SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Microsoft reportedly working on $400 Surface tablets to compete with the iPad
Microsoft is working on a new line of budget Surface tablets to better compete with Apple's low-cost iPad options, according to a report from Bloomberg.
According to the report, the new Surface tablets won't just be smaller, cheaper Surface Pros. Rather, Microsoft is said to be completely redesigning the devices, with 10-inch screens instead of the 12-inch size currently found on the Surface Pro, rounded corners that more resemble an iPad than the more rectangular Surface design, and USB-C for charging. Most importantly, priced at $400, they will be more in line with Apple's cheaper tablets, too.
Google also recently introduced an education-oriented ChromeOS tablet to compete with Apple's iPad.
Also at Laptop Magazine.
Related: Microsoft to Challenge Education-Oriented Chromebooks With Windows 10 Laptops Priced From $189
Apple Expected to Compete Against Chromebooks With Cheaper Education-Focused iPads
ChromeOS Gains the Ability to Run Linux Applications
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Thursday May 17 2018, @10:38PM (4 children)
Hear, hear. I would love a phone that actually made effective, flexible use of its impressive power. A $50 modern smartphone could run circles around a 300MHz Intel Pentium from 2000 - and modern PCs aren't actually that much more productive for most stuff.
And why break out the USB? You've already got a USB micro host port on any modern smartphone, all you need is a mini-to-A adapter and you can already use a full-sized keyboard, mouse, or flash drive, provided it doesn't draw too much power. A powered hub/charging station would be grand though - ideally something nice and compact so it could slide into another pocket against the possibility that you'd want it. Especially if it used hdmi-over-USB-C to provide a single-cable "PC conversion". Heck, no reason it couldn't use a full-size USB-C laptop docking station either - though I think I'd leave that one at home...
I don't even see why it would need to be particularly chunky - almost all the "chunk" of a Pi is the various breakout pins and ports - the real work is all in the tiny chip. Though by all means, bring on the chunk in battery form - I'm sick of having to charge my phone every single F-ing day. I know my flip phone was anemic in both performance and screen, but I really miss only having to charge it once a week.
While we're at it, lets go modular - *REALLY* modular, F! all this proprietary maglock B.S. "modular" phones always try to pull. Successful modularity has a few common features, chief among them a standardized, cheap, flexible interface. All you need for a phone is one or two standard-sized sockets, probably USB electrically, but with a surface-mount connector, where you could screw in the high-res camera, near-field antenna, or whatever other gadgetry *you* want, flush with the back surface of the phone. At least if it's intended to do so - maybe you want a printer, scanner, super-battery MacGyver multihub of some sort that's plastered across the back of the phone. Fine - let's even add a couple more structural mounting screw holes at standard positions relative to the primary socket, just to stabilize such devices - they can do double duty anchoring cheap/old phones as the brains to various "smart devices" - I bet you a minimalist phone with a stripped-down app would make a *WAY* better interface for a microwave, Instant Pot, "smart" exercise bike, etc. No reason to restrict manufacturers to profiting only from the now-modularized phone market - everybody can win here!
Screen and "motherboard" are going to be pretty case-specific, so I don't see much point in making them modular, but a socketable system-on-chip might have potential - just keep it simple and use a straightforward lock-in socket of some sort, don't try to make it use the same interface as the other accessories like that ill-fated Google B.S. It's the heart of the computer, especially with a SOC, it's an entirely different beast than anything else, and likely the least-changed component of the system - only likely to be updated when sufficiently new version comes out, or you damage (or want to upgrade) the screen/"skeleton". Triple-deadlock-seal that sucker in there if that's what it needs to be reliable.
If you really maglock madness for quick-swap modules, use one of your module sockets to screw in a standard maglock adapter. Probably doesn't even need to be much of anything - some strong magnets and a more exposure-resilient contact pad. Maybe even make the external counterpart that you can can screw standard modules into it to turn them into quick-change maglock breakaway components. Not everyone who wants a MacGyver super-hub wants to have it attached to their phone at all times.
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Friday May 18 2018, @03:33AM (1 child)
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday May 18 2018, @02:30PM
I suppose I didn't rant against them hard enough with my maglock comment. But again, see my "cheap, simple, flexible" reaction - Google's solution had none of those - it was a slick, sexy, expensive system that lacked durability sufficient to the task at had, and tried to be all things to all people, and failed completely. Lets look at the general purpose modular systems that have actually succeeded: ISA, PCI, USB, etc - All of them simple and cheap to implement, none of them remotely "sexy". Good modularity isn't about sexy - maybe it *enables* sexy because you can assemble the components you need to do cool things, but it isn't itself a marketing gimmick that looks good in commercials - which is what EVERY modular cell-phone attempt has revolved around.
I mean seriously - how many phone accessories does it really make sense to be swapping in and out on a regular basis, rather than just plugging in to USB? Why would you attempt to use the same interface to plug in core components like CPUs and GPUs as cameras and speakers? And a phone has serious durability requirements - it tends to take a lot more abuse than a PC or even laptop, and the "shell" provides important structural support - anything that interferes with that is a problem. Screw-in modules could mitigate that by using a sturdy interlocking backplate/frame screwed into the phone's frame. Maglock can't.
And then there's the electronics - USB can handle pretty much everything a PC might want to add, much less a phone, and the electronics are cheap and mature - just buy pallet of existing chips and go to town - no reason a phone camera should be electronically any different than a USB webcam, only the form factor has changed. But no, Google (and everyone else) has to go create a new proprietary communication bus, meaning manufacturers would have to invest in developing all new electronics and firmware expertise to be able to produce accessories - to say nothing of the inevitable flaws in the new protocol that always take several years to flush out. Or the price of expensive new limited-production bus interface chips.
Really, for most people there's only a few primary modules in a phone that might be worth upgrading individually:
- The Screen/case - along with the primary circuit board these are all going to be pretty closely tied together by a specific phone's form-factor, so it just doesn't make a lot of sense making them modular beyond the current state.
- The SOC CPU/GPU/RAM - almost always integrated, so why try to fight the tide? But as long as they use a standard purpose-specific socket rather than being soldered in directly they could be replaced as easily as a PC CPU, even if only as a unit. No reason they should use some fancy general-purpose interface, they're not an accessory, they're the computer, the rest of the phone is the "accessory", and straightforward chip sockets are a cheap and well-established thing across the electronics industry.
- first-class storage - we've got SD cards, etc., but we don't really have any replaceable "first class" storage for the OS, primary apps, etc, and a great deal of stuff only works properly from integrated storage. That might be mostly a software consideration really - provided SD or similar can offer fault-free connectivity and you stash a "primary slot" someplace it won't be accidentally removed
- and of course the all important primary battery.
Those all provide core functionality to being a "computer", and are worthy of being treated specially since any intermittent failure is liable to make the phone nonfunctional.
Then you have the accessories - cameras are commonly integrated, but there's no reason for that other than the lack of accessory module interface. Mag-strip readers, better sound system, auxilliary batteries, and even auxiliary wireless/cellular communication for specialty purposes (maybe you travel extensively and want my phone to be able to talk to all the major cell networks. Why not?). Things that extend the basic functionality, but where occasional faults or disconnects are at worst a minor nuisance. That's where a standard modular interface makes sense.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday May 18 2018, @01:21PM (1 child)
I hate to say it like this but having one USB port is dumb. What if I wanted the phone plugged into a PC and a USB device hooked to the phone? Or charging from a wall adapter? Sure there are adapter cables but are you going to carry one all over? Just put an extra damn port on the phone and be done with it. It's as brain dead as apples decision to remove the headphone jack letting you break it out of the charger port so it's purposefully inconvenient.
The Pi doesn't have an OTG port so my idea was to use a USB micro with SPI link to the BCM as some sort of endpoint. Since I've been tinkering a lot with Plan 9/Inferno, I'd be happy with a simple serial link like an arduino. Then you just run a listener on the serial link, connect to the phone and import the various shared resources on your local PC for tethering, music playing, file transfer, etc., all at the same time if need be. That could also allow two phones to directly communicate by plugging the device port of one phone to the host of another (or just use BT/WiFi).
Modularity isn't important to me. I used to think it was the end all be all but in reality it adds needless complexity. All I want is a nice open design running open software. I want to be able to completely change every bit of ROM code; right down to the radio if need be. So that is why I would rather these four ports: USB device/host (with JTAG!), USB host, HDMI (or DP/whatever), 3.5mm headphone jack. And yes, no USB C. That standard is an over complicated mess.
My end goal for a phone of such design is simplicity. Motherboard, battery, camera, screen, case. There's your modularity: simple design enables simple repair/replacement.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday May 18 2018, @03:12PM
Oh, I have no problem adding more ports - especially with things going USB-C where the same port can be used for anything from charging, to a printer, to an HDMI screen. By all means lets have two or three of them on the phone - when I read "break out" I read "none of them on the phone, all migrated to an external device over a custom cable - as you would with a break-out box on the Pi. USB hubs are already a thing.
Modularity would be nice - but really if they just had it for the three main parts: SOC, screen/case/circuit board, and storage, I think we'd have an 80% solution. And no need for anything general-purpose for any of those, just make them a bit more possible to upgrade. I.e. socket the SOC instead of soldering it in place, and add software support for using SD cards or similar as "first class" storage instead of artificially restricting it. Seems like a whole lot of software currently has issues running off expansion cards on many/most phones.
A standardized accessory module socket or two for cameras or whatnot would just dial that up to 11, and there's no good reason for them to add any real complexity - you already have a USB bus, all you need is a physical interface that would let you bolt on one or two such modules. Probably one for most phones, then they can skip the camera entirely on a budget phone, you can add it if you like. And if you want a camera that costs 3x as much as the rest of the phone, go nuts. You can migrate it across your next several phones. I mean really, cameras are popular, and a lot of people have to compromise between the phone they want, and the phone that has the camera they want - that'd justify a *simple* module standard to me. And maybe someone will come up with something else to tack onto a phone that would be similarly popular, it'd be nice to at least have a standardized interface to let them try.