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

Phonebloks

phonebloks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Phonebloks

#61

Post by gwu78 »

Instead of trying to make improvements to Apple's (or whoever's) stuff, let's stimulate consumer demand for great looking _enclosures_ for (small form factor) hardware. There should be a market for enclosures that look as good as Apple's (or whoever's). Note I said "as good as" not "just like".

Give consumers the option to mix and match enclosures with the cheap electronics that go inside and see what happens.

The growing market for RaspberryPi enclosures stands as proof that it is possible to have many different enclosures, made by third parties, for the same PCB. And that consumers will buy them.

I've long wondered why there should not be a wide variety of enclosures to choose from for various popular small form factor "development" boards. Would such enclosures sell? Why not? The growing number of third party Pi cases being sold is testing that assumption.

I'd even go so far as to guess that if you give consumers great looking enclosures to choose from, you will actually sell more development boards.

Re: Phonebloks

#62

Post by jkestner »

dzuc wrote: post #20

With everyone pointing out it's infeasibility in mind; didn't Bug Labs do something similar already?: http://buglabs.net/products/blocks

And how's that working out? It's feasible, yes, but not in the consumer market. Bug Labs is for prototyping.

Re: Phonebloks

#63

Post by marssaxman »

umsm wrote: post #46
oftenwrong wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the disadvantages, I would really like an e-ink phone (and netbook) for the significant increase in battery life it could give. The software could be designed so that it is usable on e-ink. No animations, no reliance on color for indicators, flipping instead of scrolling, etc. As you say, it would only really work for static content, but for me that is fine.

Almost any phone not a smartphone could fit your description. There are so many phones that can last for almost a week, but all you can do is talk and text with some light apps.

Do you know of one with a QWERTY keyboard?

Re: Phonebloks

#64

Post by qq66 »

kken wrote: post #4

Remember when desktop PC where made from interchangeable components? How many people actually upgraded them instead of buying a new, boxed one?

A lot of people. Desktop PC's don't need to fit in your pocket.

Re: Phonebloks

#65

Post by Kliment »

pjc50 wrote: post #47
Kliment wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is an enormous racket and close to impossible to comply with economically for small manufacturers in some countries. As an example, in Germany, if you are a small electronics manufacturer and sign up to the system, you get entered into a lottery weighted by the amount of devices (measured by weight) you ship, and whenever a container of e-waste gets filled, a randomly selected unlucky participant has to take po…

I hadn't realised it was quite that crazy. I'm still wrestling with CE approval for a device containing a GSM module. Which looks like it's going to be about E15000 for the radio and electrical testing, plus the complexities of RoHS compliance (random lab testing required, even if all your components are certified lead-free?) I've concluded that Tindie-style electronics cottage industry is basically illegal in the EU…

With a GSM module, you want a pre-approved module so you only need to do EMC testing. Doing your own radio testing is ridiculous and expensive. For RoHS compliance you should be able to get away with a declaration as long as not only the components but also the assembly process is lead-free. Incidentally, I have some thoughts on fixing this process, if you'd be willing to talk about it. Contact me on IRC (Kliment on the freenode network) or at kliment at 0xfb.com (yes, that is a zero)

Re: Phonebloks

#66

Post by jpswade »

ncallaway wrote: post #40
jpswade wrote: post #33

My biggest gripe with this is, what problem does this actually solve? Phones exist as they are as a sealed unit, so if something fails or you want something new, you buy it from the manufacturer or network. Networks or manufacturers wouldn't want this kind of thing because it would affect their profits, so what's in it for them? What solution is it offering them? That's before we even get into the engineering flaws..…

> "what problem does this actually solve?" This solves a customer's problem. > "Phones exist as they are as a sealed unit, so if something fails or you want something new, you buy it from the manufacturer or network." This is the problem that it solves. It's obviously a great feature from the manufacturer's point of view. > "Networks or manufacturers wouldn't want this kind of thing because it would affect their prof…

The customer's problem isn't the network/manufacturers problem, hence why Apple were so successful with iPhone.

If the network/manufacturer can't make money, that's not a viable solution for anyone.

This does not solve a problem, it creates them.

Re: Phonebloks

#67

Post by jpswade »

venomsnake wrote: post #36
jpswade wrote: post #33

My biggest gripe with this is, what problem does this actually solve? Phones exist as they are as a sealed unit, so if something fails or you want something new, you buy it from the manufacturer or network. Networks or manufacturers wouldn't want this kind of thing because it would affect their profits, so what's in it for them? What solution is it offering them? That's before we even get into the engineering flaws..…

Well standards and replaceable parts brought the PC to world domination. And the networks should be removed from the device business at all. So a smartphone that could be assembled and upgraded with full control and root access is idea that I stand behind. And if it forces the carries to compete on services and not lock people with contracts all the better.

It didn't last long, maybe a decade before integrated devices won out.

Re: Phonebloks

#68

Post by oftenwrong »

eli wrote: post #38
oftenwrong wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the disadvantages, I would really like an e-ink phone (and netbook) for the significant increase in battery life it could give. The software could be designed so that it is usable on e-ink. No animations, no reliance on color for indicators, flipping instead of scrolling, etc. As you say, it would only really work for static content, but for me that is fine.

So basically a (non-Fire) Kindle in a smaller form and with more apps?

and it's a phone

Re: Phonebloks

#69

Post by oftenwrong »

umsm wrote: post #46
oftenwrong wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the disadvantages, I would really like an e-ink phone (and netbook) for the significant increase in battery life it could give. The software could be designed so that it is usable on e-ink. No animations, no reliance on color for indicators, flipping instead of scrolling, etc. As you say, it would only really work for static content, but for me that is fine.

Almost any phone not a smartphone could fit your description. There are so many phones that can last for almost a week, but all you can do is talk and text with some light apps.

Yeah, I am looking for more of a smartphone. Apps, customizability, keyboard, wifi.

Re: Phonebloks

#70

Post by ncallaway »

jpswade wrote: post #66
ncallaway wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "what problem does this actually solve?" This solves a customer's problem. > "Phones exist as they are as a sealed unit, so if something fails or you want something new, you buy it from the manufacturer or network." This is the problem that it solves. It's obviously a great feature from the manufacturer's point of view. > "Networks or manufacturers wouldn't want this kind of thing because it would affect their prof…

The customer's problem isn't the network/manufacturers problem, hence why Apple were so successful with iPhone. If the network/manufacturer can't make money, that's not a viable solution for anyone. This does not solve a problem, it creates them.

I agree that this would certainly create problems for the network and the manufacturers. If it better solves a customer problem, and you are able to overcome the problems it creates for the people creating the device, they will suddenly have a significant competitive advantage over the manufacturers that didn't consider better ways to solve the customer's problem.

As a network and/or a manufacturer (or any industry leader), I would be watching potentially disruptive technologies very closely to make sure something didn't blindside me and knock me off my post.

Finally, as I said before, I think this will generally be technically nonviable for many of the technical concerns mentioned by other commentators. There are good reasons that the components in most devices are very tightly coupled.

Post reply on HN