Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications Handhelds Hardware

Cell Phone On A Chip 256

sebFlyte writes "Texas Instruments have developed a new chip for mobiles that, according to some, should make is possible to make a cell phone for less than $25, bringing it into the realm of possibilities for low-level corporate giveaways, or a reasonable loss leader for getting people started on pay-as-you go mobile offerings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cell Phone On A Chip

Comments Filter:
  • by sanityspeech ( 823537 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @02:24PM (#11470906) Journal
    From the article:

    Mobile phones contain a number of potentially dangerous substances, such as arsenic, cadmium, ZINC and lead, which can harm the environmental if the handset is not disposed of in a responsible manner.

    Oh really? So, why in the world is there this incredible push to make lead-free devices [pb-free.info], when it appears that the zinc alloys [nikon.co.jp] seem to be the most-likely substitute for lead?

    I'm fairly green [panda.org] myself. The question I have is, why adopt whack-a-mole policies that are likely to replace current problems with other problems?
  • paper cell? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mmkkbb ( 816035 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @02:25PM (#11470918) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't there supposed to be a manufacturer making cardboard cell-phones with circuit boards printerd by a special inkjet? Whatever happened to them?
  • Cheap devices. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @02:36PM (#11471059)
    I think this is interesting not because it promises cheap phones, but the spread of cheap access to the network for other devices. Laptops with built in cell access, vending machines, cars, etc.

  • by reporter ( 666905 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @02:41PM (#11471109) Homepage
    The marketing idea that Texas Instruments (TI) has developed is a rehash of an old idea: set a low price point and maximize the amount of functionality that can be sold at that point. One of the earliest examples is the VIC-20 computer from Commodore. It set the price of the contraption at (I think) $199.95, and then the engineers put as much functionality as they could into the product at the price point. The VIC was a smashing success even though William Shatner (ouch!) served as the spokesmodel.

    Here, TI is setting a low price point for the chip/chipset and cramming as much functionality as TI's engineers can force into the chip/chipset. Over time, such efforts become easier because the feature size of integrated circuits becomes smaller, and you can simply put more "stuff" into a fixed area of chip. Further, the area of the chip determines its price to a first-order approximation.

    I wish that someone would do another VIC-20. For $200.00, I bet that we could get an awesome computer, but I doubt that any of the traditional companies like HP, IBM, and Sony would be interested. The profit margin would be minimal. So, these companies continue to set a high price point, say, $2000.00, and sell a system with commensurate functionality -- a lot of functionality that I simply do not need for reading e-mail and posting articles to SlashDot.

  • by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @02:42PM (#11471134) Homepage
    I don't want to take pictures with my phone.

    I do, that way when I'm playing with my kids I can send pictures to the grandparents, they LOVE it.

    I don't want to play MP3s with my phone.
    I do, I'm on the train alot, being able to play MP3s on the phone stops me having to carry an MP3 player.

    I don't want to check my e-mail with my phone.

    I do, I'm out of the office alot and I'd prefer to check it on my phone than trek into the office.

    I don't want to browse the web with my phone.

    I do, Its a quick way to get the football scores at the weekend, check the news, and a quick search before meeting a client to find out some info.

    I don't want to play games with my phone

    Now this is the bit that is just plain wrong. $3.5bn was spent on Java games last year, that is a major reason that phones are cheap, people can sell you the games which drives down the cost of the devices as people upgrade to the latest phones that support 3D etc. This is consumer economics ala the PC, why do you have a 256Mb graphics card, because MS Word needs it ? Nope because Games need it. Games revenue drives innovation and keeps costs down as people upgrade.

    I'm the sort of person who gets the new Nokia 6630 (3G with all the trimmings) because I need all of the elements. And yup I get a contract (because I use the phone alot).

    Buying a basic PC, no network, no sound, no USB ports etc... is now very expensive because popular demand wants those things as standard. Its the same with phones, and its those added extras that some people then pay more money to use that keep the cost of your handset down.

    Of course if you are in the US please disregard the above as you folks get screwed on "Cell" phones, the models are crap and the networks suck.

    And if you are in Japan I know you have better phones than my 6630.
  • by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @02:43PM (#11471143) Homepage
    I don't get it. You can already buy many, many phones that do nothing but make phone calls. Look at any provider's web page, and they're gonna have starter phones that don't have the new in-demand fancy features. (and that's why they sell them, because people want to buy them)

    Hey, buy a used Motorola V66. It's a great phone, makes good calls and is inexpensive. You can still get all the accessories and batteries. Its small and has a metal casing, and it looks cool.

    It amuses me that the web site with the most tech-savvy members continually finds new technologies "crap" and this attitude is modded up as insightful. Don't we want phones that do *more* things, that cost the same as our old shittier, bulkier phones?

  • by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @02:43PM (#11471157)
    I agree with you, and I recently bit the bullet and joined Verizon. Got two Samsung A650 phones for $20. The service is $59/month, for me and my wife to share minutes. We are moving from Chicago to Arizona soon, and I needed to get phones for the trip.

    I was an early adopter of cellphones, my first was the old flip phone. (I worked at Motorola at the time) Then I got the first generation StarTac. But I just didn't use it that much. I grew to hate cellphones the more I saw them. I got rid of it around 1997 and was never happier. I REALLY didn't want to get one, but thought it would be best to have one for our move (we are driving out there). So now I am stuck in a 2-year contract, and we did just get the basic phones.

    But to your point, you can get basic phones. I just wish that the service was reliable. After comparing I chose Verizon, but I can't even get a decent signal in my house. I have heard of people getting rid of their landline phone and just using cellphones, but I don't see how this is possible (in the US) with our terrible service.

  • by mp3phish ( 747341 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @03:02PM (#11471377)
    No... the phones don't cost a lot too... Only in north america are the phones price fixed...

    They are price fixed in the US by the service providers.. and then that price fix is subsidized by your 1 year contract...

    In other words, you are getting overcharged, and then they give you a discount.. There is nothing "expensive" about the process. I really hope more people in north america get enlightened about the state of affairs wrt cellphone contracts. Until customers start demanding a competative market for cellular service (and handset retailing) we won't be seeing anything any time soon.

    Let me be clear here. Cheaper phones will not have a price discount passed on to the consumers in north america. They are already damn cheap to manufacture. those screens don't cost anything to make and the circuit boards are a dime a dozen. This isn't new technology. everywhere else in the world phones are actually based on their cost to manufacture rather than their features which are enabled/disabled by the service provider. The only person who will see a benefit for integrated chips on cellphones is the executives of cingular, verison, and sprint.

    maybe in the long run you will see more reliable cellphones because of this. But that is all.
  • by belg4mit ( 152620 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @03:11PM (#11471507) Homepage
    Depends on what's used. The densely packed circuitry in cell phones typically requires Tantalum. If this only increases the dependence then no it's not better, because sand is everywhere and we don't have to strip mine the jungle and support warlords to get it. Google coltan
  • Liberate the Phones! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rdmiller3 ( 29465 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @03:21PM (#11471671) Journal
    The most sensible thing that a phone manufacturer could do to beat the price crunch that the mobile phone service companies have them under is
    make phones that are capable of communicating directly to each other and/or network through each other without any central service!

    They should still be able to use a regular mobile service but keep a little record of numbers which are "direct-callable". Once a phone recognizes another as direct-callable, it would request whatever info it would need to establish point-to-point communications and then see whether it could reach the other. If not but other such phones were in the area, it might even ask them if they could relay the call!

    Might as well add in a drop-in charging base station so that it could function as a cordless handset when in range of your home phone line, as long as I'm dreaming.

    How much would you pay for a phone that knew how to "cheat" the phone company by leaving their billing system out of some calls whenever it could find a more direct route?

    Every public place would become a network hub, every road a backbone...

  • by dos4who ( 564592 ) <top_mcse@h[ ]ail.com ['otm' in gap]> on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @04:55PM (#11472895)
    (and, no.. I didn't RTFA).. Does anyone know the current cost of manufacturing a (low-end) cell phone?

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan

Working...