MOBAFire's first Mini Guide Contest of Season 14 is here! Create or update guides for the 30 featured champions and compete for up to $200 in prizes! š
Do you like the idea of a phone worth keeping?
Searz wrote:
Two car models I've never heard about here in Sweden, but your point seems valid so far.
This is where you go wrong.
The cost of the Block-phone compared to similar normal phones will be significantly higher.
Because it will cost a LOT more to manufacture.
I mean, if they wanna make it easy to see which part that is faulty (which is pretty much required) the phone base-block would need a pretty advanced controller chip that can troubleshoot any eventual problems.
And there is a lot of extra stuff that would need to be added to allow this kind of partitioning of the components.
And it's this addition of extra components that would invalidate the whole point of the phone in the first place. If more components are used then overall waste wouldn't necessarily go down even if less phones are thrown away..
But this is a smartphone...
Though maybe you're just talking about using the tech for a "dumb"-phone.
That would be ineffiecient too though..
As I've stated before: the pricing will go up significantly and the amount of waste that is actually 'saved' is small at best.
And who the heck forces old people to use/buy smartphones? There are several kinds of cheap simple phones for people like that. I mean, an acquaintance of mine quite literally bought a phone for 10bucks not too long ago. Block-phones can impossibly compete with that..
don't tell me you never saw this, maybe you don't live in Sweden.
Modular manufacturing actually cheapens the product and that is what any big company does. the difference is that they sell the products in set/chosen combinations to broaden their market as much as possible.
your argument becomes valid when you consider a junction on modular fabrication with a high costumisation option. However, even if it is more expensive, people will pay for that. I'd give you the example of cars, but i can simply give you one of computers. It is just a question of talking to some manufacturers and agree with an assembly method.
I can agree with you there might be a problem with arranging a modular chassis. However it is just an issue of how fragile you don't ming the connections to be. Don't stick yourself too much on that thick thing you saw on the video. It doesn't need to be like that.
"As I've stated before: the pricing will go up significantly and the amount of waste that is actually 'saved' is small at best."
"And who the heck forces old people to use/buy smartphones?" you ask. By your satndards, someone is. you made a post arguing like every has to have a smartphone. Either way, big companies will want only touchscreen smartphones to be sold in the near future because thats where the high-end profit is, regarding this market.
"Block-phones can impossibly compete with that.." you don't know, they don't exist, and you are making and argument based on things that either aren't true or you can't know to be true.
you may like your toys too much, but i can tell you didn't make any accounting to the high expenditures you claim, especially when involving modular construction.
this has a market, whether you like it or not, and has more credit than what you give.
enforcing a set base for any type of item would require government approval to create a federal law that disables all items of that type that does not have that set base. This means a federal law that criminalises holding, developing and manufacturing any item of that type that does not have that set base.
Yes, if the companies created an agreement where that base would be used in any new development from here on it could work. However, there are so many reasons why companies would refuse to do just that and, even if they did finally accept it, new companies have no such obligations leading to a huge part of consumers going to that company as setting a base limits technology advancement and choices. This would then lead to the previous agreement by the companies to be ripped up in order to be able to even maintain the companies they own.
There are so many reasons as to why this is impossible, albeit it is a good idea.
Yes, if the companies created an agreement where that base would be used in any new development from here on it could work. However, there are so many reasons why companies would refuse to do just that and, even if they did finally accept it, new companies have no such obligations leading to a huge part of consumers going to that company as setting a base limits technology advancement and choices. This would then lead to the previous agreement by the companies to be ripped up in order to be able to even maintain the companies they own.
There are so many reasons as to why this is impossible, albeit it is a good idea.
thanks Hogopogo for the banner :D
Nope, I honestly really don't give a **** about cars. All I ever hear about is Volvo and Saab.
Quoted:
Modular manufacturing actually cheapens the product and that is what any big company does. the difference is that they sell the products in set/chosen combinations to broaden their market as much as possible.
your argument becomes valid when you consider a junction on modular fabrication with a high costumisation option. However, even if it is more expensive, people will pay for that. I'd give you the example of cars, but i can simply give you one of computers. It is just a question of talking to some manufacturers and agree with an assembly method.
your argument becomes valid when you consider a junction on modular fabrication with a high costumisation option. However, even if it is more expensive, people will pay for that. I'd give you the example of cars, but i can simply give you one of computers. It is just a question of talking to some manufacturers and agree with an assembly method.
Well, comparing cars to mobile computing in this way is just not valid. Cars don't have extremely limited size and weight constraints, and they don't have to be as fast as possible; I mean cars are fine running at the same speed as the previous model, but with computers the speed is a major selling-point.
So you really can't compare the modularity of a car to that of a computer, especially one that is supposed to fit in your hand.
Quoted:
"And who the heck forces old people to use/buy smartphones?" you ask. By your satndards, someone is. you made a post arguing like every has to have a smartphone.
Wait, what?
How'd you figure this? O.o
This is what I said:
"And who the heck forces old people to use/buy smartphones? There are several kinds of cheap simple phones for people like that. I mean, an acquaintance of mine quite literally bought a phone for 10bucks not too long ago. Block-phones can impossibly compete with that.."
Where does the forcing and arguing for smartphones come in?
SkidmarkD wrote:
I lolled.
You already have the same concept, but for a different device.
The desktop.
And I rest my case.
Yeah.. but no. There are two large differences between the two platforms.
One is meant to stand shoved away under a table, the other is supposed to fit in your hand.
That's right. Size and weight.
Desktop PCs don't give a **** about size and weight.
Phones on the other hand gives a huge pile of horse dung about it.
Just look at consumer electronics: they have less modularity the smaller they are. That's a clear indication of something in my opinion..
""Toshabi took thy **** and strucketh Hotshot in his face 'thou art no god'" Toshabi 3:16" - Toshabi
"And then, TheJohn said something so Brazilian that it made all the Brazilians in Brazil turn to look at him" - Toshabi
"abloobloo ur triggering me" - Toshabi
"And then, TheJohn said something so Brazilian that it made all the Brazilians in Brazil turn to look at him" - Toshabi
"abloobloo ur triggering me" - Toshabi
Searz wrote:
Nope, I honestly really don't give a **** about cars. All I ever hear about is Volvo and Saab.
Well, comparing cars to mobile computing in this way is just not valid. Cars don't have extremely limited size and weight constraints, and they don't have to be as fast as possible; I mean cars are fine running at the same speed as the previous model, but with computers the speed is a major selling-point.
So you really can't compare the modularity of a car to that of a computer, especially one that is supposed to fit in your hand.
well, sure, you know a lot of stuff, even contradicting yourself.
Pheyniex wrote:
well, sure, you know a lot of stuff, even contradicting yourself.
This holds no weight. Stop throwing out empty statements.
"We've had a few gloomy years with bad console ports, and what do we get in the light at the end of the console-tunnel? A tablet OS ported to PC." - Atlas Tasume, on Windows 8
it's not empty pointing out that you give a counterstatement based on something that not only you don't know, you also disregard. Added to the fact that a car has much more to be said than what you claim.
wake up man, how can you make a 1litre engine run with 130hp while having plenty of space for the passenger and not hear a single thing...?
wake up man, how can you make a 1litre engine run with 130hp while having plenty of space for the passenger and not hear a single thing...?
Pheyniex wrote:
it's not empty pointing out that you give a counterstatement based on something that not only you don't know, you also disregard. Added to the fact that a car has much more to be said than what you claim.
It was empty; you didn't explain jack ****.
Do you really not understand what an empty statement means?
Quoted:
wake up man, how can you make a 1litre engine run with 130hp while having plenty of space for the passenger and not hear a single thing...?
I could probably nitpick that argument, but I'm just gonna turn this on you.
Have you seen how SO-DIMM RAM and mSATA SSDs are connected to motherboards? Would the SSD not take up noticeably less space if it didn't have connectors and a socket? And would it not take up a lot less space if the RAM was stacked on top of the CPU/GPU?
Do you understand how limiting these sockets can be for data transfer speeds, and in turn how much the overall performance could be impacted?
Once again: "Just look at consumer electronics: they have less modularity the smaller they are. That's a clear indication of something in my opinion.."
"I love the dirty bomb tag because i get either
a) posts about the game
b) current world affairs" - steel-sentry
a) posts about the game
b) current world affairs" - steel-sentry
Searz wrote:
It was empty; you didn't explain jack ****.
Do you really not understand what an empty statement means?
I could probably nitpick that argument, but I'm just gonna turn this on you.
Have you seen how SO-DIMM RAM and mSATA SSDs are connected to motherboards? Would the SSD not take up noticeably less space if it didn't have connectors and a socket? And would it not take up a lot less space if the RAM was stacked on top of the CPU/GPU?
Do you understand how limiting these sockets can be for data transfer speeds, and in turn how much the overall performance could be impacted?
Once again: "Just look at consumer electronics: they have less modularity the smaller they are. That's a clear indication of something in my opinion.."
it's the same argument, since the size of the sockets have been roughly the same, while hardware companies are looking to make everything faster. Engines have been getting tinier and more powerfull, the connections do take much space and you can't simply bend a pipe.
anyway, there is a limit on small. if they have less modularity, it is one thing and that is something that can be achieved. Stating that modularity makes production more expensive is simply showing off ignorance.
and it was not an empty statement, unless you just decided to read it while forgetting what you wrote. I don't even think you read what you wrote.
Pheyniex wrote:
it's the same argument, since the size of the sockets have been roughly the same, while hardware companies are looking to make everything faster. Engines have been getting tinier and more powerfull, the connections do take much space and you can't simply bend a pipe.
anyway, there is a limit on small. if they have less modularity, it is one thing and that is something that can be achieved. Stating that modularity makes production more expensive is simply showing off ignorance.
So?
I'm trying to steer the topic back to the electronic side of things, because that is guaranteed to be relevant.
I have already made my argument with electronics, now please refute it using electronics.
Quoted:
and it was not an empty statement, unless you just decided to read it while forgetting what you wrote. I don't even think you read what you wrote.
I could say the same thing to you for example: you know a lot of stuff, even contradicting yourself.
Such a statement would hold no weight because I am not explaining what is contradictory.
The same goes for you.
Now stop trying to worm out of it. The statement was empty. That is not to say however, that you can later make it hold weight by explaining it properly, like you should have in the first place.
The moment a religious person unknowingly calls his own ways stupid: "And lol. I highly doubt you have magic powers. If you proved it I would believe you, but since you 'refuse to', I choose not to."
You need to log in before commenting.
But, the way it is now, it has connections from dot to dot. If they were to have a standard position, the cost and weight definately would be reduced, since each dot doesn't necessarily have to be connected to eachother :P
Or am I completely missing the point? :P
You're not missing the point, you're just making wild guesses.
A modular set of electronics can impossibly be smaller, lighter and cheaper than a fixed set. That is just the reality of the situation.