|
On September 13 2013 23:42 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 22:55 Jonrock wrote: I don't see this happening either. Making technology more flexible always comes with downsides, be it efficiency, cost or reliability. Right like making a palm pilot into a phone, that really reduced its efficiency and reliability while making cost go up! I mean we don't ever see smart phones anymore, -.-' Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 23:18 HaRuHi wrote: upgrade the part that makes it faster xD
upgrade to hd display without switching the graphic chip... xD
upgrade storage without upgrading bus XD
I had a good laugh ......... Right except for 1 simple thing....if you already have a graphics card that can handle HD...there is no harm in transitioning to a bigger HD screen..... Just like I can upgrade my CPU without upgrading my motherboard since there are a RANGE of CPUs available for each socket..... same thing with storage.....if I have sata 2.0, it doesn't matter what capacity I stick into the sata 2.0 connector as long as it is sata 2.0.... I'm having a good laugh at you. In theory it can work as long as they can agree on a universal standard for the parts. From my understanding of the video, the part itself is the one doing the thinking while just being transferred across the base which acts like a motherboard....if you think about it, its basically a computer thats a phone.....and to the guy saying computers are going all-in-one form factor, only if you buy pre-built pieces of shit. I'll stick with my current method thanks so much. It creates an issue with app development too. If there is a game that runs in HD, and you upgrade to a bigger better HD screen without upgrading the CPU, then suddenly your phone wont be able to handle it while it would've otherwise if you hadnt changed the screen.
|
On September 13 2013 23:45 kemihan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 23:42 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 13 2013 23:36 gneGne wrote: For this to work you need the big corporations to accept certain industry standards like mATX for example in computers. Thus it needs backing of the big corporations in order to succeed. Having standards would allow you to swap pieces, but you still have issue of needing more than an electric current to communicate with other devices. Then, using their technical terms, what if you swap your "speed thingy" to a new "speed thingy" but there is not enough bandwidth with the "memory thingy" or other thingies creating a bottleneck making your "speed thingy" upgrade useless? If what you say is a barrier, where are you typing this message? If it's in a computer, it's very likely that you have a motherboard. A MOBO handles exactly this kind of problems that you are suggesting. And motherboards are designed with specific components in specific locations. I cant plug my HDD into the PCI slot. I cant put my CPU in the GPU slot. I cant put the wifi card in the CPU socket.
My mobo works with a certain type of CPU that has a certain amount of speed working in unison with a small range of memory speeds.
You will also notice that as you scale down the mobo, you lose flexibility in what you can put in it (look at a full size 17" laptop vs a 11" laptop, though this is also a power contraint issue).
|
On September 13 2013 22:43 TheRabidDeer wrote: It is an interesting concept, but it is not technologically feasible right now. Right now a phone is hugely optimized to maximize the space they are working with. Not only in part location, but also in bandwidth for each particular component (the speaker doesnt need the same bandwidth as the cpu, or the camera, or the memory, or the screen, etc). It takes more than just an electrical current for each piece to communicate with each piece.
If you remove the optimizations in phones, you lose all of the efficiency and use more power to do less computations putting you back years in terms of capability.
This thing was thought of by a design student with no technological background.
We don't need powerful phones. We need phones with the ability to phone. For other needs, you have cameras, portable consoles, mp3 readers, etc.
I'd rather buy a phone that only phone and texts, but can last more than 1 year buy changing pieces than buy another smartphone, ignore half the functionalities (I always have a computer nearby, don't need them), and pay ten times the price what I really need would cost.
|
On September 13 2013 23:49 Nyvis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 22:43 TheRabidDeer wrote: It is an interesting concept, but it is not technologically feasible right now. Right now a phone is hugely optimized to maximize the space they are working with. Not only in part location, but also in bandwidth for each particular component (the speaker doesnt need the same bandwidth as the cpu, or the camera, or the memory, or the screen, etc). It takes more than just an electrical current for each piece to communicate with each piece.
If you remove the optimizations in phones, you lose all of the efficiency and use more power to do less computations putting you back years in terms of capability.
This thing was thought of by a design student with no technological background. We don't need powerful phones. We need phones with the ability to phone. For other needs, you have cameras, portable consoles, mp3 readers, etc. I'd rather buy a phone that only phone and texts, but can last more than 1 year buy changing pieces than buy another smartphone, ignore half the functionalities (I always have a computer nearby, don't need them), and pay ten times the price what I really need would cost. If you need a phone that only phones, you shouldnt ever need to buy a new phone. I have never had a phone die on me. You can use those old nokia phones. In fact, this topic is entirely irrelevant to you because this design is for smartphones, which are much more than phones.
|
On September 13 2013 23:46 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 23:42 FromShouri wrote:On September 13 2013 22:55 Jonrock wrote: I don't see this happening either. Making technology more flexible always comes with downsides, be it efficiency, cost or reliability. Right like making a palm pilot into a phone, that really reduced its efficiency and reliability while making cost go up! I mean we don't ever see smart phones anymore, -.-' On September 13 2013 23:18 HaRuHi wrote: upgrade the part that makes it faster xD
upgrade to hd display without switching the graphic chip... xD
upgrade storage without upgrading bus XD
I had a good laugh ......... Right except for 1 simple thing....if you already have a graphics card that can handle HD...there is no harm in transitioning to a bigger HD screen..... Just like I can upgrade my CPU without upgrading my motherboard since there are a RANGE of CPUs available for each socket..... same thing with storage.....if I have sata 2.0, it doesn't matter what capacity I stick into the sata 2.0 connector as long as it is sata 2.0.... I'm having a good laugh at you. In theory it can work as long as they can agree on a universal standard for the parts. From my understanding of the video, the part itself is the one doing the thinking while just being transferred across the base which acts like a motherboard....if you think about it, its basically a computer thats a phone.....and to the guy saying computers are going all-in-one form factor, only if you buy pre-built pieces of shit. I'll stick with my current method thanks so much. It creates an issue with app development too. If there is a game that runs in HD, and you upgrade to a bigger better HD screen without upgrading the CPU, then suddenly your phone wont be able to handle it while it would've otherwise if you hadnt changed the screen.
Then apps will have to adapt with settings much like games adapt to various hardware configs across the board. Same thing happens with computers and it all works out fine. Hell how many threads in tech support alone are "i just bought a new display without upgrading my gpu and now x game isn't as smooth". And always the first question asked is "well did you turn down the settings after you turned up the resolution?"
I'm not saying its a smart idea to upgrade your display without a new gpu, but if you know it can handle it I don't see how that is "lol" worthy.
|
On September 13 2013 22:49 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 22:45 ShoCkeyy wrote: This reminds me of Lego. What happens if you build out a beautiful piece of machinery, then, you drop it... All your pieces will go everywhere and some one is bound to step on a piece. if you actually paid attention, the blocks lock in via 2 screws at the bottom, to prevent exactly that. Do you really think they would create an idea with such a simple flaw? Interesting idea, not sure if it has any real viability tho.
You're not thinking enough to be outside of the box; so, let me put it in other words for you. The screws lock it into place of course, but if you've ever owned a phone, things still break. Now what if a pin breaks when you dropped it? The screws hold all the blocks together, but it doesn't hold that one block. If the pin breaks, the block falls off then you have the pieces everywhere with the pins still on the board.
|
damn imagine you could add addons like the reactor to make it process stuff faster, or the tech lab to give it more applications
or the nuclear silo to attack people (maybe a pepper spray or something)
|
To those guys that says it's impossible. I don't know what kind of barriers are you talking about. It's not like we are creating a quantum computer or a time travel machine. There is absolutely nothing outstanding knew in the concept. The problem of interchangeable components is already solved trough motherboards. The problem of multiple graphics rendering techniques vs different hardware power is already solved trough programming API's like DirectX and OpenGL. There are components that will only work in some kinds of motherboards, but still, changing just the MOBO and the HD to get a bigger bus for example, is better than changing ALL other components in a single time. Ten years ago we couldn't even imagine that would be possible to create a computer with hand size and MORE raw power than old computers. But with enough time and resources, it was accomplished. The problems to accomplish this concept are not technical, they are social: Will a group of people with current hardware knowledge have the motivation (money), time and resources (raw material) to accomplish something like this?
|
Having changeable parts is a nice idea, but usually doesn't work with technology. If you have all these parts, you're missing out on the economies of scale that producing just one part gives. Have 2-5 different screens? Thats 2-5 assembly lines that need to be built compared to the 1 of a standard phone. Not to mention mobo is usually tailored to cpu, gpu etc. and not other way around.
|
On September 13 2013 23:56 kemihan wrote: To those guys that says it's impossible. I don't know what kind of barriers are you talking about. It's not like we are creating a quantum computer or a time travel machine. There is absolutely nothing outstanding knew in the concept. The problem of interchangeable components is already solved trough motherboards. The problem of multiple graphics rendering techniques vs different hardware power is already solved trough programming API's like DirectX and OpenGL. There are components that will only work in some kinds of motherboards, but still, changing just the MOBO and the HD to get a bigger bus for example, is better than changing ALL other components in a single time. Ten years ago we couldn't even imagine that would be possible to create a computer with hand size and MORE raw power than old computers. But with enough time and resources, it was accomplished. The problems to accomplish this concept are not technical, they are social: Will a group of people with current hardware knowledge have the motivation (money), time and resources (raw material) to accomplish something like this? I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying you lose all of the efficiency in phone design.
|
americans like upgrading their phones every two years. it's something most of us look forward to regardless of the shape of our previous phones.
|
People upgrade their phones every year. Since you pay less for pieces, they are probably going to upgrade more often, especially when you have an opportunity to make your phone unique instead of buying the latest IPhone or Galaxy like everyone else.
|
On September 14 2013 00:12 renkin wrote: People upgrade their phones every year. Since you pay less for pieces, they are probably going to upgrade more often, especially when you have an opportunity to make your phone unique instead of buying the latest IPhone or Galaxy like everyone else.
You're probably going to pay more per piece. Apple makes so much more money than samsung because they only have to pay for production lines/support for 5-6 phones while samsung has to build lines and support services for 50-60. Imagine having to build a line for each COMPONENT. packaging, shipping, and offering a support line for each of your hundreds of products. The problem with android as a software is that its fragmented, now you're going to have phones with fragmentation within themselves.
TLDR: phoneblocks phone more expensive than reg mass produced phone. more prone to problems as well.
|
On September 14 2013 00:02 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 23:56 kemihan wrote: To those guys that says it's impossible. I don't know what kind of barriers are you talking about. It's not like we are creating a quantum computer or a time travel machine. There is absolutely nothing outstanding knew in the concept. The problem of interchangeable components is already solved trough motherboards. The problem of multiple graphics rendering techniques vs different hardware power is already solved trough programming API's like DirectX and OpenGL. There are components that will only work in some kinds of motherboards, but still, changing just the MOBO and the HD to get a bigger bus for example, is better than changing ALL other components in a single time. Ten years ago we couldn't even imagine that would be possible to create a computer with hand size and MORE raw power than old computers. But with enough time and resources, it was accomplished. The problems to accomplish this concept are not technical, they are social: Will a group of people with current hardware knowledge have the motivation (money), time and resources (raw material) to accomplish something like this? I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying you lose all of the efficiency in phone design.
It's a completely technical point (and a good one, I know). But, is physically impossible to think in alternatives to current tech that would make something like that feasible and with enough efficiency to justify the investments in the research? As a tech geek, I don't think so. Every now and than I see news about new form of materials and information exchanging that are more efficient than today tech.
I am not saying that there aren't difficulties, but that it's probably feasible in a tangible time frame. It's not like something that would only be accomplished in 100 years. If I would guess, in less than 10 years, with enough effort, something like that would be accomplished. But , again: will anyone be willing to invest on this? That's the question.
|
I hate planned obsolescence, love that somebody seriously wants to do something about it.
|
The biggest, most glaring flaw that proponents of this idea are missing is that technology isn't iteratively evolved. Surely, if you can standardize the connections to the "motherboard" and the communication protocols, we are looking at a two year compatibility life span. Tops. Technology, as I mentioned isn't simply iteratively evolved around a single stack of protocols, but great leaps in performance are done on a generational basis. This will mean that your precious motherboard, and all the blocks that you would like to keep are worth as much as rubbish in roughly the same time frame that you would wear out a regular smartphone anyway.
If you're the type of person that has the resources to switch up your display every month, or want a few hundred MHz of extra power in your CPU before your block motherboard is ready for the dumpster then this is the technology for you.
If you're more of the type of person that is out for generational leaps of power, stick with the pro phone makers for the time being.
And for all the people saying that I'm a hater for having this opinion: Please explain to me how you're going to construct a motherboard that will be able to handle a new CPU or display or GFX that pushes 4x the amount of pixels through the motherboard (going from FullHD to UHD[4K], 2MPix>8MPix) without the added benefit of component miniaturization and wider pipelines/buses.
Humbug!
|
|
Cool idea, way too complicated for the average user. Maybe in 100 years or so, it might be more feasible.
Most people don't know what a CPU is, or RAM, or what ghz measures, or anything like that. The second you starting dealing in those terms, their brain goes full retard and they want someone to do it for them. They would rather pay more to have someone make these decisions for them, because learning and thinking is hard.
|
On September 14 2013 00:23 kemihan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:02 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 13 2013 23:56 kemihan wrote: To those guys that says it's impossible. I don't know what kind of barriers are you talking about. It's not like we are creating a quantum computer or a time travel machine. There is absolutely nothing outstanding knew in the concept. The problem of interchangeable components is already solved trough motherboards. The problem of multiple graphics rendering techniques vs different hardware power is already solved trough programming API's like DirectX and OpenGL. There are components that will only work in some kinds of motherboards, but still, changing just the MOBO and the HD to get a bigger bus for example, is better than changing ALL other components in a single time. Ten years ago we couldn't even imagine that would be possible to create a computer with hand size and MORE raw power than old computers. But with enough time and resources, it was accomplished. The problems to accomplish this concept are not technical, they are social: Will a group of people with current hardware knowledge have the motivation (money), time and resources (raw material) to accomplish something like this? I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying you lose all of the efficiency in phone design. It's a completely technical point (and a good one, I know). But, is physically impossible to think in alternatives to current tech that would make something like that feasible and with enough efficiency to justify the investments in the research? As a tech geek, I don't think so. Every now and than I see news about new form of materials and information exchanging that are more efficient than today tech. I am not saying that there aren't difficulties, but that it's probably feasible in a tangible time frame. It's not like something that would only be accomplished in 100 years. If I would guess, in less than 10 years, with enough effort, something like that would be accomplished. But , again: will anyone be willing to invest on this? That's the question. Optimization is a huge deal.
If you want a comparison on what optimization entails, look no further than consoles for a pinnacle in optimization. Even now, PS3/X360 games look pretty damned great, even though the hardware is 10 years old. Why? Because EVERYTHING is optimized in it. The software coding, the hardware inside, everything.
The mere fact that we have phones that have HD cameras that can record 720p or better VIDEO at 60fps, speakers, internet, bluetooth, wifi, headphones, decent HDD size, giant touch screens and really pretty incredible computing power is insane. Likely, most of that is because of optimized hardware... not only in placement but also in specs.
|
On September 13 2013 22:56 haduken wrote: Even the PC is moving towards the all in one form factor.
I don't understand what you mean with this, can you explain?
|
|
|
|