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: 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.