There is no such thing as a holographic projector. It just isn’t possible to project a 3D image that floats in thin air like Princess Leia’s message.
There are things that are claimed to be holographic displays, but they are actually just 3D display panels or boxes. The 3d image appears inside a box or in front of a display panel. The 3d image cannot be bigger than the display panel itself.
Augmented Reality is the closest thing to holographic projectors. Basically they are virtual reality goggles that are see-through, so the VR image is superimposed on reality. Maybe in 10 years those might become compact enough to pass for sunglasses.
But even then, it won’t be a smartphone. It will be a different type of product. The smartphone is a mature technology. It won’t evolve into something else, it will either coexist or die out. Just like laptop computers didn’t evolve into smartphones or tablets.
FFS, people. Everyone knew what he meant. For a board that claims to have the smartest people in the world, we sure know how to nitpick every little thing. When someone is talking about holographic displays that you can interact with, they’re not talking about Star Wars or Holodecks. They’re talking about something that appears 3D to the user. That could be accomplished in dozens of ways, including wearing special glasses, which… surprise, surprise, he also mentioned. Yes, these things are “claimed to be holographic displays”. That’s how people refer to them. You obviously knew that. So why do we pretend like he was talking about mobile emitters and holodecks? Just so you can come in and say, “Aaaaackchyually. . .”
I’ll say it again : there is no such thing as a holographic projector. There isn’t even anything that reasonably claims to be a holographic projector.
3D displays are completely different, because they can only display 3D images that are no larger than the display itself. So a pocket sized device can only create a pocket sized 3D image. Unless it’s the kind of device that you hold against your face and look into.
I think this distinction is worth stressing, because countless sci-fi movies have led us to expect holographic projectors.
The biggest thing I noticed when resetting a friend’s iPhone 6 to sell it was just how slow it was compared to my Samsung S8. Those phones differ by 3 years, but web pages and such were much slower on the iPhone 6. There is definitely a “fast enough”, and for something like that it is for web pages to draw as fast as they are downloaded. The 6 just wasn’t there yet, and the S8 is mostly there.
Samsung has this in their Dex interface. For several years it required a special Samsung dock, even though it was just a USB-C to HDMI dock with a whitelist of acceptable ones on the phone. Starting with Android 9 (or at least in the beta for the S8) it allows any compatible hardware. I used a cheap USB-C to HDMI/USB/USB-C adapter that got left behind in one of our conference rooms. I plugged my phone in, and with the proper cables connected I had a monitor, mouse, keyboard, and power for the phone all connected. It was a bit gimmicky, which by my definition above just means I don’t have a good use case for it.
For me anyway, it means once I have a desk with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, adding a low power PC is not very expensive. I mean, still several hundred dollars, but really about half the cost of a new Samsung S10. If I could get work to buy me a new phone, because it’s really my new PC, that would be completely different…
This is just a lack of imagination. I suffer from it, too, as I can’t think of new applications for phones that will need higher power, either, other than just bigger games. Invariably, as phones get more powerful, applications will appear to fill the space.
Except for–you know–transistors being almost as small as they can be already, and even if we could make them that small, the device would have a battery life of 15 seconds, and even during those 15 seconds it couldn’t act as a phone because it wouldn’t be big enough to contain the antennas. But other than issues like that, it is perfectly plausible.
Fair enough. But I don’t think anyone here was actually expecting holographic projectors. The only people here talking about holographic projectors are you and Darren Garrison. There’s nobody else using the term. Wesley Clark mentioned a “holographic interface that you can interact with”. That could be anything from VR to augmented reality, and could be accomplished with flexible transparent screens, 3D screens, special glasses, and a myriad other ways using current technology. Wesley Clark made a list of things and a list of devices, but never once used the term holographic projector and he never suggested that all of those things he listed would be crammed into a ring. Some features might be in a ring, some in a watch, some in glasses, some in gloves… he mentioned a lot of different things. For some reason, Darren Garrison shoots it down as “pie in the sky fantasy” that violates the laws of physics. And for even less understandable reasons, you come in to teach us all about holographic projectors. Nobody with an average set of social skills and comprehension was confused by Wesley Clark’s statement. Nobody would think that he is predicting holographic projectors a la Star Wars, or holodecks like Star Trek. He’s talking about what is currently referred to as holographic, even if it doesn’t 100% meet the technical definition of holography. We know what he meant.
I have no idea what he meant. There is no one thing that is referred to as a holographic interface or holographic display. A hologram is a real thing (recorded interference pattern) but I don’t know of any active display based on that technology. There are some prototype things that call themselves holographic displays but they are usually boxes that contain the image, and not something that is applicable to portable devices. They can’t be interactive because you can’t stick your hand into the box. I’ve never heard of VR or AR referred to as holographic.
He meant exactly what we thought he meant, and has saidit before. Projected, 3D holograms. But of course just because something can be mocked up in special effects in a science fiction movie doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with physical reality.
Basically, your phone will become what your computer can be now…
Your computer can be your entertainment unit, your music storage, stream to your TV, accept voice input and respond for an increasing number of scenarios, and heck, my phone already is my car key and my credit card. Streaming iPad or phone to TV is limited only by concerns about copyright and usury-level data caps, not technology. Consider that devices like Apple Watch or Bluetooth headphones are already “peripherals” for a phone. You can buy credit card scanners, your phone will talk directly to some printers, etc.
But - other than 5G, certainly there’s nothing that can’t be done with today’s phones and the right software.
I think the big thing that has yet to be mentioned is that high-end smartphones are now expendable. Once the battery fails it cannot be replaced so the phone has to be chucked.
The battery may not be user-replaceable, but it just takes a trip to a repair shop to get the battery replaced. I just got it done to my 2-yr old Google Pixel Xl. (Which is another sign that smartphone is a mature technology - for the first time I decided I’d rather replace the battery than upgrade to the new model.)
The Android P update breathed new life into my similarly-aged Pixel’s battery. The thing sips power now. Like you, for the first time, I see no pressing need to upgrade the hardware.
This reminds me of something I recently read. Someone has come up with a way to use lasers to produce sound that only a single person can hear. It has to do with heating up water molecules in the air in the vicinity of the person’s ear. OK, this is still very early stage of the tech (so far the person just hears a buzzing) and it may not work out, but potentially it could replace ear buds.
you people take stuff too seriously. You don’t know what I meant.
My point was that in the future our way of interacting with our pocket computer and the computer itself could be separate. Right now the screen and voice commands are built into the phone. In the future the computer could be something in your pocket, or a watch, or something you clip on your belt. But there could be a half dozen or more aftermarket ways to interact with it.
Foldable touchscreens, micro projectors, VR gloves, projections onto the retina, much more advanced verbal interactivity, etc. People will have more than the 2 ways to interact with their phones that they have now (verbal and touchscreen), and both those abilities are built into the phone.
As far as interactive holograms, I meant either via VR gloves (which seems like a technology that isn’t far off) or possibly something akin to what is discussed here. However I have no idea if they will ever be capable of being miniaturized or if other methods are out there.
The essential working components of a smartphone are dominated by the screen. It’s the biggest power draw on the system and the single largest component.
Look at this picture of a Raspberry Pi Zero. The CPU, GPU, and RAM are all in the large black square in the middle. The WiFi and Bluetooth antenna is the little triangle to the left of it. The ports, the SD card slot, the connectors, etc. are all nonessential to the core functions and can be excluded. That leaves you with components that are, yes, ring-sized. This is all based on 40 nm process node and CPU technology several generations behind. 7 nm is under development.
Again, we’re talking about distributing the functions of a smartphone into a number of modular and compact devices. No one is talking about turning a shrink ray on an entire smartphone, let alone desktop, as-is.
I’m still not sure what you mean. You are correct that VR gloves aren’t far off; they existed twenty or more years ago. But they’re an input device. No idea how you’re getting to “interactive holograms” from them.
The idea of a distributed set of components has been around for quite a while - the wearable technology stuff. It is probably the most likely thing to eventually replace the modern smartphone. But there are significant limitations that may still make it less preferable to a simple device.
We already have a two device system - a smart watch tethered to a phone. Uptake has not been a dramatic success. There are a host of reasons, limited display size, fiddly interface, lack of compelling use cases. The idea that the watch could be replace with say a flexible display incorporated into clothing runs into a host of problems. But there are enthusiasts that persevere. Even if you go a phone sized or bigger display wrapped around you forearm, its utility will be much less than a handheld phone. You can only use the other hand to drive it, and the display can only be used in long sleeved clothing.
Fundamentally, the display and UI are the big problem there is no adequate advance to with any current technology. Voice commands are slower than finger on a touch display for many applications, and people don’t seem to like to spend their life talking to their devices. Voice commands for simple tasks are great. But it gets wearing fast. We already have a big part of that with say a watch linked to a phone.
Google killed their AR glasses. People don’t want to be cyborgs.
Displays are shrinking again. The number of owners of iPhone Max sized phone I have spoken to that have either gone back to a standard size, or want to, amazed me. The book like foldable display adds a tablet function to the phone. Most people will not want to have to open the book to use phone in everyday use - they will still want it to fit one hand comfortably. Hence the provision of an outside display. Flexible displays may still be the next thing that changes the phone paradigm. It is early days for the technology, and the use cases and design advances remain to be seen.
Actually the dominant component is by far the battery. Don’t look inside a Raspberry - it is stone age - look inside a modern phone. The Apple A12 processor is already 7 nm.The whole inside is battery, with the phone electronics forced into a tiny fraction of the case. Remove the display and the phone would get 1mm thinner and that is it. There are no extant solutions - even lab based - to battery. Whilst there are clearly some advances possible in power draw the current designs are both very smart and running against the ragged edge of feature size versus leakage. Smaller design rules are not seeing reductions in power draw anymore.
Wearable tech is trying to do things like harvest power from body movement - but the solutions are currently bigger than a phone battery. Or you have to make your clothing from a particular special fabric. Which is not going to catch on for everyday wear in the foreseeable future.
We do have a small sized phone tech - for instance the Apple Watch. It remains dominated by battery.
I don’t think a remote display device ever makes sense, because a display always needs a high bandwidth connection to the computer. Generally the trend is for the computer to be built into each display device, or wired to it. A smart watch is a stand-alone computer that is networked to a smartphone, not a remote display driven by the smartphone.