Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > The next 'all-in-one'... Phone + PC?

The next 'all-in-one'... Phone + PC?
Thread Tools
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2014, 01:15 PM
 
Just read an article about the Ubuntu phone, and it did have some interesting goals. One of them being 'desktop' class hardware components in a phone. Got a lot of thought bubbles popping up.....

Imagine a phone, which boots into a OS, where the UI layer is touch centric. But once you hook it upto an external display, using the same OS, serves up a desktop (mouse+keyboard) UI layer on the monitor/TV? Bluetooth mouse & keyboard, and you have full productivity environment. Plug in to a power source and a dormant co processor kicks in if necessary?

iOS and OSX have the same foundations. Quite the competitive advantage over the other guys. The hardware in these mobile devices can adequately provide a desktop experience (not heavy computing.... yet). But an iPhone already pushes more pixel on its screen than HD TVs, great performance of 3D gaming, and even does the casual video compression. The hardware specs seem very capable.

As far as apps..... a variation of the 'fat binaries' concept could be implemented to load either a touch version or a desktop version?

Thoughts?
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2014, 02:22 PM
 
Pretty interesting idea, not original though - I think a convergence will occur in the near future for portable power.
Along those lines, I'd like to see an even smaller Mac Air, rather than an iOS device, fill this void. Ubuntu is interesting, but hardly consumer friendly, but it's not released yet so who knows.

Hardware wise, the iPhone is a powerhouse, but a closed one. The processing power is astounding - considering my first computer ran a 5Mhz, the iPhone is a frickin CRAY.

Along similar lines, I'd like to see 10 A7 or 8s in a 1U rack mount for a server. but that's just dreaming lol.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2014, 02:41 PM
 
It's not especially hard to have the same device run different programs depending on where it is connected - you can install a hypervisor and have it run two completely different OSes, if you want. The issue is making an application that works with both touch and desktop use. So far no company has succeeded with that, and one (MS) has failed spectacularly after trying. Easier then to have different apps but which are reminiscent of each other (for ease of learning) and access the same files. Arguably the new iWork apps are exactly that, if you save your files on iCloud.

Saving on hardware by reusing the CPU makes no sense. CPUs don't cost that much because of their production cost - they cost that much because of the investments required to make them. Sell half as many, and you have to charge twice as much to cover the investment. It's easier to just have two devices that share the same data.

To be honest, I'm kinda looking forward to a future where my computing experience doesn't have to be dumbed down quite so far. I want my personal computer to be a capable, flexible and powerful tool, and if iOS and Android can create simpler devices that are capable enough for the vast majority of what people do, maybe I can have my Mac in peace.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
HamSandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2014, 05:10 AM
 
Why has MS failed so much? I thought they were doing ok.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2014, 05:48 AM
 
Windows 8 is generally hated and doesn't sell. OEMs ship software that restore it to something closer to Win 7 interface, Enterprises keep buying Win 7, and the next version (codename Threshold) supposedly reverses a lot of what they did in Win 8. Windows Phone 8 gets good reviews, but doesn't sell very well either.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Hawkeye_a  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2014, 10:35 AM
 
@osiris
Not original, agreed. Microsoft has been at it for a decade. Problem with them is they cannot seem to get the usability right, and they have never managed a successful transition between hardware platforms.

Apple seems uniquely poised for something of this calibre....
1. OSX's heart has been on PPC, Intel and ARM.\
2. They have experience in succesfull transition specifically PPC-Intel and desktop to mobile
3. They have economies of scale to ensure the cost doesnt spiral out.

Imagine.... when using the 'phone' launching Numbers, you get the iOS version on the screen, if in 'desktop' mode....it launches the OSX version. You purchase Numbers once on an app store and you get both version wrapped in a 'fat binary' of sorts (kind of like the way Numbers works on iPhone/iPad now).

The System software would probably take up 5-10GB of storage (not counting apps and media). What would you be willing to pay for a device like this? Personally, for a 64GB version, i'd be willing to but it outright for $1500.

EDIT>>regarding your comment about a 1U rack mount server with ARM processors. I'm not familiar with the details about the processors, but aren't ARM processors geared towards low power consumption, by only using the processor in 'bursts' as opposed to constantly. If so, wouldn't that be bad for a server environment? (maybe they can be used to constantly serve as well?)
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2014, 11:52 AM
 
Making the same OS run on both is trivial - after all, iOS started as a port of OS X. We also know that Apple has ported OS X to other architectures as an exercise in keeping the codebase clean and portable. The problem becomes the interface. Making one interface run on both is a bad idea, and that's not really what you're suggesting anyway. The question then becomes why support two so different interfaces in the same application - why not just make it two applications that access the same data?

ARM vs. x86 vs some other ISA: ARM is highly used because it is cheap, power efficient and fast enough. x86 so far has been faster, and more efficient in performance/watt, but not efficient in absolute watts. x86 has one problem in running efficiently, and that is its insanely overcomplicated instruction set that requires a large decoder to make sense of. Intel's has made great strides in compensating for that, however. x86 also has one major advantage - it is what Intel uses, and Intel has the best fabs. It is certainly not impossible to make ARM run in a big server, and many (including AMD) are working on that. The problem is that it takes a massive investment in development to make something to compete with Haswell, Intel has deeper pockets than anyone, and the advantage in a more efficient ISA is not big enough to make a difference.

(To be clear: I'm talking about ARM the instruction set here, not the existing licensable ARM cores Cortex A7, A8, A9, A15 etc. The existing ARM cores do not make good server cores because they're not designed for that, but one could certainly make a custom ARM core to compete with Haswell. All it takes is development time.)
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2014, 12:37 PM
 
Paging besson — he's started very similar discussions at least twice in recent memory.
     
Hawkeye_a  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2014, 12:38 PM
 
"The question then becomes why support two so different interfaces in the same application - why not just make it two applications that access the same data?"

IMHO, the interface layer of an app should be pretty separate to begin with (MVC/ MVVM). But regardless, the 'fat binaries' idea i suggested would effectively bundle 2(or more) versions of an applications (mobile + desktop) to appear as a single one to end users. And the application loader would pick the one to load depending on the use case. (The same way PPC + x86 apps were seamless to end users during the transition).

Given Microsoft approach of Surface, where you have two vastly different UIs, you'd think they would have emphasized the 'different UI, single application' approach. So if a user launched Word in Metro, a Metro specific version would be presented as opposed to the 'desktop' mode version. The user buys and see just one application.

I think Apple can do it right if they want to. But would people want such a device? Is there a business case to develop and market such a device?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2014, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Paging besson — he's started very similar discussions at least twice in recent memory.
Ointment ointment ointment.

There, he's on his way now.
     
HamSandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2014, 09:21 AM
 
Well, I don't know. I tried Windows 8 both on Laptop and Tablet and I thought it was great. I think the attempt, trying their best, generally succeded. No supporters here, hmm.

I thought it's just not what people want now. It is something Apple usually understands. People doj't want concepts that might work at some point well enough, but people want to get things done. So, if you built Touch into an iMac screen and offer it to video editors, for instance, they probably would go without it - transition too big. However, if you think it through, I think some convergence could really make sense!

I don't know if this helps. People may wonder why the OSs are so different, however, the impact vice versa is probably still about to come. To work this out for real, however, it may take time.
The tablet and smartphone systems work so well because they were solely built for them. And remember, computers have been around for decades, it all lies on the table now: habits, investments, software, peripherals. Not going to transform so quickly, but maybe over time.

Until then, enjoy for instance a redesigned web. eBay and amazon changed to be more widescreen, webpages start creating bigger buttons, it's not bad...

Pete
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:07 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,