The Surface range is the best progress I've seen in that direction to date. A compute unit that one can use as a tablet, a laptop, or (via the Surface Dock) a desktop - my Surface Book has replaced what used to be three separate devices, which is pretty good going.
Yes it would be ideal if it could also shrink down to phone, watch, or ring size, but let's walk before we try to run.
In my pocket, android phone without Google Services. No way I want this to be Windows.
In living room, an iPad for Netflix, light games and light web surfing while in sofa. I don't want Windows for this purpose either.
Kids room - gaming computer. Windows. Version 7. It's good at this. Best device for powerful gaming.
My work room. Linux laptop and a MacBook air. The macbook is great for banking and other tasks where Linux can't do it. Otherwise I enjoy Linux as my daily work horse.
Multiple devices are great!
> In living room, an iPad for Netflix, light games and light web surfing while in sofa. I don't want Windows for this purpose either.
The current windows UI for this is alright, and there's a decent number of light touch games around. It's not quite as smooth as a dedicated tablet UI, but it's close enough that the pros of single-device outweigh the cons IME.
> Kids room - gaming computer. Windows. Version 7. It's good at this. Best device for powerful gaming.
The surface book I mentioned is actually the 15" surface book 2, which handles every game I've thrown at it. I used to use a desktop, then a luggable 18" gaming laptop, but if the gaming power can be packed into a device that can also function as my travel laptop then why not? And for some modern development/computing tasks you want the same kind of powerful GPU you want for gaming, so it makes sense to use the same device for both.
> My work room. Linux laptop and a MacBook air. The macbook is great for banking and other tasks where Linux can't do it. Otherwise I enjoy Linux as my daily work horse.
I used to use linux and my home server still runs FreeBSD, but almost all the things I actually want to run - IDEs, rendering tools - are available on windows. The current "ubuntu/debian on windows" is good enough for the times when I want to play with some linux-only tool. I could use a different device with a different interface but why make things harder for myself?
1) I'm not suggesting on device for everything. I'm suggesting that having 3-ish devices where the only major difference is the interface is: stupid, wasteful, reeks of FW consumption, etc.
2) Put another way. You seem to have A LOT excess capacity just collecting dust and becoming obsolute while most of the time it's doing nothing.
Given the state of the world I find that mindset rooted in the 20th Century, and bordering on offensive.
At some point anticipating tomorrow will have to become more important than the convenience of today. Apparently that understanding is currently unevenly distributed.
It has to do with wars for profit and control, powerless or corrupted media and journalism, science as religion, culture of passive consumerism, and a future tech of AI, genetics, implants, robots which seem cool but will be used as weapons.
You can carry them arround, even do most stuff on the small touch screen.
The only problem is their interface.
You would need something better than USB or lightning. Something more like PCIe, to get a low latency connection to your other devices (ereader, laptop, desktop, tv, etc.) and the external devices could also offer your the resources that make them unique. I mean a bigger screen or different UI is cool, but the USP of a desktop is also its CPU/GPU that is much faster.
Question is, could you fit that tech in a smartphone?
It won't beat a 300W monster or accurately predict the future weather for 10 years, but it'd be more than reasonable for casual gaming.
USB2 has low enough latency for gaming mice and keyboards, and the various embedded display port interfaces (USB-C alternate mode, thunderbolt) have no more latency than desktop DP.
Also in a small form factor, the actual usage is very different than workstation usage (at least for myself, it would be messaging+email+browser+youtube vs visual studio/blender/UE4 in the workstation) and having a powerful cpu/ram would be pointless... The storage doesn't need to be that big either, I think that just storing the equivalent of %appdata% in the phone would work as it keeps your setup and preferences in your device, work software/data can be kept in the workstation attachment devices.
Currently, nearly every device I have is massively underutilized because I'm chained to a fix UI (screen size) for a given moment / need.
p.s. Do you know if this new Surface (via some W10 feature?) will be able to serve as an extended monitor for my laptop. At home I'm used to an extra screen but on the road that's no possible. 10" would be better than nothing.
It's called "The Cloud".
On my lap I have a Linux laptop, a couple Google Sheets open, an open Word document (in a browser window) which I was reading a moment ago from my Android tablet. The spreadsheet is also open on the big screen machine upstairs, from where I was videoconferencing before that, and on my wife's laptop (she's working from the kitchen). A couple terminal windows are connected to different servers, one upstairs (actually, a VM running on it), one a beefy GCE instance with lots of number crunching power and the Mac upstairs (the big screen machine), updating ports. If I want to leave the house without a backpack, I can take the tiny Acer "Cloudbook" and summon pretty much all that's on this laptop from there through a VPN and a bastion host.
I can get to my e-mail from anywhere. Same for my documents (Google and Office 365). I can edit code with the tablet (can, but really, no) or any laptop. Where the computing takes place is largely irrelevant - it's taking place in multiple machines, on multiple networks. My phone is just one point where I can get to my stuff.
And it's shit.
A Google Sheets is not Microsoft Excel. Data stored in some proprietary databases are not files. A browser is (still) not an ergonomic platform for work.
> I can edit code with the tablet (can, but really, no) or any laptop.
Exactly. Yes, but really, no. Same for editing images, or doing actual work with documents and spreadsheets.
The problem of the cloud is that data is held captive by SaaS companies, while all we've got are shiny toys working over web browser. We can't exchange data beyond what SaaS vendors allow. We can't edit data in non-vendor-sanctioned tools. We can't work off-line.
We need something that lets you retain ownership and control of your data, supports powerful software running locally, and generally doesn't treat Internet access as if it was electricity (i.e. assumes it's always available).
That's true, but OneDrive is integrated into Windows and the mobile/desktop versions of the Office programs. I can open Word on my Windows desktop, Android phone, or iPad and all of my OneDrive files will be there.
> We can't edit data in non-vendor-sanctioned tools. We can't work off-line.
> We need something that lets you retain ownership and control of your data, supports powerful software running locally, and generally doesn't treat Internet access as if it was electricity (i.e. assumes it's always available).
OneDrive and Google Drive both support offline access to files. They get synced with the cloud the next time you go online. Even Chromebooks, which are basically designed to be always online, can use Google Drive offline.
I am also free to open up any Google Drive or OneDrive file on Windows with any program I want. Both of those services integrate with the file system. On iOS, I'm not sure if it's universal, but most of the apps I use allow me to open a file from Dropbox, Drive, OneDrive, iCloud, etc.
Only if you want it that way. An NFS share can serve as a single source for your files (extra points if it's on a block-deduped, snapshotted volume). Since well before DropBox, I used a Subversion server to hold data I wanted to share across multiple laptops (back when git didn't exist, wifi was not ubiquitous, and phone data was expensive and only usable via USB). While there is nothing comparable to Google docs or Office 365 that I can host myself (that I know of), I am pretty happy with them (even though they may not be as capable as Office or LibreOffice or Python with Pandas, they do the job).
> We need something that lets you retain ownership
A small cloud server costs about $5/month. You can set up one at your house and use whatever broadband you have.
Carrying around a computer that's optimized for small size like my Celeron-based laptop, but smaller, like my phone, but also fast like my Xeon W desktop, with enough memory for me to work - 16 GB may be enough, with a capable mid-range GPU for number crunching, but also with a long battery life and a enough storage to hold my projects is not possible yet and, when it is, I doubt it'll be enough.
> And it's shit.
Perhaps the answer is "the cloud" but not the way you see it now. We're at the point where streaming games running on a remote server is actually a thing (it's still not great, but it's a start).
If bandwidth gets fast enough, maybe the future is you running desktop apps using a super fast remote desktop that's in the cloud, and not the overglorified web apps that we currently think of as "the cloud".
Only if you live near their datacenters and have exceptional bandwidth and pings - a real problem when the major ISPs consider 150ms+ pings and kb/s internet speeds to be "fast enough" for their customers.
You also have to give up a lot of "rights" to play those games - all of your "first sale" doctrines, backing up saves, the ability to play offline, and so forth.
It might be a start for some, but it's a non-starter for so many more.
The provider, who can ban you on their whim with no practical recourse.
The ISPs between yourself and your provider, which is a real problem when ISPs have such lax requirements about "what is broadband"; when they have huge ambitions for making money off your traffic.
The browser vendors, who break backwards compatibility like it's going out of style. This goes back to the provider too, who like to dictate which browser you must use to access their services.
That's a lot of links in a fragile chain just to have access to basic computer functionality.
A mid-range phone has more than enough CPU, RAM, storage, GPU to do everything 99.9% of consumers need to do: browser, email, word, excel, Candy Crush, even Fortnite etc.
Just plug it into a USB-C monitor, plug a keyboard & mouse into the monitor & voila all your issues with sharing a computer and syncing your documents have disappeared. Along with time & money cost of maintaining multiple computers.
So why has it failed? It's a chicken & egg problem.
The available solutions aren't polished enough to be suitable for the mass market, and the market isn't big enough for all of the app providers to polish their app to seamlessly adapt between such disparate UI paradigms.
Normally, tech goes through the bleeding edge. Early adopters put up with the lack of polish and provide the early market for development of that polish. But the phone as a single unit of computing isn't suitable for the bleeding edge. The bleeding edge is pretty much the only place that needs specialized devices.
Chromebooks had a similar issue, but found their path to market through schools.
What is the phone as computer breakthrough market going to be?
I see two possibilities, there are probably others.
1: Apple. I'm confident that Apple has prototyped this out and then deemed it "not ready yet". If/when they do it, it will be polished from day 1 and would drag app makers along with them, solving that chicken & egg problem.
2: Businesses. I could easily imagine several large businesses targeting their in house apps at a phone or phone-like device that can plug into monitor stations.
I think that ultimately, the hardware / software producers want it to fail. The more profit in selling you multiple "you MUST have THIS" widget and a single catch-all system for less money and less consumption.
How about an eco-system of hardware / solution as a service. I mean, aside from your contacts and photos what about your phone must you own?
Then why did they invest so much money trying to make it work?
Modularity comes at a cost. Size & weight will all be compromised in order to make this device. Having devices for specific use cases - phones and laptops for example, allow the device to be optimised for their specific use case.
A phone made up of a modular compute unit + screen will always be bigger / heavier (for the same performance) as a phone with an integrated screen.
I see this dream quite a lot on HN and I've never understood why anyone wants their phone to be their computer at their desk. How do you answer your phone if it is powering your desktop? It just seems impractical.
How important are phone calls as an "app" anyway?
First of all, for as long as Skype and Google Hangouts have been around, at least some people have been answering voice and video calls on laptops/desktops/etc for many years now.
Beyond that though, it is weird how much we seem to privilege the traditional voice call to a hand-holdable accessory. It's just one communication method in a sea of them now.
(Also, if any other communication app on your phone interrupted you the way we allow phone calls too, you'd uninstall that app and write terrible reviews on that app. It's possibly past time to rethink the modal focus-stealing device takeover that is phone call UX, I feel.)
Even if you wanted to answer the phone call in the traditional manner, a good dock should allow you to undock pretty rapidly and seamlessly switch context into the phone call anyway. (You'd want that dock to flow that well/seamlessly even for non-phone call scenarios. For instance, maybe you are going to head to lunch and want to smoothly pick up and pocket the device on your way out the door.)
With wireless docks the device might not even leave your pocket in "desktop" mode, as you work from the screens and input devices on your desk. The phone call scenario is the take it out of your pocket and answer it dance you are used to, and leaving for lunch just sends the desk to auto-sleep as you leave range without you needing to do anything else. All of that seems quite practical and not that strange from today's technology.
You'll have a camera & speakers or headset either integrated into your monitor, or plugged into it, just like almost every workplace computer does. So you just click the green "answer phone" button.
I imagine that currently 99% of phone calls are answered by the person picking up their phone, breaking this pattern would be difficult.
If it was a purely enterprise device then maybe it could work, as you could make assumptions about headsets etc, but I still don't see it being better than what we currently have.
Also if I have a desk, I have enough space and power for a high end computer, a mobile computer unit that could convert into a phone would never compete in terms of power with a desktop (or even laptop). Why restrict yourself to your most limiting use case? If you need a mobile computer/phone with a tiny processor that sips at the battery use that, then if you need a huge multi CPU multi GPU system that knows it will never be unplugged from its 1600W power supply use that. The mobile compute unit will be compromised in both these use cases.
It doesn't have to be an either/or. You can think of it as an "expansion bus" situation. You can have a bunch of compute power on the desk, but still a relatively "dumb" terminal. It can augment the mobile device from your pocket rather than being an entirely separate device.
An example would be how the Surface Book dGPU option has an extra GPU in the detachable keyboard. Attach the keyboard and you play some games you couldn't otherwise when detached. Sometimes you just use the power the mobile device itself carries; sometimes you increase its access to CPU/GPU cores as you have access to fixed resources such as work desks or home desks or cool hotel screens or what have you.
I have (and still use) a Windows Phone (Lumia 950), and the Continuum is brilliant. We've got USB-C inputs on all videoconference TVs in the office, and my phone "just works" with it. Meanwhile, the Mac users find it to be very fiddly. For one user, when he plugs in, his mouse stops working.
The only caveat is the Windows Mobile platform is dead. Too bad really, I thought Continuum had some real promise.
Damn it, MS was even demoing something of that fashion right before the pulled the plug on Windows Phone completely.
Effectively they want an universal docking-station for smartphones, I guess.
As for the motorola attempt, it needed two plugs (hdmi and USB), and they could never commit to having a single spacing and overall phone shape across generations. End result, each phone needed its own docks until Motorola went "fuck this" and released a lapdock with some massive cables instead of the dock plugs.
And the Samsung attempt seems poised to develop the same problem...
One nice feature of the NeXT cubes with the drives was that you could carry your environment on a disk and insert it on any NeXT machine to work from there. It failed because NeXT machines were never that mainstream and MO disks were slow as hell, but the core idea is that you saved your "world" to that disk, ejected it, went home, inserted it and continued to work.
I can do that with a USB stick and generic x86 computers.
Answer: Maybe not a 10" Surface.
What I dream of is single computing unit (read: cpu + ram + storage + etc.) with the ability to attach to different UIs.
Maybe that's a 5" screen. Maybe that's a 10" screen. Maybe it's voice (and no screen at all).
I know Motorola tried (is still trying?) this to some extent, but as strong as they are, they are not MS.