Anonymous, 28 Feb 2017Haha, you must be a fossil to think that smart watches are a good idea. There is simply no bus... moreWow, so much ignorance in one post.
Smartwatches as they are now, are complementary to our active connected lifestyle.
Smartphones are our main computing unit.
And laptops/desktops are the niche workhorses.
What you are suggesting is to take Desktop class processing power and strap it to your wrist.
This is NOT what AndroidWear or iWatch is about.
I mean if you want to talk about hypotheticals, sure let's talk hypotheticals.
We can say an appropriate "desktop performance" equals roughly to Intel Core i5-7360U...well that draws ~9W power at 80% load. Current Smartwatches only draw around ~700mW at full-load. So the difference in power is ~x20. So if you can come down from 32nm-scale 10 times and improve architecture alongside, doubling efficiency, you would theoretically have enough power on your wrist to do some serious computer processing.
32,28,16,10,7,4,2,1nm -> Laser-Gen 1 -> Laser Gen 2
You'd need to pass the physical 1nm limitation of atoms, in order to reach such efficiency.
And considering our projected lookout for 4nm is in 2023... you Anonymous are really going to have to wait!!!!!!
Haha, you must be a fossil to think that smart watches are a good idea. There is simply no business model for wearables what a terrible idea.
Make computers 10 times smaller and 10 times cheaper and then we'll start talking about embedded cimputing and wearable. It's a tripe of Sci find for a reason, because you have to believe in fictional stories to believe that we are anywhere close to an era that smart watches are a good product.
BTW 10 times smaller and 10 times cheaper implies 100x more transistors in the same space, that is at least 6 more die shrinks away... we're not getting that many shrinks before the death of Moore's law ... those products are bad for a reason, and thinking that they will ever become good is a fantasy. Haha.