry and how all this will turn out, please let me know via this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, by telephone at 425-898-9117, or by fax at 425-898-1727. And a Merry Christmas to all.

Virtual Unreality… It would seem reasonable that after more than 100 years of various unsuccessful attempts, technically knowledgeable people would have figured out that there must be more to creating realistic virtual reality than simply adding a second view of the same scene. A long time ago, at the dawn of the photography age, we already tried out various stereoscopic viewing devices for black and white photographs. The impression of depth could readily be observed but the scenes didn’t look “real”. Then, when movies came along, we tried again — beginning with rudimentary attempts using red and green glasses to separate the projected images. That was good for about a one-time experience. Then, when color movies became the norm, the attempts switched to polarizing glasses. Again, the feeling of depth could readily be created, but it looked no more “real” than the early black and white photographs. Once again, it took about one movie’s worth of viewing to decide that this wasn’t going to be a lasting technology. What was it that was missing that prevented us from enjoying these experiences more? Why did all of these 3-D efforts fail? Today, with the stereoscopic systems currently under development, we are no closer to creating truly realistic “virtual reality”; yet the popular press keeps publishing articles that claim that the next great technology leap will be the transformation of our video viewing experience to 3-D. And researchers continue to try to find various new ways to improve on the presentation of these stereo images with the conviction that once created they will enjoy widespread acceptance. Even technically astute publications such as the IEEE Spectrum seem to be comfortable with the viewpoint that with new “digital” technology stereoscopic 3-D is just around the corner for mainstream applications. An article in the November 2005 issue titled “The Sky Is Falling” discusses how the conversion to digital cinema “may also turn 3-D movie projection from a seldom-used gimmick into the commonplace”. As best I can tell, the reason given in this article for why this may happen is that with “digital projection systems” the implementation of 3-D viewing becomes cheaper. Is that all there is to it? If we make it cheaper then everyone will want it? Even though all the previous attempts failed, is something so fundamentally different this time that it’s going to happen? Not likely! As we have discussed in past columns, there is more to creating a truly realistic viewing experience than simply giving each of our eyes a separate image to view. When we try to do that, our eyes will indeed recognize the additional information but our eye-brain system will immediately classify the incoming data as phony. That is because we are missing the other depth cues that come from our eyes continually shifting position and scanning a scene, from depth-of-focus changes, and from subtle perspective changes that come from very small shifts in head position. For these reasons, attempts to create a realistic virtual environment with the simple addition of a second viewing channel are guaranteed to fail. We will always end up with what can be characterized as the “doll-house” effect. Ah, but wait! Could there be something happening that may yet provide our rudimentary 3-D technologies an entry point into a viewing experience that can be enjoyed more than one time, and perhaps become commercially successful? If we admit that we cannot create a believable reality, then where could we find an application for what we do know how to do? Well, what about the rapidly growing market for movies created using computer animation? We are seeing more films, such as Polar Express, being produced utilizing a peculiar blend of the real and the unreal. Our visual systems recognize these images as artificially generated, but we are nevertheless fascinated with the special effects that can be accomplished only through the imagination and computer skills of the creators. The creators of these movies must, however, be careful that they don’t make them “too real” because then our eye-brain system may begin to fight against this artificial reality. But the addition of rudimentary 3-D using only stereoscopy will introduce no such conflict. We may find this extra artificiality especially enjoyable in scenes that involve movement. The roller-coaster-like train rides in a movie such as Polar Express could be even more exciting in 3-D. Realism is not the end objective here. Creating an entertaining experience is sufficient. And for that, the addition of simple stereoscopic viewing is something that we may pay to see — more than once. Thus, a new genre of movie making, using computer animation, may finally be the path to acceptance of a technology that — for the foreseeable future — we only know how to do in a way that is not very “real” at all. Are you looking forward to rudimentary 3-D viewing in the coming years? How widely do you think this technology can penetrate the entertainment industry? For your thoughts on this topic, or others, you may contact me directly from this site, by e-mail silzars@attglobal.net, by phone 425-898-9117, or by fax at 425-898-1727.

Elegant Simplicity… I have owned the same medium-complexity digital camera for several years now. Mostly I use it in my lab to photograph experimental set-ups and the results of “lighting up” new display materials. I have installed a convenient cable connection that dangles from my desktop computer that makes it easy to transfer the photos from the camera for further analysis, retention, or in some cases sending to clients. But even after all this time of fairly regular use, there are “features” on this camera that I don’t know much about and haven’t learned how to use. I did try to learn a few, but without regular practice soon forgot. For these specialized features, it usually requires the help of the 100+ page instruction manual to unravel the menu-driven sequences through multiple levels of access. I also have a cell phone that I use for making telephone calls. Well, I guess that’s pretty obvious isn’t it? However, this cell phone also has a built in camera and various address and schedule organizing “features”. I have no idea how to use them. What I needed was a reliable phone, not a low performance camera nor a rudimentary organizer with a tiny low-resolution screen. And if I did want to use them, how do I get the pictures out of the phone and into my computer, and the address data sent in or out? I’m sure with enough effort I could figure all this out, but why should I be required to do that with every new product that I purchase? Recently, I have stayed in hotel rooms with new flat-panel televisions. These were all of the 9:16 aspect ratio and, as a result, on most programs the people looked like they were badly overweight. Yet the remote controls had nothing on them that would allow me to adjust the image size to the program material. This “feature” perhaps exists somewhere in these televisions, but there was no way to find the path. On the other hand, a few minutes ago, I put a CD in my portable player, put on a headset, and pushed “play”. Instantly, beautiful symphonic music surrounded me. Besides the music, the only information being provided to me was the number of the track being played and the time elapsed. With my existing collection of CDs, I am quite satisfied with this method for now. But I could also see doing the same simple approach with an Apple iPod. To make the change, I’ll just need to find the down-load sources for the kind of music I like. Why do so many companies seem driven by the need to add ever more features and novelty, but without the proper attention to how people are going to use them? Just because the design engineers can remember the multiple levels of menu-driven instruction they have created does not mean that the average person is going to enjoy spending a like number of hours to figure them out. It seems that the capabilities of our “intelligent machines” have gotten way ahead of our abilities to communicate with these machines. To give you a frustrating and silly example, one of the major hotel chains where I regularly stay has purchased new clock radios that are so confusing that I invariably go to sleep wondering if I am going to be awakened at the time I selected. Shouldn’t a clock radio in a hotel be designed to be as simple and obvious-to-use as possible? How many “functions” and “features” does such a product need? What do I care about how many stations can be pre-programmed and how many different ways the multiple alarm settings can be activated? Just because it can be done with a 49-cent microprocessor doesn’t mean that all possibilities need to be included. There really is something to be said for simplicity and elegance. What are the essential elements that you want to accomplish? Do you want to listen to music? How would you like to obtain the program material? With these simple questions answered, I should be able to give you a compact and simple device to create a wonderful listening experience. Would you like to watch movies or other video material? What is the simplest and most direct way that I can meet your viewing needs? Do you want to take a photo and then make a print? What is the least complicated method that I can design to allow you to do as much as you need in manipulating the captured image to give you a satisfactory print? But, what about that wonderful concept of the “digital electronic home” where these devices — along with the appliances and lighting fixtures — are all interconnected to a master computer that runs everything? Won’t this great capability allow us to do everything we want? Surely, once we learn all the capabilities that such a concept can provide, we will be willing to do whatever it takes to implement it! Several really well-known companies have been promoting such an idea. My plea is — please don’t go there! We may need our electronic devices to be able to easily transfer data using a common protocol, but that should be about it. We don’t need to create a tangle of interconnected devices where anything that can – and will — go wrong with any one of them could bring down the entire structure. It seems to me that as an industry we should be paying much more attention to how to maintain and repair all of these devices instead of just adding more features. Have you looked at a wiring diagram of some of the current products?. The “components” are complicated functional modules that were most likely custom designed for that particular product. What will happen in a few years if one of these modules fails? Where will you get a repair part? At what level will you do the repair — module or board? And who will do it?

Help, Quick, Before it’s too Late… Or is it too late already? Do new technology companies get more than one chance at success? In working with, evaluating, and otherwise participating in the evolution of new start-up companies, as well as those somewhat further along in developing toward real businesses, I have observed that there seem to be several identifiable phases that new companies go through. The first is what I am going to call the “nothing can go wrong” phase. That usually lasts about one year. This first phase is that exciting time after the initial round of funding has been obtained and the development work on the new technology begins in earnest. The work is characterized by the acquisition of equipment and facilities and the demonstration of the first results that invariably “prove” that the technology is on the verge of highly successful implementation. During this time, new employees are being added about as quickly as they can be interviewed — and convinced that this new company is presenting them with that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for technical and financial success. Then comes phase two. The sunny skies begin to cloud over and the warm comfortable days begin to be replaced by windy and stormy ones. The technology problems are more severe than were originally anticipated. The investors begin to get restless, and the employees begin to have more and more battles over work assignments and budget allocations. Turf wars break out in earnest. To try to assuage the investors, the founders ever so gradually begin to put a more and more favorable interpretation (spin) on the technical results. Engineers begin to worry that there is a widening gap between the official company position and reality. As time goes on, this gap turns into a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon. Is disaster at hand? Is it time to face up to the crisis? The surprising answer is – not necessarily. It is not only possible to continue in this mode for a number of years, it is even possible to raise additional funds and under certain favorable circumstances to take the company public. It all depends on the promotional skills of the founders whether they can convince investors and stockholders that the technology is coming along even better than planned — not only are the original objectives being met but new ideas are continuing to be added that will result in an even larger business opportunity. If the message is presented with sufficient skill and conviction, the typical result is stage three – initial manufacturing scale-up. But how can this be? The technology has not yet been proven to work. Ah, but if I can convince you that the technical problems are ever so close to a solution, don’t you want to be a part of the “success story of the decade”? Soon the engineers are all busy designing the new production facility, ordering new equipment, and testing it for operation. The nagging technical problems are temporarily put aside or simply restated as problems with the start-up of the new manufacturing equipment. As more material is processed “the yields are expected to improve”. To confuse matters further during this phase, a few products may be introduced that actually create some sales revenue. These may be specialty products that carry a very high selling price or are sales to customers who are willing to explore a new technology even if it is not meeting the promised specifications. The engineers that have stayed with the company through this stage have, by now, decided that they simply don’t understand how business works and have decided that it’s best to just concentrate on their day-to-day activities. It’s a darn good imitation of the proverbial ostrich behavior but experience shows that it can work for years on end. Nevertheless, the storm clouds have continued to gather and then one day the downpour begins. Investors have slowly been loosing faith in the stories they have been told. The credibility of management once lost cannot be regained. Not only that, by now the company has only a few months of operating cash left. The technical problems, of course, still have not been resolved. And it is not clear what products customers would buy even if the technology works as promised. The passage of time seems to have devalued many of the earlier expected benefits. The engineers and managers can’t seem to agree on anything other than that the company is in a major crisis. Is it too late? Can this company be saved? What can be done with a technology that still has deficiencies from what was originally promised? Having observed many such scenarios – some from uncomfortably close proximity — over more than twenty years, I have come to the conclusion that all too often it’s not the technology that’s the biggest obstacle, it’s the people involved. But if the technology doesn’t work, what could management or the engineers have done? In response, allow me to pose this next question: Were you building a technology or a company? A group of capable managers and creative technologists working as a focused team can almost always come up with a success worthy of significant customer interest. Unfortunately, such effective team behavior is extremely rare – virtually impossible to find. I’m not sure I can explain why. Perhaps, there is just so much diversity in human behaviors that getting together a group that can work unselfishly for the good of the overall organization takes a very special set of circumstances. In a few companies, these traits come to the fore as the result of an especially capable leader. In perhaps rarer circumstances, it’s the result of a key group of individuals. But when it does exist, a successful business is usually the end result. When it doesn’t, the participants can count on years of turmoil followed by a final crisis that is almost always terminal. An excellent team can make up for significant technology shortcomings and still

Change is Subtle – and Sneaky… Just about every new technology start-up has — somewhere in its business plan — a description of the “disruptive technology” it is about to introduce. The idea behind this, of course, is that when the new products based on this technology are introduced they will “disrupt” whatever technology or product is already out there and lead to great success for the new company. This will, conversely, cause great consternation for those companies already in business – basically it will “blow them out of the water”. Technology prognosticators and futurists also seem to be in a never-ending competition to be the first to predict the next significant disruptive technology. All this may be wonderful for creating articles in popular science magazines, for capturing viewer interest on television shows, and for something eye-catching to put into the science section of the Sunday paper; but I am going to suggest that the concept of “disruptive technologies” is mostly wishful thinking. Basically, there is no such thing. The only times in our lives that we have disruptive events is when something truly unexpected happens to us such as when we get into a traffic accident, get a speeding ticket, or have an illness. A destructive earthquake or some other natural disaster is likewise a disruptive event. Our government leaders can also create disruptive events with their behaviors. But technology changes – very seldom, if ever, do they qualify as being disruptive to our lives. Most technology changes take years or even decades to have an impact in the marketplace. Consumers don’t consider such changes disruptive. If consumers think the new stuff is great, they adopt it. If they don’t, nothing happens. For example, was the introduction of desktop or laptop computers disruptive? They sure changed the way we do our work, but it happened so gradually and relatively smoothly over a number of years that we hardly noticed. The first uses were mostly the same as the tasks we performed with electric typewriters. Then we discovered that we could do presentation slides and also make our typewritten work look nicer – more like a textbook. This led to a demand for printers with more capability than the early dot matrix ones that emulated typewriters. Then we did more with color and somewhere along the line we discovered that the computer could send messages over telephone lines. Initially that did not seem to be such a big deal. Wow, were we wrong in thinking that! About the same time that desktop computers arrived on the scene we also found that a telephone could be put into a car — and we called these car-phones “yuppie toys”. All the important technology company executives had to have one and so did all the venture folks. Then the car phone became somewhat more portable and no longer needed to be installed in a vehicle. Over the years, these phones got smaller and smaller and the capacity to communicate with them became easier and easier. Pretty soon we could not only have one to use in our own locale, we could communicate from where-ever we happened to be. And then we really went overboard and added poorly performing digital cameras to these phones. Why? That may remain as one of the great mysteries of consumer product marketing. Maybe someday, when we have the bandwidth and it costs nothing to send these pictures to our friends, this will all make sense. Digital photography is another example of gradual change. The first digital cameras were expensive and of low resolution compared to film. Consumers had poorly performing printers to combine with these cameras and the images were nothing like the ones we could obtain with conventional film. But gradually digital camera resolution increased, costs came down, and printing technology at a consumer-affordable price became really good. Today we can mostly duplicate, and in some cases even exceed, what film-based cameras have been able to do for many years. Our computers have become capable of storing all this extra information and software is able to enhance the photos we have created with greater ease and lower cost than can be done with chemical photography. Have any of these been disruptive technology changes? Well, I suppose if we were to ask some of our colleagues at Kodak, they would most likely tell us that they sure have disrupted what was once a nicely stable and growing film business. Perhaps similarly strong opinions would come from those folks working at the traditional landline telephone companies. And most likely, the electric typewriter business is not showing much growth these days. The same can be said for overhead projectors — that can now be found at very attractive prices in company surplus stores. Perhaps this concept of disruptive change is very much dependent on one’s point of view. For the consumer, these changes are quite wonderful and are received with great enthusiasm. Nothing disruptive here – just nice new benefits. But for the companies committed to a particular technology approach, the introduction of a new technology by someone else can cause some serious problems. Why does that happen so often and to such a degree? Why does it so often take new companies to create these technology changes? Why can’t the existing companies do it before they get threatened and/or put out of business? Unfortunately, there is a very good and fundamental reason for this – something so ingrained in human nature that we should not expect anything to change no matter how many times we experience the same bad outcome. The reason we will not change is because our current behaviors are driven by a combination of survival and greed. We are rewarded for what we are doing today and not for what will happen sometime in the future. For example, do you think Microsoft can give up Windows, even though it is rapidly becoming irrelevant? (I’m amazed that my Windows-based computer is allowing me to keep typing

A Flash of Brilliant Light… The dictionary defines the word “brilliant” as 1) sparkling, very bright and 2) as distinguished by qualities that excite admiration. Could we possibly come up with something that encompasses both of these meanings? And could that something be the next great opportunity for a new class of consumer products that rely on display technology? Well then, come along with me on this brief journey of thoughtful exploration and see if you like where we end up. Over the last few years, conference room projectors have achieved acceptable brightness so that it is no longer necessary to turn down the lights for viewing the ubiquitous power point presentations. These projectors have also been getting smaller and smaller. But wow, do they put out the heat! Sitting downwind from the exhaust fan of one of these little heat generators can keep a person quite toasty warm. That can become a real problem during an especially boring presentation – with the warm air inducing an overwhelming desire to take a nap. Of course, with this much heat and light being generated, the only reasonable source of power is the nearest wall plug. Let us now suppose that we could generate a decent amount of light without all of this unnecessary and undesirable heat. And let’s go even one step further and assume that we do not need to project the image onto a conference room wall. Suppose we could be happy with an image the size of a printed page, or if we make it large enough to be projected onto a wall, we turn down the lights and view it more like a darkened movie theater. With these slight modifications, a potentially new and exciting world of opportunities opens to us. The recent progress in LED efficiency and brightness makes possible what wasn’t possible just a few years ago. A palm size projector, that is portable and can operate for a reasonable amount of time on battery power, is now a realistic goal. And it won’t burn your hand into toast while you are using it. I am going to leave the details of exactly how to make such a mini-projector (nano-projector?) to a future column and first ask — and then try to answer — the very practical question: Suppose we could make such a product, who would want one badly enough to buy one? Isn’t that the perennial question that gets asked whenever a new product idea comes along? Perhaps this same question was posed when the first battery operated flashlights were introduced. If you were used to carrying an oil lantern that provided adequate light and also kept your hands warm on a cold winter night’s walk home, would you want to change to a flashlight that needs expensive replacement batteries, doesn’t keep you warm, and only provides useful light over a narrow angle? Perhaps in the beginning you would have wanted to hang on to your lantern and only use the flashlight as an emergency backup, or as a novelty gadget to show your friends. In the same vein, does anyone really “need” a digital camera in a cell phone, a portable music player, a PDA, or an electric toothbrush? And do children “need” all the toys they receive on Christmas, birthdays, and all of the non-special days in between. Toys, toys, we’re all in love with them. We all have a great capacity to be entertained. Sometimes we claim that we are doing these things to become more productive — and that may, coincidentally, even turn out to be true. Mini-projectors are likely to enter the market place appealing to our enthusiasm for the new and novel. One major toy company has already announced that they are planning to sell a modestly performing projector as a legitimate toy. And why not? Suppose your child could lie in bed at night and project a bedtime story on the ceiling of his or her room? Wouldn’t this be a new convenience for a nightly chore that parents could choose to “delegate” to this newfound electronic nanny. On a more sophisticated level, such mini-projectors could be used for sales presentations to a few listeners, for convenience in airports, or for lunch-table technical discussions. They could also lead to smaller and lighter-weight laptop computers. Can we even begin to imagine all of the ways these intelligent video flashlights will be used? With time they will, of course, get even brighter as LEDs continue to improve. With such capabilities could we invent some completely new ways that they entertain us, such as projecting soothing color patterns on a bedroom ceiling as a sleep aid? Could they become another format for electronic books? Or will we follow a convoluted path like we did with desktop and laptop computers that both started out as “computers” and eventually turned into predominantly communication devices? The exciting prospect for this class of new mini-products is that there is already an entry point in both the toy and entertainment segments of the consumer marketplace. Once consumers get a taste of these new devices, the future directions could be quite “brilliant” indeed. Which companies will be the smart ones to spot the opportunities first? Portable (wearable) electronics and the displays they incorporate are for sure going to be a major growth area in the next decade. LED mini-projects will be making an important contribution to this growth. Perhaps you are not certain that all of your ideas are “sparkling” and “distinguished by qualities that excite admiration”, but I would enjoy hearing from you nevertheless. You may reach me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, by telephone at 425-898-9117, or by fax at 425-898-1727.

Where Will it End?… A few weeks ago, I arrived at the Atlanta airport after a busy day of meetings. It was late in the day and I was getting seriously hungry. Since I had only a few minutes before boarding my flight — and knowing that I would not be getting anything more than a tiny bag of salty pretzels for the next four hours — I decided to get a quick hamburger. All I wanted (and had time for) was a simple hamburger with no onions and no cheese. I walked up to the Burger King counter, and to my surprise, I was greeted with — “new technology”. Instead of a clerk behind the counter, the new “ordering system” required that I place my order using a computerized kiosk that appeared to be a modest modification of the ones that we have all by now been taught to use to check in for our flights. There were several people ahead of me and they were all struggling with this new computerized ordering system. A Burger King employee was there to help and basically had to show everyone how to enter their order. To my dismay (and without having to fill out any kind of employment application) I realized that I was about to be trained for a new career as a minimum wage Burger King order taker; Except that I wouldn’t even be paid the minimum wage. The company would simply keep the amount that they saved from my unskilled efforts at order entry. I was pretty sure that I could figure out how to order the basic hamburger but what would I have to do to delete the cheese and the onions? I watched the people ahead of me. They were trying to get additional items such as fries and drinks. Everyone was confused, but seemed to be trying very hard to make it work. No one could quite figure out how to work through the many possible combinations of food and drink items. And given the short time I had, neither could I. Why did I have to put up with this inconvenience? What was in it for me? Out of frustration and anger, I insisted that the “helper person” just enter my order. This she did quickly and by watching her I could begin to see how, with a bit of study and practice, I too could learn the methodology. Once the order was entered, I asked her how I should pay. “Simple”, she replied, “just put your twenty-dollar bill into the slot and the machine will give you change.” And it sure did! I received back sixteen one-dollar bills and ninety-two cents in loose change. Was the machine training me to never do that again? I guess I was supposed to either use a credit card or have more dollar bills handy. The total transaction took about three times as long as it would have with a person behind the counter – even one who doesn’t speak English very well. And I just proved that, without training, I’m not very good at doing minimum wage work. We are in the middle of a significant transition, and I’m not so sure that I like all of what is happening. We’re all being trained to do work that others used to do for us. When this shifting of responsibility provides something of value to me, then I don’t mind. However, if the change is only for the convenience – and to increase the profits — of the companies, with our lives becoming more difficult as a result, then I think we all have a legitimate reason to resent and rebel. It seems that this transition started not so many years ago with just a few “minor” irritations. Receptionists began to be replaced by automated phone systems — with multiple layers of menus. Computer help-lines became more difficult to access. Getting knowledgeable sales help in stores became harder. Other seemingly minor changes took place – such as all the fruits and vegetables in grocery stores acquiring little identifying stickers on them because the check-out clerks apparently no longer could identify what kind of apples or oranges we were buying. A few of these changes did prove to be of real benefit to us as consumers. ATM machines allowed us to get money even on weekends, or evenings, when banks are closed. Internet access to product information and the ability to order on-line, with the quantities in stock being shown in real-time, provided an added convenience. These new automated ordering systems are clearly superior to having to wait for a mail order to process, or having to wait to ask our questions by telephone during normal business hours of a vendor, perhaps in some other time zone. In other cases, staff reductions have led to long waiting lines, such as at airports, government offices, and with increasing frequency, other businesses and service providers. That has made it worthwhile to learn the computerized access methods simply to regain the conveniences lost. But in many other cases, why do I need to be forced to learn a system that is still in its clumsy infancy? Automated checkout at a grocery or hardware store is fraught with all kinds of potential errors. Some products don’t scan correctly, others such as vegetables and small loose items simply aren’t so easy to package for scanning. And why should I be doing the work that, with modest training, someone else can do more efficiently? The cumulative effect of all this is that our average earning capability is decreasing. We are spending more time each day doing the work that used to be done by lower paid workers for us. And we are not benefiting from this shift. Lower prices you think? Are you sure that we are the ones getting the savings? Could it be the companies instead? I suppose one indirect benefit from all of this is that the display industry gets

Could E-Paper Actually Turn Out to be Useful?… Today, it is a beautiful sunny summer day here in Seattle. The temperature is in the high seventies and a few white puffy clouds are drifting by. Lake Sammamish is already at a nice temperature for water skiing. And what am I doing? I am sitting at my desk in my office writing this column. The view out my window is nice enough, but wouldn’t it be even nicer if I could be sitting by the lakeshore while I do this enjoyable task? That would make this the truly perfect day. So why am I here and not there? Well, duh! It’s this “minor” problem that I don’t have a sunlight readable display on my computer. As a matter of fact, I don’t even have a shady-light readable display. My LCD laptop is good for indoor use but I would need to be in a dense forest on a gray cloudy day to use it outdoors. The desktop display is of course no better — even if I could somehow get it down to the lakeside park location. What I really need is a nice reflective display that looks something like a page from a book. Ah ha! Something like E-Paper! I have never been able to understand the various attempts at making electronic books. A regular book is a very nice and mature technology that happens to be superbly convenient to use. Why else would we all dream about “curling up with a good book in front of a warm fire on a cold winter’s night”? It is rare that we have the time or the desire to have more than one book’s worth of information to carry around. Students may have this need and certain professions such as attorneys may also benefit. But for most of us there is little (or maybe even a negative) benefit in converting a printed text into an electronic tablet. Books are so easy and comfortable to use that holding an electronic box instead is – like holding a clumsy electronic box. However, now that we have become eternally-connected information junkies, wouldn’t it be wonderful to send e-mails, surf the net, and write columns anywhere and under any conditions? Today, I want to be outdoors by the water. Tomorrow I may be in a sunlit airport terminal. Why can’t I have a laptop computer that has a nice reflective display? Maybe I could even have one with interchangeable displays? Why not start this whole process with a monochrome high-contrast reflective display for sunlight use and have that as an interchangeable alternative to the regular full-color LCD? There is certainly plenty of relevant precedent for such an approach. For many years, cameras have had interchangeable lenses. Not so many years ago, Tektronix had a major line of laboratory oscilloscopes with interchangeable modules for various measurement functions. Household appliances regularly come with a variety of interchangeable attachments. Perhaps this idea of interchangeable displays could be taken even further. For example, why not have the option to take only a mini-projector attachment with us on a sales call? There may be no need for a conventional display during such a visit. And why not have the option to use a variety of display sizes? Of course we can do all of that now using the VGA or DVI plug in the back. But what I can’t do is to remove the display that came with my laptop. I also do not know of any laptop-size reflective display monitors that can be operated separately off of a battery. So there you have it. Finally, an interesting application for E-paper. Clearly, there is a real need that this solves, since right now I would REALLY like to be sitting on a park bench or down by the water. Or how about out on a boat? That could be even more enjoyable – but even more of a challenge for a good sunlight readable display. Sunlight readability is one of the few remaining unsolved problems for the display community. E-paper has been a solution looking for a problem. Is there any reason why bringing this problem and this solution together would not result in a happy marriage? Let me know what you think. As always you can reach me through this site, directly by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, by telephone at 425-898-9117, or by fax at 425-898-1727.