Related
First off, I'm a die hard android fan and a former iOS user (3GS). This post isn't to discuss hardware specs etc but real world use.... Again, this isn't your everyday ipad2 vs xoom thread because I can read whats on paper. Obviously there are no real world usage yet with the ipad 2 but for all intensive purposes we can use the ipad as its test competitor.
My questions stem from the use of the tablet mainly revolving around pro photography use;
I'll be using the Tablet to view pics out in the field to get an idea of how they are turning out. Although not a huge deciding factor, ability to edit would be nice. RAW support is a must (i know iPad supports, does android/xoom/3rd party software?) Use as a portfolio a must.
Most importantly native or jailbroken/rooted/hacked/etc support for USB Host. I'll need the ability to add an external media source - i.e compact flash, thumb drive, hard drive, etc... to store majority of the photos. I won't be storing any of the files on the internal storage so access from the drive is extremely important..
I can't think of any other questions right now off the top of my head but should any photographers feel the need to debate or add any info please feel free.
i have a Xoom, and I'm a graphic designer, but I'm not pro photography, but me and a friend have done pro styled shoots for a few weddings. But thats not really relevant ciponsidering you're really only concerned with viewing/displaying/accessing your data.
Both will be able to do all you're requests.
The xoom will be easier because it has a micro USB built in so an external hard drive of any type will (besides obviously flash drives that have a full USB connection) will be able to connect without an extra cord.
The ipad2 will only have the normal cord apple uses and a micro hdmi (which the xoom does too) so it requires the extra cord regardless.
The xoom also has a mcro SD slot, the I pad to will need a different purchase of a different cord for this.
I'd take the xoom for what you're wanting to do.
I'm not sure the Xoom can have an external drive connected, you might be right, but I'd be sure to check that out. In order to do that the Xoom would have to operate as a host. I've seen a few threads but no answers if this will be possible.
It's my understanding that it will be able to at one point. I'll try to find the source where I read it.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=11681725
Read that. Right here on XDA
Not a pro, but am heavily invested in photography, nonetheless. I would love a RAW viewer, even basic editor for my Xoom. A guy is working on an Android app for using Android devices for camera control. Give me an app that would use the xoom for live view, time lapse, raw view, and light editing and I would be willing to drop some cash for it...oh, and make it Canon 5d II compatible, please
Another Pro Here
I bought mine for showing pictures & album layouts, sharing my website at meetings, showing proofs at meetings, and looking up prices. I would like to be able to sign contracts digitally, use Square for payments (can I do that on wi-fi?), place orders in person, edit some pictures, and ???
Update: I just signed and emailed myself a contract using RepliGo. Awesome, now I'm loading up on wedding contracts and model releases while patiently waiting for flash. .
The camera control app information is here: http://www.camera-control.com/
This is not a thread bashing the Xoom or Android. I love them both.
I have moved my company to Droid (1's) and Incredible, and fought the IPAD in the enterprise at every turn.
I have also worked hard to install Linux on every desktop I can, where ever I can.
My question is, where are we going?
Android is perfect for a small pocket device. Small screen, limited resources, touch, and hopefully extended battery life. Tweaking and Developing Android allows us to squeeze even more functionality out of our powerful pocket computers. Adroid makes our phones cool. It is the hackers switchblade.
However, with the tablet form factor, we are all attempting to take an embedded device, with a purposefully designed lean Linux installation, and patch it back to a full fledge desktop operating system. We are slowing undoing Android on Xoom and turning it into a Linux Desktop without a keyboard.
Some very skilled devs have placed Ubuntu on the Xoom. I was thrilled when I heard the news. My very next thought was... Wait. Full Chrome, Full Codec Support, full everything! Its all ready to use, in a small Xoom shape and size. However, Ubuntu has poorly designed touch interfaces for most apps, and most things require a keyboard. (or right click mouse)
So. My question is. Why not continue to develop Linux, any flavor, ( I like debs) and create great user interface, that runs on X, and a great GTK with big touch buttons, et, so that we can run already developed software?
Why are recreating the wheel? Isn't Android going to simply develop into a full Linux Distro fork, that diverts talent away from the whole?
….And Discuss....
Plain and simply.. Linux is not Android. Android is not Linux. One does this and the other does that. One is Google owned one is not. One is made for handheld devices while one is not. Comparing apples and bananas never works no matter what the situation may be.
Each has its own purposes.
I somewhat agree. I think its more like a comparison between Red Delicious Apples and Granny Smith. They are both apples.
Comparing a Windows 7 Phone and Android is Apples and Oranges because have a different underpinning.
Both run the Linux Kernel. Both run several GNU packages. It is true that they have different interface layers, and Android relies alot of Java (Although Linux (GNU) can and does run Java as well.
I guess that is my point. Most of what needs to be written to run on a Linux kernel (Like Android's) to make a great terminal device (Which really is what Android is) has already been written, and vetted, some software since the 1970's. Why rewrite it in Java, using the Android framework, making it incompatible with the larger Linux Ecosystem? Or, if Java is key to app portability between architectures, why change the java engine so that it isn't compatible with the Java we already run on our desktops?
Again, I'm thinking out loud, not argue, but because I think something is missing from the community plan? What if all of the time put into the different Phone ROMS on XDA (based on Android) was used to make a more compatible, and universal Linux for Tablets?
remote sessions
I use pocketcloud and splashtopHd all the time on my xoom, barely worth it on a phone form factor, but this way I have full desktop support with touch ui integrated and at the same time I have all the great things android offers over desktop systems as well if I'm off the grid.
From what I've read android is a base of Linux but from the point of programs and interaction its all google design. Which is why we can Ubuntu nativley but will have the issues the op mentioned for drivers an ui interface, but I imagine as touch becomes defacto we'll see drivers and ui 's designed with more touch orientation integrated...win8 already looks to be shapping up that way from the looks of it. So possibly we'll be able to run future versions of Linux distros on the xoom, so long as the specs still meet the requirements
I totally agree with your point of view, I hear ya. But, the idea of having Linux on the tablets rather than Android... isn't that a battle between the big companies as to what OS they want to support on their own devices? Motorola and HTC are two big companies and they choose to support Android on their devices all the way. I guess if there would be a company out there that would prefer Linux OS on their devices we could very well see this as an ultimate possibility. One never knows.
>But where are we going?
The only people who can answer that are Google. They've yet to articulate a comprehensive roadmap for Android. The only strategy thus far has been to throw out a freebie to vendors and let them adopt it as they will.
The problem is that what vendors want (differentiation through proprietary enhancements) isn't what the public want (uniform UI, cross-product interoperability). Add to that are gaping holes in basic functionality in Android, like peripheral support--printers, scanners, 3G modems, etc.
I suspect that Goog themselves don't really know. If they did, there wouldn't be overlapping efforts like the Chrome OS (which is apparently DOA for now). Rubin bud needs to figure it out soon.
Win8 beta in Sept will determine the extent of Windows' viability for the mobile space. From simple extrapolation of Win7's capabilities + touch GUI + ARM support, it's a relative safe bet that Win8 will have a big presence in tablets next year.
The picture for Android-on-tabs is more vague. ICS should clarify things a bit, one way or another.
e.mote said:
>But where are we going?
The only people who can answer that are Google. They've yet to articulate a comprehensive roadmap for Android. The only strategy thus far has been to throw out a freebie to vendors and let them adopt it as they will.
The problem is that what vendors want (differentiation through proprietary enhancements) isn't what the public want (uniform UI, cross-product interoperability). Add to that are gaping holes in basic functionality in Android, like peripheral support--printers, scanners, 3G modems, etc.
I suspect that Goog themselves don't really know. If they did, there wouldn't be overlapping efforts like the Chrome OS (which is apparently DOA for now). Rubin bud needs to figure it out soon.
Win8 beta in Sept will determine the extent of Windows' viability for the mobile space. From simple extrapolation of Win7's capabilities + touch GUI + ARM support, it's a relative safe bet that Win8 will have a big presence in tablets next year.
The picture for Android-on-tabs is more vague. ICS should clarify things a bit, one way or another.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ICE CREAM SANDWICH?
Sent from my Xoom using XDA Premium App
I think it is not so much recreating the wheel so much as trimming down and adapting.
X with gnome/kde is not currently a good fit for a touch screen only device. Even if the window manager could be adapted to work well for touch screen only, interaction with most applications would still be problematic. Getting application developers to go in a common direction is hard enough as is.... and you want to ask all of them to rewrite the apps to work in a touch screen environment? Still if you want to try this route you could get a meego or work in KDE embedded. The effort (as Nokia discovered, and Open Moko before them) is non trivial however.
Android, and by extension Android applications, are designed to work with a touch screen interface from the beginning. It is less work to extend the structure to support larger screens than the adaptation X based applications would have to go through.
Android is not a general purpose computing platform though. It was originally written to work in a cell phone environment, with the attendant limitations and advantages. I think this core concept has not changed with the introduction of the tablet. We are still dealing with a connected device whose primary purpose is the consumption of information. What I mean by this is that android is not meant for creation (such as creation of MS office documents, programming, photoshop, etc...) but consumption (playing games, reading mail, browsing the web, reading MS office documents, etc...)
Where I think Android should be going for the near future is refining and improving the ability to consume information:
- Make web browsing more robust, including html5
- Improve video decoding with better codec and container support.
- Make it easier to read documents on the device.
- improve resolution independence at the API level.
- Improve round trips from desktop to cloud to device and back. Make the device used neutral to the information being consumed. e.g. bookmark and open tab syncing in the browser. better dropbox like functionality for availability of files that have been worked on.
Where I want to see it going in the long run can be seen in a nascent form with the Atrix and the Lenovo U1:
- Based upon available resources (keyboard, mouse, monitor) shift from a touch screen interface to a conventional desktop interface. (extend what the Atrix does)
- Make it easy to extend the functionality of the core device by connecting it to resources. (extending the idea behind the Asus Transformer)
- In a perfect world I would like to see a full desktop OS run when requested and be able to use external CPUs (think Lenovo U1). In essence I would like the device to be able to be a boot disk for the user, connect it do a desktop for raw power, connect it to a laptop base for on the go functionality, and use just the phone/tablet for ubiquitous computing. This dream is still a few years from being practical though.
- Make the android OS an installable and user upgradeable OS just as desktop OSes are now. This is even further out but I can see a future where mobile device hardware and OS are separate. This might never come to fruition though due to the way carriers control the phone experience.
And tangentially we could see the Android platform espouse device centric ideals as seen in Japan currently.
- Use the phone as a payment system.
- Augment magazines and stores with tags to feed the phone contextual information.
To be honest I have not given it much thought. I am interested to see where Google is going with the platform however.
youngproguru said:
So. My question is. Why not continue to develop Linux, any flavor, ( I like debs) and create great user interface, that runs on X, and a great GTK with big touch buttons, et, so that we can run already developed software?
Why are recreating the wheel? Isn't Android going to simply develop into a full Linux Distro fork, that diverts talent away from the whole?
….And Discuss....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The main differentiator between Linux or other free 'nix-likes these days, and Android, is that Android enforces, encourages, and _guarantees_ a standardized uniform development platform, a single UI standard, standardized set of software in the platform, and a standardized user experience.
Linux et al guarantees none of this.
If you want those specific freedoms Linux offers you, then it is there, by all means. The beauty of having open devices like the Xoom and other devices with open bootloaders is you are free to make your choice.
I have a feeling that three to six months from now the whole picture will come to bare. We will have the "cloud" and chrome PC, Android phones, Android tablets, TVs, Google+, Google music all wrapped into one. Google is renaming blogger to Google blogs, picassa into Google photo.
It is scary a little but it seems like it is all coming together. It is almost there, each boundary has bumps but me thinks Google is trying to make it seamless.
JanetPanic said:
I think it is not so much recreating the wheel so much as trimming down and adapting.
X with gnome/kde is not currently a good fit for a touch screen only device. Even if the window manager could be adapted to work well for touch screen only, interaction with most applications would still be problematic. Getting application developers to go in a common direction is hard enough as is.... and you want to ask all of them to rewrite the apps to work in a touch screen environment? Still if you want to try this route you could get a meego or work in KDE embedded. The effort (as Nokia discovered, and Open Moko before them) is non trivial however.
Android, and by extension Android applications, are designed to work with a touch screen interface from the beginning. It is less work to extend the structure to support larger screens than the adaptation X based applications would have to go through.
Android is not a general purpose computing platform though. It was originally written to work in a cell phone environment, with the attendant limitations and advantages. I think this core concept has not changed with the introduction of the tablet. We are still dealing with a connected device whose primary purpose is the consumption of information. What I mean by this is that android is not meant for creation (such as creation of MS office documents, programming, photoshop, etc...) but consumption (playing games, reading mail, browsing the web, reading MS office documents, etc...)
Where I think Android should be going for the near future is refining and improving the ability to consume information:
- Make web browsing more robust, including html5
- Improve video decoding with better codec and container support.
- Make it easier to read documents on the device.
- improve resolution independence at the API level.
- Improve round trips from desktop to cloud to device and back. Make the device used neutral to the information being consumed. e.g. bookmark and open tab syncing in the browser. better dropbox like functionality for availability of files that have been worked on.
Where I want to see it going in the long run can be seen in a nascent form with the Atrix and the Lenovo U1:
- Based upon available resources (keyboard, mouse, monitor) shift from a touch screen interface to a conventional desktop interface. (extend what the Atrix does)
- Make it easy to extend the functionality of the core device by connecting it to resources. (extending the idea behind the Asus Transformer)
- In a perfect world I would like to see a full desktop OS run when requested and be able to use external CPUs (think Lenovo U1). In essence I would like the device to be able to be a boot disk for the user, connect it do a desktop for raw power, connect it to a laptop base for on the go functionality, and use just the phone/tablet for ubiquitous computing. This dream is still a few years from being practical though.
- Make the android OS an installable and user upgradeable OS just as desktop OSes are now. This is even further out but I can see a future where mobile device hardware and OS are separate. This might never come to fruition though due to the way carriers control the phone experience.
And tangentially we could see the Android platform espouse device centric ideals as seen in Japan currently.
- Use the phone as a payment system.
- Augment magazines and stores with tags to feed the phone contextual information.
To be honest I have not given it much thought. I am interested to see where Google is going with the platform however.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your vision for the future of android/tab computing is fantastic. I already have replaced my laptop for the type of on-the-road computing work I need to do...with my bt keyboard and mouse and the cloud, I am creating MS Word documents and printing when back in the office. It's a good start. I use my charging docks when I'm stationary so additional functionality from docking stations and connected peripherals would be welcome. I think the current size of the Xoom is optimal. It needs to stay small enough to haul around easily but big enough to be more than a toy or large phone.
It is already my favored way to consume information...I'm pretty happy with my browsing experience and have no real issues streaming music, video, reading news/books. I think that this will only get better.
>X with gnome/kde is not currently a good fit for a touch screen only device. Even if the window manager could be adapted to work well for touch screen only, interaction with most applications would still be problematic. Getting application developers to go in a common direction is hard enough as is.
It's the same with Win7. That Win8 will (reportedly) rectify this while Linux fiddles is the main weakness of open-source--getting everybody to agree on a direction. I expect that, as mobile computing diversifies, that Linux will, as before, follow Windows' lead.
>Android is not a general purpose computing platform though. It was originally written to work in a cell phone environment, with the attendant limitations and advantages. I think this core concept has not changed with the introduction of the tablet.
I agree with this.
>Where I think Android should be going for the near future is refining and improving the ability to consume information:
I disagree with this. Whereas the physical size of a smartphone is the main impediment, lack of an integral physical input device is the tablet's sole limitation in being a productivity device. This limitation is very surmountable.
On the demand side, looking at the app mix on the iPad should indicate that content creation on tablets have high demand. The clamor for Office-type apps is strong. The tablet may not yet be able to do heavy productivity, but it should be able to do light ones.
The impetus to productivity is, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the upcoming Win8. Ignoring its immense userbase for the moment, when a user has a choice between a tablet for consumption-only, and one that does both consumption and (light) creation, it's an easy choice. The smartphone killed the PDA/MP3 player/digicam/etc because it can do more than any one of these erstwhile devices.
More succinctly, Android doesn't have the luxury of a slow ramp.
>[various improvements for consumption]
I agree that these are probably what we'll see in ICS. They're incremental. I see them as insufficient in light of the upcoming competition.
>Where I want to see it going in the long run can be seen in a nascent form with the Atrix and the Lenovo U1:
This is where fragmentation rears its ugly head (as if it hasn't already). What you're referring to requires brand interoperability, which vendors are loath to do without a strong hand from the OS supplier. Google have yet to be that strong hand. To wit, both of the above examples only work within the respective vendor's product lines, and both are marketplace failures.
Fragmentation is the other issue Android needs to deal with. Other than the 18-month upgrade "pledge," I don't see much inclination from Goog to deal with this.
>- In a perfect world I would like to see a full desktop OS run when requested and be able to use external CPUs (think Lenovo U1).
>- Make the android OS an installable and user upgradeable OS just as desktop OSes are now.
Both of these are realizable with Win7 (on tablets) now, and I expect them to extend to Win8. The ideal desktop-tablet synergy I think will require better short-range connectivity, probably some flavor of UWB in the pipe.
I have been somewhat following the whole Phonebloks and ARA scene, participating in the Dscout missions, and generally have to say that there is a lot of buzz and hype with very little meat behind it. The general populace is thinking legos, colors, fancy shmancy materials, and other appearance related nonsense. There seems to be very little technical content, and the majority of the crowd seems to be lured by key words such as "eco", "reusable", "repairable", "customizable" and so on.
Certainly, in terms of driving sales, this is good attention, something Motorola needs.
The downside, however, seems to be that people do not understand how things work, have no patience for it, and want things to "just work."
I highly doubt that this will be something that is user friendly out of the box.
The biggest misconception seems to be that you will be able to build anything you want out of this. If this idea is not curbed, this project will fail. People will become disappointed. Already they seem to think that they can have an espresso maker and a telescope added to the thing.
On top of it all, Motorola has a track record of taking good ideas and executing them poorly. Think Atrix lapdock.
So what is the clear mission of this project?
Ease of repair? That can already be done using current production methods. Look at the iPhone vs Galaxy series in terms of screen replacement. Its night and day.
Reusing parts? What could you reuse from an iPhone 4 when building a 5s? The headphone jack? Batteries die, radios, memory, sensors, processors, become old news by the time they hit the assembly line, and screens evolve at a fast pace.
There is no mention of a core device with expansion bays, the project seems to suggest you could swap all basic components on the fly. This is nonsense. Is it really worth taking steps back to make separate little bricks for Bluetooth, Wifi, NFC, GSM radio, etc., when current production methods can squeeze these into a single system-on-chip design at a fraction of the cost?
Imagine for a minute if Googorola took the Moto X approach to hardware: You log into your Motomaker account, and at checkout you pick your options. 3 choices of screen size, 3 choices of processors, 3 choices of storage capacity, an 8, 13, or 16 Mpix camera, 3 different battery capacities, cdma, gsm, or global radio, etc., then once you select your hardware, you customize the case colors, and you're done.
I know this rant is way into the TL;DR territory, but there are other factors to consider, perhaps profitability being paramount. Open source phone, with open source modules, etc. How will Motorola make $ on this? How long till knock off modules hit the market? What is the pricing scheme, etc.
I would love to get a serious discussion going, touching on some of the things I brought up.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using xda app-developers app
I wouldn't say they're doomed from the start but their social network app and stuff seems pretty gimmicky to me. I definitely think that modular phones are in the future but they need to spend more time talking about the actual hardware and open sourcing drivers and stuff instead of their weird Instagram clone in my opinion. I'm still staying optimistic if they don't do it someone else will.
Sent using Tapatalk
Nice idea, but people here at xda would have a nightmare with such a thing, meaning rom development for every and each component combination.......
Lets ask ourselves, when would it be appropriate or papamount to upgrade a hardware component of any of our phones now? The reasoning now is more like, 'it would be cool if we could'. I cant think of any necessary reason now for needing to change harware unless it needs repair. I believe necessity should be a starting point for this whole concept. Necessity often drives truly good design.
I personally think that this would be good because of the fact that technology advances at such a rapid pace that being able to upgrade your components when a better version comes out would be good. Obviously there would be some compatibility issues between some parts that would be unavoidable. It would be more for the person who wants the high end device. Take me for example, I have the S4 and I love it but next year when the S5 comes out it wouldn't be the latest and greatest and I can't upgrade for two years. I could love a Moto X but I don't wanna pay the off contract price for it. So I think this is the only time it would be good and efficient, not a huge game changer but a slight game changer.
Also about the knock off or cheap parts, if they have the drivers and protocols open source than it shouldn't be to big of an issue, not anymore than buying a knock off replacement screen. Still something to look out for when buying modules.
I think that the idea from Phoneblocks or Ara are really good but I think that the project will prospere
Project Ara.
Being a modular design, brings complications, but with those complications comes new opportunities in the hardware section as well as the software side of the development.
The metric is quite valid and tangible, even more so today, wth the manufacturing techniques available, this idea actually makes far more sense than feeding the giant a steady diet of the same old thing.
You save money if all you require is a modified version of the RF section, you install that block.
The same goes for the remainder of the phone, easy upgrading, no downtime, and lower overall cost for the entire market, not to mention the lowering of landfill garbage from dumped devices that could not be upgraded.
The engineering end of this is wonderful, I wish it arrived years ago. A 'Lego-Phone' you build and upgrade as you need to, no more buying an aircraft carrier, when all you require is a shuttle.
We can finally drive the market, provide for ourselves, push manufacturers in the direction we need them to head, instead of driving us with their own thoughts on what is necessary.
I don't use much in the way of media, so anything more than 720P is of little use, but I do appreciate an HDMI-type format screen.
The RF section is far more important to my needs, and of course, a micro-SD card slot.
I prefer a sensitive front end, high dynamic range, and a superbly augmented IP3(third intercept point) as a basis for my receiver design.
I have grown tired of matchbox quality RF systems, and when in poor signal areas, or in a heavily wooded area with sparse cell tower penetration, i prefer my phone have the ability to connect with a site even if the RSSI indicates no signal, at least a data channel should be able to 'hear' a short text message for help if sent.
If the phone can't hear well, it can't talk well, either.
Most subscribers assume that cell signals are routed through the power lines*!*
I have had customers that actually said this...But this is the basis of my most desired and important 'want', a solid RF system, receiver and transmitter section that works!
High density areas have few problems with dropped calls, if the site loading is low, but in rural areas, loading is not an issue, it's accessibility, and sites spaced 10 miles apart, can actually have users drop calls even near by, due to dense foliage or hilly/mountainous terrain, even though the tower is within eyesight, you still drop a call. This is where fresnel zones come into play, and where a good RF section makes the difference.
If you think rain kills RF signals, see my pic I just snapped from my door, of the trees filled with heavy snow!
Poorly designed RF systems can't decode signals properly, the B.E.R suffers, causing message failures, call time-outs as well as just lousy QOS due to noise, echoing, raspy speech processing and a host of other problems.
The memory subsystems are important, as well as the GPU and video systems, but you can still make a call if the video drops, not so much if the RF section dies.
We all have our own desires, as well as what is most important to our needs, but overall, i do believe that project Ara is a great step in the right direction for a change....Where the customer drive the market, not the manufacturers!
Now I don't know if you were aware, but Google only owns Motorola's Research Lab. The actual company was purchased by Lenovo a few weeks ago.
Besides, I sort feel the same way, because, besides the hubbub, it doesn't seem like a very user friendly process in my mind. That's why I think it feels like nothing more than a research project with a couple of news reporters locked inside their facilities.
Sent from my ST21i using XDA app-developers app.
Don't forget to hit thanks if I helped!
In the beginning, they will have to offer options in a controlled environment like one poster abive said. It will be similar to
1. CHOOSE YOUR PROCESSOR:
a. Good
b. Better
c. Best
Etc etc....
The first question probably will be "Choose Your Carrier". Then all of the module choices will be pre-screened to function together on that network.
Samsung Galaxy S4 "Fort Knox Edition"
Guys, believe in Google. They made a search engine wich is now the most used engine. They also made a very good browser, an operating system for mobiles, an online map wich has street view and many other good things. Why they couldn't make project ara?
Sent from my LG-P880 using xda app-developers app
PenguinStyle said:
Guys, believe in Google. They made a search engine wich is now the most used engine. They also made a very good browser, an operating system for mobiles, an online map wich has street view and many other good things. Why they couldn't make project ara?
Sent from my LG-P880 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just making sure it wasnt a misinterpretation but google did not create android, Android Inc founded by andy rubin(correct me if im wrong) http://www.techradar.com/news/phone...e-phones/a-complete-history-of-android-470327
PenguinStyle said:
Guys, believe in Google. They made a search engine wich is now the most used engine. They also made a very good browser, an operating system for mobiles, an online map wich has street view and many other good things. Why they couldn't make project ara?
Sent from my LG-P880 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All those things you mention are software, that runs on high performance computers. What ARA requires is a total rethinking of the hardware and engineering of today's mobile phones.
Can any module be swapped for some other type of module? How do they interface? What bandwidth limitations do these interfaces introduce?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
SynGates said:
All those things you mention are software, that runs on high performance computers. What ARA requires is a total rethinking of the hardware and engineering of today's mobile phones.
Can any module be swapped for some other type of module? How do they interface? What bandwidth limitations do these interfaces introduce?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The ARA developers conference already answered most of this, so its possibility is not the question. Its availability and adaptability is the question. Will people flock to it or despise it?? Will it make people feel more in control?
If google can advertise this thing as something that gives people more power it will definitely catch on. Plus if Google is truly looking to start their own mobile network as rumoured, then they could start in that manner and make others envious to catch on.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
It's going to be a wait and see what happens on release thing I think. I don't personally don't think it's going to explode instantly onto the mobile scene but give it a year or two and hopefully it will start changing the game. With everything being open source it might pave the way for smaller companies to get into the handheld scene where they don't have the money or resources to develop full devices but can focus on just a single module. Much like the way of the custom pc market.
replicamask said:
It's going to be a wait and see what happens on release thing I think. I don't personally don't think it's going to explode instantly onto the mobile scene but give it a year or two and hopefully it will start changing the game. With everything being open source it might pave the way for smaller companies to get into the handheld scene where they don't have the money or resources to develop full devices but can focus on just a single module. Much like the way of the custom pc market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My sentiments exactly.
Koreans will really fight against this project. They won't be willing to loose the cellular market to Google. ARA has a lot of potential in developing countries, provided the prices for modules will be adequate. But yes, even with adequate pricetag such innovation will require a drastic change in marketing-infected minds of people.
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk 4
I hope it could work really well. I'd like to see the ability to transfer all the core modules from one endo 'frame' to another - SIM, WiFi, ROM, storage plus camera and perhaps CPU/RAM from a larger 'everyday' frame to a smaller 'night out' frame. I'd like an 'everyday' camera and a 'holiday' camera. I might carry a speaker module, but would swap it in against a torch module only for those occasions I'd need it. I'd carry spare battery modules and expect to see external chargers for them.
Didn't read the whole thread, but I'd say the whole "eco friendly" concept is BS from the beginning. People will start buying new components everytime they are out, thus generating MORE electric waste.
till22 said:
Didn't read the whole thread, but I'd say the whole "eco friendly" concept is BS from the beginning. People will start buying new components everytime they are out, thus generating MORE electric waste.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is possible and a good point. I think they could counter this by placing some inherent value on modules so you could trade them in for cash or credit towards other modules.
I think this will work much better than trading in phones since all modules should work for all ara phones.
What you all need to remember is that the microcomputer revolution didn't really become a mass market phenomenon until the IBM PC arrived with its open "Industry Standard Architecture". This allowed the rapid emergence of third party expansion cards and other "PC compatible" hardware, and "PC clones". Not only did this accelerate the pace of technology development it also pushed prices down significantly. If IBM had not made the PC architecture both expandable and open, general purpose computing would have remained an expensive and specialised tool available only to business and the very rich. Imagine the effect that wouls have had on the development of the worldwide web a decade later.
If you are of the generation who grew up uaing laptops you may not have realised that modular technology is cheaper and more flexible, and it means longer hardware lifecycles.
Hi guys, I am the owner of OXY SmartWatch, a new SmartWatch available in two versions: Round and Square.
Here a few preview renders of our final product:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
This is our website:
http://www.oxytechs.com/
And our Google+ page where you can follow our progresses:
https://www.google.com/+Oxytechswatch
The watch is running Android 4.4 AOSP and we have built a custom version of Android that is more feasible for SmartWatches than Android WEAR. Plus we have custom Android Studio templates to work with our product and we give the possibility to install any ROM without breaking warranty or support.
In this thread I want to share with this community a preview of the Watch and our links.
We are also looking for Android Developers, Android Kernel Developers and iOS Developers.
We also accept candidates from remote locations so feel free to share with us at info[at]netarchitectures[dot]co[dot]uk your resume or feedbacks about our product.
If you want to join our Developer Program, follow this link:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/software/oxy-smartwatch-development-t3185452
The watches have:
CPU MIPS M200 Dual Core
512 MB RAM
4 GB Disk Space
Heart Rate Sensor
Vibration
AMOLED Touch display covered with Gorilla Glass
Speakers and Microphones
Magnetic contact charging mechanism
Gyroscope, Accellerometer and Magnetometer
Bluetooth 4.0 and BLE Compatible with iOS and Android and PC
Light sensor
400 mAh LiPo Battery
72 hours with BLE and 1 week without Bluetooth enabled
Stainless steel IPV6 water proof
Right now we are working at our website www[dot]OXYTECHS[dot]com and for the end of August you will be able to see the full product description, accessories and various demo.
The 15th of November 2015 we will open the PRE-SALE Campaign.
We have a batch of 5,000 pieces available per model, so a total of 20,000 pieces:
5,000 Round Stainless Steel
5,000 Round Black Stainless Steel
5,000 Square Stainless Steel
5,000 Square Black Stainless Steel
This project is related to the porting of IWOP (Ingenic Wearable Open Platform) for OXY SmartWatches.
The platform IWOP is available here for download: http://iwop.ingenic.com/.
OXY is giving hardware development kit to each developer who is willing to contribute to the platform.
Attached to this thread there are architecture views, UX mocks and interaction design about the OXY custom ROM.
More details related to OXY are available here: http://www.oxytechs.com/
OXY ROM is composed by:
A watchface manager
Home launcher
Control manager app
Settings app
Apps navigator
A set of utilities apps delivered with the product
XDA:DevDB Information
OXY SmartWatch V 1.0, ROM for the Android General
Contributors
raffaeu
Source Code: http://iwop.ingenic.com/
ROM OS Version: 4.4.x KitKat
ROM Kernel: Linux 3.10.x
Based On: IWOP
Some preview videos of OXY ROM:
Notifications Manager
Watchfaces Manager
Phone Calls Manager
Only IPx6, multiple (more than 3) actions to access key info and apps for "Probably 249 or 299"? Hard sell, even with custom ROM support.
On the square version, a bezeless display is easily possible if the PCB and battery are not larger in area than the display area.
Lokifish Marz said:
Only IPx6, multiple (more than 3) actions to access key info and apps for "Probably 249 or 299"? Hard sell, even with custom ROM support.
On the square version, a bezeless display is easily possible if the PCB and battery are not larger in area than the display area.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Lokifish and thank you for your feedback.
The answer you mention is about the Black version, which is full Black Stainless Steel, including the wristband. Consider that only the wristband has a production cost of 28$ (without VAT) the price of 249$ does not look that bad to me. Think about OLIO SmartWatch, it's a full Stainless Steel watch with locked ROM and it's sold for almost 600$ a piece.
About the square version, we couldn't find ANY manufacturer in Taiwan, China and Singapore capable to produce a full baseless square display, only round can be baseless but if you know any manufacturer capable of making AMOLED display squared with Gorilla Glass I would be more than happy to get your help, we are still in the beta version of our product and any feedback is welcome and well appreciated.
The OLIO is also design by watchmakers, uses 316L SS, and has a water resistance 50 times greater than that IPx7 with no time limit like IPx7 has.
As far as the band, you can get decent quality folded SS bands for around $15-20 USD at full retail price.
A bezeless square display can be done. It requires an approach not seen in smartwatches though that makes assembly a little more difficult but is still doable. Also, "Off the shelf" designs simply don't cut it as it requires the "crystal" be cut a certain way.
Have your guys look over "U.I Design", "Why this Martian.. ", and "I bet your smartwatch..." links in my signature below. Feel free to pick my brain and use the information in the links. The minimum I ask is that you give proper credit if you use any of it.
Looking at your G+ posts, nice job with the Ingenic BTW. I designed and built a smartwatch using the same platform. Too bad I killed it during a 5 ATM water resistance test.
Hi Lokifish, again useful details and feedback.
You are right, a nice and decent band is probably available on AliExpress for less than 20 bucks, but we made our with a different manufacturer and for the first batch we ended up with a cost of 28$.
This is another reason why we want to get this project into the community, to get feedback and suggestions from people that faced these problems before us.
About OLIO, of course they used high quality materials, a nice design, but I personally disagree about the ROM and UX choices (but this is my personal feeling). The point for me it's about the price. Pebble manufacturer their watch for 18$ and sell it for almost 199$, now dropped to 149$ if I am not wrong.
We are a startup and we will probably endup in some incubators or crowdfunding website in order to start the mass production. Probably the price will be around 199$ on retail but again, the prices and costs we are facing are a bit different than the one faced by watchmakers that have been on the market for many years.
What we believe is different between OXY and the rest of the world is the community, we want to make an open product, we want to make the customer capable to install custom ROM, customize the body and more. This is where we see the added value that other watch makers do not have at the moment.
@Lokifish Marz - thanks for the reply and pointing out OXY ... I feel like there's ... just a little hope ... maybe
@raffaeu - please take into account Lokifish Marz's advice, he will be very valuable to you, from a historical, current & future point of view. You'll save a lot of time and effort.
There are only a few people in the world that can make a decent, let alone a 'good smartwatch', due to greed/profit, but it can be done with the right goals and vision. Always know your history! Courtesy to the Martian ... again
I'm not a techy as such, but an important aspect of a good product is the non-functional business aspects, how to make a robust watch and then marketing, communication, support, together with making a little profit of course. Techies alone can't do this (no offense). Out of desperation we started the Nowt Watch thread, please have read, some very interesting discussion. No doubt you're at a stage where you can't go back with your current products, but we can always better our understanding and add to our knowledge and experiences.
I purchased an Omate clone recently (I had to get it out of my system), some of the non-techy issues, charging it - a pain! Straps - awful! A companion watch, should still be like a stand-alone watch first, meaning, above all its a robust time-piece that many can/would use without a phone as maybe a sports and leisure watch.
I'm curious, what does OXY mean? You have my support if you want it. I used to be a software tester, as well as marketing, strategy, process ... all that boring important stuff. Good luck
@Lokifish Marz has some interesting articles and idea that we are taking into consideration. Our primary targets are:
make an open source product
build a brand and trust from the community
make a real watch, solid, durable and with style
We designed OXY to being able to run with a phone and without, in fact without the battery stay charged for almost 1 week. Secondly is the charger which is magnetic, so that our customers are not having the frustration of the USB cable pain.
We are here to get feedback, idea and of course help. Anybody is welcome to join us, we are also hiring so anything is possible. Of course we are a startup so we still need to pay salaries and bills but we are not willing to become rich but we are willing to build a trusted brand for IoT products and more precisely for smartwatch. I always say that OXY is a mission for me and not a company.
OXY is an acronym for oxygen, something that you need and that's required to humans to live.
Feel free to contact me @simple1i and we can discuss further our project. In the meantime I'll have a look at your links.
Oh I see Oxy. I do like the name Horology, that's what all good (smart)watch lovers are, there's an idea for a name of a smartwatch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you decided to used Android because it's the cheaper/faster (way to get it up and ready) option? Do you have Playstore on the OXY? Google can be very awkward about this.
Listening to the tech' community is a good thing, but for a 'fine dining' watch the experts are few, you need the Horologists, the real trick to to know what opinions to take on and what to discard. Then its a matter of goods ideas/functions vs costs. This might be a tough one to address, but the OXY needs to be either better then the Moto 360 2's (rumoured specs) or similar with a lower cost. So far I'm impressed. I am waiting to see what Pebbles does with the I/O port on the back of their watch, what hardware add-ons will they come up with? A good future proof strategy for them to expand functionality.
I'll be in touch.
@simple1i it was not easy, we had to search for conflicts with other trademarks, copyright and we also needed something simple to pronounce considering that our product will be sold worldwide. OXY sound easy but it is still a nice sound to pronounce
Our PCB is an extension of Ingenic Newton2. We had to modify the plug for the display because the original one was not enough for round and square displays plus we added an heart rate, a vibration motor a different Bluetooth and a Lipo battery of 400mAh. We changed the USB port and overall we came up with the cheapest but more flexible solution.
Why? Because we have a public AOSP for Android 4.4 and Linux which means that our product can fit any development configuration without any license problems. Just use git, download our AOSP and create your own smartwatch.
Google play will be added later, as I said our goal is to provide an open platform with a default set of apps but without any license or warranty limit. Our license and warranty will cover only the hardware, about the software our customers will be able to fully customize the product.
For sure v1 won't be perfect, for sure we will need time to build up a community but based on the fact that we have an AOSP on git, that you can easily make custom apps with Android studio and that our price range will be lower than other android smartwatches, I think and hope that our product will be well known very soon.
Finally, we will run a crowdfunding but our mass production is already set. A big, big advantage compared to other crowdfunding campaigns
Unless Google has retroactively changed a number of things and not published it, official Google Services support (certification, service framework, Play Store, etc) is a no go. A couple of smartwatch manufacturers found out the hard way, one of which made it into tech news because of it. That's just one of many sites that covered it and I was working directly with Omate at the time this happened. The only smartwatches with official support run Wear, which requires partnership status.
Here's a good place to start
@Lokifish Marz partnership status is a no go. Also Pebble tried somehow to have a sort of partnership with Google, even if Pebble does not run Android at all, but they go a big no. Regarding Android WEAR, we have submitted in June 2 requests including draw, project details, hardware details and more and we never got an answer from anybody. We know that our OXY can run Android WEAR, we also took apart the SDK of Android WEAR to see how it works and at the end we choose to stay Open Source and give up on Google WEAR for now. Then in the future anything can happen, we are totally open to any conversation but our mission is to make an Open Source Smartwatch, so having a smartwatch locked down by Android WEAR .apk is not our business model right now. The giant Samsung has left Android WEAR and also OLIO did not even approach Google at all. Why? Probably because Google is taking some business decisions that cannot fit all watchmakers out there right now.
About Google Play, that's a different story. Our current hardware is better than Asus Zenwatch and the Moto 360 v1.0, the only limit for Google Play is the resolution. Our Round watch has a resolution of 400x400 while the squared has a resolution of 320x320 and we are using the same displays manufacturers used by LG and ASUS. But again, when you talk about smartwatch, you open a Pandora Box. It is the new business for any manufacturer, Forbes announced an estimation of over 30 billion dollars business between now and 2020.
But again, we can manually install Google Play and it just works fine, so what's the point here? We need first to create a community, distribute our product with a basic ROM so that users can receive notifications, phone calls, download and create watchfaces and all the things you want to achieve with a smartwatch. We have already setup an Azure play store where any developer can grab our SDK and our Genymotion virtual image, create apps and distribute them via our Cloud.
Then, probably next year, we will see how the things go and we will be able to present again a request to Google for both, Android WEAR and Google Play.
Again, I have spent now almost 1 year in R&D and I feel confident that Android WEAR is a closed business. You must be a big firm otherwise is a no go for now. About Google Play I am more positive but only time will say. For now we are focused on our website and marketing campaign, building a community and customizing our existing ROM and SDK. Btw, if you look at the potentialities of OXY, we have already a more powerful product in terms of frameworks and hardware, than a Pebble, which has sold more than 1,---,--- pieces between 2012 and 2015. We also got a conversation with Cyanogen which gave us a go to customize Cyanogen for OXY but at this point is worth to have our own Open Source Android version and move from there with the help of the community.
I get the issues with Wear and Google, I've been there multiple times. I also agree that open source is needed for the development community. The issue with not having Google Services support (Play Store) on an Android based smartwatch is that a fully stocked app store needs to be in place and filled with all big names like Facebook, EAT24 and the like and properly formatted to the display/UI/UX. If not, it severely limits your customer base. That's why many of the Chinese based smartwatches have had a hard time getting traction.
Now if you have a long haul plan that brings in average Joe smartwatch and watch buyer on, lets say, v.2 that's great. Keep in mind that after the multitude of less than stellar attempts by others, both xda and G+ can be very unforgiving. Especially if crowdfunding is involved.
This is starting to get into areas where private conversation may be justified so lets table this until after you make a decision. Then we can pick it up elsewhere.
@Lokifish Marz you got the point and probably you got it because you have been there before us. The only big difference thing is that we want to build a smartwatch, I don't think it would be of any use having a squeezed Facebook or Google+ app on your 400 pixels smartwatch. We are focusing on other criteria.
Motion track so that you don't have to press a button to view the time, real time notifications that when received turn on the display and show the notifications on top of the watch and many other watch oriented functionalities. V1 will give to crowdfunders a working "companion", a smartwatch that is a smartwatch, a companion app that can download .apk and install them and a decent SDK that allows developer to create custom apps and watchfaces or customize existing functionalities.
I am open to have a nice conversation with you guys. This month I'll visit China and Taiwan soon, where we are manufacturing the watches but it would be nice to setup a private call/chat for when I'll be back. Probably you know better than anybody else other members of XDA that may be seriously interested and involved in the project.
Update
We are preparing some VMs on Azure running Ubuntu LT12 with our Android AOSP source code.
Right now we have 3 versions for the AOSP: Android Square watch, Android Round watch, Ubuntu Touch.
Compilation is quite easy, for Android is something like:
./build/smk.sh --preset=oxy_v11_wisesquare_iwop
./build/smk.sh --preset=oxy_v11_naturalround_iwop
Next step for us is to host the whole repository over a public Git and distribute the Ubuntu VM so that anybody can start to download the VMs (already synchronized) and contribute. As soon as everything is ready I will open a different thread and start to have private conversations with the people interested in the OXY project.
Re: Ingenic Newton2 - (someone made this point) you can buy the Newton1 or Newton2 as a devkit, but you cannot buy the modules wholesale. So this isn't truly a SoM - it isn't meant to buy off the shelf and integrate into a product. It's meant to be a reference design that you can either copy, or tweak, or modify in to suit.
In other words, with Newton, you're still going to need to have someone manufacture and assemble PCBs, and it'll require a normal (and expensive, unpleasant) certification process. A true SoM would come pre-certified, making that process a lot easier (you still need to do a certification, but one one that's much less rigorous and costs a lot less)?
simple1i said:
Re: Ingenic Newton2 - (someone made this point) you can buy the Newton1 or Newton2 as a devkit, but you cannot buy the modules wholesale. So this isn't truly a SoM - it isn't meant to buy off the shelf and integrate into a product. It's meant to be a reference design that you can either copy, or tweak, or modify in to suit.
In other words, with Newton, you're still going to need to have someone manufacture and assemble PCBs, and it'll require a normal (and expensive, unpleasant) certification process. A true SoM would come pre-certified, making that process a lot easier (you still need to do a certification, but one one that's much less rigorous and costs a lot less)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@simple1i You got the point. We bought Newton2 and made our watch using 3D print. Later we joined IWOP (Ingenic Watch Open Platform) which is a custom version of Android but more powerful than WEAR and better designed. At that point Ingenic gave us access to resources that are absolutely not available to private, so you can purchase the Newton2 dev kit but you cannot go far without their IWOP platform.
After that, we joined a partnership with two manufacturers, which are partners of Ingenic, and start to built our PCB and changed the Display (the display of Newton2 kit sucks, it has only 130 DPI).
About certifications, there are two phases. First you need to be sure that your PCB is ready for mass production, second, when the smartwatch is ready, you have to make IFC and CE at minimum, depending on where you want to sell. And this is the most painful part cause especially for CE, the process is long and full of obstacles. Consider that products like Pebble or other crowdfunded watches were shipped without any certification cause they were T2 prototypes expressly produced for the crowdfund campaign.
It looks like a nice piece of kit - in fact I love the design, it actually looks like a watch! Unfortunately, I'm not really sold on the idea of buying a 'smart' device where there's a very good chance of there being zero app development. Android Wear is rubbish right now (and of course, as you say, is a closed platform which creates big issues for us 'experimental' types and smaller organisations like yours trying to bring a device to market) but at least it's a group of companies working towards a common goal - in my mind that's far more likely to foster a community of developers than yet another smartwatch platform with a small userbase which will depend on yet another third party companion app and the headaches that creates with ongoing OS updates and trying to properly handle notifications and other interactions with the host device. I love the Pebble platform and larger ecosystem - I find the hardware and usage model vastly preferable to Wear (passively lit displays and buttons vs backlit displays and touchscreens, though I prefer the black and white ones, the Time lacks the contrast that makes the OG so easy to use AS A WATCH.) but they're odd looking devices which are 'obviously' not normal watches (not that I care, but I guess most people do) and the companion app has serious issues - they tend to get fixed fairly promptly but other app updates cause new issues pretty frequently - I still can't figure out how to stop it giving me notifications from the GMail app twice... What makes you think you could even do as well as a company who easily garners the kind of support they do on Kickstarter (and hence probably has a sizeable budget for a development team)?
Azurael said:
What makes you think you could even do as well as a company who easily garners the kind of support they do on Kickstarter (and hence probably has a sizeable budget for a development team)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@Azurael you make a good point here.
I do not want to talk about WEAR because it's obvious that WEAR is the biggest market so far, but only because Google is pushing really hard to get tons of Watchfaces and Apps available for their platform. Also, comparing ourself to WEAR will sound very arrogant. We will never be able to become big like Google WEAR community and this is not the mission of OXY.
About Pebble, if you look at their backlog, most of the incoming releases have bug fixes and enhancements of the Firmware. And this is after almost 4 years (Pebble started in 2012). They sold their crowdfunding watch made of plastic, without heart rate, without AMOLED touch display and without microphone or speakers (1 version of pebble) for a range between 99$ and 149$. We will sell OXY for 199$ in PRE-SALE, and in my opinion that's a great deal compared to the hardware of the Pebble.
So, on our side we played the "partnership role" with Ingenic Semiconductor. Ingenic has developed an entire platform on top of Android AOSP called IWOP (Ingenic Wearable Open Platform). It is a set of APIs that allows you to achieve exactly the same results of WEAR but even more. It is designed specifically for Ingenic Hardware so it uses less energy, it is bug free because the hardware is tested and provided by Ingenic (so no issues with multiple smartwatches vendors) and it is already largely adopted in Asia. The advantage is that behind us there is a big hardware company which supplies already thousands of pieces to Chinese manufacturers, so it is in their interest to keep the platform up to date and bug free.
Of course we lack on apps, this is the only problem of OXY and I am totally aware of, but I am not worry about it. When Pebble came out, and same applies for WEAR, there were almost no apps or watchfaces available. After a couple of years of adoption the marketplace became bigger and bigger and now the two platforms are well known. Compared to Apple Watch, our SDK is way more powerful and more developer friendly.
We will play the same strategy here, except that we have already commissioned almost 100 apps to an external Software House in order to have a pre-set of free apps available on our platform as soon as we will be out with our PRE-SALE campaign. Than, we will start our "developer program" which will grant to each developer a free OXY smartwatch and access to all our documentation and articles. In addition to Pebble or WEAR with OXY you can also create your own ROM, your own Home Launcher and customize even the kernel. I am sure that many developers will be happy to put their hands on such a platform and get a smartwatch for free.
We have already discussed with Ingenic this topic and they are eager to expose their platform to the US/EU market, considering also that we will be the first company selling MIPS architecture in EU and US I feel confident that the gap about the lack of apps will be covered soon.
On the business plan, we will probably feed the platform for 2015/2016, so a low margin of profit will be generated but again this is not our plan (to generate money) but to make an open platform for smart devices. I think that it's important for us to explain exactly our mission in order to get the right amount of followers. Plus a bit of "viral marketing" would be beneficial too
Hardware talk
On the hardware side, could you have added more sensors if there was a need for them? And are any disadvantages for adding lots of extras sensors, like power consumption, over heating or less space to work on the PCB? Of course for every sensor you need an app for it.
Others might disagree with this view, that sensors make a device comes alive, the watch can sense more about its environment, just like a living thing. Also with the open source OS and SDK devs can make use of more of the sensors, making the watch a multi purpose device. I was hoping for a compass, it's one of those things that many won't use but like the idea of having it, just like a Swiss Army knife.
A barometer with a compass and heart rate monitor, could appeal to the sportsman. The Suunto watch gives nice weather icons to a good degree of accuracy. At least there enough sensors for the development of an app that can detect if the watch is being worn or not to stop certain functions like notifications and maybe even put the watch to sleep to save battery or have it on 'bedtime' mode.
Another advantage of having lots of sensors is that it makes the watch more of a stand-alone device.
If you talk about the Newton2 development kit the short answer is no, the long answer is yes, but with some re-design. We had to re-design the PCB of the Newton2 because we added an extra BlueTooth for iOS, an Heart rate sensor, a vibrating motor, a microphone and 5 speakers. Plus we re-designed the USB charge which is an extra PCB in the Newton2, while on our watch is into the same PCB.
Finally, the biggest and most complicated step is about the display. Newton2 use an MIPI interface specifically designed for their display, so in order to fit a Round and Square display from commercial companies like AMOLED Corp you have two options:
Make two PCB with two different MIPI, one per Display
Modify the displays MIPI to fit the same plug and play mechanism
We did not put a Baromoter because it is not easy to find a good provider and it does not deal well into mini PCB. About the GPS, we had one but we removed because it is absolutely battery drainer. If you run 3-4 hours with your GPS on the watch will end up without battery, while capturing the GPS from your Phone and streaming the amount of mt into the Watch app is way easier in terms of power consumption.
All weather apps that you see on Smartwatches are not using an internal barometer but they simply get weather conditions from a public HTTP API and stream the result into the Watch from your Phone.
What we have in additional is the WiFi so that you can run the watch in autonomous way, for example OXY can detect if you have internet on your watch, if don't then it grabs info from the internet of your Phone.
You can get fancy with sensors, we would to introduce in the future V2 more health sensors but it is early right now and you still have to deal with minimal space, each mm count.
Subject TL;DR here. This thought came about from a discussion in another community I'm a part of. The thought process simply being what kind of feasibility, primarily with the V20 but also Android phones in general, would there be to developing a very barebones ROM that the main feature would be offering up the built in camera(s) as a basic UVC USB device to a connected host as if it was just another USB webcam.
I know there's PLENTY of webcam apps out there for Android to do the ultimate end goal here but they are often fraught with certain issues. Because many of them have to go through extra steps with the Android OS, it often causes increased resource usage and in the case of the V20 and its poor thermals, it tends to overheat really quick. Some apps also only do webcam streaming over Wifi which is less than ideal.
At least in the case of the V20 and its poor thermals, the idea would be to strip out as much of Android getting in the way and move the feed from the camera as close to the USB feed as possible. Ideally maybe a minimal linux ROM with no Android cruft. Android would still work but have it be EXTREMELY stripped down.
This is mostly a shower thought of mine and is WAY above my skillset to actually build but I am really curious how feasible something like this would be potentially? What kind of roadblocks may be seen as a result. Probably one of the biggest things would be able to configure the USB port on the phone to act as a UVC device. Not sure how this in particular would work with the V20.