This, or something like it, is the future: the computing device is portable, and adapts itself to the forms of input available. There's no reason why your display should have to be permanently attached to the device that drives it, and increasingly, it won't be.
I don't know what the implications are for Ubuntu or Android. But genuine support for a first-class computing experience is one of the few things that would tempt me back onto those platforms.
> This, or something like it, is the future: the computing device is portable, and adapts itself to the forms of input available
Maybe it is, but it's not the future I'd like best.
I would like to have a desktop in the cloud, and data in the cloud, and nothing in my pocket; nothing to lose or break or have to make sure it still has juice.
When I get somewhere to work (a client's, a café, a friend's, etc.), I log in to my cloud desktop using whatever dumb machine is available, and off I go. Everything I do is automatically saved, backed up, versioned, synchronized for me.
A portable computer is useful in the subway, but at the office? What benefits do we stand to gain from still having things run or be stored on a local machine?
If you think your data "in the cloud" (which is just a way of saying "on other people's physical systems") is safe from theft, breakage or some foreign government agency pulling the plug, you haven't been paying much attention to reality lately.
And by "lately" I mean the past decade.
Don't get me wrong, I like the convenience of "the cloud". It's especially helpful in synchronizing all the data that I have on cheap and abundant storage on various devices.
We can have both. Why advocate giving up the one option that makes you independent from third party interference (or simply a lack of connectivity)?
We are talking about the future. In the future your data might be more safe in the cloud than on your own device, just like your money is more safe in a bank than in your wallet. It's possible.
Backup device manufaturers are really missing out on big bucks by not making a small NAS that downloads all you cloud data. Give it access to Google/Dropbox/Flickr etc an have it silently back everything up.
I hope they've thought of this and I've just missed it. They won't be able to sell USB based backup drives for much longer.
IOMega used to make a NAS with support for foldershare (the dropbox predecessor that was sold to Microsoft). That was 6 years ago - before it's time I'd guess.
No it doesn't, it backsup your Macs over wifi, and that's all it does. It won't access web services, which is they key point I was trying to make. The Time Capsule, and all home backup devices I can name, make the soon-to-be-outdated assumption that your data exists on a hard drive you own.
Wouldn’t login sniffing on these supposedly dumb machines be a greater concern? Murders are more common within families after all.
While the I/O from those plugged-in devices could still be sniffed, including what appears on a screen, at least you could encrypt your communication when using a portable device.
> I log in to my cloud desktop using whatever dumb machine is available, and off I go.
Unfortunately there is no way to verify that that machine is actually "dumb". Fundamentally this is because modern computation and storage are microscopic phenomena. Even today we take it as an act of faith that our freshly produced electronics only do what the manufacturers say - and this is an ongoing problem for US defense contractors that outsource component manufacture to China.
This problem is also experienced by travelers who expect a "dumb browser" at the internet cafe, when in fact they are being key logged.
> What benefits do we stand to gain from still having things run or be stored on a local machine?
There are a few, such as statefulness that is maintained even without network connectivity. But the big one is that, presumably, "your" device is more trustworthy than a dumb terminal because, at the very least, you haven't acted to subvert your own security (although even this is often not the case).
If consumer networks were as reliable as roads and the electricity grid, why would I bother giving my data to someone so they can put it in a datacenter?.
The future I would like best is a device on the end of my home internet connection.
I could authenticate myself to other online services against it.
It could be a node in a social network (much like diaspora) where I can control all my own data.
It could have access to a NAS at home, allowing me to stream my favourite music and movies to wherever I happen to be.
In the future, with resilient enough networks, the datacenter will be distributed.
It's still in an early state of development but you may join the mailinglist or read the wiki ( http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox ) if you are interested in this topic.
This is a great hardware startup. Sell rack boxes that can be installed by an electrician next to the power in/telephone in and get rid of those under featured consumer routers.
Hmmmmmm.... I'll sell you one for £500 a year, replaced regularly and managed?
Why not carry the dumb terminal in your pocket and drop it into a monitor and charging station at a client's, a cafe, a friend's, etc? That way you have local access to things that should be local (I don't always have Internet access on my phone here in Michigan, but I still want to listen to music), but cloud access as well? Phones are pretty well tied to the Internet these days anyway.
These two futures don't have to be mutually exclusive, and I'd argue we'll see them both on the same device at the same time.
Control, security, trust. Even if I got rid of all other computers, I'd still have a phone.
More and more I want to fully control my data on my terms. Maybe I'd be fine paying a service (linode?) to host my fully encrypted data in the cloud, but Google? Facebook? No thanks.
Whats to say the data isnt in the cloud? I expect that the future of computing has a few layers.
1. Device (basically CPU) - this could be your phone or something similar
2. Storage local cache on your "Device" but sync'd with the cloud in case of it getting lost or damaged
3. Input. Lets face it, we all enjoy a good keyboard and mouse...if you're on the go touch screen does the job but I'll never write a document from one (unless I am super desperate)
Do you store all your money at home or do you have some in bank? There's no reason why some big entity couldn't guarantee that the data you put in will get back to you whatever happens to company holding your data. If you mean security as in privacy, then there are cryptographically safe methods on preventing that.
I think the crucial difference here is the number of entities I have to trust. People can generally do a bit of research on a bank before they join one, if a bank really sucks you can switch, and if a bank seriously defrauds you then you know whodunit and can pursue legal recourse. By contrast if I'm using a supposedly dumb terminal provided by some random cafe then there's absolutely no way to prevent them from seeing everything I do [1], or from inserting arbitrary commands into any service I use. And if I use the provided computers at many locations, as you suggest, there's probably no way for me to figure out who it was that screwed me.
I'm not talking about tomorrow but rather distant future. The banks evolved somehow. Now it is really hard to "become" a bank. There are very strict regulations in place. If a bank goes bankrupt the personal savings are still guaranteed to be paid off. So this is just a matter of making some regulations and establishing proper hierarchy.
And about security as in privacy. I don't know what future holds. Perhaps you'd be implanted a token that you can use for accessing the data which can't be faked or copied. Who knows. I just wouldn't rule out the possibility of a "cloud world" completely.
Even with strong crypto, if you're typing in your passphrase on a "dumb" machine that someone else owns and controls, you're risking the entirety of your security on how trustworthy (and security-competent) the owner of that machine is. No thanks.
You could have a token that would work exactly as credit card. Only one token would be authorized. You cannot copy it so if you lose it, you know you lost it can be "disabled". You would then need a new one with the same key however. That key could be stored in real bank's deposit box. Hardware of the token would only allow to store the key and not read it. I mean, that's a possibility for the paranoid ones who are not happy with cell phone auth for example.
I know there's no infrastructure in place (yet) but we're talking about some kind of future, not about today. It's certainly possible though. Even secured.
Almost every answer emphasizes security, but what about convenience? Where is your dumb terminal when you climb in the Alps and wish too take a short at Mount Blank? In a taxi will you have to log in a machine before checking your friend'a address? Where is your dumb terminal in the washroom (probably the place where smartphones are most used)?
In those cases you don't have a big display or a dock either; you just use your phone and that's fine. What I'm questioning is the value of a dock+display to access your phone versus a "cloud" device that can be accessed from anywhere (including your phone).
Exactly. It would be great to be able to use an Optimus Prime or something as a mobile development machine. My dream for android development is definitely to be able to build and deploy on a single device.
Of course there's a way to go for that. The range of devices that support mobile docks is very small; I would prefer support for tablets with attached keyboards/mice. If they managed to get this working on tablets, I would definitely consider something like the transformer prime to replace my netbook.
I think it's better as a thin client. Already I can (and have) used ConnectBot on Android to connect to my shell and fix webserver (and content) problems from my phone, in the field (3G).
I'm going to want to carry a "phone" for sure. Most people who've ever had a smartphone expect to have one the rest of their life.
I'm also going to want (at least) a machine with a keyboard and bigger display than my phone.
Why in the future would I want to tie one to the other? I wouldn't want that today — my computer works just fine without having to do some weird sync/plug-in dance with my phone when I want to use it. Even if this was seamless and even if we ignore concerns like finite batteries, what would I have gained besides a single point of failure?
I of course would like pervasive data sync. But why would I want the hardware of my computer to rely on the hardware of my phone?
I'm not sure you or I are the people most in need of a solution like this.
Consider, there are over 5 billion active cell phone subscriptions in the world. That's more cell phones than toothbrushes or toilets. And smart phones are being adopted in the developing world at a surprising rate. For many people, a smartphone will be their first and only computer.
If Canonical can enable desktop style content creation for people in emerging markets who will "leapfrog" over computers, just as they leapt over landlines, the impact could be enormous.
Why would someone in the developing world want their computer to be reliant on their phone? Presumably for cost, but that isn't an argument for docking-phones, is it? You'd still need the system case/power supply, display, keyboard, and pointing device (and would presumably also have speakers and camera, though I suppose you could reuse those of the phone, if you were really trying to cut costs). The only thing missing is the "computer", and an ARM system-on-a-chip that packages multicore CPU, memory, and a little storage can't cost more than $10 today, can it? Besides, since you'd have to have smarts to drive the networking/remote desktop features of the non-computer computer, you'd probably use a very similar chip anyway.
Why? To have all your computing stuff with you all the time. That is not just your documents, but your programs and settings. And to only maintain one system. They way i see it, the only rival to this vision is the cloud, and there are a lot of issues there[1]
Battery isn't going to be a problem either. With today's solutions you could just plug in one cable which connects to the monitor and charges the phone. Tomorrow- your desktop will have a surface to put your phone on that will charge it (like your toothbrush charges), perhaps authenticate with NFC, and then connect to your display with WiDi or similar, and your keyboard.. yes, seamlessly. Another thing you will have gained is you won't have to buy a second device. Of course, we here are likely to be the last to give up a computer-proper.
[1]: other than the obvious trust, reliability and privacy issues-- there is currently no solution for most applications-- licencing issues? many companies are likely to drag their heels here. And when there finally is a technically perfect and complete solution; how are you going to pay for this? advertising, $, or selling your data. Or, you could just keep it in your pocket, yourself.
Can you clarify the phrasing of your cloud issues? Do you mean there is no solution for trust/privacy issues, or do you mean there is no solution for licensing?
As for paying, this is a non-issue, you are going to pay either way.
There is no one i trust with my data more than me, and large projects have a poor history with trust/privacy.
When I talk about licencing i'm talking about the future: where you could use the cloud to access full fat programs like photoshop (after getting over any technical issues with remote installs). AFAIK there aren't provisions in current licences for such things.
Even if you have to spend for (more) local storage/backup, it is very likely to be much cheaper, and i would have a strong preference for the buy-once (and own) rather than rent monthly model.
So you are willing to commit to cloud-only, controlled by a random corp and subject to network availability but you are not going to trust the hardware you can carry in your pocket?
Notice that no one is saying that a secondary cloud-tier is excluded from this vision...
If I didn't want to do cloud sync, I'd be more excited about a local sync. One doesn't tend to generate gigabytes of data on a phone so even a Bluetooth sync would be sufficient for most people.
I do from time to time. Even they can be transferred over today's WiFi in a matter of seconds. My point is that keeping local devices in sync for all but a very few uses is already today easily solvable. So I wonder why we'd want to move to an architecture where our computers are reliant on our phones... there seem to be some significant tradeoffs to that model and it's not clear to me what real gains there would be.
>keeping local devices in sync for all but a very few uses is already today easily solvable.
No, it really isn't. Manual file transfer is... doable, but still more problematic than it should be. But there is absolutely nothing that will seamlessly keep my phone in sync with my tablet when I don't have network access (i.e. I take a photo on my phone and it's on my tablet, without me doing anything). If you have a solution, link please.
Desktop PCs will always outperform portable devices. I think future docking stations will include both a big display and a big processor. When you dock your phone, your phone's apps will be running on the dock's fast processor while accessing your personal data off the phone. When you undock your phone, your running apps will seamlessly migrate to the phone's processor(s).
This will be extremely asymmetric multiprocessing.
The other element is that mobile devices are optimised for power consumption / battery life and also for heat output. Desktop devices generally have neither of these concerns, unless they strive to be 'green' or fanless products.
In the era of dark silicon, it might make sense to have those extra processors in the phone itself but only turn them on when you have an external source of power and a good physical connection for dissipating excess heat.
That's too complicated a solution. Linux has had excellent boot time detection of hardware for years now- dock your phone in the desktop chassis, hit reboot, the OS gets loaded from the phone's storage and runs on the tower's CPU and GPU.
You might be right that desktops will always outperform portable devices (even though the gap is certainly narrowing), but mobile phones used this way are so convenient that the tradeoff is worth it.
That's kinda the same as saying Mini-Computers will always outperform Desktop PC's.
The general trend of hardware is that it gets smaller, faster, and more efficient simultaneously. It is highly likely within 10 years you'll be walking around with a smartphone more than 10 times as powerful than the fastest 16-core desktop PC you can buy today, and possibly desktop PC's won't even be sold by then because there won't be any need for them.
If that's a bet, I'll take it. You'll still be able to buy desktop computers in 10 years. They might not be common, cheap or easy to find, but you'll be able to buy them. IBM still makes lots of money selling mainframes, and HP still makes and sells OpenVMS minicomputers.
Workstations at offices, gaming machines, animation and image manipulation will all probably stay on desktops and that will keep them around for years.
The scale of a desktop fits and works. Like how we could make a TV the size of a watch, but we don't because the large 60 inch plazma format, while immobile, has benefits worth the tradeoff.
Full featured mouse / keyboard, larger screens, surround sound are all perks of stationary desktops (I guess you could attach all these peripherals to a laptop, but then you are partially defeating the point of being mobile.
You really think desktop computers in an ATX case, with a full ATX-motherboard, and 5" hard drives are going to be around in 10 years? Seriously? They're becoming rare even today.
After reading that I looked down at the desktop I'm writing this from.
I laughed.
Desktops are by no means "rare". Cell phones have just become ubiquitous, theres a difference. (Laptops too for that matter.)
One of my problems with current generation laptops and netbooks (Besides costing almost twice as much for the same performance.) is that despite being "mobile" computers I end up having to set it down on a flat surface every time I want to use it. Walking around and using your laptop at the same time? Not going to happen. (Unless you buy one of those chest-strap things I saw in the first splinter cell...) The OLPC solved this pretty elegantly with the handle on the back, which is made just perfectly so that you can actually hold the computer with one hand and operate it with the other. (This mainly works because the OLPC is more netbook than laptop.)
And then you get two more problems I have with the laptop form factor: Trackpad vs Mouse, "Keyboard" vs Keyboard.
Trackpads, even when you have a responsive one, are awful. They're like touch screens, but not as cool. If you have anything on your hands, it gets on the trackpad when you use it. Trackpads are too slow if they're set at a speed where your mouse can actually point, and uncontrollable if the speed is turned up.
The "Keyboard"s that comes with most laptops barely qualify for the word. Traditional desktop keyboards can have keys with a height greater than five millimeters. (I'm exaggerating obviously, but laptop keyboards are very flat.) and I much prefer this to keyboards that feel like I'm tapping on a piece of plastic cardboard. I'd almost rather forgo the keyboard entirely and just push down on the little gelatinous circles underneath directly. And don't get me started on replacing one of those keys if they break. (Which they often do.)
And no, touch screens aren't the answer. On laptop screens, touchscreen == dirty display. I already have a rant here about touch screens on mobile devices. On displays bigger than a laptop, you better not have been planning to sit more than an arm's length away from your monitor. Oh right, the future doesn't have big screens in it.
Desktops might not even be common in a decade, but they'll be there. If for nothing else because theres people like me who still like to sit down to a (awesome) computer setup.
You can use whatever keyboard you like, whatever input device you like, but there is no inherent reason why your computer has to be an ATX desktop form factor and anchored to the wall. If you could accomplish everything you currently do on your computer right now, with your phone and plugging your phone into a base station, then there would literally be no reason to have a desktop at all. We are only about 1-2 years away from this reality.
Well. I'd say it's more like five years away from any sort of mainstream acceptance. Not that I'm some anti-hipster, but I don't think it will become mainstream right away BECAUSE:
1) People without smart phones exist. I'm one of them.
2) Nobody is going to be satisfied with phone hardware to control both their phone and their sit-down setup. At least not for a few more generations of Moore's law, and Moore's laws current method for increasing power, stacking cores, is a battery vampire. People who want their phones to actually run for a non-trivial length of time will end up under-utilizing their hardware while on the go. (Hardware that they still payed money for.)
3) So lets say we still have the sit-down setup in the form of the base station. This brings up it's own set of questions:
[A] Where is data stored? What if someone steals your phone? What if you don't have one?
[B] Where does the computing power come from, is this just a shell for the phone or does it have some power on board?
Now we can wrangle over these questions for a while, but I'm quite confident the answers are "The base has an internal HD" and "The base has computer parts inside." at which point I have to ask; how is this that different from what we have now?
I mean, sure my desktop is a little heavier to move than a "base" might be. But unless this base is going to be like the old 90's laptop bases (Huge flat thing with peripherals that plugs into a smaller top.) I can't really see myself moving it. If it has a full fledged keyboard, monitor, and mouse, I can't see myself moving it. If it doesn't, then it's a laptop. With all the problems laptops entail. (Which can only be fixed by "desktopifying" it.)
Of course, marketing conquers all. That is what everyones always going after right, true marketing? Or was that true love? I think it was the marketing...
If you're working with a keyboard and mouse, and looking at a big screen, and you have a rich multi-tasking environment that does what you need it to do, does it matter if it's running on a smartphone that's connected via bluetooth to a keyboard/mouse and via DLNA to a screen? Why the need to have a big box containing your CPU, if a little one will do?
Desktop PC's will always find a niche, but they're already a niche today. Laptops by far outsell desktops, and smartphones+tablets by far outsell laptops. Right now you have to be a geek to buy a desktop, because regular people don't buy those anymore. I don't know anyone "normal" who bought a desktop in the last two years. The idea to buy anything other than a laptop simply doesn't arise. This happened in 5 years. Why couldn't a smartphone-centric transition happen in 5 years as well?
You could push the ease-of-use even further with wireless HDMI, A2DP, and Bluetooth HIDs. Imagine: sit at a desk, without your phone even leaving your pocket. The wireless HDMI monitor, Bluetooth keyboard, and Bluetooth A2DP speakers automatically pair up with your phone. You just start using the device, eg. show a video to your friends, or start working. Stand up and leave. The phone unpairs itself from the monitor/speakers/keyboard, free to be used by the next person.
(If security is a concern, make this less automatic, eg. make the pairing require pressing a button on the phone.)
I have been waiting for precisely that concept to take off for years, namely using your cellphone as your portable computer.
To me, that seems like a lot of trouble to share a relatively trivial amount of hardware. Hardware which is optimised for different, fairly specific circumstances, incidently.
It's not sharing the device's hardware that matters, but the device's data. All your data is either on the phone (pictures, etc), or available through the phone which is always on and always authenticated to the "cloud" (Android Gmail contacts, emails, etc).
The future of computing is either that (using your cellphone as a computer), or putting 100% of your data on the cloud (so you can access it from any device). But the former has the advantage that data can be cached on the device (pictures, contacts), therefore it does not require permanent Internet access so you can work even when offline.
I think it's fair to posit that cheap cloud storage space will meet/outpace smartphone storage space, to the point where simply imaging the entire phone to the cloud is easy enough. Even if you lose your phone, you authenticate a new one and you're ready to go in the time it takes to download the image.
But with all that running, you won't be working for longer than an hour or two. I really like the Palm/HP Touchstone charger, and I wish wireless charging would take off. It'd be nice to just sit in my cube while all my devices charge in a 3' radius of my desk.
Canonical may not have the resources or funds of Apple or Microsoft but they are innovating better than both at the moment. Unity is daring to be different on the desktop, and Ubuntu on Android is a simple idea that could really change the way people think about the PC. The ideas might not all work out in the long term but for sheer creative thinking you have got to applaud what they are doing.
I know it's immature of me to note this, but what's up with the logo to the left of "Ready to talk?". Is it just me, or is it faintly reminiscent of... well, something else?
I really hate to say it, but I would agree. Either Canonical has a sense of humor, or they need to think about how their users interpret their interfaces more.
We have struggled to get a BIOS that is Free / Libre
And where does this leave us now? Just because Ubuntu is free, if the phone manufacturers start to get trusted mobile computing (tm) disease, we are still in trouble.
"Curated" is still not free
And there are some obvious holes - you cant carry a monitor around with you. So you need docking stations to plug into. Do you trust the keyboard in the Public library not to watch your keystrokes?
Ubuntu and Android share the same kernel. When docked,
the Ubuntu OS boots and runs concurrently with Android.
This allows both mobile and desktop functionality to
co-exist in different runtimes.
It looks great, but I still think Google needs to make it so when docked like this, what you see on the PC screen is the "tablet UI" of Android. It makes more sense, and you don't even have to waste resources running 2 OS's on a mobile processor.
If they did that all that happens is you're stuck with a crap tablet os and apps, the goal is a full-fledged workstation you can work on without compromise.
Reminds me of doing the Debian chroot on the Nokia N8x0. That's been around for quite awhile. It's nice to be able to apt-get whatever you need. It's prohibitively slow to use on a device from 2007 though and overclocking is a bit risky and drains the battery quickly.
(Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I still use one of these things rather than the brand new 1.2 GHz dual core Android phone sitting next to it in my bag.)
I don't really see this panning out unless Ubuntu runs on the mobile screen as well. I'd also hope that the curated experience can be replaced with, well, anything else. Ubuntu is increasingly becoming a forced experience and reconfiguring things is a waste of time. Configuring something to how you want to use it is also a lot more educational than trying to figure out where to disable the new configuration.
I use a chroot on my Touchpad to run Ubuntu with LXDE. It's... workable, but no where near "desktop" quality. The lack of a mouse kills it, and LXDE isn't really touch optimized. It's really nice to have around when there are apps you need to use that are run better (or easier) from a GUI, and the dual core 1.5Ghz processor with 1GB of RAM is sufficient to keep it running without hiccup (until I load Eclipse).
With some low-end (or ARM) optimization, Ubuntu would rock the mobile productivity world.
Having a decent soft/hard keyboard is highly recommended. I played with this after having to push out an update connecting with VNC through an SSH tunnel to use Eclipse using the n810. It took ten times as long as it should have to fix two lines of code and build.
That's interesting, hadn't seen it before. I do use Vim on my laptop, but the HP webOS keyboard has some funky modifier keys. I'm not sure if it would work properly. Oh well that's the beauty of free software, I'll download and give it a shot.
If Microsoft was smart, this would be exactly how their Win8 tablets should work - plug it into a dock and it turns into a Desktop PC. Ubuntu and Microsoft are in an awesome place here that Apple is going to miss out on.
Because Apple had said multiple times that they fundamentally don't believe in a one device world. Tablets are tablets, desktops are desktops. Mixing the two bastardizes both.
Microsoft doesn't agree, and Win8 is a hybrid that supports both interactions. Ubuntu is showing it will do the same.
Personally, I think Apple are seriously short-sighted in their approach. The other possibility I they are being very long sighted and waiting for the desktops' inevitable death in the consumer market. However, they've shown nothing that indicates they know how Mum and Dad are going to write their Christmas letters, or edit that important work document that has to get done tonight but they're home sick.
They say that, but with all the device consolidation features (iCloud, syncing, unified messages, launchpad, dock with no indicator lights, automatic process management), they are playing out a different tune.
I think Apple is aware of this trend, and is going to eventually act on it.
I still hope Ubuntu does it well first, because I'd love to have an affordable OSS solution.
> Microsoft doesn't agree, and Win8 is a hybrid that supports both interactions. Ubuntu is showing it will do the same.
Yes, why do one thing well when you can do two things adequately?
I think this fundamental difference separates Apple from nearly everyone else in the markets in which they compete.
Apple's vision is similar to Sun's: one ID that allows you to transport your data (incl. apps for appropriate platform) to all your Apple devices... Have you ever used a Sun-Ray[1]? It's like that, except for apps/data, not sessions.
Personally, I don't think Win8 is anything like Ubuntu for Android. Microsoft has the same problem as Apple: they don't want you to stop buying desktops, as both companies make a lot of money on continued sales of traditional computers. Whereas Apple created a whole new device platform in the iPad and iPhone, Microsoft is trying to merge the two markets back together... while at the same time relying on the computing profits to keep their overall margins up. Meanwhile Google and Canonical would happily cannibalize any revenue from desktops for the much greater potential in mobile.
I think it's a little early to say that Windows 8 will only make for an adequate tablet interface. Windows Phone shows they know what they're doing when they put their heart into it.
I don't think Apple wants to sell desktops at all. I think they'd like OS X gone in 5-10 years.
Is this going to be available to end users to install themselves, or is Canonical holding out for handset makers to respond to this and partner with them?
Sadly, since so many of the big Android guys are also in bed with or paying some kind of extortion to Microsoft, I would expect there to be some amount of pressure and possibly economic incentives for the big Android ODMs to NOT to ship this.
Beyond that, is any carrier going to be interested in offering subs Ubuntu? (Idk, maybe?) Put this into the hands of end users first even if it's a "sloppy" / hack-ish install. That's the way to get it out there.
I admit, this would get me to bite the bullet if integrated with one of the existing laptop dock solutions for Android phones such as the Motorola Atrix 4G Lapdock or the ASUS Transformer Prime. Ubuntu is enough for me to do everything I need a computer for, except for some rare book keeping that has to be done over a VPN only supported on Windows/Mac. Instead of bringing my phone and laptop on all trips I'd just have my phone and laptop dock. The laptop docks seem much lighter and having the same stored data and same wireless data connection without tethering would be handy.
I can see this working really well for younger users, non-power-users, and non-techies who want to carry around their desktop environment and whose needs are met by web apps like Google Docs.
I can also see its potential in developing countries where many people have a phone and a TV but not a PC.
The medium-term goal is sort of obvious: Ubuntu running on the phone with the ability to display Unity on its own tiny screen or on larger external displays and allowing the user to interact with it via touch or via external input devices like keyboards, mice, etc.
I think this is a great step in the right direction, and we've already observed a compression of devices recently. Consider the Laptop, Desktop & phone. Who still uses a desktop? Its really just a matter of time until we compress the laptop and phone, we're a long way off in my opinion (in terms of actually usable hardware) but once we have the power and portable input devices (i think one could already structure an argument to say we have them) i don't know what would hold it back.
Now I begin to understand why Canonical made those recent changes. The Ubuntu part of it seems kinda slow, but smartphones are going to get faster. [1]
That's where the whole world is headed. As a general consumer, why have a desktop when you can dock your phone/tablet and playback or stream videos, edit content and browse the web?
Well, because it's annoying to constantly have to dock your phone in order to use the desktop, for one thing.
What are the upsides here?
Synchronised calendar, user accounts, data, everything? You can do that without sharing the hardware. (Much harder to do it without relying on the internet, admittedly.)
Less maintenance because you don't have to worry about two devices?
Cost efficiency because you don't have to pay for a standalone computer? I suppose that's the big one, and I guess it's good enough. Then again, you could just get something like a Raspberry Pi for not much money. And if you need a dock, that won't be free, either.
Don't get me wrong, I see the potential, but I'm not sure it's where the world is headed. I guess it will be one of a large number of modes in which people use computers with displays larger than tablets.
Hmm. 12 to 15 years ago most laptop owners also had a desktop machine. Since then most of those users have gone laptop-only despite the fact that many (most?) of them face a similar annoyance to the one you give: they either dock their laptop when at their desk or they plug in an external monitor.
You can point out (correctly, IMO) that there were no truly satisfactory ways to sync laptop and desktop back when laptop-desktop owners went laptop-only, and I suppose you would claim that sync will work better this time because vendors and users "get the cloud" now. Hmm. Any laptop users who also run a desktop care to chime in on how annoying it is in the age of Dropbox to keep data on the two devices in sync?
Absolutely, except minus the dock and right now. If you have an apple TV you can already mirror your iPhone 4S, iPad 2, or Mac (with Mountain Lion) to the display with airplay. It's pretty neat, especially considering the quality of games hitting the phone (such as GTA3). I think there's a whole slew of apps that could be made (right now) to transform this paradigm into something all consumers use instead of just the technically adventurous.
I think that's exactly where they're heading. Apple filed for a patent a couple of years ago for an iMac style enclosure that could dock a tablet computer. It probably makes more sense to do this via a tablet instead of a phone.
"Ubuntu is the killer app for multi-core phones in 2012"
This text is displayed as if it's a quote, but as far as I can tell, it's not: http://goo.gl/vKHOI (link is to a Google search for the above text). If there's anyone from Canonical here, can you comment on why that is presented as a quote, or what/where it's a quote from, if it is in fact a quote?
As far as I see, this is the text of reference: Newer multi-core processors are up to the job, and Ubuntu is the killer app for that hot hardware. It’s the must-have feature for late-2012 high-end Android phones.
The quote itself is outside the text body and refers to the text body. For a marketing text like this, I don't think that kind of quoting is difficult to understand or swallow.
i don't see canonical and google working too closely together on this, as google has a competing OS that they're trying to push: chrome. and now with the introduction of chrome for android, there's no reason why your cell phone couldn't turn into a chromebox when it gets plugged into a similar dock.
Its the obvious extension of the current model. Kudos to Canonical for giving it a go.
I was expecting Apple or MS to move in this direction and I seem to recall a POC/patent application/Mock up from a few years back showing an iMac with a removable iPhone/iPod as the home directory. Maybe I'm misremembering.
I know this is Ubuntu on Android, but all I can think of is Windows 8. Doesn't this seem like an inevitability for Microsoft? Intel even has x86 mobile chips on the way.
This is pretty cool, but it's an OEM-driven product, dependent on the phone maker to enable it. For over a year I
've been working on a port of X to Android as an application, running as a non-privileged user, displaying to a surface allocated through the Android Java API. The port is at http://github.com/tmzt/androix along with build instructions. (see the readme)
The motorola Atrix had demos of this concept. There was no ubuntu- it just was moto's skinning of android & a $200 docking station for your phone/keyboard/monitor.
You do not want to "have everything" with you in your mobile while you are in a public place. I have a notebook and an iPad, and, of course, my 4 year old shitty Compaq laptop I take outside when I have meetings. I keep my files inside a truecrypt file vault just in case.
Yesterday on reddit headline was something like "I can't believe you can play Grand Theft Auto on a _phone_" and my response was "I can't believe we call them phones, they are powerful pocket computers that just happen to have the ability to send and receive phone calls"
I wonder when they are going to come out with portable OLED display sheets and ultralight paper-based keyboards.
I am so excited about this idea, being able to dock and have a full desktop with full applications and keyboard would be awesome. I have BusyBox on my Android phone but it usually isn't enough to make it function like a real Linux desktop. However, I hope that Canonical will stay true to itself and develop and release this as truly open software.
Did I just come out of a 40-day coma? What month is this?
"Android was designed for touch only, and has its hands full winning the tablet wars."
Be careful. I think Steve Jobs might've patented the reality distortion field.
"The Ubuntu desktop sets the standard for ease of use." Compared to what?
"And imagine TVs that become home PCs when you dock your phone: perfect for the emerging market where LTE will be the normal way for new users to connect to the Internet."
Great. My home connection's going to come with a 4GB monthly cap now too?
In a lot of ways this is actually a neat idea, and I could see something close to this catching on. I see a few problems though:
* As fast as my laptop is, I still sometimes wish it had a faster CPU, a better GPU, and more RAM. Modern phones are still around an order of magnitude slower and have a fraction of the RAM. They're not exactly desktop replacements.
* 64GB is an impressive amount of storage for a cell phone. It's pretty weak for a laptop.
* "The Cloud" is an order of magnitude or two slower than my local disk, and my local disk doesn't have a monthly data transfer limit.
* Normal people have no clue what Ubuntu is, and they're not exactly adopting it in droves, even without having to buy new hardware to support it.
So… neat idea, but I don't see this getting off the ground. If it does, though, I see a lot more idle sword fighting in my future.
I never got my jet pack, but I DID get my handheld supercomputer. I love this. I love the idea of it and the 7 year old in me who had his world rocked by that TI-99/4A is stoked. I just can't be upset at any aspect of this - our computing dreams just keep coming true.
So it doesn't seem like I can actually run this right now. Am I missing the link to actually get it and set it up? If there isn't one, why are they making an announcement?
Maybe the dock has a few USB ports? Otherwise, I'm not sure what exactly the dock does. You don't need a dock to connect a display to a phone with HDMI-out, which are the only phones supported.
I think the idea is so that you can just drop in a dock to connect USB, HDMI and power, rather than plugging and unplugging three different cables each time. That is, the dock wouldn't offer new kinds of ports, so much as collect them together for the user.
So instead of my company phone and company locked down desktop PC, I get one device which I can then plug into any dock in the building. IT Support only have to worry about one device instead of two.
If that's the case, I'd assume I can use this without a dock, ie. just by connecting HDMI; all other connections being more-or-less optional. But I get the feeling that's not true.
Ideally: pick the phone out of the dock and answer it. Your desktop session will pause until you return the phone to this (or another) dock. If what you're doing on the desktop is so important you can't pause it, don't take the call.
So instead of a notebook and phone you're going to have a phone, notebook, keyboard, mouse, headset and a screen. Also in case you've an external DVD drive that is burning a disc and somebody calls you, you'll throw it out and start again?
This is cool from a gee whiz/novelty standpoint, but in practice this will have very poor usability. Why? Good touch apps have terrible UI for keyboard & mouse interaction.
For example swiping, pinch to zoom, etc. Many apps use a swipe to the left or right to perform and action. How would this work with a mouse?
Shut up and take my money. This is what I've been dreaming of since I got my smartphone. Why should I even have a netbook for general purpose computing? I want to go anywhere with my MID (mobile internet device).
I strongly believe, this would be just the beginning. Mobile phones give you three things - (recently, Horsepower), Mobility and Identity. And there are a plethora of things that could be powered with a combination of the three.
Yes, this is what we hope the future looks like. But, for this to happen, the device manufacturers need to collaborate. We still don't have a universal phone charging adapter. Imagine how messy things will get if Apple, Samsung, Nokia etc each start making their own docks which are not compatible with others.
I don't know what the implications are for Ubuntu or Android. But genuine support for a first-class computing experience is one of the few things that would tempt me back onto those platforms.