Motorola Announces “Project Ara,” a modular phone hardware platform

What would Google do with a handset company? We're about to find out.

Read the whole story

 

[djbp]

If this takes off thieves are going to love it unless the blocks are locked to a particular frame it'll be so easy to breakdown and sell.

 

[Rosyna]

Is this some kind of horrible satire?

 

[snajk]

ronamadeo[/url]":t81egf0p]

AndromedaB[/url]":t81egf0p]this is pretty dumb IMO

durability is going to be a significant issue

I've seen people drop their phones and have the battery fall out... Now there's going to be processor and camera parts all over the floor.

Yes but isn't that part of the appeal? Instead of the phone breaking or shattering it just comes apart where it's supposed to and putting it together again only takes a minute. I believe this has saved a few Samsung phones for me even though it's just the rear cover and battery that comes off when dropped. Had it been an Iphone or similar one-piece at least some of these drops would have cracked the screen and probably broke the whole phone.

 

[mrscrib]

@kragil,

It's not that Ars readers have no imagination, it's just that we do. We also have a very good understanding of the technology involved in something like this (and the interdependence involved). The desktop PC market was a fluke that only happened because of 2 things: IBM was behind it and the form-factor was almost never a purchasing factor, as the interface (display and input) was externalized.

In a phone, unlike a desktop, the interface is part of the form factor. Which means that you're ultimately limited by the need to make the phone the best experience possible.

Most consumers are simply going to choose the thinner, longer running, and lower weight integrated phone over the ability to customize. Which means this thing is not going to be able to compete at the same volume, so it'll likely end up costing more than the faster, thinner, longer running and lower weight competition.

You figure out the rest on your own.

 

[Fixpir]

I am astonished at how "technically conservatives" most commenters are. Maybe they are just right, or maybe that is just a classic effect in market research with uncomplete product.

There is, in my opinion, clearly some room for flexibility in the mobile phone terminal market.

About the solidity or size of the terminal, I do not think this is an issue. The new product has or has not a sound mechanical design, as every product. And some people might want to exchange some of their feature, for example they prefer not have a GPS to get a humidity or medical parameter sensor, in the same form factor.

About the interface standardisation issue : I am pretty sure it is not really an issue ; actually, I would not be surprised if interfaces (touchscreen to processor for example) are already pretty much similar from one maker to the other. Just add mechanical and software standardisation.

I am really surprised at the negative reactions as this flexible design is what we have experienced for years in mobile computing.

Concerning technology evolution, it is sure that at some point the customer will have to change his platform and will not get any advantage of just upgrading components.

I think that 5 to 10% at most of customers will ever once in the life of their terminal use this possibility, but for the ones that use it, it is a great advantage.

I see three reasons to introduce this kind of terminals :
- maintenance : something is broken, I can keep my investment and just change a broken subpart (which is more or less true at the moment, but really not simple for layman).
- upgrade : Take a better component, better next gen GPS or whatever for my existing phone
- change some functionality : Longer life battery, new sensor for whatever you might think. At the moment, trying a new type of sensor is a difficult decision for a phone maker : you have to be sure to have a wide customer base.

On the marketing side, it is a good argument to point out the capacity of the terminal to evolve, even if you know most customers will never use it. Allows to sell at a higher price.

 

[Fixpir]

mrscrib[/url]":2xylusjt]@kragil,

It's not that Ars readers have no imagination, it's just that we do. We also have a very good understanding of the technology involved in something like this (and the interdependence involved). The desktop PC market was a fluke that only happened because of 2 things: IBM was behind it and the form-factor was almost never a purchasing factor, as the interface (display and input) was externalized.

In a phone, unlike a desktop, the interface is part of the form factor. Which means that you're ultimately limited by the need to make the phone the best experience possible.

Most consumers are simply going to choose the thinner, longer running, and lower weight integrated phone over the ability to customize. Which means this thing is not going to be able to compete at the same volume, so it'll likely end up costing more than the faster, thinner, longer running and lower weight competition.

You figure out the rest on your own.

Wasn't the same true in mobile computing ? And yet, I do not think many maker chose to go to non standard hard drive, optical drive or RAM.

 

[Fixpir]

djbp[/url]":383hqo3y]If this takes off thieves are going to love it unless the blocks are locked to a particular frame it'll be so easy to breakdown and sell.

Ever been stolen of DRAM in your computer in the last ten years ? And this computers was left seated idle so often in your office without anybody around ... It will be much more difficult to steal from your phone that will mostly be in your pocket. Stealing the complete phone is clearly a better option.

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

Fixpir[/url]":13yis8i8]

mrscrib[/url]":13yis8i8]@kragil,

It's not that Ars readers have no imagination, it's just that we do. We also have a very good understanding of the technology involved in something like this (and the interdependence involved). The desktop PC market was a fluke that only happened because of 2 things: IBM was behind it and the form-factor was almost never a purchasing factor, as the interface (display and input) was externalized.

In a phone, unlike a desktop, the interface is part of the form factor. Which means that you're ultimately limited by the need to make the phone the best experience possible.

Most consumers are simply going to choose the thinner, longer running, and lower weight integrated phone over the ability to customize. Which means this thing is not going to be able to compete at the same volume, so it'll likely end up costing more than the faster, thinner, longer running and lower weight competition.

You figure out the rest on your own.

Wasn't the same true in mobile computing ? And yet, I do not think many maker chose to go to non standard hard drive, optical drive or RAM.

Sure, but most parts of a laptop/netbook etc are not modular or easily replaced by a non technically skilled consumer. In my laptop the screen is not easily swapped for another, even another of the same model, much less if I wanted to upgrade to a larger size or resolution, same with the keyboard, speakers, motherboard and battery. The miniaturization of the internals of a desktop PC leaves relatively little ability to customize the hardware.

 

[ChrisG]

I'm pretty intruiged by this and I hope it goes ahead. In particular, I'm interested in the sensor capabilities; phones already have a limited array, but now...building your own tricorder is a possibility.

 

[marak.v1]

I have veen waiting for this. Fuck yeah!

 

[diddum]

I think there is a problem.

In a powerful smartphone the space is almost all taken by
the battery (check iFix).

All the circuitry is "compressed" in the smartest possible way to
fit around the battery.

Once you have separated the various components (to allow modularity)
into standardized blocks (because you could not have blocks of 100 sizes)
the resulting effect will be a lot of wasted space, thus either huge smartphones
or a smartphone you have to recharge every 3 hours....

 

[l3v1]

While I don't really believe in the [market] viability of such a product, I'd really like to see one and own one. If there would be enough 'phone OEM's building parts/modules, it would be easily imaginable to build different phones for different applications. E.g. sacrificing some sensors/modules (like BT/WiFi, camera) for additional battery modules or for extra/different peripheral modules, or the ability to change one peripheral module for your current needs (e.g. temporarilly swapping a microusb module for microhdmi or minidisplay) and so on and so forth. If you think about it there couldn't be too many 'base' modules, e.g. one slot for cpu/gpu/ram, one slot for peripherals, one/two slots for sensors and that's it.

 

[mrscrib]

CQLanik[/url]":2p3ig84r]

Fixpir[/url]":2p3ig84r]

mrscrib[/url]":2p3ig84r]@kragil,

It's not that Ars readers have no imagination, it's just that we do. We also have a very good understanding of the technology involved in something like this (and the interdependence involved). The desktop PC market was a fluke that only happened because of 2 things: IBM was behind it and the form-factor was almost never a purchasing factor, as the interface (display and input) was externalized.

In a phone, unlike a desktop, the interface is part of the form factor. Which means that you're ultimately limited by the need to make the phone the best experience possible.

Most consumers are simply going to choose the thinner, longer running, and lower weight integrated phone over the ability to customize. Which means this thing is not going to be able to compete at the same volume, so it'll likely end up costing more than the faster, thinner, longer running and lower weight competition.

You figure out the rest on your own.

Wasn't the same true in mobile computing ? And yet, I do not think many maker chose to go to non standard hard drive, optical drive or RAM.

Sure, but most parts of a laptop/netbook etc are not modular or easily replaced by a non technically skilled consumer. In my laptop the screen is not easily swapped for another, even another of the same model, much less if I wanted to upgrade to a larger size or resolution, same with the keyboard, speakers, motherboard and battery. The miniaturization of the internals of a desktop PC leaves relatively little ability to customize the hardware.

Actually, RAM in laptops these days is more often then ever mounted directly on the board. Same with everything else, all to save space, weight and cost. Why bother with a bulky RAM holder when you can solder the chips on directly.

And laptops are less space and weight conscious than phones. Phones are all about fitting in the most power, for the longest running time, at the lowest thickness and the least weight, at the highest possible margin.

That's not to say that there is no future in more customizable phones; the customization is already here in the form of Apps. Just because it has limitations (for now) is neither here nor there.

 

[charleski]

AxMi-24[/url]":1sf0k1sn]

ronamadeo[/url]":1sf0k1sn]

AndromedaB[/url]":1sf0k1sn]this is pretty dumb IMO

durability is going to be a significant issue

I've seen people drop their phones and have the battery fall out... Now there's going to be processor and camera parts all over the floor.

Yea and then 5 sec later you snap the battery back in place and continue on your way. Hardly a huge issues. Cracked screens are far higher danger today than parts falling out (especially as parts will be designed with contacts that allow for that by necessity.

From that perspective a phone that dissipates the energy by popping-off the battery and a couple of other modules would actually be more durable as you aren't pumping all the deceleration force into the casework around the screen.

 

[mrscrib]

charleski[/url]":ac1yibi1]

AxMi-24[/url]":ac1yibi1]

ronamadeo[/url]":ac1yibi1]

AndromedaB[/url]":ac1yibi1]this is pretty dumb IMO

durability is going to be a significant issue

I've seen people drop their phones and have the battery fall out... Now there's going to be processor and camera parts all over the floor.

Yea and then 5 sec later you snap the battery back in place and continue on your way. Hardly a huge issues. Cracked screens are far higher danger today than parts falling out (especially as parts will be designed with contacts that allow for that by necessity.

From that perspective a phone that dissipates the energy by popping-off the battery and a couple of other modules would actually be more durable as you aren't pumping all the deceleration force into the casework around the screen.

Or you can lower the total weight and use better, more shock absorbent casework that will not transfer most of the force of deceleration into the screen.

 

[secretmanofagent]

Three biggest concerns for me: connectors on the board, the communications interface between the boards, and FCC. It would have to be standardized in terms of communication and would be limited by the bus in terms of performance. The other being SAR for the device would change depending on the modules used.

 

[cyber|kinetic]

This will be huge, and a massive success - as long as Google don't strangle the hell out of it as they apparently are with Android, er, I mean Google Play.

I love this though, customisability and individuality are sorely missing from the modern smartphone market. There will likely be a huge 3rd-party hardware market, expect to see kickstarter projects popping up left right and centre.

It will also be a far more eco-friendly concept I would imagine, as you wouldn't need to upgrade *everything* just to have whatever better feature you wanted.

I've signed up to be an Ara Scout, and seriously hoping that I will be included in the program.

Lastly - smartphone with removable battery! (who doesn't want that???)

 

[cyber|kinetic]

Oh, and imagine what else you could do with these mini components - no need to limit their use just to phones.............!

 

[Decker-Mage]

MechR[/url]":3bpagfey]Huh, tough crowd tonight.

I, for one, am pretty stoked at Googorola making Phonebloks a reality. I was skeptical the idea would ever hit the market in any capacity, but now it has a real chance to make a splash.

More battery packs! More storage modules! Shut up and take my money!

Well, hell, I spent an additional $6000 to build a computer my way, rather than accepting your typical gaming machine which, while it gets close in many design aspects misses the point. Also first adopter of Google Nexus 7 back when every blogging dog was putting Google down for selling hardware at zero profit. Now I don't have a phone, but this and only this, could convince me to actually break down and rejoin the (phone) connected world.

 

[wesley96]

I think it's unfair to simply label those who aren't so hot to this as naysayers. Industrial trends regarding mobile devices have been less about modularity and more about less weight and longer battery life while getting good enough user experience because unnecessary bulkiness actually is quite unappealling when you have to carry the device around with you all the time.

But maybe there could be a reasonable compromise. Instead of separating all the components to pieces, it could be grouped together into certain consolidated modules first. As always, it's the execution that would ultimately determine the viability.

 

[psuedonymous]

Fixpir[/url]":3prc0xfr]About the interface standardisation issue : I am pretty sure it is not really an issue ; actually, I would not be surprised if interfaces (touchscreen to processor for example) are already pretty much similar from one maker to the other. Just add mechanical and software standardisation.

Wrong kind of interface.

Take displays, for example. Currently, almost all smartphone SoCs talk to displays over MIPI DSI, with a few LVDS holdouts. But starting with the retina iPad, Apple are transitioning to eDP (embedded DisplayPort) for higher resolution panels.

Now, you've bought your modulephone that talks to a display over MIPI. but now manufacturers are only bothering to make eDP panels to accommodate higher resolutions. Your modularphone's backplane needs to be replaced along with the display panel and the SoC. Sure, you can keep your battery and camera, but that's a big chunk of upgrade required to swap out a component. The same applies for the interface between the camera, DRAM, NAND (die eMMC die! Give us half-decent controllers!), and so on.

 

[Aimhere]

I'd previously seen an article about PhoneBloks. It's an interesting concept (and apparently Motorola/Google agree), but like others here, I don't know if it will work out.

One of the ideas in the "pitch" released by PhoneBloks is how upgrading our phones instead of throwing them out is going to reduce the amount of e-waste tossed into landfills. Well, if this concept takes off, then instead of big monolithic phones being discarded, we're just going to have a crapton of little blocks thrown away instead. Those blocks are going to be so tightly integrated internally (with the circuits perhaps even embedded in solid plastic/resin to eliminate air gaps and minimize the block's size) that opening them to extract the components for recycling is going to be impossible.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

> Googorola knows better than you

Google Gears, Wave, Noop, Froogle, Buzz, etc.

Very simply, requiring parts to adhere to interconnect standards, by definition, eliminates the customization of form that makes your phone as small and powerful as is is.

One could make a phone like this, just like you could make a laptop the same way, however the resulting system would be larger for the same amount of functionality.

 

[AxMi-24]

Toasty27[/url]":1wt7as4f]

AndromedaB[/url]":1wt7as4f]

CQLanik[/url]":1wt7as4f]
I agree, it's a great idea if it could be done, but it won't. Too many companies would have to adopt Motorola's standards to make it worth the drawbacks in durability, and most companies don't want to sell you a single phone part when they can make a good deal more of a mark up on selling you the entire phone. Especially when that phone breaks and has to be entirely replaced instead of having salvageable parts.

not only that, all new components in a generation would need to fit physical specs anyways so our variety will be limited to something like 2-3 display sizes and 2-3 package types/thicknesses assuming gaps and stuff are cool

then the interconnect specs must be updated annually/biannually or risk holding back things like the display/cpu/camera

but at this point we're pretty much back where we are now minus size/power/flexability benefits from deep integration

I think this would be a cool idea for something larger like a tablet perhaps but as a smartphone it's pretty silly

plus, what if it rains or gets wet?!? what if you're in a humid climate and the contacts corrode?!? what if someone holds their phone a fbit tighter and causes a pin to momentarily disconnect!?!

*facepalm*

I feel like this would be a fantastic engineering exercise but really there's no way something like this can succeed within the next 5 years or so.

I am similarly skeptical about the ability of this design to succeed. For it to be viable in the market place, advances in smartphone technology would have slow down in pace significantly. For now, we're still seeing a doubling in performance year over year (for the most part). 4G/LTE radio technology is starting to become more common place, and cameras/batteries are simple enough that they wouldn't need a whole new platform to take advantage of significant advances. However the rapid pace of advancement in SoC's, and more specifically displays, are components that would likely require a new platform.

When the speed of advancement in the smartphone market tapers off like it has in the desktop/laptop components, I could see this idea being potentially successful.

This is a matter of design. If you look at IBM blades. They kept same backplane for many generations. So it is possible to plan for the future and have the interconnects that can handle future changes. Besides it's possible to have just a phone API that is used by different parts to communicate.

A mega super duper better GPS/GLONASS/Galilo receiver doesn't need new paths or communication technique. It will deliver exact same information (your position) as before. Only difference would be the quality of it, similar is true for most other parts.

 

[Hast]

kragil[/url]":2ybx055q]Arsereaders are mostly naysayers with no imagination and really bad technical knowledge. News at 11

I've worked with mobile phones for 10 years and the original "phoneblocks" idea is still without any technical merit. I imagine that the point of it was to present a design idea rather than a technical solution, I was probably more annoyed by the tech blogs presentation of it than the idea itself. (Ie, it was presented as something feasible now rather than an idea to inspire future technology.)

I'm still very skeptical that it will be possible to make something like this where end users can swap parts around. I could see it being possible to make something where you can customize it at purchase though, that's a significantly harder problem to solve. (But hey, who knows what's possible in 5-10 years?)

And regarding the issue of the device shattering parts if you drop it, that's trivial to solve. You just put a back on it that you lock in place. The technical issues I see are more that putting all the components from a modern phone in a customizable package is going to make some serious compromizes to the design (either in bulk, price or performance, or all.).

 

[longhairedboy]

I don't think there are a lot of people that want this, but personally, I'm in love with the idea.

But Ara Scouts? Won't the BSA be filing suit soon?

 

[Camp Freddie]

Modular works for PCs because no one cares about saving space and most people are happy with an ATX case.
It sort of works for laptops because an accessible HD and memory slot don't need much extra space or require much compromise for the design.
The modular components also benefit from a huge market and cheap, non-proprietary, standardised connectors.

For phones, every millimeter is important. The components are mashed together as tight as possible.
A modular design means wasted space. There's a reason that phone companies spend lots of money on their engineers and designers.

This might work for people who love big phones and don't mind them being a bit fat or underpowered compared to their non-modular equivalent.
I expect they'll be super-expensive, since I assume there will be DRM/patents on the connectors to stop non-motorola OEM's from making cheap copies.

 

[SpaceAce]

AbsoluteChaos92[/url]":2s1acupo]People here are so cynical. Just because it might not ever be profitable or it might not ever be successful doesn't mean its not worth doing in the long run.

I don't think they are being cynical, they are being realistic and taking into account the fact that smartphones are mainstream technology used by people who aren't nerds.

Project Ara is the answer to a problem that doesn't exist.

You've said yourself that it might not ever be successful, but still think it's worth doing. Not sure how you're justifying that one.

 

[MechR]

Camp Freddie[/url]":s6uyy9e2]I expect they'll be super-expensive, since I assume there will be DRM/patents on the connectors to stop non-motorola OEM's from making cheap copies.

Uh, isn't the whole point of the design to let OEMs make cheap copies?

 

[kurotsuki]

Fixpir[/url]":1ol2nlua]Wasn't the same true in mobile computing ? And yet, I do not think many maker chose to go to non standard hard drive, optical drive or RAM.

Well ... the most common case of interchangeable components on laptop are, RAM and Storage a.k.a Hard Drives. For everything else, it pretty much fixed. And for mobile phones, which far more restricted in size and weight, even interchange RAM and storage already hard to do.

Fixpir[/url]":1ol2nlua]Ever been stolen of DRAM in your computer in the last ten years ? And this computers was left seated idle so often in your office without anybody around ... It will be much more difficult to steal from your phone that will mostly be in your pocket. Stealing the complete phone is clearly a better option.

Well ... for current time, if we lost our phone, the theft will have a hard way to disassemble the hardware if the IMEI is locked. But in modular form, they just need to disconnect the non-locked parts, and sell them separately. Hence, easier to resale your phone's parts

 

[Thisismyarsname]

I could see this working for very low cost phones. In those cases they're already bulkier or not getting the best tech on the market. This way manufacturers could specialize in a specific block, and build that component as cheaply as possible. Integrated machines will probably be more efficient and better technology, but they might not be as cheap (especially to assemble).

 

[Zaofy]

I think I'll join the skeptics on this one.

If I compare the amount of people who build their own computers with those who buy finished ones, the former is the massive majority.

And Computers have the advantage of virtually no form factor and interface limitations.

 

[jgee43]

Did anyone else think of Ziggy when they saw this? I want to build Ziggy!

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

Zaofy[/url]":3q9wq0iv]I think I'll join the skeptics on this one.

If I compare the amount of people who build their own computers with those who buy finished ones, the former is the massive majority.

And Computers have the advantage of virtually no form factor and interface limitations.

I think you mean latter, the former would mean that the vast majority of people build there own computers, which makes no syntactic sense with the rest of you statement.

 

[pitmonster]

diddum[/url]":166z1t65]I think there is a problem.

In a powerful smartphone the space is almost all taken by
the battery (check iFix).

All the circuitry is "compressed" in the smartest possible way to
fit around the battery.

Once you have separated the various components (to allow modularity)
into standardized blocks (because you could not have blocks of 100 sizes)
the resulting effect will be a lot of wasted space, thus either huge smartphones
or a smartphone you have to recharge every 3 hours....

I agree.

Inside a modern smartphone it is packed tightly, with tiny components in whatever space they will fit. Naturally some components are larger than others.

Making a phone modular means that components must be made to a conforming size so that they fit into the modular system (of course they can be multiples of this dimension, but no smaller than a fixed size)

So a modular phone will end up larger than the equivalent non-modular phone, in order to fit the same technical features.

 

[Taracta]

You guys have forgotten that most of the early computer platforms were closed systems as in not readily expandable if at all. About the only early computers that were expandable were Apple's and later on PCs and as you can see Apple and PCs still exists the others are gone!

 

[koolraap]

Drop the phone -- market fragmentation in action.

Storage compartments for cards, coins, condom, stash, additional SIM cards, etc.

Why not have other devices (cameras and car dashboards come to mind) that have the same physical interface?

It all sounds a bit Star Trek preachy at the momemnt, but hey, let's watch and see what happens.

 

[Gary Patterson]

morfraen[/url]":28gsp597]The skeptics are amusing.

Do you think current cell phones are each brand new inventions made 100% from scratch or something? No, they pick a bunch of existing off the shelf hardware components and connect them all together. About the only thing unique about any phone is the case and layout of parts. This is a pretty obvious evolution of that, and also something that could finally bring to an end the ridiculous phone prices once people can see how little all the individual components cost. No more paying $100 more for 16GB of memory that only costs $10.

Hilarity itself.

You believe all hardware is equal, all software is equal, and so anyone making a phone puts the hardware and software together from stock sources and ends up with their new product.

Well, it's an interesting viewpoint certainly. Only tangentially related to reality, but interesting.

 

[reno79]

psuedonymous[/url]":zly83w88]

Fixpir[/url]":zly83w88]About the interface standardisation issue : I am pretty sure it is not really an issue ; actually, I would not be surprised if interfaces (touchscreen to processor for example) are already pretty much similar from one maker to the other. Just add mechanical and software standardisation.

Wrong kind of interface.

Take displays, for example. Currently, almost all smartphone SoCs talk to displays over MIPI DSI, with a few LVDS holdouts. But starting with the retina iPad, Apple are transitioning to eDP (embedded DisplayPort) for higher resolution panels.

Now, you've bought your modulephone that talks to a display over MIPI. but now manufacturers are only bothering to make eDP panels to accommodate higher resolutions. Your modularphone's backplane needs to be replaced along with the display panel and the SoC. Sure, you can keep your battery and camera, but that's a big chunk of upgrade required to swap out a component. The same applies for the interface between the camera, DRAM, NAND (die eMMC die! Give us half-decent controllers!), and so on.

Totally get where you're coming from but bear in mind that these will be in self contained units sharing the same interconnect (to make them truly swappable they should be able to fit anywhere on the device, I would assume) so the connection interface would have to be the same for all modules, regardless of whether it's a NAND block, a battery block, a gps block so the underlying connector of, in your case, MIPI or eDP is taken out of the equation by necessity, rather than choice.

Aside from that there are still a crap ton of physical hurdles to overcome before this even hits prototype stage:
- physical size of "modules" so we don't end up with phones like Zac from Saved By The Bell
- interconnect bus types and speeds: I am not so sure something exists yet which would be able to cope properly
- standards for communication between modules
and much much more.

I love the idea, but it's got a long way to go before it's even close to reality.

 

[Gary Patterson]

The idea of interchangeable parts is interesting/ I wonder if the market will accept it and prove its value, or reject it. I'm inclined to believe the latter, but would be very happy to see the former.