3 ms·
That's really 2 questions in one. The first is "is there demand for another shift?". The second being "does the capability exist?". My inclination is to say the
by flogic 10y ago
That's really 2 questions in one. The first is "is there demand for another shift?". The second being "does the capability exist?". My inclination is to say the answers to those 2 are "yes" and "maybe" respectively.
Smart phones are awesome but by their very nature they have some limitations. The slowest aspect on any computer is communication from the user to the machine. We're slow and the constrained real estate of phones only makes it worse. I wouldn't consider typing all this on a phone. The next slowest is the other direction. So if you can figure out how to improve those channels in a highly portable way people will most likely buy it.
That brings us to the capability question. Voice kinda improves things when you can't use your hands but it's always been unreliable. Physical keyboards on phones are out of fashion. Smart watches are tiny and power constrained. Google glass looked neat but is expensive and again power constrained. It seems to be a serious question of how do you get a bigger device without the drawbacks of getting a bigger device.
- jest3r1 10y agoProduct innovation doesn't always have to be a new feature, or a paradigm "shift" with new technology like AR. Smartphones could be due for a substantial reduction in price (there's certainly demand for that). Not just hardware pricing, but also carrier pricing. From a hardware perspective Apple must innovate (or have you believe they're innovating) to keep the product price and profit margins as high as possible. However, as the article points out, the smartphone market is mature. There's not much left to innovate in terms of the "hand held" form factor, other than price, or improving on already available features (better camera, better voice control, wireless charging etc). The iPod provided good insight into "size", and even when given smaller sizes (like the nano), consumers generally preferred the standard, easier to hold sizes, with displays big enough to read. The Sony WM-10 cassette Walkman from 1983 was about the same size! Size has been consistent for over 30 years. It must be getting harder and harder for Apple to spin each revision as groundbreaking enough to pay the same price as last year. Android capitalizes on this. But it's still a pricing monopoly on both sides, which carriers enjoy as well. When will there be a substantial reduction in price? Does the capability exist yet?
- petra 10y agoPhones are quite cheap already(~$140 for a pretty decent xiaomi). The largest share of price of a phone is the monthly bill. It's mostly due to monopolies, so even though there's some news technologies that promise 25x-50x reduction in costs[1] with some of those already availble, it's hard to tell whether consumers will see that. Another place where the smartphone could help with costs: currently great noise cancelling earphones are very expensive($300) .And in general are well loved by those who can afford them. but what happens if we remove most of the hardware(cheap) and compute($0 on phone) to the phone ? And create place in the app store for noise-cancelling apps ? [1]http://5gwnews.com/index.php/90-r/670-wireless-abundance-is-here-what-gig-lte-massive-mimo-mmwave-and-more-can-mean http://5gwnews.com/index.php/90-r/670-wireless-abundance-is-...
- throwanem 10y agoIt stops working, because the latency is too high for the inverse-phase signal to match up with the unwanted incident signal it's intended to cancel.
- petra 10y agoYou could have a low latency digital processor in the phone/soc. At that level, digital is cheap. Of course the other part is that high-frequnecy noise is hard to cancel. But still Bose does a great job.
- 10y ago