Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

How Much Digital Tool Convergence Is Possible? 114

Posted by Cliff from the what?-no-geek-equivalent-to-the-allinone-swiss-army-knife? dept.
webword asks: "There are many geek tools in the world, e.g., Palm Pilots, desktop computers, cell phones, cameras, digital watches. I've seen things recently like Samsung's cell phone camera and on Slashdot we've talked about the merger of cell phones and PDAs. Obviously, as time goes on, technology will improve so that these tools can talk to each other. However, it is entirely unclear how much physical merging can occur. There are screen limitations, human memory limitations, color limitations and so forth. So, just how much can our devices merge?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Much Digital Tool Convergence is Possible? More

How Much Digital Tool Convergence is Possible?

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Convergence is a pipe dream... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The problem of physical convergence itself is something of a non-issue, as people have long realized that they cannot have every quality they desire in a single place or gadget. The cost of portability has always been screen size, the cost of screen size has been portability and/or power consumption. The physical limits of analog sound reproduction will not allow you to have window rattling bass coming from a palm sized device (and I dread to think what a subwoofer magnet would do to the device regardless). In that same vein, there will likely always be a divergence of devices in the marketplace. A 52" touch screen with Dolby and a *nix cluster underneath it would certainly do everything that home entertainment centers and PC's do today and then some. And a PDA with a gig of RAM would let you run lightwave on the train on the way home. But you wouldn't want to watch DVD's on the later, or use the former to check traffic reports in the car. The division of devices between one small and one large will always exist, but beyond that limiitation there need be no boundary to convergence. And in addressing the plastic headbands, socity will adjust. Glasses are scholarly, sunglasses are cool. We passed by headsets to voice-actived touchless, but the whole aspect of relatively uninstrusive personal accessories and gadgets has a long history of acceptance and symbolizing of status.
  • We need a PDA / phone / walkman / etc. where all the phone / walkman /etc. features are *software*, i.e. it's got a sound card, speakers, microphone, and a cell network IO antenna, but the phone lives in the software. Why is this so importent? There is no way that the PDA / cell phone development groups can imagine the possible uses of their devices. The only way to really push the devices is to allow open source style adjusting of the software. Plus, people would add good encryption to the phone's.

    The problem with this approach is that ASICs and DSPs can solve specific problems with lower power consumption and transistor usage (and thus cost) that can a generic CPU. Admittably it's not as upgradable, but it is much more efficient.
  • My current cell phone is approx 1/5 as big as the one I had 5 years ago. Todays all-singing, all-dancing, mp3-playing, coffee-making, Linux-running color PDAs are much smaller than the Apple Newton.

    Merging the phone with the PDA might make it a bit bulky now, but as soon as they start developing commercial stuff they will rapidly shrink. Although I'd prefer a phone like my Nokia 8210, but with bluetooth, and a separate PDA, since I don't want the same form factor on both.
    --
    Niklas Nordebo | nino at sonox.com | +46-708-405095

  • Personally, I'd *LOVE* things to converge to a single device that I can fot in my pocket protector [I'm an old-school geek]. Actually, the big limit to convergence for hyper-flyers (which circumstances force me to be lately) is FAA regulations. While you can operate some devices on a plane, use of wireless communications devices are stricly forbidden while the plane doors are closed. To make it easier to demonstrate compliance with these regs, designs will probably have to physically divide processing power from RF communications. I can just imagine trying to convince a lightly-clued flight attendant that a QualComm PDQ is safe to use in flight... Bluetooth is probably a no-no, too.
  • On the other hand, you sir are obviously an expert on the subject. Why don't you share your profound insight into what exactly nanotechnology is or is not.

  • 1.Palm form factor.
    Something that hangs off your belt. Or better, it is your belt. Try losing that!

    2.Palm OS.
    EPOC

    3.Encrypted Wallet Application.
    I prefer real cash myself.

    4.WAP browser. (duh)
    WAP is crap. Standard, open protocol web browser is much preferred.

    5.Wireless antenna
    One of those nice fractal jobs.

    6.built-in cell phone
    Integrated wireless comms with phone, data and pager functionality.

    7.audio jack
    I/O through HUD, phones, mic integrated into (mirror) shades. Typing by Dilbert-style finger waving. Connections by bluetooth.

    8.dedicated storage expansion slot
    Using a non-proprietory storage device.

    9.IR port
    For controlling your VCR and X10.

    10.Standard integrated pager
    See 6.

  • it's fun to see how much of Trek tech has started to exist IRL. Web pad (PADD), tricorder (PDA on steroids), communicator (cell phones are getting bloody small. why not wear 'em?).

    the one thing i really want to exist is a replicator. i mean, the thing'd solve all the world's consumable-matter shortage problems and eliminate currency in a single step.

  • I'm just waiting for contact-HUDS. That way there's no burden of glasses if you don't have them, and while the Micro Optical stuff is better than alot that I've seen, it still looks really dorky.

    contact-HUDs would also be cool cause you'd be able to see stuff in the person's eyes (text scrolling down, the whole desktop, pr0n, whatever).

    Anyway, add to contact-HUDs the ability to control it with your brain, and that'd be even cooler. "Wow, I can see myself in his eyes! He must really love me! Oh, wait, he's got those damn contacts in again. Hey, what's he doing? He's virtually undressing me!" Of course, there are downsides too...

  • Instead of thinking in terms of "convergence of devices", consider it in terms of "divergence of location of application use".

    As applications (music, phone, e-mail, datebook, camera, games, chat, etc.) break out of the boxes we currently associate them with, many will converge in other boxes.

    Applications which share a high degree of 'common location use' are likely to find versions of themselves in the same box. For example, digital camera with the ability to send e-mail.

    As we are mobile creatures, and in a normal day find ourselves in many different places, applications are also likely to be available in different ways. Of course some will be more usable than others, but providing they provide enough utility in relation to the importance of the use, they should survive.
  • There are many limits: I/O (both electronic, which was mentioned in another comment), human acceptance (social and personal), and a few others.

    To elaborate:
    I/O (human aspect) - There is a limit to how much data a person can handle. If just looking at your hyper-watch gives you information-overload, you aren't going to keep it, are you? Of course, there is the matter of self-training (to use such complex devices). But there are very few people (especially among the non-geeks) who will put themselves through that.

    Social Acceptance - Remember, not too long ago, a PR manager (or any non-geek of that ilk) wouldn't be caught dead with some of the geeky toys we (and they) have today. PIMs, cell phones, and the like -- they'd have felt like they were imitating Dick Tracey or something.

    Personal Acceptance - Apart from accepting the fact that you're going to get bothered on public transportation for explanations about your toys, you must also remember that you accepted the possibility that you might be embarressed merely by carrying such a device. (Ever look at somebody with a borg-kit on his head, and NOT laugh? What about pocket-protecters, way-back-when?)

    But that's the real point, isn't it? People will accept anything that they like enough to accept the disadvantages (of training, and embarresment, to name a couple).

    Perhaps I'm not being clear. What I mean is that apart from the pro/con comparison that is made, we mustn't forget personal preferences, and social pressure. Both play an important role in shaping the technology (At the very least, through the Market, and the people who vote with their wallets.)

    --

  • because Shriekback said so :).

    OTOH, I hope to never have any need for these stupid digital gadgets. And if I see one more f*ckhead in an SUV talking on a cell phone while trying to turn onto my street against the cleary posted "One Way" sign, I'm hurling a brick through their windshield.

    Pope

    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
  • ... the cost is in the sunk infrastructure but the value is in the services.

    With software, especially middleware all you are doing is spreading the access ponits to a wider set of end-devices. With minaturisation, you can clump larger functionality into the same space for less cost. That means that theoretically if you have an IP connection and appropriate software+interface, any device can emulate the functionality of any other (though doing weather simulations on a Palm might not be time-efficient).

    Personally I think the fallacy is thinking there is convergence. The illusion is that all these improvements are arriving together and softare allows easy function shifting and it looks like everything is converging onto a mobile phone/PDA/camera. However, if you look at the social use, you'd find quite distinct patterns. PDAs are the equivalent of filofaxes, phones are human connectors, gameboyw are for time-wasting, etc. Sure you can put tetris on a phone but then you are mixing communications with entertainment modes which bosses tend to frown upon. (of course with /. you've got the excuse of .... uuummm ... market research ... yeah :-)).

    Basically why do we use computers? Communications, education/training, entertainment, productivity. In essence a mental amplifier much the same way a lever is a physical amplifier. However, just like we've got distinct tools, we have distinct languages to address specific problem domains (SQL, lisp, etc) and convergence on a few physical form factors (size of hands+pockets+belts+purses+mail boxes) won't change that.

    LL

  • I agree with you for the most part but I believe that form factor has little to do with the greater number of cell phone owners than PDA owners. I'd propose two reasons.

    Primarily cost, a cell phone is often included with the service; it's a lot easier to sell that model.

    Second a PDA makes no sense unless you own a computer. Remember those phone lists Sharp made ten years ago? No one bought them because they're a pain to enter data on and you can't back them up. The entire Palm paradigm (which is acknowledged as the first commercial success) is the PDA is a roving window into the data on your desktop computer.
  • Does the pdQ have a headset jack? If it does, that solves your juggling problem handily. If it does not, the engineers were asleep at the wheel. Hands-free phone good. Especially when you're trying to write on it. : )
  • Ugh. I hope not too much convergence until industrial designers solve some usability problems first. I've tried various small devices and found many of them to be frustratingly modal. One example -- a new camera that had 4 buttons arranged in a circle which did different things depending on what the setting of the camera was -- a setting that was controlled by another button on a different part of the camera -- and there was no way to tell without looking closely (and taking your attention away from trying to get the picture) which mode you were in. It was a nightmare of everything you could do wrong in design.
  • Your final comment is interesting. You acknowledge that there are more cellphone users than there are PDA users, still your suggested device takes on more characteristics of a PDA than a cell phone. Why?

    I would suggest, and believe in, the opposite. That the "only neccessary device" that most people will carry around in the future is a PDA-like cellphone, something like Ericsson R380 (http://www.ericsson.com/WAP/products/r380.shtml). The form factor of a modern cellphone is smaller than that of a PDA. That is one of the strongest reasons. But people on the go are also much more likely to consume information than to produce it. They don't need a big keyboard for this, a pen and a decent screen is just enough.

    Of course, dedicated PDA-like devices will also to continue to exist, and they will be more powerful, and also include cell phone functionality. But less common.
  • Some devices are already small enough that they can be merged, particularly into larger devices. A cell phone can use a user interface smaller than a PDA, so a merged device can use the PDA's user interface -- although tactile phone buttons have advantages over flat screens.

    Over two decades ago, "Tricentennial" predicted the minisec, a pocket-sized computer/PDA/communicator. We have the technology to build one now. Although now we've got many more names for additional components to consider -- GPS, MP3, MPEG, worldwide file system... I think it's really a matter of needed functions as well as physical size.

    Maybe we can't fit GSM, AM/FM, and GPS antennas in a pocket-sized device. Maybe we can't get enough power and storage for a handheld video camera/TV tuner. Maybe we need pockets with rechargers built in...

  • The limit ultimately is what the users are willing to accept, and what the current level of technology can provide. Within those two boundries the limits are infinate.

    Personally I forsee us heading more and more toward a device like the 'Earth:Final Conflict' 'Globals'. A single deivce with an integrated pullout high resolution screen/touchpad, a camera (for stills or videoconferencing) and a transmitter/receiver (wireless/satellite/ whatever). With a flexable enough architecture that programs for additional functionality can be added by the users (ala Palm).

    Note that what I don't see them replacing are laptops. Either for security or battery life I don't see those being joined into your 'Digital Associate', but with current tech you could use a flexable keyboard, and a head mounted display, and then put the laptop itself into a package the sizeof a CD player... usefull if you need to read external media by incorporating a CD/DVD drive into the packaging. If they DID build something like this, and then went on to build the above type of communication device, then I wouldn't be surprised if there was some way to plug one into the other to either transfer data or give the 'laptop' instantaneous wireless communications ability.
    Plus... there will ALWAYS be people demanding that things be as small and compact as possible (the same people who demand Sony VIAOs, and Newest generation Motorola Startak). As long asthat demand is there, someone will combine all the ideas I just mentioned into one all inclusive package. So long as it has good encryption, decent battery life, and a way to backup and restore data... it shouldn't be too painful :)

    (note also that this all is precluding the development of new advances in holographic displays and mind-machine interfaces, while expecting the further developement of morphic plastics and battery technology)
  • Coupled with voice recognition, what would prevent a cellular phone-size device to project a hologram of a computer screen, and have all the functionality of current desktop machine? Smaller, cheaper, power efficient processors are becoming available, so in few years these things will exist. The "screen in your eye" type devices are already here, but I don't think that they will be as easily accepted as a screen hologram.

    PS Obviously, I have dibs on the holographic screen idea, so don't try to steal it ;-P
  • by goddness i luve my eholster, get questions about it all the time. and it's fun to..

    you can see who can quick draw their cellphone, the fastest!


    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
  • I think that this is one of those interesting questions that there is no good answer to. As technology and technique progresses, each of the concerns you've raised above may become obsolete, or more easily over come. Human memory concerns? A more intelligent interface may make this irrelevant, making it so you never again have to remember what button on your 1000 button remote does what. Screen sizes? What about abandoning screens for neural interfaces, optic nerve implants, VR glasses, etc? None of these things are hurdles that we can't get around. Technology only looks limited if you assume that we'll never develop better ideas.

    Geek-grrl in training
    "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art hot, and sticky, and make me wish for a cold shower."
  • Hello, if it's small enough to put in a pocket, it's good enough for people. Why do you want them to be as small as a fly? (Don't give me the implant BS, people will never implant a gadget that gets outdated in 2 years.)

    Do you know there are keyring size camera [minox-web.de], it never took off because 1) people don't want to take out a camera everyday 2) The dominant format (35mm) has so much larger market share that everything 35mm related is so much cheaper.

    Why would I want a keyring size walkman? I actually have backuped all my cd into cdr, I can buy a good diskman and put them in my bag (when you have 50+ CDs, the size of them are samller than minidisc.) But I decided its a waste of time. My Kenwood system is so much better than any earphone sound. I do put the CDRs in the place I worked, so that's only 2 hours no music everyday, so what. The point is, sometime the home version is better, and people think it's not worth it to get a portable version, for less quality. Even if that quality is much better than 20 years ago. Which will make the portable of that product a niche product, which become expensive.

    Frankly, I don't see how much faster palm need to be, besides decoding mp3. You only need a wireless connection and everything can be done server side. Just change the resolution to 320X320 and that's it. (make a kid/pager size version that folds the screen, if you want portability and large screen, this is the only way.)

    CY

  • I'm not sure how much convergence is good. For some stuff, sure, but lets take the PDA - cellular phone for example. I'm perfectly happy with my Nokia 8210 as a phone. It's zippo-lighter sized and has everything I would ever want from a phone. I don't miss a single feature. When I go out, it's so small and light that I hardly even know it's with me. Now for a PDA, I use the Palm IIIx. It's just large enough to make writing and reading possible on it. If it was a phone, it would be way too bulky. Separation in this case is a good thing. Now when I want to get online with the Palm to check email, surf, ssh someplace or whatever, I just place the two next to eachother on the table and they connect using IR.

    Having said all this, of course it would be nicer if the Palm would use GPRS and talk directly to my GSM network and get on the net that way. Still, as a phone, it would be way too large to be acceptable.

    This leaves us, I think, to see that physical integration is not as important as interoperability. I think that's the big word for the next couple of years of gadget evolution. Technologies like bluetooth and Jini will be very important.
  • You are legally allowed to throw that brick, or shoot their tires out with any type of weaponry you think suitable (i.e. Grenade Launcher).

    At least, that's the way I'd like it in my world...

    --
  • The cell phone / walkman / PDA merger is pretty natural, but I agre that many people will want to have a camera with features that the PDA people would not include. I think the intelegent way to do this would be to keep the quality camera as an external device and build a scanner into the phone / walkman / PDA.

    This will all change when people really start using wearables, but there will not be a diffrence betwen "good camera," "small camera," and "camera which can scan text by looking at it" by the time wearables really get going.
  • The POBs and PHBs of the world will not understand this since the think the web is the internet, but having a brower is irrelevent.

    We need a PDA / phone / walkman / etc. where all the phone / walkman /etc. features are *software*, i.e. it's got a sound card, speakers, microphone, and a cell network IO antenna, but the phone lives in the software. Why is this so importent? There is no way that the PDA / cell phone development groups can imagine the possible uses of their devices. The only way to really push the devices is to allow open source style adjusting of the software. Plus, people would add good encryption to the phone's.
  • An all-in-one handheld device would be the information appliance equivalent to a pocket knife. Yes, having a saw and a screwdriver and a bottle opener handy is *very* useful, but nobody uses a pocket knife when they have "real" tools available. If I have access to a screwdriver, my pocket knife stays in my pocket.

    A pda/cellular/mp3 player/digital camera would be cool, and useful, but I'd rather use a "real" camera (digital or otherwise) if I wanted good pictures, a real stereo if I wanted good music, a real phone if I wanted a good connection, and a real... er, well ok the pda is pretty is pretty much as good as a datebook/address book as far as I'm concerned.
  • Three devices common today: PDA, Cell phone, and pager. Cell phones and PDAs can have web connectivity, pagers can recieve a very simple and small text message, and even reply to them. The natrual evolution of these devices is leading towards a single device that performs the function of all three.

    Some of the most recent cell phones are the closest to this that exists currently, but IMHO they fail to a point that I have no desire to own one. I'll consider it when the following device exists:

    A Palm PDA with built-in pager and cell phone hardware with belt-clip. An ear-piece with extending microphone that jacks into the PDA. The PDA's belt clip is such that the device flips up so you can use it from its mounting point. The device retains full Palm functionality.

    That way I can carry the three devices I need a the same time in one compact, but fully functional, package. No sacrifices. No need to carry Batman's utility belt.
  • Aside: Bought myself a couple of E-holsters to take care of more immediate gadget-loading. Works well under a sweater or jacket.

    Those eholsters have to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. I guess you really could use as much "Digital Tool Convergence" as is possible.

    • Just think of the prospect of thinking the programs, and debugging at the speed of light, you could debug the linux kernel in a matter of minutes, you could optimize windows at assembly-level, by using nothing more than the memory-blueprint as a reference, you could do anything you want in a matter of hours, not months.
    Slow down, bro. Yes, this does sound incredibly cool, but I don't think it works from an information theory level (at least I think that's the discipline I'm thinking of). We don't think in code, we think in terms of abstract ideas that our brains have to distill into code once we know what it is we want to program. "Thinking" a program into existence would require an incredibly complex "neural compiler" (let's call it) that would be capable of taking the extremely vague (from a computer's standpoint) "I want it to say 'Hello World' in a nice blue window on the screen." and turn it into code. Keep in mind that this would be even more difficult than the ever-elusive natural-language compiler since at least with natural language you have solid, unchanging text. The human mind is in a constant state of flux. It's very difficult for us to think of exactly the same thing, unchangingly, for more than a few seconds.

    It's certainly an interesting challenge, though. What are all your thoughts on this?

    Email me.
    Don't trust anyone over 90000.
  • When I got the headsets for my cellphone,
    I could walk down the street looking like I was talking to myself. But I work in San Francisco - half the people walking down the street here are talking to themselves anyway, so the only difference is whether it's from cellphones or overuse of chemicals....
  • It seems to me that if a phone company can squeeze the functionality of a PDA into their phone then surely a PDA company could put a cell phone in their box. Since most Europeans - rightly or wrongly - fear that their cell phones are going to cause tumors in their brains, and this threat is starting to register in the States now, nobody is holding their cell phone up to their heads anymore anyway. (Stream of Consciousness - I wonder why they don't worry that they'll get tumors in the hands, or - maybe worse - in their hips.)

    I'd much rather have the equivalent of a Palm V with the OmniSky wireless Internet thingee attached to it. Add a ear bud/mic set to it and voice functionality and you've got an almost perfect personal assistant.

  • ack (Score:1)

    by frederik ( 86671 )
    I fully agree that we need convergence between all types of devices. But what's even more important than this, are standards. We really NEED them. Imagine a world in which all those nice devices cann talk to each other etc. but no Sony PDA will be able to connect to a eg a Palm.
  • nah, as we're talking about tech/Computers here I wouldn't
  • i want my computer to merge with my cell phone and stereo so i can use gnutella and listen to mp3's anywhere! and so i can watch porn anywhere!
  • It seems you are forgetting about innovation. It also seems Cliff forgot about innovation, as well. My point is that this question is almost pointless to ask. Each limitation commented on here will be broken. When a new limitation is found, a solution will be found as well.

    --Drew Vogel

  • But we've got all that today - just get yourself a PalmV (not one of those VII monstrisities), a decent IR enabled phone, and an IR enabled camera, and away you go. I have the Palm and the phone (Nokia 8210 - one of the greatest gadgets ever!) and they work great together. The cameras are available (I just don't need one) and you have your team. What's more, with everything being IRDA I can point my Palm at my laptop and exchange data (including using the laptop's modem when I can get to a landline, GSAM is great for wireless but 9600 is too slow!), and I can print from any of the devices just by pointing at the printer. Bluetooth looks good, mainly because it removes the line-of-sight restrictions, but IRDA should not be overlooked for this kind of basic data sharing.
  • Behold, my new watch/PDA/cell phone/cordless phone/radio/TV/screwdriver/socket set/kitchen sink/patio chair/oven/refrigerator/bed/pager/email terminal/toothbrush solar-recharging fusion-powered sock!

  • Why would I want to use an AIM program where I had to type each letter on an onscreen keyboard?

    You don't need an onscreen keyboard. Useful handhelds have real keyboards; check out Blackberry [blackberry.net], which users claim is easier and faster to enter input on than a Palm Pilot.

    Why would I use a web browser that had a maximum screenres of 180x100 (or thereabouts)?

    Because maybe you want information instead of some Web designer's idea of the pixel-perfect layout. You don't need much resolution to check stock quotes, check the weather, buy a book, or read news. Other than pr0n, there's nothing wrong with a small resolution.

  • The question is too short sighted. It's not what, or how much, but when. Limitation of human memory, no problem. We can already get neurons to grow onto semi-conductors. Limited colors, no problem. Retinal implants or complete eye replacements. Bio mechanical-electrical-electronic advancements are a reality. Our digital links grow stronger every single day.
  • Good point about the screen resolution of the web browser. I hadn't really been thinking in terms of just using it for little tasks. I would still prefer being able to read the entire page without having to scroll (I'm just remembering browsing the internet on a cell phone and how annoying it was to have one word per line).

    Although the keyboard on the blackberry linked to in the above comment looks clever, I still don't think that I'd like it very much, and for writing more than a couple lines it would be more trouble than it's worth to me. I have the same feelings about graffiti, it's just a pain in the butt to have to write for 5 minutes to get out a 3 line email.

  • I want my data to converge, but I think converging the devices themselves should only go so far. A Palm-mounted camera will never have the "look-through" that a traditional camera has, because the form factor is just too different. Ditto making your Pilot into a cell phone -- do you really think that would be comfortable to put against your ear? I'd love to have my Pilot data in my watch, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try to Graffiti it into such a small device. Even the Pilot is pretty bad for entering text compared to a keyboard. (And I'd *still* rather Graffiti than talk to the thing, so voice is not IMO a cure-all.)

    I think the Pilot actually is the most instructive device here. Jeff Hawkins didn't think about expandability or extensibility or any of that cool geek stuff -- he walked around with slabs of wood and tried to figure out how to make a device that was physically comfortable for the task at hand. Convergence of physical devices spits on that whole concept, and I think the Pilot's success in the market points to the folly of that.
  • After all, who wants some other person's wearables stealing processing cycles from their computer? Who wants someone's wearables piggybacking on their T1? (This ignores the performance aspects of shared processing over a radio link - see A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge). If it only worked with your own computer (like a cell phone which becomes a 900 mHz handset when you're at home) it might be okay.
  • However, what if your only device (PDA/cellular/mp3 player all in one) stops working? Is stolen? Batteries die? All of these functions are lost at once. Isnt that why people back up their palms?
  • The new Psion [psioninc.com] handhelds are pretty cool. They come with a web browser and email software. I can read any webpage I could with my desktop, just fewer lines at a time (and B&W). The keyboard is awesome for the size of it. I can type almost as fast as a normal sized keyboard. And it fits in my pockets. But you do need a cell phone to connect to the internet when a landline isnt available. It would be cool if you could access the web from anywhere with just the PDA, but I suppose we are some years from that.
  • Take a small, Palm-like device and retrofit it with FPGA's that can be reprogrammed to turn it into a cell phone, pager, Web browser, e-mail terminal, GPS navigation system, shortwave radio, etc. etc. Of course the thing will be as thick as a Subway sandwich and wouldn't fit in your pocket anymore but hey, we've got convergence of nearly every electronic device imaginable!
  • If you look at the advancements in technology over the last twenty years, you'll see that it is quite substantial. At the rate that things are getting smaller, merging together a palm device and a cellular phone shouldn't be hard at all. You could even have a hand-held video device one day, who knows. But there are many advancements, and machines are getting smaller and smarter. Anything is possible, and I see technology advancing in leaps and bounds in the next five and ten years.
  • Now, I love linux, but the fact that it is what it is, is simply hilarious.
  • Just because some slashdotters will find it of intrest, I totally agree with you. The HUD for the wearable I am building is actually mounted inside a baseball cap to be descreet and it has a shield on the side so I have complete privacy. It also looks cool and because I have wires running down my shirt most people leave me alone ;-)



    Kris
    botboy60@hotmail.com
    Nerdnetwork.net [nerdnetwork.net]
  • How about an Epson Locatio PDA? It has GPS, a digital camera and a compact flash slot for a PHS modem (for a dial up connection). Bad thing, for most people reading Slashdot, is you can only get one in Japan. Sorry! The pamphlet I picked up explains how you can take a photo of a restaurant, embed it into an email, add a map with a 'I am here' reference showing where you took it, and then email it to your friends to tell them where they should meet you for dinner. Cool. http://www.i-love-epson.co .jp/products/locatio/index.htm [i-love-epson.co.jp]
  • Your quite right, technology will provide for small enough equipment to make practically any sort of palm setup feasible. Why bother with a whole integrated unit too? I mean, why not just go with snap-on peripherals like you see on gameboy. Desktops are covered in bizarre peripherals, theres little reason why you can't just make a mini-version for a palm-top (well, some peripherals might be problematic, like scanners). It might get a little bulky if you've got a lot of gizmoes, a system that takes up a whole bicycle pouch (or fanny-pack, or whatever you wanna call it) but I figure a palm-system can be as intricate as a modern PC is, once the systems are micronized enough. With a good peripheral interface, it could be like a pc, you just snap-on what you want it to do. Mini camera, cell-phone uplink, headset or receiver, tv-io, ethernet dongle, joystick, vr-glasses, lastertag gun, speakers, whatever. The concept of "a machine for this, a machine for that" will break down once you can fit a full modern desktop-power computer in a palmtop. Of course, by that time, the desktop machines will still probably put the palms to shame in every aspect but size, but you can't win 'em all.
  • Anything is possible. Haven't you heard of that thing or did people forget about that. If at all something is not possible it is more to do with ugly human tendencies like politics, greed, etc than innovation.
  • funny, taken out of context, but still funny :-)
  • First, the "other device" embedded into something is never as good as it could have been. The wristwatch that also has a pager in it is never a very good pager. The quality drops in phyisical objects just as it does in software. The mail client that is bundled in your browser is not a ver good mail client. The browser bundled in your MP3 player is not a very good browser. In that same sense, your PDA, pager, camera and phone bundle will not have the quality in some of the components that you desire.
    Yes, but bundling Web browser with an operating system is called innovation!


    -----
  • The ultimate in connectivity and portability would be your very own VR set, so light it would carry. The glasses would be like a pair of sunglasses with a "screen" which could act as plain glass, HUD, computer screen or as part of a VR interface.

    The interface would be speech, or a glove, I'd imagine like a plastic glove or something similar (I've seen "soft" chips already) which you'd type on a VR keyboard, with no physical keyboard, point and click, or use as a mouse, depending on the situation (maybe even cast some fancy spells with intricate movement in games ). Of course with a set of speakers in your ear for use as cell phone (if not to say video cell phone, by the time this gets around), VR and whatever.

    I'm not going to list all the reasons why this is far off. I'll just say that I'd guess I was talking about a timespan of 20-50 years before this becomes a everyday thing. Considering what trying to predict year 2000 would be like in 1950-80, I may be way off. Waaaaaaaaay off.
  • Better than that, try using your mind to move objects. (Hint: Unless you're an X-Man or Luke Skywalker, it's probably not possible)
  • The final device will be something similar to what Nokia is proposing: a banana shaped device made of plastic which could be held with one or two hands. With one, it would function like an ordinary cell phone and provide caller privacy; with two, the 1.5 by 1.5 inch color screen would provide video phone capability. Since you would hold the device laterially, internal speakers would be raised in volume so you could hold the device away from you (down near your lap, for instance).

    PDA would be built in, as well as basic digital TV reception over cellular. There would be no number keys; the device would recognize your phone number by voice. The whole thing would be Bluetooth enabled, so you could communicate with nearby devices without using cellular, improve transmissions on digital video transfers by polling nearby devices with better bandwidth and purchasing items like soda at vendor machines by simply waving the device in its direction and pressing a "purchase" button.

    Lastly, there would be better security, so not anyone could pick up your "banana phone" and use it to make calls and purchases. Digital voice signatures plus a small PIN would be needed to operate the device.

  • Clearly it doesn't take much hardware to turn a phone into a 12-dimensional Turning device (v-mail boxes do this sort of work). Rather, I think the question should be "Just what's stopping us?"... Why aren't these devices our gateway to streaming media?

    Why can't one phone send a stream of a sampled audio memo from its ram to the IR of another phone directly to an FTP site? Why do we still not use Dick Tracy 2way video watches or tune cable channels wherever we go?

    It's not so much a issue of bandwidth... compression just keeps getting better; Rather, it's the OS of protocols and command structures we have yet to invent. Early devices would only address the microphone and earpiece as all-useful... Actually using the packet stream is rather recent. The Microsoft school of thought is terribly constraining in its "device metaphore"... even the APIs are machines and the machines must be fed very narrow parameters. Unix goes the other way in that it's used to piping generic streams to a generic filespace. What's missing are the protocols.

    Perhaps BXXP [slashdot.org] will fill this niche... or perhaps it'll take something newer still. But the silliest part of it all is that we're watching the barriers fall now and will continue to see more integration, both now [wired.com] and in the years to come.

  • So this means that soon, we could have porn whenver we wanted, as long as we had a toaster nearby?
    Rock 'n Roll, Not Pop 'n Soul
  • In the long run, I think cell phones, pdas, and laptop computers will merge into a product such as the following:

    It looks like a small pda, pretty much a handheld computer screen. It offers cell-phone, internet access, and a full blown computing environment running your os of choice: Linux, windows, beos, freebsd, or Darwin. Of course, it performs best when running linux, and people start to notice this despite the Microsoft OS marketing team's FUD tactics. Linux stock slowly rises.

    Perhaps they'll also have standard docking station specification, Standard Docking Interface (SDI), so that and it could be assumed when travelling to another company or a hotel, that there would be docking stations available which would provide a keyboard and a large monitor. When making travel arrangements you specify, King size bed, wakeup call at 6:00 AM and ergonomic keyboard please.

    P.S., did I also mention that the machine will have infrared capabilities allowing it to function as method of currency and other data transfer?

  • I also love my eHolster. Since it's too warm here, I wear it just over my shirt. Most people need a little time, but they end up accepting it and even liking it. Yes, it attracts more attention that I'd like, but it works. If the weather was colder, a jacket would solve this... I'm planning to get Ricochet and carry the modem in a holster and connect my iPAQ to it, so I'd be connected all the time. Also, I helps to guide/keep in place the headphone wires...
  • There's a lot to be said in favor of convergence, but there's a lot to be said against as well. Primarily in the arena of already learned interfaces.

    Cameras are the obvious things to point out here; we've had several generations who know a camera as something to look through and push a button for a picture. It's now more than possible to imbed a camera (digital, video, or otherwise) into just about anything, but it changes the nature of the pictures, the amount of feedback, and the degree of control.

    I'm not saying there's anything magical about the humble viewfinder, but the camera aimed for WYSIWYG long before the term existed. Do we want to lose that to the forces of smaller/more?

    (And of course it's not a binary choice; cameras will continue to exist long after there's the possiblity for a pair of glasses that feed data straight down your optic nerve and bypass sight completely. But sometimes the answer 'Because we can' isn't the answer to look for.)
  • Although you certainly can build merged devices, they will only have gadget value. There's no future in building combined cellphones and digital cameras.

    I believe things are going to evolve the other way: the Unix way. You'll get lots of small utilities that by themselves don't do very much, but are very good at what they do. They would communicate with each other (and with other people's devices) using something akin to Bluetooth, but simpler. In the same way as you would use pipes and files under Unix, you would channel the various data streams in appropriate ways.

    A normal mobile setup could include a small battery-powered CPU in your belt and a 2-by-4" LCD display and handwriting decoder in your breast pocket. Your other pocket would contain a phone handset/headset. In your bag you would have a storage device and a packet radio. At work or at home, you might have a larger LCD, a fast network connection, maybe a keyboard and a faster CPU, possibly a hands-free speakerphone.

    Depending on the available devices and the type of work you want to do, you would use different combinations of devices. For writing e-mail at the office, you would use a keyboard or dictating machine. On the road, you could listen to music over the packet radio or straight from your storage device. The inferior CPU power of your belt-clip computer would possibly not allow speech recognition, but you could write on your LCD instead. You could watch the news on your pocket LCD, but if you wanted to see color TV, you could use the video projector in your living room instead. And so on.

    I hope we will see Bluetooth II some day, providing fast and secure wireless networks in a private plug-n-play microcell.

    Now where was I... oh yes: cat storage-1:/mp3/metallica/*.mp3 | cpu-2:/bin/mp3decode | display-2:/dev/audio

    Aahhhh... that's better.

    --Bud

  • The corralary is that things with similar ergonomics will be absorbed into one device. The one thing about my Palm that annoys me is that I can't play MP3's on it. No doubt were I younger I wouldn't mind something with more Gameboy like controls on it either, to better play handheld games. There's enough similarity in the ergonomics of those devices, the PDA, the MP3 player and the handheld game player that they could merge.

    Technically your PDA could absorb your cellphone if you invested in a headset. If you've got earphones for listening to MP3's on your PDA, then adding a microphone to talk through it is a small leap. Then you've got the ergonomics that are physically comfortable. Of course people like cell phones anyway because you can pull them out and put them away.

    Now that said, cell phones will pick up PDA-like features. The Palm succeeded because it wasn't a computer in your hand but stripped away down to the essential functionality. Cell phones will go the same way. People are going to strip out the excess functionality and get it down to what people really want and can use easily.

    One piece of functionality that people might want in a cell phone is a solid state voice recorder, to fill the niche of handheld tape recorders today. Sure, people can leave messages on their answering machines but using wireless costs and the audio quality drops. And once the phone's memory is filled, hit a button and transmit it remotely to some location, compressed to save usage charges. That's the sort of convenience and functionality people might actually appreciate in a cell phone. You need to think of everything with similar functionality and ergonomics to a cell phone to figure out where its going.
  • If your question was genuine and you seriously think that we are anywhere near to reaching practical limits on physical merging of appliances then you badly need to spend a few months reading something about nanotechnology [foresight.org], its near-term impact on molecular manufacturing [imm.org], some wonderfully readable and seminal insight [foresight.org] on where it might lead, and if you want more depth, a key text book [foresight.org] in this area.

    We are on rung 1 of a ladder that extends into infinity. The idea that somebody on a nerd forum could ask a question even suggesting that today's primitive toys are anywhere within a million light years of effective limits in any respect whatsoever is mind-boggling.
  • Every once in a while you see stories like this where such-n-such technology is being merged into such-n-such a device. As things get more compact, it is tempting to put all the functionality in one box.

    However, what if your only device (PDA/cellular/mp3 player all in one) stops working? Is stolen? Batteries die? All of these functions are lost at once.

    Personally, I like having smaller and more efficient electronics (anyone remember the cell phones RadioShack used to sell in the 80's?). But I also prefer one function per package - more reliable (if one goes, you have alternatives) and, well, it looks like you have more stuff!
    --

    • Screen size is a major factor. I know some people will go for the monocle, but that's still clumsy. A screen around 8" to 10" diagonal is what you want for the best mix of portability and functionality, but it has to be thin and light. My next Win9x-type PC will be a tablet of approximately this screen size.
    • Once bluetooth wireless headsets and voice dialing become the norm, the actual cellular mobile can be any size and any shape. If it's built into the back of your screen, whatever. If it's built into your shoes, that's fine too.
    • A camera built into your headset or screen - cool, whatever
    Basically you need to be able to hear, see and (sometimes) feel whatever device you're using - all devices will converge into a headset and display. I favour a hand-held display like the tablets in Star Trek. I like to be able to put it down easily. Others favour the head-mounted displays. I find things strapped to me to be a problem at times (I don't even wear a watch). Bluetooth (or a similar technology) will let all the devices on your body, wherever they are, whatever they look like, to form a network that lets them share their functionality.

    Note:This takes no account of entertainment (mainly games) usage of PCs. Some people like a Gameboy, some people want a playstation on an 68cm TV. I don't care (I have both).

  • The Qualcomm pdQ [kyocera-wireless.com] meets a good 75% of your criteria but by combining phone and PDA you've created a mule. Try entering a number someone left on your voice mail onto the device you envision. I have to keep in my head, flip the unit over, jot it down, then flip it back over so I can get the rest of the message.

    I'm going to have to agree with the other posters that I'd rather have several small flexible tools than one monolithic one, integrate them with BlueTooth and keep them simple.

  • The Ericsson R380 [ericsson.com] seems to combine a cell phone and a PDA quite nicely, it even uses EPOC as its operating system which is considered pretty robust. Those two devices seem to be good candidates for a 'merger'.

    Unfortunately, Ericsson seems to be unable to finish the product. Anyone else knows what's the problem? They've now scheduled it for 3rd quarter 2000...
  • Go to Ericsson's site and take a look at this baby [ericsson.com]. Approx. 2x4 in for a *global* (Europe/US) GSM phone. If that phone had some of the functionality of a PDA, I wouldn't want anything else.

    But hold on; what else do you need? a decent screen, an easy input system (e.g. Graffiti), a calendar, etc. Well, what if the screen and input part was a separate device, a "dumb PDA" if you will, about as big as that cell phone, but all the processing, memory, etc, were in the cellphone itself? So, e.g. you could have access to your calendar without the "dumb PDA" auxiliary device, but when you needed some better I/O, you could lug the tiny "dumb" terminal with you, or even use your laptop instead?

    That's exactly the promise of Bluetooth: a "Personal Area Network", where naturally, the cellphone becomes the CPU (because more people are likely to lug around a cell than a Palm) and any other device (a PDA, a laptop, a printer, even your Casio wristwatch :-) are terminals to the data stored there. Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola will take us there; they are all part of the Bluetooth SIG, and they are behind Symbian [symbian.com], which will probably end up kill the Palms --better OS, better industry support.

    engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
  • My screwdriver and wrench still don't have 5 character LCD displays with which I can browse the well and get stock quotes. I say there is still a lot of convergence needed.
  • If you really want to see how far this technology can converge, take a look at Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict [efc.com]. They have a device that takes Star Trek's Communicator and tricorder, as well as GPS and video phones and combines them into something they call a "Global" This video clip [efc.com] shows a Global about 4 seconds into the clip. This is what I really want to have in my pocket...
  • The question of exactly how much devices can merge is moot. There really isn't a limit. It's essentially asking exactly how much people can innovate. As people have learned, there really is NO limit to innovation. Screen size limitations are beaten by things like screens in glasses, or that technology that uses a laser to draw images on the retina, input limitations are overcome by voice control, maybe even direct connections between the brain and the hardware. There really isn't a limit to where you can take convergance. Convergance in the electronic world probably won't stop in a certain place like it has with appliances. With appliances, the limits of the technology are real. A toaster or a fridge will always have to be at least a certian size, you'll always need the same amount of energy to toast something, you'll never be able to fit a blender into a fridge. That's what prevents convergance in most other household objects from continuing. However, there are no such limitations in electronic convergance, becase all electronics are simply mediums for information. There are no physical limitations on something that carries information. For example, when you buy that brand new spanking DVD player, what do you buy it for? You certainly don't want the hardware, you want to play a DVD. You don't even want to play the DVD, you want to watch the movie. Hell, you don't even want to watch the movie, you want to stimulate you retina's into thinking you're watching a movie, etc. Because the actual "product" in the case of electronics is simply information, ocnvergance can continue until there is no medium left between the information and the consumer.
  • We're asking the wrong question here. The problem is not how to fit all those features into a small package, but how to exploit the myriad features that are already available in your environment, but that you can't integrate with.

    Small devices basically provide: a keyboard, a display, a communications link. Everything else is part of the "lifeboat" package--necessary to make the whole thing work, but otherwise deadweight.

    It would be nice to have a more opportunistic device that can sense its environment and make good use of what's already there as a "host". If there is a computer in the room, why do I need memory and CPU cycles? If there is a T1 internet connection, why do I need to use radio bandwidth?

  • I believe that technically we could combine all sorts of devices into one, but I believe that that is not entirely desireable to consumers for two reasons.

    First, the "other device" embedded into something is never as good as it could have been. The wristwatch that also has a pager in it is never a very good pager. The quality drops in phyisical objects just as it does in software. The mail client that is bundled in your browser is not a ver good mail client. The browser bundled in your MP3 player is not a very good browser. In that same sense, your PDA, pager, camera and phone bundle will not have the quality in some of the components that you desire.

    Secondly, bundling products forces some consumers to buy things they don't want. If I have no use for a camera, then I'd rather not buy one when I buy my phone. Even if I did buy it, I'd hate to carry my phone, camera, PDA along with my pager everywhere I carry it.

    Come to think of it, are people really going to give up the "utility belt" look that has sprung up recently? (It has replaced the pocket protector as the easiest way to spot a geek in a crowd.)

  • Some of the limits on convergence are inherent - if you're going to have a screen and a keyboard, that gives you a certain minimum size, which may be awkward for a cellphone you hold up to your ear. (So use a headset to avoid holding it up to your ear, either wired or eventually Bluetoothed.) Screens may be avoidable by using heads-up displays, but that interferes with regular activities more than an earpiece does.

    Some of the keyboard input may be replaceable with voice recognition; this is a natural match for a cellphone that's already doing digitized voice, and voice-recorders are an especially good match, since the phone is already doing good voice compression at less than 1KB/sec.

    But some of the limitations are simply because technology isn't good enough. Pagers run for a month on a small battery, while good PDAs like Palm or Psion run a few weeks to a month on larger batteries, cellphones run a day to a week on rechargables, and Microsoft Palm PCs apparently run less than a day on their batteries. Nokia 6160 was the first cell phone I saw that claimed to run a week in standby mode - long enough I could trust it for a couple of days as a pager. Radio systems are also much different - pagers work almost everywhere, and the radio signalling is simple and dumb enough that they can work inside most buildings. But cell phones need much better radio reception, don't work well inside buildings, and coverage in many areas is much worse (depending on carrier), and CDPD has even more limited coverage. Some of these technology gaps may get fixed with basic engineering progress, like battery power - I don't know if converged devices will need to have multiple battery systems (e.g. a long-term battery for memory and pager, a larger shorter-life battery for phone calls, etc.)

  • The Body is the Convergence. You have 5 main input devices (and two lesser ones). What you can perceive is limited by these input devices. Digital tools enhance what you can perceive. Can one digital tool make all possible enhancements?

    No.

    This may not seem obvious because most of the "innovation" in the digital tool market has been Microsoft Innovation (tm) and not Real Innovation (no trademark; no patent - it expired soon after we started using Stone Tools).

    Can you feel someone behind you? Like I mean feel their presence? There is a "Digital Tool" that gives you this perception (those who tried it out felt "naked" once they had to take it off again). Can you see in pitch blackness? Can you communicate with someone far away? Can you communicate with someone right next to you who doesn't know any language you do? Can you find some information stored on an aluminum plate in Moscow? Can you find some information someone told you yesterday, but you forgot?

    Understand the domain, then re-ask the question: can one device do all these things? How? Do you want it to?
  • My guess? In 5-10 years, implanted technology will be in the hands (umm, well, heads) of the early adopters.

    Does this freak people out? If adults start implanting then they will probably start implanting kids, then new born children. (Or am I freaking out?) I mean, it is all about competitive advantange when you get down to it. And for adults, I bet it'll be like tatoos. It'll be addictive to get more and more implants.

    John S. Rhodes
    WebWord.com [webword.com] -- Industry Strength Usability

  • All this convergence would lead to what I'll refer to here as The Perfect Gadget. This would be something that:

    a) does everything you want
    b) allows you to do everything you want everywhere you are.

    for a), it has to have lots in it. for b), it has to be portable. preferably very small and unobtrusive. this has been becoming a reality for the last 20 years, as the technology gets smaller and smaller. articles even in slashdot about stuff like the 5 cubic inch PC show the technology is getting there. the "PC on a chip" solutions starting to become reality show even more promise.

    but what do you see elsewhere in the portable market? bigger screens, full-size keyboards... the problem is that as humans, we are quite oafish with our big pudgy fingers, and eyes unable to focus on something smaller than say 0.2mm across :) so the way we interface with technology (input through the hands, output into our eyes) can't shrink any further than it has already.

    the alternative, and the solution, is in a change
    of interface. voice recognition and grammatical parsing, hologram projection "screens" would be a great start.

    "Computer, take a photo of this building."
    "Computer, show me the map of this city."
    "Go right. Stop. Enhance 57, 19. Give me a hard copy right there."
    (sorry, couldn't resist)
    "Email Bill and tell him I accept his business proposal".

    This has to be the direction things are going to take, some sort of wearable technology using human-to-human interaction styles (speech, body movement, etc), which essentially eliminates interface "devices", and hence our clumisness with them.

    Fross

  • I don't care too much about cellular phones, considering the high cost and lack of good coverage in the suburban areas of the US. What would really entice me to go wireless is a portable 80x25 terminal, in the form factor of a very small laptop (sub 2lbs) which would have encryption and a reasonably fast link. I mean, everything I do on my computer can be controlled over a simple terminal in linux, you could even browse the web with something like lynx, or even better w3m. The closest thing I see to this right now is the RIM, but that only does e-mail and isn't able to stream a connection.
  • Phaser, Communicator, and Tricorder.
  • Just think; the most likely early adopters are going to be the average joe who wants even better pr0n!

    I as one would jump at the first opportunity to get an implant, think of the programming speed you could gain...
    The pr0n would be at the end of the list of possibilities for me. Just think of the prospect of thinking the programs, and debugging at the speed of light, you could debug the linux kernel in a matter of minutes, you could optimize windows at assembly-level, by using nothing more than the memory-blueprint as a reference, you could do anything you want in a matter of hours, not months. The price of letting big brother see my most inner thoughts is a small price to pay the second they realize they can't punish me for my thoughts, only my actions

    Although they will probably cancel the project after a few people, i will be first in line to get a full bionic I/O-handler, the possibility of getting the latest news anywhere, and if suddenly your car brakes down, you dial up, and get a troubleshooters-guide from the cars homepage. If you want information of what movies are running at the local cinema, you look that up, it's the ultimate wearable, concealed information database ever, not to mention the possibilities if everybody were linked to everybody else, all the time, you could talk to your boss in europe, while in a meeting in asia, without anybody knowing.
    On a lighter sidenote, how do we know the Illuminati hasn't already taken this into everyday use, and have spies everywhere, only conferencing on the hard-to-decrypt GSM waves :)

  • The real limit is not on the processing, or the interface, but on the general input/output.

    Where the limits of the integration comes in, however, are on the I/O side of the equasion.

    Pop apart a digital camera, and no matter what device you attach it to, you will still require the lense and CCD for the camera to operate, those are the basic I/O requirements for that application.

    Similarly, if you take apart a cellphone, about half of the circuits and parts you see are for the analog broadcasting side of the functionality. If you attempt to integrate a PDA with the cellphone, you will still need all these components, which can't be shared with just the PDA.

    The key is on integration is to perform integration where and when there is, or can be, some overlap of the I/O requirements. EG, integrating a cell phone and a digital camera is silly, as they require two disjoint sets of I/O. But integrating a PDA and a cellphone makes sense, IF the wireless communications can be used for data (to the PDA) as well as voice.

    If you do NOT allow the PDA to use the wireless network as a network fabric, there is very little point in integrating the two, since you still need all the cellphone wireless I/O, and all the PDA user I/O (screen, stylus, which are probably not needed for a cellphone), which makes for a very bulky device.

    Also, two devices of half the size may be preferable to a single integrated device. I use a Palm Portable Keyboard with my pilot. Together, they take up a fair amount of space, but if I don't need the keyboard, it gets left at home, and, even if it was combined into the same unit of twice the volume, it would probably not be nearly so useful, as it is often harder to toss one large object in ones pocket, when compared to two smaller objects.


    Nicholas C Weaver
    nweaver@cs.berkeley.edu

  • ...in one basket.

    The one place it will converge to : our brains. (i.e. stick a chip into our brains.)

  • Well, that seems obvious to me though I don't seem to share the same opinion as the other /. readers.

    Basicly I want to replace my cellphone with a palmtop. Palmtops (call them handheld PC's, PcketPC's, etc. if you want) that have a soundcard and that can utilize the GSM infrastructure and bluetooth could replace a large variety of devices.

    Such a device could replace cellphones (using a bluetooth powered earspeaker of course ;) ), walkmans (MP3 players), gameboys, etc.. And they could even add to the functionality (e.g. browsing the Internet, it works with Lynx so I imagine it can be done on a Palm).

    The reason that such devices don't exist yet is, I think, that all those feautures can't be merged into a lean palmtop with the current technology (cellphones are still pretty thick IMHO, imagine all that technology being added to a Palm!! Of course a Palm VII like antenna is not an option ;p).

    A solution that is possible with todays technology is merging all that stuff into a cellphone. Adding MP3 functionality to a cellphone might be useful but that's about as far as it goes IMHO, the total idea of WAP is just stupid.

    I bet we'll start seeing this kind of devices in a couple of years when the technology can make them small. After all, GSM's only made a real breakthrough when they got small.

  • There will be no peripherals, It'll all be attached directly to the brain. These devices just create an artifical layer between what we want to do and doing it. HUD's and whatnot are nice because they're within technological reach now, but they just go to show that less is more.

    Then there will be no 'low-resolution' or '800 different buttons' accessing anything will happen on an instinctual level. You don't have to think 'I want to move my index finger down to press the a key on my keyboard to type' You just do it.

    Of course this won't happen in our lifetimes, so it's irrelevant.

  • I think the real question isn't about technology, it's about ergonomics. People don't want convergence to happen, the industry just keeps trying to convince us we do.

    Phones are ergonomically suited to talking with others. But their screens are completely unusable for web browsing. Palm computers are great for portable data viewing and simple web browsing. Camcorders are ideal for recording video. All are suited for a single task, and the dynamics of the marketplace will prevent the convergence of these devices.

    When you think about it, the basic size and shape of the telephone has barely changed in 50 years. This isn't because of lack of technology, it's because the basic design just works. No one will use a klunky device like the Qualcomm PDQ because it's uncomfortable and clumsy.

    And ergonomics are only one of the factors that will guarantee convergence never happens. Who will pay $1500 for an all-in-one device that is so miniturized you need to throw it away when it breaks? Who will settle for an "ok" cell phone, an "ok" camcorder, and an "ok" palmtop because they're combined in one? People will want the best of each, not a massive compromise.

    The only people who preach convergence are cell phone and palmtop companies who want to charge you $1500 for a gadget and use "convergence" as an excuse to corner the market on 3 items at once.

  • I think the Compaq iPAQ [compaq.com] comes pretty close to your specs. If the planned cell phone expansion sleeve [compaq.de] comes to pass (there were some rumors that Sprint was working with Compaq on this), you might get your pre-BlueTooth cell phone PDA by Christmas...
    1. Form Factor.- The iPaq by itself is about the same size as the Palm IIIc. However, the phone sleeve would make it bigger, so it'd barely fit the form factor spec (however, note that you get a color device and HW that, OS aside, is better than current Palm devices). To use the sleeve you'd have to use headphones, which answers some of the concerns about an integrated phone/PDA (and some people won't want to carry headphones).
    2. OS.- It doesn't run Palm OS, it is CE. However, note that the multitasking (and app protection) capabilities really help a convergence device. Palm OS has a long way to go. Also, you can upgrade the iPAQ's flash ROM, so eventually you might even run Linux, when you fell the PDA version is mature (www.Handheld.org [handhelds.org] has been discussed before).
    3. CE might have a lot of emotional baggage, but IMO is the only OS that could do this at this time (maybe PSION, from what I've read, but Palm OS doesn't have a chance).
    4. Encrypted Wallet App.- There are several CE options.
    5. WAP browser.- There is a WAP browser for CE plus, with the speed of the iPAQ, you can actually use Pocket IE to browse the Internet (or synch AvantGo content), so you don't need much rework on existing sites. A PDA friendly HTML version helps, but a rewrite might not be needed.
    6. Wireless antenna.- Included with the cell phone sleeve.
    7. Audio jack.- Like all other CE devices, it has multimedia, so you have digital audio. The iPAQ sleeve really allow you to play MP3/WMA music while you do something else (like take notes or browse the internet)
    8. Dedicated storage expansion slot.- Some feel that the iPAQ's 32 MB is enough, at least for contact and some multimedia. It isn't clear if Compaq will include a CF or MMC slot on the phone sleeve (if any storage at all).
    9. IR Port.- Included. And with Peacemaker you can beam contacts to Palm devices
    10. Standard integrated pager.- Again, no details, but if it's a PCS cell phone sleeve, I'd expect it to have some paging capabilities.

    I think Sony is paying attention, but their choice of using Palm OS (no multimedia, no multithreading), and the fact they're trying to target a specific audience (Palm V users who want color) for their first device, would prevent them to deliver this device (at least, not by Christmas this year, maybe next year with the StrongArm Palm OS).

    Another option that goes with the iPAQ is Ricochet 128 (or other high speed mobile Internet access provider), albeit the coverage area is smaller. Using the iPAQ PC Card sleeve, you can use the Merlin Ricochet PC Card (which might be smaller than the cell phone sleeve) and you could do VoIP (there is an application for that). And using the planned video sleeve with a serial Ricochet modem (a separate device, which defeats the purpose of convergence), you could even use your iPAQ as a portable video phone (still a bit experimental, but some development is being done on streaming video with CE)...

    Another advantage of the iPAQ is that when BlueTooth becomes prevalent (in the next 2 years), in theory you'll just need to get a BT sleeve, so you PDA will remain the same and still control your other devices (assuming Compaq releases such a sleeve and that MS adds BT support to the OS). Also, future version of the iPAQ will have a faster CPU and more memory, and maybe a dedicated storage slot (MMC?), and will likely use the same sleeve system...

    It isn't perfect, but it takes from what is available today and IMO it's the best integrated solution candidate you're going to see this year (and maybe until next summer).

  • The truth is that though some convergence is possible, the "one true device" convergence that some seem to want is unrealistic.

    If we try to merge a camera with a cell phone with a datebook with a pager with a web server with a word processor with a smart card with an inkless notepad with a calculator with a web browser, the result is a device which is completely unusable for any function. To browse the web, watch TV or work on documents, for example, a large display is physically necessary for our eyes. On the other hand, a cell phone, a pager, a calculator, and so on should be tiny in order to be carried and pocketed. There's no way to make these devices converge short of wearing the One True Device on your head and projecting directly into your eye like some advocate and others already do...

    But I don't want to wear my cellphone on my head and operate it with eye movement, and I don't think I would be attracted to a girl who was wearing a plastic headdress and talking with her eyes to someone else while I was trying to talk to her. Maybe this is backward thinking and old fashioned, but I want to carry my cell phone in my pocket and leave it on my dash, and I want to input text with a keyboard onto a large, flat, paper-like surface that lets me see an entire document at once, but also lets me turn my head and see the commercial that's playing right now in between lines of input.

  • I don't think that everything must converge. Each device can gain Internet access, but not every device will be used to browse. We have seen it with cellular phones. Even if the technology evolve, cellular phones must be kept tiny or just small. There will never be used for regular browsing. Reading mail, OK, getting quotes, OK, but not reading ./ for example.
    It's like the pocketStation : you start to play your game on your cellular phone and you finish on your Playstation at home. Who will play on a cellular phone ?
  • I think you've hit on real convergence. A cell phone/PDA is not convergence. A PDA/Digital camera is not convergence. A PDA that lets you control those other devices, now THAT's convergence. Ok, sure, currently I can keep my appointments in the darn things etc etc. But you know what, I can keep (and do) my appointments in a notebook and it works just fine.

    Show me a PDA that can _talk_ to my digital camera and allow me to bypass the clunky UI on the back and we're getting somewhere. Even better, give me some hooks into the exposure alg., maybe a light meter plug in and you're really talking.

    Show me a PDA that can itemize the calls I've made this month on my cell phone, instead of trying to be IN the phone, and the thing might actually be useful. Or if I could program my watch with a PDA, set the alarm, adjust time zones etc etc. Wow, that would be great!

    If we could program our VCRs, home heating systems, sprinklers, security systems and every other programmable device that gives us one line and two buttons on a PDA instead with a nice GUI, shoot, I couldn't live without it.

    Until SOME convergence, even a little happens, I'll stick to my paper notebook, its cheaper and more useful.

  • There won't be much more convergence... (Score:3)

    by jht ( 5006 ) on Sunday August 06, 2000 @11:36AM (#875538) Homepage Journal
    ...of mainstream devices for a while, at least. It's because of size and convenience factors. I can go out and use a variety of best-of-breed tools today to accomplish my needs, or look for a big honkin' everything device, but I think the discrete device approach is better. Here's why.

    Merging the PDA and the cellphone works, to a point. But numberic keypads are a horribly inefficient text entry method, and keyboards go against the grain of the smaller phones in the market nowadays. Want to see a merged PDA/cellphone? The PDQ [kyocera-wireless.com] phone from Kyocera (formerly Qualcomm) works pretty well, despite it's size. It combines a CDMA cellphone with a Palm III.

    2-way pagers and e-mail devices are also probably going to merge into the PDA in the future. The Motorola devices (sold by SkyTel) and Blackberry don't stand that well on their own when compared to a PDA with wireless capability. If the coverage associated with devices like GoAmerica's Minstrel for the Palm V series can be solved (the Minstrel for the Palm V uses CDPD, mostly available on the East Coast except for Atlanta), then a PDA with wireless will blow away the 2-way paging market.

    On my belt, at any given time, you can find one or more of the following:

    Motorola PageWriter 2000X (SkyTel 2-way paging)
    Palm Vx
    Motorola StarTac CDMA
    Leatherman Wave

    And that's just on my belt or in my pockets. When I carry a briefcase, it has either my iBook or a Dell Inspiron 7500 in it, along with connectivity gear, chargers, etc. I take a healhty back satchel with me to trade shows, meetings, and so forth that I use to carry my GoType and any paperwork I need, too.

    Now, let's take a look at what can be replaced or combined:

    I could get the GoAmerica service for my Palm Vx and dump the SkyTel pager. But the pager will receive pages virtually anywhere in the US, and send in many places, unlike the Minstrel which relies on the CDPD network. I live north of Boston, where CDPD coverage is good, but the BellSouth wireless and ARDIS coverage (what RIM's devices use) sucks. So a Blackberry is out. I go to Atlanta a couple of times a year, so that's a strike against the Minstrel - Atlanta is the only major East Coast metro area with no CDPD. And I spend a lot of leisure time on the Vineyard, where CDPD works in some locations but not others, and none of the other services work at all - but I can get pages.

    So I'm stuck with the pager for now, until something better is more built out.

    The Palm is something you'd have to rip from my cold dead fingers. I use it everywhere, for reading, storing technical reference material, and organizing my life. I also sync a huge load of content with AvantGo whenever I'm plugged in. As I said above, I'd take it wireless, but there's a lot of coverage issues for me. I also have a GoType keyboard that I use sometimes to make it a laptop substitute. The Palm stays.

    The cellphone stays because it's tri-band (800 MHz AMPS, 800 MHz CDMA, 1900 PCS), tiny, and it works anywhere I've ever been. I can tuck it in a pocket or a glove compartment, it's relatively cheap to feed ($35/month), and there are times you have to talk to someone by voice. I prefer using the pager, though, when possible. I don't give people my cellular number, but I do give them my e-mail address.

    The Leatherman stays because it's mondo cool. I have a Micra on my keychain though, making it the first thing I dump from my belt. I also keep a PST in my car.

    The problem is that all these devices are small, but together they're large. The only thing I can really see combining are the Palm and the pager, though. If the cellphone were bigger I'd probably leave it at home - like I did the Qualcomm 820 I used to have.

    Each one performs a discrete function and can be ditched if I need to. The Palm would be the last one to go, I think, since too much of my brain is outsourced to it. I think that's why I prefer to have several smaller devices each performing a given function than to make it monolithic. If any one device is not functioning or not available I can use the others. If I'm going to put all my eggs in one basket, it needs to be a heck of a basket, and I don't think that level of integration, miniaturization, reliability, and low cost will be practical anytime soon.

    But whoever designs a 2-way pager, PDA, and cell phone that takes up the space of a Palm V, plays MP3's, gets me e-mail and web content, and runs on a battery charge for a couple of days straight, please drop me an e-mail and I'll come buy it. Maybe.

    - -Josh Turiel

  • against convergence, for sync'ing (Score:3)

    by kootch ( 81702 ) on Sunday August 06, 2000 @10:14AM (#875539) Homepage
    does your cell phone really need to be both a cell phone and a PDA? (try typing a long URL on a cell phone and you'll give up forever)

    is your PDA really going to replace your workstation or laptop?

    is your laptop going to replace your corporate server farm?

    the fact is that most people would rather have a variety of personalized and specialized devices, but sometimes they hate the redundancy of keeping a phone book on both their PDA and their cell phone, a calendar on their PDA and their intranet, and your laptop and network sync through things such as MS Exchange (sorry, but I really like that program).

    The ability to have multiple devices with different capabilities sync together is what is going to drive the mobilization of our technology-driven society. These hybrid PDA's aren't the way of the future. But if I was able to sync my phone book on my intranet to my PDA and from the PDA to my StarTAC, I'd be psyched.

    Sync'ing is the way of the future.

  • Screen Size (Score:3)

    by Gregoyle ( 122532 ) on Sunday August 06, 2000 @09:44AM (#875540)
    If you're like me, a 1280x1024 desktop resolution is not enough. I can deal with 1024x768 on a laptop, but I don't like it. The problem is that there are major space limitations for products of that kind.

    I believe that a certain amount of convergence is practical and even desireable. However, some things just don't *want* to be converged. This is why i think the "Pocket PCs" are somewhat silly. Even if they ran a decent OS, many of their capabilities don't make much sense. Why would I want to use an AIM program where I had to type each letter on an onscreen keyboard? Why would I use a web browser that had a maximum screenres of 180x100 (or thereabouts)?

    Sure, you can get a lot done with virtual displays on semi-VR goggles, but would you want to do that while sitting on the subway? (Hello, I'm a tool). The keyboard issue is no small one, either, you can either use a detatchable keyboard that folds or what have you, which while being cool and all still makes it so you have to set up your "PDA" as a laptop. Or we could use a virtual keyboard with VR gloves, which while being cool just plain doesn't exist and won't for a while now.

    I have no problem converging PDAs with phones and pagers, but to make them try to do more would make them unuseable for the things you really need them for. I think, at least at the current state of the art, there should be a line between "PCs" and PDAs/Communication devices.

  • Even if the technology evolve, cellular phones must be kept tiny or just small. There will never be used for regular browsing. Reading mail, OK, getting quotes, OK, but not reading ./ for example.

    But why must cellphones be kept small? Why can't they be used for browsing? In any case, even if you accept the idea that cell phones must be kept small, you can't get any smaller than folding their functionality into another device that you already have. That makes them effectively zero size, though in practice you'll need at least a plug-in headset.

    The big driving force for convergence is that many people already have multiple gadgets with somewhat overlapping functionality, and it makes sense to combine the functions into a single gadget instead. For instance, many people already have a PDA and a cell phone. The PDA has a contact list that contains phone numbers, and the phone has an autodialer list. The PDA may be a wireless one, like the Palm VII, and the phone may have wireless web. At that point, you're severely duplicating functions and adding needless complexity and cost.

    It might very well be simpler and cheaper just to design a Palm IX that has all of the functions of the Palm VII and also lets you plug in a headset to get phone functionality. You can also get some additional advantages, like being instantly able to phone anyone after they've beamed you their business card. You can even get new functions, like being able to update a person's information every time you phone them, guarantee that appointments that you arrange over the phone are automatically entered in both people's calendar list, etc.

  • Most of the arguments against convergence are driven by desktop analogies - which are clearly innapplicable.

    Most of the arguments for convergence are driven by Bluetooth-type fantasies - but this doesn't deal with the reality of the immediate market.

    The fact is, the ultimate convergence device could be built today. In this market, even a few months coudl spell the difference between total domination and second-rate status, so let's design a machine that could be manufactured next month and be on sale by X-Mas. Here are the specs (modify/iterate freely in replies):

    1. Palm form factor
      . The form factor could be thickened a bit or ergonomically designed for either one-handed use (like the Sony Palm) or beltclip access.
    2. Palm OS
      . The large base of third-party apps make this the best choice. WinCE has too much emotional baggage and it would take about a year for full-fledged Linux equivalents to get coded on the same scale. PalmOS is a mature apps platform.
    3. Encrypted Wallet Application
      . Critical app! This device should lessen the wallet load and allow you to store all personal data digitally instead of on pieces of paper.
    4. WAP browser
      . (duh)
    5. Wireless antenna
      . .
    6. built-in cell phone
      . Regarding form factor, if the ergonomic design is done well, the reverse side of the device could have the voice speaker and earpiece and still be a comfortable grip. The entire device should still weigh less than a land-line cordless phone.
    7. audio jack
      . essential for plugging in standard headphones. Audio DSP chip would be ideal and well-worth a $25 dollar increase in price, so digital audio and cell phone audio could be integrated.
    8. dedicated storage expansion slot
      . The only thing people really need is more storage in terms of peripherals. Something along the lines of Memory Stick is needed - VERY small form factor and essentially negligible weight.
    9. IR port
      . for local data sharing and interactivity with other users.
    10. Standard integrated pager
      . The pager should operate using the same antenna as the cell phone, but be configurable to operate with any paging service. Any PCS user can tell you that the integrated pager sucks when indoors.
    The reason for this feature set is simple. The intersection of cell-phone users and PDA users is a SIGNIFICANT fraction of PDA users. While true that not all cell phone users need a PDA, almost all PDA users need a cell phone, and therefore have two devices hanging off their belt. The Palm Wireless showed us that you can add wireless capability to the Palm form factor without significantly adding size/weight, and proper ergonomic design would allow the cell phone aspect of this PDA-phone to be minimized. hey Sony! paying attention? :)
    --
    ______________________________________________

  • With enough... (Score:3)

    by Maddog_Delphi97 ( 173780 ) on Sunday August 06, 2000 @09:05AM (#875543)
    Well, I figure with glue and duct-tape, you can merge anything with anything... :)

  • Re:A whole lot, perhaps... (Score:3)

    by martyb ( 196687 ) on Sunday August 06, 2000 @09:41AM (#875544)
    If you look at the advancements in technology over the last twenty years, you'll see that it is quite substantial.

    That's for sure. We regularly tote around PDAs and cell phones that have more computer power and storage than refrigeraor-sized minicomputers did 20 years ago.

    It looks to me that the limits are based on the same things it has always been:

    • Input

      Input has advanced from punch cards and teletypes to usable speech recognition and spy-sized video cameras.

    • Processing

      Moore's law has held up so far; we're gaining two-fold increases every 18 months.

    • Ouput

      Output devices have shrunk tremendously to the point we can easily make them so small that their images are illegible. As for audio, Sony has shrunk an MP3 player to the size of a large pen.

    • Size

      We continue to make amazing progress in miniaturization. Cell phones used to be the size of a briefcase. Especially with nanomachines coming in the foreseeable future.

    • Communication

      Protocols and compressed streams bode well here for fat pipes to/from anywhere, too. Blue Tooth, MP3, MP4, and 3rd Generation Wireless all come to mind.

    • Cost

      We regularly expect, and see, more power and capabilities in computers and technology, at a lower cost, year after year.

    As I see it, the limits we are now seeing have to do with the limits of the humans which need to interact with these devices. It's only a matter of time until we can go no further in size reduction. Unless, we begin using borg-like augmentations to our human sensory network. And much of the work is already under way:

    • implanted devices to help the blind to see
    • tiny hearing aids to help with hearing
    • natural language recognition software
    • wearable computers

    My guess? In 5-10 years, implanted technology will be in the hands (umm, well, heads) of the early adopters.

  • The answer is networking (Score:4)

    by mfterman ( 2719 ) on Sunday August 06, 2000 @11:09AM (#875545)
    Given the fact that to some extent for cameras and cell phones and even PDA's, form follows function and they have vastly different functions, trying to have one form that encompasses them all is foolish. You get something that is a jack of all trades and master of none. It's better to have devices that are optimized for complementary uses. The PDA is your generic data entry and display device. The cell phone is voice communication. The camera is to record visual data. The key is to make all of these specialists work together as a team.

    Personally I wouldn't mind having a cell phone and a PDA but having the two of them talk to each other seamlessly. Indeed, I could see the PDA being bright enough to know that I have a cell phone and use it to do long range wireless, which would spread the load of work done across multiple batteries. And as for my electronic camera, if it can instantly transfer the photographs it takes over to my PDA, that would be fine and dandy. The PDA acts as the hub of my personal LAN, the brain controlling it, with cell phone and camera as periphials.

    Come to think of it, that's the best analogy I can think of. Would you really want a personal computer with a printer and scanner built in? Or even a laptop that's built that way? It can be done and you could argue there's an all-in-one utility factor, but even for a laptop people tend to back down from that. The personal computer industry could have converged but didn't. They realized (consciously or not) that it was better to have those periphials separated from the main box. The iMac or laptops are the limit for integration there.

    And so I think we're going to see the same thing on the personal devices level. The PDA takes the place of the computer and the other devices become things that connect via wireless to it.

  • Go HUD - screen limitations (Score:5)

    by Tekmage ( 17375 ) on Sunday August 06, 2000 @09:24AM (#875546) Homepage

    A little thinking out loud...

    HUDs are the way to go to cure the physical screen limitation. Bonus is you get a little more privacy.

    Micro Optical Corporation [microopticalcorp.com] has the right idea with their Clip-On [microopticalcorp.com]. IBM could pull it off with their Wearable [cnn.com] stuff [ibm.com].

    For audio, look to the In-Ear monitors [hearnet.com] musicians use...

    For the rest of it, I think Charmed Technology [charmed.com] has the right idea. The ultimate form for our every-day tech is when it no longer looks like tech. It's the peripherals that count. A single screen that can pull the video from any device, clip-on headphones to listen to any audio, and cameras and microphones added as you see fit - the Blue Tooth promise.

    To be honest, the barriers to physical size reduction are power-source and connectivity between chips. Watch the SOC developments (System-On-Chip) for significant shrinks from multi-chip to single-chip forms. At the rate feature size is shrinking on-chip, the limitation isn't how many transistors or gates you can squeeze on, it's how many bond-pads you need to I/O with the chip.

    Aside: Bought myself a couple of E-holsters [eholster.com] to take care of more immediate gadget-loading. Works well under a sweater or jacket.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close