Google's Project Ara Takes a Turn for the Worse with Recent Changes

[Elvis Starburst]

In a rather odd move, Google's modular phone project, Ara (originally Phonebloks) has made some very choice changes. Originally, nearly everything except for maybe the processor was going to be modular. The screen, antenna, RAM, graphics processor, battery, etc, was going to be changeable. Now, Ara has taken up a few changes that unfortunately turn away from what made Ara, and the Phonebloks idea, something that many would be excited for.

Let's get into it... The first thing they did was change the design. And for this, I'm all for it. It's now a bit more cube-like [https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/tDO2Pbtzg9OPjMvN_EKDgXVxrgk=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6521343/google-atap-project-ara-2016-6.0.jpg] compared to its original design [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SF_6HBZY9EU/maxresdefault.jpg], with the modules being more flush with the frame itself. The second change is quite concerning... The ecosystem for Ara was designed for other companies to design their own modules and allow them to be compatible with Ara. While this is still true, a few major changes were made to the process.
1. Google must approve any and all modules before they can be sold, and Google will be the ones handling the sales. This also means Google might need to make adjustments to a module, or add in their own code.
2. Google takes a cut of the profits. This is obvious in its effect. Less modules will be made, less companies will be happy to do so, and the ecosystem will no longer be as open.

While that's pretty awful, at least it has the possibility of modules still being made. The third change is what bothers me the most. Their recent changes mean the CPU/GPU, RAM, antenna, and the SCREEN will all be built into the frame of the Ara phone. This allows for more room for modules on the back, which is a plus. The problem is that it takes away from part of the entire purpose of Ara and modular phones. If your phone was slowing down, or you wanted to beef up its gaming capacity, you would be allowed to do so with updated modules. Now the phone will become outdated just as fast as any other, as the stuff that makes it run can't be adjusted.

Spoiler: Personal rant within the rant

The part that really pisses on the original design was the fact that the screen can't be swapped. One of Phonebloks' and Ara's biggest selling points was being able to replace the screen if it broke, so people won't have to buy a new phone, which would in turn cut down on waste. Good thing they got rid of that, right? And for someone like me that wanted a QWERTY attachment on the front that was initially planned, I am truly and thoroughly fucked on that front.

So, what did we learn? Google sucks. You already knew that? Great, strike this one on the laundry list. They took a great idea, it looked promising, then they just pissed off and did their own thing. Dave Hakkens [https://davehakkens.nl/news/re-think-project-ara/], the original brains behind Phonebloks made his own blog showing his disappointment in these changes. I highly doubt Google will listen to anyone, but maybe if there's a big enough storm, changes might happen? Wishful thinking, I know.

Cnet's Sean Hollister said "when we did our user studies, what we found is that most users don't care about modularizing the core functions. They expect them all to be there, to always work and to be consistent. Our initial prototype was modularizing everything... just to find out users didn't care." Clearly you know jack shit about what people wanted from Ara to begin with. Ara would've been good for that. But now it's hardly even good for its original purpose. Great job guys

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I'm only just dipping into the surface of modifying PCs and all that. I only just jailbroke my iphone.

I will tell you, the layman DOESN'T want to modify anything. They want everything standard, simple, and functional right out of the box. Why do you think PC gaming is so niche despite being vastly superior? People are intimidated by choice, because they don't want to make the wrong one.

Sadly, yes, they designed a phone that there is no market for beyond the niche... and that's a bummer, because reading into the prototype I would of loved a phone I could curtail to exactly what I want it to do.

 

[not_you]

In the grand scheme of things, this is kinda sad...

I mean, there are some modules that you COULD live with being static throughout the entire device...

The screen for example... I don't see anyone needing anything bigger than 1440p for at least another 5 years until batteries become stronger to support longer on-times for larger resolution screens... 1080p would be alright too (for the most part) but 1440 would cover 90% of what people want... (Since the 4k phone Xperia Z premium or whatever can't display most things in 4k anyway)

The antennae should be standardised too per region, since, well, most USA carriers run on different frequencies compared to other countries... So, that would be perfectly fine too...

But the CPU/GPU I can understand the distress over, RAM too, to a degree...
but in the end, if everything else is modular, camera, battery, storage etc..etc... I'd still be incredibly interested in the product...

So what if you have to buy an updated unit with the latest processor in 2 (or so) years, that's what most people do anyway... just pick up your other modules (unless you want more storage/battery etc...) and then it's just like nothing ever happened...

yes, I can understand the arguments made here saying that it's not what the "original vision" was intended to do, but these are the modules you're almost certain to change every few years... So I personally have no issue with the changes Google has made...
Sure, you could leave an upgraded processor for a generation... so you just don't buy the next model-base to work with...

If the price is right, I could still have hundreds every time I get a new phone...

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I will tell you, the layman DOESN'T want to modify anything. They want everything standard, simple, and functional right out of the box. Why do you think PC gaming is so niche despite being vastly superior? People are intimidated by choice, because they don't want to make the wrong one.

PC Gaming is niche? Dude, we outnumber console gamers on every other platform COMBINED. And that doesn't make any sense any way. PCs have been marketed and sold to "ordinary people" as far back as I can remember and the vast, overwhelming majority of PCs sold are pre-built OEM systems that are not much harder than consoles to get up and running, once wires and peripherals are connected. That is not to mention PC laptop sales which I believe overtook desktop sales around the 802.11g era.

The number of PC gamers who build their own systems is a fraction of PC owners/gamers. You're suggestion that PC gaming is niche is totally wrong as is the reasoning as to why. People have been buying computers in varying form factors for many years and will continue to do so.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I will tell you, the layman DOESN'T want to modify anything. They want everything standard, simple, and functional right out of the box. Why do you think PC gaming is so niche despite being vastly superior? People are intimidated by choice, because they don't want to make the wrong one.

PC Gaming is niche? Dude, we outnumber console gamers on every other platform COMBINED. And that doesn't make any sense any way. PCs have been marketed and sold to "ordinary people" as far back as I can remember and the vast, overwhelming majority of PCs sold are pre-built OEM systems that are not much harder than consoles to get up and running, once wires and peripherals are connected. That is not to mention PC laptop sales which I believe overtook desktop sales around the 802.11g era.

The number of PC gamers who build their own systems is a fraction of PC owners/gamers. You're suggestion that PC gaming is niche is totally wrong as is the reasoning as to why. People have been buying computers in varying form factors for many years and will continue to do so.

Ill cope to talking about something I know nothing about, but, then who the hell is buying all these fucking consoles then?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Ill cope to talking about something I know nothing about, but, then who the hell is buying all these fucking consoles then?

Going back to (but maybe not including) the 360/PS3 era and earlier, consoles were much cheaper than computers. A budget PC is about ?400, one capable of gaming (on low settings) probably ?600 minimum. Consoles advantage used to be that they would cost ?100-?200. The Nintendo Wii was ?180 and was the cheapest in that generation which went a long way to explaining it's popularity.

There are some other factors at play now. First, the popularity of tablets and prevalence of smartphones with Android and iOS operating systems means there's a whole new market out there with it's own customer base, needs, interface and hardware platform. Second, AAA industry and cross-platform development, to reach the widest audience for the ridiculous budgets they spend foolhardily trying to recreate CoD success.

Look, consoles *are* supposed to be simpler than PCs. They plug into the TV, not a separate monitor, in the living room/bed room, not the dusty corner, no keyboards or mice. Plug and play, no compatibility issues, driver issues, etc. But things have changed. This generation, as well as costing ?400 (budget PC territory) requires full install of games first (no longer just insert and play), you're constantly downloading updates, you have apps and so on. They have extensive operating systems and loads of functions. The difference is that they are locked down and can't be accessed/tweaked by the owner. Also, in a huge turn for the worse, now they have different hardware versions of the SAME consoles that will be on sale at the SAME time. Another massively important point is requiring an online connection. It would be the death knell for a console to require that. They need to be able to work fully offline.

OTOH, PCs have become much simpler. The days of driver issues and incompatibilities are long gone, since late XP era it hasn't been true. That's not to say every game will always run perfectly, there may be odd behaviours, but gaming on PC right now is so easy, simple and accessible. I can install a game in about three mouse clicks, play it with KBM or controller. Steam handles patching now, drivers update themselves. Everything just works.

 

[shrekfan246]

I will tell you, the layman DOESN'T want to modify anything. They want everything standard, simple, and functional right out of the box. Why do you think PC gaming is so niche despite being vastly superior? People are intimidated by choice, because they don't want to make the wrong one.

PC Gaming is niche? Dude, we outnumber console gamers on every other platform COMBINED. And that doesn't make any sense any way.

Steam stats say that currently there are 10 million concurrent users on the platform, with a peak in the past two days of 12 million. It's been on a slow rise pretty consistently, growing up from a concurrent rate of 8 million about two years ago, 10 mil peak this time last year, and the established peak of 12.5 mil last November. That obviously doesn't say much about the total number of people on the platform (especially since there are some people who don't like to use Steam), but I think it at least says something about the number of people who are regularly playing games on PC; Valve reported themselves last year that they had 125 million total users.

Now, if you only want to include Xbox One and Playstation 4, you're probably correct in your assertion, but then that's not "every other platform COMBINED", is it? Three years ago, the Playstation Network alone had 110 million users, with an apparent 65 million monthly logins. Considering there are still people like me out there who have and use a PS3, I think it's fair enough to continue including them in the market. Xbox Live apparently has around 48 million users, while the Nintendo Network has 26 million.

There's some percentage of overlap here, but as of half a year ago about 55 million PS4s and Xbox Ones had been sold (current numbers say about 40 mil for the PS4), along with 12.8 million Wii Us and 58.8 million 3DS'. Charitably assuming that most of the people who bought them already owned the previous systems, that still leaves nearly 45 million PS3s, 64 million Xbox 360s, 96 million Nintendo DS', and 90 million Wiis out there.

So while the claim that PC gaming is niche might be debatable, so too is the claim that PC gamers outnumber console gamers. And of course, the question remains of why it matters that you must assert how successful PC gaming is? This really only perpetuates the endless "PC vs. Console" and "console wars" dichotomies for the sake of... what? What do you get out of it? In a day and age where many people play games on both console and PC, why do you need to so strongly defend the PC platform? Consoles and PCs are both doing well as a general idea, though this latest generation of consoles certainly seems to be flopping around a bit lifelessly. PCs aren't going anywhere, even if the perception of being harder to get into still permeates the general public.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

The screen for example... I don't see anyone needing anything bigger than 1440p for at least another 5 years until batteries become stronger to support longer on-times for larger resolution screens... 1080p would be alright too (for the most part) but 1440 would cover 90% of what people want... (Since the 4k phone Xperia Z premium or whatever can't display most things in 4k anyway)

Fair point to the rest, but this is one of the main issues with the new changes. One of the originally touted features was being able to swap the screen if it cracked, instead of having the replace the entire phone, and you'd be able to do this is a semi-affordable module. Now that's just gone. Broken screen? Pay out the ass for one that's certified from Google, or get a new phone entirely

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Snip

Snap

Let's not turn this into a console/PC debate on a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with either, ok?

 

[shrekfan246]

Snip

Snap

Let's not turn this into a console/PC debate on a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with either, ok?

That... was part of the point of my post? Not necessarily that it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but that it's entirely pointless in the first place.

I mean, I'm sorry that I don't have more to say on topic, but phone technology isn't really my jam. My phone barely qualifies as a smartphone, and my plan doesn't allow for most of the functions smartphones actually have anyway. It does seem like making a modular phone that doesn't allow you to swap such integral parts as the CPU, GPU, RAM, and screen sort of defeats the purpose of making a modular phone in the first place, though. Who exactly is the market for this thing now?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I will tell you, the layman DOESN'T want to modify anything. They want everything standard, simple, and functional right out of the box. Why do you think PC gaming is so niche despite being vastly superior? People are intimidated by choice, because they don't want to make the wrong one.

PC Gaming is niche? Dude, we outnumber console gamers on every other platform COMBINED. And that doesn't make any sense any way.

Steam stats say that currently there are 10 million concurrent users on the platform, with a peak in the past two days of 12 million. It's been on a slow rise pretty consistently, growing up from a concurrent rate of 8 million about two years ago, 10 mil peak this time last year, and the established peak of 12.5 mil last November. That obviously doesn't say much about the total number of people on the platform (especially since there are some people who don't like to use Steam), but I think it at least says something about the number of people who are regularly playing games on PC; Valve reported themselves last year that they had 125 million total users.

This isn't all PC gamers tho. While all Steam users are PC gamers, not all PC gamers are Steam users. WoW has 5mill subs, many other MMOs have over 1mill, not to mention the F2P players, those who play other online games, who use other DDPs or games that don't use any DDP at all.

I'll grant there are likely many consoles that aren't online, but not in the same numbers as PC gamers that aren't on Steam. The original point was to argue that PC gaming being niche was not true and further, that the "modularity" or choice when it came to PCs/PC hardware was not a reason people chose consoles over them. In arguing that PC vs console is like modular phones (too much choice) and normal phones and that the public are too afraid of it, I argued that PCs/consoles isn't an accurate analogy.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well to your concerns, asked respectively, couldn't the argument be;

1. Merely a 'seal of quality' style thing? I mean anybody could (and likely will) make third party stuff for it ... but at least this way Google can properly advertise all suitable devices that won't break your phone?

2: Well ... money is money... While I trhink there are better ways to handle profit-making from such a device, if Google at least advertise and certify products on their websites and through retailers ... maybe the cost of doing business may actually be reduced for up and coming tech companies?

So Google might take a slice of the profits, but if they advertise, they help with total retail, then arguably it doesn't reduce their profits. If Google doesn't do this, then yeah ... it's kind of shitty.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Color me 'eh.'

Honestly, this project it flat out bonkers. Lego phones are more more expensive, less robust, and infinitely harder to support from a software perspective then pre-built phones, and all of those are things that phones, generally, are fairly bad at to begin with. I'm all for cool gadgets and all, but this seems to be Google's 'Apple Watch.'

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I don't even use a cellphone now. All I need is a flipphone but NOBODY offers those anymore that I've seen...

 

[DefunctTheory]

I don't even use a cellphone now. All I need is a flipphone but NOBODY offers those anymore that I've seen...

Uh... they all do. Though the selection isn't vast (But then again, does that matter?). Found a flip phone for Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. On their main websites. In 5 minutes.

5 minutes to find all four of them.

And then there's all the pay as you go companies, all of which have 'dumb' phones of a wide variety. And you can now bring your own phone to most companies, so you can always ebay a Razr. Pretty much the only service you can't get a flip phone on is Google Fi.

 

[MysticSlayer]

1. Google must approve any and all modules before they can be sold, and Google will be the ones handling the sales. This also means Google might need to make adjustments to a module, or add in their own code.

I would have thought some standard was to be expected. You want all the pieces working together, and you also don't want someone to claim they meet the standard without actually doing so. So even beyond Google's love of control, this seems like an expected route to take.

2. Google takes a cut of the profits. This is obvious in its effect. Less modules will be made, less companies will be happy to do so, and the ecosystem will no longer be as open.

I doubt that this will create much issue. Google is no doubt going to try to push this forward with their own components, and companies like Samsung and LG are likely going to push out some of their own in order to become the early-market leaders. If those companies can get people to adopt it, we'll see plenty of modules coming out. If those companies can't, then flooding the market wouldn't have helped anyways.

The third change is what bothers me the most. Their recent changes mean the CPU/GPU, RAM, antenna, and the SCREEN will all be built into the frame of the Ara phone.

Now this is an issue. One of the major draws of Ara initially was the idea that we could replace and upgrade components as needed. While this still manages to let us customize exactly what our phone does, it takes away one of the long-term benefits of getting behind this. If I'm going to have to buy a new Ara phone every 2-3 years, and if these turn out to be just as expensive (or more expensive) than the phone I already have, what is the value to be gained? I know I, personally, would have remained a pretty boring customer with my phone setup, and I'd imagine most would have kept a pretty standard phone just with their own choice of camera, screen, and performance.

If I remember correctly, I remember things like the screen and RAM being two major issues for Ara, so maybe this was a compromise Google had to make in order to get things to work. To be honest, though, it seems more likely that Google realize allowing people to make relatively cheap upgrades every 2-3 years rather than a complete phone upgrade would be bad for business.

Oh well, maybe Microsoft can take the idea where we want it in an effort to boost their own mobile division...