We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html?hp I say less PowerPoint, more Latex. <comment><USER2> As a VC, I am frustrated that Powerpoint has become the standard format for presenting a business plan. If there is ever a time not to be "hypnotizing chickens," it's when you're presenting your company for funding. Here's an anecdote to illustrate how ingrained it as become. The other day, a CEO came in to meet with me. He dutifully plugged his laptop into the projector and opened up Powerpoint to page 1 with the company name and date. Then we started talking. Half an hour later, the presentation was still open to the title page. I asked him if he was going to go through the slides. He answered, "Only if you want to, I hate powerpoint." With that, we turned off the projector and had a lively conversation. I mention that story, because it was enlightening (and disappointing) to me that someone who was a great presenter without powerpoint felt compelled to bring a PPT presentation and put it on the projector. PPT is doubly insidious because it makes for poor presentations first, and then second, the content-poor PPT becomes a leave-behind document that tries to stand on its own without the accompanying narration. It's bad enough when it is being spoken to, it's much much worse as a format for a standalone document to be read in isolation. Let me make this suggestion to startups looking for funding and meeting with VCs. The best deliverable is a 4-5 page PDF text document (with accompanying or embedded charts or diagrams where they are critical to illustrating a point). Text forces you to complete your thoughts in way that powerpoint does not. And a text document stands alone much better than a powerpoint and conveys a lot more content in the same volume of print. When you do present, use charts or diagrams to illustrate key points, not as the substance of the presentation. I don't mean to say never use PPT, that's as absurd as saying always use PPT. I recognize that for some people, powerpoint serves as an important guide as they present (a publicly visible form of notes). If you present better with PPT, by all means use it, but don't feel compelled to if you don't want to. And for those that like PPT, I would encourage you to go through the exercise of thinking through how you would present _without_ powerpoint. I think you will find that your presentation improves. You start thinking in whole concepts instead of trying to convey your ideas in bullet points.

</comment><comment><USER3> Powerpoint isn't the problem. It's a symptom. The real problem is communicating effectively with ideas/pictures.

There are two books which have made me better at this:

1\. The back of the napkin [<http://www.thebackofthenapkin.com/>]

2\. Slide:ology [<http://blog.duarte.com/book/>]

These books kick-started my journey to understanding (and appreciating) the use of diagrams, colors, fonts, and imagery for the purpose of conveying an idea.

Update: Added links.

<comment><USER4> Slide:ology has some prominent negative reviews at Amazon complaining about the content being shallow, derivative, and ad-laden.

<comment><USER3> I haven't read the remarks, but I think it's possible for people with a lot more experience than I do to make that sort of assessment and be spot on.

It helped _me_.

One day, with any luck, I'll be able to look back and make the same remarks. Hopefully it will be because I'll be a lot better at it by then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When I was in the military, I experienced this. I have a dagger on my bookshelf engraved with "Powerpoint Ranger" precisely because my colleagues knew my disdain for Powerpoint. I felt like technical accuracy was sacrificed for the sake of fitting a situational description in a table or a bullet point. Keep in mind, this kind of reporting wasn't for a live presentation or to summarize some other more thorough communicate. It was our communication medium. Take each event, update the slides, mail them out in the morning. Ugh. God help you if your font or colors deviate from the expected standard. Also, the General does not like orphan bullets. Watch out for those too.

I keep a copy of Tufte's "The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint" on my bookshelf now. If you ever want some arguments against PowerPoint, I recommend reading it.

</comment><comment><USER6> PowerPoint is great as a replacement for Malcolm Gladwell / Joel Spolsky style essays. The ones where you tell a funny story, and deliver a few key points, but don't actually explain everything. It is good when you trust the author, and don't have to get up to speed on the details.

Trust is important, because the presenter doesn't have to explain themselves very well. The emotive impact of pictures (or funny stories) can trick you into thinking they have filled the credibility gap. Malicious presenters can leave out details that should really be there - such as how the implementation will actually occur, or the justification of decisions, and so on.

It's also good if you already understand the details, or if you don't know or care about the technicalities. A written report has more space for the technicalities, which is very important if the information has to flow out of the silo you are in, or if the reader wants to drill down and check that you actually know what you are talking about.

I think that the whole "interactions" bit is a little over-hyped. PowerPoint can include interactions, and reports can leave them out.

</comment><comment><USER7> In many software companies I have seen powerpoints replace design documents and technical solutions. The most recent case I came across was in a company which needed to improve product quality and reduce testing time. As an engineer, to me thats a simple problem of doing automated testing (there is only partial automation at this point). That should be simple as the product is actually a library.

But then the testing team decides that "we have a problem that needs to be solved". It starts of as slides with "vision" with "goals" and how to achieve it we need to develop "critical thinking" and have "better recruitment practices" and what not. Now the ppt is about 50 slides with all kinds of zen pictures and 1 bullet buried inside saying we need automated tests. After a few more reviews it will be presented to the entire organization as "strategy" document.

<comment><USER8> Such overwrought, content-free PowerPoint presentations have their place: Hell.

Maybe the problem could be averted if the presentations were replaced with short articles, like blog posts. It would be hard to do worse than what you've described.

<comment><USER7> I have generally found simple text files to be most effective in actually solving problems. The moment it moves to richer formats, some amount of mental bandwidth is taken up by the presentation aspect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Gettysburg Powerpoint Presentation <http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/index.htm>

<comment><USER10> That could be so much funnier if it weren't a lazy translation. It needs some interlude image-only slides, single-word slides, "Fin" slide, etc.

<comment><USER11> It's 10 years old. PowerPoint looked like that, then. The style you're referring to is much newer.

Although, it would be fun to do a hipster-with-Keynote update of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >"Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable."

Anyone else tickled by the (presumably unintentional) pun here?

<comment><USER13> love it. Was just getting ready to post this myself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's not surprising that PowerPoint endangers soldiers, when it is well known to kill astronauts.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/08...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901444.html)

[http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg?msg_id=0...](http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg?msg_id=0001yB)

After edit: Somehow, I think the most effective international terrorists manage to do without PowerPoint entirely, but have interactive CONVERSATIONS on a need-to-know basis about important operational details. Maybe the United States armed forces should look into doing the same.

</comment><comment> brown9-2 _No one is suggesting that PowerPoint is to blame for mistakes in the current wars, but the program did become notorious during the prelude to the invasion of Iraq. As recounted in the book "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks (Penguin Press, 2006), Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, who led the allied ground forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, grew frustrated when he could not get Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander at the time of American forces in the Persian Gulf region, to issue orders that stated explicitly how he wanted the invasion conducted, and why. Instead, General Franks just passed on to General McKiernan the vague PowerPoint slides that he had already shown to Donald H. Rumsfeld, the defense secretary at the time._

This probably sounds eerily familiar to any developer who works in a mid-sized company or larger.

And I thought getting UI designs as PPT slides was bad...

</comment><comment><USER15> It doesn't matter how effectively you critique or ridicule a product/process/technique/habit. That won't make it go away.

It goes away only when you offer _an alternative_ which is catchier/easier/more elegant.

</comment><comment><USER16> Unfortunate for PowerPoint that it's become synonymous with idioms like "mindmapping" and the bullet point, which seem to be the devices this piece is really raging against. I see PowerPoint as a quite unconstrained way to present an series of arbitrary images, paired with an image editor that's evidently more usable than anything else business- and military-types can get their hand on. Perhaps it's the tradition surrounding slide presentations, and not the software used, that permits speakers to be inarticulate and longwinded.

</comment><comment><USER17> "It's dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control,"

This would explain why it's so popular for middle management type meetings. People talking about things they don't understand but are responsible for have to give the impression that they're in charge.

</comment><comment><USER18> For me, Powerpoint has always been a handy tool for limping through speaking in front of others. Handy source of notes, gives the audience something to stare at that isn't me.

Probably not the best aide for /improving/ at public speaking, though.

</comment><comment><USER19> > "hypnotizing chickens."

This phrase needs to enter the popular lexicon.

<comment><USER20> It's not entirely foreign. Burroughs wrote about it in the 60s and then Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life" referenced that in 1977. Iggy's song has had resurgences in 1996 (Trainspotting) and 2007 (Guitar Hero). There's a long treatment of chicken hypnosis in the book "The Power of One" which was made into a movie sometime in the 90s.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust_for_Life_(song)>

<comment><USER20> Listening to the song now... <http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/Lust+for+Life/2C5QwY>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Blaming a bad presentation on PowerPoint is like blaming an ugly building on the architect's drafting table.

(Do architects still use drafting tables, or is it all computerized?)

<comment><USER11> Only if said drafting tables are marketed as enabling the owner, regardless of training or abilities, to build a high-rise in an afternoon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The title of this piece is a parody of the classic Pogo comic strip where the phrase was coined "We have met the enemy, and he is us" (from 1972, referring to the rapid pollution of the planet).

wiki has more about it here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comics)#.22We_have_met_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_\(comics\)#.22We_have_met_the_enemy....22)

</comment><comment><USER23> I suppose since he was head of Sun at the time, pointing out that Scot McNealy banned powerpoint presentations back in '96 isn't especially supportive of the "ppt bad" camp...

(grep <http://www.acs.org.au/president/1996/atm/npc/im961009.htm> fr "powerpoint")

<comment><USER24> Mc Nealy banned all Microsoft products at Sun, period. It was much more of an emotional decision than a rational one, and all it did was force thousands of employees to go through bureaucratic hell to receive exemptions just so they could get their work done. Yes, I was there, and it was one of Mc Nealy's comically horrible decisions as a CEO (he made many more).

And then, the next step was trying to find a Windows machine... Some employees sometimes had to go to a different building just to fill expense reports.

Good times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's not so funny when you think that everyone depicted in the diagram is heavily armed. McChrystal is right though, rearrange the dependencies into a more controllable bureaucracy (like writing a program) and you will have a better chance of success.

</comment><comment><USER26> The article alludes to this: there's an entire subculture at DoD dedicated to creating PowerPoint decks. Lots of really high-paid contractors have the main job of creating PowerPoints for senior command. The whole place runs off of PowerPoint.

After I read Beyond Bullet Points, my opinion of presentations totally changed. Back of the Napkin helped some, but BBP really ingrained in me the right way to do a deck.

Now when I teach or present, I have a brief deck full of pictures and conveying a simple, reasoned discussion not involving a lot of data.

What happens is that the PPT takes the place of the thinking that goes into analysis. That's really, really bad. Instead, do the thinking, solve the problem, make a recommendation, come up with the couple of points you have to teach, THEN create a multimedia presentation around it. Presentations are like movies -- people absorb them differently than a book. Too often the people making PowerPoints are trying to write a book or impress us with their knowledge of graphics, and the information overload leads to "death by PowerPoint"

</comment><comment><USER27> Powerpoint is not the disease, it's the symptom.

</comment><comment><USER24> Yet another article saying "Powerpoint sucks" without offering any alternatives.

<comment><USER28> Alternatives include directly speaking to other human beings coupled with intelligent charts, graphs, writing, and other representations of data.

<comment><USER24> All of which you can do with PowerPoint. The article is more against bullet point presentations than PowerPoint.</comment></comment></comment>


The Superbook: Turn your smartphone into a laptop for $99 - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andromium/the-superbook-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-laptop-f/description <comment><USER2> Motorola did this 5 years ago. Nobody cared. [http://www.digitaltrends.com/buying-guides/a-complete- guide-...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/buying-guides/a-complete-guide-to-the- motorola-atrix-the-only-phone-laptop/)

I think the main problem is who wants to carry around a laptop that you have to plug your phone in to use? That's a pretty big "Accessory." I mean, if you already are carrying something around as big as a laptop, why cripple it with phone hardware?

I think a more compelling use-case would be a phone dock video and usb connections. But I don't know if even that is compelling enough to be successful.\

I've thought that a phone would make a great trackpad for a laptop. Maybe instead of the phone being the laptop, it just integrates nicely (app sync, etc...) and you socket in as a trackpad and secondary "info" display.

<comment><USER3> My buddy had an atrix and he got the laptop dock; it was actually OK, but since it was limited to that one phone it didn't work out long term (he switched phones about a year in).

There are probably folks who don't do much more than word processing and email, in which case this (a screen + keyboard + battery for your phone) might actually be useful. I feel like this is the niche that tablets w/ keyboards fill -- this will have to compete directly with those. It has the benefit of the trackpad, which feels more like a full laptop.

<comment><USER4> I still have a Lapdock. I use mine as a handy workbench monitory/keyboard/battery setup for the plethora of small device I have that fit in its squid-like cable adapters: raspberry Pi's, beagleboards, and so on. If but for that stupid decision to make non-standard i/o ports, the Lapdock probably could have been a more useful general-purpose dock, already.

That's really something to keep in mind. Superbook is one thing, but its really just a fixed Lapdock with a different ethos regarding interoperability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh hey guys, this is us. Thanks for posting!

I wasn't going to post our product in HN, since tech-specs wise this tends to be a high-end audience, but I wanted to share a little bit about what we're trying to accomplish and the reasoning behind the entry level specs.

The Superbook is the attempt to prove that the concept of device convergence and the benefits of continuum are exciting enough to 1) get most people to not need a laptop and 2) to provide mobile-first economies to have an affordable option to do work without switching OS or need to buy another device.

Is it going to replace the MBP in silicon valley? Not yet. Most of the time I require higher specs too. But for most of the world that uses their laptop primarily for browsing the internet, writing documents, and watching movies on a larger screen - it's enough. And it's also affordable enough that everyone can try the concept out. We're aiming to build both the hardware _and_ software that makes this possible, with enough flexibility that you can run it on any Android phone and with no technical knowledge needed.

What's probably my favorite use case: having come from a non-profit background (YC S14, Bayes Impact) it's really awesome to see tech impact the world. We are really really excited to be working with the Nelson Mandela Long Walk to Freedom Education Project to provide Superbooks to kids in South Africa so they can learn without restraints. Even having the basic keyboard, mouse, and display will provide a great opportunity to better take in content and engage.

Happy to pop back in [doing Kickstarter support for the next hour] and answer questions if folks on HN are curious. We're also in SF, so feel free to reach out and drop by to see the prototypes! (email in profile)

<comment><USER6> Is there any way your hardware would support something like being the KVM for a headless server (or family member's computer that you are working on) or something?

<comment><USER7> Seems unlikely, given that it lacks any kind of networking (it relies on the phone for that). Of course, with a phone plugged into it you could use an android VNC app.

<comment><USER6> I meant physically plugging it in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How many times do we have to watch this exact kickstarter project fail to deliver? There have been countless made for phones, raspberry pis, and tablets. Maybe they'll ship, but the ux is trash especially considering you can get a chromebook for $100 more.

What is the actual benefit of this device? Instead of toting around a chromebook, you tote around the shell of a chromebook? My laptop is never 'out of sync' that problem was fixed years ago. IF I wanted laptop productivity I'd... use a laptop?

<comment><USER9> I'm not really sure why people keep thinking that you're supposed to lug this around. If I were to get this, I would only use it at home when a keyboard and bigger screen would be nice; or I would buy one for the office and the house. imo the whole point of this is so you wouldn't have to carry anything huge anymore.

<comment><USER10> Then why a laptop form factor? Laptops exist to be lugged around.

<comment><USER11> If I'm going to park one at home and at the office, it's going to have to be better than what $99 buys you. Hell, my desk keyboard alone costs more than that. So I compromise with that teensy eensy screen and (what I have to guess to be...) a mediocre-at-best keyboard so that I ... don't have to carry it around? Why not a docking station into which I can plug whatever screen and keyboard I desire?

I dunno, I don't care to come across as a hater, but this looks like one of those things that is cool at first glance with all kinds of possible use cases, but you buy it, reality kicks in, and it gathers dust after a month.

<comment><USER9> I don't disagree with your desire for better quality, but as of this moment; I'm not aware of any competing products that allow your phone to transform into a laptop. The only one I was aware of is a Motorola product from 2-3 years back. If there is one, feel free to link to it.

Your complaint sounds a lot like the complaints that people made when the iPhone first came out: nitpicking the specs and disregarding the paradigm shift that it brings to the table.

<comment><USER10> This isn't a paradigm shift. This is dock for your phone. It's literally the same paradigm as a laptop dock. You plug in your device and get to use it with a bigger screen and keyboard. That's all.

I've been proven wrong before, so it could certainly happen again, but I just cannot see this being a widely-desired product. How large is the set of people who want a tiny, low-powered laptop that is useless without a phone tethered to it? This is a geek fantasy, where we imagine that having a single computing device is better somehow, despite there being no meaningful scenarios that this enables.

<comment><USER9> > This isn't a paradigm shift. This is dock for your phone. It's literally the > same paradigm as a laptop dock.

This is NOT a laptop dock. You speak as if there are already tons of other docks for phones. I'm not aware of any aside from that old Motorola dock. Am I wrong?

You can say the same thing about the iPhone. "It's just a Blackberry without the keyboard... or a Palm without a pen." "The app store is not anything new that we haven't seen from the carriers" The list goes on.

> How large is the set of people who want a tiny, low-powered laptop that is > useless without a phone tethered to it?

I don't know but I do know in Asia (and in places like Manhattan) there are a lot of people who live in tiny apartments and who primarily use their phones as their primary (or really their only) personal computer. This would be useful for them. It may not be this company that popularizes this design, but I predict it will be widespread in the coming years.

> despite there being no meaningful scenarios that this enables

ok this is already not true. Not having to carry something as big as a laptop is already a meaningful use case.

> This is a geek fantasy, where we imagine that having a single computing > device is better someho

It's not a fantasy when 1. someone has already made it and 2. when you look beyond the suburbs and your own needs and taste. Not everyone needs a super powered laptop or for that matter can even afford one. Also not everyone knows how to sync their phone with their other computer

<comment><USER10> > _You speak as if there are already tons of other docks for phones._

I didn't speak that way at all. This isn't a new category of device or concept (given Motorola's device and Continuum from Microsoft), but that's not the point. A paradigm shift is not merely defined by the creation of a new product. "Hey, I taped a duck to a car. Everybody needs a duckcar. What a paradigm shift!"

The point is that this isn't a useful product for the vast majority of people. Who wants to sit on the couch using their laptop with a phone awkwardly tethered to it? Who wants to have a laptop that they can't simply hand to someone else to use (without also handing them their phone, or having them install some app on their phone, which must also run Android). Who wants to invest $100 (more after the early bird kickstarter stuff is done) in a device that has a crummy screen and probably a crummy touchpad and keyboard when they could buy a better chromebook or similar device for $200, and end up with a laptop that doesn't have the same shortcomings? Who's needs are better filled by this than by a separate device?

Again, I think this is a geek fantasy. We see two devices that are both computers and think "hey, we should merge these". But that doesn't provide any _utility_. It doesn't save much if any money. It doesn't enable new functionality. It does exactly what mikestew said: it gathers dust.

This is very much like the Asus Padphone. It sounds interesting to merge a phone and a tablet like this, but it's not actually useful. You just end up with a tablet that's useless without the phone. It's not a better experience in any way.

<comment><USER9> > This isn't a new category of device or concep

Neither was the iPhone or the iPad ("it's just a bigger iPhone")

> The point is that this isn't a useful product for the vast majority of > people.

How do you know for sure? This isn't a device that's targeted for HN users.

> But that doesn't provide any utility.

It does and you still haven't disputed my point: Not having to carry a 12in laptop in the subway. There are also plenty of people who are too poor to afford a laptop. They can afford this. Also there are also a lot of people who can't afford cloud features and don't know how to sync a phone and laptop.

> that has a crummy screen and probably a crummy touchpad

There are many people who don't care about the specs in this world. Not everyone is a techie and not everyone wants the very best.

> It doesn't enable new functionality.

No it doesn't for us, but it does for people who don't own a separate desktop or laptop. You have to look beyond yourself, your own social circle, and the suburbs that you live in.

> Who wants to have a laptop that they can't simply hand to someone else to > use

Similar to how a lot of smart phones really suck on battery life, I can imagine accessories being made for this - like a case with a clip or better yet a case with a slip cover that you can slide the phone into. Even then at this price point and given the demographic that they're targetting, this probably won't be a problem.

> This is very much like the Asus Padphone. It sounds interesting to merge a > phone and a tablet like this, but it's not actually useful.

That's funny. Everyone, including myself, made fun of Samsung for doing the same thing with the Note. Phablets have been selling just fine for years now. Again just because it's not useful for you personally, it doesn't mean that there isn't a market or need for it. The only thing that the Asus Padphone proves is that ideas are cheap. Execution is where it counts.

<comment><USER10> > _Neither was the iPhone or the iPad ( "it's just a bigger iPhone")_

The iPhone was a paradigm shift because it was SO MUCH BETTER. The iPad was a paradigm shift because it was a new form factor that people wanted. It solved the problem of reading on a small phone screen (especially before large screen phones were common) and the problem of lugging/holding a laptop for reading. It also got better battery life than most laptops and phones at the time.

In what way is this a better experience?

> _How do you know for sure? This isn 't a device that's targeted for HN > users._

Who is the target, then?

> _It does and you still haven 't disputed my point: Not having to carry a > 12in laptop in the subway._

How does this solve the problem of carrying a laptop? It is effectively a laptop, just a less useful/more limited one. Yeah, you can just not carry this, and I guess that "solves" the problem, but you can also just not carry your laptop and the problem is solved the same way.

> _There are also plenty of people who are too poor to afford a laptop. They > can afford this._

These hypothetical people can afford a high-powered phone and $100 for a glorified dock but can't afford $150 for a dedicated chromebook. You think this is really a large population of potential customers? You think a lot of people who cannot afford $150 are going to spend $100 on a clearly non- critical device?

> _Also there are also a lot of people who can 't afford cloud features and > don't know how to sync a phone and laptop._

Your hypothetical customer base seems really farfetched. If you "can't afford cloud features", you probably can't afford a $100 dock. In reality, this customer base is largely using the free 15 gigs from Google. The people who can't afford to pay for more exist, but they're not likely to be buying this, and they're not likely to be using high-end phones with huge amounts of storage either, so the problem of syncing is a bit of a red herring anyway.

As for not _knowing_ how to sync a laptop and phone, no one does that manually anymore. You use web-based products for most things and the stuff like photos gets gets synced automatically.

> _No it doesn 't for us, but it does for people who don't own a separate > desktop or laptop. You have to look beyond yourself, your own social circle, > and the suburbs that you live in._

Are poor people supposed to be too dumb to realize that they would be better off buying a chromebook for only a little more? Your children can use your chromebook for homework while you check the news on your phone or take it with you to the store. You can leave your chromebook for your spouse when you go to work. You can still use your chomebook when your phone battery is dead. This is not a replacement for a laptop. It's a phone accessory. The kickstarter page says so clearly.

Do you imagine that there is an army of poor people holding exactly $100 and desperate to spend it on luxury technology and not, say, basic necessities?

> _That 's funny. Everyone, including myself, made fun of Samsung for doing > the same thing with the Note. Phablets have been selling just fine for years > now. Again just because it's not useful for you personally, it doesn't mean > that there isn't a market or need for it. The only thing that the Asus > Padphone proves is that ideas are cheap. Execution is where it counts._

Maybe type "asus padphone" (or "asus padfone" since I guess I spelled it wrong) into a search engine to see what I'm talking about before responding dismissively? The padfone wasn't a "phablet". It was a phone that could mount in a tablet dock to become a tablet. It was a niche item that didn't catch on despite multiple iterations because a tablet that's useless without a phone and costs almost as much as a standalone tablet has a pretty small market of mostly gadget geeks.

<comment><USER9> > The iPhone was a paradigm shift because it was SO MUCH BETTER

Yes. Now techies know that in hindsight. However before it was released many of us complained that the specs were crap and that it didn't have a physical keyboard which is why I used it as an example. The same thing happened with the iPad when it was derided as just a "bigger iPhone" and that "there have been plenty of good enough Windows based tablets in existence".

> In what way is this a better experience?

I'm not going to repeat my other points a 3rd time. I've already made my points in my previous replies.

> It solved the problem of reading on a small phone screen (especially before > large screen phones were common) and the problem of lugging/holding a laptop > for reading

What if you don't want a separate tablet or can't afford a decent one? What if you don't want to lug around anything the size of a tablet? There are also issues with sync. These are all common issues for non-techies living in urban areas with little living space.

> These hypothetical people can afford a high-powered phone and $100 for a > glorified dock but can't afford $150 for a dedicated chromebook.

The first chromebooks launched at $350 with decent ones at $450 (using your example "Why would anyone want to buy a chrome book when a real laptop is $50 more? What features does it have that MS laptops dont? Why would anyone buy a device that only works if you hvae an internet connection?"). Given time, better logistics, and scale; $100 probably isn't going to be the long term price for this type of dock so there will eventually be a greater price difference than just $50 (within 1-2 years it'll be priced at $50 and maybe even less). History has proven time and again that electronics get cheaper, faster, and better over time. Aside from price, there's also the issue of syncing between two devices.

> In reality, this customer base is largely using the free 15 gigs from > Google.

There are millions of people who can't afford a phone with Android proper (bundled with Google services and apps) and therefore don't have the free 15 gigs. There are also a lot of people who get charged exhorbitant fees for data (wifi and mobile). This only seems far fetched if you no experience with developing nations or even provinces.

> Do you imagine that there is an army of poor people holding exactly $100 and > desperate to spend it on luxury technology and not, say, basic necessities?

I don't have to imagine anything. Even in China's poorest remote countrysides, many farmers own LCD TVs. Some even have a satellite dish to pair with it.

> Maybe type "asus padphone" (or "asus padfone" since I guess I spelled it > wrong) into a search engine to see what I'm talking about before responding > dismissively?

The problem with this example is the same as citing the Motorola Atria (or Motorola's docking phone). Only a specific phone model from a specific manufacturer can use the dock. This is really different from being able to use ANY Android phone. Also most people don't have access to telecom phone subsidies which shave off a few hundred $ off the true price. The PadPhone was released at $550 without a keyboard which is a big difference when you compare it to $100.

<comment><USER10> > _Yes. Now techies know that in hindsight. However before it was released > many of us complained that the specs were crap..._

You're making the mistake of assuming that because occasionally new products are dismissed incorrectly (iPhone, iPad), that means other new products being dismissed are being incorrectly dismissed. New products get introduced quite frequently and most of them never gain any traction.

> _I 'm not going to repeat my other points a 3rd time. I've already made my > points in my previous replies._

Yeah, you haven't actually enumerated real problems that this solves. You are ignoring real issues with this design (useless without a phone) and claiming benefits it doesn't have (no need to carry it? Cheaper?). The only benefit seems to be that you don't need to sync it.

> _What if you don 't want a separate tablet or can't afford a decent one? > What if you don't want to lug around anything the size of a tablet? There > are also issues with sync. These are all common issues for non-techies > living in urban areas with little living space._

Then you don't buy an iPad. I'm not sure what your point was with all this.

> _The first chromebooks launched at $349 (using your example "Why would > anyone want to buy a chrome book when a real laptop is $50 more? What > features does it have that MS laptops dont? Why would anyone buy a device > that only works if you hvae an internet connection?")._

Yeah, the first chrome books were too expensive and basically no one bought them because they were a terrible buy. I feel like you're making my argument for me at this point.

> _Given time, better logistics, and scale; $100 probably isn 't going to be > the long term price for this type of dock so there will eventually be a > greater price difference than just $50 (within 1-2 years it'll be priced at > $50 and maybe even less). History has proven time and again that electronics > get cheaper, faster, and better over time._

Yep, Chromebooks are getting cheaper too. In 1-2 years a Chromebook will probably cost $100. I don't know why you imagine that this think will drop in price but a Chromebook prices will stagnate, especially since this this is basically just a Chromebook without the processor.

> _Aside from price, there 's also the issue of syncing between two devices._

You are way overstating this issue. The set of people who can install the app and get this working overlaps hugely with the set of people who can manage basic sync.

> _There are millions of people who can 't afford a phone with Android proper > (bundled with Google services and apps) and therefore don't have the free 15 > gigs. There are also a lot of people who get charged exhorbitant fees for > data (wifi and mobile). This only seems far fetched if you no experience > with developing nations or even provinces._

And people who can't afford Android phones are the target market? Which is why this thing only has a qwerty keyboard and an American power plug?

If I couldn't afford a full fledged Android phone, I also don't know if I'd spend $100 on a dock that requires Android to operate. That's a risky purchase. Does the app even work without Google services? (I honestly don't know.) Will your phone be powerful enough for the dock? (They require a pretty high spec phone.)

> _I don 't have to imagine anything. Even in China's poorest remote > countrysides, many farmers own LCD TVs. Some even have a satellite dish to > pair with it._

Yep, because a TV and satellite provide real entertainment value. The question is what value this dock delivers to that poor rural farmer that makes it worth $100.

> _The problem with this example is the same as citing the Motorola Atria (or > Motorola 's docking phone). Only a specific phone model from a specific > manufacturer can use the dock. This is really different from being able to > use ANY Android phone. Also most people don't have access to telecom phone > subsidies which shave off a few hundred $ off the true price. The PadPhone > was released at $550 without a keyboard which is a big difference when you > compare it to $100._

You're right. These guys have perfected the English keyboard and American power plug dock that rural farmers in China have been waiting for. This is definitely not a bad product and the past failures of similar products do not in any way indicate the lack of a market, only that the product wasn't perfect. But this product is perfect for the rural Chinese market they are clearly aiming for with their English Kickstarter page and high end phone requirements. They fixed the one and only problem which was that previous products didn't work with as many phones.

Edit: At this point, I should point out that you aren't even arguing that this is a good product anymore. You're arguing that some hypothetical future version that costs half as much could be a good product.

<comment><USER9> > You're making the mistake of assuming that because occasionally new products > are dismissed incorrectly

Well your mistake is that my assumption is less correct than yours. What makes you 100% sure that your dismissals are correct? Right now the market hasn't proven either of us right. Give it 3-5 years. Right now the Kickstarter campaign is in my favor.

> Yeah, you haven't actually enumerated real problems that this solves.

I can argue that you're ignoring problems I bring up just because it doesn't apply to you personally. Having to carry a laptop everywhere is a real pain point which increases depending on where you live. Just because it isn't a problem for you personally it doesn't mean that it's not a real problem that a lot of people face, even in the US. It's hard to understand this if you've never lived in a dense urban metro. People don't usually go straight home to their closet sized apartment. They stay out for hours before going home and usually they don't have a car.

> You are ignoring real issues with this design (useless without a phone)

It's like arguing headphones are bad because you can't use them without an audio device. This is just a bad argument. Both headphones and this dock augment the products that they pair with; not being an independent product doesn't make it bad.

> Yeah, the first chrome books were too expensive and basically no one bought > them because they were a terrible buy.

Yet the price eventually came down and now they're a force to be reckoned with even though they still have most of the weaknesses that pundits complained about. It's still possible to buy a real laptop for a little more cash. I'm pretty sure this favors my side of the argument and not yours.

> The set of people who can install the app and get this working overlaps > hugely with the set of people who can manage basic sync.

How can you be so sure about this? Installing an app is much easier than syncing two or more devices. Besides this isn't only issue preventing sync, which again you're conveniently ignoring.

> And people who can't afford Android phones are the target market? Which is > why this thing only has a qwerty keyboard and an American power plug?

I was speaking about the long term potential of the device, and not short term, initial quarterly sales figures. Chromebook wouldn't exist if Google made its decision solely on the 1st year of sales.

> I also don't know if I'd spend $100 on a dock that requires Android to > operate.

It probably wont' be $100 by the time it reaches those markets.

> Yep, because a TV and satellite provide real entertainment value

And phones with installed movies and video games don't?

> But this product is perfect for the rural Chinese market they are clearly > aiming for with their English Kickstarter page and high end phone > requirements

Yes it totally makes sense for them to market a Chinese product for American Kickstarter backers. /s rural China isn't the only part of the developing world either. You're thinking in too limited of a time frame and too small of a geographic area as well as demographic, it doesn't have room for vision.

> At this point, I should point out that you aren't even arguing that this is > a good product anymore.

The iPhone wasn't a good product. It was a revolutionary one with lots of flaws. The same goes for the iPad and a lot of devices that made a major impact. This one included. Whether or not this company succeeds is another matter, but I fully believe that this class of device will be part of the future.

<comment><USER10> > _What makes you 100% sure that your dismissals are correct?_

Nothing. I said in my first comment that I could be wrong. I'm pretty confident that this is not anything but a niche product at best, but I could be missing the use case.

> _I can argue that you 're ignoring problems I bring up just because it > doesn't apply to you personally. Having to carry a laptop everywhere is a > real pain point which increases depending on where you live. Just because it > isn't a problem for you personally it doesn't mean that it's not a real > problem that a lot of people face, even in the US. It's hard to understand > this if you've never lived in a dense urban metro. People don't usually go > straight home to their closet sized apartment. They stay out for hours > before going home and usually they don't have a car._

This device doesn't solve that problem at all. Unless you assume you're going to buy two of these things, one for the office and one for home, at which point you're clearly talking about people with significant amounts of disposable cash who could solve this many other ways. A cheap desktop/laptop at home and remote desktop to work solves this for work stuff. So does OneDrive or Office 365 or Google Drive or DropBox or Box or a number of other services that you can definitely afford if you would even consider buying two of these just to avoid carrying your laptop home because you want to hang out in a bar for a few hours.

> _It 's like arguing headphones are bad because you can't use them without an > audio device. This is just a bad argument. Both headphones and this dock > augment the products that they pair with; not being an independent product > doesn't make it bad._

It makes it bad when the alternative is a standalone device that solves all the same problems and delivers many extra features for little extra money.

A better analogy than regular headphones might be noise-cancelling headphones. You can buy a set of noise-cancelling headphones that operate by themselves. A hypothetical set of headphones that cost $30 less but can't be used by themselves because they rely on the phone to pick up the ambient noise would be a terrible option. It's not enough cheaper to justify the need to tether to a phone for functionality that the standalone product delivers better.

> _Yet the price eventually came down and now they 're a force to be reckoned > with even though they still have most of the weaknesses that pundits > complained about. It's still possible to buy a real laptop for a little more > cash. I'm pretty sure this favors my side of the argument and not yours._

It doesn't favor the argument that this specifically is a good product. If you can pick up one for $30 in a few years, I might feel differently.

> _How can you be so sure about this? Installing an app is much easier than > syncing two or more devices. Besides this isn 't only issue preventing sync, > which again you're conveniently ignoring._

If you can install an app and use it for this, you can install an app and use it for sync. Sync isn't rocket science. You're also conveniently ignoring the other issues with this device, such as the fact that most apps don't support, e.g., resizeable and multiple windows.

> _I was speaking about the long term potential of the device, and not short > term, initial quarterly sales figures. Chromebook wouldn 't exist if Google > made its decision solely on the 1st year of sales._

I actually don't think it has much long-term potential either, because by the time this device hits a reasonable price point, chromebooks and laptops will still be close.

> _And phones with installed movies and video games don 't?_

No moreso than laptops/chromebooks with the same videogames and movies installed. If you mostly want to watch movies and play games, you can also buy a tablet for $50 and probably be happier than you would with either of these options.

> _Yes it totally makes sense for them to market a Chinese product for > American Kickstarter backers. /s rural China isn't the only part of the > developing world either. You're thinking in too limited of a time frame and > too small of a geographic area as well as demographic, it doesn't have room > for vision._

I was using your example. If you rephase it in terms of any other developing area, the same criticism applies, because there's no developing area I'm aware of using North American plugs and an English qwerty keyboard. I get that you think this product will develop into something useful over time, but I think a standalone laptop will always be right there costing barely more and delivering more value.

I think they're targeting the US audience because you've got to market something like this to people with significant disposable cash because it delivers little actual value beyond novelty.

> _The iPhone wasn 't a good product. It was a revolutionary one with lots of > flaws. The same goes for the iPad and a lot of devices that made a major > impact. This one included. Whether or not this company succeeds is another > matter, but I fully believe that this class of device will be part of the > future._

Could be, but I doubt it. We'll see.

<comment><USER9> > This device doesn't solve that problem at all. Unless you assume you're > going to buy two of these things, one for the office and one for home, at > which point you're clearly talking about people with significant amounts of > disposable cash who could solve this many other ways.

It still solves a problem that exists, which is maybe why they've already met there Kickstarter goal 10 times over. People in developing nations may have different problems this would solve.

> A better analogy than regular headphones might be noise-cancelling > headphones.

A new convoluted analogy isn't going to change the fact that "this isn't a viable product because it's 'useless without a phone'" is a terrible argument.

> If you can pick up one for $30 in a few years, I might feel differently.

So now you're saying it's viable but just too expensive? It's going to hit that price one day and maybe even below.

> If you can install an app and use it for this, you can install an app and > use it for sync. Sync isn't rocket science.

This is definitely not true outside of techies.

> by the time this device hits a reasonable price point, chromebooks and > laptops will still be close.

I think I've already pointed this out, but detractors of the Chromebook used the same reasoning as to why Chromebook would die. They were wrong.

> If you mostly want to watch movies and play games, you can also buy a tablet > for $50 and probably be happier than you would with either of these options.

Since it's just a screen and keyboard, you do realize that this is a cheaper tablet right? The only reason it's not cheaper now is because only one company is aware of this device class's future and potential. Besides, I've already proven my point that people in developing nations spend money on non-life critical electronics.

> because there's no developing area I'm aware of using North American plugs > and an English qwerty keyboard.

There's a country called the Philippines that meets this criteria with a population of 100 million. Even if that didn't exist, have you seen an East Asian keyboard? It's basically a western keyboard with extra ideograph (hanzi/kanji) characters on top of the letters. Repurposing this device with a different keyboard and power cable wouldn't be hard. Nitpicking unimportant details can stop people from seeing the big picture.

> I think they're targeting the US audience because you've got to market > something like this to people with significant disposable cash because it > delivers little actual value beyond novelty.

Yes for now, and apparently people here do see value in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Always when I see concepts like this I feel like it's a great idea but after few minutes I really can not think of a use-case for me.

First I would like to have a phone with x86 cpu so I could run the same software as on my desktop, without real desktop cpu it will be hard to use device like that as laptop replacement.

Secondly why would I like to carry something like that instead of normal laptop. I understand I can buy e.g. two devices one for work one for home but still why not just have a two laptops and sync stuff using cloud.

I think it's not a future, the future is folding device that could work as phone and unfolded as laptop. We are not there yet to combine everything in one device that would be useful for every use-case.

<comment><USER13> I would like a docking station that has a fast CPU and lots of RAM. When the phone is plugged in, you can use the computing power of the docking station instead of the phone CPU. And it should run windows or OSX apps.

<comment><USER14> And it would.. what? Use the display of your phone?

Otherwise you're literally describing a computer.

<comment><USER13> Sorry, forgot the 27 inch screen, external mouse, keyboard and USB Hub. In short, my phone contains the OS and my data and it can be used on small screens or multi-monitor setups.

<comment><USER15> You've described using a phone as a mass storage device.

<comment><USER11> He just described iOS/MacOS/iCloud (s%/iCloud/Dropbox, or whatever you prefer for centralized storage). If I'm going to use the phone just for data, then I might as well open that presentation from iCloud from my MacBook that's plugged into my 27" monitor and Das Keyboard (insert your kb of choice). Because _that_ I know works. Experience tells me kludgey rigmarole like the proposed or even the Superbook just don't work as well as you hoped when you POSTed your cc number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm confused by this stretch goal:

$1M - Option to upgrade to 1080p HD screen (w/ additional cost)

... which would suggest that the original screen spec is _actually lower_ than "1080p" ?

Obligatory: [https://xkcd.com/732/](https://xkcd.com/732/)

<comment><USER17> Re: 1080p.

We lived with 480 _i_ in our most-used display for a _very_ long time :-)

(comment written on my aging MBP with a 700-something screen, rather than 1080/retina class display)

<comment><USER18> We also lived in caves for a long time too, I don't see people lining up for that.

LCD's are so damn cheap now there's really no excuse for anything under 1080p. I've seen chromebooks with 4K displays for $300.

<comment><USER17> Forgot to mention: once you reach a certain pixel density, you really hit the point of diminishing returns. 4K x 2K on a small laptop screen is going to look much the same to my aging eyes as 2K x 1K on that size.

Now, give me a nice 40 to 50 inch 4K on my desk, and that sounds pretty nice. I can sit back a ways, and not have to focus on something 2 feet away.

<comment><USER18> I have a 28" 4K on my desk and the picture is absolutely stunning. I'd imagine any more dense than that I'd have a hard time appreciating, but I think it matters way more in terms of where the display is relative to your eyes. For example, my monitor is usually about 12" away from my face, whereas my TV is about 7 feet. A 1080p picture looks just fine compared to a 4K picture at those distances, I never feel like I'm missing anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As cute as this is, it's missing the core issue - a phone lacks real OS and real software. It does not, usually, come with anything on it that is available on the regular desktop/laptop.

This would take severe hacking to work around.

Either (1) a software ecosystem should get evolved around the ARM/Android-like platform (that is, the project is a bit too early), or (2) there should be a virtual machine that is rather lightweight and transparent under Android to allow the PC software to run.

Seeing that this is ARM, i don't expect the (2) to be a real option. (1) might work if you constrain yourself to open-source Linux environment and is good at coding/admin, but as soon as your work would need anything proprietary or anything from Windows things would collapse.

TL;DR: The mobile and PC tech is converging, but we are not there yet.

<comment><USER20> [http://termux.com](http://termux.com)

<comment><USER19> Sure, Android is more or less Linux, so lots of the usual stuff would work. This is pretty much what i mean by (1).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This reminds me a lot of the Palm Foleo, a device I worked on ten years ago. It was mini-laptop sized, designed to be a phone companion, but it worked over Bluetooth and actually ran its own applications, just using the BT connection for continual data sync. This one has a much better chance of actually shipping, and the advance of computing power has made it a lot more viable. Good luck.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, you basically invented the netbook a few months too early, and marketed it as an accessory when it was a full-fledged computer hardware-wise.

By the way, did the GPL code used on that ever get released, assuming the demo units counted as distribution?

<comment><USER23> I don't see the point of asking any of these questions in this fashion...

<comment><USER22> No intention to offend or accuse here, just two points that stuck with me from that time and which I've been curious about. To my knowledge only a few developer units were released and remained property of Palm, hence my caveat in asking the question.

As to the first point, I was personally excited to see a small ARM-based laptop, and dissapointed when it's capabilities and marketing as an accessory led to its denise. Not that the unclear direction of Palm's software at the time helped. It was the right call and yet disappointing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Kind of like webtop.

[http://www.geek.com/mobile/motorola-webtop-3-0-brings-ics- to...](http://www.geek.com/mobile/motorola-webtop-3-0-brings-ics-to-big- screens-1480457/)

Not sure why the idea didn't pan out. Maybe lack of apps that translated to the bigger screen.

<comment><USER25> I still have the Atrix 4G and the Moto Lapdock. Amazing tech, ahead of the time. With the current smartphones, with multiple cores and 3-4Gb RAM, this would have worked like a charm. Webtop was nice, but lacked the processing power.

This thing is cute, but Motorola may have some patents on the technology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can anyone comment on the likelihood of being able to create this for the amount they propose?

I have been burned by hardware devices on kickstarter, and I have heard my hardware friends say that it is much harder, and sometimes they can tell right away that they cannot deliver the product for the amount raised.

I don't know if that is true here or not. Just wondering if someone knows if this can be done.

(I know, keyboards and monitors already exist.)

<comment><USER27> Given the parts look like they're off a bargain basement chrome book just without the expensive processor and ssd, the hardware will be low quality, but they can probably hit the $100 price point.

<comment><USER22> Isn't that SSD on the ARM versions just an eMMC, so close in price to a MicroSD card.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> You can get a cheap Chromebook (which, though inexpensive are actually quite nice quality wise), install crouton on the chromebook, install Lil'Debi on the phone and have an X-server connection over USB. It'd cost about the same and you'd get to have an extra usable device

The way I see it, the only way I think it can really take off (as a niche product) is if the screen and keyboard are amazing (like a Pixel) and it's ultra thin (thinner than a Mac Air). Then I'm sure there is a crowd that wants to have their whole lives on their $700 super flagship cellphone and will have this very slick interface for when they want to access it with a bit more screen and keyboard.

I didn't really read into the details, so maybe you guys are already doing this, but you could also have the whole setup work from any given computer with a keyboard and screen

If you have something like that.. you could charge a LOT more.

Very slick kickstarter btw. Wish you guys the best =)

<comment><USER29> All of those installation steps and disjoint applications make this comment sound like one of the early detractors of Dropbox commenting on its Show HN thread.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm curious how much removing the cpu and graphics chip from a laptop shaves off the price. Chromebooks all already near this price range, and they work as standalone devices, which is nice.

I'm picturing myself at the airport awkwardly plugging my phone into my laptop, and trying to find a good place to sit it next to me.

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't understand why these products are always pitched as a consumer product when this is an enterprise dream come true. People are fickle and refuse to change their personal habits, but using my phone as a thin client sounds a lot more appealing than having separate laptops for work & play.

<comment><USER32> The problem I see with this is that, even if the phone is work property, it's still often used for play as well as work (because who carries around a work mobile as well as a personal).

Blackberry tried to address this problem, but I think we all can agree that they were unable to address pretty much any problem at that point.

A little OT but...

I'd very much like to see a Qubes-like OS for my phone, so I can use one VM for e.g Work, another for Banking, another for Personal, so I don't have to worry about a messed up permission system or my Banking creds being leaked by some rando gobble-all-your-info app-of-the-month.

Of course that's just a dream until battery life and ARM CPUs approach laptop performance.

<comment><USER33> > The problem I see with this is that, even if the phone is work property, > it's still often used for play as well as work (because who carries around a > work mobile as well as a personal).

A lot of people carry around two phones, specifically the same type of people who have two laptops.

<comment><USER32> > A lot of people

Well, I'll push back on the phrase "a lot", but point taken.

<comment><USER33> I guess it depends on your circles, but most professionals I know have multiple phones. It is not as common in tech circles I guess. Most attorneys I know have two. Ditto for finance people. If you've ever done e-discovery work you will want two devices!

<comment><USER32> I've definitely given it thought in the past but disregarded it as silly, but you might have convinced me!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The creator posted in here that they didn't want to post this on HN because it's not the target audience. Clearly it's not with so many comments about why you wouldn't use it.. but I think it's a great thing for its intended audience (especially given the price) which seems to be much more casual computer users, or maybe even moreso, people who don't have a computer but have a smart phone.

</comment><comment><USER35> It would probably be a bit fiddly given how every phone is a little different, but it would be cooler if you could slot your phone into the case instead of having it dangle from a cable.

That said, I'm not sure there is much point to this when you could just carry around a netbook. The phone integration is almost guaranteed to be glitchy thanks to fragmentation on Android and trying to use apps outside of their expected environment.

<comment><USER36> They sell a "Universal Side Mount" as part of their "Superbook Special" bundle. That should solve the dangling from a cable issue and enable front facing camera use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The idea of using your phone as your main computer definitely seems like it could be the future. You can hook it up to something like this, or a USB-C monitor with a keyboard attached, or to a TV via MHL with a bluetooth keyboard, or whatever.

And tablet software is close, but doesn't quite feel right. This sort of thing just needs to get popular enough that software makers respond with the needed tweaks.

The problem is path to market.

Normally power users are the early adopters. They're willing to try new stuff, to put up with bleeding edge hassles to get their needs met. But this isn't for power users, phones and mobile apps aren't powerful enough.

Somebody just needs to find a willing early adopter and it should take off. Maybe an industry like logistics, maybe somewhere in the third world. Chromebooks had a similar problem, but they found a niche in education and now have sufficient volume to push into mainstream.

</comment><comment><USER38> This is something I think Apple should focus on. Well maybe after the car they are building.

They already control both hardware and software aspects of their devices, so compared to other companies, they are in the best position to make it so that all their devices are basically the same device, only with a different interface and form factor.

This doesn't mean they shouldn't work separately - if I'm playing a game on my computer, I still want to be able to text using my phone. But if I just arrived home and I was in the middle of a conversation, while reading an article, I want to be able to put both on my computer screen in a flick of a finger.

It looked as though as it was going to happen a few years back, when several companies tried to do something like this (Asus, Motorola) but now it looks like the idea was abandoned.

<comment><USER39> It sounds like maybe you want Apple's "Continuity" features, especially Handoff? It's not _quite_ as simple as your scenario (you'd have to do two separate "handoffs", one for the article, and one for the conversation), but it's close.

Here's a description of them today; their OS updates this fall will also add a universal clipboard. [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT204681](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204681)

<comment><USER11> The texting conversation would already be waiting in iMessage. The article is just a ⌘-Tab away. To me, it seems even easier than the original desire to swipe. Don't do anything, it's already waiting for you. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I like the idea but the price seems to be $150, not $99. The price point seems critical. I paid $190 for an HP Stream 11 and it makes a great travelling Linux box. If the eventual price were < $80, and with the advantages of having your whole environment on your phone, then that sounds good.

I tried to get an adapter for my Samsung Note 4 would use an external HDMI monitor, but did not find much joy. If a few phone manufacturers would standardize on a docking standard so being able to walk up to a Kiosk or a docking station when visiting other companies, travelling, etc., then that would serve a real need.

</comment><comment><USER41> I wish it could dock the phone behind the screen or something. I don't want to have my phone connected to this thing like some sort of tether through a USB cable.

<comment><USER3> +1 even a velcro strap that feels really solid. The side phone-holder attachment is a little flimsy looking.

<comment><USER42> Velcro strips that you cut to size are cheap and surprisingly useful as a way of anchoring your phone on e. g. your dashboard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> MSFT has the "phone becomes a computer" with Continuum already: [https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/Continuum](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/Continuum) (but you need a Lumia... :| )

Having a laptop form factor is very interesting though - it brings in a lot of questions too. Is it a dumb peripheral? What does it need access to on the phone?

<comment><USER14> It's one of the main points to Ubuntu Phones as well, convergence from phone/tablet to desktop.

Plug it in and use it as a full scale desktop experience.

It's only available on the newer models as the entire system is beta and under testing though.

<comment><USER43> Very cool, thanks.

There's definitely a marketing bridge to cross here - when Steve Jobs released the iPhone, it wasn't "your iPod as a phone!", it was "here's a magical device that does things you never imagined were possible".

I've yet to hear a good pitch for any of these systems that appeals broadly outside of tech. =/

<comment><USER14> I don't find extremely compelling arguments, but there's points to be made. Having a phone that's also your computer is convenient, so having a desktop/laptop dock for your phone that would seemlessly interface would be an interesting take. Remove the $900 work laptop and instead purchase a smartphone capable of everything you need for your business. Most employers provide smartphones already, so if you can manage the ecosystem for the company standards, you could effectively cut your costs in half for every employee.

Plus, licensing costs would also drop, having only one device rather than two. A phone that requires a license on top of the work computer is just doubling cost. A single device has a single license.

Honestly, I see how it could be useful, but the arguments aren't exactly convincing. At a personal level, I could see how a strong smartphone could be beneficial to have as a simple docking solution whether I go to work or home, plus constantly having it charged would be nice- Those lapdocks have batteries that charge the phone while it operates, same for desktop dock solutions.

All in all, I'd buy into it if I liked the ecosystem the phone offered at every level- but now you need to convince me on how the application offering is for Android/iOs/Windows/Ubuntu on likely ARM devices in terms of mobile applications, scaling up to desktop applications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> They really should have made this slightly thicker to let you store your phone in it when in use or travelling. Having a phone dangling off a short dongle all the time is incredibly inconvenient when using a laptop in most places. Forcing that tether to even use the laptop is even worse.

</comment><comment><USER45> I like the idea of one core device to use for Mobile and desktop modes, but if you have to carry around a laptop anyway, why not just get a Chromebook that has full chrome browser and can run Android apps OR really any laptop...

I want my mobile device to have this experience when I connect a rollable or foldable screen, bluetooth foldable keyboard and mouse.

</comment><comment><USER46> Dear Apple,

Please make a similar "accessory" for iPhones. I'd gladly pay 5x or more, and I'm probably not alone.

<comment><USER47> Give them another year or three to unify macOS and associated hardware onto ARM and you will absolutely get your wish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Statements like "incredibly powerful computer" describing a smart phone always ring false and bit silly to my ears. I'm not saying that phones haven't made great advances in the past years, but still that "incredibly powerful computer" is about as powerful as 10 year old PC.

<comment><USER49> Haven't PCs stopped getting more powerful quite a few years ago? The only exceptions I see is swapping spinning disk with ssd and ever-growing gaming GPUs. If you're not gaming, in a couple years you might be hard pressed to spot the difference in performance.

<comment><USER48> The past couple of years (maybe since Haswell, or 3 years) have been slower progress, but on the other hand I'd say the low hanging fruit on mobile chips have been picked too by now and the progress there is also winding down.

People have been chatting and surfing and whatnot just fine with their 200MHz Pentiums at the time, so its not that surprising that it might be bit difficult for many people to truly appreciate just the amount of power available these days. Of course Wirth's and Parkinson's laws do not help here either.

Just for fun, here is a small comparison with 9 year old CPU and 3 year old CPU: [http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/55?vs=837](http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/55?vs=837)

<comment><USER49> You're actually consistent with what I had in mind. A 3 year old quad core is 2-3 times faster than a 9 year old dual core, in most of the embarrassingly parallel benchmarks. I.e. despite all the process improvements, computing power per core stagnated. Personal computers mostly remain at two cores, four accessible at a premium. Personal computers are simply fast enough and the progress is better used by moving more pieces off the motherboard onto the CPU. If someone needs more power, then he's considered to be building a workstation or a server and charged way more than for personal stuff.

I have no clue if you're right about arm progress saturating, I haven't been following that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The resolution is a huge showstopper. I feel like the creators know this because the actual resolution isn't listed anywhere (11.6" HD display is all over the place) but 768p is at the very end of the page.

And since the panel type isn't listed, I have a feeling its going to be a cheap TN panel.

<comment><USER51> _And since the panel type isn 't listed, I have a feeling its going to be a cheap TN panel._

Er... it is $100. Lots of things are going to be compromised to hit that price point. I'm reminded of the various $200 laptops out there, like the HP Stream 11: [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/review-hp-improves- it...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/review-hp-improves- its-200-laptop-a-lot-but-its-still-a-200-laptop/). They have many drawbacks. But their price is incredible.

I've put a lot of $200 laptops in Department of Education programs not because they don't have drawbacks but because they're functional and still allow incredible bang for buck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> What is the advantage of this over something like a Chromebook? It seems like throwing a phone-grade CPU in it and giving it a little more capability would be more worthwhile than being completely dependent upon a tethered phone.

<comment><USER53> It's also one less device to manage connectivity on (connect to wifi, pay for data plan, etc.).

<comment><USER52> Well, if that were the primary concern then USB tethering would work just fine as a solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> nommm-nommm >. Any IDE built for Android can be accessed by your Superbook.

Is there any semi decent Android IDEs? I can't imagine there's a lot of people who are interested in coding on their phones.

<comment><USER54> do not forget about running any linux ide in chroot. Phones with 2gb can do. phones with 4gb of RAM are good at it. google e.g. "Linux Deploy" app on playstore

<comment> nommm-nommm Interesting, thanks for the info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Seems grossly misleading to call it a laptop.

8 inch or so phones already exist which have a better resolution. Is there much point in having a bigger screen with lower resolution?

<comment><USER56> Yes, the keyboard.

<comment><USER57> [http://www.walmart.com/c/kp/usb-otg- adapters](http://www.walmart.com/c/kp/usb-otg-adapters)

Honestly the resolution is the one thing stopping me from ordering a Superbook. 768p may "technically" be HD, but you can't honestly market it as "upgrades with every new phone" when the display is so far behind the phone that drives it. I realize it has a big impact on cost and battery, but for me it's simply 1080p or bust.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Isn't this essentially just a Chromebook?

Why not just buy a chromebook, share your internet connection, charge from its USB port and use the same Google Drive (or Dropbox)?

</comment><comment><USER59> I think this is the future. One device that works everywhere. Ubuntu tried it unsuccessfully. I doubt this one will succeed either. But eventually someone will.

<comment><USER14> Ubuntu still hasn't finished it. They showed demos in alpha but their newer phones actually do it now, although the entire Ubuntu Touch program is still beta.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> [http://maruos.com/](http://maruos.com/) Related, you can try it if you have a Nexus 5 today.

</comment><comment><USER61> "future proof" "768p screen".

Yeah, sure.

<comment><USER55> See the queue for the _future proof_ shell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I find this project quite interesting.

Do you think it could provide a good development environment?

I was thinking that with something like Eclipse che this could be useful when traveling

<comment><USER63> Assumes you have a reliable connection, no?

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Awesome laptop</comment>


Ask HN: What is your oldest still active account? - <AUTHOR> Web site, BBS, whatever. How long has it been active? I think mine is since July 2001, the Whirlpool.net.au website. <comment><USER2> I own a domain created in early 1994, and my personal email account is still there. Since my email is so old I get vast amounts of spam. Apparently spammers never purge their lists. Fortunately Google mail hosting pretty much makes it a non issue. Not running my own mail servers anymore was one of the best decisions I made.

<comment><USER3> Late 1996 domain and same - absolutely hammered with spam every day. But that all goes in the spam folder and gets deleted every week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've owned my domain(s) since the '90s. Not sure exactly when I began the yearly ritual of pouring money into the registrars' pockets.. The earliest archive of my main site on the wayback machine is from 2001, but the trademark on that page says 1999-2001, and I think it launched a few years before that.

I've had the same email account since 1994; originally a netscape.net account but after AOL bought Netscape the domain was switched to aim.com.

I started seriously using the Net in the mid-'80s. I started coding in '74\. I started breathing in '60.

That's actually my oldest "active" account :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Hotmail apparently! 2001!

Honorable mention to my MySpace account, from 2005. Which I just visited and it took much longer to load than a random more recently created one. I wonder if they archive old accounts?

</comment><comment><USER6> 1992 email account from an ISP that was acquired by another ISP that was acquired by another ISP that was acquired by EarthLink. Still at the original domain.

</comment><comment><USER7> Email from ~1999. It's my own domain, but now forwards to a gmail account.

I actually lost it for a while, I let the domain lapse and someone snagged it. Then it happened in reverse.

It cost me a "blog" (we didn't say that yet, back then) with a custom user/registration system and hundreds of active users, which was actually a big deal, sort-of, in that time.

</comment><comment><USER8> I actively use my Yahoo email address, I signed up when they started in 1997. I also have an old account from the Home Recording BBS, which, as the name suggests, started off as a BBS somewhere in the early 90s.

</comment><comment><USER9> My steam gaming account is my oldest account. I'm 24 years old and created it in 2005 when I was 12.

</comment><comment><USER10> The one I have brought with me from server to server since before, and including some content from, my uni undergrad account. Here's the oldest file in my home dir, from SunWindows for SunOS 3.5-ish IIRC:

1981 Jul 20 1989 .rootmenu.old

</comment><comment><USER11> Is ICQ still a thing? I think that might be my first ever account, going into late 90s. Not sure if my first email account was before that or not.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have an Earthlink email account from c. 1996. Before that I was on The World, but when I moved to NYC, it was impractical to keep using that with no local dialup.

</comment><comment><USER13> The first thing that comes to mind is my Slashdot account. I don't remember exactly when it was created, but probably sometime around 1998.

</comment><comment><USER14> My first e-mail, given to me by my school when free email accounts were not a thing yet, is from 1996 and I still use it.

</comment><comment><USER15> 2004/2005 Gmail. I had a Yahoo one created in 1995, but stopped using it after a decade or so.

</comment><comment><USER16> IRC. Same nick for ~18 years. I still use it _frequently_.

Gmail. Since almost day one.

</comment><comment><USER17> Email account from 1996, forwards directly into gmail spam folder!

</comment><comment><USER18> Neopets since 2000 or so.

</comment><comment><USER19> My gmail, created within a day or two of public availability.

</comment><comment><USER20> I have a hotmail account from 1999 I still use for some travel stuff.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think my Yahoo! mail. It's created at 2002 or so.

</comment><comment><USER22> i think my yahoo and hotmail email accounts still exist... created in the 90s.

</comment><comment><USER23> icq... 6 digits</comment>


Data Engineering Resources - <AUTHOR> https://diogoalexandrefranco.github.io/data-engineering-resources/ <comment><USER2> Nice resources. Mostly focused on the Big Data aspects of data engineering. I would also suggest to check out some advanced SQL and ETL books or courses.

<comment><USER3> Agile Data Warehouse Design[1] (at least the first few chapters) has been enlightening for me, as historically I've been more focused on product engineering.

[1]: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0956817203/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0956817203/)</comment></comment>


Google To Buy Mobile Loyalty Card Startup Punchd - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/08/google-to-buy-mobile-loyalty-card-startup-punchd/

<comment><USER2> The company says "NO" on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/#!/punchd/status/89450652601819136>

<comment><USER3> Well, technically it says, "have NOT been" as opposed to "are not going to be". Doesn't mean they aren't "talking" about a potential acquisition.

But, a status post like that does lead one to believe they are neither talking about, nor have been acquired.

Or, maybe they're just trying some reverse psychology, who really knows other than the parties involved! ;)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This seems to be the first company from the 500 Startups accelerator program to be acquired. Other companies from the 500 Startups seed fund have previously been acquired, like BackType and CardMunch.

</comment><comment><USER4> _It's been a great week for 500 Startups, which has now sold a company to Twitter (BackType), LinkedIn (CardMunch) and Google._

Isn't the CardMunch deal months old?</comment>


Working in UK - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I've got a question about chances for me to find job in UK. I am from Poland and I work as developer for 2 years. First job (for 1 year) was little company, writing for it CRM and some stuff to help managing clients. I was one of two developers so it wasn't exactly a "team" :)
Now I work for 1 year in bigger company with bigger team doing much more responsible and 'big' work. We are developing FleetManagement system which is used by hundreds of transport companies.
This is very big and i am doing pretty well in that company with all that big code. I got bonuses and my work is pretty appreciated. The team is little less than 20 people. It's really ok.
But i wanted to reallocate to the UK, mainly because of my girflend - she is willing to study there.
But to the point.
My english is pretty good, i can communicate with no problem i think this wouldn't be the "blocker". But i dont have formal education, i finished just polish "highschool". It is A-level equivalent.
I went to college for 2 semesters but it was waste of time for me. 0 practical knowledge, literally 0.
So i started to work. I program since I am... about 16, but documented commerce work is 2 years.
I'm just 22 now (almost 22 tbh :) ). What are my chances in finding job in UK? <comment><USER2> The UK has an progressive IT culture. Experience counts more than academic results in this industry in the UK. I have never been asked to present any academic certificates in the UK whilst working for an IT company. They are much more interested to hear what projects I have previously worked on, what challenges I faced, and how I solved those problems.

Notably, your work experience comes first on your curriculum vitae in the UK. This is vastly different to Germany for instance, where I still get asked for copies of my university degree (completed 20 years ago). My "Lebenslauf" (CV) requires a photo of myself and needs to be in "reverse chronology", such that my academic qualifications are shown first.

I've always found this to be particularly backwards (no offence to any Germans here), but they do like to dot I's and cross T's, so it doesn't surprise me.

I think your chances are good if you can present yourself well and you _can deliver_.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for this description. It's good that in UK there's experience over formal education.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You can apply for jobs in the UK while still in Poland, just mention that you're currently in Poland but looking to relocate to the UK (I'm guessing London?).

Some companies (especially smaller ones) will only follow-up with local candidates, but plenty of medium and large size ones are happy to engage with candidates looking to move.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think you can find a job easily in UK with your experience. The problem would be, that you can end up in shitty IT company and you might not get the same payment as the person who has education.

(I am from Lithuania myself, I finished Uni in UK)

<comment><AUTHOR> I am good in negotiations and i believe in myself :) I have no problem with quitting shitty job and look for a better one, but i need to get first job in UK so i can live there :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pretty high. It will take you 1-3 weeks to find a job as a developer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could you say something more? How UK people look for guys like me, with no college? In Poland almost everybody goes to college.

<comment><USER5> No formal education is needed. If you have skills and you are able to demonstrate it (usually by passing a technical test), you will get a job.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that info.

Can you tell me where is the best to look for a job? It's better to reallocate first or search while i live in poland?

I am targeting at Cardiff

<comment><USER6> I'm from Cardiff, It's a beautiful city and admittedly it does have a few big tech companies to work for. There is a decent polish community there too.

However, Cardiff is not a big big city, so it doesn't have hundreds of tech companies, and you might hit a pay ceiling faster in Cardiff than you would in London, however, the cost of living is also lower in Cardiff than London... Swings and roundabouts. Bristol is an hour or so's commute though with more tech firms.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice to hear that.

I would rather want to work in middle company than in big one. I like to know almost everybody in company :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do you have any Wordpress experience? I may have something for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Some experience is good to put it :)

I know how it works, i know something about architecture, I can use it from frontend. But i don't have experience in writing plugins.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> good luck to u.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hope that's not a pity:)

<comment><USER8> How could that be a pity! You can leave your hometown for your girl, i really think u are great and I sincerely wish you good luck. ^_^</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is raising capital so important? - <AUTHOR>

I've done a bit of googling on the subject but nothing really definitively answers the question.  I've also seen a few similar posts here... but nothing hit the nail on the head.  And to clarify, by capital, I mean money from investors.
I'm 23 and working on my first startup.  Naturally I've gravitated to HN, and a central theme I've noticed is funding, funding, funding!
So... why?
The top two reasons that come to mind are the ability to advertise your product (which can cost a considerable amount of money, depending on your market) and sustenance (ranging from processing power to food, shelter, and office space).  I'm sure it also helps that I'm "technical"... so I don't have to pay anyone else in that respect.  And I'm also sure having a good team (employees) increases your chances of getting a product out the door in a timely manner... but there's a lot of overhead involved in that too - from the hiring process to bureaucratic organization.
To me... there's much more value in learning how to provide for yourself.  I tend to relate investors to rich parents who give their children everything they want - and as a result, a lot of the time, these children are relatively ill-equipped for the real world.  (Although, I can see how investments would greatly benefit someone who has already knows the ropes from bootstrapping their own startup.)
I feel like, in the long run, it would be much better to build a business from the ground up - on my own.  It would force me to make the best possible financial decisions and get really creative with the marketing process.  There's no way I would learn all of these important aspects to running an efficient, profitable business if I were given a million dollar shortcut.
HN... what is it really about?  Bragging rights?  For what do you really use all that money? <comment><USER2> I guess if you're one guy on your own bootstrapping it, it's not terribly important, but if you have a team and you want to be able to pay them, pay for a space to work in, pay for business trips to meet potential customers/related services, then you'll need funds.

It gets more complicated if you need to get specialists -- people for web design, print design, SEO/analytics, PR...

</comment><comment><USER3> Growth is the most important factor I think to seek investment. So you can rapidly expand which is sometimes needed: See the Foursquare vs. Gowalla battle.

Even traditional businesses which make a profit can seek investment too for several obvious reasons:

      - Diversification (New Products/New Market)
      - Market Development (Existing Products/New Market)
      - Product Development (New Products/Existing Market)
      - Market Penetration (Existing Products/Existing Markets)</comment>