Where to grow smartphones: a road map for becoming a full-fledged computer
The reasoning about the exhausted smartphone market on the background of falling sales has some basis: apparently, the modern era of smartphones, launched by the iPhone and built on the potential of ideas built into it, is coming to an end. But this is not the end of an era in the full sense of the word, but only the impending evolutionary transition in the chain of telephone → mobile phone → smartphone → smart (?). Most likely, at the next stage, this will no longer be a “background”, and a huge number of specific and inalienable today may turn out to be outside its limits (such as memory) or simply change so much (for example, input and output methods). ) that it does not make sense to operate with now familiar categories like a display. After deducting all possible "variables", in an attempt to keep only the minimum necessary, I got 4 conditions: Portable Personal Communication Computing Device. But what’s more important here is not what will ensure the coherence of generations, but how much something that will give this device a new quality that will allow us to talk about the next stage of evolution.
And one of the most promising and well-formed ideas of the “new quality” that fits perfectly into these four parameters is, in fact, a long and well-known idea of ​​cramming the full functionality of a powerful PC into a smartphone form factor. The advantage of this option is that its value is quite obvious, unlike moving along an AR or VR mutation, which adds the necessary additional unknown — creating a certain VR or AR feature that will become an absolute must have, justifying development, focused on implementation its capabilities.
Whereas, the already clear advantages that the re-invention of a PC in a smart format will give is enough to actively root for it.
')
The fact that with the transformation of the smartphone into one form or another, many companies have already experimented without success (many Asus smartplates come to mind, for example, but all sorts of concepts) also add optimism, paradoxically, if you consider every failure try as a step in the right direction. In the end, before the appearance of the iPhone on the market, there were similar communicators HP, Microsoft, Compaq (remember?), The high mission of which, as a result, was clearing the minefield for those following them.
This is the optimistic part for now, because the turn of verification with reality has come.
On the way to turning an iPhone into a Mac mini there are three main challenges, three tasks that need to be solved:
Soft One of the main reasons to root for combining a computer with a smartphone in one form factor is a universal operating system, which is also the greatest difficulty on the way to creating this hybrid.
The good news is that all the big three major manufacturers of Apple, Google and Microsoft are working on the problem, and in three different directions. Bad - intermediate results for each of them.
Apple officially chose the path to iOS compatibility with Mac OS, announcing work on the ability to run mobile applications in the desktop environment. The fulfillment of this promise began with Mac OS Mojave released in 2018, in the default installation kit of which four of their own iOS applications appeared . It looks like a good idea that will expand the range of available applications for laptops at the expense of the giant mobile portfolio of the AppStore, and allow some of the developers to focus on the development of the product under one platform instead of two. However, from the point of view of a single platform, the movement, in theory, should go in the opposite direction - the adaptation of desktop applications, including heavy and resource-intensive working tools for a mobile environment. In general, the road ahead still looks long.
Microsoft in creating a single OS and pioneer is a bad example for all the guys . The change of the ancient, even from the time of the communicators of the pre-iphone pores of the mobile OS with a completely new Windows Phone in 2010 was not only then already a bit late in trying to gain a foothold in the market, which was shared between Android and iOS, but also, conversely, the advanced initiative to create a universal operating system. In Windows 8, released in 2012, the user account for the first time became pass-through, based on the user's online account, and the elements of “tiled” Metro-design appeared transplanted with WinPhone. Transplanted too roughly: without fantasy, the laconic and stylish stretched on the screen in 5-6 "elements of the mobile interface already on notebook 13-15" looked miserable. The apogee was the replacement of the usual “Start” with a panel of tiles stretched over the entire screen, which turned out to be a huge waste of space while preserving only a part of the necessary functionality.
In Windows 8.1 update, there was a rollback to the old concept of “Start”. With the closure of Windows Phone and the release of Windows 10 in 2015, Microsoft's efforts focused on the gradual reworking of desktop OS design into a touch interface. Recently, I had the opportunity to evaluate the success of MS in this field, when I had to transfer to the old Lenovo Carbon X1 with a touch screen for a week. The number of redrawn windows of the interface has greatly increased, but still far from complete. The quality of the redrawing is also generally depressing - the good old desktop mode with keyboard control turned out to be much more convenient than the tablet mode, despite the touch screen.
Google, in the absence of a desktop OS in the portfolio, went by turning the Chrome browser into its OS — its best product for desktop operating systems and, I believe, the most popular desktop application in principle, given its cross-platform nature.
This clearly has a meaning, and a lot of sense, but no one has heard about loud breakthroughs yet. The advantage of Google is the unique opportunity for the big three to reinvent the operating system from scratch, and the fact that a huge amount really does, for the most part, need on a computer, mainly a browser.
However, the part of the audience that needs other applications, including a huge array of professional software, is clearly not shining by Google. It is this segment that creates demand for maximum hardware capabilities, not allowing MS and Apple to simply abandon the legacy of desktop operating systems in which their working environments have evolved over the years - and will be willing to pay for them, which means the possibility of significant stratification by Google device classes, with one hand, and Apple with Microsoft, on the other.
An old phobia keeps me from a possible transition to the browser-axis to be “banned on Google”: losing mail and documents would in itself be a heavy blow, and losing everything at all — I’m just not ready to put so many eggs in a basket of people firing engineers for constructive comments on the company's gender policy, and developing a search engine dictated by the totalitarian regime of the PRC. The further, the less I trust Google, they no longer look like geek-friendly geeks, and, even worse, they look confused.
Battery. The second big difficulty in creating a hybrid computer with a smartphone, although not so critical.
For me, for a variety of reasons, it is obvious that the phone, which will replace the PC, must interact with the peripherals without wires, but the main thing here is, of course, a matter of convenience. A recently discovered “ecosystem” feature of Apple, which allows launching Wi-Fi distribution on an iPhone from MacBook, has become a small sampler of the future for me. It would seem to take the phone, run the distribution and climb into the laptop - this is not the most difficult procedure, but the ability to skip the first two steps and immediately open the laptop, already connected to Wi-Fi, the distribution of which turned on the iPhone, which lies in your pocket - This is one of those little things that good products tenaciously hold their nuclear audience.
At the same time, it is obvious that the main burden in this scenario lies on the battery, which the distribution of the Internet eats mercilessly. What to say about the gadget, which at the same time turns many gigahertz processes and exchanges many gigabytes of data with the periphery and the Internet - it will need a battery like a Kamaz, which is still incompatible with mobility - or reality.
The second and perhaps even more viable option is to use stationary peripherals such as large monitors as a wireless charging station; although this will require a breakthrough regarding the current level of development of wireless charging. How bad everything is there can be judged by how poorly my Belkin works now, and for two years now, not leaving the “just now, very soon” stage, Apple promises to do better.
Memory. To the disappointment of followers of the cult lack of memory on laptops and phones , I repeat that the increase in memory size on the devices themselves has nothing to do with it.
Keeping a terabyte of personal data on a device that is so easy to transmit is insane. To keep them on another device at your disposal contradicts the whole concept: you can, of course, do this, but for this you have to carry “another device” with you, saving for this part of users the risk to beat them both - without improving the position of the others.
The most sensible solution that satisfies the completeness of the user's professional and personal memory needs is remote storage. Optional third-party cloud - they can serve as a home server; the difficulty is in the lack of reliable high-speed wireless communications. 5G should solve this problem - but for this, it must first be launched and deployed in all its promised beauty.
At the same time, the drive itself on such a gadget can be a terabyte, and two, and more - this does not contradict the whole concept, it is simply not a key factor in the ability to implement it.
As soon as a suitable OS appears, wireless charging like Tesla (which is a Serb, and not which car) and 5G are deployed with a coating no worse than GSM.
And one of the most promising and well-formed ideas of the “new quality” that fits perfectly into these four parameters is, in fact, a long and well-known idea of ​​cramming the full functionality of a powerful PC into a smartphone form factor. The advantage of this option is that its value is quite obvious, unlike moving along an AR or VR mutation, which adds the necessary additional unknown — creating a certain VR or AR feature that will become an absolute must have, justifying development, focused on implementation its capabilities.
Whereas, the already clear advantages that the re-invention of a PC in a smart format will give is enough to actively root for it.
')
Previous Post: " Where to grow smartphones ."
- The solution to the problem of fragmentation of devices, operating systems, software. To the old difficulties of changing platforms - for example, switching from Windows to Mac OS, was added an internal division into mobile and “full-fledged” operating systems, which are felt rather alien to each other than connected even in the case of a pair of Mac OS-iOS, which talk about the bulk of consumers that market competition has led to a pair of Windows-Android.
- Solving the problem of software fragmentation. I remember that in discussing the chances of Windows Phone to challenge Apple and Google’s mobile operating systems, I first read the idea that the most important parameter of a smartphone is the number of applications available to it. To this we can add that reducing the number of platforms will release the hidden potential of their development, making their development both cheaper, faster and more attractive by reducing the segmentation of users.
- Solving the problem of multiplatform sites. We are talking about sites trying to master mobile platforms, the complexity of which can be demonstrated directly with Habr as an example, in addition to the desktop version of running and re-releasing a mobile application and, at the same time, developing a mobile version of the site, trying to maintain balance, juggling with all three - and, as a result, making a choice in favor of the development of the mobile version of the site. The choice, in my opinion, is the best possible now, but how much it has taken away from the users of the features that we could get if the forces spent on the application were immediately directed to the development of the web version. A single OS will relieve you of a costly unnecessary entity, and the development of output methods can send to the past and the obligation to develop for mobile and full-sized screens.
- Termination of the competition of smartphones and tablets with laptops. It seems that the laptop market is showing signs of growth - however, most likely, due to an even greater cannibalization of the share of desktops. The competition of laptops with portable devices has always been one-way: gadgets attacked laptops - and there is not one reason to believe that this will change somehow, because a) laptops with powerful smartphones are in the same price category, obviously putting many users before choosing b) it is almost impossible to give up a smartphone in favor of a laptop because of its compactness, mobility and better coverage with mobile networks than Wi-Fi - just complement them, while giving up on PCs / laptops in favor of smartphones / tablet - real and affordable alternative, albeit with compromises conjugate of varying severity for many. There is nothing good in this cannibalization of the markets - first of all, for laptop users. I am completely satisfied with the "unloading" of laptops from memory and processor with turning into thin clients, focused on the triad keyboard-display speakers, if it makes them easier, wider range and affordable prices.
The fact that with the transformation of the smartphone into one form or another, many companies have already experimented without success (many Asus smartplates come to mind, for example, but all sorts of concepts) also add optimism, paradoxically, if you consider every failure try as a step in the right direction. In the end, before the appearance of the iPhone on the market, there were similar communicators HP, Microsoft, Compaq (remember?), The high mission of which, as a result, was clearing the minefield for those following them.
This is the optimistic part for now, because the turn of verification with reality has come.
On the way to turning an iPhone into a Mac mini there are three main challenges, three tasks that need to be solved:
- soft;
- battery;
- memory.
Soft One of the main reasons to root for combining a computer with a smartphone in one form factor is a universal operating system, which is also the greatest difficulty on the way to creating this hybrid.
The good news is that all the big three major manufacturers of Apple, Google and Microsoft are working on the problem, and in three different directions. Bad - intermediate results for each of them.
Apple officially chose the path to iOS compatibility with Mac OS, announcing work on the ability to run mobile applications in the desktop environment. The fulfillment of this promise began with Mac OS Mojave released in 2018, in the default installation kit of which four of their own iOS applications appeared . It looks like a good idea that will expand the range of available applications for laptops at the expense of the giant mobile portfolio of the AppStore, and allow some of the developers to focus on the development of the product under one platform instead of two. However, from the point of view of a single platform, the movement, in theory, should go in the opposite direction - the adaptation of desktop applications, including heavy and resource-intensive working tools for a mobile environment. In general, the road ahead still looks long.
Microsoft in creating a single OS and pioneer is a bad example for all the guys . The change of the ancient, even from the time of the communicators of the pre-iphone pores of the mobile OS with a completely new Windows Phone in 2010 was not only then already a bit late in trying to gain a foothold in the market, which was shared between Android and iOS, but also, conversely, the advanced initiative to create a universal operating system. In Windows 8, released in 2012, the user account for the first time became pass-through, based on the user's online account, and the elements of “tiled” Metro-design appeared transplanted with WinPhone. Transplanted too roughly: without fantasy, the laconic and stylish stretched on the screen in 5-6 "elements of the mobile interface already on notebook 13-15" looked miserable. The apogee was the replacement of the usual “Start” with a panel of tiles stretched over the entire screen, which turned out to be a huge waste of space while preserving only a part of the necessary functionality.
Windows 8 leaves a dual impression - it is a step forward and a jump to the side at the same time. Redrawing the desktop interface according to mobile OS patterns is an architectural insanity. - “ What's wrong with Windows 8 ”
In Windows 8.1 update, there was a rollback to the old concept of “Start”. With the closure of Windows Phone and the release of Windows 10 in 2015, Microsoft's efforts focused on the gradual reworking of desktop OS design into a touch interface. Recently, I had the opportunity to evaluate the success of MS in this field, when I had to transfer to the old Lenovo Carbon X1 with a touch screen for a week. The number of redrawn windows of the interface has greatly increased, but still far from complete. The quality of the redrawing is also generally depressing - the good old desktop mode with keyboard control turned out to be much more convenient than the tablet mode, despite the touch screen.
Google, in the absence of a desktop OS in the portfolio, went by turning the Chrome browser into its OS — its best product for desktop operating systems and, I believe, the most popular desktop application in principle, given its cross-platform nature.
This clearly has a meaning, and a lot of sense, but no one has heard about loud breakthroughs yet. The advantage of Google is the unique opportunity for the big three to reinvent the operating system from scratch, and the fact that a huge amount really does, for the most part, need on a computer, mainly a browser.
However, the part of the audience that needs other applications, including a huge array of professional software, is clearly not shining by Google. It is this segment that creates demand for maximum hardware capabilities, not allowing MS and Apple to simply abandon the legacy of desktop operating systems in which their working environments have evolved over the years - and will be willing to pay for them, which means the possibility of significant stratification by Google device classes, with one hand, and Apple with Microsoft, on the other.
An old phobia keeps me from a possible transition to the browser-axis to be “banned on Google”: losing mail and documents would in itself be a heavy blow, and losing everything at all — I’m just not ready to put so many eggs in a basket of people firing engineers for constructive comments on the company's gender policy, and developing a search engine dictated by the totalitarian regime of the PRC. The further, the less I trust Google, they no longer look like geek-friendly geeks, and, even worse, they look confused.
Battery. The second big difficulty in creating a hybrid computer with a smartphone, although not so critical.
For me, for a variety of reasons, it is obvious that the phone, which will replace the PC, must interact with the peripherals without wires, but the main thing here is, of course, a matter of convenience. A recently discovered “ecosystem” feature of Apple, which allows launching Wi-Fi distribution on an iPhone from MacBook, has become a small sampler of the future for me. It would seem to take the phone, run the distribution and climb into the laptop - this is not the most difficult procedure, but the ability to skip the first two steps and immediately open the laptop, already connected to Wi-Fi, the distribution of which turned on the iPhone, which lies in your pocket - This is one of those little things that good products tenaciously hold their nuclear audience.
At the same time, it is obvious that the main burden in this scenario lies on the battery, which the distribution of the Internet eats mercilessly. What to say about the gadget, which at the same time turns many gigahertz processes and exchanges many gigabytes of data with the periphery and the Internet - it will need a battery like a Kamaz, which is still incompatible with mobility - or reality.
The second and perhaps even more viable option is to use stationary peripherals such as large monitors as a wireless charging station; although this will require a breakthrough regarding the current level of development of wireless charging. How bad everything is there can be judged by how poorly my Belkin works now, and for two years now, not leaving the “just now, very soon” stage, Apple promises to do better.
Memory. To the disappointment of followers of the cult lack of memory on laptops and phones , I repeat that the increase in memory size on the devices themselves has nothing to do with it.
Keeping a terabyte of personal data on a device that is so easy to transmit is insane. To keep them on another device at your disposal contradicts the whole concept: you can, of course, do this, but for this you have to carry “another device” with you, saving for this part of users the risk to beat them both - without improving the position of the others.
The most sensible solution that satisfies the completeness of the user's professional and personal memory needs is remote storage. Optional third-party cloud - they can serve as a home server; the difficulty is in the lack of reliable high-speed wireless communications. 5G should solve this problem - but for this, it must first be launched and deployed in all its promised beauty.
At the same time, the drive itself on such a gadget can be a terabyte, and two, and more - this does not contradict the whole concept, it is simply not a key factor in the ability to implement it.
As soon as a suitable OS appears, wireless charging like Tesla (which is a Serb, and not which car) and 5G are deployed with a coating no worse than GSM.
Support new publications by donating money.yandex.ru/to/41001178171050 (card, POISON) or via the “Send Money” button below (POISON, PayPal)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/444918/
All Articles