3 ms·

It never pays to be perfect. The ipod nano evolved to become everything it could possibly be and then died a natural death of stagnation mixed with increasing i

It never pays to be perfect. The ipod nano evolved to become everything it could possibly be and then died a natural death of stagnation mixed with increasing irrelevance. I wonder if the smartphone will reach a similar equilibrium until the manufacture and os become irrelevant. Obviously Big Tech are trying hard to tip the balance the other way so that their platforms grow ever more apart and increasingly isolated.

ghaff 5y ago
I assume a smartphone successor would involve wearables that make a palm-sized slab of glass in your pocket unnecessary. Don't really see that on the horizon but most people have only owned a smartphone for 10 years or so at this point so these technology shifts are over very short periods of time by historical standards.
- simonh 5y ago
  Replacing something in your pocket isn't really the problem, the watch with a built in cellular connections can already do that just fine. It's replacing a 6"+ touch screen retina display in your hands that's the problem. So far wearables have no answer to that.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Yes, it's about the interface.
    - simonh 5y ago
      On re-reading I realise my comment cold have come off as sarcastic, but I genuinely imagined in in a conversational tone. Clearly you didn't mean literally in your pocket. Yep, too often the conversation about wearables is that eventually they will become 'good enough' that they will replace the phone, but 'wearable' is a mode of transport, not an interface. It's not at all clear to me that the touch screen interface is going to get replaced by anything else in my lifetime.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        I did take it as being a bit pedantic :-) You're right though. I don't think anyone has any real concept of a general purpose interface for easily wearable devices that replaces a phone/tablet. We pretty much know it's not voice. And it's not tapping on and looking at a watch. Those can work for simple and/or specialized interactions but not in the general case. Maybe AR glasses and some sort of new mode of input device? But we're certainly nowhere near that today.

ghaff 5y ago

I assume a smartphone successor would involve wearables that make a palm-sized slab of glass in your pocket unnecessary. Don't really see that on the horizon but most people have only owned a smartphone for 10 years or so at this point so these technology shifts are over very short periods of time by historical standards.

simonh 5y ago
Replacing something in your pocket isn't really the problem, the watch with a built in cellular connections can already do that just fine. It's replacing a 6"+ touch screen retina display in your hands that's the problem. So far wearables have no answer to that.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Yes, it's about the interface.
  - simonh 5y ago
    On re-reading I realise my comment cold have come off as sarcastic, but I genuinely imagined in in a conversational tone. Clearly you didn't mean literally in your pocket. Yep, too often the conversation about wearables is that eventually they will become 'good enough' that they will replace the phone, but 'wearable' is a mode of transport, not an interface. It's not at all clear to me that the touch screen interface is going to get replaced by anything else in my lifetime.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      I did take it as being a bit pedantic :-) You're right though. I don't think anyone has any real concept of a general purpose interface for easily wearable devices that replaces a phone/tablet. We pretty much know it's not voice. And it's not tapping on and looking at a watch. Those can work for simple and/or specialized interactions but not in the general case. Maybe AR glasses and some sort of new mode of input device? But we're certainly nowhere near that today.