Are There Benefits To Using Active Stylus?
reMarkable Paper Pro and Active Stylus
Lately, eInk companies like reMarkable and Onyx have been dabbling in the use of a stylus technology called USI. Traditionally eInk manufacturers have chosen to go with EMR stylus technology for its quality, interoperability, and lack of needing batteries. Therefore, by extension, no need to charge. The switch has caused some in the community to question, why? Why now, and why active stylus?
I understand that Wacom is not representative of all “EMR styli”, and that USI isn’t representative of all “Active styli”. But, for the sake of this article, I’m going to single out the two biggest players, in their respective stylus spaces. This is just to keep things simple and give a recognizable name to each technology. Okay, let’s get started.
WHAT IS USI AND ITS PURPOSE?
USI is the Universal Stylus Initiative. It was launched on April 23, 2015, by an alliance of companies looking to create a technical standard for interoperable “active styli” and touchscreen devices, using existing technology. USI is a non-profit organization and a technical standard - kind of how iMessage is an app and a messaging protocol. There are over 30 companies in the USI consortium, and oddly enough (or maybe not odd at all), Wacom is one of those companies. The goal of the USI Standard and its consortium is to provide consumers with a low-cost, consistent, high-quality writing and drawing experience across different devices.
“We hope to get the cost of USI 2.0 Stuylus to around $20 USD.”
KILLER FEATURES OF USI
Unlike Wacom, where the stylus is only powered when it's close to its device, USI is always on. So settings like Line Style, Line Color, Line Width, and Eraser Functionality can all be saved to the pen. In theory, these settings will also carry over from one device to the next.
Imagine having one pen that was set up just how you like it, rather than configuring each device you use. One Pen Per Function. Eraser pen, Red Pen, Highlighter pen. Like how we use writing tools normally. That's it though! Haptic feedback… maybe, but that largely depends on how it’s implemented. We’ll talk more about that later. People also tout cost, interoperability (cross-platform use), and thinness as killer features, but I beg to differ. Let's take a look at these and how they tie into the USI mission.
PRINCIPLES OF USI: AFFORDABILITY, INTEROPERABILITY, QUALITY & THINNESS
The USI Consortium's President has stated that USI styli has a suggested cost of around $20*. This is in an effort to keep USI gear affordable. As a technology that's being marketed to the education sector, the cost is a big factor, and they think they can win on this front, over technologies like Wacom.
EMR
Electro Magnetic Resonance. Creates a magnetic field that, among other things, powers EMR styli.
Why does Wacom cost more? Well, special hardware is needed for Wacom tech to work. Wacom tablets use a proprietary system whereby an Electro-Magnetic Resonance (EMR) Field is created by the device. This EMR field only powers the stylus, though. This mechanism is why Wacom styli don't need batteries to work and never needs changing – unlike USI. You also need an EMR Grid to detect the position of the stylus and the pressure being applied. To do all of this, you need a network of wires and sensors embedded beneath the surface of the display. The stylus itself needs coils to manage power and circuitry that can send and receive data.
By comparison, most tablets and phones these days come with the technology needed to use USI. This is due to the capacitive layer in most touch screens. This is what USI Styli use to communicate their position to the device. Thus, no special system is needed. That's an oversimplification, and other parts are needed, but they aren't proprietary. Why is that important… licensing costs. If you want to use Wacom's technology, you have to pay them to license it (or loan) out to you. This licensing adds even more cost to the device, a cost USI doesn't have to worry about. USI is an open standard that anyone can use and develop for, with no licensing fees.
Though the USI Consortium suggests a cost of around $20 to the end-user, the styli we're seeing from e-Ink manufacturers is on par with, if not more than, their Wacom counterparts.
Remarkable
Paper Pro Marker = $79
Paper Pro Marker Plus = $129
Onyx
InLsense = $41.99
Inkspire = ~$80 (not out yet, but expect it to be at least $80)
Triangular Pen = $45.99
Pen2 Pro = $79.99
Amazon
Prices vary a lot, but the lowest was $9.99. And yes, you can find a Wacom pen for that price as well.
So, as far as price goes, the manufacturers pay less to implement, but the consumer gets charged the same amount. It looks like the manufacturers are the only ones seeing a cost-benefit... to their margins.
The USI Standard relies heavily on the principle of consistency and interoperability, the thought that one stylus could be used on multiple devices, no matter the manufacturer. This is the way Wacom tech works now, one pen, many devices. But not USI. USI styli from e-Ink manufacturers have been in a somewhat closed ecosystem and a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to functionality.
Remarkable chose to lock out most other USI styli from working with their newest device, the Remarkable Paper Pro. Not that you can't find one that works with it on Amazon, but that's not exactly consistent or total interoperability. Onyx, with its newest and first USI device, the Go 7, has stated that their Inkspire stylus for the Go 7 series will only be compatible with the Go 7 series. Their New Tab XC device will also be USI, and though they haven't said yet, I'd be willing to bet that the Tab XC will also have an exclusive pen, the Inkspire.
Though the USI alliance would like the standard to be interoperable and interchangeable like Wacom, OEMs, at least e-ink OEMs, are locking a lot of third-party USI styli out. This forces you to use their styli, for good or bad. And if you're Onyx, it's most certainly for bad. They can't make a decent pen if their CEO's life depended upon it. Good thing it doesn't. Good thing too, we wouldn't have the Go10.3 if it did.
For this quality segment, I was prepared to blast USI here for their lack of good line quality. That was because that was all I had heard and seen from other reviewers and such. But when I went to show this on my live show, it turned out quite unexpectedly.
The USI standard using reMarkable Paper Pro beat out every other Wacom tablet I had on hand, except for the GOAT - The Go 10.3. (It never lets me down). Line quality is the only area, so far, where the USI Standard delivers on its mission. Lines are straight with little to no deviation. Pressure sensitivity is okay as well, with a decent gradient. Still not as good as the best Wacom has to offer, but still good.
Because USI is In-Cell compatible, it has the ability to shrink the size of devices that use it. But, what is In-Cell technology? LCD displays have a number of layers: LCD, digitizer, touch sensor, and glass cover layer. This arrangement of separated layers is called "Out-Cell” technology. Then we have "On-Cell" display tech that combines the LCD and digitizer layers, reducing the layers to just 3. “In-Cell” technology is where all the layers of a display are combined into one layer, reducing the layers of the display to 2: LCD + glass layer. This reduces its overall thickness. This also has the added effect of reducing the parallax effect created by the pen-to-display distance when you have a discernible distance between the LCD and the glass layer over it.
In Cell display technology was made to consolidate and condense the different panel layers (touch layers, LCD layer, substrate layer) into one.
In-Cell technology is specific to LCD screens and not used for eInk displays. This is due to the electrophoretic nature of e-Ink, where capsules of pigment are Physically moved into place, rather than bending and manipulating light to show a digital image like LCD does. This physical component of e-Ink means that it can't take advantage of USI’s ability to use in-cell technology, and therefore USI won't lead to thinner e-Ink devices.
HOW IS USI BETTER THAN WACOM?
Apple Pecil Pro:
Apple’s use of haptics in the Apple Pencil Pro is an example of how hapics can be used to enhance the writing experience.
USI has the ability to use haptic feedback. Haptics are only a benefit if used correctly, like how Apple uses it in their Apple Pencil Pro. Onyx is an example of how using haptics the wrong way can hinder your experience. Their approach is to vibrate as you write to simulate pen reverberation. How about “make better pens”, that have natural reverberation, like how remarkable, and Ratta has done with their supernote pens? Don't "simulate" a quality pen by using haptics. That’s the wrong way.
USI is also open Source which means anyone can develop for the USI standard, and openess leads to innovation. Innovating new features and tech leads to more competition, and we all know when companies compete it breeds even more innovation and prices come down. Everything else is providing what Wacom does.
WHO'S DECISION IS IT, TO USE USI?
There isn't any concrete info out there on who's actually making the USI/e-Ink switch. It's either the e-Ink corporation itself making this decision for everyone, or it's the Manufacturers themselves. Let's look at both.
Boox Go Color 7
The Boox Go Color 7 is a good example of the kind of device that isn’t made for writing, so it doesn’t need the excellent and more expensive EMR technology. But if you could give it some level of writing capability, and still keep the cost down, everyone wins. That’s exactly what Onyx did.
It’s highly unlikely that the eInk Corp would make this decision, given that the e-Ink Corp. could arguably make more money selling Wacom tech if they were in the stylus tech game - which they aren't! e-Ink just does displays, they aren't in the stylus tech side of the industry, as far as I can tell. Case and Point, on the eInk website, none of the displays that they market have writing tech implemented. Just display tech. Manufacturers are the only ones who stand to gain from a switch to USI over wacom. But, why would manufacturers choose USI”?
WHY WOULD MANUFACTURERS CHOOSE USI?
USI is open source and as such manufacturers can make styli and tablets that are mutually exclusive. This means you have to buy their styli for their tablet, locking out the third-party market. This isn't possible with Wacom, where any Wacom pen will work with any wacom tablet… for the most part. No licensing fees mean they save money by not using Wacom. Less expensive hardware means they save there as well.
How It Works:
Capacitive Touch works when your finger interrupts a signal, decreasing it’s capacitance (its ability to maintain the signal).
Active styli use the included digitizer and touch layers that most touch screen devices ship with. Unlike EMR tech which requires the use of additional equipment, like electromagnetic field generators and sensors. The pen tech too is rather standard in its component set. It uses mostly off-the-shelf parts to mimic how your finger interacts with touch screens. By building cheaper, and selling at the same cost as EMR, to the consumer, profit on those devices increases. Like I said earlier, I don't know whose decision this is, but I know who benefits the most... Manufacturers.
USI e-Ink tablets and styli aren't more affordable than Wacom. The interoperability isn't currently there with tablets that will work with any USI stylus. Hell, USI 1.0 and 2.0 aren't even interoperable - there are compatibility issues even within the standard. The line quality is a good barometer of how well the USI system works as a whole, and it's actually pretty good. Not better than wacom, but pretty good. Lastly, USI won't make e-Ink devices any thinner.
USI can be a viable alternative to Wacom. In some cases, it can be better than Wacom, if all the features have been implemented. Also, I think USI will get better, but even they admit that USI could be used as a low-cost alternative to wacom. For example, If you're making a drawing tablet for professional artists, then use Wacom. If your users don't need that level of quality and precision, go with USI.
But with compatibility issues, higher than suggested pricing, and quality that's just "on par", at best, I think the motivation, at least on the e-Ink side of the house, is all about the profits, not the user experience.
