IT|Redux

Bring Your Own iPhone

Friday, September 14th 2007 | Ismael Ghalimi

Following yesterday’s article, my friend Darren suggested that it would be great if our Mini Tablet could run the Mac OS X operating system. I could not agree more, and this got me thinking. The only way one can legally build a computer around Apple’s proprietary operating system is by building the computer around an Apple Computer, like Axiotron did with the ModBook. So what if we built the Redux Model 1 around an iPhone or iPod Touch?

I got this epiphany earlier today while stopping at the Apple Store Palo Alto on my way to lunch, and holding an iPod Touch for the first time. This thing is crazy small! And best of all, it has all the bells and whistles we need. It runs the best operating system in the world, it has a powerful enough CPU to run a web browser, it has solid WiFi capabilities, and most importantly, it exists and is available today for a very reasonable price ($299). The only thing lacking is Bluetooth, but that’s a fairly easy one to add.

So what if we built our Mini Tablet as a shell wrapped around either an iPhone or an iPod Touch? All we would need is a large multi-touch screen, a battery, and a well-designed enclosure. If there was a way to connect the iPhone or iPod Touch to such a contraption, building our dream device that way would be a heck of a lot easier than building everything from scratch, and it would have the added benefit of running Mac OS X, with all the cool things the iPhone and iPod Touch have to offer, like a cellular phone, the best music player ever, the ability to play videos, etc.

So, would that be possible? Well, to make it work, we would need two things: one, show something on the screen; two, send user inputs back to the iPhone or iPod Touch. The former is possible, at least with the iPod Touch, which supports 480i (720 x 480) and 576i (720 x 576) video out according to this page from the Apple Store. Such a trick is not possible with the iPhone as of today, but it appears to be a limitation of the firmware, which could be solved down the road. The later might be more tricky, mainly because the software running on the iPhone or iPod Touch might not support it natively, but I could not think of any hardware limitation that would make it impossible.

Now let’s assume that we could technically make it work, for both hardware and software. The real challenge would then become one of industrial design. We would need to build an enclosure that could receive either an iPhone or an iPod Touch, and make it easy to get them in and out without scratches, while not getting in the way of radio signals (plastic is better than metal there).

Because the iPhone and iPod Touch share the same connector, but do not have the same outside dimensions (especially with respect to thickness), we might want to use come kind of a canister that would be specific to the model of handheld used. Such a canister could be made of plastic, covered in the inside with some micro-fiber cloth.

The Mini Tablet would have a slot where this canister would be inserted and securely locked in position. Once in there, the user could then easily insert and eject the iPhone or iPod Touch, much like one would with a PC Card (PCMCIA), with either a push/pull auto-locking mechanism like the one used for flash media, or a retractable ejection button like the one found on PowerBook laptop computers.

The iPhone and iPod Touch are essentially as tall as the Sony Reader is wide, therefore our choice of form factor still applies. For weight and balance purposes, the handheld device should be placed at the center of the Mini Tablet, using available real estate on both sides for batteries. This would make for a centered center of gravity, with most of the weight located at the center of the device itself, making it easier for the device to be rotated from landscape to portrait mode (less centrifugal force when rotating).

So here we are, a step closer to the goal. This is getting really fun…

Entry filed under: Office 2.0

4 Comments - Add a comment

1. Frank  |  September 15th, 2007 at 10:13 am

I’ve enjoyed your posts on the search for a better/perfect conference companion device. It’s occurred to me that these posts are indicative of a slight problem, though — while the “tipping point” for Web 2.0 and the Internet seems to have arrived, the tipping point for Mobile Web 2.0 is a ways off. I have a drawer full of PDAs, going back to the original Newton, the original US Robotics Pilot (with modem add-on), a Nokia 9000, the Rexx, and the ultimate failure, the Vadem Clio with a pre-802.11 wireless card.

More recently, I made a pattern out of placing abandoned Tablet PCs on top of the PDAs. Same end result, just larger and more expensive. The key to all this is the drawer, their final resting place. None of them hit the spot. My BlackBerry continues to keep itself out of the drawer, but to be perfectly honest, it only does one thing well and falls way short on other things. For instance, how can it be that they still don’t support “view by category” for Tasks? GTD is impossible on a BlackBerry.

But I refuse to give up and I read your posts on this topic with great interest. One of these days someone will totally nail this space. In the meantime, it’s a KRZR, a BlackBerry, and a MacBook for me. Each one good for something, none of them good at everything.

2. Ismael Ghalimi  |  September 15th, 2007 at 10:53 am

Frank,

You’re right, finding the right form factor is difficult, and one single device won’t fit the bill entirely. But the concept of modular/composite devices is more and more appealing to me, especially if one could build them around such a fantastic platform as the iPhone or iPod Touch.

Please keep sending us feedback.

Best regards
 -Ismael

3. Jesse Wilkins  |  September 16th, 2007 at 11:51 am

Hi Ismael,

At the risk of having missed something, isn’t one of the motivators for this to keep the price low enough to include vendors and the press? If this device is basically a docking case that requires an iPod Touch or iPhone, no matter how cheap you engineer it, you’ll still be at about the same price ($400+ per device) which would be cost-prohibitive and run afoul of the ethical issues you cited in San Francisco. In a later post you talk about sacrificing an iPhone per device — but that’s not going to fly either.

I think some of the other suggestions regarding running Mac OS X on generic hardware are more workable from a cost perspective — and frankly I’d look at OQO or one of the other high-end vendors to see if they’d be willing to assist in design and/or manufacture for suitable consideration.

Anyway, I do look forward to the continuing saga of the Redux.

4. Ismael Ghalimi  |  September 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Jesse,

If the device is something we make and is developed in a collaborative manner, it does not have a price per se, at least before we market it as such. If the first production batch is given to attendees and sponsors, we pretty much solve the ethical issues that prevented us to give the iPhone to members of the press at the last Office 2.0 Conference.

Regarding the use of Mac OS X on generic hardware, this is impossible unfortunately, for licensing reasons. The only legal way I know one can make a device legitimately running Mac OS X is by repurposing an existing device manufactured by Apple.

Best regards
 -Ismael

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden