The end of smartphone innovation(ben-evans.com)
ben-evans.com
The end of smartphone innovation
http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2017/3/22/the-end-of-smartphone-innovation
283 comments
I wouldn't rule it out, but no computing hardware platform has ever been dominant for 50 years before so there are reasons to believe we're not about to get started with that kind of cycle now.
Mainframes, minicomputers, desktop personal computers, laptops, and now tablets and smartphones. Maybe we have reached the end (for 50 years at least), but I think the safer bet is that the next big technology 30 years from now will be something that surprises us, not something we already have or could easily predict having wide adoption.
Mainframes, minicomputers, desktop personal computers, laptops, and now tablets and smartphones. Maybe we have reached the end (for 50 years at least), but I think the safer bet is that the next big technology 30 years from now will be something that surprises us, not something we already have or could easily predict having wide adoption.
Except the Moore's law has (almost?) ended now, for the first time in 50 years.
The next big technology revolution is AI. Should be pretty obvious at this point. The next one after that will be consumer technology integrated with human biology. All the fitness trackers are the first primitive attempts at that, but lab on a chip and brain machine interfaces are on their way. The $6 cell phone semen analyzer is a harbinger of this.
>> brain machine interfaces
I'm pretty skeptical of the common "brain machine interface". It probably requires surgery, and for what ? to make people smarter in a world with AI ?
No, i think the main motivation for a brain machine interface should be experience/emotion oriented, And there's a big question if people will take surgery for it, or would they suffice with an external device ?
One such modality is fmri neurofeedback - using fmri analysis to give detailed and accurate feedback of what happens inside your brain, so you could achieve better control of it, and your internal world.
How much better control ? well, there's some early research about treating depression/anxiety, etc. but the more interesting research is about letting people train themselves to reach(very rapidly, unlike years/decades as a monk) a state very similar to the buddhist enlightenment, where you are content and free of ego. Another type of training session has taught people to increase empathy. And i'm sure you could do a lot more, since fmri is relatively accurate and fine-grained.
This line of research is early, and very expensive to do, but the technology is drastically improving[1], and with it will research.
And once you have that, once you could potentially become internally satisfied and happy, why would you risk that with a brain surgery , in order to have somewhat better virtual reality ?
[1]mri's are expensive, but marie lou-jespen is working on a $100 mri helmet
I'm pretty skeptical of the common "brain machine interface". It probably requires surgery, and for what ? to make people smarter in a world with AI ?
No, i think the main motivation for a brain machine interface should be experience/emotion oriented, And there's a big question if people will take surgery for it, or would they suffice with an external device ?
One such modality is fmri neurofeedback - using fmri analysis to give detailed and accurate feedback of what happens inside your brain, so you could achieve better control of it, and your internal world.
How much better control ? well, there's some early research about treating depression/anxiety, etc. but the more interesting research is about letting people train themselves to reach(very rapidly, unlike years/decades as a monk) a state very similar to the buddhist enlightenment, where you are content and free of ego. Another type of training session has taught people to increase empathy. And i'm sure you could do a lot more, since fmri is relatively accurate and fine-grained.
This line of research is early, and very expensive to do, but the technology is drastically improving[1], and with it will research.
And once you have that, once you could potentially become internally satisfied and happy, why would you risk that with a brain surgery , in order to have somewhat better virtual reality ?
[1]mri's are expensive, but marie lou-jespen is working on a $100 mri helmet
Re your [1]: Mary Lou Jepsen.
https://www.maryloujepsen.com/resume?_escaped_fragment_=#! "Goal: Replace the functionality of MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) with a consumer electronics wearable using novel opto-electronics to achieve comparable resolution to MRI."
(Couldn't find anything else really; https://www.engadget.com/2016/05/05/oculus-exec-mary-lou-jep... "she will focus on "curing diseases with new display technology," by bringing MRI machines to every doctor' office in the world."; links a TEDxYouth talk but that doesn't talk about it.)
https://www.maryloujepsen.com/resume?_escaped_fragment_=#! "Goal: Replace the functionality of MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) with a consumer electronics wearable using novel opto-electronics to achieve comparable resolution to MRI."
(Couldn't find anything else really; https://www.engadget.com/2016/05/05/oculus-exec-mary-lou-jep... "she will focus on "curing diseases with new display technology," by bringing MRI machines to every doctor' office in the world."; links a TEDxYouth talk but that doesn't talk about it.)
> The next big technology revolution is AI. Should be pretty obvious at this point.
Unless you mean strong AI, which isn't anywhere close, I don't think this AI rush has much wider chances than the previous one, except for some narrow use cases.
Unless you mean strong AI, which isn't anywhere close, I don't think this AI rush has much wider chances than the previous one, except for some narrow use cases.
>The next big technology revolution is AI. Should be pretty obvious at this point.
I don't think so. I think AI is just one of those fads that come up every now and then, and then get abandoned for the next one.
I'm calling AI as in "actual working strong AI" or useful soft AI stuff as fad.
I'm calling "AI" as in the thing currently every VC/company is investing in and we see various helpers like Cortana and Siri based, the machine learning craze, on etc. Besides some obvious and fitting applications (like in self driving cars) it will go nowhere fast.
VR has already reached this stage, without making any large dent on the market in the first place even temporarily.
Note that this is the second time AI is promised and will get nowhere (the first was back in the 80s, with the "AI winter").
I don't think so. I think AI is just one of those fads that come up every now and then, and then get abandoned for the next one.
I'm calling AI as in "actual working strong AI" or useful soft AI stuff as fad.
I'm calling "AI" as in the thing currently every VC/company is investing in and we see various helpers like Cortana and Siri based, the machine learning craze, on etc. Besides some obvious and fitting applications (like in self driving cars) it will go nowhere fast.
VR has already reached this stage, without making any large dent on the market in the first place even temporarily.
Note that this is the second time AI is promised and will get nowhere (the first was back in the 80s, with the "AI winter").
Google.com is today's Ai. No reason to believe it will stop improving.
Stop? I can't wait for it to start!
And yet their search result quality subjectively seems to be stable at best or declining slightly. If that's AI then it's certainly not as smart as the spammers and black-hat SEOs. On the mobile side, when the latest version of Google Assistant misunderstands what I want so often as to be worse than useless.
Still hoping to see some improvement but not holding my breath.
Still hoping to see some improvement but not holding my breath.
Well, Google search results have been declining for some years now, as observed by very many.
And there's nothing to Google.com more than a simple heuristic algorithm, which can be totally dumb to context and nuance.
And there's nothing to Google.com more than a simple heuristic algorithm, which can be totally dumb to context and nuance.
Any pointers to such accounts?
(I've written my own, but I'm interested in others'.)
https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qc4ip4m_33unj0eipgyhga
(I've written my own, but I'm interested in others'.)
https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qc4ip4m_33unj0eipgyhga
>*I wouldn't rule it out, but no computing hardware platform has ever been dominant for 50 years before so there are reasons to believe we're not about to get started with that kind of cycle now.
"Mainframes, minicomputers, desktop personal computers, laptops, and now tablets and smartphones" -- yes, so we had like 5 generations of computing hardware platforms. And we began with so premature and begging for improvement technologies (when they started in the 50s) and so large form factors that we had Moore's law going on for decades until a few years past.
Now we've reaching physical limits in CPU shrinking, and we have components so small (e.g. Apple Watch) than if they were any smaller you couldn't handle their buttons, or fit a camera lens, or speakers, or a large enough screen in there.
My point is, just because something has been going on for 5 generations of form factors, it's nowhere near enough evidence to be meaningful statistically or otherwise to deduce it will go on forever.
A turkey is fed every day by the farmer for months on end. But after 300+ observations that make it think feeding is never ending and inevitable there comes thanksgiving.
"Mainframes, minicomputers, desktop personal computers, laptops, and now tablets and smartphones" -- yes, so we had like 5 generations of computing hardware platforms. And we began with so premature and begging for improvement technologies (when they started in the 50s) and so large form factors that we had Moore's law going on for decades until a few years past.
Now we've reaching physical limits in CPU shrinking, and we have components so small (e.g. Apple Watch) than if they were any smaller you couldn't handle their buttons, or fit a camera lens, or speakers, or a large enough screen in there.
My point is, just because something has been going on for 5 generations of form factors, it's nowhere near enough evidence to be meaningful statistically or otherwise to deduce it will go on forever.
A turkey is fed every day by the farmer for months on end. But after 300+ observations that make it think feeding is never ending and inevitable there comes thanksgiving.
> if they were any smaller you couldn't handle their buttons
Voice-interfaced intelligent agents like Siri/Alexa/etc will continue to evolve.
Given a sufficiently advanced AI, buttons won't be needed for most computing tasks - any more than stirrups and a bridle were needed to drive the first automobiles.
Voice-interfaced intelligent agents like Siri/Alexa/etc will continue to evolve.
Given a sufficiently advanced AI, buttons won't be needed for most computing tasks - any more than stirrups and a bridle were needed to drive the first automobiles.
I don't like talking to my devices, specially because most of the time I'm around other people and I don't want to share what I'm doing with them.
[deleted]
> if they were any smaller you couldn't handle their buttons,
They will connect to our brains.
> or fit a camera lens, or speakers, > or a large enough screen in there.
Not needed when they are connected to our brains.
They will connect to our brains.
> or fit a camera lens, or speakers, > or a large enough screen in there.
Not needed when they are connected to our brains.
Trust me, they won't for a while and you don't want them to. Do some research into bio-compatibility. After that, do some research into electrolysis. You can do a fun experiment by connecting a battery to your tongue for a while. Just google it before please to know what is happening.
Meanwhile, non invasive BCI are getting AWESOME...if you are a quadriplegic with no other options.
Now imagine we solve those problems, and the first BCI is on the market. It's safe, it's a little bit faster than typing/reading (hey, first generation right). Who is going to be the first early adopter to undergo massive brainsurgery? Turns out upgarding cochlear implants is so hard they are made to last 100 years (they get surrounded by bones and scar tissue...) so upgrading will be really hard. And who wouldn't want to have their blackberry implanted into their head right now...even worse, if we have proprietary technology in the first ones and now your brainberry can only talk to other brainberries...or we go full internet of shit and it needs a cloud server to do anything:)
Meanwhile, non invasive BCI are getting AWESOME...if you are a quadriplegic with no other options.
Now imagine we solve those problems, and the first BCI is on the market. It's safe, it's a little bit faster than typing/reading (hey, first generation right). Who is going to be the first early adopter to undergo massive brainsurgery? Turns out upgarding cochlear implants is so hard they are made to last 100 years (they get surrounded by bones and scar tissue...) so upgrading will be really hard. And who wouldn't want to have their blackberry implanted into their head right now...even worse, if we have proprietary technology in the first ones and now your brainberry can only talk to other brainberries...or we go full internet of shit and it needs a cloud server to do anything:)
Yeah, don't hold your breath for those.
You'll be needing an oxygenated brain for when they arrive.
You'll be needing an oxygenated brain for when they arrive.
The next form factor is pervasive computing, of which Alexa and Google Home are the first stumbling attempts.
How do you use them in a public space, where others are trying to do the same thing ?
You wear the controls to your own wearable computer/smartphone, which might or not be linked to a better one on the environment that can do a lot more for you.
We will probably end up controlling our microdevices (hopefully optionally implanted beneath our skin) with interfaces like Google's Project Soli[0], voice commands, "Morse code" style tapping commands, etc and also through hub devices like screen membranes underneath our skin or a device similar to a phone.
[0] https://atap.google.com/soli/
[0] https://atap.google.com/soli/
My presumption is that we will interact with most computers through wireless devices. For example, the chromecast has no buttons on it, and I haven't felt limited by that.
Unfortunately that heuristic is useless in deciding when periods of change end. Ditto when periods of stability end.
I could say, "The manually driven, privately owned internal combustion car and truck have been dominant in transport for 100 years, so the safe bet is that they will continue to be." And that is definitely safe bet. But the interesting work will be done by people making the unsafe bets.
I could say, "The manually driven, privately owned internal combustion car and truck have been dominant in transport for 100 years, so the safe bet is that they will continue to be." And that is definitely safe bet. But the interesting work will be done by people making the unsafe bets.
I don't disagree with your main point but I think it's worth saying - Pen-and-paper is a computing hardware platform! And it ruled for much longer than 50 years.
And to no small success - they worked out quantum mechanics and a lot of other very difficult problems on this platform.
People still even make games for this platform too.
And to no small success - they worked out quantum mechanics and a lot of other very difficult problems on this platform.
People still even make games for this platform too.
The desktop PC became the dominant computing platform almost 40 years ago with the introduction of the first generation of affordable home computers (Apple II being the primary example). Even though laptop sales have overtook desktop sales around 10 years ago, the preferred form factor (15"+ screen) and intended use (sits at a desk 90%+ of the time) of the vast majority of laptop owners means the majority of laptops are nothing but desktops that happen to be easier to move to another desk.
Even though the amount of time spent using desktops and laptops in a desktop-like manner is decreasing, it's still a form factor found in every home. There may be more smartphones in that home but in my opinion, any product which is universally present in people's home is dominant even if it isn't being used as often as other options. Another example of this would be the microwave versus the oven. I'm not sure which one is used more often than the other but both are still dominant in terms of their universal presence in every home.
Even though the amount of time spent using desktops and laptops in a desktop-like manner is decreasing, it's still a form factor found in every home. There may be more smartphones in that home but in my opinion, any product which is universally present in people's home is dominant even if it isn't being used as often as other options. Another example of this would be the microwave versus the oven. I'm not sure which one is used more often than the other but both are still dominant in terms of their universal presence in every home.
"Dominance" of the PC was more late 1980s than late 1970s, and that's if you count only office use. PCs didn't hit 50% residential penetration until ~1998:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2244/2199183615_c2a8acbaff.jp...
Yes, you could buy a PC in the late 1970s. But they were still pretty rare, and even a freestanding home PC didn't become hugely common until the 1990s -- networking was the missing step.
Mainframes have had buffers put between them and end-users, but are still highly utilised today. And the computerisation of the office was proceeding at mixed rates through the 1980s and 1990s (though well advanced by the early 1990s).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2244/2199183615_c2a8acbaff.jp...
Yes, you could buy a PC in the late 1970s. But they were still pretty rare, and even a freestanding home PC didn't become hugely common until the 1990s -- networking was the missing step.
Mainframes have had buffers put between them and end-users, but are still highly utilised today. And the computerisation of the office was proceeding at mixed rates through the 1980s and 1990s (though well advanced by the early 1990s).
Well, imagine being able to project your "laptop" where ever you want using AR? Then you could use it as your home desktop-laptop and carry it everywhere with you.
Tablets are cool and you can carry them everywhere, but you can't really work important stuff on them since they are still too small.
On the other hand, even if laptops had very good battery life (which usually is not the case), they are still too big and heavy to carry around unless really needed (ie. for a meeting or something like that).
But an augmented reality laptop that lives in your phone is something people might want to use. Not for gaming, but for normal office work, be it programming or using spreadsheets.
And, at that point, regular users might think about obsoleting desktop PCs and laptops.
Tablets are cool and you can carry them everywhere, but you can't really work important stuff on them since they are still too small.
On the other hand, even if laptops had very good battery life (which usually is not the case), they are still too big and heavy to carry around unless really needed (ie. for a meeting or something like that).
But an augmented reality laptop that lives in your phone is something people might want to use. Not for gaming, but for normal office work, be it programming or using spreadsheets.
And, at that point, regular users might think about obsoleting desktop PCs and laptops.
A projected AR display would only be useful for creative and business work if it can completely occlude the background. I won't be able to see the spreadsheet clearly if light leaks through it through from the window in front of me. Due to limits imposed by optics, complete background light blockage is always going to require a bulky, awkward head-mounted display. No one has proposed any way to get around this issue even in theory.
Well, you can always project the virtual laptop's screen on a pizza box or a wall or something like that. But I agree in general. I'd prefer a foldable laptop, but I doubt the technology for something like that is anywhere near, while this AR laptop could be made tomorrow. There already are virtual machines made for mobile phones, all that is left is connecting them to AR glasses and voila.
Walls and pizza boxes aren't sufficiently smooth or reflective to use as projection screens for real work. An AR laptop couldn't be made tomorrow because the glasses exist only in limited prototype form with poor display quality.
I think we'll struggle for a long while to make the smartphone our main computer. One that can interface smoothly with wireless displays and peripherals at home.
I could totally see a smartphone hooking up to another computer for gamers - like the Thunderbolt 3 chassis allowing you to use an external GPU. Or simply when you walk into your house your phone connects to a more powerful hub giving you sensor data and processing power?
Eventually I think we'll socially "shift" to allowing electronics within our bodies to augment our abilities. We can't fit everything into a smartphone and we can't keep shrinking it. We can make things more efficient but it's more likely we'll begin building onto humans. Bodies are bigger than phones.
I'm more excited than terrified about an implant attached to my optic nerve for true augmented reality. Imagine everyone having a photographic memory. I'd love to see more done to store data on crystal - or on DNA.
Let's get freaky. :-)
I could totally see a smartphone hooking up to another computer for gamers - like the Thunderbolt 3 chassis allowing you to use an external GPU. Or simply when you walk into your house your phone connects to a more powerful hub giving you sensor data and processing power?
Eventually I think we'll socially "shift" to allowing electronics within our bodies to augment our abilities. We can't fit everything into a smartphone and we can't keep shrinking it. We can make things more efficient but it's more likely we'll begin building onto humans. Bodies are bigger than phones.
I'm more excited than terrified about an implant attached to my optic nerve for true augmented reality. Imagine everyone having a photographic memory. I'd love to see more done to store data on crystal - or on DNA.
Let's get freaky. :-)
You should watch Black Mirror S1E3, entitled "The Entire History of You". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entire_History_of_You
I don't know about platforms, but I think a shift in UI must come.
The thing is that touchscreen mobile phones are terribly clunky interfaces. It's much harder to express you intent with fat human fingers than with keyboard-and-mouse device. The advantage of the phone is entirely in its mobility, and the fact that you want a telephone anyway.
If some interface (augmented reality, voice, direct neural probes) becomes a workable UI that is both expressive and mobile, then it will take over.
The thing is that touchscreen mobile phones are terribly clunky interfaces. It's much harder to express you intent with fat human fingers than with keyboard-and-mouse device. The advantage of the phone is entirely in its mobility, and the fact that you want a telephone anyway.
If some interface (augmented reality, voice, direct neural probes) becomes a workable UI that is both expressive and mobile, then it will take over.
There's potential in building a mobile UI around gestures from the start instead of around touch on a flat rectangular screen.
That's really 2 questions in one. The first is "is there demand for another shift?". The second being "does the capability exist?". My inclination is to say the answers to those 2 are "yes" and "maybe" respectively.
Smart phones are awesome but by their very nature they have some limitations. The slowest aspect on any computer is communication from the user to the machine. We're slow and the constrained real estate of phones only makes it worse. I wouldn't consider typing all this on a phone. The next slowest is the other direction. So if you can figure out how to improve those channels in a highly portable way people will most likely buy it.
That brings us to the capability question. Voice kinda improves things when you can't use your hands but it's always been unreliable. Physical keyboards on phones are out of fashion. Smart watches are tiny and power constrained. Google glass looked neat but is expensive and again power constrained. It seems to be a serious question of how do you get a bigger device without the drawbacks of getting a bigger device.
Smart phones are awesome but by their very nature they have some limitations. The slowest aspect on any computer is communication from the user to the machine. We're slow and the constrained real estate of phones only makes it worse. I wouldn't consider typing all this on a phone. The next slowest is the other direction. So if you can figure out how to improve those channels in a highly portable way people will most likely buy it.
That brings us to the capability question. Voice kinda improves things when you can't use your hands but it's always been unreliable. Physical keyboards on phones are out of fashion. Smart watches are tiny and power constrained. Google glass looked neat but is expensive and again power constrained. It seems to be a serious question of how do you get a bigger device without the drawbacks of getting a bigger device.
Product innovation doesn't always have to be a new feature, or a paradigm "shift" with new technology like AR.
Smartphones could be due for a substantial reduction in price (there's certainly demand for that). Not just hardware pricing, but also carrier pricing.
From a hardware perspective Apple must innovate (or have you believe they're innovating) to keep the product price and profit margins as high as possible. However, as the article points out, the smartphone market is mature. There's not much left to innovate in terms of the "hand held" form factor, other than price, or improving on already available features (better camera, better voice control, wireless charging etc).
The iPod provided good insight into "size", and even when given smaller sizes (like the nano), consumers generally preferred the standard, easier to hold sizes, with displays big enough to read. The Sony WM-10 cassette Walkman from 1983 was about the same size!
Size has been consistent for over 30 years.
It must be getting harder and harder for Apple to spin each revision as groundbreaking enough to pay the same price as last year. Android capitalizes on this. But it's still a pricing monopoly on both sides, which carriers enjoy as well.
When will there be a substantial reduction in price?
Does the capability exist yet?
Smartphones could be due for a substantial reduction in price (there's certainly demand for that). Not just hardware pricing, but also carrier pricing.
From a hardware perspective Apple must innovate (or have you believe they're innovating) to keep the product price and profit margins as high as possible. However, as the article points out, the smartphone market is mature. There's not much left to innovate in terms of the "hand held" form factor, other than price, or improving on already available features (better camera, better voice control, wireless charging etc).
The iPod provided good insight into "size", and even when given smaller sizes (like the nano), consumers generally preferred the standard, easier to hold sizes, with displays big enough to read. The Sony WM-10 cassette Walkman from 1983 was about the same size!
Size has been consistent for over 30 years.
It must be getting harder and harder for Apple to spin each revision as groundbreaking enough to pay the same price as last year. Android capitalizes on this. But it's still a pricing monopoly on both sides, which carriers enjoy as well.
When will there be a substantial reduction in price?
Does the capability exist yet?
Phones are quite cheap already(~$140 for a pretty decent xiaomi). The largest share of price of a phone is the monthly bill. It's mostly due to monopolies, so even though there's some news technologies that promise 25x-50x reduction in costs[1] with some of those already availble, it's hard to tell whether consumers will see that.
Another place where the smartphone could help with costs: currently great noise cancelling earphones are very expensive($300) .And in general are well loved by those who can afford them.
but what happens if we remove most of the hardware(cheap) and compute($0 on phone) to the phone ? And create place in the app store for noise-cancelling apps ?
[1]http://5gwnews.com/index.php/90-r/670-wireless-abundance-is-...
Another place where the smartphone could help with costs: currently great noise cancelling earphones are very expensive($300) .And in general are well loved by those who can afford them.
but what happens if we remove most of the hardware(cheap) and compute($0 on phone) to the phone ? And create place in the app store for noise-cancelling apps ?
[1]http://5gwnews.com/index.php/90-r/670-wireless-abundance-is-...
The cell phone carrier market is the classic example of a "confusopoly" where the dominant market players make it as hard as possible for consumers to make fully informed decisions. None of the carriers actually has a monopoly outside of a few isolated areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly
Acoustics make it impossible to do good noise cancellation using just an app. You really need a specialized microphone mounted directly on the headphones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly
Acoustics make it impossible to do good noise cancellation using just an app. You really need a specialized microphone mounted directly on the headphones.
Sure you need a high quality microphone on the earphone - but that's men's , could be very cheap in volume. And the rest is something interface chip on the phone, and than some digital logic which is cheap.
It stops working, because the latency is too high for the inverse-phase signal to match up with the unwanted incident signal it's intended to cancel.
You could have a low latency digital processor in the phone/soc. At that level, digital is cheap.
Of course the other part is that high-frequnecy noise is hard to cancel. But still Bose does a great job.
Of course the other part is that high-frequnecy noise is hard to cancel. But still Bose does a great job.
One possibility is that the resolution of VR goggles becomes so good that you can simulate looking at a screen. Then you might have something as easy to carry as a smartphone but with unbounded screen size.
Innovation in saturated markets is different from growing markets.
When smartphones become household items, visible innovation has turned into small tricks and gimmicks. People need smartphones for their daily activities and innovation that is directed towards low cost may be more profitable.
TV, computer monitors and smartphones seem all to be riding on screen technology. If there is development VR or AR technologies that make it into mass markets, it can disrupt all these markets.
When smartphones become household items, visible innovation has turned into small tricks and gimmicks. People need smartphones for their daily activities and innovation that is directed towards low cost may be more profitable.
TV, computer monitors and smartphones seem all to be riding on screen technology. If there is development VR or AR technologies that make it into mass markets, it can disrupt all these markets.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think someone is going to figure out a device that does what a smartphones does, minus the "carry around" bit. And I don't think it'll take 50 years. Google glass wasn't it, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
well we always can have a ST:TNG generation inspiration and use jewelry or similarly disguised devices at the communication device. Still the one point against miniaturization is how do you visually communicate something?
if anything the smartphone will just become. become an everything. it will seamlessly interact with whatever device is nearby that you want to use and be the source point for your data and inquiries. get in your car, it takes over the center console. sit down at your desk and you work is right there like you left it. need to show a group something, point it at a display.
if anything the smartphone will just become. become an everything. it will seamlessly interact with whatever device is nearby that you want to use and be the source point for your data and inquiries. get in your car, it takes over the center console. sit down at your desk and you work is right there like you left it. need to show a group something, point it at a display.
> Is it really unthinkable that smart phones that you carry around in your pocket are the dominant platform for the next 50+ years?
Yes: a) dominant consumer-facing platforms don't tend to last much longer than 10 years these days, b) smartphones only really took off exactly 10 years ago with the iPhone, so it's presumptuous to think we've hit the perfect sweet spot that will last us much longer.
It's almost like arguing the ENIAC would be the pinnacle of computing for the next 50 years. A lot of evolution happened, and "phones" 20 years from now will probably be nearly incomparable to phones today, just like your phone is just somewhat different from ENIAC.
Yes: a) dominant consumer-facing platforms don't tend to last much longer than 10 years these days, b) smartphones only really took off exactly 10 years ago with the iPhone, so it's presumptuous to think we've hit the perfect sweet spot that will last us much longer.
It's almost like arguing the ENIAC would be the pinnacle of computing for the next 50 years. A lot of evolution happened, and "phones" 20 years from now will probably be nearly incomparable to phones today, just like your phone is just somewhat different from ENIAC.
The improvements since ENIAC have mostly been miniaturization. It seems like smartphones are about as small as you can make a computer before it starts to become less usable.
>Yes: a) dominant consumer-facing platforms don't tend to last much longer than 10 years these days
Citation needed. Although the addition of "these days" doesn't let us check any historical precedent, as makes the claim more like "it might have been different in the past, but from now on dominant consumer-facing platforms don't tend to last much longer than 10 years".
>smartphones only really took off exactly 10 years ago with the iPhone, so it's presumptuous to think we've hit the perfect sweet spot that will last us much longer.
That's irrelevant, since smartphones are just the continuation of computing platforms, so they herald back to ENIAC's time too. They are more portable computer in essence (that also takes calls -- which are now of course digitally communicated) than some novel technology.
>It's almost like arguing the ENIAC would be the pinnacle of computing for the next 50 years.
At the moment ENIAC has developed everybody knew it was early days, and tons of innovations unexploited for improvement. Heck, computing hadn't even hit the market much yet, it was all research work.
Today we already have exhausted Moore's law, and we're near physical limitations for further shrinking. It's as if people don't understand that innovations in platforms are S curved such that one see more improvement in a platform before it plateaus, before all the low hanging fruits have been implemented, and further research yields marginal returns for very expensive costs.
Citation needed. Although the addition of "these days" doesn't let us check any historical precedent, as makes the claim more like "it might have been different in the past, but from now on dominant consumer-facing platforms don't tend to last much longer than 10 years".
>smartphones only really took off exactly 10 years ago with the iPhone, so it's presumptuous to think we've hit the perfect sweet spot that will last us much longer.
That's irrelevant, since smartphones are just the continuation of computing platforms, so they herald back to ENIAC's time too. They are more portable computer in essence (that also takes calls -- which are now of course digitally communicated) than some novel technology.
>It's almost like arguing the ENIAC would be the pinnacle of computing for the next 50 years.
At the moment ENIAC has developed everybody knew it was early days, and tons of innovations unexploited for improvement. Heck, computing hadn't even hit the market much yet, it was all research work.
Today we already have exhausted Moore's law, and we're near physical limitations for further shrinking. It's as if people don't understand that innovations in platforms are S curved such that one see more improvement in a platform before it plateaus, before all the low hanging fruits have been implemented, and further research yields marginal returns for very expensive costs.
I don't think it's presumptuous at all.
ENIAC (which is 70 years old) had some obvious flaws: it was too big, too expensive, too hard to use, and didn't do enough. This has been true for computing hardware ever since. The first portable PC [1] is 35 years old. It was too big, too expensive, too hard to use, and didn't do enough. Ditto the first laptop, the first handhelds, the first smartphones, and pretty much every other first.
But that's no longer true for modern phones. Few complain their phones are too big, and many wanted larger ones, leading to the rise of the phablets. Phone prices could be lower, but they're cheaper than the phone service over the phone's life, so making them much cheaper won't make a big difference. They could still be a little easier to use, but ease of use isn't keeping anybody from buying one. And now they do pretty much everything; phones are the computing swiss army knife.
We may find a new direction to take things in, and there are some plausible candidates. But you can't use the history of computing platforms to predict future change in personal devices, because we've mostly solved the problems we set out to solve. As we've experienced with cars or buildings, we could easily be looking at decades of incremental change.
ENIAC (which is 70 years old) had some obvious flaws: it was too big, too expensive, too hard to use, and didn't do enough. This has been true for computing hardware ever since. The first portable PC [1] is 35 years old. It was too big, too expensive, too hard to use, and didn't do enough. Ditto the first laptop, the first handhelds, the first smartphones, and pretty much every other first.
But that's no longer true for modern phones. Few complain their phones are too big, and many wanted larger ones, leading to the rise of the phablets. Phone prices could be lower, but they're cheaper than the phone service over the phone's life, so making them much cheaper won't make a big difference. They could still be a little easier to use, but ease of use isn't keeping anybody from buying one. And now they do pretty much everything; phones are the computing swiss army knife.
We may find a new direction to take things in, and there are some plausible candidates. But you can't use the history of computing platforms to predict future change in personal devices, because we've mostly solved the problems we set out to solve. As we've experienced with cars or buildings, we could easily be looking at decades of incremental change.
> Is it really unthinkable that smart phones that you carry around in your
pocket are the dominant platform for the next 50+ years?
The world we're in is one where the dominant use of pocket supercomputers is to send pictures, video, and messages around to our friends.
Extrapolating to massive improvements in computing power per watt, and the main question is still: are augmented reality UIs and neural interfaces better at snapchat and poop emojis?
Extrapolating to massive improvements in computing power per watt, and the main question is still: are augmented reality UIs and neural interfaces better at snapchat and poop emojis?
I would expect new AR versions of those things to supplant the current iterations.
Yes it is. Mobile phones are incredibly not user friendly. They are just the best thing we have for the moment.
For consumers (not necessarily business use cases) you shouldn't have to pull your phone out every time you need direction, make a phone call, check your email, listen to a song etc...
For consumers (not necessarily business use cases) you shouldn't have to pull your phone out every time you need direction, make a phone call, check your email, listen to a song etc...
>Yes it is. Mobile phones are incredibly not user friendly. They are just the best thing we have for the moment.
Who said user friendliness is some inevitability?
Some tasks (if not all) have some inherent complexity.
Even if we had strong AI, we'd just delegate the tasks to it to handle -- we wouldn't reduce the complexity of handling them ourselves, we have just bypassed it.
Who said user friendliness is some inevitability?
Some tasks (if not all) have some inherent complexity.
Even if we had strong AI, we'd just delegate the tasks to it to handle -- we wouldn't reduce the complexity of handling them ourselves, we have just bypassed it.
It's possible, but I think there's also something akin to the Anthropic Principle that affects what sort of articles get the most views and links- if the authors didn't think big change was inevitable, they wouldn't write the articles, or the much more sober and realistic articles that they would write instead wouldn't get nearly so many views and links in aggregators like HN. The nature of the medium favors people making exciting predictions (that might even come true, who knows), not people throwing cold water on other people's exciting predictions (who are more likely to be correct but don't prompt nearly as much sharing and discussion).
I'm deferring so much of my details knowledge to google that's it not even funny. Even for casual lunch convos I pull the phone to google specific facts. I'd rather have a less intrusive and awkward interface.
The alternative is to stop checking the facts constantly. See this article about disabiling "infinity apps" on your phone.
https://medium.com/time-dorks/the-distraction-free-iphone-or...
https://medium.com/time-dorks/the-distraction-free-iphone-or...
The problema is all those OEMs and their shareholders that need something to hold on, so that they can keep targeting growing targets year after year.
Yeah, I think most people aren't keen to wear glasses, AR or not.
I think something like 40% of Americans already wear glasses. Make them light and comfortable and it's not hard to see AR eyewear taking off.
So you think the customer base for AR is a middle aged to senior population?
> Is it really unthinkable that smart phones that you carry around in your pocket are the dominant platform for the next 50+ years?
Nobody knows the future, and maybe phones really are the end of the line for computing form factors, but I doubt it - there are too many problems with phones. Tiny, hard to read screens; poor battery life; fragile and easy to break, etc.
They certainly won't go away, because not even mainframes have completely disappeared, but they're already not the hot new thing, and the more time goes by the more people will be looking for shiny new devices.
Nobody knows the future, and maybe phones really are the end of the line for computing form factors, but I doubt it - there are too many problems with phones. Tiny, hard to read screens; poor battery life; fragile and easy to break, etc.
They certainly won't go away, because not even mainframes have completely disappeared, but they're already not the hot new thing, and the more time goes by the more people will be looking for shiny new devices.
Agreed. The assumption that after one innovation the next has to follow is the flaw. It was like this for the last maybe 100 years. But it doesn't mean that it keeps going on like that. For the longest part in history innovation was a rare thing. And at some point we reach the global cool down of the innovation S curve.
Throughout history most technological improvements could not be predicted ahead of time. In 2005 few people thought mobile phones would change much at all. In the 1950's the President of IBM supposedly said there was a market for maybe 5 computers in the world. In 1990 no one thought there would be a global network for anyone and everyone that would change the world a few years later. I assume whatever will happen next will be a surprise to most people, although in hindsight you might have noticed what was coming.
> In 1990 no one thought there would be a global network for anyone and everyone that would change the world a few years later.
This this may be in danger of going into pedantic territory, I don't feel this is true at all. The prevailing discussion in the late 80's/early 90's on the tech boards (BBS) I frequented were all talking about networking and how computers were one day all going to be interconnected.
In fact FIDONET and the like probably had already met that bar, in an early PoC sense. Lots of folks in that space had the vision of at least a nationwide network of 24x7 connected bbs' if not the entire picture. You also had a lot of guys working in private industry, who operated small "national" or regional networks between a few sites at that point.
I still remember a day in 1994 when I played Chess over the Internet with someone in South Africa - thinking that holy crap, the world we had been dreaming and talking about for 10 years finally was coming true.
This this may be in danger of going into pedantic territory, I don't feel this is true at all. The prevailing discussion in the late 80's/early 90's on the tech boards (BBS) I frequented were all talking about networking and how computers were one day all going to be interconnected.
In fact FIDONET and the like probably had already met that bar, in an early PoC sense. Lots of folks in that space had the vision of at least a nationwide network of 24x7 connected bbs' if not the entire picture. You also had a lot of guys working in private industry, who operated small "national" or regional networks between a few sites at that point.
I still remember a day in 1994 when I played Chess over the Internet with someone in South Africa - thinking that holy crap, the world we had been dreaming and talking about for 10 years finally was coming true.
Yeah. It was by no means an unexpected or even unanticipated thing. It wasn't hard to see coming.
"In fact FIDONET and the like probably had already met that bar, in an early PoC sense. Lots of folks in that space had the vision of at least a nationwide network of 24x7 connected bbs' if not the entire picture. You also had a lot of guys working in private industry, who operated small "national" or regional networks between a few sites at that point."
Also, distinct from BBS culture, many people in 1990 had telenet[1] access (not telnet) from local dialups and could connect to computers all over the country in that fashion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenet
Also, distinct from BBS culture, many people in 1990 had telenet[1] access (not telnet) from local dialups and could connect to computers all over the country in that fashion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenet
>> In 1990 no one thought there would be a global network for anyone and everyone that would change the world a few years later.
> The prevailing discussion in the late 80's/early 90's on the tech boards (BBS) I frequented were all talking about networking and how computers were one day all going to be interconnected.
That's obviously a fairly small subset of people, though.
(On a separate note - I'm curious, do you recall if they thought it was going to be "a network for anyone and everyone"?)
I remember when the web started becoming popular and that there was a lot of discussion about whether it would be passing fad, so it was far from obvious to a lot of people then.
> The prevailing discussion in the late 80's/early 90's on the tech boards (BBS) I frequented were all talking about networking and how computers were one day all going to be interconnected.
That's obviously a fairly small subset of people, though.
(On a separate note - I'm curious, do you recall if they thought it was going to be "a network for anyone and everyone"?)
I remember when the web started becoming popular and that there was a lot of discussion about whether it would be passing fad, so it was far from obvious to a lot of people then.
>That's obviously a fairly small subset of people, though.
Yes, but it's the same kind of "fairly small subset of people" that today would frequent a place like HN.
So if today's devs and engineers don't think there'll be much in smartphone innovation, then it's like people in BBS in the 80s not believing in a networked future.
Yes, but it's the same kind of "fairly small subset of people" that today would frequent a place like HN.
So if today's devs and engineers don't think there'll be much in smartphone innovation, then it's like people in BBS in the 80s not believing in a networked future.
In my memory of the internet becoming a thing in the early 90s, there was an intense fight over the commercialization of it. There was a group that really didn't want it to support money-making enterprises. Even at the time it seemed like a losing battle, but I doubt anyone foresaw just how overwhelming the commercial forces would be.
You have to account for selection/hindsight bias.
There were probably many more things predicted by various niche groups, just selectively looking at the few correct ones later does not mean that the overall prediction success ratio is high.
There were probably many more things predicted by various niche groups, just selectively looking at the few correct ones later does not mean that the overall prediction success ratio is high.
You're correct. The worldwide network was already assumed by 1990. The only question was whether or not it would become mainstream to muggles.
I gained internet access via my midwestern college in 1991. Within a few weeks, I was a regular on a MUD hosted somewhere in Bavaria, chatting (and arguing) with Israelis about middle eastern politics on newsgroups, and had (very slow) shell access on a system in Taipei thanks to a woman there I was flirting with. There was no question this was the future. The only question was: would this be limited to corporations, academia, and interested geeks? Or would this ever hit the general public? Considering the state of the interfaces in 1991, I vaugely remember I assumed it would be geek-only for a while, though I did my part in getting my non-technical friends online. Largely for the selfish reason of wanting them to have email so I didn't have to use the telephone as much.
I gained internet access via my midwestern college in 1991. Within a few weeks, I was a regular on a MUD hosted somewhere in Bavaria, chatting (and arguing) with Israelis about middle eastern politics on newsgroups, and had (very slow) shell access on a system in Taipei thanks to a woman there I was flirting with. There was no question this was the future. The only question was: would this be limited to corporations, academia, and interested geeks? Or would this ever hit the general public? Considering the state of the interfaces in 1991, I vaugely remember I assumed it would be geek-only for a while, though I did my part in getting my non-technical friends online. Largely for the selfish reason of wanting them to have email so I didn't have to use the telephone as much.
> The only question was: would this be limited to corporations, academia, and interested geeks? Or would this ever hit the general public?
As a 14yo in 1994 I knew the internet was going to be huge the first time I the amount of porn that was already available.
I'd like to say this was some incredible insight into human nature but it really wasn't, I was around when VHS became popular (just) and remembered that the reason my father had wanted one had very little to do with the stated goal of "You can record your soaps when you are at work dear" and rather more to do with the VHS collection in the top drawer of the unit in my parents room.
I grew up reading Cyberpunk (the good and the bad) and I wanted the cyberspace from the books but I was willing to settle for 256 color boobs at 14.
As a 14yo in 1994 I knew the internet was going to be huge the first time I the amount of porn that was already available.
I'd like to say this was some incredible insight into human nature but it really wasn't, I was around when VHS became popular (just) and remembered that the reason my father had wanted one had very little to do with the stated goal of "You can record your soaps when you are at work dear" and rather more to do with the VHS collection in the top drawer of the unit in my parents room.
I grew up reading Cyberpunk (the good and the bad) and I wanted the cyberspace from the books but I was willing to settle for 256 color boobs at 14.
"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed."
It's almost guaranteed that somewhere out there, the next big thing is incubating amongst a group of passionate enthusiasts who are certain it's the next best thing. It's just that most of humanity thinks they're crazy geeks.
That's what it was like with the Internet. I got on it in 1994 and couldn't convince anyone else it was worth paying attention to. By 1995, gifted & talented enrichment programs were starting to suggest all their students check it out. By 1996, I could convince my parents to pay for it. By 1998 a bunch of our family friends were putting their life savings into dot-coms.
It's almost guaranteed that somewhere out there, the next big thing is incubating amongst a group of passionate enthusiasts who are certain it's the next best thing. It's just that most of humanity thinks they're crazy geeks.
That's what it was like with the Internet. I got on it in 1994 and couldn't convince anyone else it was worth paying attention to. By 1995, gifted & talented enrichment programs were starting to suggest all their students check it out. By 1996, I could convince my parents to pay for it. By 1998 a bunch of our family friends were putting their life savings into dot-coms.
Maybe, I think the thing with that quote is that it's not always technology that is missing for things to get distributed. Technology, or affordable technology, has been missing for many things so far, but also organization. And I would say that the latter is increasingly the case, since technology is developing faster than we can make use of it. Last years smart phone processor is almost already obsolete, but it's a supercomputer for anything else.
I think the things that are going to get distributed in the next decade have already been invented and are just waiting to get organized. Much like the dotcom boom for that matter. Shopping online? So silly! People say that software is eating the world, but it's more like that software and the world is struggling to catch up with the opportunities provided by hardware.
I think the things that are going to get distributed in the next decade have already been invented and are just waiting to get organized. Much like the dotcom boom for that matter. Shopping online? So silly! People say that software is eating the world, but it's more like that software and the world is struggling to catch up with the opportunities provided by hardware.
So let's make a list of all of the things that have a group of passionate enthusiasts who are certain it's the next big thing. I can only think of two things:
* Bitcoin
* Self driving vehicles
* Bitcoin
* Self driving vehicles
Smart home. Virtual reality. Drones. Smartwatches (yes, some people still really like theirs). Rust. AI. IPFS. Federated wikis.
Probably others too. The scale that we're talking about is ~1000s of people, not millions. This doesn't even register in the news media - hell, HN probably has close to a few thousand people online at any given time, and there are 1000s of forums like Hacker News on the Internet.
Probably others too. The scale that we're talking about is ~1000s of people, not millions. This doesn't even register in the news media - hell, HN probably has close to a few thousand people online at any given time, and there are 1000s of forums like Hacker News on the Internet.
I wish I could frame this comment in gold.
Al Gore's apocryphal invention of the internet is based on a reality where he pushed to fund computing and networking initiatives throughout the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_techno...
One of the primary drivers of the various government bills was the notion that networks would be enormously beneficial economically.
People had a pretty clear idea that a global network would be a big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_techno...
One of the primary drivers of the various government bills was the notion that networks would be enormously beneficial economically.
People had a pretty clear idea that a global network would be a big deal.
>> In the 1950's the President of IBM supposedly said there was a market for maybe 5 computers in the world.
But in 1965, when there was a viable path to scaling the technology, Moore predicted moore's law and personal computers being sold next to cosmetics: http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82372000/jpg...
>> whatever will happen next will be a surprise to most people
Most people ? sure. But there are enough people to see a coarse vision of the future, or at least reasonable guesses.
But in 1965, when there was a viable path to scaling the technology, Moore predicted moore's law and personal computers being sold next to cosmetics: http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82372000/jpg...
>> whatever will happen next will be a surprise to most people
Most people ? sure. But there are enough people to see a coarse vision of the future, or at least reasonable guesses.
And i can't help wonder if we have been coasting on Moore's law ever since. What is inside s smartphone today is not that different from what was inside a mainframe.
[deleted]
>In 2005 few people thought mobile phones would change much at all.
In the immediate future (e.g. in 2007 when the iPhone appeared) no. But everybody though mobile phones will ultimately be little computers -- even MS had Windows OS version (a crappy one) for smartphones.
>* In the 1950's the President of IBM supposedly said there was a market for maybe 5 computers in the world.*
And he was right. Though he never really said it, it was more of a misattribution of a quote by another, "Originally one thought that if there were a half dozen large computers in this country, hidden away in research laboratories, this would take care of all requirements we had throughout the country."
Which, if you think of it, is how Cloud computing works. Sure, there are not 5 computers -- but a huge part of the internet traffic is from 5 services and their data centers (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc).
>In 1990 no one thought there would be a global network for anyone and everyone that would change the world a few years later.
People expected and talked of such a thing since the 50s and communication satellites.
Heck, it was the main theme in books like Neuromancer and the whole cyberpunk movement.
In the immediate future (e.g. in 2007 when the iPhone appeared) no. But everybody though mobile phones will ultimately be little computers -- even MS had Windows OS version (a crappy one) for smartphones.
>* In the 1950's the President of IBM supposedly said there was a market for maybe 5 computers in the world.*
And he was right. Though he never really said it, it was more of a misattribution of a quote by another, "Originally one thought that if there were a half dozen large computers in this country, hidden away in research laboratories, this would take care of all requirements we had throughout the country."
Which, if you think of it, is how Cloud computing works. Sure, there are not 5 computers -- but a huge part of the internet traffic is from 5 services and their data centers (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc).
>In 1990 no one thought there would be a global network for anyone and everyone that would change the world a few years later.
People expected and talked of such a thing since the 50s and communication satellites.
Heck, it was the main theme in books like Neuromancer and the whole cyberpunk movement.
> even MS had Windows OS version (a crappy one) for smartphones.
Actually, Windows Mobile was the market leader for a while after PalmOS development fell behind and people gave up on Palm. I had to do a market analysis once and there were a couple hundred different models of WM 5.x / 6.0 devices, if I recall correctly. (As an aside, Google really should have foreseen Android's eventual fragmentation problem since WM had it in spades a decade earlier.)
And, unlike the current market leaders for smartphone OSes, Windows Mobile had the same open model as desktop Windows: no app store or walled garden, just compile your app and load it onto the phone and it would run.
So, not so crappy after all.
Actually, Windows Mobile was the market leader for a while after PalmOS development fell behind and people gave up on Palm. I had to do a market analysis once and there were a couple hundred different models of WM 5.x / 6.0 devices, if I recall correctly. (As an aside, Google really should have foreseen Android's eventual fragmentation problem since WM had it in spades a decade earlier.)
And, unlike the current market leaders for smartphone OSes, Windows Mobile had the same open model as desktop Windows: no app store or walled garden, just compile your app and load it onto the phone and it would run.
So, not so crappy after all.
And i can't help wonder if we lost something in the transition.
Back then you had all manner of form factors.
HTC got big acting as the white box producer for a number of brands. And the range included devices with swivel hinge keyboards.
I think the capacitive touch screen has been more of a tradeoff that people want to admit.
Back then you had all manner of form factors.
HTC got big acting as the white box producer for a number of brands. And the range included devices with swivel hinge keyboards.
I think the capacitive touch screen has been more of a tradeoff that people want to admit.
>And, unlike the current market leaders for smartphone OSes, Windows Mobile had the same open model as desktop Windows: no app store or walled garden, just compile your app and load it onto the phone and it would run. So, not so crappy after all.
From the openness aspect no. From any aspect that actually matters while using a device, yes.
From the openness aspect no. From any aspect that actually matters while using a device, yes.
> In 2005 few people thought mobile phones would change much at all.
Uh, where were you in 2005? While the final form factor was unknown then, I think there was a ton of realization that carrying around all these different devices (cellphone, mp3 player, PDA, GPS, ...) was a total pain in the ass and that device convergence was coming.
Uh, where were you in 2005? While the final form factor was unknown then, I think there was a ton of realization that carrying around all these different devices (cellphone, mp3 player, PDA, GPS, ...) was a total pain in the ass and that device convergence was coming.
anecdote but I still have and use an MP3 player. a smartphone is a poor replacement.
...because it's heavier? I can't think of any other conceivable way a smartphone is inferior to an MP3 player.
The battery life is worse, it's more awkward to transfer files, no tactile interface - can't change tracks without taking it out.
Yes the elimination of tactile hardware buttons is a perfect example of the end of innovation in smartphone hardware. The manufacturers have taken buttons away from us due to silly "design" principles, or to improve waterproofing. But I'd much prefer to have a few programmable buttons that I could use to change music tracks or answer a call or whatever purely by feel.
Speaking of hardware buttons, I still can't understand for the life of me why some phone manufacturers put the power button directly above the volume button (on the same edge of the phone). About a third of the time I want to turn the volume up I end up turning the phone off.
Funny thing it that buttons can be as water proof, if not more so, than a touch screen.
Nah, taking buttons away is mostly about keeping the SKUs down. As now they do not have to develop as many regional variants. Just slap another OSK together along with a barebones translation and call it a day.
Nah, taking buttons away is mostly about keeping the SKUs down. As now they do not have to develop as many regional variants. Just slap another OSK together along with a barebones translation and call it a day.
Thanks for the reply. I don't know about more awkward to transfer files (maybe depends on the phone), but battery life and lack of hardware buttons definitely make sense.
there are smartphones with 10kmha, not sure what you mean for awkward file transfer, changing tracks depend on your pair of earphones and the app you use, a lot of apps allow controls through eg bluetooth earphones or simply the mic button on wired ones.
In 2005 everyone in the interaction design world knew phones were garbage. Remember scrolling through a 4-line screen?
I was in design school at the time and we did an exercise to redesign the phone and we ended up describing something almost exactly like the iPhone. It follows naturally from "mobile phones exist" + "laptops exist" + "interaction design makes things better".
It's just that Apple was the only company that really believed in all three of those things, and was willing to put billions of dollars behind getting it into production.
But to say it couldn't have been predicted was wrong. Conventional wisdom amongst business people at the time was that design doesn't matter, except to make your product pretty after it is specced. But the design community knew. We were just having a hard time convincing anyone to listen to us.
Do you remember that at the time most tech companies weren't even hiring interaction designers? You had to convince a company that they even needed you. "Why do we need you? The programmers write the code and the graphic designer makes it look good."
I was in design school at the time and we did an exercise to redesign the phone and we ended up describing something almost exactly like the iPhone. It follows naturally from "mobile phones exist" + "laptops exist" + "interaction design makes things better".
It's just that Apple was the only company that really believed in all three of those things, and was willing to put billions of dollars behind getting it into production.
But to say it couldn't have been predicted was wrong. Conventional wisdom amongst business people at the time was that design doesn't matter, except to make your product pretty after it is specced. But the design community knew. We were just having a hard time convincing anyone to listen to us.
Do you remember that at the time most tech companies weren't even hiring interaction designers? You had to convince a company that they even needed you. "Why do we need you? The programmers write the code and the graphic designer makes it look good."
> I assume whatever will happen next will be a surprise to most people, although in hindsight you might have noticed what was coming.
Ah! You're talking about global warming :)
Ah! You're talking about global warming :)
Given that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activities[1], the surprise would be if it didn't happen.
[1]: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
[1]: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You're definitely wrong about phones. In 2002-5, Palm was shipping a variety of Treos, which even at the time were clear early-adopter smartphones. Plenty of other companies were investigating the market and shipping early experiments.
The IBM quote has no apparent basis in fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_attrib...
And you're entirely wrong about 1990. Plenty of people thought there would be a global network. The WELL started in 1985, and plenty in that community had good notions about the future. The initial work on the Internet goes back to the 1970s, and many there too understood where it was going:
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832...
So if you're going to use the past to predict the future, please at least use some actual past, rather than one you make up to justify your notions.
The IBM quote has no apparent basis in fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_attrib...
And you're entirely wrong about 1990. Plenty of people thought there would be a global network. The WELL started in 1985, and plenty in that community had good notions about the future. The initial work on the Internet goes back to the 1970s, and many there too understood where it was going:
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832...
So if you're going to use the past to predict the future, please at least use some actual past, rather than one you make up to justify your notions.
> So if you're going to use the past to predict the future, please at least use some actual past, rather than one you make up to justify your notions.
I always wonder if people predicting the future also thought that the internet would be so casually rude.
I always wonder if people predicting the future also thought that the internet would be so casually rude.
You're amply correct on all points, and GP wrong.
I'd point to Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey for numerous aspects of technology, including talking computer interfaces, tablet computers, and voice communications.
Vannevar Bush, in the 1940s, and H.G. Wells, in the 1930s, were proposing systems markedly similar to contemporary Internet-based systems.
Arthur Clarke's Imperial Earth (1975) featured an all-in-one, solid-state, "Minisec", indistinguishable from a contemporary smartphone: pocket computer, communicator, video and audio recording device (along with ubiquitous appearances of people who were recording their entire lives with them, much to the annoyance of those about them).
Also a run-in with a global surveillance secretariat, of sorts.
There's "Ender's Game", the original novella (1977), which featured a Usenet (or Reddit)-like online communications forum ... used to manipulate global political discourse.
The one element missing from most early formulations of a universal global computer network were the commercialisation and advertising-oriented nature of these, as their primary means of monetisation and economic support.
I'd point to Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey for numerous aspects of technology, including talking computer interfaces, tablet computers, and voice communications.
Vannevar Bush, in the 1940s, and H.G. Wells, in the 1930s, were proposing systems markedly similar to contemporary Internet-based systems.
Arthur Clarke's Imperial Earth (1975) featured an all-in-one, solid-state, "Minisec", indistinguishable from a contemporary smartphone: pocket computer, communicator, video and audio recording device (along with ubiquitous appearances of people who were recording their entire lives with them, much to the annoyance of those about them).
Also a run-in with a global surveillance secretariat, of sorts.
There's "Ender's Game", the original novella (1977), which featured a Usenet (or Reddit)-like online communications forum ... used to manipulate global political discourse.
The one element missing from most early formulations of a universal global computer network were the commercialisation and advertising-oriented nature of these, as their primary means of monetisation and economic support.
In 2005 few people thought mobile phones would change much at all.
Huh? It seemed pretty obvious to me in 2005 that phones (which were still getting more sophisticated) and handheld PCs would eventually merge. And this isn't bragging - it just seemed like the logical thing to happen.
Phones were changing more rapidly then than they are now..
Huh? It seemed pretty obvious to me in 2005 that phones (which were still getting more sophisticated) and handheld PCs would eventually merge. And this isn't bragging - it just seemed like the logical thing to happen.
Phones were changing more rapidly then than they are now..
> In 1990 no one thought there would be a global network for anyone and everyone that would change the world a few years later
The people that worked on it certainly had dreams about it. But those dreams might not necessarily have come true exactly.
And there are a lot of people out there dreaming about technologies that will never come true/or are still more far off than believed. Currently VR and autonomous cars are seen as the next big thing, however so were wearables like smartwatches.
The people that worked on it certainly had dreams about it. But those dreams might not necessarily have come true exactly.
And there are a lot of people out there dreaming about technologies that will never come true/or are still more far off than believed. Currently VR and autonomous cars are seen as the next big thing, however so were wearables like smartwatches.
The Thomas Watson quote (only a market for 5 computers) is a bit of an urban legend:
http://geekhistory.com/content/urban-legend-i-think-there-wo...
http://geekhistory.com/content/urban-legend-i-think-there-wo...
How about the opposite of innovation? A new generation of dumb phones that reminds you who's the real boss in life. My ideal one would be:
- it's small, maybe 3"
- it's super light
- still feels substantial when you do hold it though
- has basic functions (call, text, alarm) but with updated modern interface
- max 3 apps if you reaally can't get away without them (e.g. whatsapp)
- sophisticated non-intrusive tech embedded (e.g. Track if lost phone, able to take dictation)
- fiercely anti-snoop
- super robust, will be fine even if thrown over cliff, chewed by toddler, stamped on et cetra
Edit: formatting
- it's small, maybe 3"
- it's super light
- still feels substantial when you do hold it though
- has basic functions (call, text, alarm) but with updated modern interface
- max 3 apps if you reaally can't get away without them (e.g. whatsapp)
- sophisticated non-intrusive tech embedded (e.g. Track if lost phone, able to take dictation)
- fiercely anti-snoop
- super robust, will be fine even if thrown over cliff, chewed by toddler, stamped on et cetra
Edit: formatting
A friend and I were thinking the same about 3 years ago and set out to make an e-paper "smarter" dumb phone. Turns out it's really hard to build a good dumb phone in 2017, especially given the phasing out of 2G.
We landed on the same idea of a less distracting phone, 4" screen, 4G support, and more privacy than existing smart phones.
You can check it out here if you'd like. Curious to hear what you think. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/siempo/the-phone-for-hu...
We landed on the same idea of a less distracting phone, 4" screen, 4G support, and more privacy than existing smart phones.
You can check it out here if you'd like. Curious to hear what you think. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/siempo/the-phone-for-hu...
Wow, congratulations for the Kickstarter! I’m a bit flushed that you’re asking for my opinion, I am no phone expert.
But okay, my opinion as a random consumer. I apologise if I’ve misread anything.
You say that the phone is human-centric, but my first impression is that it looks very millennial. There’s a lot of mindfulness going on such as hitting the pause button and rescheduling tasks. The Kickstarter blurb also mentioned that new features will be added, like popular app compatibility. So for me, this phone is still a smartphone but with a specific flow to reduce distractions and build good habits. And that is fine!
But if I’m honest, I probably won’t get it. I’m not bright (definitely not HN level), but my mind is devious. It’s what makes me such a good procrastinator, and no productivity app or technique works for me. It took me a while to realise that to address this problem, I have to really introspect myself, at all times, and adjust my workflow to it. As I get better, even if tiny and slow, I feel accomplished as a person. This, not the phone’s good-habit-designed flow, is empowering.
If there’s going to be a dumb phone, then it has to assume that its users are like that already. That rather than a phone to organise their lives, it’s one that they can forget about until they really need it. Let this drive your design and then do the Apple thing: go radical and make the design so irresistible that these users are like Hell yeah, this is what I WANT. (Rather than need.)
But! I am a random consumer, comfortable with spending Saturday afternoons in my armchair. My fully stocked iPhone SE makes me a tad hypocritical too. Stepping out of my analytical/cynical zone, actually the Kickstarter looks really good, and clearly there is great interest in it. I wish you the very best luck :)
But okay, my opinion as a random consumer. I apologise if I’ve misread anything.
You say that the phone is human-centric, but my first impression is that it looks very millennial. There’s a lot of mindfulness going on such as hitting the pause button and rescheduling tasks. The Kickstarter blurb also mentioned that new features will be added, like popular app compatibility. So for me, this phone is still a smartphone but with a specific flow to reduce distractions and build good habits. And that is fine!
But if I’m honest, I probably won’t get it. I’m not bright (definitely not HN level), but my mind is devious. It’s what makes me such a good procrastinator, and no productivity app or technique works for me. It took me a while to realise that to address this problem, I have to really introspect myself, at all times, and adjust my workflow to it. As I get better, even if tiny and slow, I feel accomplished as a person. This, not the phone’s good-habit-designed flow, is empowering.
If there’s going to be a dumb phone, then it has to assume that its users are like that already. That rather than a phone to organise their lives, it’s one that they can forget about until they really need it. Let this drive your design and then do the Apple thing: go radical and make the design so irresistible that these users are like Hell yeah, this is what I WANT. (Rather than need.)
But! I am a random consumer, comfortable with spending Saturday afternoons in my armchair. My fully stocked iPhone SE makes me a tad hypocritical too. Stepping out of my analytical/cynical zone, actually the Kickstarter looks really good, and clearly there is great interest in it. I wish you the very best luck :)
Full screen, non-tactile keyboard is a non-starter IMO.
Which tactile keyboard phone are you currently using, if you don't mind sharing?
Moto G4 + Cyanogenmod + only the apps you want mostly ticks your boxes. After all, "being in charge" doesn't mean "my phone decides what I'm (not) allowed to do".
Not sure if "find my phone" can ever be compatible with "fiercely anti-snoop". At least, you'll need to provide (and secure) your own server.
Not sure if "find my phone" can ever be compatible with "fiercely anti-snoop". At least, you'll need to provide (and secure) your own server.
Lots of interesting responses here, thank you all.
I want to clarify that in my parent post, I was only brainstorming the ideal features of a (not necessarily cheap) sophisticated dumb phone, from my perspective.
Other people may have different basic needs – I suggested in a later post (probably nested at the bottom now) that perhaps a modular approach could be a workaround; the customer can opt to add (program in) extra features to this most basic phone, if they so wish to.
As some of you have noticed, there are contradictions in my wish list, but that’s OK – if this idea is to be taken further, then for sure there will be many iterations before the optimum design can be found. There’ll be some compromises, but I’m confident that with our current (and future) technologies, ticking off that list may not be as hard as it sounds.
The way I see it, this new kind of phone doesn’t really belong to the general trend: decades ago, we started with really dumb, clunky phones, then gradually phones get more sophisticated to the extent that most of our lives are centred around it – the trend is almost logical and linear, and you can reasonably anticipate the next generation.
But this one is more like a niche branching off it. As some of you have pointed out, why not just get a basic phone and make sure that you don’t bloat it? Completely valid point. But I’m a typical millennial: I want control and minimalism, but I also want it to be pretty. You know, a ruthlessly stripped down phone, combined with sensitively designed UX, Apple aesthetics and a swish of 2020 originality. And super-powers, like advanced voice recognition, materials, encryption and so on. Yeah it’ll be cheap …
This phone is defined JUST phone. It’s a new philosophy, where it bypasses the overwhelming mass of technology options today by just sticking to the fundamental purpose of the tool, and keeps covering your ass in emergencies. It’s an OCD-ish dream of a lifestyle, where you are in control, in the moment, while remaining chic. You can call it a new vanity if you like.
I want to clarify that in my parent post, I was only brainstorming the ideal features of a (not necessarily cheap) sophisticated dumb phone, from my perspective.
Other people may have different basic needs – I suggested in a later post (probably nested at the bottom now) that perhaps a modular approach could be a workaround; the customer can opt to add (program in) extra features to this most basic phone, if they so wish to.
As some of you have noticed, there are contradictions in my wish list, but that’s OK – if this idea is to be taken further, then for sure there will be many iterations before the optimum design can be found. There’ll be some compromises, but I’m confident that with our current (and future) technologies, ticking off that list may not be as hard as it sounds.
The way I see it, this new kind of phone doesn’t really belong to the general trend: decades ago, we started with really dumb, clunky phones, then gradually phones get more sophisticated to the extent that most of our lives are centred around it – the trend is almost logical and linear, and you can reasonably anticipate the next generation.
But this one is more like a niche branching off it. As some of you have pointed out, why not just get a basic phone and make sure that you don’t bloat it? Completely valid point. But I’m a typical millennial: I want control and minimalism, but I also want it to be pretty. You know, a ruthlessly stripped down phone, combined with sensitively designed UX, Apple aesthetics and a swish of 2020 originality. And super-powers, like advanced voice recognition, materials, encryption and so on. Yeah it’ll be cheap …
This phone is defined JUST phone. It’s a new philosophy, where it bypasses the overwhelming mass of technology options today by just sticking to the fundamental purpose of the tool, and keeps covering your ass in emergencies. It’s an OCD-ish dream of a lifestyle, where you are in control, in the moment, while remaining chic. You can call it a new vanity if you like.
After moto g2 I'm never ever buying a motorolla phone again. Ever.
Constant crashes, hangups, it takes 5 minutes to power on. I'm not alone, the internet is filled with people having the same issues. The updates to newer android versions made everything even worse. Worst phone ever, and I bought it because os the astroturfing on the internet.
Constant crashes, hangups, it takes 5 minutes to power on. I'm not alone, the internet is filled with people having the same issues. The updates to newer android versions made everything even worse. Worst phone ever, and I bought it because os the astroturfing on the internet.
Moto G4 32gb owner. Cheap reliable, fast. Battery is good. Now with Android 7... Best bang for my bucks yet.
You're obviously peddling the phone (your username, 2-hrs-old account). But I want to know, how you have Android 7 on the G4? mine has 6.0.1 and there are no pending updates. Other than that, very happy with this phone.
Exactly, just reacting to the parent thread...
Standard update. I'm not in US though. Maybe Lenovo is releasing the update progressively.
Standard update. I'm not in US though. Maybe Lenovo is releasing the update progressively.
Probably https://download.lineageos.org/athene / http://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/athene/ (LineageOS is the successor to CyanogenMod).
That supports Android 7.1 on lots of devices the manufacturers don't (I have it on a 1st-generation Moto G).
That supports Android 7.1 on lots of devices the manufacturers don't (I have it on a 1st-generation Moto G).
Had that phone, worked fine. Gave it to my dad, still works fine. My brother bought one, his works fine, he still has it. I now have a g4, that works fine.
"How about the opposite of innovation? A new generation of dumb phones that reminds you who's the real boss in life. My ideal one would be"
I used a "moto fone" (motorola F3)[1] until one year ago, when the last one I had died.
It is a fantastic size and form factor and I liked it so much I accepted the downside of no smart features at all.
I would love an updated version of this phone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Fone
I used a "moto fone" (motorola F3)[1] until one year ago, when the last one I had died.
It is a fantastic size and form factor and I liked it so much I accepted the downside of no smart features at all.
I would love an updated version of this phone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Fone
Those were hard as heck to track down in the US. I ended up importing one from Mexico.
Even the "we sell everything known to man related to phones" shops on Harwin Rd. here in Houston had never heard of it.
Had to laugh when I recently found the pictures from when my wife bought me an original iPhone back in 2007. Next to the iPhone box is my F3 lying on my desk. Talk about transition.
Even the "we sell everything known to man related to phones" shops on Harwin Rd. here in Houston had never heard of it.
Had to laugh when I recently found the pictures from when my wife bought me an original iPhone back in 2007. Next to the iPhone box is my F3 lying on my desk. Talk about transition.
Come to think of it, all of my F3 handsets were, in fact from mexico ... they always booted up with the word "TELCEL".
This partially describes some Windows Phone's I've had:
- Fairly small (around 4" though) - Fairly light (not "super" though) - Quite robust, partially due to plastic case and glass front not fully reaching edges - Acceptable performance with really cheap hardware - All basic apps, including WhatsApp (not sure how long it will still be supported though)
About snooping, I think you can disable almost all feedback to MS in WP8, and third-party apps don't stand a chance because they're heavily isolated and inter-app communication as well as global OS features are extremely limited yet, as opposed W10 or other modern mobile OS'.
If you really don't care about latest features and lots of apps, then getting a second-hand Nokia Lumia might be interesting for you.
- Fairly small (around 4" though) - Fairly light (not "super" though) - Quite robust, partially due to plastic case and glass front not fully reaching edges - Acceptable performance with really cheap hardware - All basic apps, including WhatsApp (not sure how long it will still be supported though)
About snooping, I think you can disable almost all feedback to MS in WP8, and third-party apps don't stand a chance because they're heavily isolated and inter-app communication as well as global OS features are extremely limited yet, as opposed W10 or other modern mobile OS'.
If you really don't care about latest features and lots of apps, then getting a second-hand Nokia Lumia might be interesting for you.
Indestructible sliver of glass that's super fast with high end AI at a budget price. How about four bars of signal at all times and a battery that lasts a week, just to round it off?
> high end AI
What does that even mean? You say it as if it were an end unto itself. You don't even mention a single usecase. Without that, how is that different from saying "general purpose computer" or "turing complete language"? Or dirt. If you have no uses for it, might as well carry an sdcard with a minecraft savefile. It is turing complete.
More, you say it as if the AI itself would do things (what?), not you.
Thinking about it, we are high end intelligence without predefined use cases. And we walk around full of purpose, perfectly happy just existing for a while.
What does that even mean? You say it as if it were an end unto itself. You don't even mention a single usecase. Without that, how is that different from saying "general purpose computer" or "turing complete language"? Or dirt. If you have no uses for it, might as well carry an sdcard with a minecraft savefile. It is turing complete.
More, you say it as if the AI itself would do things (what?), not you.
Thinking about it, we are high end intelligence without predefined use cases. And we walk around full of purpose, perfectly happy just existing for a while.
I think you're missing the point of my post.
Commercially speaking, this is not really viable, because when it comes to a minimal subset of functionality, everyone has his own; therefore, with the exception of extremely minimal devices (and there's plenty on the market - I recently bought one for less than 20$), there's no realistic common denominator.
You can easily see conflicts in the requirements of having it cheap, but at the same time: indestructible touchscreen (costs $$$); long lasting battery (with a powerful enough CPU, it's $$$ again); GPS ($$$); 3G ($$$); super light (regular plastic won't do, therefore: $$$); etc, etc, etc.
The alternative is to have something very cheap and configurable, in other words, something a bit more than minimal. This is not really different from basic Android devices, so you can already get this (as pointed out) installing custom Android versions.
Edit: expanded concepts.
You can easily see conflicts in the requirements of having it cheap, but at the same time: indestructible touchscreen (costs $$$); long lasting battery (with a powerful enough CPU, it's $$$ again); GPS ($$$); 3G ($$$); super light (regular plastic won't do, therefore: $$$); etc, etc, etc.
The alternative is to have something very cheap and configurable, in other words, something a bit more than minimal. This is not really different from basic Android devices, so you can already get this (as pointed out) installing custom Android versions.
Edit: expanded concepts.
This isn't want you're looking for but...
Have you seen John's Phones?
http://www.johnsphones.com/store/item9
Have you seen John's Phones?
http://www.johnsphones.com/store/item9
A bit more hi-tech than that :) I think touchscreens are still great.
I guess in the end even "minimalist" products can be lusted over and collected...
I guess in the end even "minimalist" products can be lusted over and collected...
This will make a great kickstarter in 2063.
So, this http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_cmd_z5-pictures-133.php ? But "smart"?
Oh I forgot to add:
- pre-installed basic text phrases e.g. I'm home, Stuck in traffic
- loving the bevel-less displays of Samsung Edges
On second thoughts, voice command should be really be a primary function.
By small, light but substantial I mean a slightly weighted credit card which is 3 cm thick, less rounded (Sony aesthetics) and cool to touch.
I get the clash between tracking and privacy. Hmm.
Aha. I'm thinking of a modular model: you can start with the very basic but slick-looking dumb phone, then customise your own level of privacy and functions, pick-n-mix style. I should think that it wouldn't be that labour-intensive today; plug in a basic model to a special computer, select and pay for the features you want and get the phone re-programmed.
Any piqued companies reading this, don't forget my commission ;))
- pre-installed basic text phrases e.g. I'm home, Stuck in traffic
- loving the bevel-less displays of Samsung Edges
On second thoughts, voice command should be really be a primary function.
By small, light but substantial I mean a slightly weighted credit card which is 3 cm thick, less rounded (Sony aesthetics) and cool to touch.
I get the clash between tracking and privacy. Hmm.
Aha. I'm thinking of a modular model: you can start with the very basic but slick-looking dumb phone, then customise your own level of privacy and functions, pick-n-mix style. I should think that it wouldn't be that labour-intensive today; plug in a basic model to a special computer, select and pay for the features you want and get the phone re-programmed.
Any piqued companies reading this, don't forget my commission ;))
> Aha. I'm thinking of a modular model: you can start with the very basic but slick-looking dumb phone, then customise your own level of privacy and functions, pick-n-mix style. I should think that it wouldn't be that labour-intensive today; plug in a basic model to a special computer, select and pay for the features you want and get the phone re-programmed.
Sort of like a clunkier app store?
Sort of like a clunkier app store?
No.
For example, the phone can start off as really dumb. It is so dumb that it's also very anti-hack: no third-party apps to access some of your data, no camera or Evernote to record your moments, no GPS to track your location and so on.
But different users have different needs. Maybe a 12MP camera is absolutely essential for some - so add a camera function. Maybe some really need Whatsapp to keep in touch with family and friends - so add Whatsapp. But all that comes at an extra cost and effort. This means that users have to very consciously decide what they actually need for their phones.
For example, the phone can start off as really dumb. It is so dumb that it's also very anti-hack: no third-party apps to access some of your data, no camera or Evernote to record your moments, no GPS to track your location and so on.
But different users have different needs. Maybe a 12MP camera is absolutely essential for some - so add a camera function. Maybe some really need Whatsapp to keep in touch with family and friends - so add Whatsapp. But all that comes at an extra cost and effort. This means that users have to very consciously decide what they actually need for their phones.
Google tried that with Project Ara. It didn't work.
I bought a $20 itel smartphone in Guinea, West Africa that does everything I need and nothing I don't.
3G, Android, Tethering, apps, $20. Perfect.
3G, Android, Tethering, apps, $20. Perfect.
That's how you fill a niche with a cheaper product, not produce tens of millions of devices at the top of the price range.
I've been wishing for this for years. I'd add "tactile keyboard".
Anybody remember Lawnmower Man? VR and AR have been the next big thing for most of my lifetime now and I'm a child of the 60s. In fact, didn't Google Glass already prove ordinary people don't want computers strapped to their faces? I think it will be a niche, like smart watches. It will be a nice little business, like the Watch is for Apple.
No Google Glass sucked for other reasons. The voice interface didn't work very well, the screen was in an awkward position, there we no socially acceptable reason to wear them, they cost $3k and their most compelling feature over a smartphone was hands-free first person video recording.
Compare that to something like Snap's Spectacles which basically took Glass's best use - hands free first person video recording - but use a sensible button-based interface, cost $130 and are sunglasses which are totally socially acceptable.
I think people are also more willing to wear crazy things on their heads when the do actually offer something new and innovative, e.g. the Vive or Hololens. Nobody is saying "OMG nobody is going to wear the Hololens in public; you'll look like a total arse". They're saying "Woah Hololens actually does good AR for the first time ever."
Compare that to something like Snap's Spectacles which basically took Glass's best use - hands free first person video recording - but use a sensible button-based interface, cost $130 and are sunglasses which are totally socially acceptable.
I think people are also more willing to wear crazy things on their heads when the do actually offer something new and innovative, e.g. the Vive or Hololens. Nobody is saying "OMG nobody is going to wear the Hololens in public; you'll look like a total arse". They're saying "Woah Hololens actually does good AR for the first time ever."
Google Glass sucked as a consumer product, it works fine as a business product.
Google glass also sucked as a business product.
No its doing ok actually. In factories
personally VR to me is not like a smartphone (a swiss army knife utility used in daily life). It's more for entertainment and possibly educational purposes. The fact that you have to put on a not so comfortable headset for me puts in this category only.
Now AR done correctly where it seamlessly blends into our daily life and it's unobtrusive that's going to be revolutionary like the smartphone revolution was. Thus the company or inventor that comes up with the best UX in this regards is going to be the next Apple I think!
Now AR done correctly where it seamlessly blends into our daily life and it's unobtrusive that's going to be revolutionary like the smartphone revolution was. Thus the company or inventor that comes up with the best UX in this regards is going to be the next Apple I think!
It's true that VR and AR has not lived up to the hype. However, history has many examples of a technology that disappoints for decades but continually improves to the point where it suddenly reaches a critical mass: eg. flat screen TVs, touch screen input, air conditioning, powered flight.
I think we're more likely to see direct neural interfaces before we see AR in a form factor that appeals to consumers.
It's almost as hard to consumerise the latter as the former. You really need to improve component density and power efficiency by an order of magnitude or two to make AR portable and useful, and that's not an easy thing to do.
It's also much easier to consumerise voice/haptic AI than display-in-your-eye AR.
There are plenty of applications where voice/haptic gives a better consumer experience. I think that was supposed to be the point of Apple's Watch. The product launched too early without the AI support it needed, so it ended looking like a rather pointless wrist terminal/failed fashion accessory.
But it's not hard to imagine Watch becoming a much smarter on-wrist assistant with links to phone and desktop.
The real shift won't be to AR, which is barely a display technology, but to a SmartOS model, where there's a single unified cloud and compute OS that stores personal data and projects, and can be accessed using a variety of mobile and static hardware endpoints.
The problem in the industry now is smallthink Balkanisation. We have too much nostalgia for the Internet business culture of 2000, with too much emphasis on developing incompatible market enclosures to monetise advertising eyeballs and encourage content sales. There's too little interest in bringing it all together to give users new ways to invent cool stuff.
It's almost as hard to consumerise the latter as the former. You really need to improve component density and power efficiency by an order of magnitude or two to make AR portable and useful, and that's not an easy thing to do.
It's also much easier to consumerise voice/haptic AI than display-in-your-eye AR.
There are plenty of applications where voice/haptic gives a better consumer experience. I think that was supposed to be the point of Apple's Watch. The product launched too early without the AI support it needed, so it ended looking like a rather pointless wrist terminal/failed fashion accessory.
But it's not hard to imagine Watch becoming a much smarter on-wrist assistant with links to phone and desktop.
The real shift won't be to AR, which is barely a display technology, but to a SmartOS model, where there's a single unified cloud and compute OS that stores personal data and projects, and can be accessed using a variety of mobile and static hardware endpoints.
The problem in the industry now is smallthink Balkanisation. We have too much nostalgia for the Internet business culture of 2000, with too much emphasis on developing incompatible market enclosures to monetise advertising eyeballs and encourage content sales. There's too little interest in bringing it all together to give users new ways to invent cool stuff.
You are underestimating the difficulty of direct neural interface, while overestimating the difficulties of AR.
With brain-computer interfaces, we are still in the very early research phase.
With AR, we are building first real products. We have been steadily increasing component density and power efficiency for decades, so if that is the problem of AR, then AR is just around the corner.
With brain-computer interfaces, we are still in the very early research phase.
With AR, we are building first real products. We have been steadily increasing component density and power efficiency for decades, so if that is the problem of AR, then AR is just around the corner.
I have a Samsung Galaxy S5 running LineageOS. It has a replacable battery and I have replacements (and have replaced it once so far). I will be keeping it until it breaks, because it's more than fast enough to do everything I demand from my phone and I have no reason to spend hundreds of dollars to buy the latest and greatest in planned obsolescence.
Same here, I own a Galaxy S3 LTE which I also keep up to date using custom roms (though official CM/LineageOS support is lacking lately making it a bit less straightforward) and even that is basically already fast enough for everything.
My mother (in her late 60s) has my S5 and she complains it is too slow; does Lineage make a difference?
The stock ROM is full of garbage. This is true of any phone. For a while I kept an image of my phone with the stock ROM in case I needed to restore it, which I had stripped down of most of the crap by rooting it and removing a bunch of stuff. There are well over 200 unnecessary packages installed that include spyware, bloatware, adware, and uselessware. The only explanation I have is planned obsolecense. LineageOS is as fast for me today as it was when I first installed it (back when it was still CM).
Okido. Will that exactly that then. I thought Samsung would be Ok and did not want to risk my mother having to do anything tech :)
It all depends on what you've got on your phone now, but it made a huge difference for me. My battery life also went from something like 6 or 8 hours of use to twice that easily without changing my habits.
Is there even a reason to buy a new smartphone nowadays? They get a bit flatter, get bigger screens, but overall we reached the point where their progress kinda flatlined. They have everything an average user could want since early 10s.
I bought iPhone 4S few years ago, and now with new iOS it's very slow, so I'm going to buy new smartphone soon. It has some hardware problems, but new software really killed it. Same story with iPad 3.
I hope that current smartphone generation will be able to sustain longer, I don't like buying new things every 2-3 years.
I hope that current smartphone generation will be able to sustain longer, I don't like buying new things every 2-3 years.
Same. The SE is a solid 4S replacement, though; I haven't regretted the change.
(Not a bad idea to put a bumper on it, though, because the aluminum is wimpy as hell compared to the proper steel on the 4S - I've already had to take a file to my SE after a drop from waist height onto bathroom tile. Look out for the screen, too; mine chipped in a few places from a foot or two drop onto asphalt. Better hardware and it can run iOS 10 without flinching, but physically less robust, so don't expect you can get away with slinging it around the way you can with a 4S.)
(Not a bad idea to put a bumper on it, though, because the aluminum is wimpy as hell compared to the proper steel on the 4S - I've already had to take a file to my SE after a drop from waist height onto bathroom tile. Look out for the screen, too; mine chipped in a few places from a foot or two drop onto asphalt. Better hardware and it can run iOS 10 without flinching, but physically less robust, so don't expect you can get away with slinging it around the way you can with a 4S.)
Every 2-3 years? Your 4s is almost 6 years old.
The 4s will be 6 years old this year, and iOS 10 dropped support for it in 2016. The iPhone 5 will likely not be compatible with iOS 11 when it arrives in September.
I think 5 years is a pretty good run, and it seems like the standard now.
If you bought your 4s 2 years ago, that's on you. If you're buying your phones used, then it's in your best interest to not buy a phone that's already 3 years old.
I think 5 years is a pretty good run, and it seems like the standard now.
If you bought your 4s 2 years ago, that's on you. If you're buying your phones used, then it's in your best interest to not buy a phone that's already 3 years old.
4S became less usable with iOS 7 and that's 2 years. It started to lag. With iOS 9 it's almost unusable and that's 4 years. I bought my phone new, just after iPhone 5 was released.
That's not unintentional, though. It's just a form of planned obsolescence, which can be avoided by getting an Android phone that can have CyanogenMod installed on it. Alternatively, you can get a Nexus phone, which recieves OS updates directly from Google instead of a third party.
Progress != planned obsolescence. The iPhone 7 has more than an order of magnitude more compute power compared to the 4s, and app developers are targeting that device as it's actually selling today.
That's true, developers can focus on the new platforms, but that doesn't mean new iOS versions should make older phones become much slower.
That alternative effectively means dropping support entirely (or allowing the whole ecosystem to stagnate based upon the lowest common denominator), something most android OEMs do after a year or two. You can't have it both ways. We're lucky that competition in this space means consumers have choice as to which style best suits their needs.
You can have it both ways. They can support the old version by providing security and stability patches without adding the new, computationally expensive features to the old phone.
They can at least allow downgrading to old iOS. I don't really understand their reasoning. I can decline upgrade request for years, but if I hit "OK" once, it's game over. Either upgrade automatically and don't ask me, if you're so security-consicous, or allow downgrading.
There are some nice things that could get standardized or available as an option for every mould:
- physical buttons for shooting
- physical buttons for volume
- back cover should be e-ink for light notification or reading books in the train without killing autonomy
- and of course the windows/ubuntu convergence that could - or could not - come one day
- physical buttons for shooting
- physical buttons for volume
- back cover should be e-ink for light notification or reading books in the train without killing autonomy
- and of course the windows/ubuntu convergence that could - or could not - come one day
That e-ink back is a nice idea.
There is the https://yotaphone.com/us-en/ but I feel it's not updated fast enough to be considered by consumers when looking to replace their current middle or high-end smartphones.
edit:
I see http://www.inkcase.com/en.html refactors the idea of an e-ink smartphone into a case with an e-ink panel.
And http://www.onyx-international.com.cn/index.php/en/boox-produ... tried the whole e-ink only screen.
edit:
I see http://www.inkcase.com/en.html refactors the idea of an e-ink smartphone into a case with an e-ink panel.
And http://www.onyx-international.com.cn/index.php/en/boox-produ... tried the whole e-ink only screen.
If there was any demand for such things, vendors would ship it.
If current design is in reasonable demand by uninformed consumers and has an high margin / low period for recurrence of purchase; then even if new design is in demand by a similar amount of informed consumers it won't be produced unless the ROI is similar too.
Sometimes you have to tell the user what they they want (iPhone) and sometimes the user will say: "NOPE" (Google Glass)
Yeah, its the only way to get Android security updates.
There is a reason! Most smartphones are not really designed to last many years; as such, many will start seeing issues after 2 years or so. On the software side, carriers are awful at updating Android security beyond a couple of years, for example. On the hardware side, for example, batteries lose capacity pretty over time and it ends up not being worth it to get a new battery. (other parts, too, don't last long enough)
Not really. They are spec'd well enough for some years now to perform most common tasks well and conceptually they are all basically a big touch screen, nothing new here. You may get small improvements, bigger numbers on the spec sheet and flatter models because "look we can". You may buy a new one for whatever specific reason but it's not you miss out sth. substantial with a bit older model.
The batteries become crappy after a few years. And since they cannot be replaced..
"Not user serviceable" != "non-replaceable." Apple is happy to replace your iPhone battery for around $80.
What do you mean after a few years? Name one smartphone that doesn't have crappy battery life out of the goddamn box!
Seriously smartphone manufacturers, stop trying to shave 3 yoctometers off the thickness every 6 months and give me a phone that is thicker but has a battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time and cycles less deeply so it has a longer life.
Seriously smartphone manufacturers, stop trying to shave 3 yoctometers off the thickness every 6 months and give me a phone that is thicker but has a battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time and cycles less deeply so it has a longer life.
iPhone battery capacity:
4 - 1420 mAh
4s - 1432 mAh
5 - 1440 mAh
5s - 1570 mAh
6 - 1810 mAh
6s - 1715 mAh
7 - 1960 mAh
It dipped a bit from 6 to 6s but other than that they have been consistently increasing battery capacity.
(Btw, plus models have more; the iPhone 7+ for example has 2900 mAh. On the other hand, they drain more for the screen.)
4 - 1420 mAh
4s - 1432 mAh
5 - 1440 mAh
5s - 1570 mAh
6 - 1810 mAh
6s - 1715 mAh
7 - 1960 mAh
It dipped a bit from 6 to 6s but other than that they have been consistently increasing battery capacity.
(Btw, plus models have more; the iPhone 7+ for example has 2900 mAh. On the other hand, they drain more for the screen.)
I don't see how this refutes my claim that, in my opinion, there isn't a smartphone that has reasonable mileage on a single charge.
Battery capacity increases alone are meaningless when the hardware connected to it drains it just the same.
Battery capacity increases alone are meaningless when the hardware connected to it drains it just the same.
Also interesting is the SE, that has the same form factor as the 5s:
SE - 1624 mAh
SE - 1624 mAh
You're talking about an increase of 54 mAh. I can't see that saving the day.
Get a battery case. The world has spoken bad rejected thicker heavier longer battery life phones. Thinner, lighter is easier to carry and use.
When you find yourself agreeing with everyone in the room it's time to leave.
What were these thicker heavier longer life phones of which you speak? I don't recall there being any of those to have rejected.
Maybe you mean ye olde feature phones or their predecessors. I don't think that's a fair comparison.
What were these thicker heavier longer life phones of which you speak? I don't recall there being any of those to have rejected.
Maybe you mean ye olde feature phones or their predecessors. I don't think that's a fair comparison.
The Moto Z Play, with its combination of 3510 mAh battery, Snapdragon 625 processor and 1080p screen has great battery life. Add in a power pack Moto Mod if you need even more. It's a mid-range phone for a mid-range price (and so comes with tradeoffs), but it's a solid phone and for battery life it's excellent. Mine just got the Android 7 upgrade too.
I have a Nexus 5 from 2013 or whenever it was they released it, still going strong.
I don't see that much innovation in newer phones to warrant an upgrade, at least in the sense of spending hundreds of pounds on what amounts to be a slightly faster processor and the promise of Android O.
The only thing I can think of that might force my hand, outside of the phone breaking, is the security updates (Google no longer supports the Nexus 5 - so it will be stuck on Android 6 indefinitely)
I don't see that much innovation in newer phones to warrant an upgrade, at least in the sense of spending hundreds of pounds on what amounts to be a slightly faster processor and the promise of Android O.
The only thing I can think of that might force my hand, outside of the phone breaking, is the security updates (Google no longer supports the Nexus 5 - so it will be stuck on Android 6 indefinitely)
I have a Nexus 4 and functionality wise it's all I need but the random reboots and UI glitches are getting really annoying. Like that time I was on hold for 30 minutes and the phone decided a random reboot was needed.
My Nexus 4 is is still doing well, except for the battery I had to replace once already. The trick was to install cyanogenmod, remove all Gapps, and get all software from F-Droid. I use the KISS launcher, have no social networks that run in the background (except for WhatsApp), and so on. All in all it's a pleasant experience, even though there might be an occasional bug from time to time.
If it weren't for the battery, I would have no reason to replace the phone, ever.
If it weren't for the battery, I would have no reason to replace the phone, ever.
If we're comparing, my Galaxy Nexus is still serving my needs just fine, with all original parts, still running stock Android 4.3. It does all the phone stuff, plus Maps, car-share apps, games, Chrome, wifi tethering, music, etc. Chrome's a bit sluggish, though.
Maybe Lineage would speed up Maps/Chrome. Hmn.
Maybe Lineage would speed up Maps/Chrome. Hmn.
> Google no longer supports the Nexus 5 - so it will be stuck on Android 6 indefinitely
Sounds like it's time to upgrade to Lineage, they still even support Nougat on Nexus 4.
Sounds like it's time to upgrade to Lineage, they still even support Nougat on Nexus 4.
Currently on 6 via Chroma on an early Nexus 4, I flashed it with the tiny gaps bundle so I got just google play, I don't use chrome, gmail, google messenger etc.
I rather like not having googles sweaty little fingers in my mobile life all the time, been able to run Lineage from day 1 will be the single decisive factor on next phone whenever that is since everything else is basically a wash now.
I rather like not having googles sweaty little fingers in my mobile life all the time, been able to run Lineage from day 1 will be the single decisive factor on next phone whenever that is since everything else is basically a wash now.
Until December last year I was happily using my Nexus 5; then it broke in an accident and I had to replace it. After researching the market, I ended up buying a Nexus 5X, which is almost the same thing as the 5, just a little bigger (still fitting any pocket) and improved.
The more I think about it, the more I think the word "innovation" obscures thinking. If you boil it down, "innovation" just means "change in a novel manner". That doesn't mean good change, just unexpected change. It's easy to say "apple isn't innovating anymore", but what else does a smart phone need?
I still think smart phones that dock and become full PC work stations would be great.
I don't really see the point.
Sharing data/settings already works great with the cloud.
You still get the same bulk as carrying around PC+phone.
The only reason is that maybe it's a bit cheaper because you use the same CPU for both, but the drawbacks (not being able to use both at the same time, slower proc for the PC) don't make it worth.
Sharing data/settings already works great with the cloud.
You still get the same bulk as carrying around PC+phone.
The only reason is that maybe it's a bit cheaper because you use the same CPU for both, but the drawbacks (not being able to use both at the same time, slower proc for the PC) don't make it worth.
It's already possible to carry ~256 GB to 1 TB data on a device, MicroSD format. With a storage array (a battery of MicroSD cards), multiple TB.
Local wired (or Bluetooth) data transmission will beat the Cloud on performance, not rely on third party security, and be immune from interruptions.
I see strong potential for movement away from the cloud.
Local wired (or Bluetooth) data transmission will beat the Cloud on performance, not rely on third party security, and be immune from interruptions.
I see strong potential for movement away from the cloud.
> I still think smart phones that dock and become full PC work stations would be great
The HP Elite x3 phone already does that.
http://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/tablets-243002--1/hp-elite-x3
The HP Elite x3 phone already does that.
http://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/tablets-243002--1/hp-elite-x3
Something like this?
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2347628/computex-as...
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2347628/computex-as...
looks like Apple is working on something like this, based on this patent
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/03/23/apple-investigatin...
How on earth is Motorola Lapdock not prior art to that?
I think the Apple patent is mostly about using your phone as trackpad while docked.
Not seeing those either. KDE Connect (and others) already do the trackpad thing, and there's plenty of prior art for switching to a certain program when a device is connected.
I think we should give credit where credit is due - Apple has "solved" three form factors:
- the laptop
- the tower workstation
- the smartphone
Maybe we should use something other than laptops ... maybe there is an as-yet-unforeseen device that our computing work should shift to. Until such time, we use laptops, and apple solved the laptop with the macbook air. There's nowhere to go from here but spec improvements. That's why they are desperately adding weirdo things like the touchbar - the form factor has been solved.
Same with tower workstations. You're not going to beat the cheesegrater mac pro. All you can do is bump the specs. This is a good thing - they solved that form factor. Unfortunately Apple has other priorities than churning out low volume, non-sexy updates to an under-the-desk device.
Finally, the smartphone: Apple solved that form factor with the iphone. Everything since then is really just an iphone with different sizes and different little details. They are all just monolithic touchscreen slabs. Maybe there is some new form factor waiting to be discovered, but that's a new product category - that would be real innovation and would be a jump just like the jump from dumbphones to smartphones. But for now, what we have are smartphones and they are all really just iphones - because the problem has been solved.
- the laptop
- the tower workstation
- the smartphone
Maybe we should use something other than laptops ... maybe there is an as-yet-unforeseen device that our computing work should shift to. Until such time, we use laptops, and apple solved the laptop with the macbook air. There's nowhere to go from here but spec improvements. That's why they are desperately adding weirdo things like the touchbar - the form factor has been solved.
Same with tower workstations. You're not going to beat the cheesegrater mac pro. All you can do is bump the specs. This is a good thing - they solved that form factor. Unfortunately Apple has other priorities than churning out low volume, non-sexy updates to an under-the-desk device.
Finally, the smartphone: Apple solved that form factor with the iphone. Everything since then is really just an iphone with different sizes and different little details. They are all just monolithic touchscreen slabs. Maybe there is some new form factor waiting to be discovered, but that's a new product category - that would be real innovation and would be a jump just like the jump from dumbphones to smartphones. But for now, what we have are smartphones and they are all really just iphones - because the problem has been solved.
Wow, you have a different view of "solved" than I do.
Didn't the Surface Book solve laptops though? There is a reason that Apple is killing MacOS and jamming iPhones/iPads into keyboard/GPU/battery packs.
your heuristics are out of this world.
Is endless innovation desirable?
I have an iPhone 6s. I like it. I'd like to see longer battery life and higher storage capacity in future models, but otherwise it's a good phone.
I don't want it thinner - in fact, I'd be happy if they added some heft so I didn't need a case, without one it feels like it is about to fall out of my hand. (This might allow for a removable battery, which would also be useful)
I don't want a dumbphone - I like having access to all my music and podcasts. And I like being able to do secure texts and calls with Signal. Privacy advocates seem to fetishize burners and feature phones, but a "dumb" Nokia blasts out everything in the clear.
I have an iPhone 6s. I like it. I'd like to see longer battery life and higher storage capacity in future models, but otherwise it's a good phone.
I don't want it thinner - in fact, I'd be happy if they added some heft so I didn't need a case, without one it feels like it is about to fall out of my hand. (This might allow for a removable battery, which would also be useful)
I don't want a dumbphone - I like having access to all my music and podcasts. And I like being able to do secure texts and calls with Signal. Privacy advocates seem to fetishize burners and feature phones, but a "dumb" Nokia blasts out everything in the clear.
The thing is, innovation may create new things that we hadn't though of, and that we couldn't appreciate the benefits of until we experience them.
I think that's the usual way it happens.
I think that's the usual way it happens.
Thinner, lighter phones are easier to hold and get used more. Thin phones won because anyone who wants more grip or battery can always add a case.
Thicker, bigger battery phones fail because no case can make them lighter. They only address a niche while thin addresses everyone's needs.
And sealed batteries won because they can fit more capacity. Few people prefer carrying (and charging) two 8 hour batteries to a 10 hour sealed battery.
Thicker, bigger battery phones fail because no case can make them lighter. They only address a niche while thin addresses everyone's needs.
And sealed batteries won because they can fit more capacity. Few people prefer carrying (and charging) two 8 hour batteries to a 10 hour sealed battery.
Sealed batteries are why I always wanted a thicker phone. Adding an external battery case adds a huge amount of bulk to the phone, whereas adding capacity inside the phone adds only moderate bulk.
But I'm using an iPhone 7+ and for the first time since my last dumb phone, I have no battery life complaints. So while I'd still add more battery life if given the choice, it's not been an issue for the past 6 months.
But I'm using an iPhone 7+ and for the first time since my last dumb phone, I have no battery life complaints. So while I'd still add more battery life if given the choice, it's not been an issue for the past 6 months.
> Few people prefer carrying (and charging) two 8 hour batteries to a 10 hour sealed battery.
I carry around a small USB battery pack these days (multiple if I'm travelling). I find the concept of external batteries better — the recharging process is seamless as compared to having to shut off the phone to switch batteries.
I carry around a small USB battery pack these days (multiple if I'm travelling). I find the concept of external batteries better — the recharging process is seamless as compared to having to shut off the phone to switch batteries.
I can swap batteries and be back online in less than a minute. That's far more seamless than having a bulky external battery plugged in to a fragile, awkward USB connector.
a bendy phone would be nice. perhaps oled technology will lead to this and that could lead to a better phone that doesn't break if you sit on it... so maybe a little more innovation could be nice?
One squidPhone7, please.
When the patents of the piston engine ended, the combustion engine saw tremendous innovation. So as long as the monopoly is in place, only the military will get hand held computers, and everyone else will get toys. IP is fraud.
Citation requested.
The ICE originated ... about 1880. Innovation in ICEs and automobiles peaked around the 1920s (Robert J. Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth, 2016), and for aviation, jet propulsion excepted, about a decade later. Even jet aviation's progressed comparatively little since the 1960s, with most advances being in materials and control systems. Actual travel experience has declined as a function of total speed (though safety has improved).
I'm not discounting the possiblity that the ICE saw patent-induced retardation in development (the case is strongly made for steam power and Watt's extended patents, expiring in 1800). But I'd really like to see a source.
The ICE originated ... about 1880. Innovation in ICEs and automobiles peaked around the 1920s (Robert J. Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth, 2016), and for aviation, jet propulsion excepted, about a decade later. Even jet aviation's progressed comparatively little since the 1960s, with most advances being in materials and control systems. Actual travel experience has declined as a function of total speed (though safety has improved).
I'm not discounting the possiblity that the ICE saw patent-induced retardation in development (the case is strongly made for steam power and Watt's extended patents, expiring in 1800). But I'd really like to see a source.
On the other hand, lack of some protection against competition, or a reasonable business model, often stop the the serious investment needed to take many products to market.
Maybe an interesting useful compromise, would be to build a patent pool(maybe between universities), where you must contribute any patent you develop, but you can use patents freely for research and small scale commercialization - but in any case of large scale commercialization, you agree to share some reasonable percent of royalties among the relevant patents of that pool , with the amount that goes towards each patent doesn't interefere with your business, and gets settled in a fair, sideway process ?
Maybe an interesting useful compromise, would be to build a patent pool(maybe between universities), where you must contribute any patent you develop, but you can use patents freely for research and small scale commercialization - but in any case of large scale commercialization, you agree to share some reasonable percent of royalties among the relevant patents of that pool , with the amount that goes towards each patent doesn't interefere with your business, and gets settled in a fair, sideway process ?
>IP is fraud.
I wouldn't go that far. IP is a carrot for development. Imagine if you spend a decade and $100K developing an idea, and just when it started taking off, Oracle or somebody copied it and took the entire market. That can and does still happen, but at least you have legal recourse with IP laws.
It was originally a way to foster innovation for a maximum of 28 years, then the works would enter the public domain to be improved upon. Over the years, the copyright duration has become ridiculously long, negating the social benefits of it's existence.
The fundamental concept is sound, it's when it's perverted to help the wolves rather than the sheep that it stinks.
I wouldn't go that far. IP is a carrot for development. Imagine if you spend a decade and $100K developing an idea, and just when it started taking off, Oracle or somebody copied it and took the entire market. That can and does still happen, but at least you have legal recourse with IP laws.
It was originally a way to foster innovation for a maximum of 28 years, then the works would enter the public domain to be improved upon. Over the years, the copyright duration has become ridiculously long, negating the social benefits of it's existence.
The fundamental concept is sound, it's when it's perverted to help the wolves rather than the sheep that it stinks.
Even the phrase "intellectual property" is highly tendentious. It implies property right where there are none. What you get from the patent office is a temporary government granted monopoly.
Often, as with, for example, spectrum, the people holding the license tend to view the object, and not the government granted license, as their perpetual property.
Often, as with, for example, spectrum, the people holding the license tend to view the object, and not the government granted license, as their perpetual property.
Depends upon how you look at it. I find the idea of property rights a bit funny because every physical thing you can own exists because in the past someone murdered the fuck out of people to own what it's made from.
In that regard, intellectual property is the only property not built on human suffering.
In that regard, intellectual property is the only property not built on human suffering.
It's not unreasonable to think about 10, 20 or even 30 years with mostly incremental improvements and no ground-breaking changes in both smartphones and smartwatches. I list some examples below. Several of them are already under development, and some are already available but just not cheap yet.
- Batteries that can be fully charged in 5 minutes;
- Autonomy to go for a month without a charge, achieved by the combinations of new technologies in batteries, screens, chips and better software;
- Scratch and shock resistant screens that can be equally visible on daylight and at night, maybe by working like and colored e-reader screen when there's enough ambient light available, thus making reading more comfortable;
- Some kind of battery charging technology that improves over the awful usb connections that we have nowadays, whose cable connectors don't last much;
- Better cameras that rival today's DSLR. There are some experiences going on using several small combined cheap sensors in a single smartphone to achieve results in the DSLR range;
- Cheap and fast disk storage over say, 10 TB, as fast as RAM;
- Cheap and fast data connection at any location of the planet. Like streaming HD netflix in your tent in the middle of a blizzard in Antartida;
- High quality, small, wireless earphones whose batteries last for a week without recharging;
- Simpler, faster and more efficient development plataforms;
... And I'm sure you can add a few more. Each of these are changes that separately would not be considered exactly ground-breaking, but all of them together could bring mobile computing to a whole new level.
- Batteries that can be fully charged in 5 minutes;
- Autonomy to go for a month without a charge, achieved by the combinations of new technologies in batteries, screens, chips and better software;
- Scratch and shock resistant screens that can be equally visible on daylight and at night, maybe by working like and colored e-reader screen when there's enough ambient light available, thus making reading more comfortable;
- Some kind of battery charging technology that improves over the awful usb connections that we have nowadays, whose cable connectors don't last much;
- Better cameras that rival today's DSLR. There are some experiences going on using several small combined cheap sensors in a single smartphone to achieve results in the DSLR range;
- Cheap and fast disk storage over say, 10 TB, as fast as RAM;
- Cheap and fast data connection at any location of the planet. Like streaming HD netflix in your tent in the middle of a blizzard in Antartida;
- High quality, small, wireless earphones whose batteries last for a week without recharging;
- Simpler, faster and more efficient development plataforms;
... And I'm sure you can add a few more. Each of these are changes that separately would not be considered exactly ground-breaking, but all of them together could bring mobile computing to a whole new level.
when I think about smartphone innovation I generally think about all the level of automation that could be done with for example tasker for android, if only smartphones could pull sensors data and substantially eliminate overheating, we could have a seamless experience with very little interaction needed, probably not even touch inputs. Smartphones today are sleeping most of the time, they are not dumb, but very much lazy. The benchmarks war has done a ton of harm...look! this device hits 200k on this benchmark, too bad battery dies after 3hours if you keep that up, btw you might also feel an uncomfortable heat in your hands...
Samsung says they're going to introduce a foldable smartphone with the display wrapped around the outside.[1] This provides a small display for routine use and a 7" display when desired.
[1] http://bgr.com/2017/01/11/samsung-foldable-smartphones-relea...
[1] http://bgr.com/2017/01/11/samsung-foldable-smartphones-relea...
The smartphone is a concept, a portable computer with Internet connectivity and a touch screen as a primary mode of interaction. I don't think we should limit our thinking to it's actual form. The key bit is the portable, connected computer. How we interact with it and the form of the actual device is hopefully going to evolve.
A phone with volume buttons that actually and intuitively worked--in practice, not just in theory--would be innovative.
A phone that incorporated debouncing on its touch screen would be innovative.
A phone that didn't require high manual dexterity in order to avoid tapping the wrong thing would be innovative.
A phone that incorporated debouncing on its touch screen would be innovative.
A phone that didn't require high manual dexterity in order to avoid tapping the wrong thing would be innovative.
Innovative, maybe technically yes. But in reality, these are not really game changers.
Seems direct connection and solar charging are the next major innovations.
So like no internet to talk to a friend through a phone from phone to phone(if you can call them a phone at that point).
Also if Apple or google get into the solar game by putting a super high efficiency panel on the phone that might change the world. They work at such large scales that it's likely drive the overall cost of solar panels through the floor so solar cars solar fridges solar tiles solar showers idk solar anything similar to what they did with quadrocopters.
Those would likely be the two main points of world changing ground breaking innovation I'd see. Idk how they'd achieve either of those things on the technical side but they have enough money to find out.
So like no internet to talk to a friend through a phone from phone to phone(if you can call them a phone at that point).
Also if Apple or google get into the solar game by putting a super high efficiency panel on the phone that might change the world. They work at such large scales that it's likely drive the overall cost of solar panels through the floor so solar cars solar fridges solar tiles solar showers idk solar anything similar to what they did with quadrocopters.
Those would likely be the two main points of world changing ground breaking innovation I'd see. Idk how they'd achieve either of those things on the technical side but they have enough money to find out.
You can already buy solar charger cases but I doubt a mainstream manufacturer would ever integrate solar cells directly into a smartphone. That would add cost, weight, and bulk for a feature few consumers want. A solar panel doesn't work in your pocket.
[deleted]
I don't know. I don't see any big innovation coming next. Just because we don't see one doesn't mean we have to force one of the creative things that aren't market ready yet to be that next innovation. When the iphone hit it hit big time. Everybody knew immediately that this will be a game changer. AR, VR are just like that. The only thing that really let's me "wow" is AI and all its applications we haven't considered yet like autonomous cars. But this may happen next year or in five years or maybe even just in 20 years. And on the road there something else might happen that is totally unexpected to most of us.
one word - fuchsia.
https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/
https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/
Knowing Google, Fuchsia was probably started as a mean to kill yet another product.
You're getting downvoted but your vocalization has some merit. I looked at the link and decided not to bother reading it since it'll probably get closed down in a few years, so what's the point?
What's revolutionary about it android is pretty mediocre.
Why is Android mediocre? In my experience, it's more capable than iOS.
That's not saying a whole lot.
Lack of updates on most devices, xml to define interfaces, fake java as its primary development language, messy file hierarchy, obnoxious issue wherein apps cannot be given access to entire SD card meaning you can't just have a pictures or ebook folder and have more than one app have access to said folder.
Example annoyance third party gallery app can't delete photos created by other photo app. Alternatively calibre companion can't access the same hierarchy as ebook readers. Until recently the offline map support was crap I think this has improved but as I already have Navigon for $30 to have this basic feature so I haven't verified this.
If you don't reboot it regularly it generally becomes unusable due to memory leaks eventually.
It crashes for no discernable reason on occasion usually when I'm not even using it surprise reboot!
The obnoxious need to hack your own device to have full control of it.
As an Android user my next phone will be a dumb phone plus laptop.
Example annoyance third party gallery app can't delete photos created by other photo app. Alternatively calibre companion can't access the same hierarchy as ebook readers. Until recently the offline map support was crap I think this has improved but as I already have Navigon for $30 to have this basic feature so I haven't verified this.
If you don't reboot it regularly it generally becomes unusable due to memory leaks eventually.
It crashes for no discernable reason on occasion usually when I'm not even using it surprise reboot!
The obnoxious need to hack your own device to have full control of it.
As an Android user my next phone will be a dumb phone plus laptop.
It doesn't mean there isn't any improvement. Phone cameras are getting so incredible now that you really don't need to carry a P&S and with things like HDR+, OIS, 4k video you'll get better results.
People have been saying that smartphones replaced cameras for years, but now they are not just a replacement but actually better.
There has still been innovation with dual cameras, finger print sensors, laser focus, better LED flash, USB type C and monthly Android security patches will probably encourage people to upgrade after they reach EoL for a device.
People have been saying that smartphones replaced cameras for years, but now they are not just a replacement but actually better.
There has still been innovation with dual cameras, finger print sensors, laser focus, better LED flash, USB type C and monthly Android security patches will probably encourage people to upgrade after they reach EoL for a device.
An array of many lenses with different fixed focal lengths combined with sophisticated image processing to stitch the exposures together may finally allow smartphones to really replace P&S cameras. The new Light digital camera proves the concept works. It's actually a dedicated P&S camera itself, but the obvious next step is to integrate the technology into smartphones.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/inside...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/inside...
My $200 Canon P&S that I bought in 2013 still takes better low-light pics than my iPhone 7.
Phones are good enough, sure. But top of the line phones still can't do low-light very well.
Phones are good enough, sure. But top of the line phones still can't do low-light very well.
Yes, exactly. And cameras like the Canon G9X or Sony RX 100 series are leaps and bounds better. To be sure, most people don't give a damn, but some do.
Bit better in low light, but can you edit your RAW pics on it? How about editing 4K video? Of course I'm being facetious, but top of the line smartphones are pretty great cameras generally speaking. Man I wish I could have changed the crappy OS in the P&S cameras I used to use, and now I can pick the camera/video shooting app I prefer. Plus edit & upload pics from the device.
That depends on purpose, sure, they are fantastic for "catch the moment" but there is nothing else going on for them about photography (video is a different story, at least from what I hear).
On the otherhand yeah, phone cameras getting better and enabling more and more applications is awesome.
On the otherhand yeah, phone cameras getting better and enabling more and more applications is awesome.
Are there P&S cameras that are worse than than best-of-class phone cameras? Yes. Are there P&S cameras that wipe the floor with any phone camera out there? Yes (e.g. Sony RX100, Fuji X100)
Snapchat could become the most successful entrant in AR. Especially after the launch of the first version of Spectacles. They already have an audience that likes to make, see and share new things. You could consider them as a niche company in media and hardware sectors. Other companies are clearly focused on produce one solution to everything before know how people will like to use, for what purpose. They are the only company that is pursuing produce something Cool that people will like to use on streets.
I agree that the time of smartphone innovation is gone, and I'd argue it's been gone since years, but still breathing the last breaths.
On the other hand, I do not think AI is the next big thing. It is a good candidate to be so, but there should exist much better guesses we can make. You should have a product, not simply a way of doing something or a technology. You need to sell a product, so pure AI won't do anything.
But even if it doesn't do much by itself, it should play a big role in the coming S curve (as the article names it.)
Good article!
On the other hand, I do not think AI is the next big thing. It is a good candidate to be so, but there should exist much better guesses we can make. You should have a product, not simply a way of doing something or a technology. You need to sell a product, so pure AI won't do anything.
But even if it doesn't do much by itself, it should play a big role in the coming S curve (as the article names it.)
Good article!
Well, multitouch was not a product.
You need a technology and then products that successfully build upon it.
Exactly what's not happening with VR for consumers (but applications in the b2b sector are much more interesting I gotta say)
This article is naive to the HUGE patent library Apple will be capitalizing on for iPhone 8, which will be a device to see. I've heard to called as ambitious as the original iPhone.
To the comments on platform shift, might you call it a paradigm shift? If so, Thomas Kuhn, the man who popularized that phrase in his book "On the Nature of Scientific Revolutions" argues that individuals within a revolution would likely not be aware of such a fact.
To the comments on platform shift, might you call it a paradigm shift? If so, Thomas Kuhn, the man who popularized that phrase in his book "On the Nature of Scientific Revolutions" argues that individuals within a revolution would likely not be aware of such a fact.
Smartphone Innovations is far from over it is just harder.
Upcoming innovations:
1.)Superior camera: Incredible Low Light sensitivity, Incredible compensation / correction for camera shake, will be better than any current implementation.
2.)AR support: example: http://www.waverlylabs.com/ This earpiece will work with a smartphone app.
Upcoming innovations:
1.)Superior camera: Incredible Low Light sensitivity, Incredible compensation / correction for camera shake, will be better than any current implementation.
2.)AR support: example: http://www.waverlylabs.com/ This earpiece will work with a smartphone app.
I'm going to jump on the AR train when implants become mainstream. Glass and those watches seem silly to me as a normal consumer. The professional applications I've seen recently look quite useful so I'm very positive about future development in this sector.
Funny that he should put a Magic Leap video in his article. I thought the consensus is that this is actually really fake, as opposed to the iPhone. The mechanical turk of the 18th century was also fake, but that didn't mean mechanical chess players were the next big thing.
Evans has seen / played around with the Magic Leap tech, and he is pretty certain it's the real deal.
The effect may be a real deal, but is the box still the size of a refrigerator?
There will be no end, until everything gets into the smartphone, in my opinion. Tablets are in decadence, and laptops will fall dramatically once convenient operating system support for external screen appear (e.g. a la Windows 10) on Android and iOS.
>Apple and Google won (Google only outside China, of course)
Could someone explain this? My understanding was few in China used an iPhone and Android is extremely popular? Is that now out of date given Apple's recent pushes into the Chinese market?
Could someone explain this? My understanding was few in China used an iPhone and Android is extremely popular? Is that now out of date given Apple's recent pushes into the Chinese market?
iPhones are actually pretty popular in China, broadly comparable to their market share elsewhere (I don't have numbers). But while Android dominates, it's not "Google" Android. The phones don't ship the GMS app suite and don't integrate with the Google services stack.
OP said Google hasn't won in China. Not Android. Google doesn't benefit at all as far as I can see if the Android being used lacks Google apps and integration.
iPhones are crazy popular in China. When I was there, it seemed half the people had iPhones. (I know the real stats disagree, that's just what I observed.)
[deleted]
I think we'll just keep removing features and raising the price :/
I don't think this is true. Phones are still getting bigger and thinner while battery life only decreases slightly. This game can be played indefinitely.
Well there is a physical limit, which when we reach an atomic level, for with processors, at which we can't make stuff smaller anymore. And other than that we see an obvious trend towards some particular phone width, for example. And it's not like phones are getting twice as thin every year, but they're slowly approaching a limit.
So yes, you might be able to play the game indefinitely, but I doubt anyone will care about those extra picometers a phone managed to shave of.
So yes, you might be able to play the game indefinitely, but I doubt anyone will care about those extra picometers a phone managed to shave of.
I don't believe it's possible to slightly decrease battery life indefinitely.
Also, there is a limit to thinness. Maybe the rest of the phone could be hidden in an alternate universe and the only thing that protrudes in to our realm is the direct visual cortex stimulator.
We'll see.
Also, there is a limit to thinness. Maybe the rest of the phone could be hidden in an alternate universe and the only thing that protrudes in to our realm is the direct visual cortex stimulator.
We'll see.
*we'll feel
Ftfy
Ftfy
PCs took a lot longer to stop innovating, but they were (and still are for desktops) an open platform.
Think Hegelian.
The smartphone gave us pocket comms and information. Unfortunately, with the Jevons paradox and Gresham's Law impacting on our fundamentally limited attention -- rivality is the counterpoint of virality -- we're in a world in which distractions, distortions, impositions, agency, and privacy are up for grabs.
Contra several assertions within this thread, we've seen information systems and regimes which have lasted far beyond 50 years: speech and language themselves, early writing systems, clay tablets, papayrus, block printing, moveable type, increased literacy, ever cheaper and faster publishing methods, voice, image, moving image, and broadcast. More recently networks with some degree of peer-to-peer and mass comms integrated.
There have been advances and regressions. When Gutenberg first pulled the lever on his press in Europe, there were 30,000 books on the continent. Not 30,000 titles, but 30,000 books, total. There were 50 million by the end of the century, nearly a billion by 1800. Reproduction rates went from about 120 impressions an hour, to over one million with the steam-powered rotary presses of the late 19th century and early 20th, which promoted populist wars in Cuba, the Philippines, and the muddy trenches of Normandy.
Liberalisation in the 19th century lead to a fundamentalist backlash amongst early 20th century religious groups, particularly in the United States, the descendents of which are still active in creationist, young-earth, and global-warming denialist cults.
Mobile devices of today strike me as akin to patent-medicine and radium-water peddlers of an earlier age. We're waking up to the fact that these technologies have both positive and negative elements. The boosters, ben-evans amongst them, keep preaching more and faster, shades of the jetpack, flying car, meal-in-a-pill, and plastic-prefab-house fantasies of the 1930s through 1960s.
Instead, we realised that not all marketing claims are justified, that pollution presents real hazards, that there's something to be said for modestly-traditional housing and clothing styles (the 1990s grunge fad looked little like Lost in Space or Space 1999).
We're discovering that our social networks and bubble-filtered news meshes poorly with liberal democracy, or carefully-cultivated brand-consciousness, in the case of YouTube. Spam and phone solicitations crowd out what few moments of uninterrupted time we can find -- the technorati now revel in not being connected, rather than jacking in to their email every five minutes. A practice which was freakish in 1999, naff today.
Among the largest disruptions of the 1990s was a small local events-and-items listing which was passed about via email. Turns out that it accomplished, at far less cost, and price, what newspaper classifieds did at the time.
Whilst Moore's Law appears to be winding down in terms of chip density and capacity, the cost component of it isn't, and we still have the fact that computing costs are falling by roughly an order of magnitude each decade. This means that what Google accomplished in the 1990s, Facebook could achieve at roughly 1/10 the cost, and today's Emerging Threats will be able to achieve at 1/10 the cost of Facebook, 1/100th that of Google.
It also means that the cost horizon is shifting, from making and obtaining compute devices, to managing and organising them. If you're interested in getting a log of conditions over the life of a package shipment, you can slap a $5 SOC unit in the packaging and have it phone home when it finds WiFi (or 4GL) at its destination. In ten years, that will be a $0.50 SOC, in twenty, $0.05.
We're likely to have tens or hundreds of billions of such devices, all around us. Which at such price-points, won't be worth the time to property engineer, secure, harden, or patch.
Collectively, these will have a considerable amount of processing power.
And though most of these devices won't be tied in to physical systems, that compute power might be put to use finding those that are and ... persuading them in various ways. Lights. Heating systems. Automated vacuums. Industrial control machinery. Drones. Self-driving vehicles.
Food for thought.
The smartphone gave us pocket comms and information. Unfortunately, with the Jevons paradox and Gresham's Law impacting on our fundamentally limited attention -- rivality is the counterpoint of virality -- we're in a world in which distractions, distortions, impositions, agency, and privacy are up for grabs.
Contra several assertions within this thread, we've seen information systems and regimes which have lasted far beyond 50 years: speech and language themselves, early writing systems, clay tablets, papayrus, block printing, moveable type, increased literacy, ever cheaper and faster publishing methods, voice, image, moving image, and broadcast. More recently networks with some degree of peer-to-peer and mass comms integrated.
There have been advances and regressions. When Gutenberg first pulled the lever on his press in Europe, there were 30,000 books on the continent. Not 30,000 titles, but 30,000 books, total. There were 50 million by the end of the century, nearly a billion by 1800. Reproduction rates went from about 120 impressions an hour, to over one million with the steam-powered rotary presses of the late 19th century and early 20th, which promoted populist wars in Cuba, the Philippines, and the muddy trenches of Normandy.
Liberalisation in the 19th century lead to a fundamentalist backlash amongst early 20th century religious groups, particularly in the United States, the descendents of which are still active in creationist, young-earth, and global-warming denialist cults.
Mobile devices of today strike me as akin to patent-medicine and radium-water peddlers of an earlier age. We're waking up to the fact that these technologies have both positive and negative elements. The boosters, ben-evans amongst them, keep preaching more and faster, shades of the jetpack, flying car, meal-in-a-pill, and plastic-prefab-house fantasies of the 1930s through 1960s.
Instead, we realised that not all marketing claims are justified, that pollution presents real hazards, that there's something to be said for modestly-traditional housing and clothing styles (the 1990s grunge fad looked little like Lost in Space or Space 1999).
We're discovering that our social networks and bubble-filtered news meshes poorly with liberal democracy, or carefully-cultivated brand-consciousness, in the case of YouTube. Spam and phone solicitations crowd out what few moments of uninterrupted time we can find -- the technorati now revel in not being connected, rather than jacking in to their email every five minutes. A practice which was freakish in 1999, naff today.
Among the largest disruptions of the 1990s was a small local events-and-items listing which was passed about via email. Turns out that it accomplished, at far less cost, and price, what newspaper classifieds did at the time.
Whilst Moore's Law appears to be winding down in terms of chip density and capacity, the cost component of it isn't, and we still have the fact that computing costs are falling by roughly an order of magnitude each decade. This means that what Google accomplished in the 1990s, Facebook could achieve at roughly 1/10 the cost, and today's Emerging Threats will be able to achieve at 1/10 the cost of Facebook, 1/100th that of Google.
It also means that the cost horizon is shifting, from making and obtaining compute devices, to managing and organising them. If you're interested in getting a log of conditions over the life of a package shipment, you can slap a $5 SOC unit in the packaging and have it phone home when it finds WiFi (or 4GL) at its destination. In ten years, that will be a $0.50 SOC, in twenty, $0.05.
We're likely to have tens or hundreds of billions of such devices, all around us. Which at such price-points, won't be worth the time to property engineer, secure, harden, or patch.
Collectively, these will have a considerable amount of processing power.
And though most of these devices won't be tied in to physical systems, that compute power might be put to use finding those that are and ... persuading them in various ways. Lights. Heating systems. Automated vacuums. Industrial control machinery. Drones. Self-driving vehicles.
Food for thought.
I read these articles and everyone seems to be operating from the assumption that a fundamental platform shift is inevitable and coming within the next few years.
Is it really unthinkable that smart phones that you carry around in your pocket are the dominant platform for the next 50+ years?