I guess this makes mostly sense if you plan on extending the firmware. A stupid idea I was thinking about is a table that moves once a day into the standing position. I used to work at a standing desk and after a wile almost never used the feature. Maybe a warning-beep would make sense...
edit: mixed up the price, removed my first sentence
There's an open feature request to allow this type of functionality. Someone else wanted it to randomly move during working hours (a few times a day) to force them to alternate their position.
A trend that started already in a lot of companies a couple of years ago and will only be accelerated by Covid. Many places do overbook desks in offices right now and have flex-tables without fixed assigned workers. Seems fair to think about compensating employees for the costs that are being pushed to their side.
As a non-remote employee, I had to find housing near my office. Now, as a remote employee, my only real requirements are a power source and internet connection. Sure, I have to live somewhere, but that need isn’t a result of my employment. It seems that non-remote employees have more specific and expensive housing requirements and costs.
Since I've been working at home, and so has my partner, we have had a lot more issues in the apartment. We're both on the phone all day, so there's very little chance of having a quiet space in the apartment during the week. We're also forced to split the work-related resources, like we have to organize an equitable time-share on the desk which is better for working, vs the kitchen table which is not as comfortable.
If work from home becomes the norm long term, I can imagine we would need to think about a larger apartment for this reason.
aren't you saving a good amount of money too though. I don't know if you and your partner drive to work, but I'm saving about $120/month just on gas, and I'd probably end up saving another $100-200/month on vehicle depreciation and insurance if this went on indefinitely. an extra $300/month makes a big difference in the rental market where I live.
I normally commute by bike so this isn't a factor for me. I'm also using more electricity, and I'm drinking the coffee I bought rather than the office coffee.
ah okay, so you don't save anything on the commute. I'm happy to pay for my own coffee (I get much nicer beans than we have at the office), but I have noticed that my utilities bill is no lower than it was mid-winter.
I chose my employer based on where I want to live. The commute is stil about 40 minutes of driving each way buts its manageable. If I chose my employer to be in downtown Atlanta, or thereabouts, I would need to live in an area with more expensive house, less space, and crappy schools... Or drive 1.5 hours. Unless they'd double my salary, the 1.5 hour commute is a deal breaker.
Microsoft just announced 1500 jobs in downtown Atlanta, to be near Georgia tech and the tech hub. Not sure if they realize that developers who have working experience, likely now have kids now and arent going to settle for C level schools. Their location isn't even supported by mass transit that well (bus, but no train. They likely payed a premium for the space since it's "hip".
I've found it ironic that there's even such thing a tech hub, since we are the ones who create and push for remote work.
Idk about you but I know which lower cost of living I'd prefer to move to, and my break-even salary cut is 25%. I think I can negotiate it to 15-20% which would effectively be a raise.
My salary is how much money I'm willing to take to work for the company. If I can live somewhere cheaper, that number is lower.
Another perspective is that if you live somewhere remotely, employers will pay for your increase in cost of living if you move to a more expensive place.
Or just hire people from low cost of living areas.
Depending on the location, they could just let you go.
Imagine moving from Idaho to NYC. Drastic increase in cost. If an employer needs to compensate for that, I'm pretty sure theyll think long and hard whether its worth it.
True. When my team was just starting out, we couldn't find a place where we could sit together, because company policy was that they only needed 0.7 desk per employee. Many teams did have their own space, so we had nothing.
Many people, if they know they are going to be WFH regularly, will want larger homes so that they can have a dedicated office space instead of having to set up a desk in their bedroom. This is especially true if you live with someone who also WFH and you can’t really work from the same room due to constant conference calls. Instead of a 1BR apartment, you might want a 2BR + a study, which obviously costs more.
Even if you don’t live with someone, it helps a lot to have your work space separate from your living space. I believe there are studies about this that say it makes both better for your sleep and for your work productivity if your sleep space and work space are not the same space.
Some people will also need beefier internet plans than they normally needed, so they can support constant video conferencing.
One can work from the couch or living room table in a pinch, but if you need privacy, or the contract mandates a certain level of confidentiality (like other people not being able to see the screen, or having to lock paperwork away) you will want to invest in a separate room for work.
Also, at least in Germany, not sure about Switzerland, you can only write off the rent, taxes-wise, for a separate office room with a door. You can't write off a desk in a room used for other purposes or a space in a hallway.
Not to mention if you have roommates or a spouse and kids.
My workspace cost me money to furnish, and it permanently takes up part of my house. I don't personally mind as software development is a large part of my hobbies as well so I'd have that dedicated space irrespective of my job, but for a lot of people the need for a dedicated work space is tied to their job, and not something they'd otherwise need.
Whether or not it's a net saving vs. transport costs really depends on where you happen to live.
Are people really creating dedicated spaces? What happened to all those people who were in coworking spaces and cafes where they really had nothing more than a desk and a chair?
I think the developer perspective can cloud the fact that the overwhelming majority just have a laptop and a place to put it for their "workspace".
I think people quickly will realise that if they're working at spaces like that full time in front of a laptop they'll soon be dealing with neck strain, back pain and all kinds of issues. I've worked with "just a laptop and a place to put it" and it can work for a while, but it's an awful full time replacement.
There's little that is special about software development from that point of view.
"All those people" who are in cafes really are a tiny little fraction of workers, and most co-working spaces I've been to have a wide variety of proper office environments because unsurprisingly a lot of people need a proper environment to get work done.
Everyone whose house I've seen who works from home more than every now and again has had a dedicated space.
Creating an office at home? For a lot of people, making your home a viable working space is very expensive. It may even require the worker to purchase a home or apartment with an extra room.
If you're creating a real dedicated space then that can be justified. If it's to the point where you have to buy a new house/apartment with an extra room then I'd rather just have a real office space instead, especially as an employer.
Imagine if you will: a condo building that's designed as a mixed residential/commercial space, where there are apartment units, and office units that are free-to-use for anyone with an apartment there. And the office units are pre-furnished.
Now you're essentially paying for a co-working space (whether you use it or not or whether there's always a space available) through some combination of higher unit prices and condo fees.
Wouldn't it make more sense for those who need/want a work area outside their apartment to get a co-working space?
The idea here isn't that you want a work area outside your apartment. The idea is that you'd ideally want an extra room in your apartment to serve as a home office, but you are willing to time-share it with other people to make it cheaper than the cost of an actual additional room for your exclusive use. But you still get to wander over there in your house slippers, just like a dorm kitchen.
A lot of people outside of urban centers have spare space and the money/time cost of their usual commute adds up. But, absolutely, there are many people in cities who have low commuting costs and their apartment is basically somewhere to sleep. I can't imagine working remote like that is sustainable long-term. Many will have to move into a larger place or rent a co-working space.
“Free”? Do you have absolutely no attachments to where you live? People have social support networks - friends, families, places that they go to, classes they’re taking. Children who go to schools and have friends there and go to parks for play dates and birthdays.
Those are just one or two of the social costs. How much does it cost in real money to relocate a family of 3 or 4?
People who live close to work in an expensive area have traded money for time. Higher salary; shorter commute. They may not have the resources to move.
Actually, yes. I have no attachments to where I live. I am personally free to go live anywhere I want in the country. I don't really have friends, don't have children, I don't want to live near my family, and I'm single.
"How much does it cost in real money to relocate a family of 3 or 4?"
Versus living in the aforementioned very expensive area? Seems like it would probably save money to move somewhere more affordable.
One could argue that you don't need a separate room in your house, if you don't work from home. Something you might need if you have a family with multiple people working/studying from home. Also CHF150 is not really a lot for Switzerland, so this probably won't pay for a whole room on its own. But definitely an interesting decision from the court.
150 CHF/month is not a lot but it would still cover about 8m² of my rent, which seems fair to me (I don't live in the center of Zürich, but not exactly in a cheap place either).
I'd see that as a way to offset electricity costs and maybe invest in my setup, rather than cover the square meterage per se, but in my opinion it's a pretty good middle ground.
There is an upcoming event which is supposedly focused on their upcoming subscription service. My guess is that they don’t want to detract from that, so they are getting these smaller updates out of the way.
"zeolite" materials as catalysts are something you are exposed if you study materials science (my formal education). Also W.K. Lewis is a name you'll be exposed to if you dip a toe into chemical engineering. Zeolites and Lewis are central in the FCC story.
Not specifically about this topic, but "Oil & War: How the Deadly Struggle for Fuel in WWII Meant Victory or Defeat" is the most definitive account of the overall fuel supply factors that I am aware of.
That book probably covers the operation to get fuel across the Channel for the D Day invasions. I'm fairly sure Brenzett Aeronautical Museum had a section about it along with some pipe and equipment when I went a few years ago.
There were so many astonishing developments in the background to support the front end fighting which are so easily overlooked.
Thanks for the book info, I've flagged that to get at some point.
In the US the average length of car ownership for new cars is 6.5 years [1], so it does matter what your car is worth after this time. Not sure if it amounts to ca. 6,000 USD per year, tho. That's a lot of depreciation.
The type of person who buys a brand new car probably likes a brand new car (new features, status, reliability, etc) and that doesn't change after a handful of years. Or the other way around, the type of person who wants to maintain an older vehicle is probably not the type of person who will buy a brand new car.
Obviously there are exceptions, but the used car market is much larger than the new car market so most are selling.
> The average maximum force the bricks can stand is 4,240N. That's equivalent to a mass of 432kg (950lbs). If you divide that by the mass of a single brick, which is 1.152g, then you get the grand total of bricks a single piece of Lego could support: 375,000.
But the weight it can support will be determined by the weakest link not by the average. If the lowest brick is of below average quality the tower will fall sooner. So if you plan on building a 3.5 km tower I'd advise you to consider the variation of the brick quality. Bonus points for taking into account that each additional brick has to support less weight.
It did slightly annoy me that they say "they were impressed at the consistency of Lego manufacture" and then go on to tell us the average. What's the variance?!
About a year (?) ago, someone did do a study of Lego manufacturing variance. They throw away a lot of bricks to keep the variance very small. Granted it focused more on fit than compressive strength, but should help you get nearer the answer.
I think John Gruber over at Daring Fireball said it best:
"I remain highly skeptical that a modular design can compete in a product category where size, weight, and battery life are at such a premium. Even if they can bring something to market, why would any normal person be interested in a phone like this?"
Size matters? My Android friends have huge phones (and cases) - Clearly they don't mind a phone being big and if the phone had cheap replaceable parts, that giant "life proof" case wouldn't be needed.
Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere. In fact I've heard from several who think a heavier phone means it's "better made".
Battery life - Again my Android friends (and a few 5c friends) suffer from poor battery life - How would a phone where you could easily swap for a new/better battery be inferior?
Gruber should remind himself of the first generation of pretty much any tech product. Bulky, ugly, and clumsy could describe a lot of projects that push technology to it's limits.
It does matter when comparing with alternatives. Modular phone with comparable specs to other phones (screen size, cpu, camera, etc) would probably be bigger, thicker, heavier and uglier. In other words, even when a customer is buying a big 5"+ phone, then I think he/she will probably not choose the modular one.
I think the key is the purchasing model. A "free phone" with contract every 2 years creates a situation where the consumer doesn't value repairing/upgrading their phone.
If you had to pay say $600-$800 for a phone upfront, one is upgradable/repairable and the other is not (but faster/sexier) I think some (maybe many) would choose the former.
The point is: A barebone model for 50 bucks that you could transform in a high-end device expending more money on it when you can afford it.
Also... need more battery life? Why not replace that extra RAM memory module for battery one? Or even... why not to replace the 4 Gb RAM module for one with 1Gb + more battery?
I get what you're saying and yet the more I read about this the more I find myself shaking my head thinking how stupid this really is. It's clearly not marketed at me. I will continue to buy standard STRESS-FREE devices.
Not every device is made to satisfy the entire market.
And they have already acknowledged they plan on having "effort free" choices available for consumers. Probably have a "about the same as a Samsung" option, a cheap option that has the important bells and maybe a minimal option you can build off of.
>> "I know people that just toss an $800 laptop like it's nothing when something goes wrong. We truly live in a disposable society."
Nope. You just happen to know people who can afford to toss an $800 laptop. For most of the 'lower middle class' people I know purchasing a laptop is a big deal and only happens once every 3/4/5 years. Even then they don't spend more than £400. Even when their laptop is practically unusable through age, damaged parts, viruses etc. they continue to use it because £400/$800/a new laptop is a lot of money.
But the only difference is the amount of money, not the attitude. No one thinks "I can afford a new laptop, but I'll rehabilitate this old one anyway."
I must not be anyone then. I have a (nearly) six-year old Thinkpad that I've upgraded a few times. I could have afforded a new replacement at any time, but I'd rather keep using the machine I already have.
i very much agree, products don't tend to last as long as they do anymore, and servicing them tends to cost close to the cost of new ones..
2-3 years ago I got new sony led tv and my wife was under the impression it would be our TV for the next 10-15 years... if major components don't go out in the next 1-3 years i will be happily suprised
I can give you bigger and thicker since I would expect those too. Neither is really a problem though. One of the benefits of the otterbox case for my Galaxy G3 is that it made the phone thicker, and it's already on the big side.
Heavier though will probably depend on the modules you choose, and ugly, well I thought what they were showing looked kind of good.
Personally, a lack of a SD card is one of the reasons I didn't get the Nexus or an iPhone. There are people that want these types of features and they win when comparing with alternatives.
The interesting thing about the mobile phone market is how big it is and what that means for niches.
There are about 900m Android phones out there. That means if you assume only 10% of the market might be interested in a particular variant of phone, your total addressable market is still 90 million (and growing).
My instinct is that this level of customisation is probably a relatively niche thing but - as outlined above - that doesn't mean that there isn't room for it to be commercially successful.
Yes, there are people whose needs are different. And I am much in favor of modular design (at least replaceable battery, SD card and USB OTG, but project Ara goes much further), but that does not seem to be the case with mainstream consumer.
Modularity has its advantages too. You could always run a bare bones phone with only the hardware you actually use attached to it while having a very good battery.
> Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere.
Your anecdotal evidence is about as valid as mine, and I can guarantee you that weight matters. Tactile feel matters. Looks, of course matter.
In all these cases, a modular device fares poorly compared to an integrated one. This is a handheld device - can you not imagine the amount of dirt and grime that would cake up between the module gaps if you don't have a case on the device? And if you do have a case, now you have to uncase to switch around the modules.
The era of modularity is past, or not yet ready to come back.
I don't see weight, tactile feel or looks on the list.
For those with cases, I doubt most even know what their phone really "feels" like, let alone actually weighs or even looks like.
As far as having to remove the case to swap a hardware component .. I don't think that's a major hurdle, we're not talking about a daily, weekly or even monthly task that would make that a pain.
If I could get an Android phone that's twice as thick as my current one, with the volume made up of a huge battery, regardless of how heavy it is, I'd buy it tomorrow. This obsession with thinness and lightness is something I frankly don't care about in the least.
I have a phone with a slightly larger screen than a Galaxy S5, that is also slightly smaller (LG G2). The efficient use of space mitigates the (few) disadvantages of a larger screen.
A phone that is bulky and has a large screen would be impractical. That's why size matters.
I don't really know who they are targetting with this device or their anticipated volume, so it is hard to say whether this will be "successful" or not. It seems certain to me that this is not a mass-market offering, though.
I'm not sure that "size matters" here means "small is better than large". But with a modular design where you can swap parts in and out, how could you ever change the size of your screen if you want a larger phone?
Not sure about increasing the size but being able to replace/fix a broken screen would be huge. I'm no hardware engineer but I would suggest that making the phone/screen bigger would in fact be possible, if the modular platform was designed to accommodate.
Agree with everything, especially weight and battery comments.
Wouldn't it be nice to have an easily hot swappable battery with a tiny internal battery in the phone so you wouldn't even have to turn it off to do so?
Although I am blind I still consider myself a "normal" person. This could be the answer to my very specific requirements though. I'd love to build a phone with the lowest quality screen I can, no camera, as big a battery as I can get, and possibly a keyboard. For obvious reasons something like this will never be produced by any company.
This is not a phone, as someone noted in another comment.
It is a good old pocket computer, and it is modular, and mine may (or may not) have a telephony module.
I have a Galaxy Note, I think I use it as a phone twice a week on average. I use it as a HN browser, a camera, a podcast downloader and listener, a navigation, a game console, an e-reader, a translator, for contacts and calendar, and phone calls. Having a big screen is helpful in 9 of these 10 activities. Being big is annoying in 1 of them.
Moreover a big device has a much bigger battery, thus a somewhat better battery life (only somewhat because the screen is bigger too, and you use it more.)
Indeed, the classic definition of "phone" hardly applies to these devices anymore. They're Cray 2 supercomputers (well, "super" back in the day) shrunk into a matchbox and include, as one tiny program making use of the mic/speaker/radio, a "telephone"-like capability.
He doesn't see any advantage to a modular phone? Then I don't think he's looking hard enough. I stand by my belief that Gruber has backed himself into a corner where he now needs to defend anything Apple does, and attack just about anything the competition does that is at least seen by others as a threat to Apple, if not by him.
You've misread his statement. He sees the benefit, but points out that the tradeoffs will be the main areas of competition among smartphones: size, weight, battery life. All three will be worse in a modular phone. You'll also get less for your money overall. Not to mention that having to choose among components just adds an additional layer of option stress that most consumers don't want. Sure, there's a market for a modular phone, but it's not going to seriously compete against the Galaxy or the iPhone in the mass market.
As a phone owner with kids, I just don't see this happening in my household. Modules getting dropped/lost (especially the critical one that makes the others go), connectors wearing out from constant playing around or, even worse, smeared with food and crammed with junk.
I have a hard time keeping unified units intact and working, much less letting my family near a Lego kit that needs to be 100% assembled to work properly...
>Not to mention that having to choose among components just adds an additional layer of option stress that most consumers don't want.
I think consumers actually like a little choice in their products now. I mean, take a look at the apple laptop website.
Also, I could imagine vendors offering different phone presets (e.g. battery life, photo-taking, media consumption) and then letting the customer further customize it if they want.
And yet, probably 99% of their owners will never purchase a replacement battery.
For a given sized phone, a replaceable battery is necessarily smaller capacity than a fixed equivalent, due to space wasted on additional housings, clips and connectors.
Well, the problem's just (obviously) that if you ever open up an iPhone (or I suspect any competing phone), every cubic millimetre of it is filled with things that do stuff. To add all the panels that bridge components, the connecting hardware etc can only add weight and space. It'll be interesting to see if Google can make it work, but you can't say that it's not unjustified skepticism.
In terms of 'any advantage', I interpreted it as 'any overall advantage', and I think I probably agree with him.
As a result Gruber has made himself almost entirely irrelevant. I almost can't wait to watch him twist himself into knots when Apple releases a larger phone.
Agreed. This is yet another product that will appeal to techies and first adopters only.
For instance, people could -- in theory -- build their own computers with a bunch of modular components, but instead a lot of them buy a Mac or some other variation of all-in-one solution.
It's different. With computers, you pick your own motherboard, CPU, GPU, memory config and so on. These things look funny and technical and most people don't even touch them. But even casual users regularly replace/expand their displays, storage (I'm counting external hard drives) and laptop batteries.
With this project, your SoC - which is your CPU, motherboard, networking, memory and baseband chip all in one - is still just one package. Yet you can easily supplement other varieties of packages for displays, storage, batteries, cameras. Each of these things are quite well understood by many casual users.
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/ and with the influx of new people in PC gaming with self build rigs - the custom PC market is quite healthy right now.
And it is also very niche. The custom PC market has been, and will continue to be a "healthy" market, but it is by no means a growing market. The difference between a custom built PC, and a modular designed phone, is that for the most part, a static device, that is, it doesn't go anywhere, versus a phone, which will be abused just by the nature of the fact that it is a mobile phone (I mean the presentation is proof of this, the phone broke the day before).
Now am I saying that there is no market for this, absolutely not, but this in no way will become the standard for a variety of reasons, but the biggest one to me, is time. I used to build all my PC's, taking the time to compare parts, read reviews, check out overclockability, and look for deals and get the best bang for my buck, but as I have gotten older, I just want a machine that works, my disdain for everything Apple, has completely turned around, I absolutely love my Macs now, not because I think Apple and Steve are gods gift to computing, but because they work, they maintain resale value, and compared to PC hardware, they are superior.
Than again, a lot of them do self-build. Even if this system is only good enough to attract techies and enthusiasts, that might be enough to give it a viable market.
Well, it has some other benefits which might outweigh those points. Beside the added flexibility in general, ecological benefits might be one of those because you can avoid highly toxic and expensive-to-recycle waste if you can replace parts of your phone and escape the "I need to replace my phone every two years because one small part is now outdated or broken"-cycle.
I tend to agree with Gruber on this one. Modular phone might be perfect for me (will see when and if it gets released), but I am not sure it can attract the masses as well as polished, high-end phones from Apple, Samsung, Nokia, etc. Size, weight and appearance do matter a lot to average customer.
But so what? It's perfectly OK for a product to appeal to a small niche as long as it breaks even. I am so tired of the conceit (mostly put about by lazy journalists) that there must be only one best product in any category. That just leads to lowest-common-denominator approaches in which quality is judged on popularity alone.
Why offer electronics components to the general public? After all, most people don't want to create their own electronic devices, therefore making such things available in retail channels is a complete waste of time. I'm not too sure about screwdrivers either.
I can't believe people are giving Gruber's arguments the time of day on a news site for hackers.
I don't think Google expects this to be a massive consumer product, but it sounds like it can be great fun for techies. In this case, Gruber's opinion hardly matters.
There are external power supplies available that connect directly to a disk. I would be more skeptical regarding I/O-performance. As far as I can see, there are only two SATA-ports available.
For a cheap x86 NAS, you might want to look out for the Asrock Q1900DC which was presented at CeBit this year and is supposed to come out soon.
It has 4x2ghz Intel Celeron J1900, 4 SATA2 and 2 SATA3 ports and 19V DC input, so no more need for a bulky ATX power supply (though for a NAS you need to find a way to power those hard disks).
Judging from the prices that similarly specced boards are fetching (between 50-70€), this one should be below 100€ as well.
edit: mixed up the price, removed my first sentence