Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mobile Devices Will Outnumber People By 2017

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the but-only-because-of-famine dept.

Cellphones 130

DavidGilbert99 writes "According to the latest report from analysts at CCS Insight, there will be more mobile phones and tablets in use in four years' time than there are people on the planet. With the machines well and truly taking over, will we be using them or will they be controlling us?"

cancel ×

130 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Define "In Use" (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year ago | (#43968043)

Define "In Use".

I sure as fuck only have 1 phone and 0 tablets, and that's won't even change.
Everyone I know who has a tablet and a phone pretty much only uses the phone.

Re:Define "In Use" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968127)

Define "In Use".

I sure as fuck only have 1 phone and 0 tablets, and that's won't even change.
Everyone I know who has a tablet and a phone pretty much only uses the phone.

I sure hope so!

You fuck more than 1 phone and a tablet on the side - well buddy, you can bet your ass that the phone will find out and leave you. And what? You're stuck with an aging, sagging, out of date tablet who can't even play Flash videos?!

Really?

On a side note, folks say I ahve a porblem with reading compreshension and spelling. I have no idea where they get that from!

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968319)

I farted

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968441)

Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!

Are you gonna go up my butt?

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968129)

I've only seen two uses for tablets... ok - three, but the third is kind of dumb.

1) Entertaining your toddler with Angry Birds and Skype with grandma.
2) Bringing it on the bus to read the news so you can look like a hipster.
3) You're working in marketing/sales at a technology company and want to look like you know the latest tech when making presentations.

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968403)

Hey dummy! Of course this is all you see in public or with your family. You are looking at an iceberg and only seeing the top 10%. What you don't see is that the other 90% is porn.

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

Jiro (131519) | about a year ago | (#43968607)

You forgot reading ebooks, which for a tablet also includes comics and manga (either legitimate or pirated). They're also useful for all purposes when travelling far from home, and on the bus to watch videos (most of which are probably pirated too).

I also take mine to role playing game sessions since I have (non-pirated) gamebooks on mine.

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969285)

Which pretty much counts a porn. You people have made normal everyday books into pornography by putting it in that shiny case acting like you give a damn. We all know you can't judge a book by its cover, but we all know you are just showing off and won't actually finish the first chapter of that book. After all you've got 11,000 more books to look cool by knowing the title of on your stupid handheld porno device. Don't even get me started on the comics and RPGs :(

Re:Define "In Use" (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year ago | (#43969699)

Tablets are horrible for reading ebooks. They smudge easily, they strain the eyes, and the battery life won't support reading for an extended period. An e-ink reader is orders of magnitude better.

Sigh. Not this tired old meme again! (1)

sgtrock (191182) | about a year ago | (#43973563)

Can we drop this already?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, my wife and I spent 4 days poolside in the Dominican Republic with a Kindle Fire and a Nook Color. Conditions bright enough every day for both of us to need sunglasses.

Yet, strangely enough, neither one of us had any problem whatsoever using our tablets to read ebooks for hours on end.

Am I saying that tablets with color LED displays are _better_ than e-ink readers for long term reading and battery life? Absolutely not! But the days when reading from a bog standard tablet to be a pain outdoors are long gone.

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43971217)

Add a MicroSD card with a couple gigs extra memory, plug in a pair of headphones, and use Handbrake software...

Not too bad for watching a few downloaded movies or cartoon episodes (catching up on that anime) in 720p on the go when it might be a bit too awkward to drag a proper laptop around. (The compact yet large-enough size has its merits.) Screen is plenty good for that and it's a shame nobody has ever made a tablet with a proper digital broadcast tuner.

Oh yeah and ebooks again too. But to read text you really have to find a spot in the shade without too much glare.

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968135)

I use about 0.007 phones on average, and most of that is as a watch. At least thats by my definition of in-use. Maybe they are using a different one?

Re:Define "In Use" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968155)

It is fun to use a Moore's Law extrapolation. Only 30 years later, cellphones will outnumber insects on the planet. And in a another 173 years after that, they will outnumber the atoms in the universe

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43968443)

"will outnumber the atoms in the universe"

Illogical.

-Seven of Nine.

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43968539)

"It is fun to use a Moore's Law extrapolation. Only 30 years later, cellphones will outnumber insects on the planet."

You misunderstand Moore's Law. It's all about the number of transistors in a chip, not the number of devices made from chips.

Windows has shown us that software consumes resources faster than Moore's law can keep up. My PC takes longer to boot than the Apple ][ (and 8088 PC clone) I had in the early days. Applications run not faster (but look prettier).

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#43968745)

You misunderstand Moore's Law. It's all about the number of transistors in a chip, not the number of devices made from chips.

I think by "Moore's Law extrapolation" he meant a growth rate like the one in Moore's Law. Because "exponential" is one of those big, hard words, I guess.

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43968871)

extrapolation != exponential. HTH! HAND!

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

NibbleG (987871) | about a year ago | (#43969103)

You are and idiot, it was a joke on the rapid "semi-exponential" growth that transistor count has been regarded to have, and obviously cellphones will never outnumber the insects on the plant or atoms in the universe. Really? You wanted to put down an AC for that?

Re:Define "In Use" (2)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43969187)

"You are and idiot"

Your self-referential post speaks for itself.

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

NibbleG (987871) | about a year ago | (#43969257)

Yeap

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969299)

In this case "you are" is clearly in reference to the fact that you exist, while the "and idiot" component is is an obvious observation of your demonstrated "Id" driven personality which therefore renders you an id-iot, or "one driven by the Id". The curious wording seems incorrect until you realize that the sentence lacks punctuation. When the lacking semi-colon is inserted "and idiot" becomes an addendum to the primary thought, "You are". Therefore "You are and idiot" is in fact the following: "You are; and idiot.", a completely logical anti-nonsensical argument that merely boarders on genius nonsequitur but never quite touches.

It's really just a semantics argument, but the fact that you'd pick it is clearly telling of your character and attention to detail. You're the kind of guy a person could have a beer with, I'd bet.

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969213)

It's both: exponential extrapolation.

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#43969283)

But on that topic, what's the deal with this company? Their staff roster [ccsinsight.com] doesn't seem to include any actual mathematicians or statisticians. They don't mention anywhere in the press release (or any other articles I could find on their site) how they arrive at their figures. It's just Jobs-style gut feelings and marketing experience. Even if their predictions are right it's impossible to trust such unbacked assertions... and, ultimately, it's irrelevant to the real players: Microsoft, Google, and Apple all employ scores of PhDs and industry veterans who could forecast circles around them.

Re:Define "In Use" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968199)

I sure as fuck only have 1 phone and 0 tablets,

Yet another self-centred American extrapolating themselves as everyman.

You're just wrong, Get used to knowing that and you'll be a nicer person.

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year ago | (#43968269)

I sure as fuck only have 1 phone and 0 tablets,

Yet another self-centred American extrapolating themselves as everyman.

You're just wrong, Get used to knowing that and you'll be a nicer person.

Get over yourself. Capitalism has spoken. People buy shit they don't need, use it for 5 minutes, then toss it.
You should be glad - in a few years the rivers of your shithole country will be filled with today's iPad. Maybe you can get one that's not completely ruined by sewage water damage.

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968341)

You should be glad - in a few years the rivers of your shithole country will be filled with today's iPad.

Maybe you should travel outside your (Southern?) state occasionally.

The rest of the world isn't what you think it is.

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968379)

I sure as fuck only have 1 phone and 0 tablets,

Yet another self-centred American extrapolating themselves as everyman.

You're just wrong, Get used to knowing that and you'll be a nicer person.

Get over yourself. Capitalism has spoken. People buy shit they don't need, use it for 5 minutes, then toss it.
You should be glad - in a few years the rivers of your shithole country will be filled with today's iPad. Maybe you can get one that's not completely ruined by sewage water damage.

if they toss it, it's not "in use."

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968473)

The tossing seems to be pretty continuous in this thread.

Re:Define "In Use" (0)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43968687)

How many americans will be able to buy one in a few years if current trend of removing money from the poor and concentrating it in the hands of the few continues?

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year ago | (#43968633)

He said "I" and "Everyone I Know". Those are some pretty specific constraints. He was making a speculation, and I see nowhere that he extrapolate that to everyone. Nor did he indicate he was an American, nor in Southern state if you're the same AC commenting below. Seems you're just as bad as far as making hostile presumptions about other people based on little to no evidence. You're entitled to your opinion, but should be embarrassed at your hypocrisy because it just demonstrates your own stupidity.

Re: Define "In Use" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968279)

Cars, bombs, and cigarettes in a close competition.

AC CUZ I DUNNO VETTER.

Re:Define "In Use" (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43968485)

Good point I guess, I have 7 or 8 phones in my drawer and none of them are "in use".

Re:Define "NiggerDick" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968497)

Define "NIggerDick".

I sure as fuck have a great big pecker but it's no NiggerDick.
Everyone I know who tasted NiggerDick pretty much only fellates NiggerDick.

Think of the amount of WASTE in 2011 (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#43968659)

If by 2017 the number of mobile devices is more than the number of human beings on this planet, by the year 2011, when those mobile devices end up in landfills, think of the amount of WASTE !!!

Re:Think of the amount of WASTE in 2011 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968769)

I just wonder what "2011" was really supposed to be.

So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968075)

I have 2 old mp3 players I haven't used in many years and don't even know where they are. I also have some calculators I don't use. I have an old IPod Touch I got for free I don't use. Pretty soon I'll likely end up with such a collection of phones, tablets etc instead. So? Why should I care?

Re:So? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43968463)

I have 2 old mp3 players I haven't used in many years and don't even know where they are. I also have some calculators I don't use. I have an old IPod Touch I got for free I don't use. Pretty soon I'll likely end up with such a collection of phones, tablets etc instead. So? Why should I care?

Did you have a point, or do you just show up to harrumph and stomp away?

I have a phone, two tablets, two e-readers. I use them all at least weekly. Different purposes and different places.
My poor wife only has one tablet, a phone, and two e-readers.

Its easy to see that the TFA is spot on, and all your shouting to get off your lawn won't hold back the tide.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969565)

I have 2 old mp3 players I haven't used in many years and don't even know where they are. I also have some calculators I don't use. I have an old IPod Touch I got for free I don't use. Pretty soon I'll likely end up with such a collection of phones, tablets etc instead. So? Why should I care?

Did you have a point, or do you just show up to harrumph and stomp away?

My point was I was wondering what the point of the article was. We are suppose to have stuff that matters here right? The story is "we are going to have lots of phones in 2017". I was wondering why this matters.

So whats your point in questing my point about the point of the article? Do you perhaps have some reason we should care, or are you just agreeing its pointless?

Re:So? (3, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#43968947)

Cause when we reach a certain ratio of wireless devices to humans, people who are allergic to WiFi will start spontaneously combusting in the street.

So make sure you have your WiFi capable cameraphone with you in case you bump into one of those.
It will make a great twit-post on your face-place wall thingy.

On a side note... That's a whole lot of lithium. Just sayin...

Machines won't take over in my lifetime (2, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#43968077)

Between the shoddy code, poor manufacturing tolerances, poor quality control, and dependence on power sources that they cannot protect, computers and devices will not take over in my lifetime even if there was an intent to do so. That doesn't even get into design that requires humans to perform maintenance tasks, flick switches, or otherwise do things that keep the systems up that the machines might not even know about.

XKCD said it best [xkcd.com] .

Re:Machines won't take over in my lifetime (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969785)

Between the shoddy code, poor manufacturing tolerances, poor quality control, and dependence on power sources that they cannot protect, computers and devices will not take over in my lifetime even if there was an intent to do so. That doesn't even get into design that requires humans to perform maintenance tasks, flick switches, or otherwise do things that keep the systems up that the machines might not even know about.

XKCD said it best [xkcd.com] .

I think this one [xkcd.com] might be more relevant to this article.

Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968081)

Cars outnumbered people quite some time ago. Where was all the outrage then?

Sold != in use (3, Insightful)

scottbomb (1290580) | about a year ago | (#43968103)

TFA contends that all smartphones & tablets sold are still in use. If you buy a new smartphone and throw away / recycle the old one, you don't get to count this as 2 smartphones in use.

Re:Sold != in use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968465)

My POS Kobo Wifi is now a picture server. It's slow but works, it's exceptionally energy efficient and it's also running a nifty local weather app and is a clock fairly good at keeping to atomic time. It's hanging on a wall with soft LED front light. I suppose it could do more but why?
One of my old LCD monitors has an Android phone guts in it doing nothing more than being random wall art. It's also a picture server and has some file storage capacity. Another android phone is playing weather data gathering device, solar powered and wifi. I let it wake up and shove data to a PC for that when it thinks it has the power.

and on and on. I gave away one anemic tablet that I can if I need store and retrieve stuff off of. The person knows that and does not care but I didn't have to tell them.

Re:Sold != in use (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43968571)

TFA contends that all smartphones & tablets sold are still in use. If you buy a new smartphone and throw away / recycle the old one, you don't get to count this as 2 smartphones in use.

It contends no such thing.

But far more of them remain in use after replacement than you think. I have three smartphones on my desk.
One I use as a primary.
One I keep around for a SIP for contacting overseas customers.
One I keep just to check stocks and play games on.

In addition I have two tablets and two Nooks.

I use them all, some more than others.

Re:Sold != in use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968817)

Your example is more the exception rather than the rule. Most go into a drawer, the garbage or recycling. Very few people will actually use multiple.

Re:Sold != in use (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43969415)

You've taken a poll then?

Every body i know does this. Mind you they have no sim in the old phones but they still use them for music or give them to the kids to use on wifi.

Re:Sold != in use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969839)

Not the AC above, but you must honestly keep a very specific social group if you think this is somehow the norm.

Re:Sold != in use (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year ago | (#43969943)

I myself use 2, but I would definitely consider myself an exception rather than the norm, I don't know of anyone else in my family or circle of friends that uses multiple smartphones and most of my friends work in IT. I can't see how anyone could consider use of multiple smartphones the norm rather than the exception.

-1, Lie (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about a year ago | (#43968953)

If you're going to tell a lie, you should pick a subject that is not so easily verified. Even at Slashdot, someone will eventually read the actual article and note that it does not say what you claim.

Re:-1, Lie (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year ago | (#43969975)

In all fareness the article definitely does seem to imply that as they are claiming 6.6 billion mobile phones in use while claiming only 2.1 billion combined tablet and smartphone sales annually by that time. either they are stating every phone sale is to a new person for the next 4 years or they are claiming every new smartphone will still be in use. If my maths is wrong please feel free to correct me, but from what I read the OP's statement isn't a lie at all.

Re:Sold != in use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43971249)

Buy one and throw one away? Are you nuts? The reason people get another phone, so they can make phone calls in stereo.

They don't already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968109)

I for one welcome the singularity.

Then, as it is now ... (1)

dasgoober (2882045) | about a year ago | (#43968121)

... it will be the people controlling the content.

Eh. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43968153)

They won't "control" us in any cool, malevolent-supercomputer-overlord, kind of way; but I'll confidently predict a downright alarming number of man hours spent drooling mindlessly and poking at the blinky lights that live behind the glass on the shiny thing.

It's too bad, really. Getting crushed by a malevolent supercomputer would be flattering in a way(just like being assassinated, only people worth mentioning get that). The fact that humans will spend time sucking up to a Tamagotchi if you let them is... rather less flattering.

It will always be people controlling people (1)

zlel (736107) | about a year ago | (#43968167)

Except that now they have the option of hiding behind machines and making look like it isn't so. They have done it to business, to politics, to religion, and they will do it to technology.

Looks around.... (3, Insightful)

BenJeremy (181303) | about a year ago | (#43968245)

Let's see, everybody in this household has a phone, tablet and we have a netbook. 7 devices for 3 people.

Yeah, I can see mobile devices outnumbering people.

Realistically, tablets will always exist next to phones. Some people might like "phablets" but form-factor matters. A phone can replace a camera, can have a lot of handy apps, but is lousy for reading, browsing and video compared to a tablet (yes, they can be done, but... ugh). In short, the tablet and smart phone are two form factors that will likely be useful for some time.

Not sure where the "smart watch" will fit in, I see it more useful as a peripheral for your phone, but some people may see it as a replacement for the phone, and supplementing as a hotspot for a tablet (which then handles everything your phone might have). That's still two devices per person, as a reasonable "data and communications tool set"

Re:Looks around.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43968287)

"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.com
Next you will say something silly like "a phone can replace a video camera"....

Re:Looks around.... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#43968353)

"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.com

I don't know what a '500px' is. Is it like a goat?

Most people don't need high resolution multi-megapixel cameras, they want something to snap a piccy of them and their buds at the bar having a good time as a memory aid. A camera phone can do that. It can replace a camera, in that application.

Re: Looks around.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968509)

A cellphone camera app isn't a replacement for an actual camera in the same way that a bicycle isn't a replacement for a car.

Re: Looks around.... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#43968561)

A cellphone camera app isn't a replacement for an actual camera in the same way that a bicycle isn't a replacement for a car.

And yet I know many people who commute to work daily on their bicycles and are quite happy. As I said ... IN THAT APPLICATION. That's the standard context when someone says "I replaced my camera with a cellphone".

Re: Looks around.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969453)

OMFG you are not smart. How is a bicycle not a replacement for a car? I've seen people go thousands of miles on bikes, and you can get a trailer for a bike. The only thing you can't get is the speed, but most people don't actually need that because work isn't so far away. I've seen bicycles even replace fuel by being hooked up to generators and run by people to power a concert.
fucking bike hater!

Re: Looks around.... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43970437)

You can read the AC's comment either way. It's not really clear what side of the fence he's standing on, except that by implication he's presumably opposing Obfuscant's assertion that for plenty of uses a cellphone camera serves the purpose just as well (or better, perhaps, for being more convenient).

Then again, he could equally be agreeing with Obfuscant. We may never know.

Re:Looks around.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968455)

"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.com

Dumbass. Every photo here [dpreview.com] is as good as anyone can expect to take in their lifetime, and orders of magntude better than your "work" I'm sure.

Next you will say something silly like "a phone can replace a video camera"....

Yeah, it's not like a film shot with a iPhone ever won an international film festival [iphonefaq.org] .

No apology necessary, as I don't have a high enough opinion of you to give a shit.

Re:Looks around.... (2)

BenJeremy (181303) | about a year ago | (#43968475)

If I need the output of a $2000+ DSLR camera, I'll get one. I don't expect my phone to do that, but honestly, for 90% of the photo/video applications I need it for, my iPhone works pretty damn well - and more importantly, it's always at my side when I'm out. There are quite a few phones (Android and Windows Phones) that are getting better cameras on them, too.

It's been at least a year since I felt like I needed to grab my digital camera.

We are talking mobile devices here, and cameras really don't fall into that category. I suppose somebody could (probably already does?) make a DSLR that takes a SIM card and can handle 3G/4G, and that would be useful, but I doubt you'd get much sales from the consumer market.

Cameras will continue to improve on smart phones, also remember, massive pixel resolutions do not directly correlate to great quality, and IIRC, 4megapixels equates to an 8x10 printed to typical photo stock, detail-wise.

I suspect in the future, somebody will poo-poo the idea that neural inductance receptors can produce the same quality images from your eyes that you get from your smart cell device. There just isn't nearly the same number of receptors in your retina as their are on your quantum-film based camera sensors!

Progress... how does it work?

Re:Looks around.... (1)

Ambassador Kosh (18352) | about a year ago | (#43969549)

I feel the same way. For doing lab experiments I have been taking pictures of petri dishes so my laptop can count the colonies that have grown on them. It works very well. I don't need anything approaching professional quality and what my phone does is get the job done.

Later I will have it capture video of how fast a pH gradient collapses. The video quality FAR exceeds anything I need for that application. A professional camera or video camera would be vastly overkill and be harder to use due to the greater complexity of those devices.

The whole human augmentation stuff is very cool. Think of what we can do with portable computing devices when you have your eyes replaced and no longer need a screen. How long would a smartphone last if the screen only existed in your mind? How durable would it be? How long would a "laptop" last? That technology is a lot closer than most people think.

Re:Looks around.... (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43968621)

so its not DSLR quality for family photos? big deal

i have my iphone with me all the time and can take a photo at any time while chasing after my kids. DSLR is like carrying around a diaper bag full of crap

Re:Looks around.... (1)

mjwx (966435) | about a year ago | (#43968981)

"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.com
Next you will say something silly like "a phone can replace a video camera"....

I'm yet to see a shot from a phone that can match my Canon Ixus 230HS... A point and shoot camera (albeit, a good P&S).

Phones have terrible focusing and poor lenses. You might be able to take a semi decent shot in a pinch but forget action, low light, close up and distance shots. Also yet to see a phone that gets into the camera application faster than my P&S does a cold start.

Camera's in phones have the same problem as screwdrivers on swiss army knives, they'll do in a pinch but are nowhere near as good as a proper screwdriver. A case of "jack of all trades, master of none", so if I'm going somewhere I'll expect to take photos... I'll take a proper camera.

Re:Looks around.... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#43968959)

For me, the tablet has little appeal. My portable device is a smart phone because it fits in my pocket. If I need more than that, I have a laptop that is little more trouble to carry than a tablet but has a much more capable UI and handy connectors for peripherals.

Re:Looks around.... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#43969835)

Let's see, everybody in this household has a phone, tablet and we have a netbook. 7 devices for 3 people.

Yeah, I can see mobile devices outnumbering people.

In the rich part of the world maybe. Where I live that's the situation too - many years ago we were well over 100% penetration rate for mobile phones - and that's counting actual telephone numbers in use. Many people have two phones, two numbers.

However only a minority of the world's population is that rich. China and India together make up almost half the world's population - and have a far lower mobile device use rate, though of course it's rising fast, and with mobile phones and subscriptions as cheap as they are nowadays it's getting in reach for more and more people. Though you'd need at least like 80% of their population to own at least one mobile device to stand a chance of reaching more than one per head of the world population.

They are multiplying like flies! (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43968275)

I carry two smartphones, have an ipad and a Nexus 7... oh and a kindle that I use when I travel... Actually I have 4 Nexus 7's.. 3 are broken ones friends gave me. and I believe I'll have a couple more broken ones soon, those replicate fast.

So yes, if people keep breaking nexus 7's I'll have 100,000 of them by the end of the year... all broken..

Re:They are multiplying like flies! (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | about a year ago | (#43968651)

And there are hundreds of millions of people in China, India and Africa that don't have either.

I call bulls*&$! (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#43968301)

Using fuzzy accountant math, possibly true but not without fuzzy math. Are they including wireless devices like stoves that now come with WIFIbuilt in? Are they counting the bazillion other hardware controllers with WIFI? (each of which technical people are telling people it's both dangerous and stupid to have WIFI on!)

Middle class families can't afford more than 1 device per person, and a hefty portion of those can't afford more than 1 device per household (depending on which side of the middle class scale they sit on). Our middle class in the US has been shrinking rapidly over the last 20 years, so someone is fantasizing!

Oh wait, we already have welfare recipients with dozens of free Obama phones, paid for by the few middle class people that pay taxes. That's the answer then! The governments will all give away phones with money they don't have and borrow that money from each other in some sort of fuc*@d up bartering scheme right?

Great googly moogly!. Does every stupid ass thing people say now make a "story"?

Re:I call bulls*&$! (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#43968381)

Does every stupid ass thing people say now make a "story"?

You must be new here.

Re:I call bulls*&$! (1)

Proteus (1926) | about a year ago | (#43968521)

He's not as new as you appear to be. (He says while eyeing user ID numbers).

Re:I call bulls*&$! (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#43972945)

Not new, I continue to have faith that things will get better as long as we keep pointing out mistakes. I get disappointed a whole lot too, but...

Re:I call bulls*&$! (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#43968397)

Oh wait, we already have welfare recipients with dozens of free Obama phones, paid for by the few middle class people that pay taxes.

And the fewer rich people who pay the majority of the taxes in the US. Tax year 2009, top 5% of AGI paid 58% of the income taxes (from here [ntu.org] ).

In a few years, every grade and high school student in the US will have a tablet of some kind, thanks to the local taxpayers. It's the wave of the future. Think of the children.

Re:I call bulls*&$! (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year ago | (#43968635)

And the fewer rich people who pay the majority of the taxes in the US. Tax year 2009, top 5% of AGI paid 58% of the income taxes (from here [ntu.org] ).

It's good to see this getting more visibility. I think there'll more and more pressure put on everyone to pull their weight, and the old myth of the rich getting a free ride on the backs of blue collar labour are slowly evaporating. I'd like to see the day where people talk less about how much their salary is and more about how much tax they contributed. For the record, I paid $35k income tax last year.

Re:I call bulls*&$! (1)

Ambassador Kosh (18352) | about a year ago | (#43969567)

Don't the top 5% make far more than 58% of all the income? If they make more than 58% of the income I would expect them to pay at least that high of a percentage of the taxes.

Re:I call bulls*&$! (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#43973087)

If you paid 35K you are not rich, you are middle class. I paid a bit more than you, and am at the higher end of middle class. Taxes are absolutely unfair. Wealthy people pay 8-10% tax on average while you and I pay 35-40%.

Over 65,000 pages of tax code ensures that the elites do not pay their fair share. Any argument otherwise should be directed at the 65,000+ page tax code as proof of an unfair system. I'm sure some dip shit will claim "most of that 65,000 pages is dedicated to who pays taxes" at which I will laugh and tell the to actually read the codes instead of listening to the fantasized summary someone want's them to believe.

The original reasoning given under Reagan for creating such a disparate system is "Trickle Down" which has been proven to be a false theory for nearly 3 decades. It's continued under the fallacy argument that the economy will collapse if we had a fair tax for the elites. The fallacy can be dispelled by simply looking at the system working very well from the 40s through the early 80s where the elites paid a much higher percentage of income in tax. In the early 70s, it was nearly a 90% tax on millionaires and was that rate for half a century. The tax rates are public information, go learn something if you have doubts as to my statements.

We're going to need IPv6 rolled out, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968311)

C'mon people, if we're going to have more than 7.4 x 10**9 devices in 2017, we're going to need an address space big enough to accomodate 10**38 of them.

4 devices (1)

GeorgeMonroy (784609) | about a year ago | (#43968411)

I have 4 just for myself

It's so breathless! (4, Insightful)

Proteus (1926) | about a year ago | (#43968501)

there will be more mobile phones and tablets in use in four years' time than there are people on the planet... will we be using them or will they be controlling us?

Right this moment, there are more ears of corn in use than there are people on the planet. Will we be eating them, or will they be eating us?

Seriously... having lots of something doesn't automatically change its nature.

Re:It's so breathless! (3, Funny)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#43968585)

Right this moment, there are more ears of corn in use than there are people on the planet. Will we be eating them, or will they be eating us?

Why do you think the population density of areas that are the main producers of corn is so low? Think of how many people say "I'm moving to the country" and then you never hear from them again?

Don't panic. By the time it's turned into flakes it is mostly harmless.

Re:It's so breathless! (1)

cfsops (2922481) | about a year ago | (#43968797)

By the time it's turned into flakes it is mostly harmless.

The corn or the people?

Re:It's so breathless! (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43969459)

Right this moment, there are more ears of corn in use than there are people on the planet. Will we be eating them, or will they be eating us?

lol. Congrats sir, you are one of the few people, to who, when I wrote lol, it actually literally was true.

Re:It's so breathless! (2)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#43969473)

"Right this moment, there are more ears of corn in use than there are people on the planet. Will we be eating them, or will they be eating us? "

Climate change will take care of that, most of the land now growing corn will be in drought

They're taking over! (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43968535)

I did my part in the coming mobile device/robot war vs humans. I recently put my cell phone through the laundry.

Chairs are taking over the world (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968567)

I am sitting in a conference room at work right now that has enough chairs for everyone at my small company to sit in. There is also a chair for me in my office, another at my desk at home, and one more in the dining room! And just think of all those chairs at restaurants around the world just waiting for me to sit in them! In fact, a recent study determined that there are 4.6 chairs for every man, woman, and child on the planet (I'll have to get back to you with the reference on that one). Basically the world has been conquered by chairs without us even realizing it.

Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968649)

"With the machines well and truly taking over, will we be using them or will they be controlling us?"

Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

Fucking stupid drivel for stupid people.

Fuck the author and fuck the submitter, though they are probably one and the same.

Who writes shit like that? Fucking idiots, that's who. Idiots who LOVE BACON harharhar! and think the Zombie Apocalypse is coming, idiots who aren't afraid to label themselves as a Geek when it comes to Blank (harhar!), vapid assholes who have one thing and one thing only to say: This.

And still no IPv6 (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#43968655)

So all of these cannot host a web server on port 80 on the global internet at the same time.

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968673)

Welcome our Cellphone overlords.

Look up Carrier IQ scandal sometime. (1)

David Starr (2947741) | about a year ago | (#43968791)

Carrier IQ is a program supposedly used for diagnostic purposes. It is imbedded in the software of android phones. It tracks everything including key strokes. Now here is a fun blurb from CarrierIQ dot coms website from their whitepaper section. Carrier IQ takes consumer privacy very seriously. Anonymization and consumer choice through opt-out are important and included capabilities of Carrier IQ systems. Services are delivered to network operators through an encrypted environment. Carrier IQ acts as a service provider to network operators and device manufacturers, and makes no independent use of data from Carrier IQ enabled mobile device. But is this the truth? Assuming Carrier IQ is not a front for a US government agency. (get paranoid people, LOL) what would stop the government from issuing a court order under the US patriot act section 215 to access all that information?

they will be monitoring and controlling you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969037)

with the NSA and those email/facebook notifications ...

Don't worry (1)

GODISNOWHERE (2741453) | about a year ago | (#43970209)

> With the machines well and truly taking over, will we be using them or will they be controlling us?

The machines run Unix or Unix descendents. They'll crash, dump core and reboot before they can take over the world.

Controlling us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43971969)

You may scoff, but I think this isn't so far fetched...

The youth of today (and some young adults) are absolutely hooked on these devices.
I know several people in their early to mid-thirties who cannot go 10 minutes without checking a mobile device (usually a smart phone), to
respond to a text, Facebook message or other meaningless virtual social interaction.

Being so dependent on something does lend that something an inordinate level of control over your life - it's very disconcerting and frankly, sad.

hell no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43972199)

There's no way mobile devices will ever outnumber Indians and the Chinese... they multiply much, much faster than mobile devices can be produced....

Already here in Brazil, I think (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about a year ago | (#43973047)

I think that there is already more mobile phone activated lines than people here in my country (a friend used it in a conversation with me, some days ago...)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>