Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Then why a laptop form factor? Laptops exist to be lugged around.



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.


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.


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.


> 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


> 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.


> 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.


> 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.


> 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.


> 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.


> 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.


> 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.


> 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.


Because sometimes you want to work on your bed and other times you want to work on the couch. At the office, sometimes it's useful to be able to work at the cafeteria or bring a laptop to a conference room to use as part of a presentation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: