How RCA Lost the LCD

From the IEEE Spectrum article, "Today, companies in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan dominate the LCD industry. Meanwhile, the corporation that started it all has faded from memory, purchased by General Electric in 1986. Nevertheless, RCA’s technological legacy can be seen in every LCD wristwatch, calculator, laptop, and television. All of these screens trace their origins to that firm’s laboratories and factories. As much as they are portals to the digital future, liquid crystal displays are also reminders of a past filled with possibilities for the once-dominant American electronics industry. And in their story are lessons for any technology company willing to learn them."

Masahiro Kadomatsu, the former chairman of Asahi Glass used to remark about how US scientists could be so inventive while US management could be so awful, particularly being short sighted. At one point in time, Kodak was the world's sole source for liquid crystal, Corning's sunglases plant in Harrodsburg, KY was the sole source of LCD substrate glass. RCA developed the liquid crystal chemistry as well as switching mechanisms such as IPS and Westinghouse, invented the active matrix driving technique. Of these 4, only Corning retains a place in the LCD manufacturing supply chain. For the others, particularly for RCA, bad results from management decisions overwhelmed great technology coming out of their labs. There was a period of at least 50 years when every new major consumer technology went through a period where it only existed at RCA's Sarnoff Labs, now Sarnoff is no more. For a more complete history of LCD development see "Liquid Gold: The story of Liquid Crystal Displays and the Development of an Industry", there is an Amazon link to the book in the Recommended section on the sidebar. The book was written by Joe Castellano, a former RCA researcher and the inventor of IPS.

Batteries

Batteries are something of a conundrum. On the one hand, there is the continuing need for better batteries in mobile devices, longer last, storing more energy in a smaller space and with reduced weight. On the other hand, batteries can sometimes fail catastrophically. The higher the energy density (the more energy stored per gram or per unit volume) the greater the consequences of a catastrophic failure. In fact a bomb can be considered something of a battery, lots of energy stored in a compact space. Though the reaction that releases the energy is not reversible and it is hard, though not theoretically impossible to power a car with gunpowder (per Huygens), it is an efficient energy storage device. Today's batteries are less efficient but still share some properties with explosives, especially when they fail. With rechargeable batteries, dependent on a reversible chemical reaction, there is always the possibility that physical structures embodied in the two chemistries (anode and cathode)will bridge, resulting in a short. They can generate high temperatures, melting themselves, melting the device they are in, and potentially starting fires. This is a rare event, but, again, major increases in energy density would make a catastrophic battery failure much more consequential.

Of course, aside from better batteries, the best way to deal with battery life is to lower the energy drain. As the most energy intensive part of most mobile devices, the primary focus has been on the display and display related subsystems. Monumental progress has been made here and further progress continues to come. A second path has been to remove the mechanical components from the device, specifically the optical drive. Spinning up the drive, takes substantial energy. Further, as removable storage is more a form of communication, simply relying on the internet rather than a disc makes sense along several factors.

Battery improvements and reductions in power drain can carry battery life only so far. Most likely, in the future, there will be more ubiquitous application of wireless battery charging. However, wireless battery charging only gets rid of the power connector, not the need to access a wired power source. The original "One Laptop per Child" design had a hand crank to generate power as a wired source for the intended user set might be unavailable not just inconvenient. Of course, cars used to be hand cranked to get them started and watches had to be wound. There is another watch technology that might be relevant as well, energy harvesting. Self winding watches are less popular, as watch batteries have gotten better, but it is still viable. With improvements in micro-machining and 3D printing, energy harvesters can be mad very small and durable, I would think just the thing for a mobile device. As with better sunlight viewability, I expect someone will at least try marketing a device more adapted to actual usage models. Perhaps energy harvesting will not show up until the mobile market fully turns its attention to wearable computing.

More is Better

Today's lead article in VentureBeat discusses the new iPad Mini. Though the term "display" is used 5 times in the article, extolling the importance of the display, the lead-in photo (shown here) shows just how challenging it is using a mobile device outdoors. As seen in the photo, the contrast could not be much more than 10 to 1. In "Wither Pixel Qi" I discuss my surprise that the mobile industry does not move toward displays with better outdoor visibility. Though generating good color in an outdoor display is something of a challenge, there are alternatives to a standard LCD that provide trade-offs that might be more appropriate for a mobile device.

The author also goes on to give a generic definition of a "retina display","...instead of the lush Retina Display resolutions of 2048 by 1536, we get the same 1024 by 768 resolution we were so happy to run away from two years ago. (Since the iPad Mini’s screen is smaller, its resolution still looks sharper than on previous iPads.) It is described as a pixel format rather than a pixel density (pixels per inch) or a brand name. In, "Your existing HDTV is already a true 'Retina Display' ” in August's High Resolution Raymond Soneira explains the human factors of the pixel density perspective on classifying displays. In describing how the display "looks sharper than previous iPads" the VentureBeat author also makes reference to the human factors but at the same time ascribes the 2048 x 1536 resolution as "lush" apparently independent of screen size or pixel density.

As display professionals, we know, that especially in small displays, more pixels = less aperture which equals a dimmer screen. The challenged performance of the screen in daylight, as seen in the image would be that much worse with a "retina display" per the author's terms. However, in the minds of many, more is always better even when their eye's tell them such is not the case.

In "Trinitron, Retina, & What do you call an Apple TV" I compare the Trinitron name with the marketing mojo in "retina display". In a large sense, Trintron had an advantage in that most consumers had no idea what a Trintron was, only that it was better. Others could introduce sets using the trinitron technology (such as Mitsubishi's Diamondtron); however, because they could not use the Trintron trade name, Sony was in an unassailable position. If consumers have a specific idea what "retina" means, a specific number, then it is a small matter to equal or even out-do "retina" with a "more is better" spec.

Even better, someone can fix or improve the daylight performance. As I have related before, in TV set marketing, frequently the industry will focus on a specific spec, pushing it to performance levels beyond human comprehension.... until someone steps out of line and starts pushing a different spec. Brightness wars, were followed by contrast wars until the CRT industry settled on Black level. In the mobile wars, fixing the resolution issue was an obvious first step to enabling smartphones as a platform. Now that the issue is fixed, I expect that the device makers will move on. If more is better, how about some more outdoor contrast.

Federated Media Abandoning Banner Ads

"Federated Media plans to refocus all its resources into the two areas of advertising it believes is growing. The first is its premium conversational & native advertising, which includes sponsored posts, special coverage sections, and ads/promotions that are more directly integrated with a publisher’s content. The second area is in less expensive, “programmatic” advertising, which automatically displays ads on websites at all times. The ad agency purchased startup Lijit in October 2011 as a response to the growing demand for programmatic ad buying."

Personally, I have pop-up blocking enabled and other ad blocking software. On most sites I never see the advertising except for that which is integrated with the content. In "Cross Platform Portability" I relate why it is important to have consistent screen aspect ratios to enable ads on the content periphery. With banner ads not proving their worth, frequently not actually being visible, programmatic ads become that much more important.