Slashdot Mirror
$20 Cellphones Possible with TI's New Chip
swimgeek writes "Texas Instrument's Indian branch has succeeded in developing a single chip which combines the functions usually performed by multiple chips in a GSM cellphone. By doing so, cellphone costs can be dramatically reduced, thus making cellphones more affordable in developing economies. Nokia has been contracted to make the initial sets, with market launch in as soon as 9 months. More coverage here and here."
:) this will be good for some of us who just use cell phones as phones nothing else.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this grand invention for Texas Instruments was done in India.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Developing countries? Heck I'll take at $20 phone here in the good ol' US of A!
Dupe...
/ 25/1735243&tid=215&tid=100
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01
The article mentioned "India and other developing markets" but unless I move to Bangalore looking for work, am I going to see a cost reduction in my next phone? And if not, why not?
I would love to be able to buy a cheap cell phone. Even if it can only make calls, cause thats all I need one for. I don't need to play games, or anything else.
Yay, I have a sig.
I am so glad that somebody actually made an affordable practical computer for the developing world disguised as a cellphone. After all the simputers and half baked Linux web pads and other doomed "developing economy" platforms we might actually have a winner here. Of course there are a lot of middle and upper class people of all nations including India who will also benefit in that they are not gadget freaks and want a decent cheap cell phone.
What about those of us who use a CDMA/TDMA only provider?
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
In dual-chip architectures, there are two chips: the (C)ommunications CPU and the (A)pplications CPU. C-CPU and A-CPU respectively. They typically communicate over a bus to pass data back and forth between the two chips, so there is a standard interface between the two.
It is pretty straightforward to program for this type of setup because you don't have to worry about what the other chip is doing. It's over there doing its thing while my program is over here doing its thing. The two don't talk so often. Typically, you'll even have two separate operating systems running on the separate chips, that's how far apart they are.
But what will it be like with only one chip, and presumably one memory block? Will the single OS running the chip have to handle all events and interrupts? How much more difficult will it be to write a multitasking phone operating system when such disparate things as mail applications and radio transmissions are handled on the same chip?
I'd love for cell phone prices to come down a little bit. Hopefully this brings the prices down, but if software gets more expensive, it may be a wash.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
A typical cell phone costs, what, $70-$100 and can do just about anything and has more processing power than most computers 10 years ago. If you strip out all the useless stuff out of a cell phone (you know, to make it, gasp, act just like a phone) I don't see how it can be that much of a challenge to bring it down to the $20 range.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
can I buy one with a couple hundred prepaid minutes anonymously, in cash, and throw it away when I'm done? I don't want to be GPS'ed everywhere I go. Posted anonymously for obvious reasons...
Phone costs will drop, but generally since they are subsidized by your contract you'll never know.
Also it's worth noting that most of the world use 900 or 1800 mhz cellphones, whereas gsm phones in the US typically run on 1900 mhz - I doubt this chipset will be initially manufactered in US frequencies, although some latin american countries do use 1900.
"Free cellphone with paid membership." Seriously, I've been seeing them for years.
So while companies like TI try to resolve high-cost issues for mobility in developing nations, it seems like the trend here in North America is to see how much crap we can fit in to a $300+ cell phone: Video cameras, terrible quality picture cameras, cellphone PDAs, etc.
Don't get me wrong I like my full-featured cellphones with things like web access for weather, advanced contact lists, text messaging, etc., but nowadays it's hard to find a well built phone without something... unphony... that you end up paying for and not making a good enough use out of.
Cellular phone calls have to go down in price. Regular land phones are cheap but not everyone on the planet has them, because land lines are expensive. Cheaper cell phones are great what about the price of the phone calls ? And don't believe that crap on digital divide, its called the RICH AND THE POOR divide been there for a long time just labelling it won't change it.
Okay cool, next time I'm hiking someplace and get bitten by a snake or hit by falling rocks, or if I'm out sailing and the boat starts taking on water, I'll just reach for that handy landline.
Well... last month infineon introduced a mobile phone for under $20.n ewsticker/meldung/61656&words=Infineon%20Handy
(link in german)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/
Seriously, every person that I know on some kind of state assistance has (an older) computer, or game consoles, and all have cable or satellite television. I mean, in my area, you can ditch cable and suddenly afford a $50 USD a month cell phone.
You should be able to talk your network into providing you with state of the art phones. When we got our 6600's they were going for over $400 on ebay, but we paid about $80 each for them.
That means t-mobile took a $640 loss supplying us with those phones. Now they'll just make that back this year, but it seems like the only way to get value for money from a US network.
In europe you can get lots of phone-less plans, so you are rewarded for being frugal and keeping a phone for a few years.
... the phone companies will continue to charge excessively for the service, and insist on providing over-priced phones with a tonne of other features that the users don't want.
That there could actually be a cell phone created with both Bluetooth capability AND programmable MP3 ringtones? Don't think I'm going to hold my breath, though...
Let me know when service won't cost just as much.
I just bought a GSM cell phone in Germany for 40 Euro(incl. Germany's lovely 16% VAT) and it came with a 15 Euro prepaid card, so really the cost to me was 25 Euro. Cell phones are already pretty cheap, I'm not sure how much this will actually lower their cost....
Too bad the price to make calls is humongous...
I used to be in that camp, but now that i have a decent web-browser i'm starting to wonder how i lived without it.
Opera is remarkably usable on my nokia. I use it at the store to look up recipes, check if prices are competitive, pretend that i'm working when i'm out hiking etc....
Tri or Quad band seems like a must have for voice if you live in the USA since most of the rest of the world uses 1800mhz. Fortunately most new phones support that and it's a big reason to upgrade.
If this pans out well, it's good news for India. For a simple reason: India's market size is very price sensitive and highly underleveraged. The Nokia 1110 - the 'MAde in India model' (http://www.nokia.co.in/nokia/0,,45346,00.html) sells for around USD 60 and has around 25% of the GSM market. Also, since Indian call rates are one of the lowest in the world, ARPUs (avg rev per user) is low, so to the average consumer, the cost of the handset in proportion to her montly cellular oullay is small...
What's the deal with minute plans, contracts, credit checks, etc? When will the USA finally reach what the rest of the world had in 1995 regarding obtaining affordable service?
I know it's not the theme of the article, but it's just as obvious...
One chip means smaller and lower power consumption possibilities as well. It goes hand in hand with cheaper.
It will help lead to phones in watches as well as integration into other devices (eg, directly into mobile PC's as a standard chipset for GPRS integration. )
Cheap is nice too, but it's just part of the overall advantage.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
When I went to India a few years ago to visit relatives, I was surprised to see that they were all toting cell phones (and better ones than my lame Noka 2260 at the time!) and when I asked about their plans I was surprised to know that they had plans with UNLIMITED minutes for very low prices.
I am glad to see that we have innovation that will help connect the rest of the world, but I have to wonder, why the hell can't phones be made here at ultra-low costs? And what of the plans??!?! Everytime I want a deal on a cell phone I have to sign a contract (and these days you get the special deal only on 2 year contracts - read more at end of this post) and am locked into a shitty phone and a shitty plan. BTW if you have seen the list prices of phones (w/out service plan deal, you will notice how ridiculously pricey they are).
Note about 2-year contracts:
The exception I've seen (at amazon.com's cell phone site at least) regarding cell phone contracts is T-Mobile, which requires only a 1 year contract for all their deals. After hearing many horror stories about them I took a chance with them last year and was surprised to have absolutely no problems with reception or dropped calls or whatever here in CA (it seems like those problems were unique to an earlier range of phone models only). I once made a call to change the plan to a family plan and was also impressed by their AWESOME tech support, which doesn't go to some cheap call-center overseas like ATT.
Well, thanks for letting your opinion be heard. Uh oh - nobody cares.
With GNAA members leaving for T4C in droves, it's not surprising to see that you're ramping up your recruiting.
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
... they will no longer have "lack of technical advancement" as an excuse to have a happy, quiet society where people go from one place to another while communicating only with the people they actually see.
/cancels migration to third-world nation
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
"thus making cellphones more affordable in developing economies"
should read:
"thus reducing the cost to manufacture cell phones"
The term "affordable" is objective, not subjective.
Theoretically, this should allow reduction in price in ALL markets.
"Well, thanks for letting your opinion be heard. Uh oh - nobody cares."
You're wrong.
I threw a Coke on some slob who was using a cell phone in the theater last weekend.
Do you think he'll use a cell phone in a theater again, without
nervously looking around to see who might be bothered ?
I doubt it.
Good battery live, sturdy (like concrete crash proof), a phonebook, sms & missed calls. I do not care about the rest either.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
So they can make tiny cellphones that connect opposite ends of the earth for $20, yet a VHS-sized scientific calculator with a funky green screen costs $100? Hm...
> At what point will technology become so cheap and simple to use, that it will make terrorism that much more effective and efficient.
About 40 years ago.
Any terrorist that needs to wait for a big company to release sub $20 mobile phones before he can make a cheap remote detonator isn't trying.
A 7 year old could make a cheap remote detonator from parts bought at Radio Shack with his or her pocket money.
Advanced users are users too!
You're an idiot. This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. If you're going to kill people, you're not going to be stopped by having to pay an extra 30 bucks for a phone, and a remote detonator can be rigged up for the cost of a remote control car and a screwdriver already.
But even if that weren't the case, stop making every fucking thing about terrorism. You're making us all dumber.
And get a Nokia 1100. A simple phone for those with simple requirements.
Peter
I doubt this will reduce the cost of mobile phones, if anything it will just make the likes of Nokia and Samsung even more profit.
in the UK, Mobiles are already stupidly expensive, so much so to get a top of the range phone you have to get it on a contract to cut 90% of the cost of it. Having a contract is like a loan these days... pay for your phone over 12 or 18 months.
"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
Amen brother. Amen. The almighty dollar has turned everyone into souless husks that care for none but themselves. A man's worth is now determined solely by the size of his wallet. These are troubling times... Things were once so much simpler.
wow you're just full of hate aren't you? Here's an idea, why don't you stop caring so much about other people and how stupid they are? I bet everything irritates you doesn't it? The way your mailman closes your mailbox, the way your wife chews her food... don'tcha just wanna throw a brick at her face?
Oh, and the reason you don't use your phone is because nobody wants to call you. you're just a frothing cesspool of hate and negativity.
Don't expect that a drop of let's say 50 % in the production expenses means that you can get your phone for 50 % cheaper at your local vendor. This will mean savings for the phone producers that's for sure. The consumer prices, however, are a combination of various different factors (marketing, shipping etc).
I find it extremely hard to believe that the thing that has kept remote detonated terrorist bombs from becoming common is the price of the cell phones. After all, if you can get your hands on a load of explosives, a cell phone should not be too hard to find. They can be stolen or old second hand models anyway.
They are right about cheap phones being good for developing countries. Mobiles are used in totally different ways there then they are in the 1st world. They are also responsible for some of the fastest commercial growth ever seen in those countries. Here is one article from the Economist about it -- they have several. Since I don't know if you have to pay for this or not, I'm STEALING it myself since I did pay for it and giving it to you.
Mobile phones and development: Less is more
Jul 7th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Mobile phones can boost development in poor countries--if governments let them
Africa
IMAGINE a magical device that could boost entrepreneurship and economic activity, provide an alternative to bad roads and unreliable postal services, widen farmers' access to markets, and allow swift and secure transfers of money. Now stop imagining: the device in question is the mobile phone. Not surprisingly, people in the developing world are clamouring for them, and subscriber growth is booming. The fastest growth rates are to be found in Africa, albeit from a low base. Already, 80% of the world's population lives within range of a mobile network; but only about 25% have a mobile phone.
The primary obstacle to wider adoption is the cost of handsets. In the rich world, these typically cost around $200 (though most pay less than this thanks to subsidies from network operators), or less than 1% of the average income per person. In the developing world, in contrast, a $50 handset would account for 14% of the annual income of someone earning $1 a day. So the first step in promoting the adoption of mobile phones, say operators in developing countries, is to reduce the cost of the handsets. Several such schemes are under way: in particular, several operators in developing countries have joined together to aggregate their buying power, and Motorola, the world's second-largest handset-maker, has agreed to supply up to 6m handsets for less than $40 each (see article). There is already talk of prices falling below $30 next year.
ndustry observers believe cheaper handsets could expand the market by as many as 150m new subscribers a year. As well as boosting economic development in poor countries, this will help to close the "digital divide" between the communications-rich and communications-poor. Governments, you would have thought, would be doing everything in their power to promote the spread of mobile phones.
But rather than treating mobile phones as an important tool for development, many governments see them instead as an opportunity to impose hefty taxes and milk a fast-growing industry for all it is worth. In both Turkey and Bangladesh, for example, anyone buying a new mobile phone must pay a $15 connection tax. Many countries slap large import duties on handsets and impose special taxes on subscribers and operators. In many cases, these taxes double the cost of acquiring a mobile phone. As handset prices fall, such taxes will become an ever more prominent obstacle to wider adoption.
Governments should reduce these taxes at once. Indeed, by doing so, they can both speed adoption and increase revenues. High import tariffs discourage legal imports of phones and encourage people to buy them on the black market instead. Reducing such tariffs would boost revenues as legal imports increased. Lower taxes on phone calls would encourage adoption and increase the tax base. It can be done: both Mauritius and India have recently reduced their taxes and tariffs.
Mobile phones have created more entrepreneurs in Africa in the past five years than anything else, says the boss of one pan-African operator. Promoting their spread requires no aid payments or charity handouts: handset-makers, acting in their own interest, are ready to produce low-cost phones for what they now regard as a promising new market. Mobile operators across the developing world would love to sign up millions of new customers. But if developing countries are to realise the full social and economic benefits of mobile phones, governments must ensure that their policies help, rather than hinder, the wider adoption of this miraculous technology.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
..Er why don't they all just go on contracts?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
qualcomm has had single chip solutions integrating GSM/GPRS and CDMA2000 or WCDMA, multiband, for quite a while now.
Recent bomb attacks have used mobile phones as control systems but not because they can be activated remotely. In the Madrid Atocha bombs for example mobile phones were used because the firmware provided a countdown timer function.
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
At what point will technology become so cheap and simple to use, that it will make terrorism that much more effective and efficient.
I think it is not controversial to state that the cost of cell phones is not the limiting factor of terrorism.
Qualcomm announced the same kind of thing for CDMA already:
_ qsc.jsp
http://www.cdmatech.com/news/releases/2005/050504
I heard in Denmark the phone companies were forced to open up their networks to third parties, which can offer services over these "virtual" networks. The result is that there are 10 mobile companies operating and the prices have dropped dramatically... something like 3c for a text and 5c /min calls*. (note: I'm quoting this from memory so the details may be slightly wrong)
You can be sure that these phone companies are still making a profit.
Meanwhile, in Spain there are only 3 companies operating, and they have an unwritten agreement between themselves regarding tarifs... it's 15c for a text and the lowest call price is 12c/min (off-peak).
. . . parts bought at Radio Shack. . .
And the How-To book to go with them. Back when I was a 7 year old, more than 40 years ago, I just went to the town dump and scavanged old radios and TVs for bits to play with. Didn't even need pocket money.
Of course nowadays a 555 chip costs less than a comic book. I think the terrorists can handle that.
KFG
Ahh, that post is just stupid. Why did he get modded anything but -1 Asshat?
Maybe he just missed the sensational news that terrorists train/educate over the net, using somewhat advanced tech. Maybe they could figure out how to make a fucking timed bomb anyway, even a remote controlled one without using GSM (don't you plant bombs in dark places, where cellular coverage might be kinda bad anyway?)
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEEEEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!
-- Helen Lovejoy
What part of the world do you live in? I've had that for years... God, I love my Sony-Ericsson phones. (Yes, I spend way too much money on phones/PDAs).
Could you be any more arrogant? Just because your underinformed guesses and back of the envelope assumptions don't allow you to see the advance in this doesn't mean everybody doesn't. Why deny the creators a little right to bask in their accomplishment? Oh well.. forget it, actually. While they will rake in the money hand over fist from something that, well, THE MARKET considers important and novel, you will still be cobbling out php scripts at 38k per year.
Same thing here in Norway (non-EU) - I believe the requirement to open your network to outside providers is a part of some EU telecoms competition directive? Link
Terrorism. TERRRORISTS. TERRAAAHHHHH. Terrorists are everywhere.
There is a terrorist behind every lamp-post. Your insightful comment warning us all to look out for those with cheap mobile phones strapped to their chest was most welcome and will doubtless save lives.
TERRRROOOORRRRRR
only 1chip = smaller device & more battery life = premium devices = more expensive
- JFig http://jfig.net - http://del.icio.us/jfig/
Why hasn't this been made before before, ie a single chip cellphone solution?
(warning, I am not a chipdesigner)
I mean 90nm has been around for a while, and shurely this could be a decent idea for low end even on 130-110nm. I mean, even if die complexety would rise, the pincount and design complexety would most likely shrink due to having the communication busses between the different (previously discrete) components on die. And the total amount of silicon should be roughly the same.
Granted, there is a problem when building highly integrated ASICs with making the different components play nice (timings, clockscew, etc). But thinking of the low power nature of a cellphone, the busses should be low voltage and low speed and not pose too much of a problem to hack on directly to a chip?
In the UK for example, there is about 90% market coverage so the phone companies are looking for new markets in Africa and China. For these you need a much cheaper phone.
Then of course, if the chipset is only $30, your next laptop may have a cell phone builtin.
You're my first foe. :(
I've never felt the need to use this feature before...
You're post actually made me feel quite sad.
... the phone companies will continue to charge excessively for the service, and insist on providing over-priced phones with a tonne of other features that the users don't want.
Sounds like someone "we" know, writing an overpriced OS with lots of integrated stuff most people don't really need / want.</sarcasm>
But I suppose this offers a good comparision element to the current mobile services offered by phone companies!
Two year contract technology has already brought cell phones down into the $0.00 to $0.99 price range.
SPAM
Over here, commerce has solved the problem of the expensive cell phone by offering rebate deals or free phones with a contract for service. What good is a $20 cell phone if I can get a $150 cell phone for free with a 1-year contract with t-mobile or verizon or whoever?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
From article: "It will reduce (the) electronics bill of material for handset vendors by 30 percent" and "With this...there is the possibility of $20 cell phones" So we should already have GPRS phones for max $20/70%=~$29 here now. Where can I buy one?
Well if that's true, then basically you're simply a cunt.
How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
thus making cellphones more affordable in developing economies.
how about making them more affordable in developed economies (i.e. here)?
Fucking hell "you're". I hate people who can't spell. I was likely going to write "you're sad" or something then didn't. Ah well.
Nothing is free. If they can afford to "give" you a $150 cell phone for a 1-year contract and still make a profit, that should clue you in to how much they are overcharging you per month.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Troll...
my wife has an (integrated) Compaq 486 that I bought her 10 years ago when sho took office (she is a DA):
Nokia 6680 Compaq 486
clock 220MHz 66MHz
RAM 20MB 8MB
storage 512MB Flash 210MB HD
modem EDGE(>300Kbps) Analog 9600 bps
video 176x208x18bit 800x600x16bit
IO 1 IRda 1 serial
1 Bluetooth 1 parallel
1 USB 1 keyboard port
1 mouse port
In all aspects, except for the sheer XVGA display SIZE, the cell phone wins.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Will go to $20.00 now?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
IIRC, the Wavecom WISMO has been doing this for years. I have several devices based on this chip, all they need is a different user interface to be fully-functioning phones.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
That includes unlimited long distance, and no roaming charges in a two state area (Illinois and Missouri), tax included from cingular. I have yet to use all my minutes.
And since I paid cash, full price, for the phone I have no contract. If they piss me off I threaten to go to another carrier and they get nice real quick.
It's cheaper than I was paying SBC for a land line, and SBC didn't include long distance. And they were bigger assholes than cingular.
Text messsaging? Internet on the phone? Other crap? I don't use it, perhaps if you want cheap service you should stop texting, surf from home, and hang up once in a while (like, when you're driving).
Pick up a T-Mobile To Go kit at Walmart for $40 and go here to unlock it. It runs only on North American GSM Bands however. Then sell the SIM and activation kit on E-Bay.
Quite frankly, I found cell phone prices to be competitive with those of landlines. I'm paying less to maintain a cell phone than I was to have the phone company maintain my phone which only worked in my house.
Now if I can only get my cell phone to work inside my house... darn Sprint communication coverage which coincidentally covers their stores, but not the rest of town...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
You can buy a prepaid cell phone at your local drug store for $29.99. AFAIK there's no obligation.
It could be a loss leader to sell minutes later, but even so, the phone company isn't taking that big of a loss.
COGS must already be less than $20, so is this really news, or is it TI PR hype?
I use a five pound cell-phone.
At least, last time I checked eBay, that was the going price for a 1999 Phillips Savvy.
I'd love for cell phone prices to come down a little bit. Hopefully this brings the prices down, but if software gets more expensive, it may be a wash.
For me, price of cell phones themselves have never been the barrier to getting one. (For crying out loud, I just bought a $200 iRiver.) The barrier has always been the draconian service providers. Sure, cell phones may be convenient, but they assrape you on the service.
Our current landline bill is $42 per month with no long distance. If we need to call out of town, we have Sam's Club calling cards which work out to about $0.023 per minute. (No, that isn't a typo.) We get unlimited free incoming calls and no matter when we place outgoing calls, we still only pay $42/month and $0.023/minute for long distance. In addition, I'm told at the start of each call how many minutes are left on the card and I don't get penalized a gazillion dollars for accidentally going past the allotted minutes. If I'm unhappy with my phone service (say I go VoIP or something), I simply cancel the line and throw away the card.
No cell phone "plan" can or ever will touch that. I kept hoping that as cell phones gained wider acceptance, competition would cause prices to approach something affordable, but that hasn't happenend. Go look around at the ridiculous plans they offer and you'll note that they're all basically identical. The only difference is that one company may have plans that average $5 more per month, but come with 100 more minutes, etc. Note that all of the fees and penalties that you'll have to pay usually aren't presented up-front before you sign up except perhaps on a very long and dense sheet of fine-print paper. Finally, with cell phones, you're not just buying a phone, you're not just subscribing to a service, you're signing a contract which you cannot get out of easily. Decide you aren't happy with the service after a month? Tough luck, because you still have 11 months left to pay for whether you use the phone or not.
I beg of you, fellow Slashdotters (most of who must statistically have a cell phone), please explain to me how cell phones managed to penetrate so much of the market with policies like this? Is it really worth $40-$200 per month plus minutes for the convenience of having your work, socializing, or even your own thoughts interrupted by anyone at any time? Is it more a matter of "whoops, everyone else has got one of these, why shouldn't I"?
Please explain it to me as I admittedly just don't get it.
this holds more significance than a simputer considering that the number of cell phones in India is more than the number of landlines there, and there are more players coming up (or are active) in the cell market than ever before. and this achievement is quite laudable..
If what you are saying is true ... why don't they make the cost of a cell phone 10 million dollars and make even more money?
..and still make the same $2 profit).
Truth is, if they can charge people less for mobile phones they will INCREASE profits. The two are not mutually exclusive!
If they can make total phone and service cost less to the consumer, more people will be able to afford it! (Sell two phones for $4, versus one phone for $5
That is, if the phone and monthly cost is reduced, more people will be able to afford it. This is especially true in many countries.
So the cost of phones will drop, although maybe not as much as the amount they company saves.
This advance doesn't do nearly as much for "phones" as it does for everything else. Chips that cheap can be inserted into all kinds of other devices, so now we don't need to be chained to "the phone". We can have a dozen or more phones, each sync'ed across the Net to be identical. In every room, car, office - each one our personal phone, private and trusted. And our more sophisticated devices can each have their own connection to the Net, including a conduit for voice. So anything we own that's worth more than $40, with power, can be interconnected. And talk to each other.
Dude, my car will call your car, and we'll fax lunch.
--
make install -not war
by Paul T. Riddell
Originally published in the Hell's Half-Acre
Herald (March 19, 2001)
Ah, the news in the business community keeps getting better and better. The March 18 New York Times ran a little report in its "Week In Review" section of some of the crass and thuggish layoff methods used by dotcom companies in the last few weeks (one of the best: a company that announced layoffs and then told employees to wait at their stations for an E-mail message letting them know if they were staying or going), right alongside the lamentations in the Business section about the ongoing crash of the stock market. A few days before, Reuters ran a report on a study that showed that employees near the bottom of the company hierarchy were much more likely to seek retribution or revenge against real or perceived slights than those near the top, thus helping to explain everything from company virus attacks to office shootings. (As refreshing as it was to see that someone seemed to care enough about employee morale to commission this study, the basic response is still "Well, duh." These guys and gals aren't pissing in the coffee pot just for giggles.) Right now, the big worry is that a decrease in American worker productivity will only aggravate the impending recession, and never mind that this collapse is inevitable once the folks working 90-hour weeks with the promise of future benefits realize that they'll never see those benefits. At this point, no rational person is going to believe anything coming from a 22-year-old MBA about job security or pension plans or stock options: if these scum weren't sharing when times were good, why the hell should anyone trust them now?
Even considering that the stories about the tight US job market are blatant lies, the recent five-year boom was a nightmare for managers used to alternating between King Log and King Stork. Ten years ago, it was easy to keep employees in line with that old saw "You know, it's a really bad job market out there, and I don't think you'll be able to find anything better than what you have right now." Then, with the boom in open positions in any number of companies, employees treated like abused housewives didn't have to resort to the shotgun in the middle of the night to escape the nightmare: they could just leave. (This is one reason why I always detested the Dilbert comic strip: since everyone has a story about having a stupid boss and lazy co-workers that compares exactly to one Dilbert strip or another, the strip encourages those suffering under lousy working conditions to suck it up and keep taking it, because it's just as bad anywhere else.) Instead of working together, management and employees at far too many companies are adversaries, with management regularly breaking promises and then screaming about how nobody has any loyalty because the abused finally say "to hell with this" and walk out. Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating killing all managers in their sleep and forming communes or anything silly like that. If anything, the deaths of so many of the hippie communes during the Sixties proves that ultimately someone has to take charge, if only to decide who washes the dishes and who cleans out the outhouse and how often. Good bosses are rare, and they're extremely valuable, so they should be cherished and respected and protected from sharp objects coming at them. Unfortunately, these good bosses usually have bosses above them who shouldn't be trusted with used Q-Tips, and the good bosses are usually replaced during a layoff cycle by dingbats fresh from business school who haven't worked a real job in their lives. I understand it's because the good bosses are too busy trying to get productivity by the use of rewards for loyalty and improved production, not by creative application of the whip.
I once took a journalism class taught by Bill Marvel, one of the only good and true writers at the Dallas Morning News, and he related that graffiti was a valid communications medium used by those
Am I the only person in the world who doesn't have a cell phone?
I honestly don't see why I would ever need or want one. Why would anyone who isn't required to, have one of these things? Am I the only one who still finds them annoying? Am I the only one who doesn't like to be interrupted anywhere and everywhere he goes?
I just don't get cell phones...
I think the submitter meant to say, cellphone costs can be dramatically reduced, thus increasing the margins and profits of the cell-phone companies.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
GNAA is classic.. This T4C is foolishness for the young and uninspired.
I bought my present cell phone for $20... Perhaps a better title might be "Prices falling", or something?
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
no text
You get rid of your land line and all of the annoyance that goes with it. No more telemarketers! No more waiting to get home to check the answering machine and finding out your friends couldn't get a hold of you and already made plans.
You can get your calls now or let voicemail pick up. You can check voicemail messages at will.
I felt the same way for a long time, but there is serious convienence to a cell phone.
Can you please explain me what is wrong with "you're my first foe" or "you're sad" cause as far as I know you're is a contraction of you are and you are sad sounds quite correct.
Maybe next time learn the language before you're going to correct someone on it...
And I'm not even a native english speaker... *sigh*
The way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher value them who think alike than those who think differently
The kids of the future will have a new version of Cowboys and Indians, just with dots, not feathers.
CDMA is Betamax
GSM is VHS
I can already get a cell phone for $20. There's some small businesses in Michigan selling prepaid cell phones on the cheap. $20 can get you a phone and 60 minutes. Additional minutes are about $10 for 100.
Damn, here in the UK we can get crap (colour, maybe runs java, has games + 200 person phone book, GSM will work all over europe) phones for £30...
lolsome...
There is a larger savings that this analysis doesn't consider - the cost of putting all of those chips together into one package. Assembling the various components onto a board isn't a negligible cost, and this will make that expense almost vanish. Again, it won't effect the casting of the cellphone's case or the cost of the keypad and screen, but it'll make the total cost to build a cell phone drop by more than $5
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Yeah... "you're" not a native english speaker. That would explain you misunderstanding some of the second post, but not the sentiment, and it doesn't explain you missing the fact that I was replying to a post of my own.
:( is fine.
You're my first foe.
you're sad WOULD be fine, but that was never actually used.
You're post actually made me feel quite sad. is an incorrect usage.
The last example is the one the second post refers to and attacks.
I was likely going to write "you're sad" or something then didn't. is an explanation of sorts.
Man, I don't complain at other people (even though it annoys me), when I try to excuse myself for doing something I dislike, I get complained at! Not sure why I still come to slashdot.
Sorry didn't notice the second mistake and that you where replying to yourself. I read over shit to easily.
The way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher value them who think alike than those who think differently
Don't a lot of cellphones in Japan (camera-enabled and all) cost below $20?