Yes. My take: it's triggered by consumer needs being "overshot": phones better (2.3GHz, quad-core, 3GB, HD), do you really need it? Integration is crucial for

Yes. My take: it's triggered by consumer needs being "overshot": phones better (2.3GHz, quad-core, 3GB, HD), do you really need it? Integration is crucial for meeting consumer needs when the tech was not as good: the first iPhone had a tiny CPU and GPU, but they managed to squeeze adequate performance by connecting everything with extreme efficiency. But once it's good enough, people start to worry about other factors - like I want a big battery, but I don't need 3G (or vice versa). Customization, not just replacing broken bits. Here, a modular approach shines. But it's less efficient, so there needs to be spare power. The key driver is that users want customization more than they want extra compute power. Android is modular, compared to iOS, and it's worked out well - once phone got powerful enough. It couldn't have in the very earliest days, because the spare power wasn't there. Hardware modularity is the next step. It may be a little early, but I think it's clear that high-end phones have wildly overshot mainstream needs (a quad-core HD phone!? what a boondoggle). Actually, today mid- and low-end phones are perfectly fine for most people. PS: this pressure will also drive the next category - whether it's iWatches or iGlasses or something else, I don't know, but it will be smaller, more convenient, cheaper, easier to use - and there won't be power to spare in such a small form-factor. Therefore, it's likely that Apple will do it (hence the i's) since they are the company most integrated across all the levels of hardware, silicon, OS, apps, appstore. They are best placed to squeeze the needed performance (doesn't guarantee they will though).