That's interesting, I'm the opposite to you. I much prefer to reading books using an e-ink screen.
I have a Kobo Clara HD e-ink reader. It has a 300 PPI screen which is very comfortable to read from. I can read for long periods without getting fatigued. I can't do that using IPS colour monitors or tablets, even the high-resolution screens. With an e-ink screen I can read properly, not skim-read like I do on a monitor or tablet.
My thoughts on whether an e-ink reader is suitable or not:
- Small e-ink screens (e.g. 6 inch) are only suitable for paperback-sized, text-only books (fiction or non-fiction)
- Small e-ink screens are not suitable for reading PDFs
- A general rule of thumb when deciding whether to purchase an e-book: If the physical book is larger than a paperback size, then it is unlikely to be suitable for an e-ink screen (unless the book is text-only).
- Small e-ink readers are not suitable for any books with complex layouts, layouts designed for larger books, or books with colour graphics: charts, diagrams, photos, etc. Amazon, in particular, encourage publishers to convert as many books as possible to Kindle format regardless of whether those books are suitable for e-ink screens.
However, I do far prefer reflowable text on an ereader. I just had to give up on the idea of one device fulfilling both use cases: you can't have a 100g, one handed, two week battery device that you can read in a sunbeam as well as a device that can handily render a PDF and allow smooth zoom, pan and searching.
what infernal patents are you talking about? Your claims are fairly typical of what I see on HN around this topic and if you look at my comment history, you'll see how no one seems to be able to provide any substance or evidence. You'll also see how I've explained that it is PHYSICS that limits the performance of electrophoretic displays.