Home

Share this Story

New ASUS PadFone Launches, Features Snapdragon 800 Processor and Same Interesting Design

Padfone

The PadFone from ASUS is a device you won’t see too often in America. Why it hasn’t cracked into the US market too heavily must partially be due to ASUS and the carriers. The PadFone is a phone that fits comfortably into a tablet dock, which eliminates the need for a separate tablet attached to a data plan. This is the type of thing carriers don’t care for. It’s a pretty futuristic idea, but then again, we are living in the future. The newest rendition of the PadFone is much like last year’s model in terms of looks, except ASUS has thrown some healthy spec bumps inside – including Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 800 processor clocked at 2.2GHz. 

The phone features a 5″ 1080p display, 2GB of RAM, 13MP back-facing camera, a 2,400mAh battery, plus a complete overhaul of the system’s applications. If you own the previous PadFone, you will see a much cleaner and more minimal UI within plenty of ASUS’ stock apps that are found on the device.

No prices are detailed yet, but it’s rumored to be somewhere in the $650 range. If you want the tablet dock to go along with it, you are looking at an additional $250. That’s quite the investment.

PadfonePadfonePadfonePadfone

Via: ASUS

  • ASUS Know it All

    “The PadFone from ASUS is a device you won’t see too often in America.”

    I can’t say much since very few know, but it is coming to the US. Don’t fear friends.

    • Kevin

      my friends don’t scare me too much.

  • sk3litor

    I could see Samsung doing this in the future with tv’s. Come home throw your phone in your tv watch Netflix browse web make video calls, whatever have you

  • RoadsterHD1

    I want it but I can’t have it,,, don’t show it to me!!!

  • yummy

    I just looooooooove looking
    at nice things I cant have :)
    Looks nice really nice

  • joejoe5709

    Thats… pretty tasty. We need this.

    Anyone remember when we thought the GNex was going to fit into a tablet? Haha.

  • Mike Hilal

    Will this come to the US? chances are slim to none.

  • Intellectua1

    I would buy this except one small problem. The phone is only 5″ and I’m not familiar with Asus phones or tablets. Looks nice though and is a great idea..

    • joejoe5709

      Asus used to be somewhat unknown, but they’re coming up in the world. Heck, they’ve made the last two Nexus tablets. Other than some initial quality issues in the first batch or two, they’re pretty solid. Asus tends to be on the budget end of things though…

    • DoctorJB

      Asus is the 5th largest PC manufacturer in the world. They’ve been making PC components since the mid-90s and they were well known by PC gamers. They seem to focusing on the budget end of android but they build high-end laptops.

      They were also the main manufacturer in the netbook craze.

      • mrjayviper

        the transformer infinity android line is hardly budget priced

  • Jesse Blacklock

    i really really wish we could get this to the states. it would be enough to make me leave verizon, cuz we all know verizon would never sign off on this

  • MichaelFranz

    i find it hard why carriers care, besides the fact of amking you have 2 devices, and tablets which are barely used. Why not have you try and possibly pay more for a higher data plan thinking you may use this more then the tablet.

    beyond me

    • DoctorJB

      They want you to buy a subsidized LTE tablet. They envision a future where no device, however small or large, is without a monthly plan.

  • wanttobuythisatverizonpleeeeas

    I would buy this. Except for one thing. They removed the keyboard dock. The first Padfone had it. That is kinda like the entire point for many potential buyers. PadFone Club forums prove this. Seriously if this had a keyboard I’d get it and make it work…whatever carrier I needed to switch to. LOL and yes I am the slider guy always posting about wanting a slider here hehe. I like my keyboards like I like my women: real. :)

    • snothead

      Dork alert!

      • calculatorwatch

        Haha he’s right though, what’s cooler than a phone that docks into a tablet that docks on a keyboard? That’s every form factor I could possibly want wrapped up into one device, with 3 batteries! I’m practically having a nerdgasm just thinking about it.

  • p0k3y

    If it’s the same interesting price, I will pass!

  • Wish I had one

    If the carriers had any vision at all they would realize this would be a way to encourage subscribers to use their data plans more. For the multitude of people not on an unlimited data plan it would up the data usage rate and in turn people would spend more on data packages to be able to use their tablet away from wifi.

    • SamBoy

      They already know data is a gold mine that’s why the switched to teired plans and trick puerile into thinking they don’t use as much data as they think.

  • Silver Veloz

    The closest we got to this was the Motorola Lapdock. And we know how long Motorola supported that. Yes, I still use my Lapdock with my Bionic (w Jelly Bean). Still works fine. I am waiting for the Verizon Moto X with Moto-Maker.

    • bboyairwreck

      ever since they removed the Linux partition and just turned the UI to tablet version – therefore removing the full version of Firefox, i gave up on my lapdock. Now, Its just a Giant last minute battery charger for a power outage lol

      • Silver Veloz

        I’ve had no issues. I still take it with me on vacations, instead of my regular laptop.

        • bboyairwreck

          Oh no doubt mine has no issues. Its just sad that they no longer support the DockMode but instead just switch it to tablet UI.

  • DroidzFX

    Now we just need a smartwatch that goes inside the phone.

    • DroidzFX

      Down vote all you want Asus is gonna make this happen.

      • arthuruscg

        The tech version of a Turducken.

        • Bigwavedave25

          hahaa… nice!

        • CHRIS42060

          The phabletatch

    • joejoe5709

      Lol. Yeah just call it the Voltron.

      • DroidzFX

        I would buy that just for the name.

  • mustbepbs

    All right Bat Phone!

  • fritzo2162

    I love the idea of this, and truly think it’s the future of smartphones. We’ll just use phones to attach to some kind of docks to use them as our laptops/PCs’/Media streamers/etc. Our phones will be a core that can attach to devices that enhance its input methods.

    • Asmodai

      This is a very cool middle step but the future of smartphones is to not have to physically connect them like this but do the same thing wirelessly. So you’ll have a (comparatively) cheap but dumb “tablet” (like the tablet dock) but you’ll be able to just leave your phone in your pocket (or on your wireless charger) and it will wirelessly connect to the dumb “tablet” for I/O.

      • Franklin Ramsey

        I’d say the future is that there isn’t a phone or a tablet or a watch, but everything happening in the cloud from a bunch of dumb devices that connect to the could and are used only for I/O. At the most, you’d carry a small object (say, the size of a watch front minus the bands), which could wirelessly sync to a dumb tablet, dumb phone, dumb computer or dumb whatever interface. Eventually that device will go away and it will just be dumb screens providing output for a connection entirely in the cloud.

        • Asmodai

          I certainly hope not. I don’t mind the cloud to augment/enhance my computing and I use could SERVICES such as Pandora for music but I don’t want all my computing power in the cloud so if/when I get disconnected all my tech toys are useless. Furthermore I don’t trust some things I have to could service providers. I only put things in the cloud that wouldn’t be too big a deal if they went public (even if I may prefer they don’t).

          • Franklin Ramsey

            Well you are thinking in a sort of limited fashion. I hate to break it to you, but that is the future. More and more companies are going to “cloud” solutions for processing power (IE: Citrix, VMWare, etc…) where a server processes the information and you use a dumb terminal to access the system. As wireless solutions and services become wider spread this will just become a wider and wider spread solution. Like the USB device that Microsoft released that you plug into a laptop/desktop and it turns that device into a Windows 8 machine with all the corporate settings needed, basically allowing you to plug that USB device into any computer and have it work like you are in your work environment. Our company was liking that too since we can issue one of those devices to our contractors instead of buying a new computer for them to use. Everything will eventually get moved to the cloud. I can even see the day when you won’t need to go buy a new computer, but instead just buy a virtual system from a company (Google, Amazon, and Microsoft already let you do this) and access it with a dumb client. No need to upgrade your system, just buy more processing power, storage, GPU power or whatever you need instead of upgrading a physical machine. Plus, you can set it up so it is a “private” virtual system only you can access and maintain, or have that service take care of all software updates and the like for you. That’s the future, it doesn’t need you to like it.

          • Asmodai

            I’m not saying the cloud isn’t a major thing but it isn’t going to entirely replace local computing. We have those USB devices at work to and that’s not the cloud. It allows our users to connect to their FULL PC here at work from home and do their work as if they were here. Guess what, sometimes the connection goes down and they have to come in to work. They still need a full PC even if they are using it remotely.

            When a big event happens and the networks go down because everyone is calling in to check on loved ones or trying to call out to tell everyone the are ok then everything will fail if everything is just dumb clients to the cloud.

            Lots of companies aren’t going to be willing to hand their assets over to Amazon or Microsoft or Google. We have virtualized servers so we add more hardware, new virtual machines, etc. but we own that hardware. I don’t consider that the cloud as we have full client machines connecting to servers we own not some service provided to us and others. It’s just a more advanced client server architecture then without virtual machines and with you having to sit in front of your desktop all the time. Will there be more dumb clients in the future, sure. With smart clients go away so everything is cloud based, of course not.

          • Franklin Ramsey

            I’d say it is entirely plausible that in less than 20 years the cloud could entirely replace local computing.
            I realize those USB devices are not the cloud, but that was similar in concept to what I think will be coming. Have a device that you carry around with you and wirelessly syncs your device to a “cloud” computing service. You state those USB devices allow them to connect to their full computer at work. I’m saying, in our case, those “Full computers” are virtual computers running in our VMWare environment. So no, they don’t need a full PC. In our situation, they connect via the “cloud”. Yes, when the internet goes down, it doesn’t work, but wireless and internet service are getting more and more reliable so this has been happening less and less.

            And I know a lot of companies that don’t want to hand their assets over to Amazon or Google or whatever service that will do it for them, but you do realize that if your company has servers that start running everything on virtual machines, that is a cloud based approach. Yes, you have physical servers running it all, but even those services with Google and Amazon have a physical server running everything. That’s still the “cloud”. In your case, buying physical servers to run more virtual servers is basically your company expanding it’s “cloud” capabilities. Yes, you can have full client machines connecting to those servers, but you can setup those same virtual servers to use a dumb client to connect to them and do the same thing a full client can do, all without having some other service provided by others. So, yes, I think smart clients will eventually go away, and probably much sooner than you think. 10 years ago I’m sure there weren’t many people who thought virtual computing would be as far along as it is, but it cuts costs and increases efficiency. It’s the future.

          • Asmodai

            I understand what you are saying I’m just saying I don’t think your use case is going to replace EVERYONE elses. They will compliment each other not entirely replace.

            The internet is never going to be 100% reliable. Maybe it’s down because of a concentrated DoS attack, maybe it’s down because some bonehead cut your line while digging a ditch, maybe you’re offline because you’re in “Airplane Mode” on a plane or some other location where transmissions are not permitted. My company at least can’t just have everyone stop working for a day because the internet becomes unavailable.

            Our virtualized servers are not a cloud based support in that they aren’t replacing a single client. What is happening is instead of have 10 physical servers we have say 2 physical servers with 5 virtual servers on each. They’re still ONLY servers, we still have the same exact number of clients, ZERO computing power is moving from client to server. Even the USB thing doesn’t REPLACE any client it offers NEW capability (work from home) which wasn’t available before (because we aren’t going to just let any home PC connect to our network.)

            The industry isn’t even heading toward getting rid of smart clients completely. Cloud services like Google Maps and YouTube are adding offline support for example. That’s the big move now, to allow for offline capabilities with formerly cloud-only services, but offline capabilities don’t work if your client is dumb. Furthermore there is a huge race to get faster and smaller SoCs in phones, watches, glasses, etc. If everyone was moving toward dumb clients you don’t need that, you just need a very basic chip with great connectivity to establish your connection with the cloud and then you’re done. Chips now are well beyond that need and getting even better, I don’t think they’re just going to go away. In the future you’ll have smart clients that can disconnect with the cloud if necessary but will resync when it becomes available again. When connected they will have enhanced capabilities but they won’t be completely useless when disconnection as a dumb client would be.

          • Franklin Ramsey

            I don’t think you quite get where the future is going, but I’ll try to state my use case again. You are saying the internet isn’t 100% reliable. A computer isn’t 100% reliable either. As technology gets better and as cell phones and service changes, you are going to have internet connections in more places and at better reliability. You list airplanes, but airplanes are starting to get internet connections now via satellite. Now think about your home, people who have high speed internet via cable or dsl generally have a smart phone too. Heck, Time Warner is now offering a 50Mbps connection in my area where they don’t have to run a cable to your house. They put a 4G Cable modem/router in your house and you use that. I know for my job, people generally have a hot spot as well as a home internet connection so they can work from wherever they are. If the connection goes down on both those, they head to a starbucks or something. The thing is, you are thinking in terms of TODAY and how people use their devices now. Think about 20 years ago, Most people didn’t have the internet, phones couldn’t transmit at rates where people could work from home, the technology didn’t make things possible.

            As for your business situation, You say your virtual servers aren’t cloud based support because they haven’t replaced any of the smart clients in your office. I’m still arguing that they are a cloud based system as just because you don’t use it as such, that potential is still there. Heck, your company is even using them as a cloud based approach and you don’t see it. The cloud based approach your company is using them for is for servers. They have servers in the cloud, cutting the amount of physical servers they have. Our company found out we could get dumb terminals for 150-200 dollars which were much cheaper than the 700-1500 we were spending on computers. They allow our users to do the same thing, work from home just as well as if they are in the office, and if they want to use their own computer instead, they can. Just because your company isn’t using the technology for the average user and replace some smart clients doesn’t mean you aren’t using it as a cloud scenario.

            If you think the industry isn’t heading toward getting rid of smart clients completely I don’t think you understand the industry. Cloud services are offering offline services because they realize that technology isn’t currently at a place where a connection is always viable, but they are still trying to get to that place. Why do you think most cloud services started without offline abilities? They were trying to force people completely into the cloud. People didn’t go for it, so to get more people in, they give us offline abilities and more people start putting more stuff into the cloud. You argue that they are racing toward faster and smaller SoC’s in phones and such as an argument against the future I see. In fact, that is a huge argument FOR what I’m talking about. As the SoC’s get faster and smaller with better efficiency, you can put the abilities into smaller and smaller devices. You can have TVs, air conditioners, freezers, toasters, and appliances connect up to the cloud. You could even use those devices to connect to each other to create a bigger cloud. Think about the future I’m talking about, where you have a device (say a flash drive) that you carry around as an identifier, when you are within range of a dumb terminal, it wirelessly syncs to that terminal (be it a hand held client, terminal, or something we haven’t even considered like the Next version of Kinect that Microsoft is working on where there is a projector built into the hardware that captures your input, and projects the game to the room around you), once it is synced to the dumb terminal, the dumb terminal can connect to whatever main source is providing the Input/Output OS functions and maybe it syncs to your toaster, tv, and fridge to process some of whatever you are doing in a localized cloud so the information is there faster. The more of those interconnected devices you have in an area, the more powerful your local processing ability, but if it isn’t sufficient, you can fall back on an off site cloud.

          • Asmodai

            I don’t think YOU quite get where the future is going. I get your use case and I think it’s wrong. When a computer breaks at work maybe one person can’t work and even then there probably is another one available for them to use and continue to get their work done. That’s completely different then if ALL your workers have dumb clients and your pipe goes down and every single one of your workers is completely incapable of doing their work. They aren’t all going to get up and go to the local starbucks to work. There are going to be places and times when an internet connection is unavailable and if EVERYTHING depends on that connection that is FAR more severe then if a client fails.

            By your definition apparently any server is the cloud. If that’s the way you’re using the term then fine but what I’m saying is that there will continue to be a need for SOME smart clients, that local processing will continue to be needed and it will not ALL move up to remote servers. In that context no local processing has been entirely replaced by remote servers (be they physical or virtual) at my work. The move from physical to virtual has in no way effected that and it isn’t just because we’re luddites and choose not to embrace the inevitable future as you see it. Moving all processing to the servers would create a single point of failure that would be unacceptable for my work and I don’t believe we’re unique in that respect. Sure some people, such as your work apparently, might find that acceptable but everyone isn’t in the same situation as you apparently are and if people are doing things different from how you do them doesn’t make them wrong.

            It also has nothing to do with unavailability of modern broadband. Where I am we have Verizon FiOS and 4G coverage from pretty much every major carrier. We aren’t refusing to use dumb terminals because we’re on some slow or unreliable network. We’re refusing to use them because we can’t just stop working if the internet goes down. We also can’t transmit some things over public networks at all. Not everyone at my work can even use the USB things because they are an unacceptable security risk for certain types of data. If your work would allow you to work from starbucks then sure maybe what you do can easily be replaced by a dumb terminal but not what I do.

            If you think the industry is heading toward getting rid of smart clients COMPLETELY I don’t think you understand the industry. I have no doubt you understand YOUR industry and I totally believe you that it makes perfect sense in YOUR case (as well as many others) to move everything to the cloud (so please don’t keep explaining your use case, as I’ve said twice already… I get yours) but it blows my mind that you would think this applies to EVERYONE.

            We agree that SoCs will get faster and smaller and they’ll put them in more and more things. Where we disagree is that you seem to think that ALL of these clients will eventually be dumb. Will we have more dumb clients then today, sure. Will SOME things that are done by smart clients or even locally today move to dumb clients in the future, sure. But the future is NOT going to be EVERYTHING done in the cloud with dumb clients locally. I can’t even believe you are honestly trying to make that argument.

          • Franklin Ramsey

            I fully understand where you are coming from, but from your arguments, I can tell you don’t understand what I’m saying and maybe that is my fault as maybe I’m not stating it in a clear enough manner. Or maybe it is coming from a disconnect between terms. I’ll try to broaden my example a little bit, again using ALL industries as an example, Banking, healthcare, technology, finance, whatever industry you are in. I’ll start with how a company can be setup using technology today, and how I see that expanding in the future to show that no matter what industry, how I see things working out, can work.

            Let’s say you work for a company that does business all over the United States. Chances are, if that company is decent sized, it is going to have multiple server farms/data centers located in multiple areas of the country. Those server centers are going to be replicated across each other so if one center goes down, the others pick up the slack. So let’s say one of your centers loses internet connection, the others still have it and the virtual server sessions gets offloaded to one of the other centers. The connections can be encrypted, so even if outside users are using a public connection to access those servers, data is protected. I’ve worked for banks, manufacturing, health care companies, and even retail so yes, this works across multiple industries, not just the one I’m currently in. Now lets add in Local users and home users. In the current setting, you have users working on computers in their home one of the offices, if the internet goes out, they keep working, when the internet comes back up that data replicates up to the servers. Now, most companies I’ve worked for have multiple internet lines across multiple carriers (the business I’m currently working for has t1 lines from at least three separate ISPs leading into all of our centers so if the internet fails from one ISP, our traffic is automatically routed through one of the remaining lines.) Yes, if a home user’s internet goes down, having a smart client they can work on is nice, but our internet downtime is less than 99% currently.
            So an example from the company I’m currently with, we have 5 different server centers, each with people connecting in through dumb clients on encrypted connections and if one server center goes down, their session is transmitted over to one of the other centers. The sessions are running 256 bit encryption, so it doesn’t matter if people connect in from a public connection, the data transmitted is secure. Yes, if their local internet in their house goes down, they can’t connect and work, but that rarely happens and when it does, they have the option of coming into one of our offices to work. Yes, some of our higher up users have laptops so if they can’t connect, their sessions will still work. I’m not saying my use case works 100% right now. Right now is not the future.

            Now I’ll show you how this translates into the future I see. To me, it seems like more and more companies are looking at technology where devices talk to each other (blue tooth, NFC, and other technologies) so take it into the future and I can easily see where multiple devices in an area connect to each other forming an ad-hoc based cloud. Google and other companies are already looking into this type of technology for remote regions to provide internet where you connect to someone else’s device, which connects to someone else’s device, which connects to someone else’s device down the line which finally gets you back to the “internet”. In terms of today’s technology, that would be like you being a mile out of range from a cell tower, but your cell phone connects to someone’s cell phone which connects to someone else’s cell phone, which connects to the tower, and you still have signal. This type of technology is already being tested and developed.
            Now let’s expand technology into the future another step. Now it isn’t just cell phones that are connecting ad-hoc to each other, but now cell phones can form that same ad-hoc connection with other devices with built in chips to provide you with a connection. So now if you are a mile out of range of that cell tower, you connect ad-hoc with a tv in your house, which connects to a toaster in your neighbors house, which connects to a fridge in the next house down the line and so on down the line till it connects to the cell tower. If your connection to your tv goes down, it doesn’t matter, your still also connected to every other device in your house, which is forming ad-hoc connections to devices in the house next door and on down the line.
            Now let’s expand technology again. Remove the cell tower. All your devices connect via an Ad-hoc type connection to other devices. But all this is un-secure you say, no one would go for this. But wait, quantum encryption is already being used to provide secure connections which can’t be broken for point to point connections, so if an outside party views what’s on your connection, it is all garbled anyway since as soon as that quantum state is observed, it changes. That technology is already there, so all these ad-hoc connections are secure! So you don’t lose your internet connection since if one connection goes down or if a tower or a single point fails, everything connects to other devices to remain connected.
            Let’s expand technology a step further. Now we are all using dumb terminals to interact with data as everything around us is processing the data, securely, without downtime, and without the need to hold data locally since there is always a connection. Will those dumb terminals be able to hold data? Sure! Most dumb terminals have storage space in them right now to hold the OS that tells them how to run. They won’t need it though as the data is being processed by all the other devices around them hence, the cloud.

            I hope this clears up where I think technology is going. Yes, it is a broad view, but to think that in the future we would need smart clients to process data is very limiting. To be clear, I don’t think these dumb clients won’t be able to function as smart clients if they need to. Let’s say you put one of them in “airplane mode” and it just disconnects from the cloud, and you can process whatever data you want on that singular device. There won’t be a need to, though, but I’m not saying it has to be ruled out as an option. In terms of what I’ve already talked about, say you have a flash drive type device which when you walk up to any screen (be it a smart phone, monitor, screen on a fridge, kiosk in the mall, WHATEVER) it wirelessly syncs to that screen and you can interact with said device. Let’s say you are walking in a mall, as you pass screens in the mall, your device syncs to them as you are walking, while always keeping a connection to the “internet” via every other device around it. No cell towers, no ISPs, all other devices provide a connection with each other. Now I’m not saying that little device doesn’t have any processing power or storage in it,so if you don’t want it talking to other devices, it becomes useless. I’m saying that little device might have an offline mode where it can function all on it’s own, sure, but it can do so much more when interconnected to all the other technology around it. In essence, it’s what you could currently call a smart client, but in the future with all the technology interacting with each other it’s dumb by comparison.

          • Asmodai

            You’re last paragraph pretty much says what I’ve been saying all along. Your contention up to this point is that EVERYTHING (client wise) would be dumb with ALL processing done in the cloud. I’ve been sure to be clear by using words like ALL, EVERYTHING, etc. in all caps to stress that is just that totality that I object with. In your final paragraph though you note “To be clear, I don’t think these dumb clients won’t be able to function
            as smart clients if they need to. Let’s say you put one of them in
            “airplane mode” and it just disconnects from the cloud, and you can
            process whatever data you want on that singular device.” That’s exactly my point, so we agree then.

            As for the rest of your argument. I work for a company that does business all over the world. In the U.S. alone we have two major data centers (one on the east coast, one on the west coast). They fail over to each other in the case of an emergency (they load balance when both are up). It is in these data centers that our virtual servers reside. In addition to these two data centers we have dozens of sites around the country and each site employs dozens to thousands of employees depending on the site. Guess what, in the 10ish years I’ve worked here ON MULTIPLE occasions our SITE has been disconnected from the data centers. The data centers didn’t go down, they were up to all other sites but our individual site was cut off (for example there was a horrible car accident once that took down our telco lines – I guess it was above ground there – and we were offline for many hours until the fibre could be repaired.) If all of our clients were dumb everyone at that site (hundreds of people in this sites case) would have been unable to work for effectively an entire day. That is not acceptable at my work. My work will never go to completely dumb clients for reasons such as this and that’s just one example. We also aren’t unique in this.

            The networking scenarios you spell out would be a security and bandwidth nightmare. If eveyone’s devices were relaying everyone else in their areas network traffic then your bandwidth requirement is going to be insane. I’m not going to have hardware I buy be a public relay for the general populace, that would be like leaving your WiFi at home wide open so everyone in your neighborhood could just hop on to get to the internet. Besides sucking your bandwidth by splitting it between n connections you would be putting your network traffic on everyone elses devices as they relay for you in turn. That means they can stick a network traffic analyzer on their device and watch data from people around them. Sure ideally everything is well encrypted and maybe that’s just fine for home users but it’s not for many corporate and government uses.

            What I believe will happen is you will have a smart client of some sort on you. I was saying this could be your smartphone but it doesn’t have to be. Maybe it’s just a little cube that you keep in your pocket or heck even a little sub-dermal implant. Lets say for the sake of the example that the smart client is your phone. You may also have a dumb client glasses, dumb client watch, dumb client “tablet”, dumb client “laptop”, etc. These all for a little wireless LAN with your smartphone acting as the local brains for all the dumb clients as well as the gateway to the cloud. You aren’t going to let just anyone hop on that but sure you’ll be able to specify certain things to share with others either locally through a direct connection from your personal LAN to theirs (no cloud required but must actually be near each other) or to people far away through the cloud. If the cloud goes down you can still do SOME local processing, you devices aren’t useless and you can still share locally but you need the cloud up for full capabilities.

            At home you might have one household smart device that works just like the smartphone in the prior example. Maybe it’s just a little box that sits on your bookshelf. It serves as the local smart terminal for your home LAN acting as brains for your dumb toaster, dumb fridge, dumb TVs, dumb Desktop PC’s, etc. as well as your home’s gateway to the cloud. Now you and your family come home and each of them have their own personal LANs and you all join up with your home LAN. If the cloud goes down you can still communicate just fine with each others devices as well as those in the home because each of you has a smart device and the house has a smart device as well.

            In this scenario each person has to continue to have a smart device and each household has to continue to have a smart device so you really aren’t cutting down the number of smart devices much at all. Instead you are ADDING a whole bunch of dumb devices on top of it and using the cloud to sync and utilize these resources where previously you were unable to do so. So again the Cloud is a huge innovation and it will both make things we do now easier to do in the future and enable us to do things we weren’t able to do before at all. It will NOT however completely replace local computing requirements. The future is not EVERYTHING dumb locally with ALL computing done in the cloud.

          • Franklin Ramsey

            I’m still saying EVERYTHING will be a dumb client. There are dumb clients that can act as smart clients. It’s how they are used.

            In the case of your company, I already spelled out how our company and other companies I’ve worked for get around have the internet go down at a single site. We have multiple ISP providers providing connection at a site. Unless someone severs the connection from the entry point into the building, it’s very rare that all three ISP connections will go down. So in your case, if a car accident severed a single line somewhere, we still have two back up connections. The Network cost is higher, but equipment costs were lowered so we still saved money in the long run.

            As for the Network Scenario I’ve laid out, yes, it would be a nightmare by TODAY’S standards to implement. We are talking in the future. Again, Google, Facebook, Intel, and others see devices talking to each other in an ad-hoc manner as the future. I spelled out how they get around the security concerns with quantum encryption IE: if someone does look at your data, it changes by the nature of the quantum state of the data, hence it is secure.

            As for Bandwidth and having other people eat your bandwidth, I don’t think you grasp what I’m saying. You won’t have a cable modem at your home. You won’t have a router giving you a personal wifi network. The network will be EVERYTHING around you. Think of it sort of like a torrent site. If you are trying to find some information, your device pings the request to all the devices down the line and if one of them have it, that device or even multiple devices start sending you the information. If none of them have it, they relay the request on until the request hits whatever data store or device has it. Yes, the amount of processing power required to do this is alot, but again, that’s why it is in the future. Also again, companies are ALREADY working on this type of technology.

            Your view of having personal clouds and hubs are what I’m arguing will be happening in the next technological step up. We are already seeing where smartphones talk with glasses and watches, a computer can be setup for multiple users to connect into it at your home to access movies, pictures, and such. Your vision is what I consider the next technological evolutionary step. My vision is what I see coming AFTER that occurs. Where does technology go AFTER you have your own persal

          • Asmodai

            I doubt very many companies are going to have multiple ISP providers for every site. Sure some may but again I’m not the one talking in absolutes. Furthermore in the example I gave it wasn’t a single line that was cut it was a fibre trunk and it wouldn’t have mattered if we had 10,000 ISPs because they all would have connected to the same trunk line. You don’t actually think every ISP has their own dedicated lines everywhere do you? Or maybe you realize they don’t right now but you think eventually they will? No they share lines and even in wireless they make agreements with each other to allow users to roam between networks so each of them doesn’t have to build out everywhere.

            There is a HUGE difference between allowing devices to talk to each other in an ad-hoc manner and running your entire environment off of ad hoc connections. Even in my scenario the sharing from personal LAN to a strangers personal LAN locally would be done via ad hoc but it wouldn’t be sharing your entire network. It would be creating a separate ad hoc connection restricted to just the things you wanted to share because people are not going to agree to act as a relay for every random person who wants a connection near them.

            If I have imaginary future networking device A it has some sort of communication hardware (Like Uber Mega Ultra WiFi Extreme Pro v6.5) that hardware has some finite bandwidth capability. If I’m standing in a crowd and they’re all connected to me and generating networking traffic to hop to the next node (as everything will be continuously since it’s all dumb and requires an active connection to work in your scenario) then I have N connections to me at any given time which divides my total device bandwidth between them. So when I try to use said device I now have access to only 1/(N+1) of my bandwidth. So I bought a piece of hardware with this awesome bandwidth just to have only a fraction of it available to me because I’m letting N potentially random strangers who happen to be nearby suck it up. It’s not going to happen and at no time did I mention a specific current protocol or any such. It doesn’t matter what future protocol is used hardware has a finite bandwidth capability and if I own the hardware I’m not going to share my bandwidth with just anyone.

            If I’m downloading a 10TB file in the future it doesn’t matter if it’s spread across 100,000 other devices it doesn’t allow me to exceed the bandwidth capabilities of the physical device I am trying to download it to (not matter what future protocol is being used). I want 100% of that devices bandwidth for my own use (unless I specifically tell it to share something.) A torrent allows me to aggregate SLOWER connections together in order to more fully utilize MY finite bandwidth, it does not enhance the bandwidth of my device. EVERYONE is not going to just act as a relay for EVERYONE else and it would not be a very efficient thing to do even if they agreed to do so. The best thing to do is to get what data you need going through as few other systems as possible. If the data you need is located on a slower system and you don’t mind sharing it then sure split it up and share it on multiple slower systems until their combined bandwidth capabilities equal or exceed your own.

            I used the examples of glasses and watches specifically because they are becoming available now and it’s something people can relate to. In the future they may very well have dumb devices that are completely new compared to things we have today but I’m trying to keep the examples more grounded. That’s why I also went forward with the smartphone as my iconic personal LAN smart device instead of continuing with the sub-dermal implant after mentioning it as a possibility.

          • Franklin Ramsey

            Well I guess I’ll just say your vision of the future is much different than mine and agree to disagree.

            For the record, our company has two fiber ISPs and a cable or DSL ISP at each site. So if the Fiber goes down at the trunk, we still have a backup.

            Also you are talking about a device having infinite bandwidth. I’m saying technology will overcome that in the future, but I guess you don’t see that. 20 years ago, who thought we’d have smartphones with cloud computing and LTE speed wireless connections? I’m saying 20 or 30 years from now, we could have wireless devices that have 10Tbps bandwidth speeds so sharing that bandwidth between 1 device or 100 devices isn’t going to matter a whole lot. I’m also showing you with the torrent example that let’s say you have a bandwidth of 10Tbps but that you are trying to download it from a single data store that is splitting it’s connection between 100,000 devices is going to be more limiting than if you have 100,000 devices all sending you a piece of the file at the max bandwidth they can connect to you at. Which would you rather be connected to when downloading a file, a single server uploading a file to 100 people with a max bandwidth per person a 1Mbps, or 100 people sending you a piece of that file at 1Mbps each. If everyone thought in terms of how will I be limited in the future by technology as they know it today, we would never move forward.

          • Asmodai

            “For the record, our company has two fiber ISPs and a cable or DSL ISP at
            each site. So if the Fiber goes down at the trunk, we still have a
            backup.”
            Who cares? You are the ones speaking in absolutes so if you claim EVERYONE is going to do something all I have to do is provide one example to prove you are wrong. I am NOT speaking in absolutes and specifically said “Sure some may” so you providing your company as an example of one that may doesn’t in any way weaken my argument. If I say some flowers are red you can show me a ton of non-red flowers and it doesn’t make me wrong. If you say ALL flowers are red and I show you one yellow flower I’ve proved you wrong.

            I’m NOT talking about infinite bandwidth. I said finite which is the OPPOSITE of infinite. It’s a limited resources and no amount of technology is going to create a device that has unlimited bandwidth. Sure the bandwidth of future devices will far exceed that of present devices but it will still have a max capacity and people aren’t going to just hand over that limited resource to everyone who happens to be near them. In the future devices may have 10Tbps bandwidth speeds but people will be doing things individually that consume that. Just like today’s bandwidth far exceeds that of 10 years ago but now people aren’t willing to just let everyone hop on their networks because they’re trying to stream HD Video which wasn’t even possible before on slower connections but is now. So I don’t know what future things people will be doing with their 10Tbps connections but I’m sure if lots of people have it content providers will find a way to give individual users a way to utilize that full connection. You act as though in 20 to 30 years we’ll be consuming the same content just with much faster speeds. The way to use your full bandwidth is going to scale right along with your bandwidth growing.

            If I have a 10Tbps client and I’m connected to a 100Tbps server I’m not going to want the file split at all. Even if 9 other 10Tbps clients connect I don’t want it split. Furthermore if that data is sensitive I’m going to want it spread across as few systems as possible. Again I already said If the servers bandwidth is slower than mine and the data isn’t too sensitive go ahead and split it. Again I’m not the one speaking in absolutes. It is SOMETIMES good to split data up, it is NOT ALWAYS good to. Providing an example that illustrates why it is sometimes good to use a distributed network no more weakens my argument then showing a yellow flower when I say some flowers are red. You can provide all the examples you like it doesn’t strengthen your argument. Absolutes and VERY hard to prove and I’m not trying to do it. Absolutes are generally simple to disprove, you just need a single example as I have done here.

          • Franklin Ramsey

            Ok, my argument for my company was speaking toward having multiple connections being the future. I’m not saying all companies are going to be doing that in the future, I’m saying all devices are going to constitute a connection. So if you are connected through 100 devices you aren’t going to care if 10 get powered off, you still have a connection.

            I am also not talking as if people in the future won’t be able to consume 10Tbps of data all at once doing one single thing. Again, in my example, if you are maxing out your bandwidth pipeline doing one thing but are receiving different parts of that one thing from multiple places, it will allow you to maximize your bandwidth whereas connecting to a single source doesn’t.

            In your example if you have a 10Tbps and are connected to a 100Tbps server with nine other 10Tbps clients connected to it, that isn’t going to constitute a problem. Now add one more client connecting to that server. Now you have 11 10Tbps connections trying to pull data from a 100Tbps connection. Your speed just dropped. So let’s say you are all trying to access a single database. In my example, you get a little bit of data from each of those other 10 clients and your speed stays the same. Let’s say it’s a video and only 2 of you are accessing that video from the server, Your speed still stays the same cause you can grab some from that 2nd client. Now you argue if that data is sensitive you don’t want it split up across multiple devices. Again, I stated your connection is SECURED with Quantum Encryption. At that point, you don’t care how many devices that data goes across. If a device tries to look at that data, that data is changed. IE: NO ONE CAN EVER SEE YOUR DATA UNLESS YOU WANT THEM TO!

            But I can see we don’t agree so I wish you a good life and a pleasant cloud computing when it comes.

  • Raven

    This would be my next Android device if only it would come to Verizon, but we all know the odds of that happening.

  • Charles Hobbs

    Do we know which frequencies this runs on yet? Would love to import one and slap a AIO SIM in it…

    • DoctorJB
      • Charles Hobbs

        What about 3g? GSM HSPA etc…

        • DoctorJB

          Voice for ATT/Tmo is 850 and 1900 (supported). 3g for Tmo is 1700/2100 (requiring both, not supported) and 1900 (supported, where available). 3g for ATT is 850/1900 (supported).

          Verizon/Sprint are, of course, not supported by any device not intended for US market.

  • SamBoy

    Bringing back the First comment!