New Philips Monitor Features an E-Paper Side Panel | Hacker News Reader

New Philips Monitor Features an E-Paper Side Panel

tomshardware.com

88 pointsjames_pm113 comments

There's something quite unsettling about this, in that the epaper panel is potentially a very useful second monitor designed in the same style as the main monitor, and it could be detachable, freely re-orientable, etc.

But in fact it's totally integrated, following the current anti-modular, if not anti-user philosophy in most consumer hardware, and ends up being a bit of a frankenstein.

Surely the market for each separate monitor. especially the epaper sidekick, would be greater than this weird integrated combo?

It doesn't even seem to support DP chaining. Does that mean you need two available usb-c ports on the pc?

Yeah, eink displays seem to work better in a tablet form factor.

Philips could have invested into something similar to paperwhite (indirect backlighting for eink displays)

I could see it being a big seller in the pharma/Life Science sector where all policies and procedures are still consumed as PDFs

And maybe that's it.

I'm looking at this as 'that's cool, but ... wait, what, it's integrated? Why (oh why)?', but maybe I'm missing the specific use-case or customer this might have been designed for.

Small rant. Are display manufacturers (especially eINK/ePaper ones) alergic to a size that matches a standard A4?

Onyx Boox Tab X?

The screen of that seems to be about 203mm×270mm (13.3 inch diagonal, 1650×2200 pixels). Smaller and with a different aspect ratio (3:4 instead of 1:√2).

Interestingly, several major reviews on page 1 of Google call it "A4-sized", but only one review actually called it "near A4-sized". Standard of writing these days is horrendous for such a key spec.

Fujitsu seem to use the same non-A4 display for some of their e-paper devices, and they call it A4 in the product name: https://fujitsuquaderno.com/products/fujitsu-quaderno-a4-2nd...

Which standard A4?

(Which might be the problem.)

210 x 297 mm.

This thread nerd-sniped me into looking up the exact definition of the dimensions. Neither standard gives the formula used to obtain the specified sizes (for A4, precisely as above, ±2 mm). But what's interesting is that we can tell from the rounded values that it is _not_ the geometric sequence that the stated principles imply,

  x(n) = 1000 * 2^(-1/4 - n/2)
  y(n) = 1000 * 2^( 1/4 - n/2)

y(0) = x(-1) = 1189,2 would map to the 1189 mm long side of A0 and short side of 2A0 in the standard; y(1) = x(0) = 840,9 to 841 mm; and y(2) = x(1) = 594,6 to 594 mm -- inconsistent with any common rounding scheme. This also rules out evaluation of the recursive form with intermediate rounding, and/or starting with the approximations 1,414; 0,841; and 1,189 as written in the standard.

Instead, a form that _is_ consistent is:

  x(0) =  841 = round(1000 / sqrt(sqrt(2)))
  y(0) = 1189 = round(1000 * sqrt(sqrt(2)))
  x(n) = floor(y(n-1) / 2)
  y(n) = x(n-1)

Which makes sense - once A0 has been calculated, only halving and doubling are needed to determine the other sizes.

B0 is even easier to memorize: 1000 mm x 1414 mm

That’s exactly how itvwas calculated. A0 is defined to have the right proportions, rounded to 1mm. The smaller formatsround always down, because this way it‘s possible to make two A(n*1) sheets by cutting an An sheet in two halves and possibly cutting away a thin stripe from the long side.

Show me a paper standard other than ISO 216, aka the international standard for paper size, that uses "A4" as the indicator for its default letter size.

DIN 476 does use the same indicators. Of course that's just the original German standard that ISO 216 was based on and defines the exact same sizes, so it really doesn't matter. (Also it is superseded by DIN EN ISO 216, which is just ISO 216 backported.)

Making sure we are technically correct is appreciated, thank you.

But yes, that's a bit of a "structural vs nominal typing" distinction, and we seem to agree that a "structural typing" interpretation makes most sense here.

The ISO 216 A4. What other A4 standard is there?

A stack of A4 to which I could load even static content wirelessly would really be something.

Is this a wireless printer?

Better: a wireless printer that doesn't complain that you're out of cyan.

Brother laser printers.

I'm at least a thousand pages into the starter cartridge that came with it. I got a notification that it was low on toner a year ago, dismissed it once, and that same toner is still chugging along

I would say that there are at least two good reasons. A4 is not a relevant standard in the biggest market (USA) and A4 proportions are objectively not great for reading (too elongated).

Seeing that this product is not targeted at the US and might never even make it there, I'm not sure that's relevant. A4 documents will either be cut off or squished into a smaller space to fit all, so the proportions of the screen are also not really relevant when that's the proportions of the document.

> A4 proportions are objectively not great for reading (too elongated).

This statement is purely subjective. It is false in general and there's nothing objective about it. I've read thousands of pages of A4 with no problems, and in fact I'd say it's great.

Almost no books are published in A4 format, even in Europe. I think that has a reason.

No one mentioned books, but standard paperback book sizes are actually even more elongated than A4 (but smaller). A4 is used a lot in academia for papers, theses, lecture notes, etc., and that's mainly what I've read in that size.

It's not about the aspect ratio, but the total line length measured in characters. If you pay attention you will realize that most published papers either have two columns or large margins, like the standard LaTeX article layout.

Do you really think I've read thousands of pages without paying attention? There is a lot of material in a single column without overly-wide margins.

This subthread is about aspect ratio. dfadsadsf claimed "A4 proportions are objectively not great for reading (too elongated)".

> A4 proportions are objectively not great for reading (too elongated).

I spent the first 30 years of my life in the UK and US letter paper always looked too squat when I encountered it at work. I've spent the past 11 years living in the US. I recently dug out some old papers on A4 and they looked weirdly elongated. It's surprising how strong the perceived weirdness of paper dimensions could be and and how easily it was changed. Seems like it's totally subjective and we could probably be comfortable reading in many proportions.

My favorite proportion, enforced by various bits of TeX documentation set up to be printed on either side of the pond, is 210mm wide (A4 width), but 11" high (letter-sized height).

It's a workable compromise which ensures that all versions of a document have the same pagination/index.

I'm curious if there's a reason, or just accidental quirk of your comment, that you gave one dimension in mm and the other in inches?

Because that’s what the standards are specified as?

Ah thanks, hadn't stopped and thought about "letter-sized" being an American standard.

I still think it's odd to not translate one or the other if describing a 2D size, though.

I wasn't using my Mac where I have a Service which will do dimension calculations/unit conversions on the fly.

Type:

    11*25.4

select it and choose Safari | Services | Calculate and Replace (or hit command #)

    279.4

You could also store paper with those proportions in American file cabinets without folding.

And they can be stored in A4-sized cabinets w/o difficulty as well.

I don't work with paper much, so the squares I stare into most are either wide or narrow and high.

To me A4 looks weirdly fat/short/square-ish on first look.

On a longer look I think it looks very nice (especially so knowing why the ratio was chosen).

In general though, I prefer narrower columns for reading (closer to A5), so I don't know why it should be even wider/shorter.

> especially so knowing why the ratio was chosen

My understanding was that the advantages of A4 are more practical than aesthetic. Is that not true?

> My understanding was that the advantages of A4 are more practical than aesthetic

The oft-cited reason is that you can fold A4 in half, etc. to form other standardized paper sizes.

Which sounds nice, but in practice just doesn't come up all that often.

For you, and even then for you directly.

Papermakers definitely benefit from this standard, which indirectly benefits you.

And from personal experience, being able to turn any stack of A4 papers into an A5 'zine is great.

It is a very common occurrence, since you can print/photocopy two pages side-by-side on one sheet without any loss.

Photocopiers and printers outside America include buttons for this.

> It is a very common occurrence, since you can print/photocopy two pages side-by-side on one sheet without any loss. > > Photocopiers and printers outside America include buttons for this.

It's a standard feature of photocopiers in the US too.

It can't work perfectly except with the A series paper sizes.

They could settle for the max width and height of both to have a single product for all markets.

Dasung make an A4-sized e-reader. They also make e-ink monitors, 25.3 and 13.3 inches in size.

https://shop.dasung.com/

No, they don't make an A4-sized e-reader, they just falsely claim to (as does Fujitsu with apparently the same display). Per their specs, the 13.3 inch screen is 202mm×270mm.

The e-reader itself is slightly larger than A4, at 224mm×302.6mm. Since the front case of the device is white, zooming in slightly would give a reading experience similar to holding an A4-sized piece of paper, when reading documents with white margins.

Wow, I had no idea there was an eink monitor as big as 25.3" available!

If it was <$500 I'd probably impulse buy it immediately, I wonder how long it will take for prices (either of this screen or future alternatives) to drop from its current $1,800 price...

This is an interesting idea, but honestly it should be detachable and wireless. The refresh rate is so slow that there’s no reason to be wired and having an e-reader integrated into your display that you could pop off and keep reading would be amazing for comfort.

Sounds like a second-gen product, or a premium option.

How many people are going to want to do this?

How many people are going to want to do this who wouldn't otherwise just buy an e-ink Android tablet that's got a display input that are already on the market?

It's a niche product to begin with.

I haven't heard of Android tablets with display in, got any links?

Onyx Boox product range, there's likely others.

Nook Simple touch is an android tablet with an eink screen (runs a custom rom but very easy to go stock android, though in time I found there was no benefit and went back to their custom rom).

They don't support external video inputs though.

Very true, I totally missed that bit of the original comment.

Since e-ink tablets already understand PDF, the easiest way of doing this is to write a printer driver that picks a tablet as the target, and a daemon on the tablet that accepts the incoming PDF and makes it the new document being displayed.

That would be perfect for my own use case actually.

>detachable and wireless. Let me deepen this: there's no reason for eink to be attached to LED monitor at all. It's obviously more practical to have separate reader, all is needed is a possibilty to quickly share content to it.

> wireless

I hope someone goes down this rabbit hole... is it possible to make a wireless e-paper display that does not need any battery? I am wary of batteries because I have managed to "swell up" two old android phones by keeping them constantly connected to power and using them to take timelapse videos.

proompt: can a supercapacitor power an e-ink display?

Google Bard:

Yes, a supercapacitor can power an e-ink display. E-ink displays are very low-power devices, so a supercapacitor can provide enough power to keep the display running for a long period of time. In fact, supercapacitors are often used to power e-ink displays in devices such as e-readers and wristwatches.

Supercapacitors are different from traditional capacitors in that they can store a lot of energy for their size. This makes them ideal for powering low-power devices, such as e-ink displays. Supercapacitors also have a long lifespan, which is important for devices that are used for extended periods of time.

If you are looking for a way to power an e-ink display, a supercapacitor is a good option. Supercapacitors are small, lightweight, and have a long lifespan. They are also very efficient at storing and releasing energy, which makes them ideal for powering low-power devices.

Here are some additional details about supercapacitors and e-ink displays:

* *Supercapacitors:* Supercapacitors are energy storage devices that can store a lot of energy for their size. They are made up of two electrodes separated by an electrolyte. When a voltage is applied to the electrodes, the electrolyte allows electrons to flow between them. This flow of electrons creates an electric field that stores energy. * *E-ink displays:* E-ink displays are a type of electronic display that uses a layer of electrically charged microcapsules to create an image. The microcapsules are filled with a liquid crystal material that is either black or white. When an electric field is applied to the microcapsules, the liquid crystal molecules align in a way that either reflects or absorbs light. This creates the image on the display.

E-ink displays are very low-power devices because they do not require any backlighting. The only power that is needed is to create the electric field that aligns the liquid crystal molecules. This makes them ideal for powering with supercapacitors.

Supercapacitors are a good option for powering e-ink displays because they are small, lightweight, and have a long lifespan. They are also very efficient at storing and releasing energy. This makes them ideal for powering low-power devices, such as e-ink displays.

We've been asking for e-ink monitors for how long? Here's a first step from am major manufacturer that will be widely available. People will be able to test it, Philips will see how much demand actually exists, what the feedback is and we'll all go from there.

No product is perfect, that is a trusim. If you look for flaws you can always find them. Does HN ever have something nice to say about any product or service?

I'm not sure I would like this either, looking from LCD to E-Paper and back, but I know I should actually try it before having an opinion.

I just hope its proximity to an LED screen doesn't confound the response of the userbase to it. I think there's a lot of people, including myself, who would like an affordable e-paper screen that's at least A4 size and an OK refresh rate. But if users say that they "don't need an e-paper next to my monitor", hopefully Philips and similar companies don't draw the conclusion that people don't want e-paper.

Honestly I still think it's the wrong tech for this use case. I would much rather see a come back of monochrome transflective displays.

Give me an A3 size, monochrome, 4k resolution, transflective LCD, at 30fps, that I can scroll through text naturally and read with external ambient light. That to me would be the perfect 'reading' 2nd monitor.

See the old 'Pixel Qi' displays as an example of this tech.

No need to go monochrome. Sunvision already has color RLCD monitors. https://www.sunvisiondisplay.com/

There's also a color RLCD tablet being released soon by Eyemoo. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35900620

Both displays refresh at 60Hz, and have 1920x1080 and 1600x1200 resolution respectively.

Transflective LCDs have piss poor contrast and generally they're only good in direct sunlight. Who would want to read on that indoors and why? See for example the comparison video your other replier posted: https://youtu.be/AXHzY1IgJWw?t=370 I also have watches with RLCD and Amoled, indoors even on a very sunny day RLCD sucks. And 4k for 20 inches display? What for? Do you plan to stick your face in the monitor?

> And 4k for 20 inches display? What for? Do you plan to stick your face in the monitor?

It's still less than 300 dpi but getting close enough to be comparable to most printed materials.

Mandatory "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

The lack of glare from e-ink will help avoid eye strain... while there's a giant LED panel on next to it?

Compared to staring directly at the LED panel?

What about it? I didn't get your question.

Staring at something right next to a light source is far less straining on the eyes than looking directly at the light source.

Understood, thank you.

> Philips says the monitor is for workers who commonly read a lot of content from their screens. It suggests that the E-Paper display with its lack of harsh backlighting, anti-glare, no flickering, and no blue light will help avoid eye strain. Commonly, users might "view vivid colors on the big screen and read long documents on the E-Paper screen," reckons Philips. In summary, Philips says the dual display will be a boon to productivity, ergonomics, and, thanks to the low power usage of E-Paper, sustainability.

Twisting their head to the side, and at suboptimal viewing distance and angle, for long durations to "read a lot of content"?

How's that going to work for ergonomics and eye strain?

An alternative would be to use it for lower-priority monitoring content (e.g., emails, chats, ops monitoring), which you can bring to the main display when you need to look closely or interact. The e-ink and placement de-emphasizes these distractions, but keeps them in your "peripheral vision" so you can occasionally check them with minimal effort. (Well, that would be the theory or pitch, but you'd have to study the reality and nuances of that.)

In addition to what you point out:

If the IPS panel is on while you read on the E-Paper screen, there will be light aimed at your eyes from the left side. That alone will cancel out a good deal of the benefits of reading from a reflective screen. Similar to using a regular display against a daylight lit background, such as an open window.

I hope this drives down ePaper prices.

Philips Monitor 24" + ePaper: $600

Mira/Waveshare ePaper only: $600

I've been looking for a RaspberryPI4/Linux and prices are crazy (Currently use a small $100 IPS display).

What's the best e-reader (A4 size) out there? The feature I care the most is: reading PDFs as if I were reading them on paper. The second feature I care the most is: easy way to upload PDFs (e.g., plug and play via usb?). I don't mind features like taking notes or calendars or apps. I just want paper-like reading experience for PDFs in A4 size.

Remarkable 2 is too small. Quaderno 13.3 2nd gen, seems cool.

I'm waiting for Quaderno 3nd gen this year (Have a Remarkable which is too small)

A neat tip I learnt about for Kindle recently: you can email a PDF to your unique "send to Kindle" email address and put the subject line "Convert" and it will re-flow the document so it's resizable and easy to read on your PDF. Messes up images a bit sometimes, but so far it's been great for reading PDFs.

I used to use a remarkable but these days I am happy with an iPad. It's not e-ink and I use it only for reading and annotating pdfs and taking notes. However, the writing experience is great. It sucks because I have many ideas for software which could use that pen/paper experience but i don't want to develop software for the closed iOS environment. I wish there was a Linux tablet/distribution with good touch support and this level of pen/paper writing experience.

Dasung has an A4-sized e-reader. I haven't tried any of their tablets, but I use one of their monitors.

https://shop.dasung.com/

Why isn't this a snap-on extra monitor for common sized monitors? Make it vesa compatible or something - sounds like it needs twin connections for everything anyway.

I'd consider getting one if I could attach it to my existing monitor; I'm not replacing a good and perfectly functional monitor with a new one to get a "let's see what the market thinks of this" gimick.

As the eInk panel is technically an independent second screen, why oh why don't they offer it as a separate product? I would immediately buy it if I could use it along with the screens I already have (or my laptop without a large extra screen). But I am not going to buy an otherwise mediocre screen just to enjoy the eInk screen.

Actually, I would buy several of them, as I would be only limited by the number of video ports. Considering the slow speed of the eInk, it might even be a better idea to make them plain USB-C with DisplayLink. That should be plenty fast and would mean you wouldn't need to reserve video ports.

I was looking around a few weeks back for any new development on the e-ink monitor front and came across the Boox Mira. There is a 25" monitor and a 13" portable one as well. Pretty pricey for what it is though but the typing experience seems decent.

https://onyxboox.com/boox_mira https://onyxboox.com/boox_mirapro

Dasung has some too. Not cheap either though.

What's wild about this Philips one is they are pricing it like a 13" eInk monitor with a 24" color monitor attached for free.

It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't seem likely to get enough marketshare to really matter, and may be too late given that Amazon is now shipping the Kindle Scribe, including the promised integration w/ MS Word, so one can:

- work on a document on your laptop/desktop

- send it to your Scribe

- mark it up

- send it back w/ markups

There are also a couple of 3rd part e-ink monitors which seem to work well, and a couple of e-ink ebook readers/tablets where it is possible to connect to a computer and use as a second display/graphics tablet (that latter is a killer feature, which I'd give a lot for Amazon to make possible, even if it was only by allowing apps, and putting that in place as an app --- see the "Superdisplay" app for Samsung tablets for an example of how well it could work).

Does anyone know of any projects to hack together an external E-ink display for reading documents? I will honestly print PDFs out to read them sometimes, and I would love to be able to drag big legal documents onto an e-ink screen to read.

But I don't need a whole new monitor, and this Philips display seems way expensive relative to the cost of the individual e-ink panel.

Edit: Thank you, everyone, for the recommendations - for the fun of the project I might give this a try, but I guess I can also see why this hasn't become popular yet. For the money I can print out a lot of PDFs...and take a color highlighter to them.

I jerry-rigged something similar:

- Android e-Ink tablet

- Vise-grip style holder that connects to a VESA mount

- Two-arm VESA monitor stand, with my main monitor on the other arm

It's not quite as smooth as I'd like, but it works.

It's not a project, but large e-ink tablets designed for PDF use exist. Fujitsu Quaderno A4 ($650) is good.

Sony had one as well, but they've discontinued it and as a result prices have gone up a lot.

    Android E-ink tablet
    A stand what would be comfortable for you to place the tablet when you don't use it
    WiFi
    Syncthing

So you just print to PDF to the Syncthing folder, it syncs new files to the tablet, you pick the tablet and read the documents.

When you are done you just put it back on the stand.

Bonus points if you find a wireless charging solution for this.

Printing to an eink tablet — that’s intuitive!

I bet someone can even make it into a thing and market it as “smart paper”.

Waveshare has some HDMI displays. They still look overpriced and small though, so I don't consider them great solutions.

https://www.waveshare.com/eink-disp.htm

Very cool but it's the wrong brand and has a crap name. Who wants to buy a Philips 24B1D5600? Is that an electric shaver or something?

Make it white, slap an Apple logo on it, call it the iPaper Display Pro Duo and it will sell for $1999. Easily. Dibs on the name Apple, call me to discuss royalties and naming rights.

JK, the panel is garbage though. 250 nits?! Unless you work in dark basement you can GTFO with that shit. It's a shame to see such good ideas being half-assed in execution. If you make a niche product you better make it flawless if you want it to sell as niche users are very picky.

I too am perplexed at how bad some modern displays are given the available tech.

250 nits in 2023 is a joke.

I bought a Dell 27" 4K monitor during the pandemic that ended up being too dim and the most flare-prone coating I've ever encountered. Dunk on the Apple 27" 5K display all we want, but it's insanely bright and almost impossible to glare.

It cost 3x what my Dell did but it's essentially usable in my home office where the Dell monitor was not usable.

So the Dell was 1/3 the cost for 0% of the value.

Well most people live and work with dim screens and it's fine-ish if you also work in dim environments with shades on your windows or don't get much sun. I think 90% of PC displays sold don't go above 300 nits.

I also only had such displays growing up but now I need more since my current apartment is hella bright from all the sun exposure.

I think a lot of people put up with it, but it isn't their preference.

On average, MacBook displays have been very bright for a long time. Arguably this is because people take laptops into more disparate lighting conditions outside a dark home office. Even the cheapest models, a 2020 Intel MB Air is 400nits and MB Air M2 is 500nits. You have to go back to 2017 to get a 300nit display on a MB Air. MB Pros have been 500nits+ as far back as 2017, if not further.

Probably one of the things people love about MacBooks and don't realize why.

I found that rtings.com was the only site with enough detail to completely nerd out and find the right monitor.

My Dell - https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/ultrasharp-u2720... My Apple - https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/apple/studio-display

On the top level, the Dell is a better monitor overall, and even rated better for Office Use.

Then you scroll down to the brightness & reflections sub-scores and it's not even close. A+ Apple vs C to D- for Dell.

Every review you read will tell you how overpriced and mediocre the Apple monitor is. Then you go to a more detailed site like rtings & filter for high brightness & reflections ratings.. you don't end up with many other options. Pretty big gap in the market.

I encountered this when shopping for TVs - OLED can give you much better blacks while QLED can give you might brighter brights. So which tech you go with depends on if you have a bright sunny living room or a dark basement home theater. Do you watch TV during daylight all Saturday, or after dark weeknights night, etc?

I have some ordinary Dell monitors at work, at the display is set to 50% brightness.

Is the issue that offices tend not to have screens in direct sunlight, but homes often aren't designed like this?

Offices have big floor plates and the majority of people are sat nowhere near a window.

Home offices, are generally in a bedroom, which by fire code has a window.

This is impressively ugly. Their monitors seem good, e-paper is good, but nothing about this combination sparks desire. I can see it being a 'what not to do' example in future design books.

>Their monitors seem good.

Crisp but they have killer light bleed at the edges on bigger sizes. And their turn on splash screen is a 30 second bright blue hue. I doubt philips have any concern for warm/cold light on the e-ink display.

turn on splash screen

Yikes. I was trying to be positive to offset my criticisms, but this sounds terrible.

When I was at school Philips was infamous for just not getting it. Looks like decades later nothing's changed.

I think there's an american word for this, or close: jagoff.

Philips pretty much doesn't exist anymore, they have sold off most of their divisions one by one.

For example, a Philips monitor is now actually produced by TPV / MMD, who have an exclusive right to sell Philips-branded monitors. It's the same company making AOC and Envision.

They used to be a pretty good company, though! Its spinoffs are highly successful (NXP Semiconductors, Nexperia, ASML, parts of Thales, parts of Atos Origin), and it did create a boatload of innovations like the CD.

Genuinely curious - what specifically were they not getting? Are you maybe referring to CDI failure?

Growing up in Russia I had the impression that Philips were OK TVs and VCRs. Then they came up with built-in ambilight (not available in the US last I checked) and it just blew my mind. I know projects like Hyperion exist to make ambilight experience available on arbitrary tvs but I never had the time to play with it.

On topic - I could see myself using this display to see reference docs on the side but probably not at the price of 850$. Google sez that's how much they cost in the markets where they are available

We were kids so don't look for anything deep, but their stuff even to my fashion-unconscious eyes looked ugly and it had a poor reputation for quality. Audio products definitely wasn't as good in sound quality as Aiwa and other Japanese companies.

Many years later I worked with a very neat voice recognition system of theirs, limited in scope but astonishingly low CPU use. What documentation they provided was nearly useless and I could never get it to work properly. They had something really amazingly good for the time, and they didn't know how to develop it or pitch it or sell it, they just didn't have a clue.

And we here again: somebody had an idea for which there seems to be no market testing, and frankly no common sense behind it. I mean, what need is it supposed to fulfil having a second mini-monitor latched onto your main monitor.

I see, thanks!

> I mean, what need is it supposed to fulfil having a second mini-monitor latched onto your main monitor.

I'll be honest, I have been thinking about setting something pike this up.

I use macos for work and tiling window managers on Linux for personal stuff. It's probably a personal perception thing, but to me it seems that Mac is constantly running out of monitor space with its ui.

I switch tasks _a lot_ and the three monitors are just not enough, so I considered setting up a small sidecar monitor exclusively for a todo manager.

...but now that I typed it out I think it's going to be like a freeway problem - traffic isn't solved by getting more lanes; gotta have fewer cars.

I have a 32" monitor, 3840 x 2160 and if you don't allow the OS to scale everything by 150%, you have an awful lot of room.

I actually wish I'd bought same res but at 34" or 36".

My main screen is an ultrawide 38. I actually got around to tinker with Amethyst today to better utilize the space. It's a little bit janky but still works for me much better than the default macOS window manager thing.

Soowih! If the bezel sizes could be consistent it might be possible to overlook the ugliness long enough to gain from the practical benefit.

Imagine a matched line monitors/readers which looked good together and could be placed either side of each other. Maybe a daisy chained computer interface, or not. Would have looked better and sold better too.

Pressing a switch that transfers the whole screen into an eink like display would be a feat.

What I want from a monitor is to detach it from the base and use it as a wireless display in the bed for example. Or maybe bring the 32 inch into the toilet or into the bathtub. That would help me a lot with my back pain.

Please tell me it is easily detachable. How did they get 95% there and not do that?

Slide it in, slide it out. Auto recognize when it is in range so you can shove stuff into it. Use BLE built into the monitor to communicate. Charge when necessary.

DP Daisy chaining would have been a nice feature to drive both displays with a single connection (optionally).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com