The ultimate goal of the Smartphone

[CaptainPanic]

Phones have several inputs: they obviously can receive certain wavelengths from the phone/internet/text network. They can also receive sound (microphone). They can sometimes receive GPC signals. They can receive visible light (the camera). They can receive touch signals (touch screen and buttons). They can sometimes feel acceletration, or know what it up and down. Special cameras exist that can see temperatures (IR), so that can be built into smart phones too.

 

The phones have a processor which would not look silly in a desktop PC. They have a screen with a similar resolution as a television or computer screen. And the amount of apps for the phones is immense. Also, some phones run open source operating systems, allowing anyone to write applications (at least, I think so).

 

What I just described above sounds like the perfect tool for scientists and engineers. Yet, when I think of a smartphone (such as the iPhone or the Android), then I just see kids playing games, or adults watching a movie and reading their email... and obviously using it for communications.

 

I would like to see smart phones to become a real scientific tool... something like the tricorders used in star trek. How long until phones can be just that? How close are we already? What is still missing, and would it be practical (and safe) to give this technology to the average normal person?

[swansont]

People have already used the accelerometer in the iPhone to do experiments, and there are apps to get the data out.

http://scienceblogs.com/dotphysics/2010/04/review_of_some_iphone_accelera.php

 

Someone even launched an iPhone on a homemade rocket

http://mobileorchard.com/the-iphone-rocket/

 

I think the phone will be more useful as a data collection tool, with the sensors as separate devices. In ST:TNG the medical tricorder had a detachable probe. So why not put a temperature sensor somewhere with a wireless transmitter? I think things like that exist (certainly RF transmission of sensor data already exists) and more widespread adoption is imminent; we've been plotting on justifications for ipads in the lab to do this very thing.

 

 

 

edit: "Measure data in real time from PASCO's full line of PASPORT sensors with the PASPORT AirLink 2, or use the internal accelerometer"

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sparkvue/id361907181?mt=8

 

I imagine more exist

[forufes]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/home-robots/ar-drone-quadricopter-merges-augmented-reality-and-robotics

http://singularityhub.com/2009/08/18/commanding-military-drones-now-iphone-has-an-app-for-that/

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/06/23/iphone-irobot-control/

 

 

the reason scientists or people generally don't use cellphones for scientific stuff is because the same technology is sold in a more professional package, one of more reliable performance and guaranteed output.

 

what you are proposing would only fit those who want to integrate science into their lives, even if[actually usually] they are not scientists.

 

i once used my cellphone's bluetooth connection to control an NXT robot i built, and my other cameraphone to see on my laptop screen where the robot was going. many others did similar things.

 

the frustrating thing is, people seem only interested in the iphone, i admit it has great capabilities,but many other cheaper devices are out there with parallel or even better performance, and most importantly, cheaper price. how apple enslaves the market is a dilemma to me.

[swansont]

Dedicated equipment isn't always the cheapest. I recall a story about scientists buying a bunch of gaming consoles in order to build a supercomputer, because it was a cheap way of getting processing power without spending money on the extra things that come with a computer. Plus the fact that the gaming companies sell the consoles at a loss, as they expect to make the profit in the software.

 

If scientists used smartphones as an interface, as I suggested, it might be because it's cheaper and/or more flexible than a full-blown computer, or some other component that it was replacing. Say you wanted to be able to do some kind of diagnostics interface in the field. An iphone or ipad would be a lot more convenient to lug around than a laptop, and there is software for the ipad that lets you talk to a remote computer.

[CharonY]

One problem could be that the licensing scheme of Apple may inhibit the development of open source software that are often used for a variety of stuff. Also, currently most apps are at a low price (AFAIK) and people could be reluctant to buy an app for a few hundred or thousand bucks, which the commercial software often demands.There are other smartphones out there that may be more useful for developers as e.g. the Nokia N900. Though from a price standpoint it could be more worthwhile to get a netbook, which at least does not require new software and still is somewhat portable.