Thinkpad X230 with “e-Ink” display at 30fps [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
Btw I'd opt to replace the "E-INK" in the title with "transflective" assuming HN folks know to tell the two apart.
Later her company Pixel Qi even developed a screen with solar panels inside it, to charge the device while it is used outside. Pixel Qi is now defunct.
Today Jepsen is working on Clearwater, a non invasive brain imaging technology (an infrared headband which reconstructs a 3D image from scattered photons), which can be used for brain computer interfaces.
In practice, mono mode was just barely readable in bright sunlight, and the colour mode was a grainy mess for anything with fine detail due to the lack of true RGB pixels[1]. I knew someone who had one of those --- it was more of a cute toy than anything actually useful, and that was at the time when tiny "netbooks" were still common.
1: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/amazfit-bip,review-5629.html
Literally no other screen I have comes close to how readable the XO-1 is in bright light.
Openwater.
That's such a pointless gimmick though. Solar panels works best when they track the sun or are at least angled properly. Between the very few times you'd be using your device outside in direct sunlight, and actually having those panels angled towards the sun, you're not going to be charging anything at any reasonable rate. Those panels are completely useless and just add complexity and cost to the design. If you really care, you can buy portable solar chargers real cheap but they are universally mediocre at best.
Why do stupid gimmicks like this? Why not have an efficient device and just charge it from the grid? Or, given that this was made for the developing world, charge it from a generator or a proper solar array or wind turbines ... or the grid (even developing nations will have a grid that functions at least most of the time)
I used to have a laptop with dual batteries, so one could swap one battery out with another to have an uninterrupted power supply without having access to the grid. Very few people need an uninterrupted power supply while away from the grid, but some people do. That is why such a design existed. Something like an integrated solar panel may fill a similar niche.
It is also worth noting that a technology should not be dismissed simply because the first iterations appear impractical. If we took that attitude, many of the things we enjoy today simply would not exist. Just think of personal computers from the late 1970's and early 1980's. Few people used them since they were not very practical. On the other hand, that seed of a market both financed the development of the machines we use today and directed the development of the technology towards something we would want to use today. (Put another way: if people did not use that impractical technology in their homes, it likely that computers would remain the tools of large institutions.)
https://youtu.be/9XkeTCIC1TA?t=453
Side note: The clips holding in the batteries were the number one failure mode on those laptops.
This would have been around 2010, when powering anything with USB was relatively uncommon. Some USB peripherals required a separate power supply or dual USB connections in order to provide enough power. Devices that charged via USB typically provided a special USB power adapter in order to facilitate faster charging.
Even today, dual battery compartments have marginal utility. Since it is built-in, it offers extended battery life without carrying around extra modules. Spare batteries are mildly more convenient to carry around (no extra cables). Mostly though, it enforces user replaceable batteries.
A 30x20cm laptop could get at best 12-10W of sun power with a solar panel on its surface.
You could build a useful laptop with the same spec as a smartphone with a standard 4000mA battery and need about a charge a day in normal use.
Since the exposure of your laptop to the sun would be suboptimal, you may only get 4W for say 5h a day, which seems fairly reasonable and is enough to recharge the battery every day.
Even on bad days, you would probably be able to use your laptop half of the time, which could still be a few hours and enough to make a difference to someone with otherwise no access to technology.
I think that's what most people in the west imagine and that's why this is a gimmick that resonates with well-meaning westerners. Besides the fact that developing world is a diverse place in all aspects (so the the stereotype you're imaging is wrong for the vast majority of the developing world), communication is such an ingrained human need, that communication devices like smart phones are everywhere.
But none of that matters. These panels just do not work well - or at least as well as you can expect given the surface area and whether or not there's enough sunlight. That's why nobody bothers with building them into devices. Besides you can buy little external solar chargers for real cheap. And the external ones are better than the ones built into the devices because you can angle them, and they aren't a failure point you need to worry about (that is, if they die, your device doesn't need to be replaced), and aren't limited to device size. Also, I don't know why you would want your electronics exposed to direct sunlight... Heat is not good for electronics.
Again, I support low-power, energy efficient devices. There is a very real use case for them, and not just for the developing world. But these gimmicks, like building in solar panels into the device, are dumb.
No idea whether heat aspect is worked around in OLPC somehow by carefully selecting materials used or whatever, my point is that making these laptops self-sufficient would indeed be useful (if at all possible).
of course, powering a screen would require much more light, but it's not impossible if there was a full system re-development - from low power monochrome displays to light peripherals. Our group hopes to get a terminal to display on an e-ink, which seems doable: https://forum.ei2030.org/t/paperterm-project-definition-and-...
Also UV. It'll destroy plastics rather quickly.
There are some electronic price tag products, wireless keyboards, decorative keychain tags, etc. that could work on solar only, but even those are rare.
e: Forgot digital wristwatches. They seem to work fine.
I really like the Logitech K700 solar keyboards, with two caveats:
- In a couple of mine, the included battery seems to have lost the ability to keep a charge well before you would expect (i.e. a year). This is a bit of an annoyance in that it is a rechargable button cell, not your run of the mill AA/AAA sized NIMH/Lithium bit.
- The build quality on these as far as sturdiness/etc isn't great. And if it ever gets 'flexed' too much, you wind up with broken traces internally, leading to issues where the juice doesn't flow one way or another unless you flex it back in the right way.
I love them in the office, but at home they just don't handle the use of clumsy roommates.
You could probably power such a calculator from ambient radiowaves, using a galena crystal...
The solar charging is probably the biggest feature I'm missing in my smartwatch, but at least it has a (low-power, daylight-readable, always-on) transflective screen.
According to their docs it increases the battery life by up to 3 days when you're not using the GPS.
Because they are ultra-low powered devices. If tiny solar cells can power that kind of device, then it can also be powered through kinetic energy (i.e. user's movement) as well ... Or you could spend $5 and put a standard watch-type battery in there which will last you years. So even there solar panels are a bit gimmicky. But ok, do whatever you like.
At least in my area, the speed warning signs tend to get moved to a different location a couple of times a year, and not having to run any wiring probably makes that significantly easier.
A difference of many orders of magnitude that you can't compensate by the size of solar panel on a small device.
The latest version device in question (the OLPC) is ~5W under normal usage and less than 1W when idle.
Im not sure about an integrated solar panel - im not sure i would want to keep my laptop exposed to the sun - but i was able to keep a 2015 macbook charged with a small solar panel while travelling (approx 4 hours a day of heavy usage).
Obv depends on time of year, location, weather, etc.
Do you think they would work better if they were built into the laptop screen? Because that's what OP was raving about.
You can get batteries and external solar chargers (they are cheap and come in any size you want) if that's what you want to do. Building them into the device is STUPID. For one thing, you would need to put your device in direct sunlight to charge them ... and heat is not good for electronics. Also, the solar array size will be limited to whatever size your device is, that is: "too small".
I can think something like this would be very useful for these kids as chargers and solar panels wouldn't last long in the hand of childrens.
This are very harsh words. Do you have evidence to back the claim that the designer did not do proper research?
Perhaps they had reasons to believe that a self-contained device would survive being handled by children, while an external panel would get lost or broken.
One could cover the front and back of the screen panel on solar panels this way, if it could create a device that’s mostly independent from a grid or extra gadgets to plug in it could be nice. But yeah, maybe an external little solar array would be more flexible.
Nothing.
>But yeah, maybe an external little solar array would be more flexible.
And those little solar mats are mediocre at best. They just don't work very well. They take forever to charge and require strong direct sunlight. But hey, if you want to use them, go ahead. They are still better than having them built into the device.
[1] 1W / (20cm*30cm*1000 W/m^2)*I work in the display industry. Not for E Ink. But I have no idea what you're talking about. I see this claim about patents on e-ink repeated again and again. I don't know much about 3d printing so I can't confirm. But each time I've seen this patent claim about e-ink, I ask the poster/commenter what specific patent or patents or data they're talking about and thus far every single time they either go silent or get defensive or in rare occasions acknowledge they didn't know about it and just "felt" it was the case. So could you help me out and explain what data convinced you? You can see my comment history to see all my attempts to try to get at what is the actual truth.
FYI, in my experience in the display industry, the main driver of price at scale is the asymptotic cost of components and materials like TFT backplanes, glue, passive layers, coatings, Indium Tin Oxide. Low volumes are what all of E Inks displays except the ones made for Amazon. That matches up with what I see in the prices.
In a competitive market, both are actually true. The fact that there aren't really any major competitors to E Ink in that market indicates however that there probably is some sort of moat (whether it is IP, or otherwise)and that prices are likely higher than they would be in a more competitive market. There are a lot of signs that there is latent demand in the market and lowered prices would lead to an increase in total market volume.
I don't know what exactly you mean in the context of the display industry. What do you mean there aren't any major competitors to E Ink? There's tonnes of display products from lots of different vendors. Are you talking about the electrophoretic display industry specifically? If so, then even there there's competitors like ClearInk but its a niche space with low volumes. FYI, the volumes that E Ink reaches even for what is considered "high volume" by them would be considered unacceptably low volume by LCD manufacturers. Ask yourself a simple question. Are you as a VC going to invest a billion into scaling up an electrophoretic display tech startup that may take 10-30 years or would you rather pump that same money into another internet services? Even Amazon pumped billions into Liquavista and then pulled the plug on it after not being able to scale within the time frame Jeff had given them.
> that prices are likely higher than they would be in a more competitive market.
But how are you substantiating that? Do you have awareness of the costs of materials for electrophoretic panels? Are you aware of yield rates? I actually work in the display industry and I have no actual data on that and I would never be able to estimate even order of magnitude cost without knowing those key numbers. So how are you doing making that price estimation? Your claim is equivalent of looking at a sports car market and saying Ferraris would be cheaper if there were more competitors. I hope my explanation is clear enough to convince you of the fundamental flaws in the arguments being made claiming there is "some sort of moat".
Money Quote: "The Pixel QI license was picked up by John Gilmore, activist, philanthropist, and founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He has released the patents under the Defensive Patent License."
There are few if any patents involved here -- the problem is that there is just no demand. The moment you show someone the flashy backlighted screen he will go for it 100% of the time and ditch everything else (think: there's a reason people "upgrade" their GameBoyAdvance's to a backlight).
Perhaps if you made a storefront directly illuminated by heavy sunlight...
I generally have rule about being courteous to our fellow HNers and not doing something that could be cited as evidence of willful infringement (and triple damages), but I'll forgo it in this one case with the disclaimer I'll have around it in order to help dispel the rumors going around here that somehow patents aren't at issue. There are also other patents.
= = = = = = A C T I V E P A T E N T = = = = = =
Do not look at this patent if you work in the space of computer display technology.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9075280B2/en
= = = = = = A C T I V E P A T E N T = = = = = =
Starting in 2002 they've done lots just based on these citations of an early patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5930026#citedBy
No, that's a result of low economy of scale. LCDs have a massive market, whereas e.g. big e-ink screens have such a small market they're hand-fitted. You're presupposing your conclusion.
I'm not disputing patents exist. I'm disputing whether they have a noticeable detrimental effect on the e-ink market.
I mean, ARM has a licensing fee (of 1c per CPU), but nobody sane would blame that fee for x86 beating ARM in the desktop world.
>The patent space around e ink is dominated by e ink corp over the last two decades.
I'm not sure what your point here is. Yes, they're putting a ton of money into e-ink R&D. They're patenting everything they come up with, because that's how you monetize your R&D so it's not immediately copied by your competitors without seeing a cent of benefit.
There are companies who have developed alternatives, such as Mirasol. That never took off, despite not needing any e-ink patents. This suggests that e-ink is sufficiently better than all alternatives that it's worth the patent cost - either because those alternatives were impractical, or because the patent fees for e-ink just weren't particularly cumbersome in the first place and the real problem lies elsewhere.
Which brings us back to the central issue:
Do you have any evidence that patents are actually causing problems in the real world, besides "patents exist, problems exist, one must be causing the other"?
And there are many great affordable devices with e-Ink--I have several Amazon ebook readers that I use every day.
I'm not sure I was harmed by any patent.
Many of the things we talk about on Hacker News are covered by patents. Why do you want to shred a piece of the U.S. Constitution (assuming you're talking about U.S. patents) over eInk?
Regardless of the issues with patents in general, in the specific context of e-ink it's an unsubstantiated myth until someone provides some hard evidence.
E-ink patent speculation is especially problematic because everyone on HN agrees that patents are a problem, so it sounds truthy and people want to repeat it as an example of the evils of patents.
Have you seen any comment that provides actual evidence of causality between e-ink's failure to take off and patent encumberment?
I don't work in the 3d printing industry so I don't have enough knowledge to know that with any level of confidence. It sounds plausible but not sure if it is true. That's why, I am curious whether you do, ie: do you work in the 3d printing industry? How confident are you that the recent proliferation was due to an expiration of a counterproductive patent (which one?) rather than just technologies, volume, demand, industrial production finally coming together and becoming mass market? Has there been any actual detailed analysis or study proving this? The reason I ask is not because I am opposed to the claim, rather I often see unsubstantiated claims like this go unchallenged for a long time. In the case of E Ink, I even saw someone blog that statement and they cited an HN comment about E Ink patents that I had challenged and the poster never responded, and then someone cited that very blog post in another HN comments so it became a circle of references where all the dots on the circle are unsubstantiated.
Being in a adjacent field of other robotic control that utilized 3d printing for our own prototyping before and after the proliferation I can also confirm the patent licensing being a major impediment to proliferation of the technology. We had high enough margins that we could spend $100k on a 3d printer before 2009. But the field has been revolutionized since then from the democratization and even our own processes changed heavily once we could have a bank of printers rather than just one. Sort of like the change of a a company sharing a mainframe with a guy dedicated to keeping it going versus ubiquitous microcomputers.
Here is the patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5121329A/en
And here's a short explanation of the impact: https://creax.com/insights/the-influence-of-patents-on-3d-pr...
I read the article and came away unsatisfied. I was hoping to see a clear analysis like "here's an inventor who was blocked from producing his product by a patent infringement lawsuit" and here's a series of patent infringement lawsuits that blocked inventors from innovating. Instead I felt the main points were broken due to contradictory statements in the article.
They started with: "Commercialising these kits was actually an infringement on Stratasys’ patent but Stratasys did not stop this from happening."
Which contradicts: "Everything changed by the end of 2009, the expiration date of the famous Stratasys’ patent after 20 years."
I see that Reprap was commercialized in 2006 prior to the patent expiring which clearly contradicts above as well.
There's limited factual data in this article. Claims like "Everything changed" seem like strong claims that ought to be substantiated rather than defended using "feels right" kind of explanations.
https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,13528
and that they're more than willing to sue small companies, even after their main patents expired:
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/stratasys-lands-blow-in-...
They eventually settled that suit because the patents involved were a bit weak, but I doubt they would've settled if the earlier ones were still in force.
I don't know where you saw that RepRap was commercialized in 2006 but as far as I know that's not true. Here's a history of the project by its creators which puts the first RepRap-based company in 2009: https://all3dp.com/history-of-the-reprap-project/
You could probably buy pieces on forums before that but Stratasys wouldn't target individual forum posters with runs in the single digits.
Makerbot, Prusa, Creality, FormLabs, and the other big names in small-scale 3d printing are all post-2009 companies. Here are some more recent examples of patents blocking 3d printing: https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/15/how-expiring-patents-are-u...
The SLA (liquid) section is the most relevant; it mentions how FormLabs lost a lawsuit for building one early. Other companies didn't attempt to beat the patent, but Prusa, Creality, and Makerbot (ironically now owned by Stratasys) all began selling SLA printers shortly after the patent expired. I don't have statements from the executives that they waited because of patent issues, but barring that the situation seems clear.
In the early days, Stratasys and others really did "invent" significant things in the classic sense of the word. We're not talking about "one click purchase" patents here. Allowing them exclusive use of their invention for a couple of decades didn't seem to hurt anyone.
At least it's not as bad as the other IP protections. If the lawyers who brought us copyright law had gotten into patents, we'd be eagerly anticipating the launch of the consumer television.
[0] - An 8039 is a version of the 8048 that was in the original PC keyboard, but rigged up with an external EEPROM for program code instead of the normal mask ROM. They were probably secretly 8048s that were programmed with some other customer's code in the mask ROM, but then fused off for whatever reason.
https://manualzz.com/doc/7345398/atari-slm804-service-manual...
Unlike all the other printers up to late nineties there was no high level computing smarts neither in the printer nor in the dongle. It was a Software Defined printer fully controlled by Atari ST (computer UI froze during printing to maintain tight timings), just like post year 2000 HP LaserJet 1000 and later Windows "host based" non PCL printers. As a result of this Atari ingenuity you ended up with a combo of Atari ST computer, 640×400@71.25 Hz monitor, DTP software (for example Calamus) and a Laser printer costing less than just the Apple or IBM laser printer alone, and as a bonus it printed 2-3 times faster.
So yes, 3D FDM printer at reasonable price was totally possible in late eighties leveraging cheap 16bit computers for control logic.
Smaller designers who want access to the technology can't get it from a western company, because none are stupid enough to attempt to design a competitor while E Ink the company is still around to sue them.
Fairly recently we've started to see Chinese electrophoretic displays crop up, and I can actually get a devkit or buy them by the low thousand, because E Ink isn't going to be able to sue them in China. But you still don't see them designed into very many products sold in the west, because it would be easy for E Ink to stop the end product from being sold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transflective_liquid-crystal_d...
Btw, why aren't transflective displays more poplar? They doesn't seem as technologically challenging as e-ink and there clearly is some market for rugged phones/laptops/tablets. It seems they would be a perfect fit for some construction site type of uses.
That being said, the Toshiba Portege showed that a big manufacturer can produce these at scale if they want to, and they haven't continued with it. If someone here is willing to share stories from the trenches if that particular battle ground, I'm all ears. :)
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/thinkpad/comments/mtf3hf/thinkpad_m...
Hacker News, RTFA before you comment. Don't comment if you don't really know what you are talking about. Please.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/23/3178117/qualcomm-mirasol-...
(https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/12/15/apple-has-taken-o...)
And Mirasol is a different technology than Pixel Qi.
An ipad with a colored 'e-ink'/LED hybrid screen would be such a perfect tablet in my opinion (even though I've never owned an ipad).
I personally would not use this term, just as I would not use e.g. "to beg the question". I wonder if this phenomenon has a name, along the lines of "euphemistic treadmill".
I intentionally use "beg the question" with the new meaning to do my part in cycling out the old meaning as quickly as possible. The "old" meaning is a waste of precious linguistic bandwidth, spent on a concept that is very rarely invoked (and could be just as easily invoked with something like "presupposes the facts", which is more intuitive).
If language is dynamic, then braindead vestigials should be bulldozed out with prejudice, especially when they tie up prime real estate.
I use it to mean that despite demonstrated technological viability by multiple vendors, and despite the devices providing a solution to the issue of actual portability beyond closed rooms, the market has failed to make these devices accessible.
IIRC one of the problems is that the benefit doesn't become obvious in "good" lighting conditions like a walmart building. In that way I'm putting much of the blame in this on the buying side of the market for making shallow, lazy buying decisions. But the producers are equally to blame here. Nobody made a serious first move, so no competition evolved, despite the availability of transflectives being technically governed by market forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
The way black_puppydog used it fits the term quite well.
> A market failure occurs whenever the individuals in a group end up worse off than if they had not acted in perfectly rational self-interest. Such a group either incurs too many costs or receives too few benefits.
> Even though the concept seems simple, it can be misleading and easy to misidentify.
> Contrary to what the name implies, market failure does not describe inherent imperfections in the market economy
> Additionally, not every bad outcome from market activity counts as a market failure.
As I say, I think he's using it in a very much more colloquial manner: "I don't like the outcome of the market process", which is fine.
I still find it worthwhile to point out when somebody uses a jargon term from an academic discipline, so they maybe can leave the battlefield and its senseless slaughter and instead and chose some other formulation.
I want a transflective display.
If any tech company reads this and wants to change the world: getting this in the hands of people means that many more people have the capability of sitting outside. This means more vitamin D intake. More vitamin D means improved mood (a lack of vitamin D could lead to depression [1]).
https://wringing.it/transrefl.png
Low res image to not show too much of my data, but this is the screen at minimum brightness with the sun shining on it. Text is a little blurred, but legible.
My previous laptops definitely didn't have this, but then again I switched to this one here in 2020 after almost seven years.
And everyone has different taste/priorities when it comes to laptops.
I would like to put the monitor on a stand behind the laptop so it is on eye height.
There's some open-source tooling[1] for it which can control screen features like brightness/refreshes/rendering modes/... and I've set it up[2] to work with my unprivileged user so that I can bind these features to keys in my Emacs.
With these screens you want to use light themes, and use tooling to improve contrast on websites (a friend wrote a Firefox extension[3] which is amazing for this).
[0]: https://photos.app.goo.gl/eGgGYR7ecBqv9gqy8
[1]: https://github.com/leoluk/paperlike-go
Black and white in direct sunlight? And color in the shade, development dream this thing. (At least for me that is)
Shame the company behind it does not really exist anymore.
I'd obviously buy a high-quality high-res reflective display for my laptop. I wouldn't swap out the rest of my laptop for a random laptop with a high-quality high-res reflective display.
But you can't just swap laptop components, except for sometimes SSD, RAM, and wifi card.
If there were an industry-standard 13" and 15" laptop form factor with swapable components like a desktop, there would be a market for eInk displays and other oddballs. You could stick them in your HP, and Ivanka could stick it in her Lenovo. I'd buy a:
* Keyboard with eraser dongle
* Overbuild, rugged case (think ToughBook). I don't mind the weight.
* Motherboard with two M.2 slots (for RAID), ECC memory, and lots of ports
* High-res outdoor readable display
* High-quality microphone and camera (I don't care about speakers)
And stick it all together.
I'd never buy a Toughbook as-is, since the display doesn't have enough resolution. I don't like a lot of the workstation/gaming style laptops either, mostly since they use a ton of power, which leads to fan noise, heat, and other annoyances.
At the end of the day, without being able to customize, the thinner laptop with shitty keyboard seems to be what I want.
See, I told you :)
You can have any laptop you'd like "so long as it is black".
I would kill for a 12.1" 1440x900 QI panel for my X201.
Ah, the magic of intellectual property ownership, supposedly helping to promote technological progress.
Is this US-registered IP?
including the N900
Honestly, I wonder why that technology hasn't been used for anything like the Thinkpad in the video - I'd love to have such a device!
Eh? My Pebble Time has a color screen, and it sure is transflective.
I would kill for an equivalent display in a laptop - saturated colours and eink readability in direct sunlight with 30hz refresh
Fewer people wanting it means lower economy of scale and higher prices, which means even fewer still.
The fundamental problem behind e-ink refresh rates is that there's an inherent physical limit to how quickly you can shake your ink particles up and down without damaging things.
Now I sort of want to build one. Adafruit doesn't stock them anymore ( https://www.adafruit.com/product/1303 )
Anyone know where I could get two?
Edit: Apparently this[1] is the matching driver board.
[0] https://www.ebay.com/itm/Pixel-Qi-10-1-PQ3QI-01-LCD-Display-...
[1] https://www.ebay.com/itm/Kit-For-PQ3QI-01-HDMI-DVI-VGA-LCD-L...
Would love to work outside and put the monitor on a stand so I don't have to look down.
(Corebooting was not needed to flash the bios, it just seemed fun at the time)
Them: "Woah, you just tip the screen computer down and it can project an immersive 3D holographic experience? That you can interact with directly? That's just so amazing!"
Us: "Woah, it's a X230? Even cooler if it had an X220 keyboard!"
Also, CWM with a black/white setup it's dumb easy, and xterm has an XTERMM termcap setting for the TERM variable, so that's a solved issue.
Also lots of old X11 games will work fine, among text adventures/games and Game Boy titles.
Finally, X11 has a monochrome switch, really useful for these cases (I think it adds dithering to a b/w display):
Xserver -render mono
-render monoIt would be stupid to keep my wife and kids home during summer just because I need to work. So they sometimes travel without me.
I have actually been working remotely for many years. It is sometimes possible to move stuff around so that I have mostly reading for a week or two and then I could do it anywhere I want.
I have experimented with traveling while working remotely with some mixed results.
* https://m.gsmarena.com/tcl_nxtpaper_brings_new_display_techn...
(I had no idea; I only use Linux on ancient ThinkPads, since... well, that's what they're for! :P)
(I am aware the tablet version came with an IPS screen but that is a different model)