Super Tiny Computer Puts Android on Your TV, Laptop

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I would like is something like that but is self powered, or uses a small power connector and simply attaches into a dvi or vga port in the back of the monitor, so If I am studying and don't want the louder gaming PC running, I can switch the monitor to the vga or some other input and have a basic system running android

but having something that needs another computer to be running for it to be used is stupid.
thats like attaching a 4 door sedan to a bicycle and calling it a motorcycle.

you are connecting a lesser device to a greater functioning device fur the purpose of using the lesser device.
why not save the money and simply run android in a virtual machine?

anyway if it is cheap enough (eg sub $60 since a decent android phone with a touch screen and all other functions can be had for under $100)

then it may be good for functions such as a backup system, if your monitor has a built in USB hub, or if the device can some with a adapter like how an ipod comes with the wall charger, then you can simply connect it to a tv or extra monitor port.

What I would like to see is USB host support, eg a Y adapter from the power adapter, allowing the power to be shared but the data pins are go directly from the device, to the other connector in the Y adapter, allowing you to attach it to a USB hub and connect various other devices such as flash drives, mice, keyboards and probably a usb speaker system

(The USB host on the HP touchpad works this way)
 
"A tv should last 6-8 years or more..... a processor will be out of date in 1-2 years, especially these ARM processors which are making improvements every year. You would end up with a tv with a lame duck processor in it. The USB model makes a lot more sense to me anyway."

What are you planning to do with it?? I just setup an 8 year old computer [P4-2.2] as a computer for internet use. It would certainly play basic games fine. So long as in 6-7 years you aren't planning on it being like a PS4 that is built in to your TV, I don't see how it'll make a lot of difference.

 
[citation][nom]rosen380[/nom]"A tv should last 6-8 years or more..... a processor will be out of date in 1-2 years, especially these ARM processors which are making improvements every year. You would end up with a tv with a lame duck processor in it. The USB model makes a lot more sense to me anyway."What are you planning to do with it?? I just setup an 8 year old computer [P4-2.2] as a computer for internet use. It would certainly play basic games fine. So long as in 6-7 years you aren't planning on it being like a PS4 that is built in to your TV, I don't see how it'll make a lot of difference.[/citation]

If you don't want to ever upgrade your tv, that's your choice of course. I just finally threw out an old tv I had from 1985. I doubt I would want a computer from then. But whatever bud do whatever you want with YOUR money and I'll do the same.
 
[citation][nom]southernshark[/nom]I wouldn't want a processor built into my tv. A tv should last 6-8 years or more..... a processor will be out of date in 1-2 years, especially these ARM processors which are making improvements every year. You would end up with a tv with a lame duck processor in it. The USB model makes a lot more sense to me anyway.[/citation]

try thinking of it like this. if that arm can already support 1080p playback, you are basicly set. i mean this in the puropse of just being a tv device that streams to it. extras like angry birds may be nice, but the main function is internet streaming. if this takes off at all, most places will create an app for it specifically. and if it can handle 1080p, there is little need for it to be better.

again this is in the context of tv and what a tv is typicly used for, not a computer built into a tv.

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]What I would like is something like that but is self powered, or uses a small power connector and simply attaches into a dvi or vga port in the back of the monitor, so If I am studying and don't want the louder gaming PC running, I can switch the monitor to the vga or some other input and have a basic system running androidbut having something that needs another computer to be running for it to be used is stupid.thats like attaching a 4 door sedan to a bicycle and calling it a motorcycle.you are connecting a lesser device to a greater functioning device fur the purpose of using the lesser device.why not save the money and simply run android in a virtual machine?anyway if it is cheap enough (eg sub $60 since a decent android phone with a touch screen and all other functions can be had for under $100)then it may be good for functions such as a backup system, if your monitor has a built in USB hub, or if the device can some with a adapter like how an ipod comes with the wall charger, then you can simply connect it to a tv or extra monitor port.What I would like to see is USB host support, eg a Y adapter from the power adapter, allowing the power to be shared but the data pins are go directly from the device, to the other connector in the Y adapter, allowing you to attach it to a USB hub and connect various other devices such as flash drives, mice, keyboards and probably a usb speaker system(The USB host on the HP touchpad works this way)[/citation]

you are thinking of android phones on a contract, and mass produced, and i have use for apps on android, which aren't also made for the pc to my knowlege, granted im going to be looking for them/equilivalnt in the coming weeks.

[citation][nom]rosen380[/nom]"A tv should last 6-8 years or more..... a processor will be out of date in 1-2 years, especially these ARM processors which are making improvements every year. You would end up with a tv with a lame duck processor in it. The USB model makes a lot more sense to me anyway."What are you planning to do with it?? I just setup an 8 year old computer [P4-2.2] as a computer for internet use. It would certainly play basic games fine. So long as in 6-7 years you aren't planning on it being like a PS4 that is built in to your TV, I don't see how it'll make a lot of difference.[/citation]

i had a p4 3.0 or 3.2 ht before the motherboard died and i moved to a phenom 955. the p4 could not handle the internet as it is today, and would consistently hit 100% usage if even 1 flash thing was used. granted if you want to scale the internet back a bit it was serviceable.

but the internet is a side feature to video playback on tv with this.
 
[citation][nom]southernshark[/nom]If you don't want to ever upgrade your tv, that's your choice of course. I just finally threw out an old tv I had from 1985. I doubt I would want a computer from then. But whatever bud do whatever you want with YOUR money and I'll do the same.[/citation]
ks. i had a p4 3.0 or 3.2 ht before the motherboard died and i moved to a phenom 955. the p4 could not handle the internet as it is today, and would consistently hit 100% usage if even 1 flash thing was used. granted if you want to scale the internet back a bit it was serviceable.but the internet is a side feature to video playback on tv with this.[/citation]
[citation][nom]southernshark[/nom]If you don't want to ever upgrade your tv, that's your choice of course. I just finally threw out an old tv I had from 1985. I doubt I would want a computer from then. But whatever bud do whatever you want with YOUR money and I'll do the same.[/citation]

I'm not disagreeing exactly-- just saying that it's sounds like you'd be suprised how capable old CPUs are as far as basic computing goes.

Likewise-- if you were still suing your 1985 TV, it didn't support HD and [probably] didn't have anything but a coax-in on it, so was perhaps a little limiting as far as what you could hook up to it. Relative to a modern TV with a similar screen size, I bet it drew several times the power as well.

For basic TV viewing, maybe in a guest room, where it saw only a couple of hours of use a year it served a purpose and worked, so no point in replacing -- isn't that exactly the point I was making about CPUs???
 
I'm certainly not saying that a 10 year old PC is the right machine to be a primary computer for everyone-- for me it is probably loosely tied for third with my 3-year-olds netbook [behind a dual core laptop and an iPad].

For my mom or grandmother? It'd be perfectly acceptable for primary use. For most Tom's readers? It'd range from probably where I am using it [an extra computer in the house] to something that gets tossed in the trash :)

---
"ks. i had a p4 3.0 or 3.2 ht before the motherboard died and i moved to a phenom 955. the p4 could not handle the internet as it is today, and would consistently hit 100% usage if even 1 flash thing was used. "

In my experience, a fresh install of the OS [and/or very cheap RAM upgrade] usually makes a huge difference on "older" sluggish computers.
 
OK, so... this isn't a new idea. Apparently "The Raspberry Pi Foundation" has a 25 dollar device similar to this (only less powerful), that was supposed to release by now, but it's been delayed to December. Before we all go "yay", they're a a charity or something stupid like that, so their goal was to get the device into the hands of children in third world countries. Because, you know, they're all rocking LCDs that aren't connected to anything that can do web browsing.

Wait, no they aren't.

Jesus, charities are almost always retarded. Aaanyway, not really a new idea, and a least a few companies doing this... so we should see something come to market soon, and it'll probably be cheap.
 
That's nice... but won't you still need a keyboard (and mouse) to do anything? If they've got a keyboard already, then they would already have a computer as well. Why hasn't someone just built a compact keyboard (say with a trackball/trackpad) and the computer is all inside it? Just plug in the monitor and you're ready to go.
 
"any Windows or Mac computer"

What, it's built on top of linux and can't even interface with a linux box via USB? Article fail
 
the issue is still the price, for $200 it is way overpriced.

compare it to the kindle fire, now imagine how cheap the kindle fire would be if it didn't have a screen, capacitive digitizer, li-ion battery, and speakers

the device is significantly less than a tablet but cost just as much as one. you are better off getting your self a archos and connecting it to a tv using HDMI

if they wany that device to sell, they need to bring the price down to around $50-60, (there are many android tablets for $100 that offer a screen , speakers and other features not included.

The CPU's used in even high end tablets are not expensive. and RAM has gotten cheap

Sell the item for $50-60, and market it as a android system that connects to a TV or computer monitor as a secondary/ backup/ low power system.


While it is cool to get it that small, it is not ground breaking, take apart your iphone and look at how tiny the motherboard is.

Now think about how much smaller it would be if it did not have the additional components such as the cellular modem, digitizer controller, analog conversion, amplifier for headphones and speakers, battery charging and battery related power management circuitry, GPS circuitry, accelerometers, and various other sensors to detect orientation and direction and their supporting circuitry.

I bet you would get the left over components to easily fit the size of a standard flash drive case.
 
So, this is pretty awesome... replacement to the basic desktop homeuser computer? As long as they're okay with bluetooth kb/mouse and a wireless printer then they're good to go! No need to have a clunker and it's monitor...
 
FYI- the Kindle is being sold at a loss, with them expecting to make $ on media.

If these guys had a near guaranteed stream of additional revenue when you bought one, then sure, I bet they'd do quite a bit better on price. Don't forget how much smart phones cost without the subsidies fro mthe carrier [$500-$600+]

 


For a tablet, the most expensive part is the screen and digitizer, imagine how cheap the kindle fire would be without those components and their related circuitry as well as the battery, speakers and their related components

that should knock down the price by more than half

and if you are looking for something tiny, look at the motherboard in the iphone

http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/IP1qEpYFQSSqwSbg.huge

it is very thin in terms of width and is not very long compared to the body of the phone.

Imagine if they removed the sim card slot, camera components, cell modem, battery management hardware. That already tiny PCB will shrink by more than half. probably even smaller than the "super tiny computer" being talked about in this article.
 
Sure-- but also consider they are extremely unlikely to be selling these at the rate of an iPad or Fire, so they probably won't get the economies of scale that other manufactures get.

http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/18/teardown-reveals-199-kindle-fire-costs-201-70-to-build/
That suggests that the $199 Kindle costs just about exactly that just for parts, assembly and
packaging. The screen and battery are almost exactly half of that. So that may put these guys right in that $100 neighborhood.

Figure in money to cover development and employee costs and some profit and $200 retail may be right where it has to be.
 
As alluded to by ProDigit10, checkout RaspberryPi.org for another super-small form-factor computer, but expecting to retail for around $25/unit, instead of $200. Great for anyone who has a need for a computer that can pretty much fit in an Altoids tin...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom