On August 4, it was reported that over the past few years, there have been some computing prophets who claim that one day smartphones could possibly replace PCs. At first glance, this seems like a remarkable leap. Forget about bulky, immobile desktops; forget laptops too. All the functionalities these computers possess will be replaced by small, pocket-sized devices. When needed, you can use an external keyboard and mouse for input, and when not in use, simply disconnect them.
However, this dream has several problems. From today's perspective, mobile computing is still thriving, existing in a dream-like state; making smartphones capable of doing everything not only seems possible but also wise. But this possibility is constrained by physical realities and human needs, with two significant hurdles standing in the way of theoretical smartphone PCs.
1. Mobile processors are not fast enough
Performance is not an issue. Most tasks cannot benefit significantly from faster processors, such as light web browsing, editing photos, or watching videos. These experiences are already excellent.
However, I offer some good evidence: In my bedroom, there is a PC equipped with a Core 2 Duo E8400 processor. Although it has been used for five years, it is still fast, capable of playing any modern PC game at 720P resolution.
The flagship chips from AMD and Intel have indulged users. The two companies make the design and manufacture of high-end CPUs appear effortless, but reality is quite different. Flagship computing architectures take years to design and cost billions to produce, potentially reaching tens of billions of dollars.
Performance truly does matter. For example, when users realized that netbooks were slow, they quickly fell out of favor. Initially, consumers may have only wanted to use PCs for web browsing and video viewing, but who wants to go back?
Currently, the processors in smartphones are still slow, far behind AMD and Intel. There is no comparability between ARM smartphone processors and Intel X86 processors; generally speaking, standard voltage Core i5 processors are 8 times faster. Today's smartphone CPUs cannot yet provide a PC-like experience.
2. Battery life limits processor potential
Processor performance continues to improve rapidly. Thus, some believe that although smartphones might not be as fast as PCs now, they will soon catch up. The ARM Cortex A15 has proven its capability on Samsung Chromebooks. Can this be achieved on a phone?
The problem lies in power consumption. The Samsung Chromebook uses an ARM processor, which is more powerful than older Intel Atom processors. It consumes 4 watts when idle and 11 watts when busy. By laptop standards, this is not high, but for smartphones, it is excessively high.
Smartphones operate in milliwatts, consuming no more than 3 watts even when busy. Only by achieving such low standards can reasonable battery life be provided. High-end phones are astonishingly fast, but they consume power voraciously. For instance, the S4 lasts less than 11 hours on a single charge.
Looking at the latest Haswell Ultrabooks, their processors consume a minimum of 6 watts when idle and exceed 30 watts when busy. Yet, their battery life performs better than most powerful smartphones. If the Galaxy S4 were equipped with such a powerful processor, its battery life would likely last less than an hour. Improving efficiency and increasing battery capacity might solve the problem, but historically, progress in both areas has been slow. Moore's Law does not apply to batteries.
3. People do not need PCs to move around
For most people, a pocket-sized PC is unnecessary. Many computing analysts think people care about mobility, but there is no evidence. Years ago, notebook sales surpassed those of desktops, but most consumers buy large, affordable 15.6-inch notebooks rather than 13-inch ones.
Consumers' ultimate mobile display is the smartphone. Technically, it might be a small PC, but people buy it not because it resembles a PC. Instead, touchscreen phones became popular suddenly not because they functioned like computers; it was because they were easy to use while moving.
Besides, for most people, the portability of smartphones still lags behind laptops or 2-in-1 devices. To perform any "real" work, it requires an external keyboard and monitor. Therefore, people still prefer carrying two separate devices, just as in the past, due to the limited performance and storage capabilities of smartphones.
We all know that despite notebook sales surpassing desktops, most people still do not use them while moving. This seems contradictory since desktops are cheaper. Why do people still prefer notebooks? For most people, it is because they are simpler; there is no need to worry about separate displays, keyboards, mice, or speakers. If you only view your computer as a work tool (like most consumers), then notebooks are more appealing than desktops.
A smartphone PC represents a major step backward, requiring various docking stations and confusing connections. Does this keyboard fit this smartphone? Why doesn't this display support it? Should you use a mouse, touchpad, or touchscreen? First to be sacrificed is the simplicity of the smartphone.
Conclusion
The smartphone PC is a concept that many tech enthusiasts focus on, but the most passionate may not have the clearest vision. If you are constantly on the move, often flying, and frequently working remotely via your computer, then a smartphone PC might be appealing.
Most people will not, and never will. The rise of computing attracts interest, but this does not mean the world will ultimately belong entirely to PC enthusiasts. Most people are uninterested in computing; they only want their devices to be intuitive and easy to use. From this perspective, a smartphone PC makes no sense.