[echoangle]

I understood the hypothetical as “same internet connectivity as today but every connection is 1 TB/s”. No way anyone would want streaming UIs with that, your device would become unusable every time you don’t have network and latency would almost always be annoying.

[zbentley]

Maybe, but what if in return smartphones weighed and cost 1/10 as much?

[al_borland]

I don’t think the weight of cell phones has been an issue since the 80s or 90s. At some point a phones size and weight is about what’s comfortable to hold. Being too thin or too light can start to create new problems.

If the UI was streaming, I think the up front hardware cost would be replaced by a monthly fee required to run the servers required to send the feed, which would probably be more expensive over the life of the phone.

The hardware could also not be a completely dumb thin client. With the cameras, there needs to be enough inside to handle focus, capture, and a buffer to store the photos/videos to upload. Would there also be lag in the viewfinder, with the camera having to send the live image up to the server and back down to the UI, or would this part switch over of a bare bones local UI? Maps would need GPS in the phone to tell the server where it is. Various accelerometers would still be needed, then I guess the local accelerometer would need to make a call to the server to tell it to rotate the screen… even with a fast connection, I’d have to imagine some lag there. Biometric unlock would also need some local hardware. I’m sure there is much more.

Doing all this from a remote system doesn’t seem practical. Too much still needs to be in the phone itself, that it would seem impossible for the benefits to outweigh the costs.

[echoangle]

The utility of a phone like that is basically zero if I can’t use it anytime I want. I wouldn’t even take that for free if I had to give up my current phone in exchange. Maybe it’s just me though.

Also, 1/10th size is totally unrealistic just by streaming. Just the screen is probably already 20% or so of power consumption even at very low brightness, and that’s not going to change due to streaming. And the rest of the system doesn’t disappear but just gets more lightweight, so if you reduce that to 1/3, you still have 50% of the current total power consumption, which means still need at least half of the current battery size for same battery life. You would probably end up with a phone that’s half the thickness as a current smartphone.

[throwaway55340]

Please, don't assume your situation is universal. I'd take this smartphone immediately. I'm never far from a 5G tower. I used to have a speedtest script on my Android before I bought an iPhone, and the average speed I had at any time was over 100 Mb/s. Only 5 days of a year I was below 50 Mb/s - but still connected, every day.

> Just the screen is probably already 20% or so of power consumption even at very low brightness

There are other kinds of displays, some of them don't need any brightness at all, but even those that do are getting much more efficient. An old/cheap IPS is incomparable to what a Samsung AMOLED can do, and they're not stopping there.

I use my phone very often - much more than 5-6 hours of screentime - and display is only around 10% of the power budget. The 5G connection usually takes more as I'm always on some call.

I'd gladly take a phone that's just the same size and weight as Samsung S9, but has a giant battery and mainframe-level performance. I'd gladly pay the price of having to be connected, because I have to be and am connected anyways.

[Spooky23]

People buy $30 prepaid Android devices that are hot garbage. There is absolutely a market for phone VDI.

Plus, we’re in a thought experiment with pervasive terabit cellular. I’m typing this on vacation in major European city on 3G. Indulge the imagination with the idea that we’ve liberated some building penetrating bands and have improved coverage as well! ;)