The amount of R&D expenses required would probably not be worth it atm though.
Phonebloks - the future of phones? - Page 4
Forum Index > General Forum |
Awesomedrifter
Canada62 Posts
The amount of R&D expenses required would probably not be worth it atm though. | ||
King[Neikos]
Costa Rica506 Posts
| ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 14 2013 03:09 King[Neikos] wrote: Its far more profitable to sell new complete phones with price increases every year, than to sell "cheap" upgrades. So it ain't gonna happen. The modular upgrade model could be more profitable for component makers. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 14 2013 03:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The modular upgrade model could be more profitable for component makers. It would be more profitable for cell providers. Imagine not having to subsidize $400 on half the phones people buy, but still allowing them the freedom to upgrade "cheaply." | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 14 2013 03:29 aksfjh wrote: It would be more profitable for cell providers. Imagine not having to subsidize $400 on half the phones people buy, but still allowing them the freedom to upgrade "cheaply." Ooo, good call | ||
willoc
Canada1530 Posts
| ||
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
| ||
willoc
Canada1530 Posts
On September 14 2013 01:30 C[h]ili wrote: Why would it be worth having something like this when we can instead focus on better recycling for the phones we throw away. The 3 Rs are in order of importance: Reduce Reuse Recycle | ||
DinosaurPoop
687 Posts
As you can see in the video, different components can completely take the slot of another, so theoretically one might fuck up and put all cameras on his base, would it run? Of course not. It would still need to be specific and standardized locations for each component, if every component was free to be put on any location on the 'base' the base's wiring would fuck up and send different signals to different components. Unless they can make a magical base that identifies and controls the different components, I don't think this would be that successful. How would you also be able to comply with some people's needs? What if someone wants to attach a keyboard to the phone? Where would it be located? On the back? Also there would still be tons of outdated bloks just like how many outdated computer components we have, Despite their idea that "you're not throwing garbage away because you get to replace the faulty part!" This is just delay, all the components on your current phone will be thrown out and replaced eventually, much like having a new phone. On September 14 2013 00:31 HardlyNever wrote: 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. Another good point, people who are technology illiterate immediately think: "omg what to do... ok i'll go find someone who actually has the fucking effort and time put in to learn this shit" | ||
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
I personally love the idea regardless, But it would probably cost way too much for me to actually get one. On September 14 2013 03:29 aksfjh wrote: It would be more profitable for cell providers. Imagine not having to subsidize $400 on half the phones people buy, but still allowing them the freedom to upgrade "cheaply." This isn't exactly related to that chain of comments, but overall I see these phones as like the Linux/open-source/GNU of the phone industry — It won't be particularly effective commercially due to the lack of control businesses will have over their consumers. Generally it seems that the more shackles you put on a customer the more money you will be able to make from them. Giving them all sorts of freedom would make it harder to earn money. It wouldn't be impossible, but because of it's difficulty it might not get up off the ground due to the competition. The kicker is that most consumers are perfectly fine with being shackled up as much as possible, all you need is a bit of marketing — just take Apple for example. | ||
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On September 14 2013 04:12 DinosaurPoop wrote: omgAbsurd idea. As you can see in the video, different components can completely take the slot of another, so theoretically one might fuck up and put all cameras on his base, would it run? Of course not. It would still need to be specific and standardized locations for each component, if every component was free to be put on any location on the 'base' the base's wiring would fuck up and send different signals to different components. Unless they can make a magical base that identifies and controls the different components, I don't think this would be that successful. How would you also be able to comply with some people's needs? What if someone wants to attach a keyboard to the phone? Where would it be located? On the back? Also there would still be tons of outdated bloks just like how many outdated computer components we have, Despite their idea that "you're not throwing garbage away because you get to replace the faulty part!" This is just delay, all the components on your current phone will be thrown out and replaced eventually, much like having a new phone. This is nonsense. It's obviously a conceptual model and not the final product. If there is need to limit which components are put where, that can easily be done. It should also be obvious that there is a difference between eventually replacing everything when it's outdated and replacing everything everytime one thing is outdated. On September 14 2013 00:31 TheRabidDeer wrote: 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. This is the actual thing that would probably make it unfeasable. People simply have no idea how much optimization can improve performance and reduce power consumption. If you just took all the components needed to build a phone and put them together it would be a mess. | ||
b3n3tt3
595 Posts
if what their doing was feasible from the start then they won't even have to make a promotional video to gather supporters. they did. these kinds of things are annoying as fuck. Might as well make a video on something impossible like utopia and convince people for shit | ||
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
| ||
Craton
United States17153 Posts
On September 14 2013 08:51 Kazeyonoma wrote: I love all of the supporters here, who have little to no understanding of both the engineering and software aspects of things, but have maybe once put together a computer of their own once, and instantly think this is both financially and physically possible. It's a great idea, but it just won't work. It's patently false to say it can't work. It is, however, correct to say that the vast majority of posts thus far in this thread are widely off the mark in terms of the technical hurdles, the opposition that would ensue from certain parties, and the so-called "trends" of various industries. To be clear, it is absolutely probable that there will be certain corporations who will try to squash such an undertaking, but there would very likely be others (likely the smaller or newer ones) who would embrace such a thing to gain an edge in the marketplace. Similarly, there would be difficulties in being able to modularize components, but to say it can't be done just entirely ignores the history of computers. Even claims that you hurt efficiency by removing some possible optimizations can be dealt with by simply pointing to the natural progression of computational growth and the way in which any shortcomings will be increasingly better dealt with the more the problem is worked. Simply put, once someone with the resources and drive to make this happen comes around, it will happen, even if it takes several years of R&D and general technological growth. | ||
sns3rsam
United States138 Posts
| ||
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
Maybe someone will figure out how to do this in 10-20 years. But not right now. | ||
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
Reminds me of that kony crap. | ||
Nachtwind
Germany1130 Posts
| ||
goody153
43995 Posts
| ||
tshi
United States2495 Posts
| ||
| ||