Gizmodo's article

Matt Buchanan writes on Gizmodo claiming that E-Ink is dead, killed by Pixel-Qi. I find such reports to be greatly exaggerated. The article is, unfortunately, sloppy. It makes statements like "it [the pixel qi display] immediately switched to the electrophoretic reflective mode". As most engineers are aware, electrophoresis is the physical phenomena of particle-in-solvent motion under an electrical field and is what E-Ink's Vizplex display films rely on. Pixel Qi's displays and the OLPC XO's displays do not use electrophoresis, instead, they rely on traditional twisted nematic liquid crystal technology.

The term e-paper is being increasingly diluted by marketeer-ing. Originally, e-paper, as the term suggests, described an electronic display with paper like behaviour and capabilities. The key aspect being the ability of the display to retain an image for a significant period of time without the consumption of any power. That is, you should be able to rip the display out and the image that was last drawn to it will stay. E-paper display technologies (such as cholesteric liquid crystal, QR-LPD, ZBD, electrophoretic (E-Ink Vizplex), etc) have that characteristic bistability. Twisted nematic LCD displays (whether reflective or transflective), like the Pixel Qi display, do NOT have that characteristic. Marketing such displays as having "an e-paper mode" are, at best, bordering on hucksterism.

E-Ink's display films currently dominate the market. LG and PrimeView are the major panel suppliers that use E-Ink's films to make the display panels used in the majority of the current e-book readers. Competitors to E-Ink should be coming to the party sometime this year. Some such as AUO-Sipix have already publicly announced this and even have possible design wins (Jinke). Anyway, I have no qualms about the long term value of e-paper technologies, whether they're E-Ink's or others. Gizmodo on the other hand, I'm not so sure about.