# Smartphones going the way of the dinosaur?



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2015)

This from "The Telegraph".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/12039813/Smartphones-to-die-out-within-five-years-says-new-study.html

Maybe there's hope for DSLRs afterall?


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 9, 2015)

I can accept that a phone might not be the ideal device for watching football or cooking. But I have this app on my phone called "telephone" which allows me to speak with other people who have a similar app. It's pretty cool. In fact, I'd buy a phone just to use the telephone app. Most of my friends and relatives use this app a lot, too. So I can't see phones disappearing soon.

If I was a futurist, I'd be predicting the death of voicemail and email instead.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 9, 2015)

Somehow, looking at the general growth of Smart Phones and Apps, I doubt it. Smart phones will become smarter. That's where huge amounts of R&D dollars are already being spent on phones that will be used 5 years from now.


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 9, 2015)

With poor quality articles like that, I think the Telegraph could well beat smartphones to extinction!

One thing I am seeing amongst friends, is that they are not upgrading as fast as they used to. The phone they currently have is fast and powerful enough for now.

Embedding chips within the body may well be happening now but it will take more than 5 years for that to become mainstream. The smart watches will become popular before that.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> I can't see phones disappearing soon.



To be fair, the article nevers says *phones* will disappear. They will always exist is one form or another.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> With poor quality articles like that, I think the Telegraph could well beat smartphones to extinction!
> 
> One thing I am seeing amongst friends, is that they are not upgrading as fast as they used to. The phone they currently have is fast and powerful enough for now.
> 
> Embedding chips within the body may well be happening now but it will take more than 5 years for that to become mainstream. The smart watches will become popular before that.



I think you are right.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Somehow, looking at the general growth of Smart Phones and Apps, I doubt it. Smart phones will become smarter. That's where huge amounts of R&D dollars are already being spent on phones that will be used 5 years from now.



Probably true, except that the phones will have to become smaller. Some of them now are almost as large as tablets. I can remember when the "in" thing was to buy the smallest possible cell phone. Then the internet and smartphone came into being.

I think this is more the immediate future:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J7GpVQCfms

Implanted chips are not far behind.

Imagine an app in an implanted chip that uses the human eye to take photos through the neuro pathways between brain and eye. Already there are artificial lenses implanted into the eyes of cataract patients. My grandmother of 92 years has 20/20 vision, no astigmatism and sees clearly through hers.

Now imagine a lens implant that can zoom and an app that allows one to change ISO and aperture as a function of the brain.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2015)

"A study published last month in Nature Medicine titled "Clinical translation of a high-performance neural prosthesis" sought to, essentially, let humans control computers with their thoughts.

The study followed two patients who were able to control a computer cursor by willing it to move with their brains — something much more precise than an early experiment that used a robotic arm to drink a beer. The recent tests involved moving the cursor over objects on a screen and typing, using thoughts alone, at a speed of six words per minute."

http://mic.com/articles/126430/the-phone-of-the-future-will-be-implanted-in-your-head#.E1VGCz8cp


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 9, 2015)

Except for medical purposes, I struggle to imagine implants ever becoming popular. 

I wouldn't be surprised if people tended to go the other way with people more likely to spurn new devices and rehashed "new versions" of existing products.


----------



## sanj (Dec 9, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> I can accept that a phone might not be the ideal device for watching football or cooking. But I have this app on my phone called "telephone" which allows me to speak with other people who have a similar app. It's pretty cool. In fact, I'd buy a phone just to use the telephone app. Most of my friends and relatives use this app a lot, too. So I can't see phones disappearing soon.
> 
> If I was a futurist, I'd be predicting the death of voicemail and email instead.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 9, 2015)

So on the photo capabilities of smartphones. Yes, the images got very impressive in a reletively short space of time but as we all recognise, it is not DSLR quality.

Could there ever come a time when your smartphone matches a DSLR? I'm thinking the difference in size between the two devices will always mean that you could get mote technology and therefore more capability into a DSLR. And I doubt digital zoom could ever compare to a telephoto lens.

But who knows...perhaps with some alien tech landing at Canon's head quarters


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 9, 2015)

I actually think they're on the right track, but not necessarily going exactly where they think they will.

The "wearable" trend is finally introducing people to hands free telecommunications, but it won't immediately rid us of the cellphone.
Ironically we've already seen this trend come and go in science fiction.

In Star Trek (of course), at first they had belt holsters with handheld communicators, then in Star Trek: The Next Generation they use a communicator that just clings to your shirt. But they still had tricorders and tablets strewn about the Enterprise.
For now we're going to move into talking to our wrists just because that's the trend, but I actually think the cling on (pun not intended, but we may as well roll with it) style of communicator is going to take priority eventually. Eventually the screen will be the secondary device and the thing that sticks to your shirt is the part that you're going to care about. I still think the idea of a 4" web browsing device is downright silly, and that goes for 5" too. What is actually practical is having a large device for web browsing and media consumption, and a small, extremely simple device for communication.
Once voice commands become remotely reliable we'll be able to consider using a standalone communicator with no screen. We also need to invent the micro-grippy mechanism to make things cling to fabric at will, but it'll happen.

The main reason for using a clip on communicator v.s. a wrist worn communicator is all the watches I've destroyed.


----------



## pwp (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm reminded of that well worn line:... " is that actually true, or did you read it in the Telegraph?"

As a photographer who spent a couple of decades of my life shooting daily news as a staff photographer before starting my own business back when editorial standards were high, circulation and budgets were strong , my affection for newspapers barely has a pulse any more. With a few superb exceptions, the front pages of just about any newspaper's homepage will be sensation, inflationary rubbish, soft porn and click bait. 

I think I'll read a book.

-pw


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> I'm thinking the difference in size between the two devices will always mean that you could get mote technology and therefore more capability into a DSLR. And I doubt digital zoom could ever compare to a telephoto lens.
> 
> But who knows...perhaps with some alien tech landing at Canon's head quarters


 The article isn't about DSLRs or digital zoom (It is about the demise of the smart phone, but okay... I'll bite (re: Alien Tech). 

Here's the rub: In 1980 I was an IBM mainframe computer operator (For Computab) in Honolulu, Hawaii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360). The computer system and support staff took up several floors in a high rise building on Bishop St. There were 6 guys that did nothing but run back and forth between the tape library and a bank of at least a dozen gigantic tape drives. There were dozens of disk drives the size of washing machines. All programs and jobs were fed into the mainframe via punch cards. The mainframe itself was the size of a Volkswagen. All this simply to run payroll for various large companies around the island and on the mainland. 

Today's smartphones are far more powerful than that old IBM mainframe and one doesn't need a whole company to operate it. They are given away free by cell service providers.

In 1981 I went to a computer show in Honolulu. The big deal were the word processor workstations put together to replace typewriters. They were the size of a loveseat. The price? A paltry $30,000.00 for a single basic word processor.

I'm 52 years old. The advancements in the last 35 years are unbelievable. We would have considered (Back in 1980 when I was listening to Blondie and DEVO) the tech we have today to be alien tech.

I bought my first PC in 1989 ($2K). It was many times more powerful than the millions upon millions of dollars worth of equipment I worked with just 8 years earlier. It all fit atop my desk. It had a huge hard drive (30 MB). It was a Packard Bell PC with an 8088 processor that had a blazing fast speed of 4.7 Mhz with an 8 bit data bus.

I also bought a Microsoft mouse. The mouse was nearly $200 and had only two buttons. 

Windows wasn't affordable yet and I paid $400 or more for a word processing program called "Word Perfect". 

I paid another $180 for a grammar checking program. The monitor was monochrome. I couldn't afford the more expensive 4 color VGA monitor and video card.

Since then, the technology has shrunk more and more each year. The 1 terabyte drives we can get today for $50 would have cost $2,000,000,000 and a city block of space 1980. That's two billion dollars in 1980! A single gigabyte of storage in 1980 cost about $2,000,000.

Alien tech is here. It is supernatural. We really cannot imagine what 5 or 10 years from now will offer up.


----------



## tron (Dec 9, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> I can accept that a phone might not be the ideal device for watching football or cooking. But I have this app on my phone called "telephone" which allows me to speak with other people who have a similar app. It's pretty cool. In fact, I'd buy a phone just to use the telephone app. Most of my friends and relatives use this app a lot, too. So I can't see phones disappearing soon.
> 
> If I was a futurist, I'd be predicting the death of voicemail and email instead.


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 9, 2015)

"Therefore, one in two think that smartphones will belong to the past within five years."

Uh, everything today will belong to the past within five years. That's what "the past" means.


----------



## TeT (Dec 9, 2015)

OMG: they asked 100000 consumers... May as well ask a box of rocks than joe average consumer.

Joe average consumer thought there would be flying cars by 2001...


----------



## MrToes (Dec 9, 2015)

TeT said:


> OMG: they asked 100000 consumers... May as well ask a box of rocks than joe average consumer.
> 
> Joe average consumer thought there would be flying cars by 2001...



I'm still waiting on my hoverboard!!!


----------



## TeT (Dec 9, 2015)

MrToes said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > OMG: they asked 100000 consumers... May as well ask a box of rocks than joe average consumer.
> ...



OT warning!

Those are cool looking... http://www.wired.com/2015/06/lexus-hoverboard-slide/

I would propose that the evolution of the hoverboard is not unlike the evolution of the Canon mirrorless camera; its getting there.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 9, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow, looking at the general growth of Smart Phones and Apps, I doubt it. Smart phones will become smarter. That's where huge amounts of R&D dollars are already being spent on phones that will be used 5 years from now.
> ...



It's hard to argue against futurism, but it's worth remembering that an artificial lens is a damn sight easier to produce - quite feasible - than getting detailed readout from nerves, which is what you're talking about. Plus the lens is at the front of the eye, the retina and nerves at the back...

It makes great science fiction, but given where we are with artificial limbs that can sense, and direct brain-computer interfaces (both in their infancy), it'll be a long time before you can get readouts of the optic nerve and convert them into any kind of usable image - even assuming it was possible to insert a device to a healthy person without damage, affordable, and sanctioned by the medical authorities (not to mention the human eye works very differently to a digital sensor - unless you mean insert a CMOS, in which case why not just wear it, as we already can in smart glasses etc?)

Implanted chips (just under the skin?) that measure blood sugar etc are much more realistic and required, and I suspect will be coming soon.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 9, 2015)

Incidentally, my take on the article and the survey it's based on - utter rubbish. Firstly, why would members of the public have any insight into what's coming, and especially the time frame? Second, five years is nothing. Even in tech - we've had smartphones far longer than that already. What they can do has improved, but they're still fundamentally the same thing, just a lot faster and more powerful. The next stage of mobile communications I'd wager will come a long way after 2020.

Also, people talk about voice control etc. But there are lots of situations where it's impractical to make searches or receive info in voice form - in noisy environments, in crowded places with lots of other people, etc. A screen allows me to silently interact with my device, and nobody can intercept it unless they get really close and are nosy. Until and unless there's thought control (a long way off, see above), screens will be essential.


----------



## applecider (Dec 9, 2015)

Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 165 million years. No asteroids in sight.

On the other hand palm didn't see the iphone landing either, and it's gone extinct pretty quick.

Implants for the masses are way more than 5 years ahead, probably have to kill all the lawyers first, because the liability of a failed implant especially one in the optic nerve in already sighted people is high.


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 9, 2015)

scyrene said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



The last company I worked for (Imperial Colledge spin out) developed wearable medical kit. One identified avenue for research was a patch of micro-needles that could just puncture the upper leyers of skin and sample the interstitial layer. Measuring the blood sugar in this was intended to allow a wearable device to alert the diabetic wearer to administer insulin on a continuous real time basis. The biggest problem was rejection by the human body which would render the microneedles useless within a remarkably short period of time.

The tech is comming.. but there are huge problems with anything to do with medical.

It's not just the medicine angle.. clearly you don't want to harm anyone; It's also data. In the the UK there is the "Data Protection Act". All data collected by medical devices is "owned" by the patient. you cannot allow that data to be mixed up with other peoples data, and any hospital must look after the data, a doctor can't just data-mine a load of NHS patent records.. it was certianly a major issue for the products I worked on.

So what happens to images from any implanted cameras?.. is it medical?.. can we treat them like a photo from your phone?.. there's some lawyer fees in there somewhere.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 9, 2015)

AI??? In 5 years??? Oh noes... Judgement Day is coming...


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 10, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> We really cannot imagine what 5 or 10 years from now will offer up.



I recall the IBM PC from ~1985 with a color monitor and it was pushing $4,000.00.

The smart phones of today were unimaginable when I saw my first bag phone. The Star Tac was a big deal 

Portable devices with crystal clear screens would have been unthinkable when the first consumer portable LCD televisions were available in the early 1980's. I remember a portable TV that had an actual CRT that must have been no more than 2" across and it sold for almost a grand.

That stuff is more than 5 years ago, but even 5 year old phones are no match for current models.

The next revolution will be 3 dimensional optical storage and eventually optical computers. Quantum computers are already being built. The stuff of science fiction today... science fact tomorrow.

Then there will be The Singularity.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 10, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Fascinating insight!


----------



## IMG_0001 (Dec 10, 2015)

My take on this story, the dinosaurs are not ready for smartphones yet.


----------



## TheJock (Dec 10, 2015)

I think I found the reason why phones done a complete U-Turn and became larger ;D


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 10, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> I think I found the reason why phones done a complete U-Turn and became larger ;D



That's funny Stewart! ;D


----------



## TheJock (Dec 13, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Stewart K said:
> 
> 
> > I think I found the reason why phones done a complete U-Turn and became larger ;D
> ...


  It was an IT guy in my office that sent this round, I took a photo of the screen to share it as it was a word doc, it appealed to my sense of humour too ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 14, 2015)

I would opine that some of the biggest influences of computer/internet development have been games and porn. 

So I heard. I personally have no experience in this at all. Not my thing, but I am tolerant of others. As long as no one is being harmed, I don't see a problem with games on the internet.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 14, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow, looking at the general growth of Smart Phones and Apps, I doubt it. Smart phones will become smarter. That's where huge amounts of R&D dollars are already being spent on phones that will be used 5 years from now.
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 27, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I would opine that some of the biggest influences of computer/internet development have been games and porn.
> 
> So I heard. I personally have no experience in this at all. Not my thing, but I am tolerant of others. As long as no one is being harmed, I don't see a problem with games on the internet.



Porn is also the reason we VHS beat BETA... if anyone even remembers either.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 27, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/12/23/global-smartphone-brands-face-mass-extinction/

"Smartphone brands are heading for extinction in 2016. The industry’s growth rate dipped below 10 percent this year. Apple and Samsung’s high-end phones are taking most of the spoils, while upstarts like China’s Xiaomi are picking up first-time buyers. Loss-making brands from HTC to Sony may be forced to conclude the game is over."

Mt. Spokane, aren't cochlear implants and pacemakers examples of implanted tech? There are people fretting about the possible liability from implantable tech but it is already happening. I'm sure there is more I do not know about. The next 20 years will be amazing as far as tech goes I think.

Back in the late 80's I was speaking to two old men who told me how they hid in the bushes when they heard the first car they had ever seen approaching.

Now tech advances at a faster rate each year. Fascinating.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 27, 2015)

It´s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future ...

I´m sure we will see major new technology break throughs in the coming years and I am also sure we don´t have a clue today, about what kind of technologies we carry with us in 10 years time. But the big changes tend to take longer than we believe.

I think smartphones will die a bit harder than my old colleagues at Ericsson believe. It is simply too convenient to have so much and versatile functionality available in one unit, with a common user interface, very low learning threshold and a fantastic infrastructure available. Phone, email, social media, banking, games, video, music, camera, ticketing ... the list goes on and on. It has become the most complete all singing & dancing machine we have ever seen. I do not doubt that we will see other technologies/systems/platforms available in the next 5 years, that may become the future alternatives, but I doubt it will be at an industrialised scale and in any way life threatening to smart phones.

But I would expect smartphones to become more diversified in the coming years. Today, the iPhone 5&6 and their lookalikes rule, with a very unified form, size and functionality. In the future we may well see more specialised versions, targeting niche groups and probably also more modular. The main issue will be the display function. Today that is the only thing that dictates size and form. When you are able to solve that in a more convenient, practical and economically viable way, then we can see major changes. But as long as sharing of information, images, videos etc. are as important to the users as they are, it would have to be something several people can view simultaneously. I have my doubts that a networked eye implantat, worn by everyone, would be the answer.

Implants are available and they will develop into things we can hardly imagine. But would you actually agree to put something in your eye, brain, ear, heart or whatever, to get that kind of functionality, unless it was life critical? I would not. Considering also that the crap you put in your eye or brain would be obsolete in a couple of years, replaced with something much cooler and more versatile ... I don´t think so. For me it would have to be something I can replace myself, without potential consequence or side effect.

How this will influence the camera & lens market as we know it ... I don´t have a clue. People are getting bigger and bigger screens at home, with higher and higher resolution. Maybe they will see the benefits of a good camera/lens combo then .. or maybe a new sensor technology comes along, giving us a tiny sensor with 50MP, 15 stop DR and 3D at 1M ISO, giving us a 600mm equivalent from a lens the size of a small coffee cup ... :


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Implants are available and they will develop into things we can hardly imagine. But would you actually agree to put something in your eye, brain, ear, heart or whatever, to get that kind of functionality, unless it was life critical? I would not. Considering also that the crap you put in your eye or brain would be obsolete in a couple of years, replaced with something much cooler and more versatile ... I don´t think so. For me it would have to be something I can replace myself, without potential consequence or side effect.



Quite so. Implants exist, but they are essentially only medical in nature. And like all conventional medical interventions, they had to undergo years of testing to ensure safety, and are inserted by trained professionals.

'Leisure' implants will come along eventually I'm sure, but they are a long way off - way more than 5 years. If they ever become mainstream, it'll be far longer than that (I imagine the closest analogue is cosmetic surgery - expensive, largely performed by professionals, and enduringly controversial).


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Implants are available and they will develop into things we can hardly imagine. But would you actually agree to put something in your eye, brain, ear, heart or whatever, to get that kind of functionality, unless it was life critical? I would not. Considering also that the crap you put in your eye or brain would be obsolete in a couple of years, replaced with something much cooler and more versatile ... I don´t think so. For me it would have to be something I can replace myself, without potential consequence or side effect.
> ...


you will be assimilated!


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 27, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Implants are available and they will develop into things we can hardly imagine. But would you actually agree to put something in your eye, brain, ear, heart or whatever, to get that kind of functionality, unless it was life critical? I would not. Considering also that the crap you put in your eye or brain would be obsolete in a couple of years, replaced with something much cooler and more versatile ... I don´t think so. For me it would have to be something I can replace myself, without potential consequence or side effect.
> ...



Here's an interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/tech/forget-wearable-tech-embeddable-implants/

While we older folks tend to be more "pragmatic?" it will be the young who will drive this I think.

"Appropriately enough, a priority among Lee's 130 projects are 'adult industry' implants for erogenous zones to maximize pleasure, for which he anticipates major commercial interest."

Just like the VCR, sex will be the decider. 

Further out I would expect that being able to program a person's brain is going to make the biggest difference.

http://fusion.net/story/204316/darpa-is-implanting-chips-in-soldiers-brains/

The only real reason to clone oneself would be to live forever, but unless one can transfer one's brain to the clone (not robot like this article) there is no such thing as living forever through clones.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-02-04/see-future-of-artificial-intelligence-in-mind-clone-robot

I've heard people say, "I don't want to live that long." when talking about life, death, and centenarians. However, I think we'd all want to keep on going if it were possible to have a new healthy body every 20 years or so.

But back on topic:

William Gibson 
Author

It’ll All Be in Your Head 
Electrocorticographic (EcoG) chips have let research subjects use their minds to move computer cursors. Could implanted smartphones eventually follow? “The equivalent of the iPhone 15 might well consist of a pair of corneal Augmented Reality implants, a pair of cochlear implants for audio, and whatever small wireless thingy links them all to one or another quantum cloud.”


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 27, 2015)

Smart phones have gone through the same commoditization cycle as earlier technology such as the personal computer and other consumer goods before it. These cycles have accelerated as technology has advanced but one thing should be clear by now. They have a very long tail. PC are not going anywhere. Smartphones will be with us for a long time. They will just not be the next big thing anymore. 

Convergence is more likely than extinction. Smartphones, PCs, tablets will converge into one device. Wearables will become invisibly woven into our clothing. Implants will become common at some point. Until we get to the point where we can buy Spanish 101 pills. Smartphones will be the gateway to these devices. Displays and input devices will be wirelessly connected to expand there capabilities. Speech, augmented reality and media will served up though web services i.e. the cloud. 

Smartphones will need a screen until visual implants are common because nobody wants to be caught with stupid display goggles. In the process smartphones will become so cheap they will be given away so that the services can be sold.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Once again, the law is likely to be the block, in the near term. Soldiers have been subject to all sorts of things that wouldn't be allowed for the general public. And even if there was a demand from younger people (and I'm not convinced many would be willing to have an invasive medical procedure just to have a better porn experience), the law would have to allow it - and laws tend to be conservative, not least because older people vote more. It may happen, but it's decades away from being mainstream, as I keep saying.

Tech people always have an overly optimistic attitude. All sorts of things will be possible, assuming our culture doesn't collapse any time soon. But the more outlandish stuff - nanobots repairing our bodies, augmented senses for those without disabilities, household humanoid robots - is still the stuff of science fiction.


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 27, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Once again, the law is likely to be the block, in the near term. Soldiers have been subject to all sorts of things that wouldn't be allowed for the general public. And even if there was a demand from younger people (and I'm not convinced many would be willing to have an invasive medical procedure just to have a better porn experience), the law would have to allow it - and laws tend to be conservative, not least because older people vote more. It may happen, but it's decades away from being mainstream, as I keep saying.
> 
> Tech people always have an overly optimistic attitude. All sorts of things will be possible, assuming our culture doesn't collapse any time soon. But the more outlandish stuff - nanobots repairing our bodies, augmented senses for those without disabilities, household humanoid robots - is still the stuff of science fiction.



agreed.. the number of issues is enormous.

Personally I don't think we'll ever see embedded smartphones, what we'll see is some kind of embedded standard communication port, like USB.

i.e. buy your smartphone and have an embedded communication link to that device.. all the new whizzy software is on the device, so you change your smartphone every six months but don't need an op every time you upgrade.

The biggest problem is the same as for those women who've had breast implants.. they need renewing every 10 years or so. I certainly don't want anything inserted that would let me in for a series of operations just for a cool feature, but the fact that women go for those implants prove there is a market for implantables.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 28, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, the law is likely to be the block, in the near term. Soldiers have been subject to all sorts of things that wouldn't be allowed for the general public. And even if there was a demand from younger people (and I'm not convinced many would be willing to have an invasive medical procedure just to have a better porn experience), the law would have to allow it - and laws tend to be conservative, not least because older people vote more. It may happen, but it's decades away from being mainstream, as I keep saying.
> ...



One wouldn't need a wired connection if the device was implanted. Certainly not a USB type port. WiFi or better yet, something that could change the implanted computer's programming just by being brought near the implanted computer. As micro technology gets smaller and smaller the devices become more and more probable. The computing power and memory of your smartphone today would not have fit inside your house just 35 years ago. Implanted chips are already placed inside dogs and some humans that are read with a reader. Those chips are the size of a grain of rice.

When implantable devices are used it won't be something the size of a smartphone. It won't require surgery.

Even for an ocular implant, it isn't so much that a zoom lens would have to be implanted (though it could be), rather, the hurdle would be to change the way the brain perceives the scene.

Yes, today much of this is science fiction... but tomorrow it is reality. Of course, the original post IS about the future... which is always fiction until it gets here.

From an 1899 issue of Punch Magazine:


----------



## scyrene (Dec 28, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the chips in dogs etc are just RFID - they're passive, and activated by an external signal. While not simple devices, they are a far cry from a smartphone.

Your general point is true - that technology is small, and getting smaller. But it does not follow that surgery would not be required - cf. the current human implantables, like cochlear implants and pacemakers.

As for augmenting human sight, first our eyes work rather differently from a camera in some crucial ways - especially in the sense that much of what we think we see is constructed in the brain - and second, we are nowhere near the level of knowledge or fineness of engineering to interact with neurological signals at the required level of sophistication. Neuroscience is still in its infancy.

It's easy to make wild scifi claims about the future. But the original post was a prediction, from a poll, that smartphones would be replaced by some newer technology within five years. That is still laughable. And not every wishful 'prediction' can or will come true, just because we want it to. Sorry!


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 28, 2015)

scyrene said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



+1

until repair of the spinal cord is a standard procedure (hooking up all those neural signals correctly) then implantable communications won't happen.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 28, 2015)

scyrene said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



Yes, the rfid chips are passive. Why ask for forgiveness? You knew that already. You didn't guess. 

I have not made any wishful predictions. None. I actually do not like smartphones at all. Nor do I like the idea of implantable devices by the likes of google or anyone else. I think you are making some assumptions that are a little off base.

_*All science is in its infancy*_. However, one never knows when the next breakthrough will come.

My prediction in my post is that once tech is small enough, it will be implanted much like the rfid chips in pets (and now humans too). That won't require surgery. Just a needle under the skin. I did not say that rfid chips were active computers. 

Sorry? Why?

Every prediction about the future can be classified as "wild". Including the ones about lenses and cameras on this board. Silly. Posting a story does not mean I necessarily believe or agree with it. It's just a fun conversation starter.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/tech/innovation/google-throat-tattoo/

Here's the most interesting blurb:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171992-motorola-patents-e-tattoo-that-can-read-your-thoughts-by-listening-to-unvocalized-words-in-your-throat


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 28, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Not true.


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 28, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...



fine.. why?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 29, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



Because it is not. Implantable communications devices are not nearly so complex. Integrating them into the body isn't either. And because I said so.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 29, 2015)

This is closer to the actual story. There will likely be consolidation, and many brands will fold or more likely be bought up by the big players. There are not enough customers wanting new phones, and those replacing phones are looking for the top brands.

http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/12/23/global-smartphone-brands-face-mass-extinction/


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 29, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> This is closer to the actual story. There will likely be consolidation, and many brands will fold or more likely be bought up by the big players. There are not enough customers wanting new phones, and those replacing phones are looking for the top brands.
> 
> http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/12/23/global-smartphone-brands-face-mass-extinction/



Yup. My OP was actually tongue in cheek. That's why I put a question mark at the end of the post headline and stated, "Maybe there's hope for DSLRs afterall?" 

It was sort of my response to the crowd claiming smartphone tech is going to replace DSLRs and that Canon will die, etc...

Some took it real seriously and even took it to say that *I* was saying smartphones would go the way of the dinosaur. I just stoked the fires after that.  

I do think there will be a huge push for implantable computers by the large data mining firms. Many do not realize that those little white boxes along the streets pointing down at the traffic lanes are more than just tools for planers. They are also RFID readers. 

The FCC has also mandated that all phones have GPS by 2018... for our safety, of course.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/fcc-to-mandate-gps-in-all-phones-by-2018/

With embeddable tech one cannot just leave the phone at home. Your location will always be known by someone who wants to know. It's great knowing Big Brother just wants us to be safe. I just love him.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 29, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The FCC has also mandated that all phones have GPS by 2018... for our safety, of course.
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/fcc-to-mandate-gps-in-all-phones-by-2018/
> 
> With embeddable tech one cannot just leave the phone at home. Your location will always be known by someone who wants to know. It's great knowing Big Brother just wants us to be safe. I just love him.



Another Bogus post- a long since disproven article from 2011?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > The FCC has also mandated that all phones have GPS by 2018... for our safety, of course.
> ...



I can't find where it has been disproven, but maybe it has. There is, though, this from the FCC in 2001:

https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/enhanced911/archives/factsheet_requirements_012001.pdf

And then this from 2015:

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/911-wireless-services

Both are from the FCC itself. There are requirements for providers to provide accurate location data within a range specified based on the tech used. What is the most accurate way and cheapest way to meet the requirement? Some are using PSAPs and some are using GPS. I would think the answer is GPS. That is also a feature most consumers demand.

I believe the most stringent requirement is 50 meters. Over time, the tech will get more and more accurate. Triangulation only works if three cell towers can get the signal. In more isolated areas... this is a real problem.

I used to travel to Spokane to do some work at Triumph Composites. There are some very isolated stretches out that way.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Both are from the FCC itself. There are requirements for providers to provide accurate location data within a range specified based on the tech used. What is the most accurate way and cheapest way to meet the requirement? Some are using PSAPs and some are using GPS. I would think the answer is GPS. That is also a feature most consumers demand.
> 
> I believe the most stringent requirement is 50 meters. Over time, the tech will get more and more accurate. Triangulation only works if three cell towers can get the signal. In more isolated areas... this is a real problem.
> 
> I used to travel to Spokane to do some work at Triumph Composites. There are some very isolated stretches out that way.


Usually GPS is more accurate. A phone can be accurate down to 2 meters under ideal conditions, less when the view of the sky is blocked by buildings and foliage and you can only pick up a few satellites. That said, cell tower triangulation is more than accurate enough (10 meters or less) in most populated areas....

As you said, rural areas are a problem... for example, I live outside of Ottawa Ontario and can only pick up two towers.... my reported position toggles between a small town in Ontario and a small town in Quebec.... line of sight between the two locations is about 20K and because of the river in between it's a 100K drive from one to the other.... kind of useless for 911


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Both are from the FCC itself. There are requirements for providers to provide accurate location data within a range specified based on the tech used. What is the most accurate way and cheapest way to meet the requirement? Some are using PSAPs and some are using GPS. I would think the answer is GPS. That is also a feature most consumers demand.
> ...


Yes, GPS is surely the way for you.

They want accuracy enough to also gauge what floor of a building a person is on and what suite. Wow.


----------

