Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's the “hardware”, stupid

haebom.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 124 posts

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#61

Post by ssl-3 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #20
_vaporwave_ wrote: post #17

> The iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design. It was because it packed everything we needed every day—phone calls, music, internet, photos, maps—into a single device. Have to disagree here. There were many devices before (and after) the iPhone that offered this package but it stands above the rest because of its design and polish.

I don't recall if the iPhone actually even had internet and maps at launch. I think the first time I saw an iPhone in person was in France maybe around 2007/2008 or something, and at that point it didn't even have the AppStore I'm fairly sure, just had the apps it came with. And most of the discussion I had with the owner wasn't about how it was "all-in-one package", but rather how much smoother the UI was compared t…

I had the OG iPod Touch, which had the same software (minus the phone, camera, and GPS parts).

It did web browsing very well.

And it came with Maps (which, at that time, used Google's data).

It was initially amusing back then when the world was commonly filled with wide-open 802.11 networks to pull out that little pocket computer, connect to a nearby network (if it hadn't already connected to "Linksys"), and browse an online map -- from about anywhere with a building nearby.

Wifi-based geolocation was also spooky-good at that time.

Anyway, it didn't do much else that I found useful. It was generally lacking features that I'd been using for years with a Handspring Visor (which itself ran on a pair of alkaline batteries for months).

Early IOS didn't even have a clipboard to cut and paste with.

So I jailbroke it. I added multitasking, an app "store," a clipboard and a bunch of other fun stuff long before Apple allowed those functions.

I think I even had a good bit of the Debian userland installed at one point.

After that, I used it all the time for stuff (until the OG Motorola Droid replaced it in 2009, which was easy as pie to root: just dump a special su on there and run it).

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#62

Post by accrual »

rs186 wrote: post #15

I wish more people pointed out the obvious when the Vision Pro hype was everywhere on HN. > The crux of the problem was clear: these devices were captivated by "technical possibilities," but failed to address "user problems." Hmm.

To me, the wild part is the Vision Pro has the hardware to be something people could potentially use daily, especially with the new M4 update. Someone might prefer working in a virtual space rather than on a physical display depending on their situation.

But it seems high cost, the walled garden, and inability to compute directly on the headset limits its appeal. It needs a Mac tethered to it despite its powerful SoC.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#63

Post by layer8 »

overvale wrote: post #23

> Ultimately, the answer is simple: reinventing AI is essentially reinventing the smartphone. I don’t think this is true at all. The smartphone is not some kind of endgame device after which there is no future. No more so than the train was the endgame of transportation. Why are we limiting our imagination about the future to only include what is true today?

On the other hand, a mobile AI device will only become really successful if it can replace the smartphone, and we aren’t anywhere close to that.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#64

Post by gregmac »

_vaporwave_ wrote: post #17

> The iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design. It was because it packed everything we needed every day—phone calls, music, internet, photos, maps—into a single device. Have to disagree here. There were many devices before (and after) the iPhone that offered this package but it stands above the rest because of its design and polish.

When I first saw the iPhone I remember thinking how silly it was that a device calling itself a "phone" only had the phone function as of many apps. Other phones had internet and other features, sure, but their "home" screen, so to speak, was a phone UI. You had to hit "Menu" or something else to see the other apps, which were clearly secondary to the primary phone function.

The iPhone felt more like a general portable computing device that happened to also function as a phone.

Even the Blackberry up to that point still felt more like an "email/phone device" primarily (though funny enough, I never had a Blackberry myself until after the iPhone came out).

The irony now, and I suspect many people are like this, is my "phone" is barely ever used as an actual phone. It's a computer with a data plan. I am way more likely to use some kind of internet-based voice/video chat than make or take a phone call.

My phone icon is still on my home screen, but only because it is something I want to be able to get at quickly in an emergency. I'm certain it's the least-used icon on the screen, though.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#65

Post by layer8 »

accrual wrote: post #62
rs186 wrote: post #15

I wish more people pointed out the obvious when the Vision Pro hype was everywhere on HN. > The crux of the problem was clear: these devices were captivated by "technical possibilities," but failed to address "user problems." Hmm.

To me, the wild part is the Vision Pro has the hardware to be something people could potentially use daily, especially with the new M4 update. Someone might prefer working in a virtual space rather than on a physical display depending on their situation. But it seems high cost, the walled garden, and inability to compute directly on the headset limits its appeal. It needs a Mac tethered to it despite its powerful SoC…

M5. And it’s still uncomfortable to wear for most people.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#66

Post by ryandrake »

proee wrote: post #48
angiolillo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touchscreen scrolling has been in consumer products since at least the early 1980s and inertial scrolling on a touchscreen has been around since at least the early 1990s with Sun's Star7[1]. (And I wouldn't be surprised if there are academic papers that predate the consumer products by a decade or more.) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CsTH9S79qI&t=266s

That is a seriously sick demo. I had no idea such capability existed back then. Way ahead of its time.

Practically, though, the UX in that demo was terrible. The frame rate was entirely insufficient. The latency between tapping and action taking place was too long. The idea was absolutely great and way ahead of its time, but it was also way ahead of the hardware's capabilities.

We saw a lot of great ideas in the 90s, but either the hardware performance wasn't ready, or the software effort fell short of the polish needed for mass adoption. We had to wait for the iPhone to be one of those rare products where they used capable hardware AND actually finished the software.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#67

Post by overvale »

layer8 wrote: post #63
overvale wrote: post #23

> Ultimately, the answer is simple: reinventing AI is essentially reinventing the smartphone. I don’t think this is true at all. The smartphone is not some kind of endgame device after which there is no future. No more so than the train was the endgame of transportation. Why are we limiting our imagination about the future to only include what is true today?

On the other hand, a mobile AI device will only become really successful if it can replace the smartphone, and we aren’t anywhere close to that.

I don’t agree with that. I see people carrying around iPads, clipboards, physical books, sheets of paper, paper notebooks, dedicated cameras, even walkie talkies. All of those people have smartphones in their pockets as well.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#68

Post by ryandrake »

bee_rider wrote: post #39
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #8

> No matter how beautiful its design, it's meaningless without the software to back it up. Word. I worked as a software developer, for hardware companies, most of my career. Most of the upper management came from hardware, and consistently treated software as an afterthought. That may change, this time. Different breed of top managers.

It’s weird because in a hardware company the software becomes a cost. In a software company the software is a magical money printer with zero unit costs.

Hardware companies treat software as if it were just another line item on the BOM: Like a screw or gasket. Just source this "software thing" from the cheapest bidder, and spoon it into the product on the assembly line somewhere towards the end. That's all hardware companies see. They don't see a software as an ecosystem, as an enabler, as a future way to deliver more and more value. It's just a costly part number that you assemble onto the product.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#69

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

Kind of weird that nobody's talking about getting rid of the hardware? An ESP32 that streams compressed audio over a mobile connection is all you should need to replace the "smarts" in a cellphone. Have a remote server do it all, and the local device is just a glorified mic and earbud. Give me a clickwheel and an audible user interface and I can do 90% of what I use a computer for.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#70

Post by ryandrake »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #45
jasonthorsness wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of my kids wanted to need a glasses prescription

That's so wild. Why on earth would anyone want worse eyes? It's a complete pain in the ass. Glasses make people look uglier, you have to keep track of them, they make stuff like 3D movies a pain (cause the glasses don't fit especially well over your normal glasses). I have had glasses since I was a kid and I would love to have been born with healthy eyesight.

Kids see strange things as fashionable. A lot of my kid's (12 year old) friends want braces even though their teeth are straight and healthy. When my kid had to get them, she was the envy of her friend group. -shrug-
Post reply on HN