People don't realize that e-ink and related technologies simply _don't sell_, and rather make up crazy conspiracy theories about eInk for some reason sabotaging their own product.
Consumers don't accept the disadvantages of eInk, such as the low refresh rate, the apparent low contrast, and the extremely poor color reproduction. At the same time, the advantages are rather minuscule; in fact, people have a hard time distinguishing eInk from reflective LCD. They think reflective display == eInk, while in truth many devices popularly seen as "eInk" are actually reflective LCDs (e.g. the Pebble and Garmin smartwatches).
Most companies that have made non-LCD based products are simply out-sold by LCD products and go bankrupt. I could probably name half-a-dozen non-LCD reflective technologies which are dead today without even checking Wikipedia, like Gyricon, Mirasol, the stuff the OLPC used, Flepia, etc. All of them dead or niche.
You just can't point fingers at eInk since some of these technologies faded even before eInk even existed, and some of them are owned by companies which are at least ten times larger than eInk (Qualcomm, Fujitsu, etc.). These theories claiming that eInk is the large neighborhood bully just don't many any sense whatsoever. Qualcomm, for example, _is_ a well-known bully; unlikely to be scared of eInk's portfolio. But Qualcomm released exactly 1 product with Mirasol - which completely flopped in the market - and then gave up on it.
Even price displays are usually LCDs, with only a minority being eInk, but as you can see here, casual hackers have a hard time distinguishing between them.
The small displays they put on smartcards (showing a 2FA or the like) are also LCDs, and even with a practically minuscule battery they last for half a decade, and that's refreshing itself once per hour... I couldn't think of a better usecase for eInk, and yet it fails to beat a much cheaper plain old LCD, save for perhaps if you wear polarizing glasses...