3 ms·

The problem is that although what most people use on a daily basis is small nearly everyone uses something unusual app for _something_. I think it would be quit

The problem is that although what most people use on a daily basis is small nearly everyone uses something unusual app for _something_. I think it would be quite hard to find a market large enough that didn’t include such people. There is a solution sitting there, which is running Android and having the AI run it behind the scenes I guess, but is suspect that would end up looking a lot like we have now.

frabcus 12d ago
Or have an agent read the APK and make new software based on it.
dpark 12d ago
This is the fundamental problem with all of these hypothetical new devices. If you assume you can come up with some new UI or innovative interaction model, maybe it’s purely voice or whatever else, then you have to ask if this could just run on a phone. Modern smartphones won’t be supplanted by tech that could just run on a phone. That doesn’t make any sense. For any new tech to take off and replace phones, it has to provide something that isn’t simply additive to the phone. Otherwise, it just makes more sense to build it into the existing phone. “A phone, but it has AI and no apps” isn’t even additive. It’s purely a loss of functionality.
- ryandrake 11d ago
  > “A phone, but it has AI and no apps” isn’t even additive. It’s purely a loss of functionality. I don't necessarily agree that “A phone, but it has AI and no apps” is a good product, but it could be considered additive. When the iPhone came out, it was "a pocket computer, but without a physical keyboard and mouse" and some might have argued that it was subtractive because of that. Maybe we shouldn't be thinking about "apps" as something inherently required by any future device ever created.
  - dpark 11d ago
    The additive part on the iPhone was: 1. A screen that covers the whole device. 2. A device that doesn’t suck for touch. The loss of the physical keyboard was indeed actually a loss, but was offset by meaningful improvements. My problem with most of these proposed devices is that they are purely subtractive. I can run ChatGPT or Claude or whatever on my phone right now. Where is the part where a new type of device delivers some new experience or capability?

frabcus 12d ago

Or have an agent read the APK and make new software based on it.

dpark 12d ago

This is the fundamental problem with all of these hypothetical new devices. If you assume you can come up with some new UI or innovative interaction model, maybe it’s purely voice or whatever else, then you have to ask if this could just run on a phone. Modern smartphones won’t be supplanted by tech that could just run on a phone. That doesn’t make any sense. For any new tech to take off and replace phones, it has to provide something that isn’t simply additive to the phone. Otherwise, it just makes more sense to build it into the existing phone. “A phone, but it has AI and no apps” isn’t even additive. It’s purely a loss of functionality.

ryandrake 11d ago
> “A phone, but it has AI and no apps” isn’t even additive. It’s purely a loss of functionality. I don't necessarily agree that “A phone, but it has AI and no apps” is a good product, but it could be considered additive. When the iPhone came out, it was "a pocket computer, but without a physical keyboard and mouse" and some might have argued that it was subtractive because of that. Maybe we shouldn't be thinking about "apps" as something inherently required by any future device ever created.
- dpark 11d ago
  The additive part on the iPhone was: 1. A screen that covers the whole device. 2. A device that doesn’t suck for touch. The loss of the physical keyboard was indeed actually a loss, but was offset by meaningful improvements. My problem with most of these proposed devices is that they are purely subtractive. I can run ChatGPT or Claude or whatever on my phone right now. Where is the part where a new type of device delivers some new experience or capability?