Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st May 2013 09:29 UTC, submitted by matthew-sheffield
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless CEO of Blackberry Thorsten Heins said yesterday that he doesn't believe the tablet computer market is long for this world. "In five years I don't think there'll be a reason to have a tablet anymore," he tells Bloomberg News, "Maybe a big screen in your workspace, but not a tablet as such. Tablets themselves are not a good business model." If the dream of one device wirelessly interacting with all sorts of displays and peripherals comes to fruition, he may actually have a point.
Thread beginning with comment 560212
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by M.Onty
by M.Onty on Wed 1st May 2013 10:57 UTC
M.Onty
Member since:
2009-10-23

If the dream of one device wirelessly interacting with all sorts of displays and peripherals comes to fruition, he may actually have a point.


Exactly. How many people who own a tablet don't own a smart phone? The innards are practically identical, so why not use the phone to wirelessly control the tablet? No point in stopping there either. Wireless control of your TV also makes a lot of sense. Got a laptop, but don't use CAD, play high-end gaming or compile kernels? Then just buy an empty screen, keyboard, trackpoint, battery & speakers in a laptop case & control it from your phone.

It won't happen for years because phone OS' are currently concentrating on, y'know, doing what people actually want them to do.* But eventually smartphones will have the excess of power that PCs have had for the past five years, & someone will start being inventive.

The Ubuntu phone is a tiny glimpse at this future, even if its not actually a success on its own terms. Not sure Blackberry is though ...

* The old "they would have asked for a faster horse" Henry Ford quote comes to mind.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by M.Onty
by jared_wilkes on Wed 1st May 2013 16:38 in reply to "Comment by M.Onty"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Who wants a large portion of their local wireless network traffic to be saturated by shifting video to a dumb device when the difference is $100-200 in parts?

As someone who currently has a smartphone, a few tablets in the household of various sizes, an Apple TV, and several PCs on a local network and who does use AirPlay NOW quite a bit to do what is presumably Thorstein and Thom's endgame five years from now, I can tell you I see absolutely no desirability in trying to get to one master device that streams video and data to many different, dumb screens of various form factors. It's a feature, a useful one at that, but it's actually the wrong vision.

The "smart" processing internals of these devices is already less than a few hundred dollars and will easily be less than a hundred or fifty dollars total in five years. I'll pay the $50-$100 bucks to have all my devices smart rather than having a slow, saturated, more expensive network.

Edited 2013-05-01 16:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by M.Onty
by M.Onty on Wed 1st May 2013 18:42 in reply to "RE: Comment by M.Onty"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Who wants a large portion of their local wireless network traffic to be saturated..?


Good point.

I was talking to someone in my area who runs a networking company yesterday who sets businesses up with connexions by wireless.

He was reminiscing about a time years ago when he attended a networking conference & got chatting with some top brass from a major ISP.

He asked the brass why they're supplying WiFi routers to every one of their customers? They could easily set up a mesh thing, but giving everyone their own router would quickly saturate local network traffic. Man replied that was already happening & grinned.

Wind forward to now & this small company has had to buy extra bandwidth because the ISPs had been deliberately saturating with home WiFi routers to protect their landline business model.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by M.Onty
by zima on Mon 6th May 2013 21:42 in reply to "Comment by M.Onty"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Reminds me about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcomputer_revolution#The_Home_Comp... - a fairly similar vision, but which just turned out to be a wrong way of doing things.

Electronic innards get less expensive at a steady pace, so each device can have them; networking them is hard.

Reply Parent Score: 2