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

Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#81

Post by dublinben »

sp332 wrote: post #76
k-mcgrady wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "I know people that just toss an $800 laptop like it's nothing when something goes wrong. We truly live in a disposable society." Nope. You just happen to know people who can afford to toss an $800 laptop. For most of the 'lower middle class' people I know purchasing a laptop is a big deal and only happens once every 3/4/5 years. Even then they don't spend more than £400. Even when their laptop is practically unus…

But the only difference is the amount of money, not the attitude. No one thinks "I can afford a new laptop, but I'll rehabilitate this old one anyway."

I must not be anyone then. I have a (nearly) six-year old Thinkpad that I've upgraded a few times. I could have afforded a new replacement at any time, but I'd rather keep using the machine I already have.

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#82

Post by brown9-2 »

josefresco wrote: post #21
sdfx wrote: post #8

I think John Gruber over at Daring Fireball said it best: "I remain highly skeptical that a modular design can compete in a product category where size, weight, and battery life are at such a premium. Even if they can bring something to market, why would any normal person be interested in a phone like this?" http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/04/15/project-ara

Size matters? My Android friends have huge phones (and cases) - Clearly they don't mind a phone being big and if the phone had cheap replaceable parts, that giant "life proof" case wouldn't be needed. Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere. In fact I've heard from several who think a heavier phone means it's "better made". Battery life - Again my Android friends (and a…

I'm not sure that "size matters" here means "small is better than large". But with a modular design where you can swap parts in and out, how could you ever change the size of your screen if you want a larger phone?

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#83

Post by joezydeco »

skywhopper wrote: post #18
higherpurpose wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't see any advantage to a modular phone? Then I don't think he's looking hard enough. I stand by my belief that Gruber has backed himself into a corner where he now needs to defend anything Apple does, and attack just about anything the competition does that is at least seen by others as a threat to Apple, if not by him.

You've misread his statement. He sees the benefit, but points out that the tradeoffs will be the main areas of competition among smartphones: size, weight, battery life. All three will be worse in a modular phone. You'll also get less for your money overall. Not to mention that having to choose among components just adds an additional layer of option stress that most consumers don't want. Sure, there's a market for a…

As a phone owner with kids, I just don't see this happening in my household. Modules getting dropped/lost (especially the critical one that makes the others go), connectors wearing out from constant playing around or, even worse, smeared with food and crammed with junk.

I have a hard time keeping unified units intact and working, much less letting my family near a Lego kit that needs to be 100% assembled to work properly...

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#84

Post by josefresco »

r00fus wrote: post #68
josefresco wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Size matters? My Android friends have huge phones (and cases) - Clearly they don't mind a phone being big and if the phone had cheap replaceable parts, that giant "life proof" case wouldn't be needed. Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere. In fact I've heard from several who think a heavier phone means it's "better made". Battery life - Again my Android friends (and a…

> Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere. Your anecdotal evidence is about as valid as mine, and I can guarantee you that weight matters. Tactile feel matters. Looks, of course matter. In all these cases, a modular device fares poorly compared to an integrated one. This is a handheld device - can you not imagine the amount of dirt and grime that would cake up between th…

My evidence is anecdotal, so I searched and found this: http://mashable.com/2012/09/20/qualcomm-smartphone-study/

I don't see weight, tactile feel or looks on the list.

For those with cases, I doubt most even know what their phone really "feels" like, let alone actually weighs or even looks like.

As far as having to remove the case to swap a hardware component .. I don't think that's a major hurdle, we're not talking about a daily, weekly or even monthly task that would make that a pain.

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#85

Post by hyp0 »

higherpurpose wrote: post #9

If you read Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Solution [1] book (sequel to Innovator's Dilemma), you'll see him talk about "integration" and "disintegration" (basically the modularization of a product or market). So in the early days of a new market/category of product, the products are highly integrated, for several reasons. One is that the market is still new, so there isn't much of an "ecosystem" to begin with. An…

Yes. My take: it's triggered by consumer needs being "overshot": phones better (2.3GHz, quad-core, 3GB, HD), do you really need it?

Integration is crucial for meeting consumer needs when the tech was not as good: the first iPhone had a tiny CPU and GPU, but they managed to squeeze adequate performance by connecting everything with extreme efficiency.

But once it's good enough, people start to worry about other factors - like I want a big battery, but I don't need 3G (or vice versa). Customization, not just replacing broken bits. Here, a modular approach shines. But it's less efficient, so there needs to be spare power. The key driver is that users want customization more than they want extra compute power.

Android is modular, compared to iOS, and it's worked out well - once phone got powerful enough. It couldn't have in the very earliest days, because the spare power wasn't there. Hardware modularity is the next step. It may be a little early, but I think it's clear that high-end phones have wildly overshot mainstream needs (a quad-core HD phone!? what a boondoggle). Actually, today mid- and low-end phones are perfectly fine for most people.

PS: this pressure will also drive the next category - whether it's iWatches or iGlasses or something else, I don't know, but it will be smaller, more convenient, cheaper, easier to use - and there won't be power to spare in such a small form-factor. Therefore, it's likely that Apple will do it (hence the i's) since they are the company most integrated across all the levels of hardware, silicon, OS, apps, appstore. They are best placed to squeeze the needed performance (doesn't guarantee they will though).

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#86

Post by josefresco »

brown9-2 wrote: post #82
josefresco wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Size matters? My Android friends have huge phones (and cases) - Clearly they don't mind a phone being big and if the phone had cheap replaceable parts, that giant "life proof" case wouldn't be needed. Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere. In fact I've heard from several who think a heavier phone means it's "better made". Battery life - Again my Android friends (and a…

I'm not sure that "size matters" here means "small is better than large". But with a modular design where you can swap parts in and out, how could you ever change the size of your screen if you want a larger phone?

Not sure about increasing the size but being able to replace/fix a broken screen would be huge. I'm no hardware engineer but I would suggest that making the phone/screen bigger would in fact be possible, if the modular platform was designed to accommodate.

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#87

Post by enscr »

People are viewing this project as a 'lego' phone that sounds great in theory but doesn't charm practically. However manufacturers can take a middle ground approach where future electronics slowly move towards hot swappable components. Upgrading & replacing defective parts shouldn't require a screw driver and perhaps as easy as plugging in a USB cable.

When I'm buying a high end phone & spending $600, I'd want it to last 5-6+ years. However the current ones typically stay relevant for barely 2 years and the residual value is below $200. How about a phone that I'm not scared to drop because if something breaks, I can easily swap out a new LCD, ofcourse at a reasonable cost. Many users like me would be willing to sacrifice the form factor slightly to get the ability to make my device last longer.

However all this goes against how manufacturers make money i.e. make you buy new product frequently & charge an arm & a leg for repairs.

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#88

Post by hyp0 »

higherpurpose wrote: post #9

If you read Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Solution [1] book (sequel to Innovator's Dilemma), you'll see him talk about "integration" and "disintegration" (basically the modularization of a product or market). So in the early days of a new market/category of product, the products are highly integrated, for several reasons. One is that the market is still new, so there isn't much of an "ecosystem" to begin with. An…

BTW: I like Christensen's theories, but I'm not wholly convinced. Interpretation seems too subjective....

I am curious about what YC partners think of Christensen's modularity vs integrated (and his other theories), since they are VCs, in the business of predicting technology. But I've never heard them even discuss it...

Similar for Moore's Crossing the Chasm

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#89

Post by yarri »

rch wrote: post #73
evanmoran wrote: post #71

This is absolutely the right direction, but not in the way you think. This shouldn't be branded as a phone -- size and look matter too much. It should be branded the tool of the future, designed for people people in the field: electricians / construction workers / scientists / tinkerers. Let me plug in an altimeter, leveler, or multimeter. That is what is missing on my iPhone, and this is the first thing I've seen mo…

I'm curious to see what I will be able to do with the interconnect myself. For instance, could I rig something up to hook a couple of modules to my laptop or car?

This question was asked at the tech conference yesterday, and they may clarify it in the MDK [0] but the project team seemed to downplay this aspect, preferring to pitch the idea of a "low cost mobile phone for the next billion users."

Still, the modules can be emitters (ie., BT/ZigBe modules) although they were unclear about how module developers would get these certified. And I guess no one is stopping you from adding cables to a module, but the UniPro based and M-PHY current specs wouldn't get you very far... 10cm cable perhaps?

[0] http://www.projectara.com/mdk/

Re: Project Ara – Google's modular phone project

#90

Post by ctdonath »

As technology continues to shrink more functionality into less space, it crosses the threshold where human limits require the device be at least this big (whatever that size/shape minimum is). A screen can only be so small before it's practically unreadable. A touch area must provide at least so much space between tap targets and accommodate "fat fingers". The box of a phone must be big enough to hold comfortably to an ear. A small matchbox-size device would just plain be too awkward to use.

Seems Apple initiated the unchangeable phone (no swappable battery, extremely tight/solid tolerances) in part to get all that core functionality inside a box that small. Sufficient battery required XYZ volume; making it removable wasted a nontrivial amount of that, affecting talk time & durability.

Now that core functionality can be smaller than the minimum usable size, including battery life acceptable to most users, there's some space again to "waste" on components like pluggable interconnects, module packaging (so a part is not fully exposed when removed), air gaps, etc.

"This here's a good axe. It's had nine handles and three heads."

"This is the last phone I bought. It's had nine batteries, three CPUs, two displays, four radios, ..."

Post reply on HN