Speculating On the Far Future of Cellphones 220
Trio writes "What will cellphones look like in in future? silicon.com explores five future characteristics that could shape tomorrow's phones — from a wearable prototype such as MIT's SixthSense device which projects mobile data into the user's world, to a mobile that mixes the real and the virtual by using holographic telepresence. So far, so futuristic, but one question remains: will there be enough spectrum to support all this wireless communication?"
Spectrum? Limitless, except for the State... (Score:5, Interesting)
In the U.S., we have the slow, bureaucratic and oligarchic FCC that limits technology from acquiring near limitless spectrum/bandwidth.
We're moving to a truly digital age, but still we have the FCC regulating that we should keep analog/digital spectrum separate for various "needs" such as TV, radio, ham, cordless phones, FRS, etc. It's ridiculous.
We have technology TODAY that allows for frequency hopping, for signal strength negotiation, for handling multiple devices on the same frequencies/channels, etc. Private industries can blossom to utilize the right frequency, the right transceiving power, the right tower hopping mechanisms, etc. But they can't get there because the FCC overregulates and strangulates the future.
On my 3G phone (I'm on AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint, shared via my lovely Cradlepoint router on-the-go even), I can watch TV on-demand. I can listen to music, on-demand. I can read my websites, send my emails, talk via Google voice/Gizmo5 VoIP, send SMS via Google Voice, etc. But there's a limited run of bandwidth.
I don't have a TV at home, so the TV spectrum is useless. I don't listen to radio in the car, so radio spectrum is useless. So much that we do today would be better suited to a HUGE amount of spectrum divvied up and utilized by every device that could hop frequencies as needed to find a clean channel, that could raise power needs when a tower is far but drop them significantly when towers are near.
The future is nearly endless bandwidth for endless users, but we're throttled because our lovely State decides it wants only the powerful to play ball, with the weak kept out of the game.
But what would happen if the FCC went away, and all of a sudden the power players who control TV, radio and other spectra would need to compete with the YouTube amateurs of the world? The powerful would fall. And the State can't let that happen.
Speculation schmeculation (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO speculation about the future of technology is a waste of time. It always turns out very different from what was predicted, because some technologies that seem easy turn out to be (extreme) difficult, like flat TVs and nuclear fusion, and others turn out to much easier than expected. Besides the technical issues there are often changes in society that make the predictions about the future futile. Look at all the past predictions about the future back then, and what do you see? An extrapolation of the technology and mindset that was available at the time. So, predictions are fun, but please don't put any sort of value in them.
Re:Speculation schmeculation (Score:3, Interesting)
If we can pull it off, it means crystal clear voice connections, and freakishly fast network connections, anywhere, anytime.
I'm basing all this on the theory that some things seem hard to figure out, but then turn out to not be.
Just to add a bit of dystopia to the thread... (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's what Will Self has to say on the topic of cellphones and the future:
"What they promote is a meaningless level of anonymous chit-chat with people, where you don't have to get down-and-dirty and smell somebody, or see their body-language. They are actually the very very key representation of the anomie and alienation of our culture.
And the idea that there was a cash bonanza from mobile phone licensing, that the (UK) government predicated its entire second term spending plans on, is one of history's most delicious ironies.
And when it all comes down, when it all falls down about us, all that will be left in the wreckage of our civilization is a single tiny little black oblong going 'diddle-dee-dee-diddle-dee-dee-deeeee'. And there'll be nobody to answer it. "
I see this: (Score:3, Interesting)
a device similar to the iPhone, but with 2 USB ports and a miniHDMI port. In essence: the smallest computer. keyboard/mouse go in one USB, a hard drive in the other. Hook up your monitor to it, and you will have a computer that will surf the web, do basic word processing and Office-type stuff. It will cost USD$299.
I don't see Apple doing it as it would evacuate the need for MacBooks, but I could see Panasonic or Nokia or Palm pulling it off.
And of course: it would run Linux...
Re:Spectrum? Limitless, except for the State... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I would like to see is more spectrum made freely usable. 24.GHz is pretty lousy spectrum; but free access has made it extremely useful. What would also be nice would be a compromise position: come up with an industry standard spec for a wireless transmitter and reciever(roughly wifi-like in character) with suitable support for channel hopping and negotiation and other necessities of cooperation, and licence a chunk of spectrum such that any device, made by anyone, and owned by anyone, could use that chunk of spectrum if it conformed to the open spec.
Making things work with an arbitrary number of noncooperative devices in place seems like a pipe dream; but that needn't imply the current oligopoly based solution.
Re:Speculation schmeculation (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming that you can't pair devices at a distance after the fact, and assuming that travel is only possible at sublight speeds, the value of an entangled communicator could be anywhere between virtually nothing(your basic cheap cellphone, paired to a nearby base station) and well more than the entire planet(a centuries old direct link to earth on the outer rim of explored space). Values could even change rapidly and unpredictably, depending on who is holding the other end of the pair.
Two must-have features (Score:5, Interesting)
a far future - carry your presence not your phone (Score:3, Interesting)
Breaking point is right. We need to break the concept of online mobile presence being tied only to the phone (personal device) completely. When I get into my car -- hell make that any car -- which has a nice 10" touch display backed by a computer currently used for navigation etc., why not transfer my online presence to that screen? Let me use the web, take a video call, what have you, on that device. Then, when I arrive at the airport (or spaceport if we're lucky) and take my seat on Virgin Galactic, move my session to that display.
Yes I'll still carry a "phone" which will have the capabilities that can be packed into the small form and display, but it's main job will be to carry my mobile presence between other devices which I don't necessarily own.
Bandwidth doesn't have to be tied to the phone either. If I sit down in an airport waiting area and use a seat display, I'm on its fiber. I might be paying to use it according to a data plan tied to my phone. The cost and bandwidth might be different when I get into a car, and it might be different (tiered, etc.) from the guy sitting next to me. But the billing is still tied to the account that my phone presents to the world.
Wifi-enabled phones with a boingo account give some idea of this. At home/office/Starbucks, your iPhone is automatically using wifi instead of 3G. You pay (or not) based on the account in your phone. But in my future scenario the phone just authenticates the local temporary display which then has its own connection to whatever network is appropriate for that particular cafe / airplane / car.
So the phone becomes more like a super bluetooth identity accessory to move your online presence between available displays. And when necessary, it can also be used as a self-contained telecommunications device (mobile phone).
Re:Mini-computers (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a bit what I try to do with PortableApps. Too bad not all applications run well on it, as development environments wont support being run as a standalone application, but the basic usage tools (VLC, Firefox, Gimp, OpenOffice, ...) can be run.
The scenario is about the same: I come in at a PC, plug in my micro-thumbdrive from my keychain and have my common applications in the same spot.
Re:meh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Spectrum? Limitless, except for the State... (Score:2, Interesting)
Lord, I hate responding to ACs.
You're going to have anarchy (read: lack of a ruler), but you won't have CHAOS. Big difference.
First of all, to transmit on wide ranges of frequencies at high power costs a TON of money in electricity. I've researched what a radio station (5000 watts) alone has to pay for a slim band of frequency, and it's not trivial at all.
The reality is that in the biggest chaos, it isn't the strongest that survive, it's generally the weakest groups that make it. Look at hurricanes (VERY strong, but don't last) versus slightly windy weeks. It's not the strong that maintain for long.
In the airwaves industry, we have so many proofs of things going right. I know people will cry foul if I say "What about WiFi?" but with WiFi, we have a VERY slim band of frequency that is working VERY well except in the most congested areas. What, in those areas, we had tripled the amount of frequency range? What if we quadrupled it? Again, it's the State's regulations, not WiFi, that breaks that most congested area.
All those people who have TV and radio now would still have it, but they'd get it on-demand, a la carte. Broad-casting is efficient only in spectrum, it is terribly inefficient in time scheduling. It's lost completely in terms of data analysis to see who is watching/listening to what and when (Nielsen is a failure, really). Since few people can truly watch TV, listen to the radio, talk on the phone, and browse the web at the same time efficiently, most of the spectrum in their given area set for a given service is WASTED. When you are watching TV in your living room, what is happening to all the AM and FM spectrum? Wasted. Cell phone channels? Wasted. It's endless to think of the spectrum being wasted in your given area right now with useless transmissions that are actually using energy to be transmitted to you and not received.
We won't need 50,000 watt radio stations anymore, when a 2 watt transmitter/receiver in your locale will cover so much more, so much more efficiently. And what if no one is using a given set of frequencies at a given time? We can throttle back the transmitter power -- saving energy, saving money.
I say bring on the anarchy, it'll REDUCE the chaos. Especially in terms of the airwaves.
Augmented reality glasses, please (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the best outcome would be to have just augmented reality glasses (like in DennÅ Coil (éèãããf) [wikipedia.org]) that can show you content, let you make a phone call with gesture, and keeps all the data in the cloud. :)
Convenient, easy to use, fun
Though I have to admit, some gestures for placing calls could look somewhat dorky. But then, so can be the sight of someone pecking at the virtual keyboard to type a long message...
Cellphone in headset (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the obvious extensions is a cell phone that's entirely in a headset. No display at all; everything is voice-operated. Preferably with an interface that's at least as smart as Wildfire [crtechnologyinc.com], not the voice input crap shipping with current headsets. (Wildfire is ten year old technology. It was in use for a while, but took too much CPU power. Microsoft bought it, did little with it, and sold it off. It needs a redo with current voice recognition technology and lower cost.)
Ideally, this should be shrunk down to earring size and not require recharging.
It should also include audio player capabilities, again with no button-pushing, like an iPod Shuffle, only better.
Re:SixthSense (Score:4, Interesting)
What do I want from a phone from the far future?
Well, what I really want is a "phone" that's also a computer and links seamlessly with whatever networks I want to use. So keep that in mind while I describe my perfect "phone":
1) I don't have to think about charging it. This can mean that it is charged wirelessly/beamed power, or it can mean that it runs on something that is essentially endless/minimal maintenance.
2) I don't want to be able to lose it or misplace it. This probably means it would need to be implanted or somehow integrated into clothing.
3) It must give me "augmented reality" overlays - hook into my glasses or smart contact lenses (or into a chip implanted in my eyes) and give me data that way. I *really* want something that can display various information on demand (time, temp, whatever), but also that will enhance my extant senses - maybe a chemical detector built in so I can analyze the air around me, or maybe enhanced audio reception that might recognize certain sounds around me and alert me to them/give me a visual reading of where they're coming from, or maybe facial recognition software that'll tell me who I'm looking at and whatever info they share with me etc. Maps and the like would be nice, too. While we're at it, improve my vision to the infrared and ultra violet as well.
4) Subvocalization capability. I don't want to have to speak aloud to use it - just subvocalize and it'll pick up what I'm saying. Essentially telepathy.
5) Connectivity roughly similar to what I can get with a regular connection to the internet now - none of this edge shit. Even if it was only as good as my current wifi connection at home, that would be a LOT better than my current phone's capability.
6) Agent software that would be capable of handling trivial incoming calls automatically and summarizing them for me via text ("Your mom called, she wants to know your flight details, so I gave her the info; she'll pick you up at the airport." "Your boss had the following notes on your project..." "A telemarketer called, so I played them the 'brown note' and had you placed on the Do Not Call list..."). It should be context aware - it should know that I'm in a movie theater (why should I have to turn it off manually? Just have the theater beam a signal letting smart phones know that they need to not make any noise at all...) and if it's an absolute emergency, I should get a flashing red light in my eye or something like that rather than a ring or vibrate. It should have different screening functions for different levels of people - if I'm working on something important and a guy I went out with once or twice but don't particularly like calls, it should say "She's working, leave a message" and *absolutely* not bother me with it until I want to deal with that. If it's an emergency, again, it should know that I'll want to take the call.
7) It should be capable of - if I want - recording absolutely everything around me, in multiple spectra.
Actually, I don't even want to have to think about it, really - it should just be something that's more or less omnipresent but in the background, unobtrusive unless I want to notice it. Just like my voice, I don't really think about my capability to speak unless I'm actively speaking to someone - the phone is just a way of projecting speech, right? With the augmented reality stuff, it should be entirely customizable - on, off, anything in between, set it up how I want it. With connectivity I should be able to turn it on, turn it off (even force it to stay off for awhile so I can enjoy being "natural").
I don't think any of this is too much to ask for - certainly we'll have the capability to do all that (at least) in the next 50 years or so.