merlinsbeers t1_j9mjcwv wrote on February 23, 2023 at 1:12 AM

What's "100X thinner?" The switching layer or the whole panel?

Because we have OLED display panels so thin they can be rolled and folded, already.

And this doesn't say they eliminated backlighting, just polarization, which is only needed because liquid crystal layers don't block light they just twist its polarization axis so it's 90 degrees from the polarized sheet in the next layer.

Also, calling something "CMOS compatible" is like calling it "IBM PC compatible." Not the flex it's meant to appear a to be.

dingo1018 t1_j9mnb8h wrote on February 23, 2023 at 1:41 AM

I think it's referring to CMOS manufacturing processes isn't it? As in they don't have to sink billions into new fabrication tech rather it's materials science that current processes could adapt into established knowledge base, so like they didn't reinvent the wheel they just made better wheels?

merlinsbeers t1_j9n1yf8 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 3:31 AM

Yeah. It was a big thing in the 80s. If you could piggyback a CMOS manufacturer's process you could bootstrap a product line easily.

Now it's not that big a deal because the fab equipment manufacturers can deal with exotic processes, and leading edge processes are themselves extremely exotic compared to something generically CMOS.

It's like plugging a full-color display or automatic transmission. Kind of sad.

rajrdajr t1_j9nfeol wrote on February 23, 2023 at 5:32 AM

> calling something “CMOS compatible” is like calling it “IBM PC compatible.” Not the flex it’s meant to appear a to be.

CMOS compatibility is quite the flex when considering optical technologies.