Google shelves plan for phone with interchangeable parts(uk.reuters.com)
uk.reuters.com
Google shelves plan for phone with interchangeable parts
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-google-smartphone-idUKKCN11806C
310 comments
First thing that came into mind when I heard about project Ara was that, laptops aren't modular because the increased size and weight will out weigh the benefits. Seemed like the same situation applies to smartphones, only worse.
They used to be modular until companies started to follow Apple down the current path. I had a Dell Inspiron with removable battery, removable DVD drive, and PCMCIA slot for modular functionality.
Now we have come somewhat full circle with Apple's Macbook which has meagre hardware functionality and relies on USB-C to provide the missing functionality in a modular fashion. However it means a nest of cables so it's probably not what anyone wants when they want a modular laptop.
Now we have come somewhat full circle with Apple's Macbook which has meagre hardware functionality and relies on USB-C to provide the missing functionality in a modular fashion. However it means a nest of cables so it's probably not what anyone wants when they want a modular laptop.
> They used to be modular until companies started to follow Apple down the current path. I had a Dell Inspiron with removable battery, removable DVD drive, and PCMCIA slot for modular functionality.
And how much did it weigh? Laptops have come a long way since even just 10 years ago. My rMBP is almost a pound lighter than my original Macbook, despite having a 15.4" versus 13.3" screen, a quad core versus dual-core processor, and a 96 watt-hour battery versus a 55 watt-hour battery.
And even if I was willing to cart around that extra 0.8 pounds, I wouldn't want to spend that extra weight budget on increased modularity. I'd much rather they, say, push the battery life to 14-15 hours instead.
And how much did it weigh? Laptops have come a long way since even just 10 years ago. My rMBP is almost a pound lighter than my original Macbook, despite having a 15.4" versus 13.3" screen, a quad core versus dual-core processor, and a 96 watt-hour battery versus a 55 watt-hour battery.
And even if I was willing to cart around that extra 0.8 pounds, I wouldn't want to spend that extra weight budget on increased modularity. I'd much rather they, say, push the battery life to 14-15 hours instead.
Sure. For me the most important concern of a laptop is mass. Then screen resolution. rMBP is a good choice if you rank these two criteria as highly as I do.
You still have modular laptops. For example, for a Clevo W230SS (known as "Sager NP7338" in some parts), you can choose the display (1080p or 2560x1440 matte IPS, or 3200x1600 glossy), CPU, up to two hard drives (or was it three? Can't recall), W-Lan module, keyboard layout, RAM amount+brand+frequency et cetera. For its bigger brother (which is 17.1'', as opposed to the 13.3'' W230SS), you can also select the optical drive (different brands of DVD and Blu-Ray R-only or R/W drives --- the 13.3'' variant is too small to fit one).
The battery is swappable, and the whole thing opens with a set of phillips (you know, the '+' shape) screws.
Although you can't choose the GPU when ordering, newer ones tend to have newer models, implying that's also modular (just fixed to a selection of one at a given time).
So, yeah --- you can get a modular laptop, but you have to know where to look.
The battery is swappable, and the whole thing opens with a set of phillips (you know, the '+' shape) screws.
Although you can't choose the GPU when ordering, newer ones tend to have newer models, implying that's also modular (just fixed to a selection of one at a given time).
So, yeah --- you can get a modular laptop, but you have to know where to look.
Realistically your Dell Inspiron was only slightly more modular than most early Android phones. Battery and external storage were swappable, but the bulk of the remainder was all integrated.
"They used to be modular until companies started to follow Apple down the current path. I had a Dell Inspiron with removable battery, removable DVD drive, and PCMCIA slot for modular functionality."
PCMCIA was so great. In my entire experience of computing and consumer electronics, I think PCMCIA is still my favorite technology. I miss it a lot.
PCMCIA was so great. In my entire experience of computing and consumer electronics, I think PCMCIA is still my favorite technology. I miss it a lot.
What do you mean by "meagre hardware functionality" ?
At my current (Dell) laptop I can change RAM, DVD, HD and battery. Seems to be the perfect point between a modular and an integrated designs.
There's no point adding any extra module, people do not upgrade anything besides RAM, and everything that wears off is included.
There's no point adding any extra module, people do not upgrade anything besides RAM, and everything that wears off is included.
Apple has driven the market back to the days of 8 and 16 bit computers.
The PC was the outlier that allowed for easy expansion.
Now we have USB instead of Amiga expansion bays, that required a table with big enough width. Instead we scatter cables and hubs.
The PC was the outlier that allowed for easy expansion.
Now we have USB instead of Amiga expansion bays, that required a table with big enough width. Instead we scatter cables and hubs.
I remember the old mid-2000 MacBooks. I had one with an easily accessible hard drive and ram right under the replaceable battery (which I did have to replace once too).
People forget Apple was sued, and lost, in the 1990s for telling people to buy new iPods instead of selling replacement batteries. They started moving to user serviceable stuff briefly, but then went back to their own ways and people haven't challenged them since.
People forget Apple was sued, and lost, in the 1990s for telling people to buy new iPods instead of selling replacement batteries. They started moving to user serviceable stuff briefly, but then went back to their own ways and people haven't challenged them since.
Re iPod:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPod_bat...
It was the 2000s, 2005 was the settlement date, iPods didn't exist in the 1990s. They didn't lose, strictly speaking, they settled (which is not the same as admitting fault). Settling lets them save face, even if they may not have had a liability, by not dragging their name through the muck with regards to the poor performance of the batteries and iPods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPod_bat...
It was the 2000s, 2005 was the settlement date, iPods didn't exist in the 1990s. They didn't lose, strictly speaking, they settled (which is not the same as admitting fault). Settling lets them save face, even if they may not have had a liability, by not dragging their name through the muck with regards to the poor performance of the batteries and iPods.
I believe Apple offers battery replacement programs for most (if not all) of their products now.
I had the same thing. Sure it was bulky, heavy plastic at the time, but it never had the investment to evolve into something more efficient.
We didn't have to go down the road to soldering all the bits to a tiny motherboard, but Apple's vision of "small and light at all costs", including performance and battery life, killed all the other paths for the foreseeable future.
I might investigate EOMA68 stuff, though it is likely years before it'll be viable, if ever (especially given their anti-intel sentiment): http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68
We didn't have to go down the road to soldering all the bits to a tiny motherboard, but Apple's vision of "small and light at all costs", including performance and battery life, killed all the other paths for the foreseeable future.
I might investigate EOMA68 stuff, though it is likely years before it'll be viable, if ever (especially given their anti-intel sentiment): http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68
> including performance and battery life
Apple is the only vendor that has a 15" laptop with high-res screen and quad-core processor that gets 8+ hours of battery life. The only laptops with greater battery capacity than the Macbook Pros are the Thinkpads with extended batteries that stick out of the machine.
Apple is the only vendor that has a 15" laptop with high-res screen and quad-core processor that gets 8+ hours of battery life. The only laptops with greater battery capacity than the Macbook Pros are the Thinkpads with extended batteries that stick out of the machine.
Some people are obsessed with weight/thickness in mobile devices, but not as many as the manufacturers think there are. "modular" really comes down to "repairable" which means extra engineering would have to go in to the fact that you couldn't just glue most pieces together.
It _would_ add a little size/mass overhead, but it wouldn't have to add a lot. It would just cut in to bottom lines to build and maintain a consistent form factor. Allowing people to replace parts means they'll be buying fewer new units. My last two laptop purchases were definitely due to a hypothetically fixable problem in an unrepairable form factor.
It _would_ add a little size/mass overhead, but it wouldn't have to add a lot. It would just cut in to bottom lines to build and maintain a consistent form factor. Allowing people to replace parts means they'll be buying fewer new units. My last two laptop purchases were definitely due to a hypothetically fixable problem in an unrepairable form factor.
I also wouldn't mind slightly thicker phones, but not necessarily for modularity. I just want to see phones that can be dropped flat on their faces on a concrete sidewalk and still remain in usable condition (i.e. no shattered screen).
Making the screen completely modular would be one way to achieve this, since you can just replace the screen with a new one if the old one breaks in a drop. But it can be achieved much more easily and cheaply by simply slightly recessing the screen (or by slightly raising everything around the screen) so the glass never has to make direct contact with concrete in the event of a drop.
This is how bumper cases work, and my $3 bumper case has saved my $400 phone enough times that I'd never use a new phone without one. That said, I really wish this kind of resilience was built into the phone itself, so I'd never have to have to cover up the nice design and great feeling materials on my phone with a cheap, bulky, hideous case.
Making the screen completely modular would be one way to achieve this, since you can just replace the screen with a new one if the old one breaks in a drop. But it can be achieved much more easily and cheaply by simply slightly recessing the screen (or by slightly raising everything around the screen) so the glass never has to make direct contact with concrete in the event of a drop.
This is how bumper cases work, and my $3 bumper case has saved my $400 phone enough times that I'd never use a new phone without one. That said, I really wish this kind of resilience was built into the phone itself, so I'd never have to have to cover up the nice design and great feeling materials on my phone with a cheap, bulky, hideous case.
> Making the screen completely modular would be one way to achieve this, since you can just replace the screen with a new one if the old one breaks in a drop
iPhone 4/4S did this just fine, undo two screws and the glass comes right off ready to be replaced for like $10.
iPhone 5> they started fusing the glass to the sensor IIRC so this became far more expensive/cumbersome
iPhone 4/4S did this just fine, undo two screws and the glass comes right off ready to be replaced for like $10.
iPhone 5> they started fusing the glass to the sensor IIRC so this became far more expensive/cumbersome
Ruggedized phones exist. They look like childproof rubber bricks, but they exist.
Slightly recessing the screen may not be enough. It's certainly not enough for asphalt. You'll need several millimeters of distance, and are probably much better by just placing some protective screen above it (although that increases the chance of something getting damaged - it'll just be the protective screen instead of the real one).
I've had good luck in choosing phones with cases just elastic enough to break a bit while protecting the screen (even without any kind of cover). But I never brought into the hard-case movement by Apple.
I've had good luck in choosing phones with cases just elastic enough to break a bit while protecting the screen (even without any kind of cover). But I never brought into the hard-case movement by Apple.
Then just buy a case with a nice design. Buy a $20 case instead of a $3 bumper.
Using a separate case still adds a lot more bulk than would be necessary if the protective layer was built into the phone itself. This is just yet another example of the unavoidable cost of modularity that people have been bringing up everywhere in this thread. And even the nicest and most expensive cases I've tried have never really been able to compare with my actual phone in terms of quality of material and design.
Yeah, absolutely. You can't buy a high-quality one if you want to.
My original Galaxy S was built like this. The screen was recessed slightly into the bezel.
You could instead just make phones be cheap enough that you don't mind dropping them.
That's the American spirit!
[deleted]
> "modular" really comes down to "repairable" which means extra engineering would have to go in to the fact that you couldn't just glue most pieces together.
I think those are quite different: a phone that screws/clips together where you can replace a damaged screen is a very different prospect from one made of pluggable blocks.
I think those are quite different: a phone that screws/clips together where you can replace a damaged screen is a very different prospect from one made of pluggable blocks.
>Some people are obsessed with weight/thickness in mobile devices, but not as many as the manufacturers think there are. "
That's not what sales numbers say. People repeatedly buy the thinner/lighter models (which also seem more "advanced to then") over heavier alternatives.
That's not what sales numbers say. People repeatedly buy the thinner/lighter models (which also seem more "advanced to then") over heavier alternatives.
But often you don't even have the option for a thicker model... So how can anyone even claim that?
From the times that you do have it.
This could easily be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Focus most of your efforts putting the good stuff into the thin phones and then run the numbers how everyone is buying thin phones!
Focus most of your efforts putting the good stuff into the thin phones and then run the numbers how everyone is buying thin phones!
I'm not sure if your assertions are true, but I passionately want them to be so.
Laptops are less modular than desktops but way more modular than phones. HDDs, SSDs, and RAM can generally be upgraded, whereas in phones only the SD card can be upgraded. (In both, batteries and screens can be replaced with OEM parts.)
I think LG have done something very neat with the new G5 and modular phone design. Having that accessory swap bay on the phone allows you to add all sorts of different tools or capabilities to the handset.
It's not ideal because they integrated it with the battery bay, so you have shut the device off to make a swap you're replacing the end of the removable battery tray, which is also a pretty boss feature given the complete sealed flagships everyone else produces now).
But, it mates both a solid, SoC platform with some modular flexibility, vice having to bluetooth tether accessory cases to your phone.
It's not ideal because they integrated it with the battery bay, so you have shut the device off to make a swap you're replacing the end of the removable battery tray, which is also a pretty boss feature given the complete sealed flagships everyone else produces now).
But, it mates both a solid, SoC platform with some modular flexibility, vice having to bluetooth tether accessory cases to your phone.
Isn't that an extension port rather than a modular phone? You can add some features via extension modules but the phone itself isn't modular. And technically that's "just" the phone acting as a USB host, coupled to the software support for modules.
But they have committed the ultimate sin for androids with that, it uses a non-standart power connector.
AFAICS it just uses USB type C, which a bunch of phones are using now instead of microUSB type B. That's hardly "non-standard."
It may have been a reference to this:
http://www.androidauthority.com/htc-10-lg-g5-breach-usb-type...
I agree USB-C is standard and will be THE new standard (over Micro-USB). But very few manufacturers are getting USB-C right.
http://www.androidauthority.com/htc-10-lg-g5-breach-usb-type...
I agree USB-C is standard and will be THE new standard (over Micro-USB). But very few manufacturers are getting USB-C right.
Ah, thanks, I hadn't known about that, but I'm not remotely surprised by it.
I'm not even especially concerned by it, though I'd (obviously) prefer if everyone just used the standard charge protocols rather than thirty different "nod-and-a-wink" handshakes.
I suppose absent external pressure there's not much reason for the SoC vendors to opt for the standard over their own proprietary thing, though, is there.
I'm not even especially concerned by it, though I'd (obviously) prefer if everyone just used the standard charge protocols rather than thirty different "nod-and-a-wink" handshakes.
I suppose absent external pressure there's not much reason for the SoC vendors to opt for the standard over their own proprietary thing, though, is there.
> Both weight and volume are at an extreme premium in mobile devices. All that metal/plastic going in to making the pieces modular is stealing volume and weight from the battery.
This is probably mostly right, except that the size and weight of current mobile phones is probably largely determined by display, battery and case design/protection. I'd like to see some real numbers here. My guess is that 5-10g of plastic and connectors wouldn't make much of a difference and could easily be compensated with a slightly smaller battery and screen if size/weight become an issue.
> Modularity worked in desktop PCs because they have gobs of space and an AC power connection.
Many things have changed since the 80s, modularity is now unattractive for most users.
This is probably mostly right, except that the size and weight of current mobile phones is probably largely determined by display, battery and case design/protection. I'd like to see some real numbers here. My guess is that 5-10g of plastic and connectors wouldn't make much of a difference and could easily be compensated with a slightly smaller battery and screen if size/weight become an issue.
> Modularity worked in desktop PCs because they have gobs of space and an AC power connection.
Many things have changed since the 80s, modularity is now unattractive for most users.
> modularity is now unattractive for most users.
It's not that modularity has become unattractive, it's that smaller form factors have become more attractive.
A larger form factor is a potential side effect of modularity.
I don't think modularity was ever very attractive in most consumer electronics for the "average joe" who just wants something that does the job they bought it for.
It's not that modularity has become unattractive, it's that smaller form factors have become more attractive.
A larger form factor is a potential side effect of modularity.
I don't think modularity was ever very attractive in most consumer electronics for the "average joe" who just wants something that does the job they bought it for.
Agreed. I'm surprised they thrashed for so long. My current smartphone is glued together, and there are all kinds of cabling gymnastics behind the screen that make repair tricky.
A modular cellphone would be bulky, likely power hungry, and despite its modularity, it would not be easy to upgrade whatsoever.
Ara was DOA.
A modular cellphone would be bulky, likely power hungry, and despite its modularity, it would not be easy to upgrade whatsoever.
Ara was DOA.
Wait, was there ever a plan to use anything but a SoC? That's all that's available as far as processors go as far as I'm aware. The modules would go
- screen - battery - processor (cpu/gpu/memory/radio) - everything else (sensors, interconnects, speakers, storage, etc.)
Almost all phone processors are a BGP stack with memory on top of cpu/gpu/radio on a single die.
- screen - battery - processor (cpu/gpu/memory/radio) - everything else (sensors, interconnects, speakers, storage, etc.)
Almost all phone processors are a BGP stack with memory on top of cpu/gpu/radio on a single die.
That was the original notion. Although radio probably could've gone into a separate module if they wanted it to, given the radio's frequently a discrete component anyways.
The big change that happened with the "reset" was that the display, primary battery, and AP (SoC) all became part of the frame. The original notion was that all the parts of the phone were modules, all connecting to the AP (which is also a module) via the frame's UniPro network-- the frame itself has little intelligence. (The way this works is actually pretty neat; I hope some of the network stack sees the light of day in some form or another.)
The big change that happened with the "reset" was that the display, primary battery, and AP (SoC) all became part of the frame. The original notion was that all the parts of the phone were modules, all connecting to the AP (which is also a module) via the frame's UniPro network-- the frame itself has little intelligence. (The way this works is actually pretty neat; I hope some of the network stack sees the light of day in some form or another.)
What does AP stand for?
AP or APU stands for Application Processor [Unit] which is more or less synonymous with SoC. The semantics of it are pretty boring, and the term seems a little strange considering modern cell phones are fairly identical to modern computers besides the fact that a few more functions are packages in a single IC.
[deleted]
even if there wasn't a plan to do that, that's how the idea was received.
Compare the reactions from HN when it was made clear that you could not upgrade CPU/GPU/RAM/battery/screen individually
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11740451
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11740451
Some background ... I have been very, very interested in a modular phone platform for many years now - mainly due to my desire to isolate computing modules from baseband modules and have hard switches for things like GPS/microphone/wifi/etc. For me the goal was control and security, not gimmicks like projector modules, etc.
In fact, I went so far as to contact several small electronics designers and fabricators and drew up some initial plans. rsync.net and (pre-release) 0x.co kept me busy, so I didn't get much further than that.
But in answer to your point:
"To make something modular you need to wrap each piece in its own case, add bulky connectors, etc. Both weight and volume are at an extreme premium in mobile devices."
No, not really ... the design direction I was going in was a to have one or two or three plastic cases, depending on how large (how many modules) you wanted your phone to be and then the modules themselves were bare daughterboards that had connectors such that you could assemble them like a grid.
So in that fashion, each module would not need its own packaging and case - you simply started with a plastic package (case) that was large enough for whatever "grid" you wanted to assemble.
And, of course, you could add a second (or third, or fourth) battery module.
In fact, I went so far as to contact several small electronics designers and fabricators and drew up some initial plans. rsync.net and (pre-release) 0x.co kept me busy, so I didn't get much further than that.
But in answer to your point:
"To make something modular you need to wrap each piece in its own case, add bulky connectors, etc. Both weight and volume are at an extreme premium in mobile devices."
No, not really ... the design direction I was going in was a to have one or two or three plastic cases, depending on how large (how many modules) you wanted your phone to be and then the modules themselves were bare daughterboards that had connectors such that you could assemble them like a grid.
So in that fashion, each module would not need its own packaging and case - you simply started with a plastic package (case) that was large enough for whatever "grid" you wanted to assemble.
And, of course, you could add a second (or third, or fourth) battery module.
You would still need redundant connectors that give weight and take volume.
Yep. My only surprise is that they took them this long to stop working on it.
I can understand why this could be a useful internal experiment. But, clearly, some people at Google expected this to be a viable product. Baffling.
I can understand why this could be a useful internal experiment. But, clearly, some people at Google expected this to be a viable product. Baffling.
Screen replacement, camera, DSP and audio out, radio, sensors, USB port, all could be upgradeable or at least, replaceable to fix breakage.
Yes the phone would be bigger, but I believe the main reason this has gone nowhere is that people have got used to seeing phones as replaceable units at the phone level, not at the component level, and there's more money in selling a shiny new Galaxy Over9000 than there is in selling a swap-out for a busted screen.
Yes the phone would be bigger, but I believe the main reason this has gone nowhere is that people have got used to seeing phones as replaceable units at the phone level, not at the component level, and there's more money in selling a shiny new Galaxy Over9000 than there is in selling a swap-out for a busted screen.
Doesnt Motorola have a phone out right now that's modular? I see advertisements every day for it on the El train in Chicago. It looks silly and impracticable but it's clearly possible.
That phone only has modular accessories (better camera lens, bigger battery, louder speakers, etc).
As terrible as this idea is for phones -- it's perfect for home automation.
Having each and every widget doing its own network and software stack is just a mess. Nevermind having to power all these gadgets.
There's very little reason to have more than one base in a room, that could handle all the non-switch/non-outlet duties. (cameras, air quality sensors, motion sensors, mics and speakers for echo-type interaction, tv input, etc.)
If all those features were just modules that stacked on top of a base (and could be swapped independently), you'd really have something.
Having each and every widget doing its own network and software stack is just a mess. Nevermind having to power all these gadgets.
There's very little reason to have more than one base in a room, that could handle all the non-switch/non-outlet duties. (cameras, air quality sensors, motion sensors, mics and speakers for echo-type interaction, tv input, etc.)
If all those features were just modules that stacked on top of a base (and could be swapped independently), you'd really have something.
I don't understand at all...
Home automation is, by the nature of it, a series of distinct functions spread throughout the home (e.g. front door lock, garage control, temperature control, lights in each room, sprinkler system, washer/dryer alerts, etc); so you're going to need each of these geographically separate things communicating into a central control "hub."
You cannot physically move these things into a module on the central control hub. Most of them have to be in the location they're already at (e.g. physically in the front door).
How does making the control hub a modular unit help with the complexity of home automation? If anything it further adds to the complexity. A lot of the solutions now just use WiFi networking and a standard protocol.
I'm just not understanding your concept at all.
Home automation is, by the nature of it, a series of distinct functions spread throughout the home (e.g. front door lock, garage control, temperature control, lights in each room, sprinkler system, washer/dryer alerts, etc); so you're going to need each of these geographically separate things communicating into a central control "hub."
You cannot physically move these things into a module on the central control hub. Most of them have to be in the location they're already at (e.g. physically in the front door).
How does making the control hub a modular unit help with the complexity of home automation? If anything it further adds to the complexity. A lot of the solutions now just use WiFi networking and a standard protocol.
I'm just not understanding your concept at all.
I think what he's saying is that rather than selling a bunch of different devices (or one device with every sensor under the sun), you sell a "room base", and a bunch of different monitoring plugs that can slot into the "room base".
If your laundry room doesn't really need a camera, it just needs a thermometer, you just slot in the thermometer plug into that room base, etc.
If your laundry room doesn't really need a camera, it just needs a thermometer, you just slot in the thermometer plug into that room base, etc.
Basically, yeah. Some stuff is necessarily distinct. But an awful lot of it is not. And given the way this tech is advancing, and the cost of retrofitting, most of the stuff people will first encounter and install will fall under the umbrella of "not distinct".
(e.g. people are going to buy an Echo or a Dropcam long before they refit their house for smart switches/outlets/bulbs/appliances.)
(e.g. people are going to buy an Echo or a Dropcam long before they refit their house for smart switches/outlets/bulbs/appliances.)
Yeah, some people knew it wouldn't happen. It might be interesting to revisit the comments and debates from years ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527774
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7597090
It's too bad we can't keep a score of people's accuracy. We might be able to learn something.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527774
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7597090
It's too bad we can't keep a score of people's accuracy. We might be able to learn something.
It wouldn't be so terrible if they adapted it to laptops though.
You missed one other possibility and that's structural components. If any of the parts of the device can be part of the hardened envelope then you lose less space.
For instance, a thinner PCB bonded to or traced onto the inside of the case. Or look at the research in automotive circles for batteries that can support a physical load.
And also one of my peeves about Apple phones is that the chassis is so strong that you don't need a cover, but only a few people I know don't use a case, so phone plus case is heavier.
I'd like to see someone build a phone that HAS to have a case, and comes with one, which you can replace. You could do the same with the modular design and then you wouldn't have to make individual pieces bomb proof.
It's not that I don't think it's inevitable that the project was cancelled now. I'm just thinking in ten years when some of this is sorted out and we have no reason to keep making phones smaller, this plan might come back again. It's just another project that came out before its time.
You missed one other possibility and that's structural components. If any of the parts of the device can be part of the hardened envelope then you lose less space.
For instance, a thinner PCB bonded to or traced onto the inside of the case. Or look at the research in automotive circles for batteries that can support a physical load.
And also one of my peeves about Apple phones is that the chassis is so strong that you don't need a cover, but only a few people I know don't use a case, so phone plus case is heavier.
I'd like to see someone build a phone that HAS to have a case, and comes with one, which you can replace. You could do the same with the modular design and then you wouldn't have to make individual pieces bomb proof.
It's not that I don't think it's inevitable that the project was cancelled now. I'm just thinking in ten years when some of this is sorted out and we have no reason to keep making phones smaller, this plan might come back again. It's just another project that came out before its time.
> And also one of my peeves about Apple phones is that the chassis is so strong that you don't need a cover, but only a few people I know don't use a case
If Apple would stop making their phones so damn sleek and slippery I would skip the case too. The primary purpose of my case is to make it harder to drop in the first place.
If Apple would stop making their phones so damn sleek and slippery I would skip the case too. The primary purpose of my case is to make it harder to drop in the first place.
EOMA68 goes a long ways to providing this sort of thing for general purpose machines (laptops/desktops).
https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
If my previous phone had been modular, I expect I'd still have it, but with a 2×nanosim module in place of the previous sim.
What I'm saying is that replacing the VGA card isn't the only sensible form of modularity. Replacing the case/screen with a watertight one when you move house to somewhere really rainy makes sense, etc.
What I'm saying is that replacing the VGA card isn't the only sensible form of modularity. Replacing the case/screen with a watertight one when you move house to somewhere really rainy makes sense, etc.
> That doesn't leave a lot worth upgrading... maybe just the radio module.
Camera upgrades would sell like hot cakes.
Camera upgrades would sell like hot cakes.
And even that is going away.
Now with USB and Thunderbolt it seems we are back to the 8 and 16 bit days of selling computers as appliances, specially due to the thin margins that are currently being used.
Outside gamers, even customizable desktops seem to be a dying breed.
Now with USB and Thunderbolt it seems we are back to the 8 and 16 bit days of selling computers as appliances, specially due to the thin margins that are currently being used.
Outside gamers, even customizable desktops seem to be a dying breed.
For almost everyone, a computer is an appliance. And that's okay.
Myself included.
I was fine with the old ways.
The move from Spectrums to the PC was mostly driven by my parents. I would have gotten an Amiga 500 if given the choice.
Like many others commenting on this news, every I got to upgrade my PC during the 90's and early 2000, I had to buy a new one due to the cascade of required updates.
Since 2003 I only use laptops and am fine with the limited upgrade options.
I was fine with the old ways.
The move from Spectrums to the PC was mostly driven by my parents. I would have gotten an Amiga 500 if given the choice.
Like many others commenting on this news, every I got to upgrade my PC during the 90's and early 2000, I had to buy a new one due to the cascade of required updates.
Since 2003 I only use laptops and am fine with the limited upgrade options.
I have a desktop machine, originally intended for games which I discovered shortly after building it that I no longer especially cared to play. I don't know that I'm going to bother with another one; the only reason I can think of that I might want to do so is because I can fit more monitors on it than I can on a laptop.
Not to mention that every time I buy new phone (every 3 years roughly), the old one is worn down to the point of falling apart.
Yes, they could make it stronger in the modular approach. But this means even more unnecessary plastic and metal casing.
Yes, they could make it stronger in the modular approach. But this means even more unnecessary plastic and metal casing.
In a far, far future, where a processor would be say 1/10th of the size it is now, I could see it work though.
I've speculated for a long time that basically anything interesting Google says they're doing is essentially meant to be a jobs program to keep employees from leaving, PR for external stakeholders like investors, media, being attractive to potential employees, etc. They seem to have lots of formal ways to keep employees from leaving/close as well including investments off of Google's balance sheet (not GV or Google Capital) into ex-employee startups and just flat out paying people not to leave (which is the arrangement I'm guessing that Matt Cutts is under). It all seems very Microsoft of old.
Can anyone at Google (or ex-employees) tell me if this is true?
Can anyone at Google (or ex-employees) tell me if this is true?
Flip it around, would anyone want to apply to Google if they weren't doing big visionary things? I've met a lot of people who want to work at Google, not because anything they want to achieve in life is only possible if they do it with Google's resources, but simply because "It's a magical place." as Phil Coulson would say.
So whether or not it keeps people from leaving, if it is effective at getting people to apply to Google first, it meets its goal right?
From my experience working there some of the "moonshot" type projects were rather hit or miss in terms of retention. Some, like the self driving car one, attracted a lot of great talent, some of the more interesting power related ones were only interesting to people who cared about power efficiency. But the feeling that anything is possible is intoxicating until you realize what you have to give up to make something possible. Then its sort of hit or miss.
So whether or not it keeps people from leaving, if it is effective at getting people to apply to Google first, it meets its goal right?
From my experience working there some of the "moonshot" type projects were rather hit or miss in terms of retention. Some, like the self driving car one, attracted a lot of great talent, some of the more interesting power related ones were only interesting to people who cared about power efficiency. But the feeling that anything is possible is intoxicating until you realize what you have to give up to make something possible. Then its sort of hit or miss.
I wanted to work there but after three nonsensical phone interviews and some feedback from ex-Googlers I came to the conclusion, even if I had the skills to be accepted, their culture is not something I would enjoy.
Most of us at Google are not working on on moonshot projects, and still have a happy life. Still, most non-moonshot projects that people are working on are growing nicely, have a long term view, and making lots of impact. Also having free good quality, healthy food with big variety all day long makes a huge impact in life quality.
I don't think Google's perks are anywhere close to a differentiator in the market these days.
But even the things that aren't "perks" are still way beyond what most non-valley companies offer as benefits (insurance, retirement, education, leaves, parental benefits, internal training/development, etc). None of that is uniquely special, and many non-tech companies have pieces of the puzzle, but imho Google is unique among companies it size with the breadth and quality of employee benefits it offers.
s/the market/Silicon Valley/
Having a good availability of food which is mediocre (and rapidly declining in terms of appeal, variety, and nutrition) is not a meaningful perk. It is the minimum viable offer when you force most of your employees to work in the middle of nowhere where there are ~no local food options, and spend too much time of their time commuting to justify spending time preparing their own.
In this respect I'd probably even prefer Apple where the food is not free (and the price has generally been increasing) but the quality has been much better maintained than at Google.
In this respect I'd probably even prefer Apple where the food is not free (and the price has generally been increasing) but the quality has been much better maintained than at Google.
Google has lots of offices. I'm at the Zurich office, as this is my preference, but there are enough to choose from. I wouldn't go to Cupertino as I wouldn't like to have to drive everywhere (I prefer a bit of walking and 10 minutes by train), but I respect people who like those places.
Still, I'm not comparing Google against Apple (which is one of the top revenue/employee companies), but against smaller companies, startups and all the other companies in the world that can't compete that easily with the quality of life that these companies provide.
Still, I'm not comparing Google against Apple (which is one of the top revenue/employee companies), but against smaller companies, startups and all the other companies in the world that can't compete that easily with the quality of life that these companies provide.
T.A.H.I.T.I is calling.
"It's a magical place"
"It's a magical place"
Is the evidence for this view, that they cancel a lot of interesting projects? I think a simpler explanation for that would be that trying lots of new things is just a good strategy, even if you know 90% of them will fail.
Trying and failing is one thing. Trying, announcing, telling everyone it's the next big thing and then failing is quite another.
I'm not sure they ever said Ara was going to be the next best thing. I only read a few reports, but they always highlighted how it was a total experiment.
"They intend to make a phone cheap enough to be accessible to 5 billion people. To do so, they need to create an ecosystem of hardware manufacturers robust enough that it could literally challenge giant incumbents like Foxconn and even Samsung. The head of Project Ara, Paul Eremenko, says he is planning "the most custom mass-market product ever created by mankind" without a trace of irony in his voice."
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/15/5615880/building-blocks-ho...
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/15/5615880/building-blocks-ho...
When I hear "the most custom mass-market product ever created by mankind", the first thing that comes to mind is a Subway sandwich.
Telling people something is the next big thing is part of trying to make it so.
Until you become the boy who cried wolf. I now consider anything from google vaporware until proved otherwise.
The biggest part of making something the next big thing is actually producing a product.
The biggest part of making something the next big thing is actually producing a product.
The challenge they will always face. Once you get to this scale, there's no way to avoid it. I, for one, don't find it duplicitous - what if Google was a movie studio? The shame that they aren't is that we'll never see a technology giant's Pootie Tang (one of my favorite films, beloved by many, its name itself a piece of pop culture, though it failed on any metric a shareholder would consider)
>there's no way to avoid it
Of course there is, keep it secret until they're close to release.
Of course there is, keep it secret until they're close to release.
They were calling for partners to build modules and announcing that they had multiple partners already. I think that's a valid enough reason to talk about it.
There are enough leaked press stories on secret projects they are working on but not announcing until they have gone the distance.
There are enough leaked press stories on secret projects they are working on but not announcing until they have gone the distance.
[deleted]
Which is just a PR strategy.
It's alomost certain that other companies, like Apple and Microsoft are working of similar things but they just don't make public announcements about their internal hackathon proof-of-concepts
It's alomost certain that other companies, like Apple and Microsoft are working of similar things but they just don't make public announcements about their internal hackathon proof-of-concepts
They do sometimes. With the Tay twitter bot for example. It was a ploy to get people to switch to Azure.
Most things are less obvious I imagine.
Most things are less obvious I imagine.
No one is working on a modular phone because it is a terrible idea.
LG tried it with their G5 model. It isnt very interesting
Like Project Vault that was made public at IO in 2015. It looked very promising. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like Mudge left Google a month later, then the project died. I hope there's more to the story because what kind of organization has a product's success completely reliant on one person?
This is why I haven't been able to stand the IO hype for years. When are people going to realize it's a tech demo, not product announcements? Do thy not realize most of the announced projects have gone nowhere?
> what kind of organization has a product's success completely reliant on one person?
Hah. Without evidence, lots of them.
Hah. Without evidence, lots of them.
Certain types of products need by-in from 3rd parties to make them work. I could see Ara being in this camp, so it's better to control the message about it, instead of some 3rd party leaking details. May also help to get those 3rd party companies to reach out to you.
They didn't just talk about it. They called for partners to build the modules and had multiple partners already. If this was a lie from the start, it would've been easier to not go through the trouble.
If it is not next-big-thing-worthy, there is no real point for a company like Google to try it in the first place.
> Trying and failing is one thing. Trying, announcing, telling everyone it's the next big thing and then failing is quite another.
Isn't this the modus operandi of startups though? Most of them fail too, but they hardly ever get their feet held to the fire like Google projects.
Isn't this the modus operandi of startups though? Most of them fail too, but they hardly ever get their feet held to the fire like Google projects.
Probably because people expect better from one of the most established tech companies on the face of the planet?
It's as sad as Facebook's rampant feature theft from Snapchat. Sure, not illegal, not surprising, but also not impressive.
It's as sad as Facebook's rampant feature theft from Snapchat. Sure, not illegal, not surprising, but also not impressive.
Is it?
If they intentionally failed, I would agree, but I have seen no proof of that. Many ventures fail, regardless of resources and best intentions.
If they intentionally failed, I would agree, but I have seen no proof of that. Many ventures fail, regardless of resources and best intentions.
Completely agree. This is baffling.
I think there was reporting about this regarding Andy Rubin. After he was pushed out of Android, Larry Page basically gave him a robotics division to keep him around. He made some acquisitions, there was no real follow through and he left and is now a VC.
I just want to know how pervasive that is across the company.
I just want to know how pervasive that is across the company.
Trying, announcing, pursuing the project for 3 years and suddenly announcing that the project shows that random ideas are being chased without proper vision & leadership.
Enjoyably Machiavellian.
But in the instance of this phone, a more straightforward strategy seems clear: to break down the monolithic phone market and suppress the unique market position of big competitors like Samsung. As in this quote from a wowed reporter from The Verge --
Just as importantly, though, Project Ara could have a ripple effect on the entire mobile industry. One of the goals is to "democratize the hardware ecosystem, break it wide open, basically disintermediate the OEMs," Eremenko [then the project lead] says, "so that component developers can now have privy [sic] with the consumer."
Fun to read the puff piece in retrospect: http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/15/5615880/building-blocks-ho...
But in the instance of this phone, a more straightforward strategy seems clear: to break down the monolithic phone market and suppress the unique market position of big competitors like Samsung. As in this quote from a wowed reporter from The Verge --
Just as importantly, though, Project Ara could have a ripple effect on the entire mobile industry. One of the goals is to "democratize the hardware ecosystem, break it wide open, basically disintermediate the OEMs," Eremenko [then the project lead] says, "so that component developers can now have privy [sic] with the consumer."
Fun to read the puff piece in retrospect: http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/15/5615880/building-blocks-ho...
To have that strategy work, you would need zero cost, zero volume connectors that stay together forever if desired, yet come apart easily.
Otherwise, the guy building the integrated system would offer a smaller, sturdier phone at lower cost that suits 90+% of the market, leaving scraps for you, forcing your prices up, decreasing your market even further, forcing your prices up, etc.
There's a reason that, except for a few early suitcase-sized ones, we never saw laptops with ISA/PCI/PCMCIA slots succeed in the market, and laptops had the advantage to start out as desktops, which had slots.
Otherwise, the guy building the integrated system would offer a smaller, sturdier phone at lower cost that suits 90+% of the market, leaving scraps for you, forcing your prices up, decreasing your market even further, forcing your prices up, etc.
There's a reason that, except for a few early suitcase-sized ones, we never saw laptops with ISA/PCI/PCMCIA slots succeed in the market, and laptops had the advantage to start out as desktops, which had slots.
> There's a reason that, except for a few early suitcase-sized ones, we never saw laptops with ISA/PCI/PCMCIA slots succeed in the market, and laptops had the advantage to start out as desktops, which had slots.
Huh? PCMCIA/CardBus/ExpressCard was a standard feature in more or less all laptop until just a few years ago.
Huh? PCMCIA/CardBus/ExpressCard was a standard feature in more or less all laptop until just a few years ago.
Only if by "just a few years ago" you mean "almost a decade or more ago", and by "on more or less all laptops" you mean "some high end models".
Every PC laptop I've bought or used, at every price range (including cheap Acer emergency replacement after theft), had a peripheral slot. Higher end models had two. Even the Thinkpad on my desk right now has a ExpressCard slot.
You'd be very surprised.
Dell Expiron 5520 (2012) http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/review/dell/dell_inspiron_15r_...
Sony VAIO A-series (2012) http://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-reviews/sony-vaio-e-seri...
ASUS G73JH (2010) http://www.notebookreview.com/notebookreview/asus-k42j-revie...
HP Pavilion dm3t (2010) http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/hp-pavilion-dm3t-20...
Just some random models, I literally just put the name of a brand + a date in the past and opened a review. No ExpressCard in any of them.
Maybe you went out looking for laptops with such slots? It was hardly "every laptop" and even less "at every price range" that had them.
Dell Expiron 5520 (2012) http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/review/dell/dell_inspiron_15r_...
Sony VAIO A-series (2012) http://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-reviews/sony-vaio-e-seri...
ASUS G73JH (2010) http://www.notebookreview.com/notebookreview/asus-k42j-revie...
HP Pavilion dm3t (2010) http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/hp-pavilion-dm3t-20...
Just some random models, I literally just put the name of a brand + a date in the past and opened a review. No ExpressCard in any of them.
Maybe you went out looking for laptops with such slots? It was hardly "every laptop" and even less "at every price range" that had them.
No, I didn't. The cheap Acer's slot turned out to be handy for a Wireless G+ card when the builtin wifi stopped working. Most of the time, the little placeholder plastic thing never gets removed.
You could argue that they pay every employee not to leave.
Like any other business.
Like any other business.
Generally, the concept is that they're paying for the work you do for them, not that they're paying for the privilege of saying you're on the payroll.
O I C.
Why do they need these people if they aren't working on things that make the company money?
Sadly, these repeated failed hardware efforts are all totally sincere. There is a sort of pump-and-dump hype cycle but people are really drinking the kool-aid internally. So far they are still a software company failing to create internal hardware startups.
Source: worked at Google for 2 years
Source: worked at Google for 2 years
It's really sad to think about how far we've fallen in terms of hardware customizability since the desktop PC era. It was once a given that you could build your own device from scratch and change out any part you wanted to. You could keep systems usable for 10+ years this way and we got a generation of hardware hackers and enthusiasts who went on to make cool things.
Now our corporate overlord announces a way to let you replace a few basic components like your camera and battery and when they later cancel it the dominant reaction is "no big surprise there." Replace the magic candy bar in your pocket every 2 years, don't look inside, don't think about how it works, just embrace your new role in the modern tech industry as part of the top 1%'s recurring revenue strategy.
The big money won, consumers lost, hackers lost. Sure it's business and you can never expect corporations to be altruistic, they have a profit motive. But that's never meant that you should give an anti-consumer attitude a free pass either. Every year that goes by now drives me deeper into the open source camp and Stallman's welcoming embrace.
Now our corporate overlord announces a way to let you replace a few basic components like your camera and battery and when they later cancel it the dominant reaction is "no big surprise there." Replace the magic candy bar in your pocket every 2 years, don't look inside, don't think about how it works, just embrace your new role in the modern tech industry as part of the top 1%'s recurring revenue strategy.
The big money won, consumers lost, hackers lost. Sure it's business and you can never expect corporations to be altruistic, they have a profit motive. But that's never meant that you should give an anti-consumer attitude a free pass either. Every year that goes by now drives me deeper into the open source camp and Stallman's welcoming embrace.
That's one way to spin it. On the other, we're putting millions of transistors in your pocket, and connecting them with a few radios to base stations all over the world, working as one massive network. I wouldn't say we've fallen, just advanced. Components are much cheaper than they used to be, and far, far more complicated. As this project demonstrated, making interchangeable components simply isn't economical.
The engineering feats are indeed remarkable! But so were the engineering feats of the desktop PC era. Previously it was unbelievable that you could make a computer small enough to sit on somebody's desk. So those guys were learning how to miniaturize things too -- and somehow, along the way, they ended up building systems that had interchangeable parts.
The current crop of device manufacturers, on the other handed, punted on this goal. Is it really because this generation's engineers aren't good enough to solve an engineering problem? Is it coincidental that failure to solve this engineering problem results in higher profits?
I don't think that's the case -- I think the business planners in the current generation of manufacturers saw interchangeable components as a feature which would results in consumers saving money and buying fewer new phones, gave us the middle finger and never bothered to do it.
The current crop of device manufacturers, on the other handed, punted on this goal. Is it really because this generation's engineers aren't good enough to solve an engineering problem? Is it coincidental that failure to solve this engineering problem results in higher profits?
I don't think that's the case -- I think the business planners in the current generation of manufacturers saw interchangeable components as a feature which would results in consumers saving money and buying fewer new phones, gave us the middle finger and never bothered to do it.
The history of computers is one of higher and higher levels of integration. Single transistors -> gate ICs on wiring boards -> processor with support chipset on PCB with peripherals on daughterboards -> system-on-a-chip. Each time it's improved performance and reduced cost.
> failure to solve this engineering problem results in higher profits?
Ultimately all engineering in a capitalist business is value engineering. Cost is not something that can be removed from the metric in people's heads which they use to choose solutions.
There are only two ways I can see out of this: a move towards lease-like arrangements for phones, where the manufacturer has an incentive for something other than obsolecence; or the EU pushing WEEE harder.
> failure to solve this engineering problem results in higher profits?
Ultimately all engineering in a capitalist business is value engineering. Cost is not something that can be removed from the metric in people's heads which they use to choose solutions.
There are only two ways I can see out of this: a move towards lease-like arrangements for phones, where the manufacturer has an incentive for something other than obsolecence; or the EU pushing WEEE harder.
Well, maybe less of the engineering should be done by capitalist businesses. The more open platforms and protocols that the PC and Internet were built on usually weren't developed by private companies with profit motives. They came from researchers, hobbyists, foundations, and companies with other profit centers which weren't focused on squeezing every possible dollar out of that particular technology.
How we can encourage more of that is a tricky question. I certainly don't want a world where profit-motivated private companies can't build hardware and software. But I don't like the direction this current crop of businesses is taking us. I do think essential infrastructure doesn't belong in the hands of a single party -- we should have learned that lesson and internalized the risks of single vendor lock-in long ago.
How we can encourage more of that is a tricky question. I certainly don't want a world where profit-motivated private companies can't build hardware and software. But I don't like the direction this current crop of businesses is taking us. I do think essential infrastructure doesn't belong in the hands of a single party -- we should have learned that lesson and internalized the risks of single vendor lock-in long ago.
You already had such computers, but the C64, Spectrum, BBC, Atari, Amiga and many others were following the same architectures we are going back to. It was the PC that lead the way into user customization, but the ever decreasing thin margins seem to have killed it
Except, as the parent mentioned, a lot less of those millions of transistors are still under your (the user's) control, compared to the PC era. The technological advances are indeed breathtaking, the amount of participation you have in those technological advances (except in a small number carefully pre-approved ways) is less so.
Also, I'm not sure we can make the "simply not economical" statement this early whitout having gotten a more detailed reasoning of the descision. After all, already many other comments in this thread point out ways in which modules could be useful that don't clash with architecture requirements. (e.g. exchangeable case). Also, as far as I know, Project ARA had a non-google "open source" predecessor. The people initiating that obviously found the idea realistic enough to explore.
Finally, if it were just technical constraits, we should see a golden era of modularisation in smart cars, as both available space and power are comparable to PCs. Yet, we see the same kinds of lockdown - or even more extreme forms - over there.
Also, I'm not sure we can make the "simply not economical" statement this early whitout having gotten a more detailed reasoning of the descision. After all, already many other comments in this thread point out ways in which modules could be useful that don't clash with architecture requirements. (e.g. exchangeable case). Also, as far as I know, Project ARA had a non-google "open source" predecessor. The people initiating that obviously found the idea realistic enough to explore.
Finally, if it were just technical constraits, we should see a golden era of modularisation in smart cars, as both available space and power are comparable to PCs. Yet, we see the same kinds of lockdown - or even more extreme forms - over there.
> "You could keep systems usable for 10+ years this way"
Every custom PC maker friend keeps telling me that but realistically - have anybody ever used the "upgraded" pc for 10+ years? By the time the cpu needs an upgrade - there is a new motherboard needed and your case and power supply also becomes obsolete, never mind graphics card, so you end up getting a whole new pc instead.
Every custom PC maker friend keeps telling me that but realistically - have anybody ever used the "upgraded" pc for 10+ years? By the time the cpu needs an upgrade - there is a new motherboard needed and your case and power supply also becomes obsolete, never mind graphics card, so you end up getting a whole new pc instead.
> your case and power supply also becomes obsolete
I've never found this to be the case, maybe it's because I try not to skimp on power supplies during my initial build. The last time I upgraded my CPU/mobo, I didn't change my case, power supply, video card, RAM, SSD, disk drives, sound card, SATA cables, or network card. Plenty of my "old" computer still works just fine.
I've never found this to be the case, maybe it's because I try not to skimp on power supplies during my initial build. The last time I upgraded my CPU/mobo, I didn't change my case, power supply, video card, RAM, SSD, disk drives, sound card, SATA cables, or network card. Plenty of my "old" computer still works just fine.
I don't think it's just a static set, eg. use the PC for 10 years with completely upgradeable components or it's not worth it.
I purchased my current PC case/graphics card, cpu and motherboard 5 years ago, have replaced the CPU cooler, and the SSD drives and added an audio card, upgraded the RAM and added an extra HDD.
I think part of the problem is that despite smartphones being similar to desktops, they're not the same at all and have complementary but ultimately different purposes. One is suited to being upgradeable, the other isn't.
I purchased my current PC case/graphics card, cpu and motherboard 5 years ago, have replaced the CPU cooler, and the SSD drives and added an audio card, upgraded the RAM and added an extra HDD.
I think part of the problem is that despite smartphones being similar to desktops, they're not the same at all and have complementary but ultimately different purposes. One is suited to being upgradeable, the other isn't.
No, I've had laptops and it's annoying not being able to fix or upgrade anything. In the last 10 years I've had a gaming laptop that I had to replace because just disassembling it was a several hour ordeal. It was a fairly simple fan/heatsink issue but asus support is completely useless. Now on the replacement the wireless card has crapped out but I can't replace that.
They are gaming laptops too, a 5 year old one would be just fine with an upgrade to the video card. Lesson learned though, when the current one get's replaced it will probably be with something more modular.
They are gaming laptops too, a 5 year old one would be just fine with an upgrade to the video card. Lesson learned though, when the current one get's replaced it will probably be with something more modular.
I'm using the same PC I built in 2008. Of course, the only parts I haven't replaced are the Hard Drive, the CPU, the case and the power supply (and I've added several plenty extra storage). I will probably replace the CPU this year as it's beggining to show it's age. This is my main computer and I use it for several hours every day. 10 years does not seem crazy to me.
I think that was the case in the past, to a large degree.
But with desktop PC technology largely plateauing technology wise, I think this scenario is becoming more and more realistic. As long as the desktop market hangs on long enough for parts to be available, that is.
But with desktop PC technology largely plateauing technology wise, I think this scenario is becoming more and more realistic. As long as the desktop market hangs on long enough for parts to be available, that is.
[deleted]
Truth.
It's the tyranny of the average - just look at the responses here:
"LOOK AT THAT AVERAGE USER! Yes that one! The average Joe! THIS IS what you'll use and nothing more. You don't need anything else!" -- This is the argument you hear in these kind of topics. If it's not usable for an "average user" it doesn't need to exist. No tolerance for choice on modern "free" market of electronics.
It's pretty much the endgame of the hoteliering effect (Is that the right translation?) - the market converges to the point where all the players offer pretty much copy-paste services and the choice for consumer is lost, because the differences between competitors are too small. At that point the market simply ceases to function properly.
"LOOK AT THAT AVERAGE USER! Yes that one! The average Joe! THIS IS what you'll use and nothing more. You don't need anything else!" -- This is the argument you hear in these kind of topics. If it's not usable for an "average user" it doesn't need to exist. No tolerance for choice on modern "free" market of electronics.
It's pretty much the endgame of the hoteliering effect (Is that the right translation?) - the market converges to the point where all the players offer pretty much copy-paste services and the choice for consumer is lost, because the differences between competitors are too small. At that point the market simply ceases to function properly.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. The consumers won, hackers lost. My mother (or father if he wasn't an engineer himself) doesn't care about replacing the camera, how much ram it has or replacing the battery. She wants it to work. She wants it to have an efficient battery. And when it breaks she wants to take it to the store and have them fix it or replace it.
This is what Apple provides. By removing connectors between replaceable parts they are able to reduce the size and increase battery size. So on so forth.
Hackers lose the ability to swap out parts and customize it to their liking but your average citizen has no clue how to replace a DIMM stick and doesn't want to care. They don't care about managing files on their phone or any of that. They want the phone to be safe from malware, they want the device to work and to be easy to use.
They have chosen to specialize in something else. To understand fashion, chemistry, politics, something. Their brain power is spent on something other than how computers work. And that is ok. Our job as technologists is to empower them in that. To allow them to achieve more in their love without getting in their way by managing device drivers.
This is what Apple provides. By removing connectors between replaceable parts they are able to reduce the size and increase battery size. So on so forth.
Hackers lose the ability to swap out parts and customize it to their liking but your average citizen has no clue how to replace a DIMM stick and doesn't want to care. They don't care about managing files on their phone or any of that. They want the phone to be safe from malware, they want the device to work and to be easy to use.
They have chosen to specialize in something else. To understand fashion, chemistry, politics, something. Their brain power is spent on something other than how computers work. And that is ok. Our job as technologists is to empower them in that. To allow them to achieve more in their love without getting in their way by managing device drivers.
You're reducing the entire market to fools and nerds. There's plenty of room for people in between. You didn't have to be an engineer to add more RAM to your system, you just had to be the geeky kid down the street who wasn't afraid to open up the box. Or you can at least create something open enough that a third party can service the engine, install an aftermarket exhaust upgrade, whatever. We've been making things that could be hacked since the beginning of time and the current crop of mobile device manufacturers is against it.
This.
Heck, even my mother is able to change the battery of her Samsung phone when she's out all day taking pictures, and she's as far as it gets from an engineer.
Bringing the argument of "consumers want something that works" every time some are looking for a repairability/upgradeability path only leads to this false dichotomy of splitting the world between nerds and fools.
Heck, even my mother is able to change the battery of her Samsung phone when she's out all day taking pictures, and she's as far as it gets from an engineer.
Bringing the argument of "consumers want something that works" every time some are looking for a repairability/upgradeability path only leads to this false dichotomy of splitting the world between nerds and fools.
Yep, it's not necessarily that every customer needs to be able to upgrade/customize. It's that every customer should be able to go to the local computer shop to upgrade/customize.
> but your average citizen has no clue how to replace a DIMM stick and doesn't want to care.
Sure, but it'll still be far cheaper to pay someone to replace the DIMM stick than to buy a new phone/computer/whatever. Plus there's the environmental aspect, too.
Sure, but it'll still be far cheaper to pay someone to replace the DIMM stick than to buy a new phone/computer/whatever. Plus there's the environmental aspect, too.
> Hackers lose the ability to swap out parts and customize it to their liking
Economy of scale means that it's cheaper to include every kind of hardware anybody may want than to customize. Hackers lose the ability to swap parts, but didn't lose any single kind of (hardware) functionality that is available on the market. (Still lose anything that we invent by ourselves.)
I don't call that a loss, at least not on mobile devices. We still have desktops and development boards for hacking.
Economy of scale means that it's cheaper to include every kind of hardware anybody may want than to customize. Hackers lose the ability to swap parts, but didn't lose any single kind of (hardware) functionality that is available on the market. (Still lose anything that we invent by ourselves.)
I don't call that a loss, at least not on mobile devices. We still have desktops and development boards for hacking.
> It was once a given that you could build your own device from scratch and change out any part you wanted to. You could keep systems usable for 10+ years this way and we got a generation of hardware hackers and enthusiasts who went on to make cool things.
The only thing we've been able to customize to the level of extent you're talking about is desktop PCs and they have't gone away.
The chances of you being able to replace your phone's battery or upgrade your laptop's RAM yourself has gone down but there is still a ton of demand for build your own PCs met with a supply of ever-improving products.
The only thing we've been able to customize to the level of extent you're talking about is desktop PCs and they have't gone away.
The chances of you being able to replace your phone's battery or upgrade your laptop's RAM yourself has gone down but there is still a ton of demand for build your own PCs met with a supply of ever-improving products.
> You could keep systems usable for 10+ years
If you change everything but the case and PSU, is it still the same system? Especially in the "golden desktop era" the pace of development was so quick that in 10 years multiple new CPU/RAm/storage standards were introduced, forcing you to upgrade pretty much everything to keep the system modern.
The same applies for mobile: the hardware is so cheap and gets "old" so fast that it's not commercially viable to offer modular upgrades. E.g. if you upgrade display, you likely need to upgrade the SOC as well.
PS. FairPhone is nice effort but not a modular system, they just offer easy repairability and spare parts.
If you change everything but the case and PSU, is it still the same system? Especially in the "golden desktop era" the pace of development was so quick that in 10 years multiple new CPU/RAm/storage standards were introduced, forcing you to upgrade pretty much everything to keep the system modern.
The same applies for mobile: the hardware is so cheap and gets "old" so fast that it's not commercially viable to offer modular upgrades. E.g. if you upgrade display, you likely need to upgrade the SOC as well.
PS. FairPhone is nice effort but not a modular system, they just offer easy repairability and spare parts.
How much modularity do you need for the Fairphone 2 to be called modular? iFixit thinks it is quite modular[0] with it's 10/10 score.
[0]: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Fairphone+2+Teardown/52523
[0]: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Fairphone+2+Teardown/52523
There's a bit of truth to this for sure but the usable life of a desktop PC was and still is much longer than that of a smartphone. A desktop PC can get a memory upgrade, a new hard drive, maybe a new graphics card, in five years it wouldn't be top of the line anymore but it'd still be something that you could put in your kid's room to hack on. In 8-10 years it might get donated to a local school. Think of that happening with a smartphone. Or even a Chromebook - Google has a 5 year end of life policy!
There are too many tangible benefits to close integration between CPU, screen, battery, and antennas -- the latter of which is probably the most difficult to modularize.
A much better tactic would've been 1-2 expansion ports for specialized hardware modules -- everything from credit card readers (a la Square), medical sensors, portable oscilloscope, etc. A standardized peripheral interface for hardware expansion slots across all phone variants could've really enabled a whole bunch of new applications (and industries). I'm sad to see it abandoned entirely.
(I wonder if there weren't some strong personalities that kept the "100% modular or bust" mentality?)
A much better tactic would've been 1-2 expansion ports for specialized hardware modules -- everything from credit card readers (a la Square), medical sensors, portable oscilloscope, etc. A standardized peripheral interface for hardware expansion slots across all phone variants could've really enabled a whole bunch of new applications (and industries). I'm sad to see it abandoned entirely.
(I wonder if there weren't some strong personalities that kept the "100% modular or bust" mentality?)
Motorola did exactly what you're asking for. It's called Moto Mods and if it isn't abandoned as a failure within 3 years I'll eat my hat. https://www.motorola.com/us/moto-mods
Yes, this is the rough idea, except that it was "designed exclusively for the moto Z". The fact that one proprietary mod standard didn't take off is hardly strong evidence against the general idea, and especially the viability of an open standard.
You mean, like, USB OTG that basically every smartphone has?
You are mistaking a few conductors for a well-designed peripheral. The surrounding mechanics and size matters a lot for mass-market peripherals... especially if the aim is to seamlessly integrate them (semi-permanently) into any phone. This means things like size, volume, nearby mechanical connections, robustness, and industrial design. With OTG, you'd be plugging and unplugging all the time (every time the devices goes into your pocket) -or- building "cases" one a phone-by-phone basis. That's not a standard peripheral... that's a hack with a dongle.
An Ara-esque expansion slot could've created a real standard.
An Ara-esque expansion slot could've created a real standard.
USB-C is the correct technical solution.
A modest cable leading to the peripheral in question is likely an acceptable form factor, and far more robust than trying to make one standard for a thing to bolt on to.
A modest cable leading to the peripheral in question is likely an acceptable form factor, and far more robust than trying to make one standard for a thing to bolt on to.
GP post is correct, it is USB-OTG. USB-C is the connector and has nothing to do with how the port acts. You can have USB-OTG with MicroUSB.
If only commercial adoption was driven entirely by "technical solutions"... (It isn't. Form, design, and UX matter a lot. Dongled peripherals suck.)
like LG G5 magic slot ?
http://www.lg.com/us/mobile-phones/g5#G5Modularity
but it seems LG has reliability with it http://www.alphr.com/lg/1002753/lg-g5-review-2016s-cleverest...
but it seems LG has reliability with it http://www.alphr.com/lg/1002753/lg-g5-review-2016s-cleverest...
That slot is little more than a proprietary USB connector, the only access LG Friends have to the phone is the USB bus and the battery power rails.
You're right about the tight integration, but Ara could have ushered in better integration with offboard modules as well. And it would be fun for the things you don't want as features all the time. As an example I would have loved an Ara phone with a removable Tango module.
Like the Other Half on the Jolla?
Meanwhile elsewhere: Fairphone 2 is available, is modular and user-repairable (iFixit: 10/10: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Fairphone+2+Teardown/52523). Ara looked cooler, but I guess I should cease any high hopes for Google innovation or market disruption. Which is sad, but probably the way things go in this world.
It's also still stuck on Android Lollipop, unfortunately. Otherwise it looks really, really cool.
Pretty much forever - drivers/BSPs won't be released any more for the Snapdragon 801.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/why-isnt-your-old-pho...
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/why-isnt-your-old-pho...
Which only means it will be stuck on Marshmallow, not Lollipop -- until Fairphone releases a core module with another chipset on it (https://shop.fairphone.com/spareparts/coremodulefp2.html). At least that is the promise. Might even use something from Mediatek which will probably drive the price down.
I hope they do go for a cheaper SoC - that core module is more expensive than the entire phone that's in my pocket alone. I get that the price reflects ethically sourced materials, but they're gonna have to do something about the price.
I wonder how they'll handle software and retaining data through a cross-platform upgrade - a build for Android for the msm8xxx series won't run on a Mediatek SoC.
I wonder how they'll handle software and retaining data through a cross-platform upgrade - a build for Android for the msm8xxx series won't run on a Mediatek SoC.
> I wonder how they'll handle software and retaining data through a cross-platform upgrade - a build for Android for the msm8xxx series won't run on a Mediatek SoC.
At worst, ask people to reflash to another Android ROM when switching. User software and data is on another partition anyway, and you can force Android to recompile all user applications by clearing your cache partition.
At worst, ask people to reflash to another Android ROM when switching. User software and data is on another partition anyway, and you can force Android to recompile all user applications by clearing your cache partition.
It is 2016 and a lot of people are still not very good with computers, let alone mobile phone components. We live in Silicon Valley so it might be hard to understand this very simple fact. I invite everyone to go to an Apple store and just sit there and watch the scores of folks come in and have to be sat down and explained, slowly, about the simplest concepts for macOS or iOS. I have mad respect for Apple Geniuses.
Now, imagine a phone that has all these components and imagine the overhead of supporting that. Now you might say it is for tech people..that market is not big enough to warrant the R&D and support. Right call Google.
Now, imagine a phone that has all these components and imagine the overhead of supporting that. Now you might say it is for tech people..that market is not big enough to warrant the R&D and support. Right call Google.
ios has gotten rather complex and big over the years. Just look at the Settings. About as bad as Android settings.
I'm a computer guy and it's a struggle to find things.
I'm a computer guy and it's a struggle to find things.
I just switched to iOS after being Android for a while. Current Android Settings are great, at least in stock Android. They've finessed them over the years. They were poor two or three versions ago for sure.
>Current Android Settings are great, at least in stock Android.
They still won't tell you what drives an app is using data on. I need to free up space somewhere but can't tell where.
They still won't tell you what drives an app is using data on. I need to free up space somewhere but can't tell where.
Huh? The user data partitions were merged years ago.
The space the app is using on SD is being lumped in with the internal space. It's telling me audible is using tonnes of space but that's all on SD.
And don't get me started on the shitty Google apps that can't be removed or moved to SD.
And don't get me started on the shitty Google apps that can't be removed or moved to SD.
Sadly the Android storage terminology is a mess.
These days what comes up as the SD is more correctly a folder on the emmc (internal storage).
Its just that for legacy reasons it is treated as the primary removable storage by Android.
There is a Android/data/"app vendor uri"/ tree within that simulated SD that is used as a dumping ground for various files.
These days what comes up as the SD is more correctly a folder on the emmc (internal storage).
Its just that for legacy reasons it is treated as the primary removable storage by Android.
There is a Android/data/"app vendor uri"/ tree within that simulated SD that is used as a dumping ground for various files.
So apps that think they're storing things on SD are actually using internal storage? How do I actually use the SD card then?
Same here, but people have come in since the first iPhone to ask the simplest question to Apple Stores.
Try rewatching the original iPhone introduction by Jobs. You'll be surprised by how "primitive" it looks and how amazed was everybody in the audience.
Yes, yet people still came into the Apple store with questions in 2007 regardless of how easy you thought it was. Just because it is easy for you doesn't make it easy for the other 80% of the population.
Yeah the first couple of iPhones were more like fancy featurephones than what Microsoft and Nokia was shipping under the smartphone moniker. But because it had this touchscreen thing going, it had to be a smartphone according to the MSM.
Never mind that Apple for the longest time ran a bunch of ads that was basically instruction videos on how to reach things like maps.
Never mind that Apple for the longest time ran a bunch of ads that was basically instruction videos on how to reach things like maps.
Whenever I saw articles about this my first thought was always that it didn't make any sense.
1. Why do consumers need to decide what goes in their phone. Are my needs really different that someone else's?
2. Building hardware is hard. Building consumer hardware is really harder. Making it modular is just batshit crazy.
I never once thought this would see the light of day.
I never once thought this would see the light of day.
This should have been an enterprise play. Delta needs 5,000 devices with a built in credit card reader. Macy's needs 25,000 devices with a built in barcode scanner. Delta doesn't need a massive battery life, Kohls needs minimum 8 hours. GM needs 175,000 phones with the barcode reader, a camera, and a rubberized body for their production lines. The phones don't have to be modular to the consumer - Google just needs to be able to snap a couple thousand together before shipment.
Buy your devices at the same place you buy your software support. It's now just one contract, and the connection between the software and hardware means you have a single point of failure (if the phone borks, call Google) instead of 2.
That it didn't happen could point to Google's enterprise game not being strong enough or the hardware not working out. Or maybe enterprise doesn't net them enough money compared to focusing on consumers.
Buy your devices at the same place you buy your software support. It's now just one contract, and the connection between the software and hardware means you have a single point of failure (if the phone borks, call Google) instead of 2.
That it didn't happen could point to Google's enterprise game not being strong enough or the hardware not working out. Or maybe enterprise doesn't net them enough money compared to focusing on consumers.
Volume isn't high enough to get reasonable costs.
> Are my needs really different that someone else's?
Absolutely. I'm looking for an IP68-certified phone with a 3" 400 PPI polycarbonate screen and without a camera.
Such a thing doesn't exist, but Ara gave me a vague hope that one day I might be able to obtain a phone that fits my needs instead of those of a manufacturer.
Absolutely. I'm looking for an IP68-certified phone with a 3" 400 PPI polycarbonate screen and without a camera.
Such a thing doesn't exist, but Ara gave me a vague hope that one day I might be able to obtain a phone that fits my needs instead of those of a manufacturer.
Exactly. A mix-n-match smartphone was always a terrible, unworkable idea, as is pointed out in so many good comments here. The most amazing aspect of the whole show was that it was ever considered seriously for a moment.
> Are my needs really different that someone else's?
Yes. The trend towards huge phones doesn't work for me, I need (and want) to be able to operate them one handed. I don't care what camera it comes with, they got good enough for me 5+ years ago, but someone that takes a lot more pictures would disagree.
Yes. The trend towards huge phones doesn't work for me, I need (and want) to be able to operate them one handed. I don't care what camera it comes with, they got good enough for me 5+ years ago, but someone that takes a lot more pictures would disagree.
I guess it could be useful to have something modular for more professional usage. Like adding a fast barcode reader, a chip & pin reader, or a thermal camera, or something to remote control a device.
As a mainstream device for my mom, yes I agree.
As a mainstream device for my mom, yes I agree.
The difference is that software has practically no licensing or patent issues, while hardware is a minefield of costs.
I've learned to completely ignore anything launched publicly at google IO (wave, ara, glass, etc).
Chromebook was a Google IO announcement, and I'm sure there are others that have succeeded.
that means nothing, the first-gen pixel was discontinued before the second-gen was announced too. and the chromebook pixel is hardly the only chromebook out there. it's a thriving product line, and the pixel series is a very very unimportant part of it.
Google has gotten worse and worse at this. It used to be that they would launch something right when they announced it. Then they would launch something invite-only when they announced it. Now they announce things without even having a clear idea of when or how those things will launch.
Hah, especially Android features that we might get 3 years later.
Disappointed about this one - I guess this was just too early (like glass). They had to create a lot of both hardware AND software to make it work. Expensive and risky work for a single company to take on.
I was honestly holding off on a cell phone upgrade hoping to get my hands on the developer version of this early 2017.
I was honestly holding off on a cell phone upgrade hoping to get my hands on the developer version of this early 2017.
I had to scroll half way down the page to find someone like me... I'm disappointed as well.
A lot of people here talk about performance and size. We seem obsessed with them in cell phones but at what point does performance and size become good enough and we can focus on things like sustainability and repairability.
A lot of people here talk about performance and size. We seem obsessed with them in cell phones but at what point does performance and size become good enough and we can focus on things like sustainability and repairability.
I'm not surprised. I can't think of any way for it to actually be better for day to day use than a monolithic smartphone.
My biggest surprise is that it was still chugging along until now.
My biggest surprise is that it was still chugging along until now.
I always thought that Ara might be a useful platform not so much for smartphones but for all those hand-held custom devices, you could plug in a credit card reader, laser, special cameras, voltmeter or whatever you need.
I always thought they take it a certain distance to maintain cred, then ditch it as the last thing they want is 3rd parties hooking stuff up to their things.
But next to nobody needs those things.
But just about everyone has some such need, as well as components they couldn't give less of a shit about (the camera comes to mind, for me). The SoC is the expensive part that would need the economies of scale, but sadly there don't seem to be that many options in that space anyway.
If it came out tomorrow it'd be 10 years too late. Cellphones seem to have hit a plateau. All the parts are now good enough in a cheap phone that no one really needs this.
I got a $150 aluminum phone with a huge battery, nice enough camera, fingerprint scanner, 3GBs of RAM, expandable storage, etc. etc. ... I don't feel like I need expansion options. What can the higher-specs really offer now a days?
Samsung has the right idea, maybe we'll need better phones for VR. Or maybe built in picoprojectors will be a game changer. But for that you'll need a whole new phone - not just a module snaps on.
I got a $150 aluminum phone with a huge battery, nice enough camera, fingerprint scanner, 3GBs of RAM, expandable storage, etc. etc. ... I don't feel like I need expansion options. What can the higher-specs really offer now a days?
Samsung has the right idea, maybe we'll need better phones for VR. Or maybe built in picoprojectors will be a game changer. But for that you'll need a whole new phone - not just a module snaps on.
I bought a waterproof phone, and it has been a surprisingly useful feature to me. Not because of all the times I've dropped it in the toilet, or decided to do scuba photography, but rather the peace of mind I get from knowing I could fall in a pool at any moment and get out without a $600 fine from the phone company. Or that I can go for a jog and use it as an ipod even if it looks like it might rain. Prop it up in a corner of the shower and listen to news podcasts while I get clean.
Or, basically, I just don't have to think or worry about water or moisture at all. Never expected to appreciate that feature so much.
Or, basically, I just don't have to think or worry about water or moisture at all. Never expected to appreciate that feature so much.
I just long for the day when pushing someone into the pool is a funny gag again, not a several thousand dollar lawsuit.
Unfortunately they're so overpriced that it's cheaper to buy two non-waterproof phones
Actually, I got it for free! There was a shipping mixup, so I got a refund, then a week later UPS found it in a back room and finished delivering it.
But even if I hadn't, it was super cheap. Look up the Sony xperia M4 Aqua, it's only $150 unlocked on amazon.
But even if I hadn't, it was super cheap. Look up the Sony xperia M4 Aqua, it's only $150 unlocked on amazon.
We need phones that are basically indestructible and last 3 full days on one charge.
They're available from "catphones.com". Yes, Caterpillar has a phone brand.
I have one of their phones. It lives up to the ruggedness advertising.
I have one of their phones. It lives up to the ruggedness advertising.
Do you really think so? I have an impression that the market is kinda OK with short battery life. Otherwise there would be a trend in this way. Maybe after other specs reach their practical limits?
Has anyone released a decent phone with a long battery life? You can't tell if the market wants something if it's not on offer.
I just bought the Xiaomi Redmi 3 [1] with 4100mAh. The battery life is excellent. 2 to 3 days of battery is a comfort I missed from the "dumbphone era".
1: http://www.kimovil.com/en/where-to-buy-xiaomi-redmi-3s-3gb-3...
1: http://www.kimovil.com/en/where-to-buy-xiaomi-redmi-3s-3gb-3...
Yep, that's the one I have. I honestly rarely get to 50%, but you stop feeling guilty about leaving the screen on for too long and it's just more pleasant to use never having to worry about the battery. + it's incredibly cheap and still super thin
For me it was 2 to 3 weeks of battery. Smartphone batteries are just miserable, and I'd happily take a heavier & thicker phone to get better battery life.
There are plenty of well-designed battery/protective enclosures for smartphones. Thus those who want the extra battery life and are prepared to deal with the extra thickness and weight can do so.
Now if you want 2 weeks of battery life on a pocket supercomputer, well, good luck with that.
Now if you want 2 weeks of battery life on a pocket supercomputer, well, good luck with that.
[deleted]
The LG phones have replaceable batteries. Seems to cover the same demographic
Why do I want to carry around 2 extra days of battery life?
Also, more mass in the phone means more force on impact.
Also, more mass in the phone means more force on impact.
> Axing Project Ara is one of the first steps in a campaign to unify Google's various hardware efforts, which range from Chromebook laptops to Nexus phones.
Their new phone line will be called Pixels.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/09/01/exclusive-googles-ne...
Their new phone line will be called Pixels.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/09/01/exclusive-googles-ne...
Like the Chromebooks?
What the heck is the deal with big companies naming things in horribly ambiguous, confusing ways? Is there an actual reason for doing that, i.e. it's proven that this somehow leads to better sales or something?
What the heck is the deal with big companies naming things in horribly ambiguous, confusing ways? Is there an actual reason for doing that, i.e. it's proven that this somehow leads to better sales or something?
I can't help but wonder if they're co-opting the Pixel name to push ChromeOS on a phone form factor with the built-in Android runtime.
It seems very unlikely, but there's a part of me still wondering.
It seems very unlikely, but there's a part of me still wondering.
Check out their efforts on the new Fuschia OS. I'm fairly certain it's Google's attempt to design a mobile OS from scratch to get rid of some of the overhead introduced into Android as a function of it being a Linux derivative.
What overhead is there from linux? Most of it seems to come from there own API's.
Not sure, but contrary to what many think, the Linux kernel on Android lacks many APIs and the set of allowed stable libraries is quite small.
With Android N, they took the extra step to kill native apps that dare to link to Android native libraries, if not part of the stable list, like libpng for example.
Regarding Fushia the overhead seems to actually be anything under GPL.
With Android N, they took the extra step to kill native apps that dare to link to Android native libraries, if not part of the stable list, like libpng for example.
Regarding Fushia the overhead seems to actually be anything under GPL.
Replying here to grobbles dead comment: I don't care one way or another. I'm simply repeating what an engineer on the project told me. There are more constructive ways to make a point/learn info from others...
Fuschia, IIRC, is an RTOS, which I'm not sure makes much sense for a general-purpose multi-tasking mobile OS.
Don't dismiss that thought so quickly. 2-3 years ago all indications were that they wanted to merge Android into ChromeOS (based on statements Sundar made at the time) which went nowhere. Over the last 1 1/2 years or so it seems like they sorted out which end is the tail and which end is the dog and have flipped the strategy around accordingly.
I have one of those gut feelings that it's simply a matter of time. I think I actually speculated about the eventual convergence of Chrome OS and Android back when I was filing out the form to get a Cr-48 way-back-when. We shall see, it's all "just" software...
It was an interesting idea but I could never see it working myself. It looked like a solution in search of a problem.
So you're meant to buy a phone shell and separate components to plug into this, where you can upgrade different components over time? Ignoring technical issues, wouldn't the shell get out of date quickly as well as the components (with some components being incompatible with other shells and components)?
It doesn't sound cost effective considering how cheap phones are getting and how often we are seeing physical hardware changes still (e.g. fingerprint readers, screen size, thinnest).
So you're meant to buy a phone shell and separate components to plug into this, where you can upgrade different components over time? Ignoring technical issues, wouldn't the shell get out of date quickly as well as the components (with some components being incompatible with other shells and components)?
It doesn't sound cost effective considering how cheap phones are getting and how often we are seeing physical hardware changes still (e.g. fingerprint readers, screen size, thinnest).
> It was an interesting idea but I could never see it working myself. It looked like a solution in search of a problem.
Modularity worked out pretty well for the PC. When you make things open, there's no way to imagine ahead of times the things people will come up with.
Modularity worked out pretty well for the PC. When you make things open, there's no way to imagine ahead of times the things people will come up with.
> Modularity worked out pretty well for the PC. When you make things open, there's no way to imagine ahead of times the things people will come up with.
I agree with this but the extreme space constraints of a mobile make this comparison less accurate. A PC is often not space, weight or battery life constrained and has the space and power for big dual graphics cards, huge heatsinks, water cooling, big fans, multiple hard drives etc.
I just can't see how it's feasible to create a modular mobile that will compete with current flagship phones which are likely pushing the space constraints and specs to the limits (is this accurate?). This sounds unlike how you can build a PC to compete with prebuilt options.
A better comparison is comparing modular phones to modular laptops. Laptops are weight, battery and space constrained as well and I haven't seen upgradable laptops gaining traction. Is that because of similar technical issues?
I agree with this but the extreme space constraints of a mobile make this comparison less accurate. A PC is often not space, weight or battery life constrained and has the space and power for big dual graphics cards, huge heatsinks, water cooling, big fans, multiple hard drives etc.
I just can't see how it's feasible to create a modular mobile that will compete with current flagship phones which are likely pushing the space constraints and specs to the limits (is this accurate?). This sounds unlike how you can build a PC to compete with prebuilt options.
A better comparison is comparing modular phones to modular laptops. Laptops are weight, battery and space constrained as well and I haven't seen upgradable laptops gaining traction. Is that because of similar technical issues?
Yeah, but how well did it work out for the laptop?
More to the point, how well is it working out for /modern/ laptops. Look at the drive in that market.
More to the point, how well is it working out for /modern/ laptops. Look at the drive in that market.
A key advantage of mobile phones is that while a PC is around 50 liters, an iPhone 6 is 0.06 liters; almost 1000 times smaller.
You are relying on the assumption that the "modularity" is independent of the form factor; that if it worked in the PC, it can work in a mobile phone.
Maybe the success of mobile phones is because of their lack of modularity, not in spite of it.
You are relying on the assumption that the "modularity" is independent of the form factor; that if it worked in the PC, it can work in a mobile phone.
Maybe the success of mobile phones is because of their lack of modularity, not in spite of it.
Maybe the success of mobile phones is because of their lack of modularity, not in spite of it.
It's possible. But all I'm saying is that, in terms of it being "a solution looking for a problem", there is a historical precedent showing that openness/modularity can have powerful benefits. It would be hard to say for sure if that can/would/will apply in the mobile space as well. But it's not something, IMO, one should write off out-of-hand.
It's possible. But all I'm saying is that, in terms of it being "a solution looking for a problem", there is a historical precedent showing that openness/modularity can have powerful benefits. It would be hard to say for sure if that can/would/will apply in the mobile space as well. But it's not something, IMO, one should write off out-of-hand.
This project was longed to die. It should have died 3 years back. I wonder why the project team didn't understand or realize the dynamics of smartphone market. The equation is simple, there is no market for phone with interchangeable components. period. Chinese companies are manufacturing dead cheap smartphones. Indian market is flooded with cheap phone options. An average life cycle of android phone is now less than 2 years. People throw their old phone and buy a new one because new phones are cheap and easy to buy plus they get an overall upgrade. Maybe they didn't realize because the project was carried out in US where there is not much competition from phone manufacturers and Apple takes away major share of the market.
This interchangeable components idea is much like Assembled computers back in early 2000s. Most people went for assembled computers because it was easy to upgrade single components/pieces. They should have realized that people don't do that with computers these days either. Only may be few enthusiasts and geeks, but definitely not by a common man.
One more project dies at Google...
This interchangeable components idea is much like Assembled computers back in early 2000s. Most people went for assembled computers because it was easy to upgrade single components/pieces. They should have realized that people don't do that with computers these days either. Only may be few enthusiasts and geeks, but definitely not by a common man.
One more project dies at Google...
That makes sense. All those connector pins and latches were inherently going to be troublesome and fragile.
There's a market for various instruments one could attach to a phone, but it's not a mass market. You can get USB devices which give you a spectrum analyzer or an OBD-II connector, and there are apps to drive them. They're not something you get at phone stores.
There's a market for various instruments one could attach to a phone, but it's not a mass market. You can get USB devices which give you a spectrum analyzer or an OBD-II connector, and there are apps to drive them. They're not something you get at phone stores.
As the Moto Z will likely confirm, no one is really interested in modular phones.
I am quite surprised, that instead of allowing users to change modules (and thus are forced to build it up with casing and connectors) they didn't release certification on doing it and let people drop their phones to the mobile service points all over the world for free or small fee like $1 (including vacuuming insides to add extra value). Such shops would make money on selling modules. Modules could be less protected and delivered without the casing. Changing modules would take ~1-2minutes since the store clerk would be trained to do it and use 2-3 universal tools to open the phone and change the modules.
Those 2-3 tools would be also available to buy, so owners could change the modules themselves. But since it would be quite advanced - same as with changing PC parts - it would void the guarantee for whole phone.
Those 2-3 tools would be also available to buy, so owners could change the modules themselves. But since it would be quite advanced - same as with changing PC parts - it would void the guarantee for whole phone.
So a modular phone is a bad idea, but what about the spec? I could imagine widgets that connect to mountain bikes, toasters, and ski helmets; the phone is just enabling.
> the company may work with partners to bring Project Ara’s technology to market
...vague, but maybe.
> the company may work with partners to bring Project Ara’s technology to market
...vague, but maybe.
This doesn't surprise me. I feel like the concept is nice, but they have to do a kick-ass job as making sure everything goes together well and can't just randomly fail -- I would hate if my phone's data got corrupted because a piece of it randomly fell off my phone or accidentally spilling some water on it, which would not affect a normal phone but may seep into between a pair of component edges. But beyond that, and more importantly, it has to make economic sense. Would it have been cheaper than a random cheap phone, especially in the developing world?
I never saw the potential of this project given how slim the phones are getting and how the hardware is literally attached to screen. The design and aesthetic would have to be compromised for these modular phones. The two places where this would have been useful are camera and battery but there is literally no innovation happening in these two departments so expect for the next 2-3 years, our batteries and camera specs will not significantly change due to technology limitations and size constraints.
> The two places where this would have been useful are camera and battery but there is literally no innovation happening in these two departments...
From what I see in headlines the camera and battery are the two areas with the most innovation. Apple has a major ad campaign featuring photos shot on iPhones. Almost every new phone release mentions improved battery life. (Admittedly, these energy improvements may come more from decreased consumption than improved storage.)
I see most marketing discussing the following features:
1. Camera 2. Battery life 3. Screen size/resolution
This makes sense given that there aren't many other areas to radically innovate. Someone's already tried adding decent speakers, a kickstand, and various exclusive apps.
From what I see in headlines the camera and battery are the two areas with the most innovation. Apple has a major ad campaign featuring photos shot on iPhones. Almost every new phone release mentions improved battery life. (Admittedly, these energy improvements may come more from decreased consumption than improved storage.)
I see most marketing discussing the following features:
1. Camera 2. Battery life 3. Screen size/resolution
This makes sense given that there aren't many other areas to radically innovate. Someone's already tried adding decent speakers, a kickstand, and various exclusive apps.
Unfortunately I don't see them. Nokia Windows phones were far more advsncedin terms of cameras than current iPhones or Samsung galaxy s7s. Anand tech said as much about this in their reviews. I don't see any improvement in my battery life from iPhone 5S to iPhone 6S. Do others see any improvement?
Of course. Something like that would be a compatibility and testing nightmare. Users aren't going to be content dealing with PC style driver issues with a mobile device. And to gain what? The ability to upgrade or customize a phone? Why? Do your mobile device needs change that often?
A better idea is to attack the areas where apple and samsung are retreating. Replaceable batteries, memory cards, peripheral connections etc...
A better idea is to attack the areas where apple and samsung are retreating. Replaceable batteries, memory cards, peripheral connections etc...
Phones are at the point desktops hit about 10 years ago, they're good enough to use for general purpose until the end of time. Everything people typically want can be done instantaneously, cameras are way better than anyone really cared about and screens are perfectly clear. The only thing stopping us from having a phone for life is forced obsolescence. All we need back is removable batteries and storage.
Modular smartphones or computers are still a great idea. They may have had trouble easily capitalizing at this time without interfering with other products.
> “This was a science experiment that failed, and they are moving on,” he said.
Semi-seriously, but I'd like to know where exactly they are moving on now.
Semi-seriously, but I'd like to know where exactly they are moving on now.
I was excited about this, but after going dark for nearly a year and then resurfacing with a model that had most of the important components integrated onto the board, the writing was on the wall.
It's a cool concept, but I don't think current technology would allow this to work in a reasonable way.
It's a cool concept, but I don't think current technology would allow this to work in a reasonable way.
There was an Israeli startup that tried to do this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modu ) and apparently Google acquired some of that IP. I wonder if this effort is related.
It may shound harsh, but why should I want a modular Android phone? To update my hardware over the years to come while still running the same Android version without receiving updates.
Google, your Android updating system is fucked up. Fix it first, and then we can talk about exending the life of hardware.
Google, your Android updating system is fucked up. Fix it first, and then we can talk about exending the life of hardware.
Limited updates are more an issue with the carriers than Google.
I don't think so. I'm still on the May 2016 security patch on a 2015 Moto X Style. No carrier involved - it's an unlocked LTE phone. Updating the existing phones doesn't make Lenovo any money so I doubt it will happen.
That is an excuse.
Google just needs to make it part of the contract of using Android or access to the Play Store.
No updates, no access.
Google just needs to make it part of the contract of using Android or access to the Play Store.
No updates, no access.
You can add new camera or bluetooth controller but you can't (sanely) update firmware to latest Android version. Great.
(I mean sanely if it was like installing Windows or Linux and not specific build for single phone model made from hacks and insane backmerges)
(I mean sanely if it was like installing Windows or Linux and not specific build for single phone model made from hacks and insane backmerges)
I had high hopes for this, but seeing how fragmentation is harming Android when the phone is a single integrated device - seems unrealistic they would be able to get all these components to play well together among various OEMs.
This is my attitude regarding Red camera's lauded modularity.
Ok so you can keep your handle and grip, and the little viewfinder. The sum of Those useless pieces doesn't mean you've "upgraded" your camera
Ok so you can keep your handle and grip, and the little viewfinder. The sum of Those useless pieces doesn't mean you've "upgraded" your camera
No Google! That is not acceptable! You can not always make people hope for years and then just drop it. When you start with marketing you take on some responsibility. You lost someone who believed in you.
I think your naivete is as beautiful as the freshest spring rose.
I wonder what this move has to do with what phone manufacturers are doing in general: hiding away components like the battery that were once open to the consumer, making it difficult to do anything but buy a new phone if the battery alone dies out. One can't get more anti-modular than that, and the Nexus 5X has the same deal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYFbSpvSE-w&feature=youtu.be...
I wonder what this move has to do with what phone manufacturers are doing in general: hiding away components like the battery that were once open to the consumer, making it difficult to do anything but buy a new phone if the battery alone dies out. One can't get more anti-modular than that, and the Nexus 5X has the same deal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYFbSpvSE-w&feature=youtu.be...
I know what you're saying about the 5X, but it's not impossible to replace.
>The battery isn't immediately user accessible but isn't too challenging, or too adhered, to replace.
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus+5X+Teardown/51318#s112...
>The battery isn't immediately user accessible but isn't too challenging, or too adhered, to replace.
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus+5X+Teardown/51318#s112...
[deleted]
Does it void your warranty though?
Was anyone really hoping for this? It seemed pretty clear that this was a a technology exploration.
Do you know Pokemon? Don't you think collectable phone parts would not be a great business model? Even if this only barely works I thought it could make a lot of money and therefore was quite sure that someone would build it.
Just what were you hoping to put on your phone that isn't already builtin to the phone you have?
First of all the simple things: Getting back the replacable parts feature of old phones.
Then context optimization: At one time I may need additional battery life, and another time I may need a second sim card.
Playing around myself: It could also become a raspberry pie with more add-ons and for the more software oriented tinkerers, and I am one of them. Playing around with the pie was always nice, but I didn't fully use it because the more creative stuff always required really working with the hardware, what I don't like at all.
Also let's not forget the Pokemon effect: If there is something that can be collected, ppl will have fun just in the collecting. And not everybody may agree but funding tech experiments by people paying for fun is a valid business model for me.
Then context optimization: At one time I may need additional battery life, and another time I may need a second sim card.
Playing around myself: It could also become a raspberry pie with more add-ons and for the more software oriented tinkerers, and I am one of them. Playing around with the pie was always nice, but I didn't fully use it because the more creative stuff always required really working with the hardware, what I don't like at all.
Also let's not forget the Pokemon effect: If there is something that can be collected, ppl will have fun just in the collecting. And not everybody may agree but funding tech experiments by people paying for fun is a valid business model for me.
I am not surprised either. It is more of a gimmicky idea, than a revolutionary moonshot one. It is somehow hard to picture where is the market and how to convince customers to buy it.
Finally. The first modular phone prototype I saw in Logitech HQ in 1999 or so was shelved for the exact same reasons.
I'm expecting a similar announcement about project Makani.
I'm expecting a similar announcement about project Makani.
I just heard about Makani for the first time, and after a quick glance at their website, it doesn't look absurd. Can you elaborate what is problematic about it?
Speaking off the cuff here. I think google wants ideas that might work then put a team on them. Close it down and aquire a company that makes it successful.
Isn't software the best interchangeable parts for a phone? Modular add-ons were doomed to fail from the go and no idea why they got any traction.
Its all about money -> Do incremental "innovation" but make people pay for the whole thing again and again each and every year.
You know, you're not forced to buy a new phone, if you think your old one does the job just as well.
My old phone was perfect, but my provider killed it by making it download trash until it was unusable.
Everyone always knew this was never reach the mainstream consumer but I would've liked to seen something released.
I think its cool that they at least gave it a shot, but in the process it used up their stocks of unicorn blood.
At least this time they killed the product _before_ rolling it out to users. Google is improving every day!
What is the strong reason behind nodularization if we can have almost every component in place for cheap?
This is a Fuchsia casualty, and it won't be the last. Google cannot afford to innovate with hardware until they are done replacing the open-source kernel in Android. Once that's done, and OEMs are accustomed to writing Fuchsia drivers instead, they can use increased leverage over manufacturers to drive hardware innovations in directions they want.
Can you please elaborate? I am not following your logic.
Interesting theory but Fuchsia seems years away (unless they have a non-public repo that is much further along)
Why are hardware innovations not possible with Android's Linux kernel? OEMs' concerns about the GPL?
Yes, the kernel is the only GPL component on the stack.
Google just deprecated gcc and will only offer clang on future NDK versions.
Native apps are so constrained in Android that they could replace Linux with something else and only OEMs writing drivers would notice.
Fuchsia takes this further by not having any GPL component at all.
Google just deprecated gcc and will only offer clang on future NDK versions.
Native apps are so constrained in Android that they could replace Linux with something else and only OEMs writing drivers would notice.
Fuchsia takes this further by not having any GPL component at all.
I hope some of this reappears eventually as a scheme for a modular tiny desktop computer.
Have they released anything? Or was the lg g4 the closest thing to a modular smartphone?
Surprise.
Ever since the idea of a modular phone was first introduced "Phonebloks, or whatever it was" I have known for a fact that it was a fundamentally flawed concept and would never see the light of day, despite the enormous hype and support it received.
Is this proof that I am more intelligent than everyone who believed in this idea? I think so?
Is this proof that I am more intelligent than everyone who believed in this idea? I think so?
> Is this proof that I am more intelligent than everyone who believed in this idea?
No.
No.
Finally I can say this was a stupid idea
and by stupid, I meant economically infeasible, no product market fit
words we associate with waste of time, in this sector
and by stupid, I meant economically infeasible, no product market fit
words we associate with waste of time, in this sector
To make something modular you need to wrap each piece in its own case, add bulky connectors, etc. Both weight and volume are at an extreme premium in mobile devices. All that metal/plastic going in to making the pieces modular is stealing volume and weight from the battery.
The only realistic way to make the power envelope is to use an SoC, which means the CPU, GPU, and RAM must all be in the same module. That doesn't leave a lot worth upgrading... maybe just the radio module. Jumping up in screen resolution would mean replacing the SoC to get a better GPU too.
Modularity worked in desktop PCs because they have gobs of space and an AC power connection.