Talk:Modular smartphone

Technical Limitations section is full of errors

It appears to be a summary of the following cited article:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3017409/why-lego-design-principles-dont-work-on-smartphones

But the article is a hit piece full of false information.

The distance or "alignment" between the device components that are typically made modular has no meaningful impact on performance or power efficiency. An inch one way or the other between the processor and the modem is irrelevant when the signal then has to travel a hundred feet to a wireless access point or a mile to the cell tower. Electronic signals can travel at MHz or GHz but screens only refresh at dozens of Hz, so the signal distance to the screen makes no difference. Distance between components only matters in specific cases, like between the CPU and RAM. That commonly gets resolved by putting the CPU next to the RAM on the logic board independent of whether or not the CPU or RAM is installed in a socket. Moreover, having a CPU with integrated RAM is not incompatible with having a modular screen, battery, modem or storage, or with installing a CPU with integrated RAM in a socket.

The vast majority of power consumed by phones goes to the screen and various microchips. There is no meaningful change in power consumption based on whether the components are in sockets or are soldered.

The concern with users breaking phones while swapping components is illogical. If a component that isn't practical to swap on a non-modular phone was damaged or became obsolete, it would already have caused the entire device to be trashed. If the user then damaged e.g. the connector between the system board and the baseband modem, the device would need a new system board and modem but could continue to use the existing chassis, screen, battery, processor, storage, etc.

The impact on size and weight also seems to be overstated. The weight of various modular phones that actually exist (FairPhone, Shiftphone) is in line with existing non-modular phones. The bezel is slightly bigger, but this comes with the benefit of avoiding unwanted touches around the edge of the screen, so that's as much of an advantage as a limitation. The main limitation of note appears to be the thickness, 9.6mm for Shiftphone vs. 7.8mm for the iPhone 14.

Maybe the section should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher MacDuff (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Smartwatches, Phone cases

The idea of a modular smartphone has spilled over into smartwatches [1], and smartphone cases [2][3]. Though two of the three are still in development, I think this warrants a mention in the article. Thoughts? Houdinipeter (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Houdinipeter: I agree - could you add it to the article? I also think that these should get separate article/s once they actually exist (in mass production; either via one shared article - modular device or alike - or e.g. modular smartwatch, etc.). --Fixuture (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

YES because there were things like now defunst popSLATE which "was a smartphone case that added an always-on second screen to the back of iPhones." that make it a modular. 89.201.184.159 (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Fairphone 2

The fairphone 2 is phone with specs from 2015 which you can, in theory, order, and have delivered in September 2017. The date is temporary, meaning that, even if one is stupid an obsolete phone for a flagship price, there is no guarantee it will ever be delivered. It is not, therefore, actually for sale: it is in the "out of stock" limbo, a device normally used by publishers who don't want to lose the rights to a book. I created a new category for it. complainer (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nexpaq is now called Moduware

https://moduware.com/2017/09/18/a-new-journey-begins-from-nexpaq-to-moduware/ Nexpaq no longer exists as a company, and all the social media pages for it are also defunct. The original modular phone case idea is also no longer what the product is, and is instead an external battery with modular components, called the "modpack" https://moduware.com/product/modpack-starter-pack/ I'd say the page should be edited to convey this, along with referring to nexpaq as the original product name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

MAKERphone ?

an educational DIY mobile phone [4]. If you can choose which components to put it essentially makes it a modular phone. 89.201.184.159 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Other prototypes prior 2016

• ZTE showed off a prototype called Eco-Mobius at CES in 2014, [5]
• finish startup Vsenn - was supposed to only have three swappable components; these bring its camera, battery and processor/RAM - also "aim here isn’t full-on customisation, but more along the lines of upgradability" [6]
• Fonkraft modular smartphone pulled from indiegogo in 2015 [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.184.8 (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WRIT 340 for Engineers - Global Innovations - Spring 2023 - 66837

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eouyang, Eyli2381676195, Giriwoder, TmleUSC (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 1namesake1 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Article Lacks Neutral Tone

This article is not currently written from a neutral perspective and feels more like marketing material you'd find on the "about" page of someone's modular phone startup. Here are some examples I caught while reading it:

1. The article heavily emphasizes the positive aspects of modular smartphones. The worst example of this is how Ref 4 (DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.116 ) is only cherry-picked to support claim that smartphones have planned obsolescence. The article does not mention the criticisms that article has, which include 1) the sustainability benefits are undercut because smartphones frequently don't enter the recycling stream, 2) this design inherently has challenges when it comes to lifetime, 3) the problem of interdependency and interaction between modules made by different manufacturers, and 4) the article mentions that of all three models it looked at, there was no information given on software support, and noted that FOSS solutions would require technically-inclined users -- which could further hurt adoption.
2. The motivation section is especially guilty of this, as it feels more like the beginning of someone's advertisement than it does the beginning of a Wikipedia article.
   1. In the "Repairability" subsection, why tell the reader the opinion they should have on the frequency of phone replacement? For example, in the phrase "Consumers often prematurely replace their smartphones...", the "prematurely" quantifier there is completely not-needed.
   2. The next sentence, "Modularity in smartphones promotes self-repair over repair services by enabling consumers to swap out faulty components for functional ones without incurring service or labor costs," ignores the issue of where the user is going to actually obtain the replacement component, and how much that replacement component will cost.
   3. In the "Customization and Upgradability" section, it seems to undercut the environmental concerns from earlier in the motivation section. Surely it would be beneficial to explore potential drawbacks or challenges associated with frequent customization, such as compatibility issues or the environmental impact of producing and disposing of multiple modules.
3. The "history" section is really a section that lists a few manufacturers. Shouldn't this be called "Manufacturers" instead? In addition, it gets too editorialized in places:
   1. For the Modu, the fact that it was the world's "lightest hand-held mobile phone" is irrelevant to explaining what a modular phone is: it's just an award that a defunct company received.
   2. In the "Phonebloks" section, the phrase "The concept of Phonebloks not only allows a customer to easily replace broken components of the phone, rather than replacing the entire device, but it also allows a customer to build and customize their perfect phone" expresses a strong, non-neutral opinion on this device, and literally cites an advertisement.
   3. In the "Project Ara" section, the what's up with the statement "In addition, big mobile companies do not support Project Ara because they directly profit from customers replacing their non-modular smartphones every few years?" I get that this is a statement that makes sense to most people, but it's pretty accusatory -- and editorialized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VagueSpecificity (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
4. The "Challenges" section undercuts itself at the end with the following uncited(!) statement: "While there are concerns, proponents hope that the technical challenges can be overcome and that a viable market ecosystem (the hardware version of an app store) will enable finer-grained competition that will benefit consumers with better and cheaper choices"

That's all I found in a quick read of the article, I'm sure there's more in there if you look.

--VagueSpecificity (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)