On Tuesday 03 July 2007 10:31:03 Jonas Meyer wrote: > I just recently got my first bluetooth headset. This is only relevant > because it got me thinking. > > The typical cell phone (including the Neo) is built upon the idea of > putting as much functionality as possible into one device. And > manufacturers have gotten very good at this. What if one took the UNIX > approach to hardware development. Instead of monolithic do-everything > devices, create many single purpose devices that do their jobs very > well, and can be chained together. > > This approach has some advantages: > > 1) Easier (and cheaper) to upgrade. Need more processing power? Add > another or a smarter cpu pebble. Need gps? Add a gps pebble. Need > storage, add a storage pebble. Need a camera, add a camera earring or > watch or ring. > 2) Cheaper initial investment. A basic phone could be a headset, a gsm > transmitter, and little tablet UI device. 3 (or maybe you stick the gsm > transmitter in the ui, so 2) little cheap devices that can be sold for > tens, rather than hundreds of dollars. However, as a consumer desires > more functionality, they buy more devices. > 3) Carry only the functionality you need. Are you going clubbing? > Probably won't need that gps unit, or the media player. Heading out to > the woods? Ditch the second cpu, but grab an extra battery. > 4) Interoperability. By opening the standard up to many manufacturers, > a more robust ecosystem is created, and the entire platform improves. > > Disadvantages: > > 1) More items to lose. Perhaps they could snap together, like legos, or > be carried in some sort of bag all together? > 2) Intra device bandwidth is at a premium. Bluetooth 3.0 is probably > necessary if you want to keep your storage in a separate device from > your cpu or your ui. This in turn creates extra demands on batteries. > Again, perhaps a standard "snap together" interface can carry power and > data. > 3) Potential incompatibilities. Different devices might not speak the > same protocol, even if they are supposed to. This can be disastrous > when your cpu is not from the same company as your storage. > 4) Potential security risks. Running all that data over the air means > it is easier to read it, in the event that your encryption fails. And > since encryption is likely to be run off a chip, rather than a more > general purpose cpu, security holes are more difficult to fix. > 5) Harder to write the software. Obviously, this makes your OS about > 1000% more complicated. > > Anyway, it seems like it COULD be an interesting sort of thing to try. >
sorry for the late reply (been away from a computer for about a week now) but i belive a similar concept was proposed by motorola when bluetooth was first launched by ericsson. they even got a mockup going by frog design: http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/moto_wearables/ never did happen as the bluetooth hype crested, just like the internet bubble of the 90's... _______________________________________________ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
