Google shelves plan for phone with interchangeable parts

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-google-smartphone-idUKKCN11806C

by _pius • 10 years ago

309 298 10 years ago

uk.reuters.com

flukus13• 10 years ago

I've learned to completely ignore anything launched publicly at google IO (wave, ara, glass, etc).

helthanatos• 10 years ago

Hah, especially Android features that we might get 3 years later.

lern_too_spel• 10 years ago

Google has gotten worse and worse at this. It used to be that they would launch something right when they announced it. Then they would launch something invite-only when they announced it. Now they announce things without even having a clear idea of when or how those things will launch.

kyrra2• 10 years ago

Chromebook was a Google IO announcement, and I'm sure there are others that have succeeded.

mmanfrin• 10 years ago

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/google-discontinues-t...

flukus13• 10 years ago

Turning a previously open category of computing into a locked down experience never particularly excited me in the first place.

mmastrac2• 10 years ago

Disappointed about this one - I guess this was just too early (like glass). They had to create a lot of both hardware AND software to make it work. Expensive and risky work for a single company to take on.

I was honestly holding off on a cell phone upgrade hoping to get my hands on the developer version of this early 2017.

throwaway2016a• 10 years ago

I had to scroll half way down the page to find someone like me... I'm disappointed as well.

A lot of people here talk about performance and size. We seem obsessed with them in cell phones but at what point does performance and size become good enough and we can focus on things like sustainability and repairability.

ihsw• 10 years ago

Axing Project Ara is one of the first steps in a campaign to unify Google's various hardware efforts, which range from Chromebook laptops to Nexus phones.

Their new phone line will be called Pixels.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/09/01/exclusive-googles-ne...

colemickens2• 10 years ago

I can't help but wonder if they're co-opting the Pixel name to push ChromeOS on a phone form factor with the built-in Android runtime.

It seems very unlikely, but there's a part of me still wondering.

roymurdock2• 10 years ago

Check out their efforts on the new Fuschia OS. I'm fairly certain it's Google's attempt to design a mobile OS from scratch to get rid of some of the overhead introduced into Android as a function of it being a Linux derivative.

blihp• 10 years ago

Don't dismiss that thought so quickly. 2-3 years ago all indications were that they wanted to merge Android into ChromeOS (based on statements Sundar made at the time) which went nowhere. Over the last 1 1/2 years or so it seems like they sorted out which end is the tail and which end is the dog and have flipped the strategy around accordingly.

Sylos2• 10 years ago

Like the Chromebooks?

What the heck is the deal with big companies naming things in horribly ambiguous, confusing ways? Is there an actual reason for doing that, i.e. it's proven that this somehow leads to better sales or something?

stonogo• 10 years ago

This is a Fuchsia casualty, and it won't be the last. Google cannot afford to innovate with hardware until they are done replacing the open-source kernel in Android. Once that's done, and OEMs are accustomed to writing Fuchsia drivers instead, they can use increased leverage over manufacturers to drive hardware innovations in directions they want.

monkmartinez• 10 years ago

Can you please elaborate? I am not following your logic.

karma_vaccum1233• 10 years ago

Interesting theory but Fuchsia seems years away (unless they have a non-public repo that is much further along)

cpeterso• 10 years ago

Why are hardware innovations not possible with Android's Linux kernel? OEMs' concerns about the GPL?

pjmlp10• 10 years ago

Yes, the kernel is the only GPL component on the stack.

Google just deprecated gcc and will only offer clang on future NDK versions.

Native apps are so constrained in Android that they could replace Linux with something else and only OEMs writing drivers would notice.

Fuchsia takes this further by not having any GPL component at all.

clumsysmurf• 10 years ago

I had high hopes for this, but seeing how fragmentation is harming Android when the phone is a single integrated device - seems unrealistic they would be able to get all these components to play well together among various OEMs.

IBM2• 10 years ago

I've speculated for a long time that basically anything interesting Google says they're doing is essentially meant to be a jobs program to keep employees from leaving, PR for external stakeholders like investors, media, being attractive to potential employees, etc. They seem to have lots of formal ways to keep employees from leaving/close as well including investments off of Google's balance sheet (not GV or Google Capital) into ex-employee startups and just flat out paying people not to leave (which is the arrangement I'm guessing that Matt Cutts is under). It all seems very Microsoft of old.

Can anyone at Google (or ex-employees) tell me if this is true?

oconnor663• 10 years ago

Is the evidence for this view, that they cancel a lot of interesting projects? I think a simpler explanation for that would be that trying lots of new things is just a good strategy, even if you know 90% of them will fail.

flukus13• 10 years ago

Trying and failing is one thing. Trying, announcing, telling everyone it's the next big thing and then failing is quite another.

IBM2• 10 years ago

I think there was reporting about this regarding Andy Rubin. After he was pushed out of Android, Larry Page basically gave him a robotics division to keep him around. He made some acquisitions, there was no real follow through and he left and is now a VC.

I just want to know how pervasive that is across the company.

rajeshp19862• 10 years ago

Trying, announcing, pursuing the project for 3 years and suddenly announcing that the project shows that random ideas are being chased without proper vision & leadership.

maxerickson2• 10 years ago

You could argue that they pay every employee not to leave.

Like any other business.

thaumasiotes• 10 years ago

Generally, the concept is that they're paying for the work you do for them, not that they're paying for the privilege of saying you're on the payroll.

samfisher83• 10 years ago

Why do they need these people if they aren't working on things that make the company money?

taspeotis• 10 years ago

Perhaps better doing nothing for Google than working for other companies, making them money.

prawn• 10 years ago

Deprives competitors of talent and there are also advantages in having people doing speculative/moonshot work.

mturmon• 10 years ago

Enjoyably Machiavellian.

But in the instance of this phone, a more straightforward strategy seems clear: to break down the monolithic phone market and suppress the unique market position of big competitors like Samsung. As in this quote from a wowed reporter from The Verge --

Just as importantly, though, Project Ara could have a ripple effect on the entire mobile industry. One of the goals is to "democratize the hardware ecosystem, break it wide open, basically disintermediate the OEMs," Eremenko [then the project lead] says, "so that component developers can now have privy [sic] with the consumer."

Fun to read the puff piece in retrospect: http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/15/5615880/building-blocks-ho...

Someone• 10 years ago

To have that strategy work, you would need zero cost, zero volume connectors that stay together forever if desired, yet come apart easily.

Otherwise, the guy building the integrated system would offer a smaller, sturdier phone at lower cost that suits 90+% of the market, leaving scraps for you, forcing your prices up, decreasing your market even further, forcing your prices up, etc.

There's a reason that, except for a few early suitcase-sized ones, we never saw laptops with ISA/PCI/PCMCIA slots succeed in the market, and laptops had the advantage to start out as desktops, which had slots.

ChuckMcM• 10 years ago

Flip it around, would anyone want to apply to Google if they weren't doing big visionary things? I've met a lot of people who want to work at Google, not because anything they want to achieve in life is only possible if they do it with Google's resources, but simply because "It's a magical place." as Phil Coulson would say.

So whether or not it keeps people from leaving, if it is effective at getting people to apply to Google first, it meets its goal right?

From my experience working there some of the "moonshot" type projects were rather hit or miss in terms of retention. Some, like the self driving car one, attracted a lot of great talent, some of the more interesting power related ones were only interesting to people who cared about power efficiency. But the feeling that anything is possible is intoxicating until you realize what you have to give up to make something possible. Then its sort of hit or miss.

AtheistOfFail• 10 years ago

T.A.H.I.T.I is calling.

"It's a magical place"

xiphias2• 10 years ago

Most of us at Google are not working on on moonshot projects, and still have a happy life. Still, most non-moonshot projects that people are working on are growing nicely, have a long term view, and making lots of impact. Also having free good quality, healthy food with big variety all day long makes a huge impact in life quality.

pjmlp10• 10 years ago

I wanted to work there but after three nonsensical phone interviews and some feedback from ex-Googlers I came to the conclusion, even if I had the skills to be accepted, their culture is not something I would enjoy.

jpm_sd• 10 years ago

Sadly, these repeated failed hardware efforts are all totally sincere. There is a sort of pump-and-dump hype cycle but people are really drinking the kool-aid internally. So far they are still a software company failing to create internal hardware startups.

Source: worked at Google for 2 years

perseusprime112• 10 years ago

I never saw the potential of this project given how slim the phones are getting and how the hardware is literally attached to screen. The design and aesthetic would have to be compromised for these modular phones. The two places where this would have been useful are camera and battery but there is literally no innovation happening in these two departments so expect for the next 2-3 years, our batteries and camera specs will not significantly change due to technology limitations and size constraints.

clintonb2• 10 years ago

The two places where this would have been useful are camera and battery but there is literally no innovation happening in these two departments...

From what I see in headlines the camera and battery are the two areas with the most innovation. Apple has a major ad campaign featuring photos shot on iPhones. Almost every new phone release mentions improved battery life. (Admittedly, these energy improvements may come more from decreased consumption than improved storage.)

I see most marketing discussing the following features:

1. Camera 2. Battery life 3. Screen size/resolution

This makes sense given that there aren't many other areas to radically innovate. Someone's already tried adding decent speakers, a kickstand, and various exclusive apps.

perseusprime112• 10 years ago

Unfortunately I don't see them. Nokia Windows phones were far more advsncedin terms of cameras than current iPhones or Samsung galaxy s7s. Anand tech said as much about this in their reviews. I don't see any improvement in my battery life from iPhone 5S to iPhone 6S. Do others see any improvement?

ori_b• 10 years ago

I'm not surprised. I can't think of any way for it to actually be better for day to day use than a monolithic smartphone.

My biggest surprise is that it was still chugging along until now.

antoniuschan99• 10 years ago

Have they released anything? Or was the lg g4 the closest thing to a modular smartphone?

dingo_bat• 10 years ago

I think you mean G5. Also, newer Moto phones are also modular in a way.

Sylos2• 10 years ago

The FairPhone 2 is also pretty modular.

beambot3• 10 years ago

There are too many tangible benefits to close integration between CPU, screen, battery, and antennas -- the latter of which is probably the most difficult to modularize.

A much better tactic would've been 1-2 expansion ports for specialized hardware modules -- everything from credit card readers (a la Square), medical sensors, portable oscilloscope, etc. A standardized peripheral interface for hardware expansion slots across all phone variants could've really enabled a whole bunch of new applications (and industries). I'm sad to see it abandoned entirely.

(I wonder if there weren't some strong personalities that kept the "100% modular or bust" mentality?)

poizan42• 10 years ago

You mean, like, USB OTG that basically every smartphone has?

beambot3• 10 years ago

You are mistaking a few conductors for a well-designed peripheral. The surrounding mechanics and size matters a lot for mass-market peripherals... especially if the aim is to seamlessly integrate them (semi-permanently) into any phone. This means things like size, volume, nearby mechanical connections, robustness, and industrial design. With OTG, you'd be plugging and unplugging all the time (every time the devices goes into your pocket) -or- building "cases" one a phone-by-phone basis. That's not a standard peripheral... that's a hack with a dongle.

An Ara-esque expansion slot could've created a real standard.

escap• 10 years ago

like LG G5 magic slot ? http://www.lg.com/us/mobile-phones/g5#G5Modularity

but it seems LG has reliability with it http://www.alphr.com/lg/1002753/lg-g5-review-2016s-cleverest...

MatthewWilkes• 10 years ago

That slot is little more than a proprietary USB connector, the only access LG Friends have to the phone is the USB bus and the battery power rails.

skykooler• 10 years ago

Like the Other Half on the Jolla?

modeless• 10 years ago

Motorola did exactly what you're asking for. It's called Moto Mods and if it isn't abandoned as a failure within 3 years I'll eat my hat. https://www.motorola.com/us/moto-mods

jessriedel• 10 years ago

Yes, this is the rough idea, except that it was "designed exclusively for the moto Z". The fact that one proprietary mod standard didn't take off is hardly strong evidence against the general idea, and especially the viability of an open standard.

technofiend• 10 years ago

You're right about the tight integration, but Ara could have ushered in better integration with offboard modules as well. And it would be fun for the things you don't want as features all the time. As an example I would have loved an Ara phone with a removable Tango module.

rch• 10 years ago

So a modular phone is a bad idea, but what about the spec? I could imagine widgets that connect to mountain bikes, toasters, and ski helmets; the phone is just enabling.

the company may work with partners to bring Project Ara’s technology to market

...vague, but maybe.

erikb3• 10 years ago

No Google! That is not acceptable! You can not always make people hope for years and then just drop it. When you start with marketing you take on some responsibility. You lost someone who believed in you.

karma_vaccum1233• 10 years ago

Was anyone really hoping for this? It seemed pretty clear that this was a a technology exploration.

erikb3• 10 years ago

Do you know Pokemon? Don't you think collectable phone parts would not be a great business model? Even if this only barely works I thought it could make a lot of money and therefore was quite sure that someone would build it.

bmer2• 10 years ago

I think your naivete is as beautiful as the freshest spring rose.

I wonder what this move has to do with what phone manufacturers are doing in general: hiding away components like the battery that were once open to the consumer, making it difficult to do anything but buy a new phone if the battery alone dies out. One can't get more anti-modular than that, and the Nexus 5X has the same deal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYFbSpvSE-w&feature=youtu.be...

voltagex_4• 10 years ago

I know what you're saying about the 5X, but it's not impossible to replace.

The battery isn't immediately user accessible but isn't too challenging, or too adhered, to replace.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus+5X+Teardown/51318#s112...

Retra3• 10 years ago

Just what were you hoping to put on your phone that isn't already builtin to the phone you have?

erikb3• 10 years ago

First of all the simple things: Getting back the replacable parts feature of old phones.

Then context optimization: At one time I may need additional battery life, and another time I may need a second sim card.

Playing around myself: It could also become a raspberry pie with more add-ons and for the more software oriented tinkerers, and I am one of them. Playing around with the pie was always nice, but I didn't fully use it because the more creative stuff always required really working with the hardware, what I don't like at all.

Also let's not forget the Pokemon effect: If there is something that can be collected, ppl will have fun just in the collecting. And not everybody may agree but funding tech experiments by people paying for fun is a valid business model for me.

karma_vaccum1233• 10 years ago

As the Moto Z will likely confirm, no one is really interested in modular phones.

ilaksh• 10 years ago

Modular smartphones or computers are still a great idea. They may have had trouble easily capitalizing at this time without interfering with other products.

eva1984• 10 years ago

I am not surprised either. It is more of a gimmicky idea, than a revolutionary moonshot one. It is somehow hard to picture where is the market and how to convince customers to buy it.

electic3• 10 years ago

It is 2016 and a lot of people are still not very good with computers, let alone mobile phone components. We live in Silicon Valley so it might be hard to understand this very simple fact. I invite everyone to go to an Apple store and just sit there and watch the scores of folks come in and have to be sat down and explained, slowly, about the simplest concepts for macOS or iOS. I have mad respect for Apple Geniuses.

Now, imagine a phone that has all these components and imagine the overhead of supporting that. Now you might say it is for tech people..that market is not big enough to warrant the R&D and support. Right call Google.

pcurve• 10 years ago

ios has gotten rather complex and big over the years. Just look at the Settings. About as bad as Android settings.

I'm a computer guy and it's a struggle to find things.

electic3• 10 years ago

Same here, but people have come in since the first iPhone to ask the simplest question to Apple Stores.

paublyrne• 10 years ago

I just switched to iOS after being Android for a while. Current Android Settings are great, at least in stock Android. They've finessed them over the years. They were poor two or three versions ago for sure.

yladiz• 10 years ago

This doesn't surprise me. I feel like the concept is nice, but they have to do a kick-ass job as making sure everything goes together well and can't just randomly fail -- I would hate if my phone's data got corrupted because a piece of it randomly fell off my phone or accidentally spilling some water on it, which would not affect a normal phone but may seep into between a pair of component edges. But beyond that, and more importantly, it has to make economic sense. Would it have been cheaper than a random cheap phone, especially in the developing world?

seanwilson2• 10 years ago

It was an interesting idea but I could never see it working myself. It looked like a solution in search of a problem.

So you're meant to buy a phone shell and separate components to plug into this, where you can upgrade different components over time? Ignoring technical issues, wouldn't the shell get out of date quickly as well as the components (with some components being incompatible with other shells and components)?

It doesn't sound cost effective considering how cheap phones are getting and how often we are seeing physical hardware changes still (e.g. fingerprint readers, screen size, thinnest).

mindcrime2• 10 years ago

It was an interesting idea but I could never see it working myself. It looked like a solution in search of a problem.

Modularity worked out pretty well for the PC. When you make things open, there's no way to imagine ahead of times the things people will come up with.

mjevans2• 10 years ago

Yeah, but how well did it work out for the laptop?

More to the point, how well is it working out for /modern/ laptops. Look at the drive in that market.

umanwizard3• 10 years ago

A key advantage of mobile phones is that while a PC is around 50 liters, an iPhone 6 is 0.06 liters; almost 1000 times smaller.

You are relying on the assumption that the "modularity" is independent of the form factor; that if it worked in the PC, it can work in a mobile phone.

Maybe the success of mobile phones is because of their lack of modularity, not in spite of it.

seanwilson2• 10 years ago

Modularity worked out pretty well for the PC. When you make things open, there's no way to imagine ahead of times the things people will come up with.

I agree with this but the extreme space constraints of a mobile make this comparison less accurate. A PC is often not space, weight or battery life constrained and has the space and power for big dual graphics cards, huge heatsinks, water cooling, big fans, multiple hard drives etc.

I just can't see how it's feasible to create a modular mobile that will compete with current flagship phones which are likely pushing the space constraints and specs to the limits (is this accurate?). This sounds unlike how you can build a PC to compete with prebuilt options.

A better comparison is comparing modular phones to modular laptops. Laptops are weight, battery and space constrained as well and I haven't seen upgradable laptops gaining traction. Is that because of similar technical issues?

wibr• 10 years ago

I always thought that Ara might be a useful platform not so much for smartphones but for all those hand-held custom devices, you could plug in a credit card reader, laser, special cameras, voltmeter or whatever you need.

tudorw• 10 years ago

I always thought they take it a certain distance to maintain cred, then ditch it as the last thing they want is 3rd parties hooking stuff up to their things.

Retra3• 10 years ago

But next to nobody needs those things.

Nullabillity5• 10 years ago

But just about everyone has some such need, as well as components they couldn't give less of a shit about (the camera comes to mind, for me). The SoC is the expensive part that would need the economies of scale, but sadly there don't seem to be that many options in that space anyway.

ankurdhama• 10 years ago

Its all about money -> Do incremental "innovation" but make people pay for the whole thing again and again each and every year.

umanwizard3• 10 years ago

You know, you're not forced to buy a new phone, if you think your old one does the job just as well.

Retra3• 10 years ago

My old phone was perfect, but my provider killed it by making it download trash until it was unusable.

optforfon4• 10 years ago

If it came out tomorrow it'd be 10 years too late. Cellphones seem to have hit a plateau. All the parts are now good enough in a cheap phone that no one really needs this.

I got a $150 aluminum phone with a huge battery, nice enough camera, fingerprint scanner, 3GBs of RAM, expandable storage, etc. etc. ... I don't feel like I need expansion options. What can the higher-specs really offer now a days?

Samsung has the right idea, maybe we'll need better phones for VR. Or maybe built in picoprojectors will be a game changer. But for that you'll need a whole new phone - not just a module snaps on.

cubano• 10 years ago

We need phones that are basically indestructible and last 3 full days on one charge.

ahoka• 10 years ago

Do you really think so? I have an impression that the market is kinda OK with short battery life. Otherwise there would be a trend in this way. Maybe after other specs reach their practical limits?

Animats2• 10 years ago

They're available from "catphones.com". Yes, Caterpillar has a phone brand.

I have one of their phones. It lives up to the ruggedness advertising.

bluthru• 10 years ago

Why do I want to carry around 2 extra days of battery life?

Also, more mass in the phone means more force on impact.

knodi1232• 10 years ago

I bought a waterproof phone, and it has been a surprisingly useful feature to me. Not because of all the times I've dropped it in the toilet, or decided to do scuba photography, but rather the peace of mind I get from knowing I could fall in a pool at any moment and get out without a $600 fine from the phone company. Or that I can go for a jog and use it as an ipod even if it looks like it might rain. Prop it up in a corner of the shower and listen to news podcasts while I get clean.

Or, basically, I just don't have to think or worry about water or moisture at all. Never expected to appreciate that feature so much.

flukus13• 10 years ago

I just long for the day when pushing someone into the pool is a funny gag again, not a several thousand dollar lawsuit.

optforfon4• 10 years ago

Unfortunately they're so overpriced that it's cheaper to buy two non-waterproof phones

pronik2• 10 years ago

Meanwhile elsewhere: Fairphone 2 is available, is modular and user-repairable (iFixit: 10/10: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Fairphone+2+Teardown/52523). Ara looked cooler, but I guess I should cease any high hopes for Google innovation or market disruption. Which is sad, but probably the way things go in this world.

mintplant• 10 years ago

It's also still stuck on Android Lollipop, unfortunately. Otherwise it looks really, really cool.

voltagex_4• 10 years ago

Pretty much forever - drivers/BSPs won't be released any more for the Snapdragon 801.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/why-isnt-your-old-pho...

Animats2• 10 years ago

That makes sense. All those connector pins and latches were inherently going to be troublesome and fragile.

There's a market for various instruments one could attach to a phone, but it's not a mass market. You can get USB devices which give you a spectrum analyzer or an OBD-II connector, and there are apps to drive them. They're not something you get at phone stores.

xenadu02• 10 years ago

Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knew this was the ultimate result on the very day they announced it.

To make something modular you need to wrap each piece in its own case, add bulky connectors, etc. Both weight and volume are at an extreme premium in mobile devices. All that metal/plastic going in to making the pieces modular is stealing volume and weight from the battery.

The only realistic way to make the power envelope is to use an SoC, which means the CPU, GPU, and RAM must all be in the same module. That doesn't leave a lot worth upgrading... maybe just the radio module. Jumping up in screen resolution would mean replacing the SoC to get a better GPU too.

Modularity worked in desktop PCs because they have gobs of space and an AC power connection.

peterjlee• 10 years ago

First thing that came into mind when I heard about project Ara was that, laptops aren't modular because the increased size and weight will out weigh the benefits. Seemed like the same situation applies to smartphones, only worse.

colechristensen4• 10 years ago

Some people are obsessed with weight/thickness in mobile devices, but not as many as the manufacturers think there are. "modular" really comes down to "repairable" which means extra engineering would have to go in to the fact that you couldn't just glue most pieces together.

It _would_ add a little size/mass overhead, but it wouldn't have to add a lot. It would just cut in to bottom lines to build and maintain a consistent form factor. Allowing people to replace parts means they'll be buying fewer new units. My last two laptop purchases were definitely due to a hypothetically fixable problem in an unrepairable form factor.

fnord1232• 10 years ago

They used to be modular until companies started to follow Apple down the current path. I had a Dell Inspiron with removable battery, removable DVD drive, and PCMCIA slot for modular functionality.

Now we have come somewhat full circle with Apple's Macbook which has meagre hardware functionality and relies on USB-C to provide the missing functionality in a modular fashion. However it means a nest of cables so it's probably not what anyone wants when they want a modular laptop.

nix0n• 10 years ago

Laptops are less modular than desktops but way more modular than phones. HDDs, SSDs, and RAM can generally be upgraded, whereas in phones only the SD card can be upgraded. (In both, batteries and screens can be replaced with OEM parts.)

colechristensen4• 10 years ago

Wait, was there ever a plan to use anything but a SoC? That's all that's available as far as processors go as far as I'm aware. The modules would go

- screen - battery - processor (cpu/gpu/memory/radio) - everything else (sensors, interconnects, speakers, storage, etc.)

Almost all phone processors are a BGP stack with memory on top of cpu/gpu/radio on a single die.

riffraff• 10 years ago

even if there wasn't a plan to do that, that's how the idea was received. Compare the reactions from HN when it was made clear that you could not upgrade CPU/GPU/RAM/battery/screen individually

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11740451

JonathonW• 10 years ago

That was the original notion. Although radio probably could've gone into a separate module if they wanted it to, given the radio's frequently a discrete component anyways.

The big change that happened with the "reset" was that the display, primary battery, and AP (SoC) all became part of the frame. The original notion was that all the parts of the phone were modules, all connecting to the AP (which is also a module) via the frame's UniPro network-- the frame itself has little intelligence. (The way this works is actually pretty neat; I hope some of the network stack sees the light of day in some form or another.)

richie5um3• 10 years ago

Yep. My only surprise is that they took them this long to stop working on it.

I can understand why this could be a useful internal experiment. But, clearly, some people at Google expected this to be a viable product. Baffling.

rib3ye2• 10 years ago

Naa. It was an obvious PR play from the start. An "open" phone platform?? Give me a break... But music to the ears of all those "open source" zombies.

coldtea5• 10 years ago

Yep. My only surprise is that they took them this long to stop working on it.

Where they really working on it?

Arnt• 10 years ago

If my previous phone had been modular, I expect I'd still have it, but with a 2×nanosim module in place of the previous sim.

What I'm saying is that replacing the VGA card isn't the only sensible form of modularity. Replacing the case/screen with a watertight one when you move house to somewhere really rainy makes sense, etc.

mattlutze• 10 years ago

I think LG have done something very neat with the new G5 and modular phone design. Having that accessory swap bay on the phone allows you to add all sorts of different tools or capabilities to the handset.

It's not ideal because they integrated it with the battery bay, so you have shut the device off to make a swap you're replacing the end of the removable battery tray, which is also a pretty boss feature given the complete sealed flagships everyone else produces now).

But, it mates both a solid, SoC platform with some modular flexibility, vice having to bluetooth tether accessory cases to your phone.

stonewhite• 10 years ago

But they have committed the ultimate sin for androids with that, it uses a non-standart power connector.

masklinn• 10 years ago

Isn't that an extension port rather than a modular phone? You can add some features via extension modules but the phone itself isn't modular. And technically that's "just" the phone acting as a USB host, coupled to the software support for modules.

JulianMorrison2• 10 years ago

Screen replacement, camera, DSP and audio out, radio, sensors, USB port, all could be upgradeable or at least, replaceable to fix breakage.

Yes the phone would be bigger, but I believe the main reason this has gone nowhere is that people have got used to seeing phones as replaceable units at the phone level, not at the component level, and there's more money in selling a shiny new Galaxy Over9000 than there is in selling a swap-out for a busted screen.

lazyjones• 10 years ago

Both weight and volume are at an extreme premium in mobile devices. All that metal/plastic going in to making the pieces modular is stealing volume and weight from the battery.

This is probably mostly right, except that the size and weight of current mobile phones is probably largely determined by display, battery and case design/protection. I'd like to see some real numbers here. My guess is that 5-10g of plastic and connectors wouldn't make much of a difference and could easily be compensated with a slightly smaller battery and screen if size/weight become an issue.

Modularity worked in desktop PCs because they have gobs of space and an AC power connection.

Many things have changed since the 80s, modularity is now unattractive for most users.

jstandard• 10 years ago

modularity is now unattractive for most users.

It's not that modularity has become unattractive, it's that smaller form factors have become more attractive.

A larger form factor is a potential side effect of modularity.

I don't think modularity was ever very attractive in most consumer electronics for the "average joe" who just wants something that does the job they bought it for.

amelius• 10 years ago

In a far, far future, where a processor would be say 1/10th of the size it is now, I could see it work though.

pjmlp10• 10 years ago

And even that is going away.

Now with USB and Thunderbolt it seems we are back to the 8 and 16 bit days of selling computers as appliances, specially due to the thin margins that are currently being used.

Outside gamers, even customizable desktops seem to be a dying breed.

throwanem2• 10 years ago

For almost everyone, a computer is an appliance. And that's okay.

roc2• 10 years ago

As terrible as this idea is for phones -- it's perfect for home automation.

Having each and every widget doing its own network and software stack is just a mess. Nevermind having to power all these gadgets.

There's very little reason to have more than one base in a room, that could handle all the non-switch/non-outlet duties. (cameras, air quality sensors, motion sensors, mics and speakers for echo-type interaction, tv input, etc.)

If all those features were just modules that stacked on top of a base (and could be swapped independently), you'd really have something.

UnoriginalGuy2• 10 years ago

I don't understand at all...

Home automation is, by the nature of it, a series of distinct functions spread throughout the home (e.g. front door lock, garage control, temperature control, lights in each room, sprinkler system, washer/dryer alerts, etc); so you're going to need each of these geographically separate things communicating into a central control "hub."

You cannot physically move these things into a module on the central control hub. Most of them have to be in the location they're already at (e.g. physically in the front door).

How does making the control hub a modular unit help with the complexity of home automation? If anything it further adds to the complexity. A lot of the solutions now just use WiFi networking and a standard protocol.

I'm just not understanding your concept at all.

melling• 10 years ago

Yeah, some people knew it wouldn't happen. It might be interesting to revisit the comments and debates from years ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527774

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7597090

It's too bad we can't keep a score of people's accuracy. We might be able to learn something.

mighty_atomic_c• 10 years ago

Agreed. I'm surprised they thrashed for so long. My current smartphone is glued together, and there are all kinds of cabling gymnastics behind the screen that make repair tricky.

A modular cellphone would be bulky, likely power hungry, and despite its modularity, it would not be easy to upgrade whatsoever.

Ara was DOA.

AlwaysRock• 10 years ago

Doesnt Motorola have a phone out right now that's modular? I see advertisements every day for it on the El train in Chicago. It looks silly and impracticable but it's clearly possible.

habosa• 10 years ago

That phone only has modular accessories (better camera lens, bigger battery, louder speakers, etc).

hinkley• 10 years ago

It wouldn't be so terrible if they adapted it to laptops though.

You missed one other possibility and that's structural components. If any of the parts of the device can be part of the hardened envelope then you lose less space.

For instance, a thinner PCB bonded to or traced onto the inside of the case. Or look at the research in automotive circles for batteries that can support a physical load.

And also one of my peeves about Apple phones is that the chassis is so strong that you don't need a cover, but only a few people I know don't use a case, so phone plus case is heavier.

I'd like to see someone build a phone that HAS to have a case, and comes with one, which you can replace. You could do the same with the modular design and then you wouldn't have to make individual pieces bomb proof.

It's not that I don't think it's inevitable that the project was cancelled now. I'm just thinking in ten years when some of this is sorted out and we have no reason to keep making phones smaller, this plan might come back again. It's just another project that came out before its time.

subway• 10 years ago

EOMA68 goes a long ways to providing this sort of thing for general purpose machines (laptops/desktops).

https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop

jobu• 10 years ago

And also one of my peeves about Apple phones is that the chassis is so strong that you don't need a cover, but only a few people I know don't use a case

If Apple would stop making their phones so damn sleek and slippery I would skip the case too. The primary purpose of my case is to make it harder to drop in the first place.

rsync2• 10 years ago

Some background ... I have been very, very interested in a modular phone platform for many years now - mainly due to my desire to isolate computing modules from baseband modules and have hard switches for things like GPS/microphone/wifi/etc. For me the goal was control and security, not gimmicks like projector modules, etc.

In fact, I went so far as to contact several small electronics designers and fabricators and drew up some initial plans. rsync.net and (pre-release) 0x.co kept me busy, so I didn't get much further than that.

But in answer to your point:

"To make something modular you need to wrap each piece in its own case, add bulky connectors, etc. Both weight and volume are at an extreme premium in mobile devices."

No, not really ... the design direction I was going in was a to have one or two or three plastic cases, depending on how large (how many modules) you wanted your phone to be and then the modules themselves were bare daughterboards that had connectors such that you could assemble them like a grid.

So in that fashion, each module would not need its own packaging and case - you simply started with a plastic package (case) that was large enough for whatever "grid" you wanted to assemble.

And, of course, you could add a second (or third, or fourth) battery module.

kyberias• 10 years ago

You would still need redundant connectors that give weight and take volume.

limaoscarjuliet• 10 years ago

Not to mention that every time I buy new phone (every 3 years roughly), the old one is worn down to the point of falling apart.

Yes, they could make it stronger in the modular approach. But this means even more unnecessary plastic and metal casing.

SmurfJuggler• 10 years ago

That doesn't leave a lot worth upgrading... maybe just the radio module.

Camera upgrades would sell like hot cakes.

source994• 10 years ago

Whenever I saw articles about this my first thought was always that it didn't make any sense. 1. Why do consumers need to decide what goes in their phone. Are my needs really different that someone else's? 2. Building hardware is hard. Building consumer hardware is really harder. Making it modular is just batshit crazy.

I never once thought this would see the light of day.

um_ya• 10 years ago

The difference is that software has practically no licensing or patent issues, while hardware is a minefield of costs.

cm2187• 10 years ago

I guess it could be useful to have something modular for more professional usage. Like adding a fast barcode reader, a chip & pin reader, or a thermal camera, or something to remote control a device.

As a mainstream device for my mom, yes I agree.

dingaling• 10 years ago

Are my needs really different that someone else's?

Absolutely. I'm looking for an IP68-certified phone with a 3" 400 PPI polycarbonate screen and without a camera.

Such a thing doesn't exist, but Ara gave me a vague hope that one day I might be able to obtain a phone that fits my needs instead of those of a manufacturer.

source994• 10 years ago

Again, volumes won't ever be high enough to make this happen.

shimon_e• 10 years ago

If there isn't enough volume for whatever component you are looking for get ready to pay an arm and leg.

hirsin• 10 years ago

This should have been an enterprise play. Delta needs 5,000 devices with a built in credit card reader. Macy's needs 25,000 devices with a built in barcode scanner. Delta doesn't need a massive battery life, Kohls needs minimum 8 hours. GM needs 175,000 phones with the barcode reader, a camera, and a rubberized body for their production lines. The phones don't have to be modular to the consumer - Google just needs to be able to snap a couple thousand together before shipment.

Buy your devices at the same place you buy your software support. It's now just one contract, and the connection between the software and hardware means you have a single point of failure (if the phone borks, call Google) instead of 2.

That it didn't happen could point to Google's enterprise game not being strong enough or the hardware not working out. Or maybe enterprise doesn't net them enough money compared to focusing on consumers.

source994• 10 years ago

Volume isn't high enough to get reasonable costs.

flukus13• 10 years ago

Are my needs really different that someone else's?

Yes. The trend towards huge phones doesn't work for me, I need (and want) to be able to operate them one handed. I don't care what camera it comes with, they got good enough for me 5+ years ago, but someone that takes a lot more pictures would disagree.

taneq• 10 years ago

Exactly. A mix-n-match smartphone was always a terrible, unworkable idea, as is pointed out in so many good comments here. The most amazing aspect of the whole show was that it was ever considered seriously for a moment.

crbelaus• 10 years ago

It may shound harsh, but why should I want a modular Android phone? To update my hardware over the years to come while still running the same Android version without receiving updates.

Google, your Android updating system is fucked up. Fix it first, and then we can talk about exending the life of hardware.

clintonb2• 10 years ago

Limited updates are more an issue with the carriers than Google.

voltagex_4• 10 years ago

I don't think so. I'm still on the May 2016 security patch on a 2015 Moto X Style. No carrier involved - it's an unlocked LTE phone. Updating the existing phones doesn't make Lenovo any money so I doubt it will happen.

pjmlp10• 10 years ago

That is an excuse.

Google just needs to make it part of the contract of using Android or access to the Play Store.

No updates, no access.

apatters5• 10 years ago

It's really sad to think about how far we've fallen in terms of hardware customizability since the desktop PC era. It was once a given that you could build your own device from scratch and change out any part you wanted to. You could keep systems usable for 10+ years this way and we got a generation of hardware hackers and enthusiasts who went on to make cool things.

Now our corporate overlord announces a way to let you replace a few basic components like your camera and battery and when they later cancel it the dominant reaction is "no big surprise there." Replace the magic candy bar in your pocket every 2 years, don't look inside, don't think about how it works, just embrace your new role in the modern tech industry as part of the top 1%'s recurring revenue strategy.

The big money won, consumers lost, hackers lost. Sure it's business and you can never expect corporations to be altruistic, they have a profit motive. But that's never meant that you should give an anti-consumer attitude a free pass either. Every year that goes by now drives me deeper into the open source camp and Stallman's welcoming embrace.

Dobbs• 10 years ago

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The consumers won, hackers lost. My mother (or father if he wasn't an engineer himself) doesn't care about replacing the camera, how much ram it has or replacing the battery. She wants it to work. She wants it to have an efficient battery. And when it breaks she wants to take it to the store and have them fix it or replace it.

This is what Apple provides. By removing connectors between replaceable parts they are able to reduce the size and increase battery size. So on so forth.

Hackers lose the ability to swap out parts and customize it to their liking but your average citizen has no clue how to replace a DIMM stick and doesn't want to care. They don't care about managing files on their phone or any of that. They want the phone to be safe from malware, they want the device to work and to be easy to use.

They have chosen to specialize in something else. To understand fashion, chemistry, politics, something. Their brain power is spent on something other than how computers work. And that is ok. Our job as technologists is to empower them in that. To allow them to achieve more in their love without getting in their way by managing device drivers.

apatters5• 10 years ago

You're reducing the entire market to fools and nerds. There's plenty of room for people in between. You didn't have to be an engineer to add more RAM to your system, you just had to be the geeky kid down the street who wasn't afraid to open up the box. Or you can at least create something open enough that a third party can service the engine, install an aftermarket exhaust upgrade, whatever. We've been making things that could be hacked since the beginning of time and the current crop of mobile device manufacturers is against it.

Nullabillity5• 10 years ago

but your average citizen has no clue how to replace a DIMM stick and doesn't want to care.

Sure, but it'll still be far cheaper to pay someone to replace the DIMM stick than to buy a new phone/computer/whatever. Plus there's the environmental aspect, too.

marcosdumay3• 10 years ago

Hackers lose the ability to swap out parts and customize it to their liking

Economy of scale means that it's cheaper to include every kind of hardware anybody may want than to customize. Hackers lose the ability to swap parts, but didn't lose any single kind of (hardware) functionality that is available on the market. (Still lose anything that we invent by ourselves.)

I don't call that a loss, at least not on mobile devices. We still have desktops and development boards for hacking.

usaphp• 10 years ago

"You could keep systems usable for 10+ years this way"

Every custom PC maker friend keeps telling me that but realistically - have anybody ever used the "upgraded" pc for 10+ years? By the time the cpu needs an upgrade - there is a new motherboard needed and your case and power supply also becomes obsolete, never mind graphics card, so you end up getting a whole new pc instead.

rib3ye2• 10 years ago

Truth.

ikt• 10 years ago

I don't think it's just a static set, eg. use the PC for 10 years with completely upgradeable components or it's not worth it.

I purchased my current PC case/graphics card, cpu and motherboard 5 years ago, have replaced the CPU cooler, and the SSD drives and added an audio card, upgraded the RAM and added an extra HDD.

I think part of the problem is that despite smartphones being similar to desktops, they're not the same at all and have complementary but ultimately different purposes. One is suited to being upgradeable, the other isn't.

flukus13• 10 years ago

No, I've had laptops and it's annoying not being able to fix or upgrade anything. In the last 10 years I've had a gaming laptop that I had to replace because just disassembling it was a several hour ordeal. It was a fairly simple fan/heatsink issue but asus support is completely useless. Now on the replacement the wireless card has crapped out but I can't replace that.

They are gaming laptops too, a 5 year old one would be just fine with an upgrade to the video card. Lesson learned though, when the current one get's replaced it will probably be with something more modular.

omni• 10 years ago

your case and power supply also becomes obsolete

I've never found this to be the case, maybe it's because I try not to skimp on power supplies during my initial build. The last time I upgraded my CPU/mobo, I didn't change my case, power supply, video card, RAM, SSD, disk drives, sound card, SATA cables, or network card. Plenty of my "old" computer still works just fine.

Fargren• 10 years ago

I'm using the same PC I built in 2008. Of course, the only parts I haven't replaced are the Hard Drive, the CPU, the case and the power supply (and I've added several plenty extra storage). I will probably replace the CPU this year as it's beggining to show it's age. This is my main computer and I use it for several hours every day. 10 years does not seem crazy to me.

soundwave106• 10 years ago

I think that was the case in the past, to a large degree.

But with desktop PC technology largely plateauing technology wise, I think this scenario is becoming more and more realistic. As long as the desktop market hangs on long enough for parts to be available, that is.

btgeekboy• 10 years ago

That's one way to spin it. On the other, we're putting millions of transistors in your pocket, and connecting them with a few radios to base stations all over the world, working as one massive network. I wouldn't say we've fallen, just advanced. Components are much cheaper than they used to be, and far, far more complicated. As this project demonstrated, making interchangeable components simply isn't economical.

apatters5• 10 years ago

The engineering feats are indeed remarkable! But so were the engineering feats of the desktop PC era. Previously it was unbelievable that you could make a computer small enough to sit on somebody's desk. So those guys were learning how to miniaturize things too -- and somehow, along the way, they ended up building systems that had interchangeable parts.

The current crop of device manufacturers, on the other handed, punted on this goal. Is it really because this generation's engineers aren't good enough to solve an engineering problem? Is it coincidental that failure to solve this engineering problem results in higher profits?

I don't think that's the case -- I think the business planners in the current generation of manufacturers saw interchangeable components as a feature which would results in consumers saving money and buying fewer new phones, gave us the middle finger and never bothered to do it.

xg152• 10 years ago

Except, as the parent mentioned, a lot less of those millions of transistors are still under your (the user's) control, compared to the PC era. The technological advances are indeed breathtaking, the amount of participation you have in those technological advances (except in a small number carefully pre-approved ways) is less so.

Also, I'm not sure we can make the "simply not economical" statement this early whitout having gotten a more detailed reasoning of the descision. After all, already many other comments in this thread point out ways in which modules could be useful that don't clash with architecture requirements. (e.g. exchangeable case). Also, as far as I know, Project ARA had a non-google "open source" predecessor. The people initiating that obviously found the idea realistic enough to explore.

Finally, if it were just technical constraits, we should see a golden era of modularisation in smart cars, as both available space and power are comparable to PCs. Yet, we see the same kinds of lockdown - or even more extreme forms - over there.

Yaggo• 10 years ago

You could keep systems usable for 10+ years

If you change everything but the case and PSU, is it still the same system? Especially in the "golden desktop era" the pace of development was so quick that in 10 years multiple new CPU/RAm/storage standards were introduced, forcing you to upgrade pretty much everything to keep the system modern.

The same applies for mobile: the hardware is so cheap and gets "old" so fast that it's not commercially viable to offer modular upgrades. E.g. if you upgrade display, you likely need to upgrade the SOC as well.

PS. FairPhone is nice effort but not a modular system, they just offer easy repairability and spare parts.

apatters5• 10 years ago

There's a bit of truth to this for sure but the usable life of a desktop PC was and still is much longer than that of a smartphone. A desktop PC can get a memory upgrade, a new hard drive, maybe a new graphics card, in five years it wouldn't be top of the line anymore but it'd still be something that you could put in your kid's room to hack on. In 8-10 years it might get donated to a local school. Think of that happening with a smartphone. Or even a Chromebook - Google has a 5 year end of life policy!

zouhair• 10 years ago

How much modularity do you need for the Fairphone 2 to be called modular? iFixit thinks it is quite modular[0] with it's 10/10 score.

[0] https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Fairphone+2+Teardown/52523

izacus• 10 years ago

It's the tyranny of the average - just look at the responses here:

"LOOK AT THAT AVERAGE USER! Yes that one! The average Joe! THIS IS what you'll use and nothing more. You don't need anything else!" -- This is the argument you hear in these kind of topics. If it's not usable for an "average user" it doesn't need to exist. No tolerance for choice on modern "free" market of electronics.

It's pretty much the endgame of the hoteliering effect (Is that the right translation?) - the market converges to the point where all the players offer pretty much copy-paste services and the choice for consumer is lost, because the differences between competitors are too small. At that point the market simply ceases to function properly.

danielhooper• 10 years ago

It was once a given that you could build your own device from scratch and change out any part you wanted to. You could keep systems usable for 10+ years this way and we got a generation of hardware hackers and enthusiasts who went on to make cool things.

The only thing we've been able to customize to the level of extent you're talking about is desktop PCs and they have't gone away.

The chances of you being able to replace your phone's battery or upgrade your laptop's RAM yourself has gone down but there is still a ton of demand for build your own PCs met with a supply of ever-improving products.

Uhhrrr• 10 years ago

I hope some of this reappears eventually as a scheme for a modular tiny desktop computer.

ngold• 10 years ago

Speaking off the cuff here. I think google wants ideas that might work then put a team on them. Close it down and aquire a company that makes it successful.

source994• 10 years ago

Can anyone name other modular products in high volume production.

jeeyoungk• 10 years ago

Lego.

bcoates• 10 years ago

Home audio/hifi/theater systems

mtmail2• 10 years ago

If you count accessories then the GoPro.

rado• 10 years ago

Surprise.

justinlardinois• 10 years ago

I was excited about this, but after going dark for nearly a year and then resurfacing with a model that had most of the important components integrated onto the board, the writing was on the wall.

It's a cool concept, but I don't think current technology would allow this to work in a reasonable way.

xg152• 10 years ago

“This was a science experiment that failed, and they are moving on,” he said.

Semi-seriously, but I'd like to know where exactly they are moving on now.

rajeshp19862• 10 years ago

This project was longed to die. It should have died 3 years back. I wonder why the project team didn't understand or realize the dynamics of smartphone market. The equation is simple, there is no market for phone with interchangeable components. period. Chinese companies are manufacturing dead cheap smartphones. Indian market is flooded with cheap phone options. An average life cycle of android phone is now less than 2 years. People throw their old phone and buy a new one because new phones are cheap and easy to buy plus they get an overall upgrade. Maybe they didn't realize because the project was carried out in US where there is not much competition from phone manufacturers and Apple takes away major share of the market.

This interchangeable components idea is much like Assembled computers back in early 2000s. Most people went for assembled computers because it was easy to upgrade single components/pieces. They should have realized that people don't do that with computers these days either. Only may be few enthusiasts and geeks, but definitely not by a common man.

One more project dies at Google...

DropbearRob• 10 years ago

I think its cool that they at least gave it a shot, but in the process it used up their stocks of unicorn blood.

cloudjacker• 10 years ago

Finally I can say this was a stupid idea

and by stupid, I meant economically infeasible, no product market fit

words we associate with waste of time, in this sector

Scirra_Tom• 10 years ago

Isn't software the best interchangeable parts for a phone? Modular add-ons were doomed to fail from the go and no idea why they got any traction.

barnacs• 10 years ago

At least this time they killed the product _before_ rolling it out to users. Google is improving every day!

jacquesm2• 10 years ago

Finally. The first modular phone prototype I saw in Logitech HQ in 1999 or so was shelved for the exact same reasons.

I'm expecting a similar announcement about project Makani.

majewsky4• 10 years ago

I just heard about Makani for the first time, and after a quick glance at their website, it doesn't look absurd. Can you elaborate what is problematic about it?

jacquesm2• 10 years ago

Yes:

http://jacquesmattheij.com/makani

wslh• 10 years ago

What is the strong reason behind nodularization if we can have almost every component in place for cheap?

ungzd• 10 years ago

You can add new camera or bluetooth controller but you can't (sanely) update firmware to latest Android version. Great.

(I mean sanely if it was like installing Windows or Linux and not specific build for single phone model made from hacks and insane backmerges)

funkyy• 10 years ago

I am quite surprised, that instead of allowing users to change modules (and thus are forced to build it up with casing and connectors) they didn't release certification on doing it and let people drop their phones to the mobile service points all over the world for free or small fee like $1 (including vacuuming insides to add extra value). Such shops would make money on selling modules. Modules could be less protected and delivered without the casing. Changing modules would take ~1-2minutes since the store clerk would be trained to do it and use 2-3 universal tools to open the phone and change the modules.

Those 2-3 tools would be also available to buy, so owners could change the modules themselves. But since it would be quite advanced - same as with changing PC parts - it would void the guarantee for whole phone.

jordache• 10 years ago

This is my attitude regarding Red camera's lauded modularity.

Ok so you can keep your handle and grip, and the little viewfinder. The sum of Those useless pieces doesn't mean you've "upgraded" your camera

jasonkostempski• 10 years ago

Phones are at the point desktops hit about 10 years ago, they're good enough to use for general purpose until the end of time. Everything people typically want can be done instantaneously, cameras are way better than anyone really cared about and screens are perfectly clear. The only thing stopping us from having a phone for life is forced obsolescence. All we need back is removable batteries and storage.

johngalt• 10 years ago

Of course. Something like that would be a compatibility and testing nightmare. Users aren't going to be content dealing with PC style driver issues with a mobile device. And to gain what? The ability to upgrade or customize a phone? Why? Do your mobile device needs change that often?

A better idea is to attack the areas where apple and samsung are retreating. Replaceable batteries, memory cards, peripheral connections etc...

wnevets• 10 years ago

Everyone always knew this was never reach the mainstream consumer but I would've liked to seen something released.

YZF• 10 years ago

There was an Israeli startup that tried to do this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modu ) and apparently Google acquired some of that IP. I wonder if this effort is related.

stevenwiles• 10 years ago

Ever since the idea of a modular phone was first introduced "Phonebloks, or whatever it was" I have known for a fact that it was a fundamentally flawed concept and would never see the light of day, despite the enormous hype and support it received.

Is this proof that I am more intelligent than everyone who believed in this idea? I think so?

OnlineCourage• 10 years ago

Is this proof that I am more intelligent than everyone who believed in this idea?

No.

Google shelves plan for phone with interchangeable parts

Related Stories