Samsung design chief talks plastic and software, says future is in devices with 'souls'

1567911

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 219
    hftshfts Posts: 386member

    Notice how DaHarder did not mention the recyclable aspect of the 10s of millions of the "more superior" Samsung polycarbonate (plastic) devices. When a company sells a respectable amount of devices, the recyclability should be a major consideration of the overall design process.

    Also notice that DaHarder's MO as of late seems to be "drive by" comments. One and done.
    Very good points to which I agree on all.
    You actually beat me as I was about to post on his
    MO, like a drive by shooter. Or a Cookoo that lays
    it's eggs and moves on, damage done
  • Reply 162 of 219
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    It's all carbon, right? But what is the cost for recycling? Typically when I see something is made from recycled plastic it's only a small portion. Why is that? Glass and metal seems to be much better product for recycling than plastics in their various molecular makeups.

    And shouldn't we look at the cost in both expense and green house gases that is need to first make or obtain the pure material that is in question? I would think metals are notoriously high for their initial cost.

    This is all beyond my purview; I'm just spitballing.
    Glass is benign so when it's melted no harmful
    Chemical substances are given off.
    Similar the case with most metals. However pkastics
    are a different kettle of fish.
    They give off noxious and and depending on the plastic
    very dangerous organic compounds.
    Unless its a plastic bottle that can simply be
    cleaned and re-used, recycling plastics come with
    a bad side effect.
  • Reply 162 of 219
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    It's all carbon, right? But what is the cost for recycling? Typically when I see something is made from recycled plastic it's only a small portion. Why is that? Glass and metal seems to be much better product for recycling than plastics in their various molecular makeups.

    And shouldn't we look at the cost in both expense and green house gases that is need to first make or obtain the pure material that is in question? I would think metals are notoriously high for their initial cost.

    This is all beyond my purview; I'm just spitballing.
    Glass is benign so when it's melted no harmful
    Chemical substances are given off.
    Similar the case with most metals. However pkastics
    are a different kettle of fish.
    They give off noxious and and depending on the plastic
    very dangerous organic compounds.
    Unless its a plastic bottle that can simply be
    cleaned and re-used, recycling plastics come with
    a bad side effect.
  • Reply 164 of 219
    sennensennen Posts: 1,470member


    First pebbles in streams, now devices with souls. Okaaay....

  • Reply 165 of 219
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    hfts wrote: »
    Glass is benign so when it's melted no harmful
    Chemical substances are given off.
    Similar the case with most metals. However pkastics
    are a different kettle of fish.
    They give off noxious and and depending on the plastic
    very dangerous organic compounds.
    Unless its a plastic bottle that can simply be
    cleaned and re-used, recycling plastics come with
    a bad side effect.

    That is, of course nonsense. You're reacting from an uneducated, irrational fear of 'chemicals'.

    There are plenty of harmful chemicals involved in the mining and manufacture of metals. Look at all the leach ponds out west.

    And plastics don't give off 'noxious and dangerous' organic compounds simply from being melted.

    Recycling of plastics is well established and quite environmentally friendly.
  • Reply 166 of 219
    "I think over time, though, it's all of our responsibilities not to put more layers of hardware and glass in front of our users."

    Does he really think we are all THAT stupid?!?!?
  • Reply 167 of 219
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Polycarbonate BPAs using CO2 as a feedstock instead of petroleum reduces the overall carbon footprint, but until that's fully enforced a lot of manufacturing will just use petroleum based polymers.

    Solid Report on it: http://chemical.ihs.com/PEP/Public/Reports/Phase_2012/RP285/RP285_toc.pdf

    To get the whole report it costs money: http://www.ihs.com/products/chemical/technology/pep/index.aspx

    I'm not interested in getting the report and it's irrelevant, anyway. The argument was about recycling. That report is about the initial synthesis. There's nothing wrong with recycling of plastics.
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I did read it, hence my questions. Your comment about environmental reasons and then stating it must be profitable perplexes me. I'm under the assumption that China still has very lax environmental laws compared to other industrialized nations. So how do plastics stand up to other materials like metals and glass when it comes to repeated reusability for the aforementioned costs?

    Please, study up a bit on recycling. It's not as complicated as you're making it. Recycling of plastics (including PC) is very clean and simple. Plastics are NOT, however, generally reused repeatedly. More commonly, the plastic is melted and used in some other product. For example, a common application is the use of polyethylene terepthalate (PET) from bottles to make clothing.

    Recycling is not a dirty process. A modern recycling plant could be operating next door to you and you wouldn't know it. It's clean and fairly inexpensive to recycle plastics. The bigger problem is actually collecting enough plastics inexpensively enough to make it worthwhile.

    The point about China is that they're not recycling for environmental reasons, but there is huge demand for used PC so that they can recycle it. The fact that there's so much demand indicates that they can make money on it - so it's clearly a reasonable process.
  • Reply 168 of 219
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    "Samsung's American design chief says the future of mobile isn't in form factors; it's in making devices with "soul."

    Maybe he meant to say "Seoul"? ;)
  • Reply 169 of 219
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Please, study up a bit on recycling. It's not as complicated as you're making it. Recycling of plastics (including PC) is very clean and simple. Plastics are NOT, however, generally reused repeatedly. More commonly, the plastic is melted and used in some other product. For example, a common application is the use of polyethylene terepthalate (PET) from bottles to make clothing.

    Honestly, I don't care enough to be well versed in how plastics are recycled, but as far as complexity I'm aware as how heat is used to recycle glass and metals, but it seems to be a chemical process over heat is used for plastic. If not, then I am making it more complex. If so, then it's more complex than other recycling processes.

    If you have a How It's Made link I'll watch that.
    Recycling is not a dirty process. A modern recycling plant could be operating next door to you and you wouldn't know it. It's clean and fairly inexpensive to recycle plastics. The bigger problem is actually collecting enough plastics inexpensively enough to make it worthwhile.

    The point about China is that they're not recycling for environmental reasons, but there is huge demand for used PC so that they can recycle it. The fact that there's so much demand indicates that they can make money on it - so it's clearly a reasonable process.

    None of that answers what I thought was a non-complex question about two different costs for recycling.

    If you say that recycling plastic is just as efficient as glass and aluminum then I'd think that the sourcing of the proper aluminum purity would be a huge up front cost in both money and it's toll on the environment. However, I've never once heard anyone argue that we should never use metal (or glass) when plastics can do just as well because of the cost to the environment for sourcing the materials.
  • Reply 170 of 219
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't care enough to be well versed in how plastics are recycled, but as far as complexity I'm aware as how heat is used to recycle glass and metals, but it seems to be a chemical process over heat is used for plastic. If not, then I am making it more complex. If so, then it's more complex than other recycling processes.

    If you have a How It's Made link I'll watch that.
    None of that answers what I thought was a non-complex question about two different costs for recycling.

    If you say that recycling plastic is just as efficient as glass and aluminum then I'd think that the sourcing of the proper aluminum purity would be a huge up front cost in both money and it's toll on the environment. However, I've never once heard anyone argue that we should never use metal (or glass) when plastics can do just as well because of the cost to the environment for sourcing the materials.

    I'd never make that claim. Recycling is almost always beneficial because for most products, it takes far less energy (and generates less CO2) to recycle than to make virgin materials.

    I'm not claiming that recycling of plastics is easier than recycling aluminum or glass. I'm simply objecting to the claims that it's horrendously difficult or bad for the environment. It's not.
  • Reply 171 of 219
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    I'd never make that claim. Recycling is almost always beneficial because for most products, it takes far less energy (and generates less CO2) to recycle than to make virgin materials.

    I'm not claiming that recycling of plastics is easier than recycling aluminum or glass. I'm simply objecting to the claims that it's horrendously difficult or bad for the environment. It's not.

    I think the ubiquitousness of plastics recycling is solid evidence that it has inherent benefits, but I'm still wondering which has a smaller longterm cost to the environment.
  • Reply 172 of 219
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    jragosta wrote: »
    That is, of course nonsense. You're reacting from an uneducated, irrational fear of 'chemicals'.

    There are plenty of harmful chemicals involved in the mining and manufacture of metals. Look at all the leach ponds out west.

    And plastics don't give off 'noxious and dangerous' organic compounds simply from being melted.

    Recycling of plastics is well established and quite environmentally friendly.
    I have two degrees in Chemistry and Biochemistry, do you?
    I overly simplified my statements.
    You mentioned metal, we are not talking about the manufacturing process here. Plastics do give off noxious and very dangerous compounds. I suggest you read up more before making a fool of yourself.
    So in a fire what would you do? Hint, move away from artificially made materials, carpets, curtains and PLASTICs.
    Sigh ... It's very difficult to discuss topics with those who have no background or qualifications.
    Let me ask you this, how many different kinds of plastics are there? Thousands and thousands. So you know by fact that NONE give of toxic gases etc. when melted.
    What happens to something that melts? Usually, the constituents break free from the overall structure due to bonds (chemical) being destroyed. You will be most interested to know the toxic properties of these compounds.
    For example salt is Na+ and Cl-. Sodium is highly reactive, try dropping some in water, Chlorinevis a highly toxic gas.
    Isn't chemistry wonderful and strange.
    So if you are so bloody smart tell me why ice floats on water? Hint: You won't find it on Wilkpedia.
    I know, as I use to be a Chemist.
    When you give up and ask me and I will give you the answer then you will need to acknowledge that
    I know what I'm asking about. Apologise and never question me again when it comes to Chemistry, is that a deal?
  • Reply 173 of 219
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post





    Key Lime Pie is expected by this summer, at which point we'll see that neither this brand new phone nor any of it's predecessors will have the option to upgrade.


    I don't see any reason why they wouldn't. Samsung has just released a Jelly Bean update for the SG2. There's also a huge development community for these phones, XDA houses at least 20 different Roms just for the SG3 alone. The now more then antiquated HTC HD not only has Android Roms but Windows and Ubuntu as well. These phones will have a very, very long shelf life. 

  • Reply 174 of 219
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    relic wrote: »
    <span class="TextRun SCX250955693" lang="en-us" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:19px;">I don't see any reason why they wouldn't. Samsung has just released a Jelly Bean update for the SG2. There's also a huge develop</span>
    <span class="TextRun SCX250955693" lang="en-us" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:19px;">ment community for these phones, XDA houses at least 20 different Roms just for the SG3 alone. The now more then antiquated HTC HD not only has Android Roms but Windows and Ubuntu as well. These phones will have a very, very</span>
    <span class="TextRun SCX250955693" lang="en-us" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:19px;"> long shelf life.</span>
    <span class="EOP SCX250955693" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:19px;"> </span>
    Really? I don't think so based on past practices. But say it enough times and you will believe it eventually.
  • Reply 175 of 219
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    If you have a How It's Made link I'll watch that.

    New show idea "How it's Recycled", thanks. I'll make sure to mention you in the closing credits in super duper fine print and for a nanosecond.
  • Reply 176 of 219
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    relic wrote: »
    <span class="TextRun SCX250955693" lang="en-us" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:19px;">I don't see any reason why they wouldn't. Samsung has just released a Jelly Bean update for the SG2. There's also a huge develop</span>
    <span class="TextRun SCX250955693" lang="en-us" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:19px;">ment community for these phones, XDA houses at least 20 different Roms just for the SG3 alone. The now more then antiquated HTC HD not only has Android Roms but Windows and Ubuntu as well. These phones will have a very, very</span>
    <span class="TextRun SCX250955693" lang="en-us" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:19px;"> long shelf life.</span>
    <span class="EOP SCX250955693" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:19px;"> </span>

    True but how many people actually do that? A few hundred or at best a few thousand for the more popular devices. This whole update argument doesn't matter to the vast majority of people.
  • Reply 177 of 219

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    True but how many people actually do that? A few hundred or at best a few thousand for the more popular devices. This whole update argument doesn't matter to the vast majority of people.


     


    Exactly! This forum, like others, attract techies. Most people buying phones [probably better than 80%] have no idea what a ROM is, much less what rooting, jailbreaking, et-al even means. They buy a phone, use it until they get the option of a reduced upgrade, or free phone and get the next newest thing available at that time. The old phone gets recycled within the household, or tossed in a drawer. If it's an iPhone, a lot of folks keep them as an iPod, or sell them on Ebay/CL.

  • Reply 178 of 219
    abobrekabobrek Posts: 31member
    jungmark wrote: »
    How did Sammy have Apple on its knees? The 5 AND 4 outsold the GS3. In addition, Apple did have 70% of the mobile profits.

    Yes, very true. What I mean by Samsung had Apple on it's knees is that if the S4 had useable and innovative features, the tides would of turned and I think the general public would have bought more into the Samsung gimmick. Let's say if the S4 had 3-D capabilities, laser keyboard or some other futuristic-off-of-the-wall features then people would consider Apple old news. The fact of the matter though, is that Samsung screwed themselves over with the S4. I see the S3 outselling the S4. The iPhone 5s and 6 will be the nail in the coffin for Samsung. Samsung is lost without copying Apple and the S4 proves it.
  • Reply 179 of 219

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


    First pebbles in streams, now devices with souls. Okaaay....



    so... when you sell a Galaxy 4 to someone to go buy a new Phone... are you selling your 'soul'?

  • Reply 180 of 219

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Abobrek View Post





    Yes, very true. What I mean by Samsung had Apple on it's knees is that if the S4 had useable and innovative features, the tides would of turned and I think the general public would have bought more into the Samsung gimmick. Let's say if the S4 had 3-D capabilities, laser keyboard or some other futuristic-off-of-the-wall features then people would consider Apple old news. The fact of the matter though, is that Samsung screwed themselves over with the S4. I see the S3 outselling the S4. The iPhone 5s and 6 will be the nail in the coffin for Samsung. Samsung is lost without copying Apple and the S4 proves it.


     


    It's ecosystem.... it's not about innovative features... it's how it ties into 'your' life.   I see some promise in the Samsung vision... although it's just the same vision Apple has without Apple 'doing it all' (re: app store... Samsung is integrating everything into the samsung ecosystem... I'm surprised samsung washing machines weren't linke via the phone so you can watch what cycle your cloths are on).


     


    3D, laser keyboards futuristic sh*t is not what people want... they don't want fantasy...  They want maps that draw a line to where you want to go, reminders that 'just work' ('you're near the store... you used your last egg this morning... wanna stop?... here's the rest of your shopping list....")


     


    There are no nails at this point.. just the market hitting and missing on what people (and sub markets) want.  Samsung went after the drunk Blonde US housewive's and their husbands, and uber talented children markets last week.   Apple is trying to sell to 1-3Billion people across 6 continents...  slightly different marketing plan.


     


    Both will iterate into a 'middle'   where Apple will focus on core function and developer ability (and also disabling developers from certain things) , and Samsung on specs for spec whores, and whizzy built in applications so the devices can sell on sizzle.  Samsung sells... Apple Delivers.


     


    The clear things are


    - Samsung is not selling Android.   Google/Samsung will split some profits over the next 5 years, but Samsung has to go it alone... Google has no credibility to Samsung.  


    - Samsung is the new Nokia, with enough manufacturing and technical skillz to make a good product at a profit.


    - Apple's 5 year head start has evaporated.  iOS7 needs to get a year or 2 back.  Samsung can't make OSes... but it can make promises.


    - Apple is always comfortable being number 2 in sales.   It's being number 5 that makes them worry.  Apple needs to hold 20%+ of the eyeballs out there in a market to maintain currency.


    - People will now be ready for 'integrating' more of their life into their mobile devices. Samsung will spend the money, Apple will need to have some level of perfection to make it happen on a large scale.


    - Ecosystem is the game... it's not about specs, about device proficts.... it's about making a dime on every transaction instantiated on your phone, book, gameboy, tablet, TV, PC, Car, Bike, Shoe, purse, wallet, refrigerator, oven, hotel door, vending machine, tollbooth, etc etc.   Samsung realizes it, and is marketing the dream.   Apple needs to continue to define and deliver a plausible reality....

Sign In or Register to comment.