Slashdot Mirror
Mobile Phone as Home Computer?
theodp writes "Citing millions of Japanese consumers as proof it can work, MIT's Philip Greenspun hasissued a call for comments on his hypothesis that the mobile phone can function as a home computer for a substantial number of consumers if it's paired up with an appliance that drives the phone from a full-size keyboard and display."
So what he's saying is... the phone makes a good computer if you fundamentally change it's features? A full sized keyboard and monitor are not pocket sized. Pnoto.Net, Greenspun's own site would be a very different experience on a pocket sized device.
From the article:-
The PC is a scaled-down circa 1965 mainframe.
Actually, it's been argued that the microcomputer/personal-computer is actually a scaled up circa 1971 calculator; the first microprocessors were designed for calculator use, and the first microcomputers were exploitations of these by hackers who wanted their own computers. They weren't designed by someone trying to scale down a mainframe, they evolved from someone trying to build a computer from a crude microprocessor.
But that's perhaps disingenuous; I think what he is referring to is the OS; and it has to be said that as they grew in power, personal computers took their cue more and more from powerful mainframe/minicomputer operating systems like Unix.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
.. who thinks that this endless pushing of features onto our mobile phones are stupid?
Why turn our phones into games consoles, video cameras, mp3 players, computers and whatever else we can fit into it, if it doesn't do anything well? We've got digital cameras that can play mp3s badly, mp3 players that can take photos badly, phones that play mp3s and take photos badly. Most people I know who want to listen to mp3s will use an ipod or zen, since the quality is higher and they have more storage, and most people I know who actually take many photos carry round a digital camera. Most people I know who have a camera phone have used the camera only once or twice.
On my ideal phone it would have a phone book, ability to phone people, and the ability to function as a modem for my laptop. Just a plain old black and white screen would be fine though. Maybe there should be an ability to keep a small diary/timetable on it, since we carry it round and it could function as an alerting device.
The Japanese mobile phone market is very distinct from its western counterparts in terms of things such as business model, consumer profile and usage patterns. I'm not sure the Japanese market can be a basis for a deriving a general hypothesis, unless it pertains specifically to Japan. Bear in mind that Japan also has a very high penetration of broadband connectivity, which suggests - at least to me - that the widespread adoption of mobile telephony has not come at the expense of personal computing devices.
Americans like bigger cars, bigger computers, amd more fries. That's just how it is. There's more space in America. And I don't know about others, but I don't like to squint to read stuff and keep clicking scroll. Maybe the Japanese words take up less pixels so this isnt an issue?
I have heard that it's actually faster to type japanese words on a cell than english words on a keyboard. Can someone confirm or refute this?
American innovation focuses on making things easier. It's a step backward to have to type on a tiny number keyboard. If there were a better way to input data into the cellphone (touchscreen/voice?), and to read it without squinting or scrolling, then it would sell. It's a whole lot easier to call someone than to text them.
While the idea is good. I don't think this will fly in the US. I live in Japan and while it is true that people here use it like a computer, its under different circumstances. In Japan mass transit is the way of travel, meaning lots of time on the bus or train when people use their phones. Also the technology and population density is much higher than in the USA.
Both a computer and an appliance these days may have a powerful CPU inside, interface screen and controls, and communications capability. An "appliance" hides this under a focused user interface. A computer comes up with a more generalized interface, afterwards you may select a particular fuctionality. For example people think of an iPod as "music appliance", even though it contains more memory than most PCs in the 20th century and nearly as powerful CPU. If you can "see the computer underneath" in an apppliance either the architect was making it multi-purpose, or implemented the user interface poorly.
It doesn't matter how small our laptops get on the inside (save for cooling purposes), it's still going to have a keyboard and a full sized screen. WE aren't getting any smaller. A mobile phone with a keyboard and a full sized screen is... a laptop, except that it's auto-connected to a wireless phone network.
Linux is not Windows
Right now, I'm using my PC via an ancient (233Mhz) laptop, via ssh and vnc. I get to use a very light laptop that I bought 3 years ago for $200, and I get the power of my PC's desktop. This laptop is too slow to run a decent desktop convincingly on its own.
My desktop system is more of a blob of data that I latch on to with different terminals over the network. Sometimes I use the PC itself, sometimes I use this laptop, sometimes I use a computer at my parents' house. I've visted people and used a live CD.
It doesn't really matter how big my PC is, if I run it this way. In fact, the smaller the better.
It would be cool to carry an object that had everything in it (like a phone) instead of connecting to my desktop over the network. I think that would be an improvement.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1) Most people aren't at home most of the time (this is the worst generalization, but it works). So most people are not sat in front of their computer, most of the time.
2) Most people have long commutes.
3) Most people don't commute by car, so have time to play with the phone.
4) PDAs don't do well in Japan. Most phones have PDA-like features, which means there is no need for PDAs but actually this is wrong because most phones don't synch with computers in any meaningful manner (and I'm looking at you, Sharp. In fact, while I'm looking at you, Sharp, I'd like to ask how it's possible for you to engineer such ill-conceived user interfaces into your phones time after time after time. Maybe you need to think on this when Vodafone finally gets a clue and asks Toshiba to lead with new-generation phones. Not that Vodafone will be around in Japan much longer unless it stops the ex-pat/in-pat/Japanese in-fighting and gets to grips with the way its phone providers make better phones for the competition than for Vodafone. Hello NEC).
5) Cellphone charges are pretty low, in the great scheme of things, so people can use them as recreational devices.
6) For several of the above reasons, phones are used to coordinate meeting up after school/work, are used on trains where voice is banned, and use to access content to pass the time commuting. They combine elements of recreation and communication tools.
In terms of business models, i-mode is more business model than technology, and the i-mode approach works well where it has been introduced outside Japan. Compare that with Vodafone's idiot Live! service, which is painful in comparison.
Well, not enough infoi there to sway anybody, but I'm in the industry and cellphones can be personal computing devices, but only in some or the majority of cultures. I don't think the US is one of those cultures right now: phones are utility devices, rather than fashion statements and recreational devices. Nothing wrong with that. But I think in Japan, gadgets are likely to be in the pocket, whereas in the US they're more likely to be on the desk.
Keyboards will be obsolete as well from the moment speech recognition is a mature technology.
Good luck programming or using regular expressions then.
C17H21NO4
Or, perhaps, a palmtop that can function as a cell phone? And I would be remiss not to mention that internet connectivity should continue while using the phone capacity.
Whoever said that I ask too much?
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
You just described Palladium / Treacherous Computing.
If my phone had a VGA out and the ability to run Powerpoint or
Impress or some such (with embedded full speed video and complex
transition effects - note that my videos are circa 1 Gb in size
each so you figure 10 Gb of fast storage) then I guess I'd
consider giving up my laptop.
Actually no, I also edit my presentations before conferences so
I'd need things like Adobe Illustrator and Matlab to run. So
I guess I'd need a full desktop OS with 50 to 100 Gb HDD and
a processor equivalent of 2.8 GhZ P4. Oh, it also better be able
to read CD and DVD (and soon Blu-Ray as my lab is buying that as
soon as it comes out).
So no, the more I think about it, the less I like the idea of
everything on a cell phone. In fact most people need to be able
to read CDs or DVDs so this idea seems rather inadequate.
that more people continue to think in old ways. What will replace the current plethora of computing devices in the home is a voice/audio interface, and it won't matter what the device looks like. The wireless phone will become the human interface, and when a display is required, the ubiquitous television will suffice. Keyboards are wireless already, as are mice. When required (which won't be much at all) they will interact with the hidden computer that is part of the entertainment center, using the tv for display, and normally the wireless phone as the interface. If its not as simple as gossiping over the fence, it will never get past the religious OS wars, and on to something really important.
... anyone that needs that little computing power at home is NOT likely to buy a wireless device that complex.... sheeesh, I wish people would remember the human factors... all of them: form factor, human interface, money/cost, usability, coolness, function/usefulness and a few others that marketing guys at Sony know all about.
IM-not-so-HO, until we get past fanatacism over small things, we'll never get to the larger more important issues. Computer science is really only beginning... Windows is not the end of development for computers. Think about the voice operated computer systems on Star Trek or any other scifi show. We have a long way to go. The home computer will not be replace by a mobile device... DUH
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
This is my first post, so be kind... :)
/K
Versions of his idea have been floating around for some years now. I don't mean to be sour grapes, but not much novelty here, IMHO.
I think the real need is one of mobility. We're tied to our laptops/desktops because they have OUR applications, OUR environment, configured OUR way, with OUR data. If we could create an appliance that allowed us to carry all of that with us, or network protcols that gave us fast, 24/7 access to those reosurces, then we are not tied to a specific device or place. Right now we are tied to a specific computer for some tasks (e.g. work that requires our personal environment to be productive), or to a specific device (e.g. for listening to music). This is starting to change in exciting ways, but we're certainly not there yet.
I'm not saying we access all that data with the same device or interface, only that it's mobile. We still might normally access that data through different devices, but we would have more flexibility. So a cell phone is a reasonable candidate for this "hub"-like function, in the so many people carry it with them all the time. A wristwatch might be an even better candidate, although the interface to such a tiny object would be an obstacle.
In short, I see the issues of data mobility and interface as distinct concerns.
> Has anyone else found that the images he used in the article make no sense at all?
Unfortunately there is more in the article that does make no sense. First of all, he misunderstands the reason why we have PCs. PCs are not sold because they are beautiful, consistent, minimalistic or secure, but because they run the programs that people want to run. I have installed PCs for many clueless users, but they all had some special application they wanted installed. It could be the music program they saw at their neightbours, the game for the kids, some educational DVD etc.
I am sure people would buy a "computing appliance" with an easiers user interface, better document organisation, single sign on etc, *if* it also runs the special application. But they will not trade functionality for "optical sugar". If the appliance does not run "legacy applications" simple because they don't provide a seamless user interface, the appliance is wrong, and will not sell.
I would start by making PCs easier to use. The article is prefectly right: there is a lot the typical office application does not the way it should be. Give us something better, and we will use it.
if that is the primary function you want, don't hang a cheap camera off the phone, start with what you think is a good camera, then add features to that. You just emphasize what is important to you, prioritize. this lets the manufacturer have a lot of products to sell, and lets the consumer have exactly what they want, no more and no less. the no less is the interesting part about miniaturization today. Look at swiss army knives, you can get them from a few blades to egads lookathatthing, and most folks prefer the in between sizes. It's a popular enough device that has stood the test of consumer time. Eventually it spawned the multitool/leatherman concept, another well received idea.
The deal with convergence is, it is possible that most everyone's niche demands can be met, in the priority that they want. You primarily want a simple phone with big numbers and good audio? Fine, you can have that. The next guy wants that, but with some sort of camera that does at least passable photos or real time wireless cam streaming. And on and on.
I think the point is, there's no one size fits everyone, but with todays tech you should soon be able to get a lot closer to exactly what you want, and making the basic unit modular and powerful, it makes it easier to personalise and customise to suit the individual. Hmm, here is a for instance for me, I'd like a phone that did an outstanding job on the wireless part, as well as being a multiband radio receiver, I like talk radio, news, shortwave broadcasts, etc, and would also like it to function as a powerful walkie talkie. A simple webrowser and simple camera would suffice on top of that. I am frequently out in the field (literally, field as in "farm" field), but would like a fast way to see the latest weather radar images, and check on some websites during the day, and also be in close walkie talkie contact with the old homestead. I wouldn't be using it as a primary surfer, but back in the living room if I could plug that thing into a normal display and keyboard and some speakers, well, fat city. Heck, up to a few months ago I was still primarily surfing on an old PP200 system, worked fine for my particular needs, so I know that they are "good enough" now for my purposes horsepower-wise (joe current PDA/smart phones), just waiting for them to drop in price a scosh more before I get one. and where I live, wireless will most likely be the only way I'll ever be offered any sort of broadband, so might as well make the most of it with a better quality PDA/phone thing at the same time. A seemless plug in to make it function as a desktop would be great! If photography is primarily someones gig when they are out and about, what would be wrong with a killer nice camera that could instantly stream your snaps back to some server someplace? have all the nice features and lenses you want, add literally just a couple ounces to that to make it also function as a phone and data transfer unit. I have no idea what a good camera and decent lens weighs, call it a lb or two now. Add just two ounces of wireless to make it a lot more. The weight differential is negligibile then. Maybe you wouldn't like it, but I bet a lot of folks would like that little additional convenience touch.
The biggest disadvantage I see in having my phone be my next computing platform -- aside from miniscule storage (solvable) and tiny screen (less solvable, although the rollable OLEDs have potential to 'fan-out' a more media-friendly viewscreen) -- is that the phone companies lock these things down like the Fort Knox of revenue that they are (OK, lousy mixed metaphor, deal with it).
F'rinstance: My Verizon-servivced LG VX4400 has a "Brew"-based OS, which is a Java-like system owned by Qualcomm. Qualcomm gives away a compiler, but alas, you can't give away your software without getting it certified by the carriers, which takes some pretty hefty fees. Because of this, I can't even get a Solitaire program on my phone without paying $2 and up a month. No other software is available for upload, even with tools that can transfer data to and from the device, such as BitPim. I don't know if there are any locks on Verizon's Treo's, I would hope it's still basically a Palm device like any other.
Shareware has made these PC and handheld platforms what they are today. Free and low-cost software for the Palm and Pocket PC make these devices indispensible. Meanwhile, the phone companies have no interest in supporting your use of uncertified software: it costs them time and money to deal with issues they cause, and the more open the system, the bigger vulnerability to malware of all sorts.
I'm also concerned about cost and performance of networking: high-speed wireless data is starting to trickle in, but at outrageous prices ($80/month for Verizon's service for the Treo). And that's for each handset/computing platform. I've got 6 computers in my house (one for each of the four of us, a company-owned laptop and a media server). There's no way I'd shell out those kind of fees for even the four computers for the four of us.
More open platforms, such as WinCE-, Palm-, and Linux-based smartphones make this a possibility, but there's got to be some kind of reasonable family data plan: If I pay someone such as SBC (my local phone carrier) for DSL and cell service, is it reasonable that I can get DSL-based wireless service in my house, and WiMax or similar outside, all at one price?
Design for Use, not Construction!
I live in Japan and have a Japanese cellphone. I use it about less than 10% of the time. Perhaps, since I work out of a home office, and I am more used to the keyboard and widescreen it is a secondary device for me. But, whenever I travel it is indespenible. It has many functions that work effortlessley. Such as the train route finder. I can calaculate routes and fares on the go to any location in Japan rapidly. It has a SD card in it so I can move some data back and forth between my pc easily. I see the younger generation using cellphones extensively, and perhaps they would have more trouble typing on a qwerty keyboard. I think the Japanese Language is well suited for the evolution of language into the next medium. They use a lot of ""Smiley Icons" which match well with their Kangi Characters. I think they are adept at using the tools they have to convey subtle information in increasingly consise formats. As I am studying Japanese speaking, reading and writing. I am admiring in the linguistic simplicity and the brevity of using characters to express complex ideas efficiently. I think the same evolution in chat is hapening in the us for example. Laugh Out Loud is something that is never said in real life. But in online roll playing games. When somebody does or says something funny. People will say LOL. It is ubiquetous in the Massive Multipayer Online Role Playing Enviroment. The avatars will perform a laughing animation on screen. While language changes as our needs for it change, I think the input devices, such as cellphones effect how the change occurs. The politness of the Japanese society, precludes the use of speaking on a cellphone in crowded trains, so the users use a lot more text, images, ...smileys to convey consise thoughts. I think to be really seamless the devices need to interact on much more levels. When people will be able to log into their WOW; World of Warcraft account or their SWG; Star Wars Galaxies account with their cellpphone and control their avatars, than the evolution of control and expression will evolve faster. The evolution inot a seamless form of cummunication has already occured. I admire the young Japanese business people who will, Chat on their cellphones with each other in the same room. They build consensous on a topic before they verbally present it, knowing that they already have majority support from the others in the room. I bet people have gotten married in chat in Japan on their cellphones! LOL
Problem with the culture here versus Europe and Japan is that public transpo is much more a part of people's travel so filling that downtime is more important there. You can't really be that interactive with a handheld while driving, and watching TV on your phone at lunch? Not so much. I'd be interested to see how folks in the North East manage, but when I was up there I didn't see much in the way of handheld activity.
Take it easy. But take it. And if you can get it easy - take it twice.