4 ms·

> Yet, because it runs in the browser and is available everywhere, that's why I use Google's Docs. And GMail's web interface is better than any email client I t

by weland 13y ago

> Yet, because it runs in the browser and is available everywhere, that's why I use Google's Docs. And GMail's web interface is better than any email client I tried until now. IMHO, this is a case of solving a problem at a wrong level. I also find that matches provide neither a sufficiently long-lasting, nor a sufficiently intense fire to cook. Longer and thicker matches would obviously be a solution to this, and it would definitely work. That doesn't make it a good solution. > Phones are also fine as long as you use them for what they are meant to be used: initiating phone calls. Yes; and I do think smartphones are a terrible piece of engineering. The "mobile" part ceases being true when their battery is only sufficient to allow them to be mobile for the duration of an entry-level delayed road trip. I'd much rather have a dumphone and a tablet than a smartphone.

derefr 13y ago
> The "mobile" part ceases being true when their battery is only sufficient to allow them to be mobile for the duration of an entry-level delayed road trip. I'd much rather have a dumphone and a tablet than a smartphone. You sound like someone who lives in a somewhat-rural area. Smartphones are somewhat like smart cars, in that they're basically built for urbanites--people who mostly either end up at home each night (where there's a charger), or travel by flying (and take their charger with them.)
- e28eta 13y ago
  Precisely. There's an engineering trade off between processing power, display size, resolution, brightness, and battery life. I don't think battery life has ever been the feature that sells gadgets. I read somewhere that SJ set the bar for iPad battery life at ~10 hours, and I think that set consumer expectations across the industry. Think of the iPad 3: it got thicker and heavier, in order to maintain battery life when faced with the retina screen. My hypothesis: For each device category, there is an "accepted" battery life that new devices must meet. Beyond that, what sells better: a 15% boost in speed or in battery life? When people stop using performance benchmarks and start using battery life, then companies may take notice. Until then, resign yourself to 1-2 days of battery on a smartphone.
efuquen 13y ago
> Yes; and I do think smartphones are a terrible piece of engineering. I can't read that and not scoff. I don't know how you can seriously argue that smartphones aren't a great piece of engineering. The power, accessibility, and flexibility offered in a device that easily fits in your pocket is pretty amazing in my book. Yes, battery technology isn't the best, but to say somehow that what has happened in the smartphone industry in the past 5 years isn't an amazing piece of engineering, I find that pretty laughable. I guess we should all go back to our brick phones and blackberries for the business types then?
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Mmmm. It's not a great piece of engineering because they compromise on the wrong thing: mobility, precisely because of their tendency to eat up the battery in less than a day. When you need to charge a mobile device every single day, it's not meeting the ideal specifications you want to have, so yeah, in that sense it's shitty engineering we have been forced to swallow. And that's not going in the good direction when you keep putting more cores and more watts in in the smartphones' innards, while the battery technology is very slow to evolve.
  - mercer 13y ago
    It is interesting that Apple seems to have been focusing lately on mobility at the expense of more 'sexy' improvements. When talking to people around me, the battery life of devices rarely comes up, and yet in my own experience the most important improvements that I notice in day to day use of laptop, and tablet, has the battery life. I'm not saying that it's exclusively Apple that focuses on this. That's beside the point. Rather, I find it interesting that so often the wrong trade-offs are made for so long and by everyone.
- weland 13y ago
  They are an impressive feat of technical prowess, no questions asked there. Whenever I look at the innards of an iPhone or a Galaxy I am not only impressed, but -- with all the wear and tear of the EE that's buried inside my soul -- I can only shrug and admit that the electronic design is way, way past my skills. That being said, the impressive design of the PCB and of some of the chips aside, smartphones are a failure of engineering. As mobile phones they have to do two things: - Move, and - Allow you to talk on the phone. Very much like a mobile seat, say, a car, or a wheelchair. If I were to build a car or a wheelchair that could only go for fifteen kilometers or so -- and generally move, but not at an impressive pace, would you be happy? I, for one, wouldn't, Battery technology is, indeed, the major setback, despite the incredible research activity that goes into it. However, I think they made the wrong trade-off, not only regarding to battery life, but also regarding software development and deployment options and especially user interaction. Choosing trade-offs is the root of engineering. > I guess we should all go back to our brick phones and blackberries for the business types then? I'm dead serious about it. Between my tablet and my brick phone, I can do everything that my colleagues who have smartphones can do. I also enjoy a) the benefit of a larger screen estate and b) the laughs when their portable devices are useless in the evening because they forgot their chargers at home. Bonus if I'm the one who has to call the cabs for everyone after a few rounds of drinks, because my phone is the only one still running.
jtheory 13y ago
> The "mobile" part ceases being true when their battery is only sufficient to allow them to be mobile for the duration of an entry-level delayed road trip. Not that this is more than a patch for poor battery life, but even if you have a long-lived battery but sometimes forget to charge your phone until it's dead, it's worth being able to charge your phone on the road. GPS drains the battery significantly faster, so you can be doubly-screwed if you're using your phone for driving directions and the battery runs out -- no directions, and no way to call for help! It's pretty easy to find a cigarette lighter plug with a USB port, fortunately.

by weland 13y ago

derefr 13y ago

> The "mobile" part ceases being true when their battery is only sufficient to allow them to be mobile for the duration of an entry-level delayed road trip. I'd much rather have a dumphone and a tablet than a smartphone. You sound like someone who lives in a somewhat-rural area. Smartphones are somewhat like smart cars, in that they're basically built for urbanites--people who mostly either end up at home each night (where there's a charger), or travel by flying (and take their charger with them.)

e28eta 13y ago
Precisely. There's an engineering trade off between processing power, display size, resolution, brightness, and battery life. I don't think battery life has ever been the feature that sells gadgets. I read somewhere that SJ set the bar for iPad battery life at ~10 hours, and I think that set consumer expectations across the industry. Think of the iPad 3: it got thicker and heavier, in order to maintain battery life when faced with the retina screen. My hypothesis: For each device category, there is an "accepted" battery life that new devices must meet. Beyond that, what sells better: a 15% boost in speed or in battery life? When people stop using performance benchmarks and start using battery life, then companies may take notice. Until then, resign yourself to 1-2 days of battery on a smartphone.

efuquen 13y ago

> Yes; and I do think smartphones are a terrible piece of engineering. I can't read that and not scoff. I don't know how you can seriously argue that smartphones aren't a great piece of engineering. The power, accessibility, and flexibility offered in a device that easily fits in your pocket is pretty amazing in my book. Yes, battery technology isn't the best, but to say somehow that what has happened in the smartphone industry in the past 5 years isn't an amazing piece of engineering, I find that pretty laughable. I guess we should all go back to our brick phones and blackberries for the business types then?

ekianjo 13y ago
Mmmm. It's not a great piece of engineering because they compromise on the wrong thing: mobility, precisely because of their tendency to eat up the battery in less than a day. When you need to charge a mobile device every single day, it's not meeting the ideal specifications you want to have, so yeah, in that sense it's shitty engineering we have been forced to swallow. And that's not going in the good direction when you keep putting more cores and more watts in in the smartphones' innards, while the battery technology is very slow to evolve.
- mercer 13y ago
  It is interesting that Apple seems to have been focusing lately on mobility at the expense of more 'sexy' improvements. When talking to people around me, the battery life of devices rarely comes up, and yet in my own experience the most important improvements that I notice in day to day use of laptop, and tablet, has the battery life. I'm not saying that it's exclusively Apple that focuses on this. That's beside the point. Rather, I find it interesting that so often the wrong trade-offs are made for so long and by everyone.
weland 13y ago
They are an impressive feat of technical prowess, no questions asked there. Whenever I look at the innards of an iPhone or a Galaxy I am not only impressed, but -- with all the wear and tear of the EE that's buried inside my soul -- I can only shrug and admit that the electronic design is way, way past my skills. That being said, the impressive design of the PCB and of some of the chips aside, smartphones are a failure of engineering. As mobile phones they have to do two things: - Move, and - Allow you to talk on the phone. Very much like a mobile seat, say, a car, or a wheelchair. If I were to build a car or a wheelchair that could only go for fifteen kilometers or so -- and generally move, but not at an impressive pace, would you be happy? I, for one, wouldn't, Battery technology is, indeed, the major setback, despite the incredible research activity that goes into it. However, I think they made the wrong trade-off, not only regarding to battery life, but also regarding software development and deployment options and especially user interaction. Choosing trade-offs is the root of engineering. > I guess we should all go back to our brick phones and blackberries for the business types then? I'm dead serious about it. Between my tablet and my brick phone, I can do everything that my colleagues who have smartphones can do. I also enjoy a) the benefit of a larger screen estate and b) the laughs when their portable devices are useless in the evening because they forgot their chargers at home. Bonus if I'm the one who has to call the cabs for everyone after a few rounds of drinks, because my phone is the only one still running.

jtheory 13y ago

> The "mobile" part ceases being true when their battery is only sufficient to allow them to be mobile for the duration of an entry-level delayed road trip. Not that this is more than a patch for poor battery life, but even if you have a long-lived battery but sometimes forget to charge your phone until it's dead, it's worth being able to charge your phone on the road. GPS drains the battery significantly faster, so you can be doubly-screwed if you're using your phone for driving directions and the battery runs out -- no directions, and no way to call for help! It's pretty easy to find a cigarette lighter plug with a USB port, fortunately.