System Integration Leads to MegaFunction Gadgets

nanotrends writes "The IEEE Spectrum is running a piece entitled 'Moore's Law Meets Its Match', about the system-on-package (SOP) approach to technology. The (SOP) approach combines Integrated Circuits (ICs) with micrometer-scale thin-film versions of discrete components, and it embeds everything in a new type of package so small that eventually handhelds will become anything from multi-to megafunction devices. This integration is actually developing at a rate faster than Moore's law." From the article: "SOP technology represents a radically different approach to systems. It shrinks bulky circuit boards with their many components and makes them nearly disappear. In effect, SOP sets up a new law for system integration. It holds that as the components shrink and the boards all but disappear, the component density will double every year or so, and the number of system functions in an SOP package will increase in the same proportion."

Comments

Yeah

[Anonymous Crowhead]

I liked my cell phone better when it just made phone calls. Smaller is better, but like Windows and even Linux these days, you shouldn't just cram stuff in because you can.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

"I liked my cell phone better when it just made phone calls."

I like my cell phone better now that it has all these features. I think it's me, not you, they're aiming this stuff for.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked my cell phone better when it just made phone calls.

No you didn't. You liked your cell phone better when it did what you wanted in a better way. There's no rational reason for wanting fewer features if the quality of the features you do want remain constant.

By the way, are you one of the many people who say that you only want your phone to make phone calls, but actually want other features as well, like a phone book or clock?

Re:Yeah

[FudRucker]

i take it you dont want a new laptop/cellphone/digitalcamera/webcam/gps/pda/wali e-talkie-gmrs/ all in one super duper megagadget

Re:Yeah

[LoRdTAW]

I agree with you somewhat but it all comes down to what functions are practicle. I used to have a camera phone but the pictures it took were crap compared to my 4MP canon cam. Now I just have a simple phone that I have a few custom ringers I made on it as well as a wall paper, phone book and clock. It has gps but I prefer gps on a larger screen.

My thing is if they got camera/multimedia phones right like:
-High quality camera with at leat 2MP or 1600x1200
-removable flash card that stores the pictures
-external screen that acts like a viewfinder, great for taking pictures of yourself with someone
-simple usb connectivity
-an mp3 player that also works off the flash card that would work on a bluetooth stereo headset that auto pauses the music on a call. I could ride my bike with my phone in my bag listening to some tunes and take a call easily without fumbling with the phone or wires all over.
-maybe a video service BUT it has to be based on open standars and can to connect to any video server even one I might host. Also simple video recording to the flash card that can record longer then 15 seconds.
-good 3 + day standby time.

Hell there might be such a phone now but im not that on top of those things.

Re:Yeah

[GregStevensLA]

Of course it has to do with quality. Of course, in an ideal world where the quality of all features is held constant, there is no reason to prefer a dingus that provides you with X features over a dingus that provides you with X+N features.

But in most people's practical experience, the quality of the features is NOT held constant.

This issue isn't new, either. Neither is it isolated to camera-walkie-talkie-email-phones, either.

Back when I was more of an audiophile, and kept myself current with high-end stereo equipment, it was basic common knowledge that if you want the really, truly GOOD stuff, you got components. Your amp, your pre-amp, your receiver, your cd CD player, (and so on) were all different physical things. Each one was dedicated to be the absolute best at that one function that it provided.

One reason behind this was the fact that you could mix-and-match. The company that makes the best amp may not be the company that makes the best CD player. And even if it is now, it may not be in 2 years. A true connoisseur of high-end audio equipment often has very strong opinions about what is best for what environments and contexts, and why. Lumping things together reduces choice.

Another reason is that different items upgrade and degrade differently. If my CD player is busted, why should I have to replace EVERYTHING (especially when I paid a lot for the rest of that hardware)? If I want to upgrade my pre-amp, why should I have to replace my amp, which I'm perfectly happy with?

True audiophiles look down their noses as all-in-one "boom boxes" that try to give you everything in one clunky device.

And I sense that this same attitude rolls over into many people's views of these all-in-one phone-devices.

... I certainly know that it does for me.

Re:Yeah

[Adelec Bakkal]

Ofcourse he would not, you have just made a worthless compilation of devices. A laptop and a PDA? Lap and Palm? How small is this laptop to fit in your palm, and how big is your PDA to have a comfortable keybaord? Laptop and cellphone? what do you do to answer a call? Lift the lid? How fast does your system boot? Fast enough to answer? Why not embed giant trousers with giant pockets to fit your sophesticated cell phone? Think of it once more, not all combination are worthy. And unworhty embedded devices are said to be STUPID!

Re:Yeah

[daniel422]

Actually smaller is worse. It's cheaper, yes, becasue it's less silicon area, but the smaller you get, the more issues you have in creating the chip, and coupling issues with high-speed lines in closer proximity, the less reliable it tends to be.
The semiconductor industry is also continuously updating silicon to justify keeping prices the same level or higher. Since silicon cost goes down once its been created, that's the only way to increase ASP on silicon -- add more features in the same space.
Thus we see cell phones that continue to get smaller and smaller, with more features, yet less reliability.
Hopefully the continued integration process we see in cell phone ICs will provide more reliability by having many systems (now integrated) be made in one fab at one time, thus decreasing fab process differences.

Re:Yeah

[zippthorne]

Frankly, if they're going to put a camera in it, i'd rather have a high quality 640x480 resolution. Pictures of that size are absolutely fine for most purposes if they are taken with a low noise imager with appropriate optics and aren't compressed as all get-up. If all you want is to share some cameos on the web or print off some 4x6s for the family, a good 640x480 is actually a lot better than a poorly designed 5MP camera.

but wouldn't you rather have a really really tiny phone which you can add those things through equally tiny modular attachments if you so desire?

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

what a pedantic and anal retentive twit, you need to loosen up a bit...

Re:Yeah

[Ulric]

Nonsense, keep cramming stuff into my phone. I want a tricorder and I want it now. Until then, my Nokia Communicator will have to do.

Re:Yeah

[Jasin Natael]

but wouldn't you rather have a really really tiny phone which you can add those things through equally tiny modular attachments if you so desire?

Not really. It's hard enough to carry around all the chotchkies that go with my current gadgets. Each one needs a slew of accessories if I want it to be fully functional, like memory card readers, USB charging cables or AC adapters, etc. You'd be replacing the problem of carrying several gadgets with the problem of carrying a small purse-sized case of attachments, their battery chargers, and any special dongles they need to work properly.

I'd love a phone that is configurable from the store, like a phone that is basically two super-thin plates between which peripherals can be assembled-in. It can then have a 1" hard drive, bigger battery, card reader with IR, TV Tuner, various cameras, different keypads/keyboards, etc. installed by a technician with a T6 driver and some training. But I really doubt I would go goofballs over having to carry around a bunch of peripherals, only one of which can be installed at a given time.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

But in most people's practical experience, the quality of the features is NOT held constant.

I'm undecided on the matter. I certainly wasn't trying to make the argument that they were. I'm just taking issue with the fact that people say they don't want extra features, but what they mean is they don't want lower quality. It leads to this culture of anti-convergence that makes people post ridiculous comments to Slashdot and places like it. Convergence is a good thing. For instance, without camera phones, you wouldn't have got things like the photographs from the 7-7 bombings, which helped people understand just what it was like to be stuck underground with a bomb that had just gone off.

When people see convergence and knee-jerk against it, they are doing themselves and others a disservice. Convergence is happening, whether they like it or not. They should be complaining about convergence done badly. When somebody complains about convergence, companies ignore them because they aren't the target market. When somebody complains about convergence done in a poor way, companies don't ignore them, because they are the target market.

Moore's law = all technology ever?

[Spazntwich]

So what I'm to gather is that a new technology advances at rates different from ones set forth in arbitrary "laws" relating to different technologies?

AMAZING

Re:Moore's law = all technology ever?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what I'm to gather is that a new technology advances at rates different from ones set forth in arbitrary "laws" relating to different technologies?

Moore's Law stated that not only would components increase in power, but that they would also decrease in size. See Brock's Understanding Moore's Law (CHF, 2006), a recent book that cleared up some confusion I myself had about the trend. So, the shrinkage of integrated components discussed in the article is entirely relevant.

Re:Moore's law = all technology ever?

[kfg]

In know that this might be considered cheating, but please allow me to actually quote Moore:

"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase."

Emphasis mine.

KFG

Re:Moore's law = all technology ever?

[Anonymous Coward]

Emphasis mine.

In Soviet Russia emphasis owns YOU!

Nothing says "megafunction gadget"...

[sczimme]

Nothing says "megafunction gadget" like a monochrome Palm, a nut, and an old motherboard.

Is this the next installment in the MacGyver Challenge?

Of course

[LockeOnLogic]

I for one welcome our new MegaFunction Gadget Overlords

Integate CPU + DRAM + Flash

[seanadams.com]

This will be a huge boon for semi-custom embedded apps.

Many embedded processors have some typical complement of flash memory and SDRAM which is about the same for every app, and which takes up half of more of the CPU's pin count. The chips can't be combined on one die, because the yields and economies of scale would go down, and they're different processes.

But combine the dies in a small package and you get the best of both world. Less packaging material and lower pin count == lower cost, easier to design in, and more reliable (at some expense in flexibility). It's not a new idea but it's great to see it catching on.

Re:Integate CPU + DRAM + Flash

[DAldredge]

Like these?

http://www.atmel.com/products/AVR/

256-Kbyte self-programming Flash Program Memory, 8-Kbyte SRAM, 4-KByte EEPROM, 16 Channel 10-bit A/D-converter. JTAG interface for on-chip-debug. Up to 16 MIPS throughput at 16 MHz. 1.8 - 5.5 Volt Operation.
64KB/100-pin version: ATmega640
128KB/64-pin version: ATmega1281
128KB/100-pin version: ATmega1280
256KB/64-pin version: ATmega2561

64-Kbyte self-programming Flash Program Memory, 4-Kbyte SRAM, 2-KByte EEPROM, 8 Channel 10-bit A/D-converter. JTAG interface for on-chip-debug. Up to 16 MIPS throughput at 16 MHz. 1.8 - 5.5 Volt Operation.
100-pin version: ATmega6450
32KB/64-pin version: ATmega325
32KB/100-pin version: ATmega3250

Re:Integate CPU + DRAM + Flash

[sc0p3]

Custom application definately, but the point of the article is that it combines *discrete* components, resistors, capacitors, inductors and other nontransistor widgets that go into circuit design

CPU, DRAM and Flash are all intensively transistor based devices.

However custom applications for radio transmitter chips (as in TFA) is a awesome example. Combine all RF circuitry into a single chip will make my job multitudes easier. I designed implants for animal testing and the cap's and resistors were 90% of the implant(for this co. www.telemetryresearch.com)

Re:Integate CPU + DRAM + Flash

[MoxFulder]

Eh... what??? It's already been done, been available for years. Nearly all the popular PIC microcontrollers and the AVR microcontrollers have Flash, CPU, and static RAM on chip.

Granted, those are 8-bit processors with no more than 64k or so of Flash, and no more than a few Kb of SRAM, but they're surprisingly powerful and useful. You can get 'em in clock rates of 50 MHz or more and all kinds of nifty on-chip peripherals are available... my favorites are the on-chip ADC and USB controllers! Plus the whole thing can be had for about $3, and Microchip (which makes the PIC) is *amazingly* generous in giving away free samples to anyone who asks (I've gotten so many of them I actually feel a bit guilty!).

You *ARE* correct that having external address and data lines does take up a lot of pins on a microprocessor. Having the memory onboard with a microcontroller is very nice, greatly reduces pin count. My favorite AVR microcontroller is available in a 28-pin DIP package, which is great for prototyping, and up to 25 of those pins can be used for general purpose digital I/O. Handy that!

Frankly, I don't see a great advantage to combining something like a 32-bit ARM CPU with a few megs of Flash and SDRAM in one package. The development of those products is inevitably more expensive and complex than for simpler 8-bit embedded systems. And as you say, different products are required to produce them. Most of the integrated applications seem to go in a slightly different direction: for example, many companies today sell a wireless-router-on-a-chip which combines a MIPS or ARM CPU, ethernet switch, DRAM controller, and 802.11g transceiver. Just add Flash, DRAM, and baseband wireless :-)

Reliability?

[nonother]

The more functions the more apt it is to crash. For a computer or a PDA to do lots and lots of functions that's great, but if they start putting these into phones or GPS units, or even worse - cars then it's just going to start degrading reliability.

Re:Reliability?

[cnettel]

I would distrust wiring between discrete devices more than integrated functionality. Really, how often have you seen a chip or board malfunction due to not being seated properly, versus actual error in the chip itself?

Any generalized statements about crashing are just that, gross generalizations. There is no reason to make components interdependent, just because they are integrated. The opposite is true, related components make sense to integrate, but then it's just a matter of what else you might be able to get into that package. It may even have its own connection to the power supply through separate pins, if you're that paranoid.

Re:Reliability?

[daniel422]

This is true. Integrating discrete components generally greatly improves reliability. Since what was seperate components now is made in one fab at one time and is tested and designed to work in such an integrated fashion -- typically it's FAR more reliable that discretes. In fact, that integrated IC has been through more testing than discretes ever would. It's justifying the cost of the integration that's the biggest issue. Sometimes it's tough to justify putting all those parts in one package without several prospective customers.

Re:Reliability?

[Anonymous Coward]

A PDA can have lots of functions but a phone or GPS can't? Whats the difference? Is it the different plastic the cases are made out of that make phones more susceptable to crashes? I dont see the difference so long as the diveces are built and optimized for such a configuration.

As for cars there are already pretty complex computer systems in some cars. I for one an planning on building a custom computer system in my '78 Bronco to make it more advanced than most newer vehicles. Other than environmental variables (temp, moisture, vibration), I dont see what difference having a multi-function computing device in vehicle would be.

SOP package?

[Have Blue]

A worthy successor to "IP protocol" or "ATM machine".

Re:SOP package?

[pete-classic]

I punched a co-worker in the mouth for saying "NIC card" yesterday. He thanked me today.

-Peter

Re:SOP package?

[iabervon]

I used to have an AT machine, but an SO package just doesn't fit my preferences, if you know what I mean.

Re:SOP package?

[kfg]

"ATM machine".

Don't forget your PIN number.

KFG

Re:SOP package?

[Rob_Warwick]

The ATM at my University is in the SUB Building.

Re:SOP package?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the DRD Department

Gigafunction

[Doc Ruby]

Wake me when they make a display that doubles as a scanner, and redoubles as a full-spectrum smart antenna. An FPGA CPU that reconfigures per active process. And a fuelcell I can sip with a chaser.

The real problem is the interface.

[khasim]

If they can make the guts of a phone so small that they can put 10 of them inside a case that is just big enough for me to comfortably dial, that's great.

The real problem is that there isn't room for different interfaces on that box.

The interface for a phone is different than the interface on your iPod. So even though you can cram the guts from both of them in the same physical box, you cannot do so while maintaining the interface of each.

The same with adding a camera to them. The same with adding a PDA. The same with adding a game machine. It's really all about the interface (once you've solve the reliability issues). And right now, there isn't any way to get different physical interfaces on the device.

Re:The real problem is the interface.

[bhaberman]

That's why we need a direct-to-brain interface to overcome the limitations of physical interfaces.

Re:The real problem is the interface.

[mindfulTroll]

What if you came out with face plates for this new multifunctional device?

So you have a phone, pda, game machine,camera, gps, and ipod all in one device...If you could come up with either sliding interface components or snap on plates(sorta like the the stylish color plates for cell phones), only one would have a qwerty plate, game controller plate, tv remote plate, mp3 plate, PDA plate etc..

or just go with a touch screen which could mimic multiple interface options..granted it's not the same as having a nice tactile button to push, but it could let you have a vast amoutn of different interface options for a small hand held device.

Let these things evolve enough and pretty soon we'll all be walking around like neuromancer like(or maybe it was snow crash I can't remember) gargoyels, walking down the streets with our pocket computers all bluetoothed toegthor with qwerty wrist bands, shoulder mounted cameras, and eye patch HUD displays...

Re:The real problem is the interface.

[Kouroth]

JJust use laser projection? Combine http://www.virtualdevices.net/ with laser projection and you'd have an interface nearly anywhere. Granted you'd need a surface to project on but in the urban environment that shouldn't be too hard to find. That and with spoken commands you should be able to control the device just fine.

Is the underlying premise just wrong?

[QuietLagoon]

Are multifunction gadgets really better? Is the gain in convenience of having many gadgets in one device worth the loss of quality of each of those individual devices comapared to individual items?

Slashbacking to a thread last week... all I really want is a cell phone that works in weak signal areas. I do not want to take pictures, I do not want to listen to MP3s. I do not want to watch videos.

I just want the blasted cell phone to work in weak signal areas.

How can a multifunction device help me? (can I be helped at all? :)

Re:Is the underlying premise just wrong?

[kfg]

Are multifunction gadgets really better?

Yes, the picture quality on that 5" TV is really nice, but I had my heart set on something much smaller.

KFG

Re:Is the underlying premise just wrong?

[Adelec Bakkal]

And it affects the battery life too. Some people discharge the batteries just using those add-on features. So not only does the added functions have a somewhat lower quality, but also share the power. Unless we can embed all those function and maintain the same (or better) quality - which is not easy - along with same(or less) power consumption, multifunction gadgets aren't going to replace individual devices.

Re:Is the underlying premise just wrong?

[Korin43]

I sort of like how my phone has video games and instant messengers. I don't use them often, but maybe twice a month a get really bored and play video games. I have a gameboy too, but it's not very useful because it's bigger than my phone and I never bring it anywhere. As for batteries, my phone holds a charge for around 2 days (if left on all night). That's much longer than I need it to be.

Re:Is the underlying premise just wrong?

[koreth]

all I really want is a cell phone that works in weak signal areas. I do not want to take pictures, I do not want to listen to MP3s. I do not want to watch videos.

The unspoken assumption here is that there is some sort of mutual exclusion between the two. Do you really think there is a designer somewhere at Nokia or Motorola saying, "Hmm, we could add the 'pick up marginal signals twice as well' module, or we could add a camera. Screw the phone stuff, let's add a camera." Your phone doesn't work well in weak signal areas because it's really hard to make an affordable, compact phone that works well in weak signal areas. Whether or not the phone has a camera has very little to do with it.

As someone who has owned several generations of both phone-only phones and bells-and-whistles smartphones (Treo 650 most recently) I have to say I have noticed absolutely no correlation between the number of extra non-phone features of a device and the quality of the phone part. I have had crappy sound quality and lousy reception from PDA phones and I have had crappy sound quality and lousy reception from non-PDA phones.

Re:Is the underlying premise just wrong?

[x2A]

"Is the gain in convenience of having many gadgets in one device worth the loss of quality of each of those individual devices comapared to individual items?"

That's like saying car stereo's aren't as good as a home cinema, so are they really worth having at all? I have so many friends who take pictures and share them in a couple of key presses, who wouldn't go out to buy a high quality just-a-camera because for them, it's just a toy, it's fun, not something they feel the need to actively pursue. And likewise, I know people who have spent a little extra buying a decent quality camera, but will still fall back to using the camera on their phone as (as with most people) they don't carry their camera around all the time.

I probably spend an average of around an hour every week or two listening to mp3s from my phone. I don't feel it's worth me spending money on a seperate mp3 player that's going to get so little use.

...

and then having to keep track of keeping them all charged up too. Also, many of my friends households have at least one charger that will charge my phone. What's the chances my friends who have seperate digital cameras and mp3 players can say the same about them? Something being as ubiquitous (in ways as this) has value just from being ubiquitous alone.

I could go on. So please, lets put this "i just want a phone that rings" thing that hits slashdot everytime mobile phones are mentioned to rest, it's far too backward an attitude for a site that's supposed to be what this site's supposed to be.

Re:Is the underlying premise just wrong?

[smallfries]

Really? On a site with such a large amount of unix experience you think it's strange for people to want a device that performs a single function well rather than a jack-of-all-trades?

Re:Is the underlying premise just wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

The general public is wanting such devices, so eventually its going to happen regardless. How many more devices have been added to computers in the last couple decades? Do you also wish your computer didnt have wireless networking, mice, printers... perhaps you would rather your computer be constructed of vacuum tubes and used for adding and subtracting? My suggestion for you would be to ditch the unreliable cell phone. The most reliable phones were the old black Western Electric rotary phones. The were virtually indestructable. And a land line here is rated as working 99.999% of the time. But maybe you actually want more advanced integrated features, like wireless technology, color displays, keypad data entry, organzier/address books, etc...

If the quality of the individual features of a mega-function gadget is lesser than of a single function than I would not buy it and demand better quality. Lack of quality is an unfortunate consiquence of people demanding the cheapest items, improper quality control, and lack of proper engineering to begin with.

I for one have said for years that they could be producing more advanced handheld devices that could incorporate many different devices in one. I am still waiting for a good one... for now I still cary a seperate phone, cd/mp3 player, pda, camera.

Change that to

[iminplaya]

megafunctions permitted by law. It is the law that slow down developement and dispensation of these kind of devices. For an example of how the law can kill off a perfectly viable device, look waht happened to the DAT machines. It is due to the law that we don't have widespread blu-ray already, and will make it virtually worthless anyway. These machines may be developing at a rate faster than Moore's law, but IP law and so-called "privacy" laws will noticably slow things down to "within spec". But if all this makes it easier to produce "unauthorized" hardware in our basements, and makes DRM unenforcable, then I say, Go, Go, Gadget, go!

Re:Change that to

[kfg]

Hey sexy mama, wanna kill all humans?

Ok, I'm a bit bored tonight so I'll bite the OT bait. Care to 'splain yo'sef?

KFG

Re:Change that to

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a quote from bender of futurama, watch more tv!

Re:Change that to

[kfg]

It isn't the quote that I thought needing explaining, but rather its apparent attachement to Bucky's book.

KFG

Re:Change that to

[iminplaya]

They are totally unrelated. I just happened to like the quote. The link is simply a mini HOW-TO. One sig, two topics.

What I don't understand is how the original post got modded offtopic. When it comes to electronic devices, the law has a very detrimental effect on progress. That should be important to everybody involved. Apparently some people have trouble seeing that point. Megafunction(our new buzz-word for the day) devices are absolutely worthless if the government can prohibit ownership to certain classes of people. This is why I hope things like this can lead to super cheap and easy manufacture that can be accomplished anywhere, to preempt that possibility. Otherwise the thing is just another toy for sending smilies to your friends. That will be the only thing you'll be allowed to use it for. Any attempt to circumvent these retrictions will be met with the full weight of the law. I would think that people would see that in light of the DMCA.

Re:Change that to

[kfg]

They are totally unrelated. I just happened to like the quote. The link is simply a mini HOW-TO. One sig, two topics.

Well then you should know that to the outside world you seem to be implying that following Bucky's ideas will result in the end of mankind. Find some way to seperate the ideas in your sig.

What I don't understand is how the original post got modded offtopic.

The moderators switching from crack to LSD is what originally attracted me to your post. I don't get it either.

KFG

Re:Change that to

[iminplaya]

Find some way to seperate the ideas in your sig.

I think I derive more humor by letting people figure things out for themslves. Kinda like the girls flashing their titties at a protest march(can you tell I saw Boston Legal last night?). It has nothing to do with the issue, but it might draw more attention, in this case to the book. I just thought a semi-witty comment would be better than me showing my...uh...well, never mind.

The moderators switching from crack to LSD is what originally attracted me to your post.

Well, that's a good thing, as crack is a very unhealthy substance.

Integration stinks

[CatWrangler]

A good example is the tv sets with dvd and vcr players built in. It's a nice package, but if your dvd busts, you have to give up your tv to get it fixed. Integration is nice, but it comes at a price. I would rather have nodules that are interchangable, flexible than everything in one package. You can have it all, or you can have nothing. Not a good trade-off.

Re:Integration stinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Integration is nice, but it comes at a price

I think you meant to say -

Integration is nice, and it comes at a lower price.

After all, that is the main reason why this is all being done. If something breaks, you just exchange it for a new one under warranty or go buy a replacement.

Welcome to the brave new world of consumer electronics.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

You know Moore's Law would be a whole lot better if it were based on some scientific principle rather than some guy's musings about the state of the industry 30 or more years ago.

It would also have more credibility if they didn't change it from 1 year to 18 months.

Moore's law is not something written in stone. I wish people would quit using it.

It's all good...

[mrraven]

...until you have to type on the thing.

Law of Accelerating Returns

[smackdotcom]

Interesting that this is the sort of thing that Ray Kurzweil predicted. Kurzweil's generalization of Moore's law is the sort of thing that I suspect is largely correct, though how exactly it manifests itself is something that will be interesting to observe. I recommend familiarizing yourself with his thinking if you have any interest in the future of technology and society, and in particular look into buying his latest book. Disclosure note: I have neither affiliation nor even connection to Kurzweil, I simply find his thinking on the issues of future technology to be both fascinating and compelling.

We're going to see ever more rapid acceleration of technology at an increasing rate that will one day leave Moore's Law in the dust, and the impact on society promises to be phenomenal. Just the notion of ever-more-sophisticated portable gadgetry is already altering society in very interesting ways (and yes, some of those alterations are annoying or inconvenient--oblivious cell phones users and so forth). But with the way these gadgets are going, we're going to rapidly outstrip the imaginations of Star Trek writers in terms of the capability and utility of such ubiquitous and powerful devices. I look forward to having the electronic equivalent of a Swiss Army knife (and yes, I'm sure there's going to have to be some clever work done on improving the user interface on such units--but there are inventive types out there working on that sort of thing). It all promises to be very interesting.

Re:Law of Accelerating Returns

[kfg]

. . .we're going to rapidly outstrip the imaginations of Star Trek writers. . .

We did that with the LED clock.

. . .there's going to have to be some clever work done on improving the user interface on such units--but there are inventive types out there working on that sort of thing).

All they have to do is change the human form factor.

KFG

Re:Law of Accelerating Returns

[Anonymous Coward]

While I, on average, feel positive about new technologies and accelerating rates of change I think it is definitely worth spending some time thinking about when that can be a bad thing. The Ingenuity Gap by Thomas Homer-Dixon discusses that. I have also heard the case made that the while the quantity of change is rapidly expanding the nature of the change may be, well, changing over time.

jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[bunions]

30 comments, all about how this technology is worthless and how what we have right now is just fine.

I for one would enjoy a fun-size pc, cellphones the size of a hearing aid, a pda wristwatch and tiny headmounted displays I fit in the corner of my glasses. The rest of you can continue to enjoy your breadbox-sized pcs and your feelings of self-righteousness.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[CatWrangler]

It's not technology we oppose, just stupid implementations. Slapping my toothbrush and my PDA into one package is "cool" but I don't want stank mouth if my OS crashes. That is not being a luddite, it's being reasonable. I am thinking more along the lines of a shrunk down tower, components that can be swapped out. It can be small. I just don't want to lose 15 functions, when 1 function is lost.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[Adelec Bakkal]

I don't think that what we all meant is that technology is worthless. Integration is a space and money saver. We all appreciate SoPs and SoCs, but the point is not to embed anything in any package just because we can. Because you can end up with a gadget which does not fulfill any of its functions appropriately. "My cell is phone isn't that powerful, but that's OK because it is also an MP3 Player. My MP3 Player isn't that powerful, but that's OK because it is also a cell phone."

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[R3d M3rcury]

"I for one would enjoy a fun-size pc, cellphones the size of a hearing aid, a pda wristwatch and tiny headmounted displays I fit in the corner of my glasses."

And I, for one, welcome our fun-size pc, tiny hearing aid, pda wristwatch and tiny headmounted display-enjoying overlords. :^)

But notice that you broke them up. I would like a fun-size PC. I would like a cellphone the size of a hearing aid. I would like a PDA wristwatch. And I would like a tint headmounted display I fit in the corner of my glasses.

The issue here is would you like a combination PC/PDA/cell phone/display that fit in the corner of your glasses. That I'm not sure I'm convinced of, especially as other technologies are required to make this thing work. For example, these little tiny devices are going to need batteries larger than the device. So that limits miniaturization right there. The circuitry may be small enough to fit in your ear, but the battery necessary to power the thing will probably not. Unless, of course, we turn you into the battery (a la "The Matrix").

I do agree with you, somewhat. Things like this could make it much easier to develop stand-alone devices to do many things and make those things more reliable, smaller, etc. The question is, is it better to have a cell phone that fits in your ear and includes a PDA which has a crappy voice-recognition interface for a "phone book" (because it's too small to have a visual interface) or is it better to have a cell phone that fits in your ear and a "normal" sized PDA?

That's part of the problem with miniaturization. For example, a PC which fit in your ear and connected to the display in your glasses which also recognized your hands working in a virtual world projected onto your glasses would be quite impressive.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[OnanTheBarbarian]

You are correct. I am perenially amazed by the sheer lack of informed responses when there is a marginally technical, serious article on here.

We got:

1. "stuff is too complex already, what we need is better UI design". This is a non sequiteur - better UI design and clarity of function is an orthogonal issue to what this article talks about. It's as if the technology was going to be used to do nothing but assemble every last portable gadget into one poorly-designed mega-unit.

2. "this is all about integrating such and so a microcontroller, SOC and flash memory": it's too hard to read the article and realize that we're talking about something a little more general, so let's just drop a couple vaguely-informed sounding buzzwords in there to sound superior. Read the damn articles, guys: Capacitors. Waveguides. Antennas. Crystals. Not just some gates.

3. Some home-spun wisdom about how putting more functions in things makes them more unreliable. Yes, that's right, even since the 4004 computer chips have just been crashing more and more often. That's because there's no such discipline as computer engineering or electrical engineering. No-one has ever thought about these issues before today, on Slashdot. Perhaps one day a discipline might spring up around how to assemble digital and analog logic in a way that somehow encapsulates the properties of individual components.

4. A couple random breathless quotes about Vinge and Kurzweill; with the usual level of irrelevance. Hey, at least these guys aren't sneering.

I was faintly hoping for someone who knows more about this sort of stuff to analyze the very PR-ish seeming nature of the article - what's hype, what's reality. Instead, it's the usual undergraduate-level bluffing and gibberish.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[evilviper]

The rest of you can continue to enjoy your breadbox-sized pcs and your feelings of self-righteousness.

The input/output of high-tech gadgets is, by far, the limiting factor with current technology.

Shrink a PC/PDA all you want, but I still need to carry around a 5"x3" keyboard and perhaps an 8" screen ( AT MINIMUM ) to be able to DO ANYTHING useful with it. Hence the short-lived hype of PDAs.

A "glasses" display will only make you sick, possibly giving you eyesight problems, serious headaches, etc. And since there's currently no good replacements for keyboards, hasn't saved space anyhow.

I don't think anyone here is a luddite, I just think many people are tired of worthless and useless "gadgets", while you aren't.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[Jtheletter]

Shrink a PC/PDA all you want, but I still need to carry around a 5"x3" keyboard and perhaps an 8" screen ( AT MINIMUM ) to be able to DO ANYTHING useful with it.

Ever here of a Blackberry? The dimension of the entire device is about 4"x3" and yet somehow people manage to get a lot done with them. And my vx9800 phone seems to be extremely useful with a full qwerty keyboard under 4" x 1.5" and a 2" x 1.5" screen, it's mostly limited currently by a lack of open applications and good mobile websites. I can only imagine what a device this size will have to offer me when it's processing capabilites are on-par with a laptop.

A "glasses" display will only make you sick, possibly giving you eyesight problems, serious headaches, etc.

I'm sorry to hear that you appear to have inner ear problems. I, however, have no problem reading or watching screens in moving vehicles, feel fine at sea, and am not made sick by current lightweight head-mounted displays I've tested for military grade robotics. A properply adjusted and focused glasses display will cause no more eyesight problems than staring at a 15" LCD in a dark room furtively posting on slashdot at 4 in the morning. ;P

And since there's currently no good replacements for keyboards, hasn't saved space anyhow.

Check out laser projected keyboard out, how's that for space saving?

A gadget is only as worthless as the person who doesn't know how to properly apply it.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[nasch]

Why do you make that assumption? My phone is a great phone. I've never seen a phone that I like better as a phone. It also happens to be a computer, a camera, an MP3 player, and a game player. Is it great at all those things? No, but that's OK because it's primarily a phone. It does that very very well, and it does all those other things well enough and for not much money. What's the problem? Now you may not want it and that's fine, but don't assume that just because it does more than one thing means it doesn't do any of them well.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[nasch]

A gadget is only as worthless as the person who doesn't know how to properly apply it.

Well said!

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[Adelec Bakkal]

The problem is when you use the MP3 Player or play your games on it, it shortens the battery life, and makes the phone less mobile because you will have to recharge it more often. But as I mention in my other posts, if it goes with the same or less power consumption then it's great. I am not against anything in technology advance, not against the high level of integration achieved today (that would be stupid). I'm jut mentioning that power consumption is not a trivial trade-off, it's like having MANY gadgets powered up from a SINGLE supply. Higher power consumption is an obstacle to mobility. I hope my OPINION is clear to you now.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[bunions]

Because you can end up with a gadget which does not fulfill any of its functions appropriately.

Why yes, you can end up with bad products sometimes. In fact, you can do so even with old technology. The fact that you felt compelled to post this stupendously obvious fact a thread about exciting new technology is kind of why I called everyone luddites.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[bunions]

I guess I'm enough of an optimist to think that the keyboard/mouse combo isn't the zenith of input devices.

Do I have an alternative? No, but then I didn't have an alternative to cumbersome wired telephones or BBSes or carburetors either, and somehow someone managed to come up with a few.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[nasch]

It's clear, but I've never really found that argument convincing. How hard is it to plug in a phone anyway? I take my phone off when I go to bed anyway, I can just plug it in at the same time. I have a USB cable sitting here on my PC at work and I can just plug my phone into that while I'm sitting at my desk and charge it that way (I just did today). Car chargers are common, my wife charges her phone while she drives. Is it really such a trial to plug in your phone for an hour a couple of times a week?

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[evilviper]

The dimension of the entire device is about 4"x3" and yet somehow people manage to get a lot done with them.

No, people certainly don't do "a lot" with blackberries. Sending a few e-mails around is fine, but hardly doing a lot. You really need a much larger keyboard to do things with reasonable speed.

And my vx9800 phone seems to be extremely useful with a full qwerty keyboard under 4" x 1.5" and a 2" x 1.5" screen

Typing with two fingers won't get you very far, and having to squint to try and read the screen (or zooming in and having to scroll constantly) isn't productive at all.

A properply adjusted and focused glasses display will cause no more eyesight problems than staring at a 15" LCD in a dark room furtively posting on slashdot at 4 in the morning. ;P

Not true. It's all about depth of focus. Your eyes have no problem focusing on a screen 2 feet in front of you. Trying to focus on a screen less than an inch in-front of you eyes to read it, however, is impossible for your eyes. Never-the-less, they will try, and after long-term use, you'll see serious problems.

Check out laser projected keyboard out, how's that for space saving?

That's not space-saving at all. First off, because the main unit is nearly as large as a (folded?) keyboard to begin with. Second, because you really have to carry a DESK with you to use it... You can't count on there being a chest-high table wherever you may be when you want to use it (roll-up keyboards have the same limitation).

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[evilviper]

I guess I'm enough of an optimist to think that the keyboard/mouse combo isn't the zenith of input devices.

I don't entirely disagree with you. However, since I can type fairly accurately at well over 100 WPM (Dvorak layout on a TypeMatrix keyboard BTW), it would take a hell of an input device to surpass the standard old keyboard.

and somehow someone managed to come up with a few.

Well, that is an entirely different thing. That's the progress of a new field of technology, as opposed to fundamentially different ways of input, which is a field understood and studied for hundreds of years.

As for the mouse, however, trackballs beat the hell out of them. Use one for a couple weeks, and you won't be able to go back.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[Jtheletter]

No, people certainly don't do "a lot" with blackberries.

Let's see, browse the web, take photos and 20fps videos, email, write documents, play games, calculator, code write code on it if there were an IDE app for it (migh tbe? not sure). Sounds like pretty much what everyone uses a desktop PC for already as far as basic tasks go. You want more powerful apps look at the OQO and whta it has to offer, AFAIK, that would be everything a PC offers.

Typing with two fingers won't get you very far, and having to squint to try and read the screen (or zooming in and having to scroll constantly) isn't productive at all.Have you ever actually typed with two fingers? Or seen some of the crackberry users who do it all day long? 120 wpm is not out of reach for some people. Plus you're making the false assumption that this device absolutely must be used for the same purpose as a full sized PC, there are different applications that lend themselves to portability than wordprocessing. Yeah, if you want to write a novel maybe a full sized keyboard would be a better investment. Why does that mean that this theoretical microPC device is somehow worthless because you can't perform a single specific function that is limited by the nature of our hands? What if there's enough processing power on this new device to make autodictation fast and reliable, why would I even need to type my document then? And to counter your privacy argument there is technology coming out that allows you to attach a sensor to your throat and it understands wehat you are saying if you talking silently, military is looking to use it for missions where both silence and communication is needed. Also I don't need to squint to read the screen, nor zoom to read text. I see no reason why any device shoul dbe stilted for not being accesible by the lowest common denominator of user. So what if Blindy McGrandpa can't read the screen, I ca and it's a useful device for me. Should we not build fighter planes anymore just because most of the population lacks the better than 20-20 eyesight required by pilots?

Trying to focus on a screen less than an inch in-front of you eyes to read it, however, is impossible for your eyes.

There are already devices that focus the light directly onto the back of your eye with no negative effects, so no focus is even needed for such a system. Beyond that one can adjust the image so that it does produced a focused picture for the eye without a person having to actually focus at a 2" distance.

That's not space-saving at all. First off, because the main unit is nearly as large as a (folded?) keyboard to begin with. Second, because you really have to carry a DESK with you to use it...

Ok, so there's no chance whatsoever that this first gen device can be made smaller? Yeah right, no doubt in a year's time it will be half the size, I'd wager a large part fo the space is taken up by the batteries currently. See the recent article on capacitor batteries for a view of how that will change. And who says you need a chest high desk? Just take out a manilla folder and put it on your lap. Is your complaint that you can't use it standing up on a train? Fine, then get a single hand keyboard. Oh Noes! A siungle hand keyboard requires learning how to use it. Yeah, guess what, every device has a learning curve, and if you aren't willing to learn a new interface device to gain the benfits of a totally portable system then who cares about your opinion? Fully portable minature powerful PCs offer a whole new class of applications we haven't even thought of yet, refusing to acknowledge that is like clinging to a landline and not getting a cellphone because the battery may run out on the cellphone someday but your landline will always have power.

Re:jesus christ, what a bunch of goddamn luddites

[bunions]

Not true. It's all about depth of focus. Your eyes have no problem focusing on a screen 2 feet in front of you. Trying to focus on a screen less than an inch in-front of you eyes to read it, however, is impossible for your eyes. Never-the-less, they will try, and after long-term use, you'll see serious problems.

You clearly don't have any experience with HMDs. All of the decent ones have optics that present an image to your eyes that appears to be at least several feet away. I have personally used a tiny, glasses-mounted display that presented an SVGA (VGA? I can't remember) image that appeared to be about two feet away. I used it for over 6 hours and felt no more eyeball fatigue than I would have if I'd been using a standard monitor.

But, unsurprisingly, you're perfectly ready to proclaim "IT CAN'T BE DONE!" People like you are speedbumps on the road of progress.

Moore's Law only applies to transistors on an IC

[sidfaiwu]

It looks like the other 90% of devices have been largely neglectic up till now. The fact that the size of devices will shrink at a rate faster than Moore's Law might suggest that the rest of a device is just catching up with ICs after a late start.

This is new?

[mikalveli]

Hustler has been talking about MegaFunction gadgets for years.

The day is coming...

[suitepotato]

Sometime in 2013...

"Hon? Yeah, me here. Hospital waiting room actually. I think I really screwed up the instructions with that new cell phone. Well, Janie tried to call her friend Jennifer, and the toaster exploded in Sean's face. I tried to call 911 and had to sit through Eyes Wide Shut 2, then listen to Basil Poledouris ring tones for ten minutes and answer three web surveys. The doctors think they can reattach most of Sean's scalp and one of his eyes. Janie is fine though. She grabbed the phone, screamed 'nervouse breakdown voice command' into it and it tranquilized her. Do you know if it can make Shirley Temples? Hello? Oh, I'm sorry... I thought you were my husband... International Space Station you say? Could you connect me with 555-"

I can't wait!

[fiendy]

'til my cell phone is a toaster too.

Re:I can't wait!

[kadathseeker]

I dunno, Pentium 4s use alot of juice.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

It would also be great if you would just shut the fuck up.

This is great, amazing news; devices getting smaller and smaller, who would have thought. Good I read Slashdot, otherwise I might have completely missed this exciting development.

Hooray for the competent Slashdot-editors and their cutting-edge journalism!

Well, it looks like we're finally on track

[ScrewMaster]

for Vernor Vinge's Singularity.

Size does not matter ...

[Misagon]

... as much as "Can I hack it or not?".

What about battery life

[dankasfuk]

All this talk about multi-function is great, but battery lilfe will continue to be the limiting factor. I hate the fact that my iPod dies after 10 hrs and my cell phone after 2 days -even without using airtime. I just want a cell phone with a 7 day talk time, a one month standby time and how about working on making them *waterproof*? You can keep your cell phones with games, movies and 'itunes' (like 100MB is giong to do me any good?)

Re:What about battery life

[kadathseeker]

'itunes' (like 100MB is giong to do me any good?)

I agree. You'd think that given the choking-hazard size of the iPod Nano they could remedy this, but nooo...

To all the naysayers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Integration, per se, is not necessarily a problem. The problem we've been experiencing with multifunction gadgets is several fold, but I'd say one of the largest problems is they're "integrated" without really integrating the functionality, or with much thought to the big picture design. So you can snap pictures and take movies with your cell phone? So what? It could be cool, but instead the functionality is awkward, and due to a combination of bad design and greed on the part of the cell networks, you have to jump through hoops to get the data off the cell phone. What -should- happen is your camera phone should allow you to snap pictures, or take some video, and say with a few button pushes post it to your blog (either through the cell network, or the nearby wifi hotspot because hey, with SoP adding that functiolity is a breeze), maybe with a voice post explaning this cool thing you just saw, or whatever. This kind of convergence in turn would enable a new kind of amateur journalism.

But no, we get slapdash, thoughtlessly thrown together, proprietary crap that doesn't talk to anything, and is thus essentially a useless waste of battery power. Convergence can be useful, but it wont be without the application of imagination, attention to the large picture (overall design, how can feature x be usefully integrated with the other functions), and a healthy dose of open standards to keep all these ubiquitously networked, multifunction devices talking to each other. I'm afraid we'll never see this, but at least SoP means the convergence wont be as much of a power drain.

Moore's Law is for Chips

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not Eric Estrada and his sweet-ass glasses. We will still be obeying Moore's law in the number of transistors on each individual chip, even if you can integrate 100 chips into/onto a single package. While the overall size of the complete device might get smaller because of SoP, there are a number of problems that system designers will have to deal with which might make actual progress in this area much more difficult. Problems such as testing the chips, power requirements, heat issues, number of pins on the package, etc. The real problem here is that engineers have an upper limit on the amount of work (i.e. creating, designing components) that they can perform in a set amount of time. This amount of work is not increasing nearly fast enough to even keep up with Moore's Law anymore (enter IP and SoC design). Tools need to be developed that can allow system designers and integrators to be able to perform much more useful work in the same amount of time. If these types of tools can't be developed quickly, then I think that work in this area will not advance nearly as quickly as the article claims.

Powerful

[QuickFox]

TFA describes a device the size of a credit card:

It could include a home computer, a cellphone, environmental and other sensors, a health monitoring device, and a satellite TV receiver, to name just some possibilities.

They forgot to mention that it also doubles as a soldering iron.

-- --
  Terrorists can destroy our trains and buildings, but they can't destroy our rights and our freedom. Only we and our lawmakers can destroy that.

Integration at all levels

[daniel422]

Everything is started to be integrated. Working for an IC manufacturer, I've seen our progress into integrated subsystems happen with great speed. It's essentially taking individual components and packaging them together in one IC. This works great for the right customer, but makes it hard for the general market sell. That's why you see more of this integration with cell phone manufacturers, since their (HUGE) markets can still drive innovations like this.
I work in audio, and we've seen the audio systems rapidly integrate. DACs are being packaged with mixers and headphone/loudspeaker amps. Supply regulation may be onboard. I2C or SPI control may be available for your analog systems. As more features are being added to phones, more is being integrated into single ICs. This saves both space and money -- critical areas for cell phones. It's also a self-sustaining circle: making new chips means more features/integration which leads to further integration/features requiring more chips. You've always got to have something new and better in your phone to justify the increased cost vs basic no-nonsense silicon (which nobody wants for marketing reasons). You don't see "simpler more reliable" phones. They're always better (subjective), smaller, and more feature laden. Oh, and they're built to last a max of two years. Planned obsolesence at its finest.

So in real terms, looking a few years out...

[CFD339]

the 'ultimate' SOP could be the equivalent of a complete PC. This single "package" could be processor, video, ram, drive, bios, firmware etc. It would have enough pins for communicating with i/o devices (a screen or output of some kind, a keyboard or some buttons).

So, I could buy one of these SOP generic PC's, run the latest Linux kernel, and make it do just about anything a current technology PC could do. And, if I read correctly, this SOP would be maybe 4 square inches. It begs the questions of power and heat, plus the I/O ports would probably by larger than the device, but it makes for an interesting opportunity to build little blue boxes.

Expansion cards...

[Compuser]

I'd love to have all expansion card be the size of an SD card
(you know, those little square ones). Your PC would have slots
and you'd just push the card in, et voila, sound, graphics,
whatever else. The PC could be the size of a laptop with all
the expandability.

Software Defined Radio + DSP will be key

[EMIce]

How I see it is that Software Defined Radio and DSP chips will help speed along "convergence". Think of it as "plug and play" (self-negotiating radio interfaces) and Web 2.0 (XML common format metadata exchange/messaging) for physically independent devices.

They already have all this in asia

[daniel422]

"My thing is if they got camera/multimedia phones right like:
-High quality camera with at leat 2MP or 1600x1200
-removable flash card that stores the pictures
-external screen that acts like a viewfinder, great for taking pictures of yourself with someone
-simple usb connectivity
-an mp3 player that also works off the flash card that would work on a bluetooth stereo headset that auto pauses the music on a call. I could ride my bike with my phone in my bag listening to some tunes and take a call easily without fumbling with the phone or wires all over.
-maybe a video service BUT it has to be based on open standars and can to connect to any video server even one I might host. Also simple video recording to the flash card that can record longer then 15 seconds.
-good 3 + day standby time."

Every one of those features is on current smart phones by DoCoMo in asia. I've had a smart phone in my possesion for almost a year now that features a rotating flip screen that acts as a viewfinder when in cideo mode. The video camera is in the hinge of the phone. It's got a couple gig hard drive on board, and had an SD card slot. Takes several megapixel pictures, better than TV video. USB connection, mp3 player.
We're about 2 years behind on phone tech in the US. Europe is somewhat better.

Re:They already have all this in asia

[k_187]

hell, I've got a phone in my pocket that has all that except the bluetooth headphone and battery. Battery is moot to me as I can just charge it when i go to sleep. I'd love the headphones though.

tiny robots

[hegem0n]

Can you imagine the impact this will have on virtual reality? What about robotics? I've read enough science fiction to know shit's about to get real crazy.

should be SOC -- system on a chip

[daniel422]

Even more confusing: there is a standard SO package for ICs already (small outline package or SOP). I'm surprised IEEE used this nomenclature. This type of integrated system setup is more typically called system on a chip, since it's typically several systems mapped onto one piece of silicon.

IC Integration is great!

[daniel422]

"Integration stinks"

Nah...
The devices this applies to are of the sort that if something busts, you replace the whole damn thing anyway. Integration on ICs is a whole 'nother can of worms than a TV with a DVD player in. The chips DON'T break. The mechanical connections break (traces, solder joints). Reliability actually can significantly improve....
Think of it more as the nodules you describe. The audio section craps out -- you replace the audio section chip. The baseband/uController craps out, you replace it. That doesn't happen, but it's like what you describe. Discretes in these devices are tested discretely, and then a few tests are run on a final product to ensure it works. Integrated systems are tested as a functioning whole, leading to much greater reliability, as well as fewer process variations (also improving reliability). This isn't about making things more complicated (although integration often results in "extra" features to justify the cost) but rather putting similar or close working components in the same package.

Can't see how this will keep up with moores law...

[daniel422]

While I'd agree that systems in certain markets are integrating VERY fast (cell phones, PDAs), that's certainly not true everywhere -- and I can't see system integration keeping up it's breakneck pace -- particulary moore's law. The reason being: there are only so many applications for semi-custom integrated solutions. The cell phone industry really drives some of this, because of its rediculously huge market, but everyone want to be different. It's tough selling an integrated package when someone just wants to use a few functions of it. Large volume applications in particular. Thus, when we design an integrated system we have at least one major player lined up, and hopefully at 2. And then there's still no guarantee they will buy when it's done so we can recoup our million dollar investment in the design. We also look at more general market applications.

The near-term interface may be a touch screen.

[VernonNemitz]

Cell phones don't have to be as small as they are; the hand-set size of ancient rotary-dial phones was that size for a reason.
Well, if that size was used as a grip behind the body of the unit (with various hardware inside it, of course), then the face of the unit could be a fairly decent-sized touch-screen.
It can even be a decently low-power screen, once companies like this one and this one and this one finish their R&D in things like full-color and size-scaling.

I'd also like to mention that There was a buzz-phrase a number of years ago, "wafer scale integration", and I posted my own thoughts about it
here, in Nov 2003.
While they might not be using silicon as the substrate for this modern version of WSI, I have little doubt that something like what I described is what they are doing. Perhaps I should seek a royalty... :)

Just wait

[Atario]

tiny headmounted displays I fit in the corner of my glasses

Just wait till you get the tiny headmounted video camera in the corner of your glasses. That's when the MPAA comes in and stifles the technology, as per their track record of late.

Luddites, indeed.