3 ms·

It was an interesting idea but I could never see it working myself. It looked like a solution in search of a problem. So you're meant to buy a phone shell and

It was an interesting idea but I could never see it working myself. It looked like a solution in search of a problem. So you're meant to buy a phone shell and separate components to plug into this, where you can upgrade different components over time? Ignoring technical issues, wouldn't the shell get out of date quickly as well as the components (with some components being incompatible with other shells and components)? It doesn't sound cost effective considering how cheap phones are getting and how often we are seeing physical hardware changes still (e.g. fingerprint readers, screen size, thinnest).

mindcrime 10y ago
> It was an interesting idea but I could never see it working myself. It looked like a solution in search of a problem. Modularity worked out pretty well for the PC. When you make things open, there's no way to imagine ahead of times the things people will come up with.
- mjevans 10y ago
  Yeah, but how well did it work out for the laptop? More to the point, how well is it working out for /modern/ laptops. Look at the drive in that market.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  A key advantage of mobile phones is that while a PC is around 50 liters, an iPhone 6 is 0.06 liters; almost 1000 times smaller. You are relying on the assumption that the "modularity" is independent of the form factor; that if it worked in the PC, it can work in a mobile phone. Maybe the success of mobile phones is because of their lack of modularity, not in spite of it.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Maybe the success of mobile phones is because of their lack of modularity, not in spite of it. It's possible. But all I'm saying is that, in terms of it being "a solution looking for a problem", there is a historical precedent showing that openness/modularity can have powerful benefits. It would be hard to say for sure if that can/would/will apply in the mobile space as well. But it's not something, IMO, one should write off out-of-hand.
- seanwilson 10y ago
  > Modularity worked out pretty well for the PC. When you make things open, there's no way to imagine ahead of times the things people will come up with. I agree with this but the extreme space constraints of a mobile make this comparison less accurate. A PC is often not space, weight or battery life constrained and has the space and power for big dual graphics cards, huge heatsinks, water cooling, big fans, multiple hard drives etc. I just can't see how it's feasible to create a modular mobile that will compete with current flagship phones which are likely pushing the space constraints and specs to the limits (is this accurate?). This sounds unlike how you can build a PC to compete with prebuilt options. A better comparison is comparing modular phones to modular laptops. Laptops are weight, battery and space constrained as well and I haven't seen upgradable laptops gaining traction. Is that because of similar technical issues?

mindcrime 10y ago

> It was an interesting idea but I could never see it working myself. It looked like a solution in search of a problem. Modularity worked out pretty well for the PC. When you make things open, there's no way to imagine ahead of times the things people will come up with.

mjevans 10y ago
Yeah, but how well did it work out for the laptop? More to the point, how well is it working out for /modern/ laptops. Look at the drive in that market.
umanwizard 10y ago
A key advantage of mobile phones is that while a PC is around 50 liters, an iPhone 6 is 0.06 liters; almost 1000 times smaller. You are relying on the assumption that the "modularity" is independent of the form factor; that if it worked in the PC, it can work in a mobile phone. Maybe the success of mobile phones is because of their lack of modularity, not in spite of it.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Maybe the success of mobile phones is because of their lack of modularity, not in spite of it. It's possible. But all I'm saying is that, in terms of it being "a solution looking for a problem", there is a historical precedent showing that openness/modularity can have powerful benefits. It would be hard to say for sure if that can/would/will apply in the mobile space as well. But it's not something, IMO, one should write off out-of-hand.
seanwilson 10y ago
> Modularity worked out pretty well for the PC. When you make things open, there's no way to imagine ahead of times the things people will come up with. I agree with this but the extreme space constraints of a mobile make this comparison less accurate. A PC is often not space, weight or battery life constrained and has the space and power for big dual graphics cards, huge heatsinks, water cooling, big fans, multiple hard drives etc. I just can't see how it's feasible to create a modular mobile that will compete with current flagship phones which are likely pushing the space constraints and specs to the limits (is this accurate?). This sounds unlike how you can build a PC to compete with prebuilt options. A better comparison is comparing modular phones to modular laptops. Laptops are weight, battery and space constrained as well and I haven't seen upgradable laptops gaining traction. Is that because of similar technical issues?