[Casc]

Sure,

I would think of the phone as your identity... your data, your apps, your storage... That's what makes the difference.

Further, I don't forsee all applications working cross dock.. Some sure, all no.

RE your earlier point on the workplace - The smartphone could always act as a key/SSO type device, and you can only access certain information when docked in a certain environment, within a VPN, etc.

Basically this thing becomes your identity.. if you lose it, yep you're SOL. Thank god for remote wipe? With hardware becoming cheaper as you say, and cloud storage, get a new one, sync and go on your way.

I agree with your point on redundancy until you want an ipod/camera/phone/mobile apps... You're already carrying it around... why not make laptops/desktops/tablets a hollow extension of the computer in your pocket?

I don't think it's about the hardware as much as the interactive storage, the effort that goes into maintaining your data, apps, life... the things iCloud and dropbox try to solve, and while they can still serve their purpose aren't quite right in terms of a truly portable lifestyle.

[jiggy2011]

It really depends how much of storage/apps are moved to the cloud.

The way I imagine it evolving is more that the local storage on client side devices is used as a cache for commonly used files + code and the apps and files themselves live in the "cloud", so with a fast enough internet connection using a standalone device is indistinguishable from docking your phone. Now that cloud may be a generic cloud like dropbox/aws etc or it may be something specific that is hosted and run by the workplace.

The issue with having a completely dumb clamshell is that the screen and keyboard will be worth more than the computing hardware. Let's say the clamshell costs $250 without any brains but basic brains can be added for an extra $30 or so. There is actually a lot of utility in having independant brains on the laptop.

For example if I got out with my phone , I can give the laptop to someone else to use. Or what if I want to use my phone at the same time as I want to use the laptop? In this case you will be stretching the hardware to run 2 displays at once (with different apps, as well as having 2 complete UI systems loaded into memory) as well as the physical docking being an issue. For example what if I am talking on my phone and I want to walk to the other side of the room without dragging the laptop along or undocking it?

Having everything dependent on a small , easily lose able device is a biggie too. Replacing your phone is likely to be expensive (since it has a display etc) and essentially losing access to computing because you are too broke to replace your phone until your next payday is a big issue.

[vidarh]

> For example if I got out with my phone , I can give the laptop to someone else to use.

That someone else has a smartphone, or will have one soon. Why would you want them to have a device with your data on it, and without their apps and their data, when they could otherwise just press a button and get up their desktop the exact way they left it.

> Or what if I want to use my phone at the same time as I want to use the laptop? In this case you will be stretching the hardware to run 2 displays at once (with different apps, as well as having 2 complete UI systems loaded into memory)

So what? Current generation phones can do that. Some Android devices can operate their main device and feed a 2160p display at the same time.

> as well as the physical docking being an issue. For example what if I am talking on my phone and I want to walk to the other side of the room without dragging the laptop along or undocking it?

Why? "Wireless HDMI" (in quotes because there's not yet a single standard) is here. Docking, via standard cables is optional, with the main benefit being charging, which you can do via micro-usb on my devices. I have about 10 micro-USB charging slots at home and 4 at work already, because it's trivially cheap and convenient.

I already walk upstairs while listening to music on my bluetooth headset and not bothering to bring my phone with me, or indeed because I'm charging it. Why would this change?

> Having everything dependent on a small , easily lose able device is a biggie too.

Why? We have cloud services and small, cheap NAS devices, don't we? So surely it's all sync'd and the only issue is the replacement cost.

> Replacing your phone is likely to be expensive (since it has a display etc) and essentially losing access to computing because you are too broke to replace your phone until your next payday is a big issue.

Those who can't afford a low level smartphone or tablet are not more likely to be able to afford it if you split it into a phone and an actual laptop.

As for being "expensive" that is of course subjective, but there are a tone of sub $100 Android devices out there that are already more than capable enough for a lot of users.

[Casc]

I see where you're coming from. I agree it definitely depends on how much moves to the cloud, could something like this have the potential to affect that? If pulled off correctly, I'd think so. I'm not convinced the cloud is the place for everything.

In terms of phone... bluetooth headset paired to docking station!

Yea losing the phone comes at quite a price, I agree. Personally, I'd pay for it.

C'mon, you can't pretend this thing wouldn't be bad ass if it was pulled off properly.

[jiggy2011]

The lowest friction solution always has a big advantage. Under your solution I have to take a dumb laptop , a smartphone and a bluetooth headset with me everywhere and hook them all up together whenever I want to sit down and do something, bluetooth headsets are particularly cumbersome compared to putting a phone to your ear, not to mention that they make a lot of people feel dumb to wear.

A "cloud" solution that is fast and smooth enough will replicate the functionality of having one "mega device" without the drawbacks.

I actually think that the cloud will become the place for everything for a conceptual point of view. If you are concerned about privacy etc it will be possible to run your own personal cloud out of a tiny PC in the corner of your home.

Some concessions will have to be made for offline use of course (which I guess will become increasingly rare). Really though it makes more sense to think of your devices as an extension of your "cloud" rather than the other way around.

[Casc]

And why wouldn't you have to bring that hardware with you now, or with the cloud? What happens when you have no connectivity?

The cloud solution doesn't reduce the hardware requirement. This isn't even necessarily about reducing the hardware requirement.

If you need to run your own PC you now need the bandwidth, an additional PC sitting in your home, know how, etc...

The phone solution isn't increasing what you'd need to bring, it will situationally decrease the requirement, though, but that's not even the point. You don't necessarily need a bluetooth headset. Use headphones, speaker, or something. A simple microphone and headphone requirement isn't going to break the concept, it's really beside the point. Set up is a non issue, plug and play. Slide the damn thing into a dock built into the device.

The point is all your data in current state comes with you, apps and all. You can go to public terminals and it's all instantly there, you have the mobile experience, it's all familiar, it's always with you. I think cloud storage is complimentary here, not an alternative solution.

This can, however, situationally reduce your hardware requirement when traveling if your destination is outfitted with dummy terminals, and you get the benefit of local storage, which I'm not convinced cloud will be able to 100% replace for quite some time, if ever.

Don't forget you won't require internet access or any other limiting conditions, which may be the strongest advantage.

Our smartphones aren't going anywhere, they're more accessible than the cloud and they're increasingly attached to our side. I just don't see the cloud as an alternative, it's all about the use case here.

I'd rather have one device.

[jiggy2011]

I think that in theory people prefer to have one device , but in practice people are quite happy to have a house with lots of computers in it, after all space isn't a premium and it's nice to always have something near to hand.

Even amongst non tech people I know , most of them will have something like 1 Desktop PC , 2 Laptops , 1 Tablet , 2 Games consoles and 2 smartphones laying around the house. They could probably condense these substantially but they don't seem to see any need to.

I wouldn't agree that a requiring a headset would be "besides the point", I think being able to instantly grab your phone and stick it to your ear when you get an important call through is an important use case (after all it is a phone) and one that more than justifies the small extra expense of having a cheap CPU etc inside a laptop case.

Regards Local vs Cloud storage, there is no reason that this couldn't be transparent. For example , if you go somewhere and login to a public terminal it could detect that your phone is close by and offer you the option to transfer the state (if it is more up to date than the cloud copy) from the phone to the terminal via wifi.

Of course docking the phone into a laptop and using the laptop display/input to control the phone could be a possibility , I just don't see it as such a compelling usecase that you would see large sales of dumb laptops.

For example laptop docking stations have been around for a while and allow you to turn your laptop into essentially a desktop PC, negating the need for a desktop PC. However I don't know anybody who actually uses one very often in the real world. It's simply too cheap to just buy an extra PC and use Dropbox + IMAP Email to handle most of the important "state" for you. An ex boss of mine bought one, but replaced it with a separate desktop about a month later for example.

I suppose time will tell, but I would imagine that we will get to the point where just about everything in your home will have a reasonably fast CPU inside it (possibly 1Ghz+ devices even given away as part of a novelty toy in the bottom of a cereal box at some point) and the valuable parts are the Human Interface devices & software/data rather than the computers themselves.

[vidarh]

> I think that in theory people prefer to have one device , but in practice people are quite happy to have a house with lots of computers in it, after all space isn't a premium and it's nice to always have something near to hand.

This isn't about the number of devices people have. Or in a way it is, because having instant access to your data and state of computation "everywhere" makes having more cheap devices floating around even more attractive. Currently every extra device is a device that might hold data that is not accessible everywhere else, and that might result in data loss, and that need to be "managed" if only in the sense of knowing what you can do which things with or which one has those embarrassing photos and hence shouldn't be lent to grandma.

If they are mostly dumb shells (I'll grant you that having a $25 of computation capability or so built in as "backup" might be useful) and they are just appliances or furniture.

> Regards Local vs Cloud storage, there is no reason that this couldn't be transparent. For example , if you go somewhere and login to a public terminal it could detect that your phone is close by and offer you the option to transfer the state (if it is more up to date than the cloud copy) from the phone to the terminal via wifi.

Latency and bandwidth are killers here, and latency in particular is subject to nasty physical limitations. Yes, it can be more transparent. But network bandwidth and latency are both increasing very slowly. My mobile internet is still only about 1.5Mbps. My home broadband is 8Mbps. If I'm lucky I can upgrade to 66Mbps down next month. My wireless is 300Mbps. My wired network is 1Gbps. I have SSD's at work that easily does 5Gbps, and my home laptop's SSD can do at least 2Gbps. I'd turn it upside down: For personal usage, cloud storage, apart as for backup and sharing with others, is a workaround for the deficiencies that currently force us to use a variety of devices. It becomes less relevant as functionality converges and shortens that gap for everything but "overflow" as storage becomes cheap enough and easy enough that having it elsewhere becomes pointless other than as a backup.

> I wouldn't agree that a requiring a headset would be "besides the point", I think being able to instantly grab your phone and stick it to your ear when you get an important call through is an important use case (after all it is a phone) and one that more than justifies the small extra expense of having a cheap CPU etc inside a laptop case.

And how would it being a computer stop you from doing that?

> For example laptop docking stations have been around for a while and allow you to turn your laptop into essentially a desktop PC, negating the need for a desktop PC. However I don't know anybody who actually uses one very often in the real world. It's simply too cheap to just buy an extra PC and use Dropbox + IMAP Email to handle most of the important "state" for you. An ex boss of mine bought one, but replaced it with a separate desktop about a month later for example.

They are frequently used in businesses. But today they are less relevant because the trend is instead to buy "desktop replacement" notebooks. Desktop sales are stagnating to dropping. There will be more smart phones sold this years than PC's in total, and desktops will be a dropping proportion of that minority market. People opt for laptops instead of desktops, not in addition to them, because they are now powerful "enough" and the mobility, even if it's only sufficient to move it between rooms, is valuable.