Database Info

[REQ] Devs-----iPhone/iPad emulation for car?

Would it be in the slightest way possible to emulate the iGarbage in order to connect it to a car's head unit and be able to control the device?
I know that there are a few stereos coming out that will have Android on them natively, but since car audio MFGs have generally ignored us Android users, would it be plausible to add the Apple drivers (linux based as well) to our device and create an application to interface with today's current line of 'ipod ready' devices???
If not, can you explain why?

Do people need to ask this on every phone that comes out?
Short answer, no.
The IDevices use a proprietary interface that they don't document... not to mention hardware issues for dock connector interfaces... You would likely need to mod the kernel, emulate the device ids and protocol, etc... And nobody would pay enough to make the effort worthwhile...

ttabbal said:
Do people need to ask this on every phone that comes out?
Short answer, no.
The IDevices use a proprietary interface that they don't document... not to mention hardware issues for dock connector interfaces... You would likely need to mod the kernel, emulate the device ids and protocol, etc... And nobody would pay enough to make the effort worthwhile...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, I have owned a G1, G2, Droid X, Nexus One, and now a G2X and don't recall ever seeing this question asked before. I think pretty much everyone and their mother would pay $10 or so for an application that could dual boot the phone or otherwise perform this task.
Going off my USB or SD card in my car takes 1-2 minutes for it to load just a 16 gig card and then is still pretty sluggish when compared to the iPhone/iPod. If people were able to save .... what's the cheapest iPod? 100 bucks? I think they'd be joyed to pay $10 per copy of this software. If the person sold 1,000 units, that's 10 grand in their hand.

I just hook up my phone via Bluetooth, my headunit supports both the "headset" and "A2DP" profiles simultaneously, my steering wheel controls, head unit controls and head unit remote is capable of controlling the device
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA Premium App

Also, this will never happen, apple will not ever let any device emulate their IP, its closed source, even if someone did manage to hack together an app to function as you suggest, apple would be alllllll over making sure that it doesn't make it to market, and possibly the web period, the dev would likely receive a C&D within a week
Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA Premium App

ttabbal said:
Do people need to ask this on every phone that comes out?
Short answer, no.
The IDevices use a proprietary interface that they don't document... not to mention hardware issues for dock connector interfaces... You would likely need to mod the kernel, emulate the device ids and protocol, etc... And nobody would pay enough to make the effort worthwhile...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically incorrect. If they didn't document the interface, then none of these manufacturers could do what they do. It is documented. It just isn't "free."
-bZj

Sweet BT Keyboard on BUY.COm ($32.99)

Getting this for my iPad2 and honestly haven't looked into many accessories for my TP. Worth looking into either way because I plan on using it for both: http://www.buy.com/prod/logitech-bl...new-ipad-1-2/221993833.html?sellerid=23093153

Sold out. How do you know it's compatible with the TP? It says ipoop1 and 2

Dang, was afraid of that... just checked my order status: "In processing". -.-
It doesn't state that it's Android compatible but it's bluetooth so it should work.

DNak206 said:
Dang, was afraid of that... just checked my order status: "In processing". -.-
It doesn't state that it's Android compatible but it's bluetooth so it should work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait? That's your response???
"but it's bluetooth so it should work."
Well, a pitchfork will do many things, some of them not what you want but still "compatible" in that sense. Not going down that rosy path of spending ~$30 for something that "may" work.

sanjsrik said:
Wait? That's your response???
"but it's bluetooth so it should work."
Well, a pitchfork will do many things, some of them not what you want but still "compatible" in that sense. Not going down that rosy path of spending ~$30 for something that "may" work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why wouldn't it work, it's BT enabled? Besides, I have an ipad2 I'll use it with if not, pretty sure I mentioned that in my post. All the reviews I've read on it say it'll work with all Android tablets. Yes, that's my response. Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

DNak206 said:
Why wouldn't it work, it's BT enabled? Besides, I have an ipad2 I'll use it with if not, pretty sure I mentioned that in my post. All the reviews I've read on it say it'll work with all Android tablets. Yes, that's my response. Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, what you're saying is your useless recommendation for a touchpad is reinforced by the fact that you have an icrap and you'll use it for that, BUT you recommend it for a touchpad when you have absolutely NO clue if it will work with one?
Heck, I have a brick, I KNOW it will work with breaking a window, but I am pretty sure it will also let me possibly make oatmeal, you too should try it.
This is a useless recommendation. Yes, it WILL work with an icrap, but if you have absolutely NO idea it will work with an touchpad, don't make out as though it will. We have enough useless recommendations for hardware that simply never will nor has worked with this device.
BTW, icraps suck.

sanjsrik said:
So, what you're saying is your useless recommendation for a touchpad is reinforced by the fact that you have an icrap and you'll use it for that, BUT you recommend it for a touchpad when you have absolutely NO clue if it will work with one?
Heck, I have a brick, I KNOW it will work with breaking a window, but I am pretty sure it will also let me possibly make oatmeal, you too should try it.
This is a useless recommendation. Yes, it WILL work with an icrap, but if you have absolutely NO idea it will work with an touchpad, don't make out as though it will. We have enough useless recommendations for hardware that simply never will nor has worked with this device.
BTW, icraps suck.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Feeling stupid that nearly ALL BT keyboards will work with this HP I see. Take your trolling elsewhere.

The vast majority of keyboards and mice out there will use bluetooth HID so they all use the same drivers and will work on Android or pretty much any OS. The HP WebOS Touchpad keyboard works fine in Android, Windows 7, etc because its HID.

spunker88 said:
The vast majority of keyboards and mice out there will use bluetooth HID so they all use the same drivers and will work on Android or pretty much any OS. The HP WebOS Touchpad keyboard works fine in Android, Windows 7, etc because its HID.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the back up, looks like this guy just likes to play smart on the interwebz.

DNak206 said:
Thanks for the back up, looks like this guy just likes to play smart on the interwebz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, wait, a random person who hasn't received said keyboard, is backed up by another person who hasn't tried it with the TouchPad, and the both of you equal definitive proof that this thing will work with the TouchPad.
Good thing you both consider "me" the troll yet I'm sure there are plenty of bridges you'd gladly sell someone for cash up front and no deed.

The BT Human Interface profile is a standard so, theoretically, anything that complies should work.

sanjsrik said:
So, wait, a random person who hasn't received said keyboard, is backed up by another person who hasn't tried it with the TouchPad, and the both of you equal definitive proof that this thing will work with the TouchPad.
Good thing you both consider "me" the troll yet I'm sure there are plenty of bridges you'd gladly sell someone for cash up front and no deed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You OBVIOUSLY have not researched BT keyboards for your HP TP or you would already know this. Done with you dude, you tried to be a smarta$$ and fell on your face in doing so. No way out of it now.
This was sold out hours from my post, this can be closed. Thanks.

I have the Logitech tablet Keyboard for Android, and I tworks fine with the HP Touchpad, at least in Cyanogenmod9 (OaTs Mod).
The Tablet keyboard for iPad is the same hardware with some slightly different keys. The Android one has Home Back and Menu keys.
Overall, it is pretty nice as the keyboard cover doubles as a stand for your tablet.
And if anyone cares, You can pair the Razer Orochi the HP touchpad as well.
Not that I really ever expect there to be much issue with a standard Bluetooth HID mouse or keyboard.

Wow!!! I missed out on a sweet deal. I have been looking to buy one of these for a while.
Well, I did find one from Logitech (dented box deals) for few bucks more.
I plan on using it with my wife's Dell Streak 7 since I already have a BT keyboard from HP for the TP. As others mentioned, BT profile should allow this keyboard to be able to be used on most BT enabled tablets & devices.
FYI... the deal from Logitech is still available if anyone is interested.
They have it for $41.99...
Dented Box mean new / unsold items with damaged packaging... I have bought many "dented box" items and been perfectly fine.
Here is the link.
http://www.logitech.com/en-us/promotional-items/devices/9954
BTW... I was real surprised to see how fast this thread turned ugly for no reason...

You can also pick them up new on Ebay for about $32 shipped

GT-p6210 ICS released by May 1st

...of the year 2015.
moderators: I'm very sorry (not really) for the sarcastic spam, but I've grown more and more unhappy with Samsung in regards to them keeping their promises. At this point, other than my P6210 tablet, I've sold every single one of my android devices that are controlled by samsung.
I still have a galaxy nexus, but thankfully the source for that is controlled by google - not samsung.
Q1 has come and gone. No ICS. Hell, they STILL won't release the source for the damn wifi driver! The same source that qualcomm (who owns atheros) released under the GPL, but samsung says that they (samsung) get to choose between GPL and BSD and they are choosing BSD. Why? What good does it do Samsung to NOT release the source? If Apple.. er.. samsung wants to treat their customers this way, I can take my future business elsewhere.
If I wanted a closed platform, I'd buy an iphone or ipad.
Gary

I agree
And I feel that with the increasingly number of similar tablets that Samsung puts in the market, the hopes for further updates are extremely low. Maybe we will have a first revision of ICS, but better it is good, because I don't think they will fix whatever is wrong.

I will agree with Gary in terms of how closed Samsung is making their "open" device. Though that is coming from a developer. From a consumer perspective having or not having ICS makes no difference to them. Unfortunately as our world becomes more tech illiterate the more these devices will become more and more locked down and cause stagnation in innovation.
Sorry to hear you leaving though you were a great help here.

I'm not leaving the p6210... its the only samsung device I'm keeping. However, until and unless Samsung gives me something more than incomplete and outdated source, there's nothing else for me to do. I can't fix the wifi bugs, because Apple..er..Samsung won't release the source.
If they ever get around to pushing out ICS (big "if" there) AND they release the source, I'll play with that. I might even find the time to just port AOSP (or even better - AOKP) over.
After using a galaxy nexus for a few days, I don't miss touchwiz at all.

Well that's good to hear... It sounded as if you were leaving us there. Though supposedly someone is making headway with wifi with the cm9 ics build. You might want to check in there.

What's with the driver? Does the GPL driver not support our cards, is it just missing the pci id? I'm new to this slate, so I don't have much exposure to the current issues like this.
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2

Even Huawei Springboard (my 2nd tablet) already received ICS, I also disappointed a bigger company like Samsung get update slower then Huawei
Sent from my GT-P6200 using XDA App

fewt said:
What's with the driver? Does the GPL driver not support our cards, is it just missing the pci id? I'm new to this slate, so I don't have much exposure to the current issues like this.
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL is not a driver, GPL is a open source licence.

Yes, I know the difference between GPL & BSD (both are OSS licenses.) I was asking if the GPL version would work if it was updated with the p6210 WIFI PCI ID.
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2

fewt said:
What's with the driver? Does the GPL driver not support our cards, is it just missing the pci id? I'm new to this slate, so I don't have much exposure to the current issues like this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For doing an AOSP type implementation where 100% of the source is available, yes - it might.
For trying to do a kernel that would work with the rest of the samsung firmware, no - it won't. There are 3 parts that have to work together here: the actual driver (ar6003.ko in samsung's firmware), wpa_supplicant (which, on stock p6210 implementations has a ar6003 specific interface compiled in) and the rest of the firmware (settings page, etc.)
The "rest of the firmware" calls wpa_supplicant to do the dirty work of the wifi driver, and wpa_supplicant makes calls directly into the driver.
I'm sure I typed all this before, in another thread months ago, and went into great detail. The short version is this:
I need the source for the ar6003 driver and the source for wpa_supplicant (for the ar6003 interface.) Both of these are released in "GPL/BSD" dual licenses by their authors, meaning that samsung can, in theory, choose which license model to use when they include that code. Samsung has told me that they are claiming BSD for both and therefore will refuse to release the source to any modifications that might be included.
I've tried pulling in the generic ar600x code from mainline linux, but it wasn't working for me with the rest of the samsung stuff... and I simply don't have the time to mess with that for endless hours just because samsung is trying to be apple-like and make android a closed platform.

garyd9 said:
For doing an AOSP type implementation where 100% of the source is available, yes - it might.
For trying to do a kernel that would work with the rest of the samsung firmware, no - it won't. There are 3 parts that have to work together here: the actual driver (ar6003.ko in samsung's firmware), wpa_supplicant (which, on stock p6210 implementations has a ar6003 specific interface compiled in) and the rest of the firmware (settings page, etc.)
The "rest of the firmware" calls wpa_supplicant to do the dirty work of the wifi driver, and wpa_supplicant makes calls directly into the driver.
I'm sure I typed all this before, in another thread months ago, and went into great detail. The short version is this:
I need the source for the ar6003 driver and the source for wpa_supplicant (for the ar6003 interface.) Both of these are released in "GPL/BSD" dual licenses by their authors, meaning that samsung can, in theory, choose which license model to use when they include that code. Samsung has told me that they are claiming BSD for both and therefore will refuse to release the source to any modifications that might be included.
I've tried pulling in the generic ar600x code from mainline linux, but it wasn't working for me with the rest of the samsung stuff... and I simply don't have the time to mess with that for endless hours just because samsung is trying to be apple-like and make android a closed platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wpa_supplicant is what's probably killing you if it has been forked, more so than the driver itself. Makes perfect sense why it is such a pain.
Do you know of a thread somewhere that describes how to get started building kernels for these things? I'll play around with it, I don't have much experience with Android outside of some hacking with adb but I know my way around Linux as well as most.
I'll start poking around more, but thanks for the short version it is appreciated.

Zadeis said:
I will agree with Gary in terms of how closed Samsung is making their "open" device. Though that is coming from a developer. From a consumer perspective having or not having ICS makes no difference to them. Unfortunately as our world becomes more tech illiterate the more these devices will become more and more locked down and cause stagnation in innovation.
Sorry to hear you leaving though you were a great help here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree that consumers don't care. Call me naive that I didn't scour the internet deep enough to find good, honest feedback, but the only reason I chose the more expensive Samsung 7.0 was its IR blaster and its advertised ability to control the home theater components with it. That feature is bolded and blaster all over Samsungs feature list and descriptions.
So I get me GT7+ 2 months ago and how does it work? It doesn't do what I want. Peel, the only IR app available for the tablet force closes every time, and updates have proven fruitless. I email the developers of Peel and what do they tell me? They won't fix (or can't fix) the problem until they get updated ICS drivers for the SG7+. So for now I am **** out of luck until Samsung updates. I try to get a hold of Samsung tech support and get nowhere. The best I got was from a "Live Chat" bot that said ICS will be available in the future. No more specifics could be given.
And to add insult to injury, the screen on my Tab is fritzing out and needs to be sent back for service already. On paper the SG7+ looks great but for me it's been nothing but a hassle.
I want ICS so I can have everything work as advertised. It probably never will so I'll chalk this one up to experience and sell the POS.

Just remember that samsung never actually promised ICS for this device. There were "leaks" (completely unofficial) and "targets", but never any legally binding promises.
Why should samsung spend the money developing ICS for people who own a device when that device is ALREADY 6 months old? At the rate samsung is coming out with new devices, they need that money developing for newer devices.
In a sick kind of way, this makes sense to me. (Samsung seems to be forgetting, however, that I buy a new tablet every 6-12 months and my next one will NOT be a samsung device due to the experience I'm having with them over this one.)
What doesn't make sense to me is the way that they are withholding source code. It just doesn't profit them or even save them money. There isn't even anything proprietary in the ar6003 drivers and wpa_supplicant code. No trade secrets. It's almost as if they are deliberately chasing AWAY technical people... but that just doesn't make sense when your primary OS is an open one that depends on geeks.
The only thing I can figure out is that they are, in fact, hiding something. Perhaps they are embarassed about the programming? Perhaps they cut corners and don't want it to become public knowledge? Maybe they just have a nasty streak and are deliberately trying to prevent any repeat customers. I'm just taking wild guesses here - I honestly don't know.

The flip side to that is that you are aware of the fact ICS will have an impact to functionality on a current situation. Most people won't, as you put it, scour the internet to find the solution or future solution, to a problem and actually understand that an OS update will have a great impact on their experience with their current product. I had a discussion with someone the other day on this mindset and how it has been driving me nuts. (This person also considers them self an average user and not like most of us on this forum) You know that android 3.2 is on your your Tablet. YOU know what android 4.0 ICS is and how it impacts you. Most don't. That is what I was trying to conveying.
Though I am surprised that you are having issues with it on account I have had no problems with it (even though I haven't used it much).
P.S. Sorry about the irritated tone I do not mean any harm it's just a sore subject with me :/

Zadeis said:
The flip side to that is that you are aware of the fact ICS will have an impact to functionality on a current situation. Most people won't, as you put it, scour the internet to find the solution or future solution, to a problem and actually understand that an OS update will have a great impact on their experience with their current product. I had a discussion with someone the other day on this mindset and how it has been driving me nuts. (This person also considers them self an average user and not like most of us on this forum) You know that android 3.2 is on your your Tablet. YOU know what android 4.0 ICS is and how it impacts you. Most don't. That is what I was trying to conveying.
Though I am surprised that you are having issues with it on account I have had no problems with it (even though I haven't used it much).
P.S. Sorry about the irritated tone I do not mean any harm it's just a sore subject with me :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The latest release od Peel finally has it working on such a basic level that's it is no more useful that the remoate that shipped with my television. It can tuen my TV on & off, it can change channels, and it can adjust the volume of the television. When I want to add another device such as a cable box or AV receiver? No go. It will power the device in setup but it will not save it to the application for future use. I blame buggy peel software. It can obviously fire the codes it needs but they're going to blame Samsung and say it's a driver issue. The only way I could believe that possible is if the radio frequencies vthe two devices used were too close together to be discerened by the GT7+. Regardless, it's a feature which does not work as it explicitly advertises and, as Gary points out multiple times, they refuse to release the source code so crafty & eager developers (which I am not) can make their own functional software.

Peel doesn't use RF... it fires the infrared emitter on the device. I actually played with the "peel" software once. For about 10 minutes. I found it a complete joke and froze the software. I never really cared much about that aspect of the tablet. To me, its for reading ebooks, playing games, and "tinkering." Okay, more for tinkering - but don't tell my wife that. She already yells at me about how expensive my toys are.

garyd9 said:
Peel doesn't use RF... it fires the infrared emitter on the device. I actually played with the "peel" software once. For about 10 minutes. I found it a complete joke and froze the software. I never really cared much about that aspect of the tablet. To me, its for reading ebooks, playing games, and "tinkering." Okay, more for tinkering - but don't tell my wife that. She already yells at me about how expensive my toys are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I bought this Tab for the exact same reasons, I was actually going to get the Kindle Fire as all I really wanted was an e-reader, but the IR Blaster changed my mind. I set up Peel for my home theater and used it once than decided my universal remote for my dish actually works better and haven't used it since. I came in knowing from reading teh threads that Samsung wasn't the greatest at support or putting out updates but all I wanted really was the ability to root it to remove bloatware. IMO HTC devices are much better and easier to customize as HTC is more open about sharing the source code and also provide their own program to unlock their devices. But they at one time were as tight fisted as Samsung and getting updates out of them is still excruciatingly slow. Hopefully Verizon will be getting a One X device soon as I'm up for an upgrade in July and right now the best HTC device they have is the Rezound.

fcorona76 said:
The latest release od Peel finally has it working on such a basic level that's it is no more useful that the remoate that shipped with my television. It can tuen my TV on & off, it can change channels, and it can adjust the volume of the television. When I want to add another device such as a cable box or AV receiver? No go. It will power the device in setup but it will not save it to the application for future use. I blame buggy peel software. It can obviously fire the codes it needs but they're going to blame Samsung and say it's a driver issue. The only way I could believe that possible is if the radio frequencies vthe two devices used were too close together to be discerened by the GT7+. Regardless, it's a feature which does not work as it explicitly advertises and, as Gary points out multiple times, they refuse to release the source code so crafty & eager developers (which I am not) can make their own functional software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would Peel blame Samsung? From what you described, the hardware is working properly but the functionality to save multiple devices is missing in software.
I think this is what Zadeis is trying to get at with regards to expectations - Peel sounds like it's either broken or not designed to meet your expectations. Either way, it's not something that's going to be addressed by an ICS update.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the GT7+ doesn't work as advertised. But the proper course of action here is to seek remedy with Samsung, not wait for a software update. When you get a bad meal at a restaurant, you send it back. You don't eat it, then hope dessert will be better.
Apologies if my tone comes off as harsh or unsympathetic, I do not intend to be either, but pinning too many hopes on to an OS update is just setting yourself up for more frustration down the road when it doesn't match your expectations.
---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------
garyd9 said:
What doesn't make sense to me is the way that they are withholding source code. It just doesn't profit them or even save them money. There isn't even anything proprietary in the ar6003 drivers and wpa_supplicant code. No trade secrets. It's almost as if they are deliberately chasing AWAY technical people... but that just doesn't make sense when your primary OS is an open one that depends on geeks.
The only thing I can figure out is that they are, in fact, hiding something. Perhaps they are embarassed about the programming? Perhaps they cut corners and don't want it to become public knowledge? Maybe they just have a nasty streak and are deliberately trying to prevent any repeat customers. I'm just taking wild guesses here - I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you already answered this question in what you meant as a joke earlier... Apple.
Samsung makes Apple's SoCs. GT7+ uses Samsung's own Exynos SoC. I think chances are good that Exynos and the A5 share IP and therefore, Samsung might be withholding the source code because the modifications they've made include IP that is covered by whatever NDA exists between Apple and Samsung.

so what is the latest news on ics update for the 6210 ? , guessing samsung said no ics love for us ? , or .... just wondering what latest news is ..

h2g2 said:
Samsung makes Apple's SoCs. GT7+ uses Samsung's own Exynos SoC. I think chances are good that Exynos and the A5 share IP and therefore, Samsung might be withholding the source code because the modifications they've made include IP that is covered by whatever NDA exists between Apple and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are a bit confused, I think. The exynos isn't the problem. While samsung hasn't exactly given us full technical documents on it, they added support for it in the mainline linux kernel - publishing enough source. They pretty much HAD to do that, as CPU support in linux can't be done as a module, and therefore must be opensourced in order to run linux at all.
The issue, at least in the case of the 7+, is the wifi chip/driver. It's an atheros 6003 chip. Qualcomm (who owns atheros) released the driver for that under the GPL. Samsung has claimed to me that they (samsung) are licensing it from Atheros under terms that allow them to choose to re-release the driver under either GPL or BSD terms and that they (samsung) are choosing the BSD model (which doesn't require the release of source.) In theory, Qualcomm could FORCE samsung to release the source, but I doubt qualcomm really cares too much. In fact, the module itself as released in binary form in the 7+ firmware (at least up to LA1) actually claims GPL licensing. (Can be verified by using modinfo on ar6000.ko) However, only the copyright holder can enforce the licensing.
A nearly identical situation exists with wpa_supplicant and the intergration between ar6003 and wpa_supplicant. In that case, I know for a fact that the author allows either GPL or BSD terms so wouldn't force the issue.
Those are the only two things I, personally, care about right now. If I had the source for those two parts, I'd be able to not only FIX the wifi issues on the p6210, but also enchance the functionality. I'm also unable to make certain unrelated changes to the kernel, as doing so without being able to recompile the ar6003 driver will render the existing ar6003 non-functional.

[Q] Idea on Android Wristwatch

A few of in the IT department were thinking today about how nice it would be to not be tied to a singular device and instead be able to move across devices, even across multiple smartphones with ease. This led to this idea we thought we would run by the braintrust. Here's the What If:
You create an Android based Wristwatch. It will take a SIM Card so its on your mobile provider as a phone and data. It has bluetooth and is a Wifi Hotspot. It does voice, GPS, etc so its somewhat usable as a device. You could even have a small screen on it for doing some very very basic functionality.
Now, you take your Samsung S4, or Nexus 7 and you sync them together. Maybe you even have an HTC One you keep in the office. The other devices use the wristwatch for everything .. connectivity to the carrier, internet, etc. Even your car stereo would use it to connect to Pandora. Sure, you can do this now with Wifi Hotspot, but how many of us have multiple devices and feel compelled to carry them with us?
With this, the "power" for connectivity is small and unobtrusive. Now, I can use my tablet as a phone when I'm strolling around the office (why carry phone + tablet?) or even use a different phone from work vs home (S4 Active for Home, Samsung Note 3 at the office) and switching is easy (could be proximity based, or simply a button I press on the new device's home screen).
Such a device could interact with modern game consoles, smart TV's running Google TV, and other devices by enabling collaboration among users as well.
We see that people are creating wristwatch android devices, but I don't see a smart"phone" coming in that form factor with the software to link the devices together. Do you think that this would be useful to you? Do you think such a thing could exist and be popular?
Thanks, just looking to start a discussion =)

One word ... Battery :what:

SimonTS said:
One word ... Battery :what:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on the reports my smartphone shows, the largest consumption of battery is the screen itself. If you get rid of that, smaller batteries should be able to compete?

it sounds kind of like your explaining the Omate smartwatch which I think is good
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/omate/omate-truesmart-water-resistant-standalone-smartwa

That ... is ... exactly ...
WOW
Thank you!

spinaldex said:
That ... is ... exactly ...
WOW
Thank you!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha no problem, I was really hoping an idea like this would come along too it's what I've been thinking. Glad I could share

This is an excellent idea
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app

Like the Sony SmartWatch?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_SmartWatch

Thanks for sharing idea and infos. Sounds cool. By the way - to solve that battery problem: Why not have a belt? There is plenty of space around my waist

[Q] Will this phone have IR?

So curious to know if this phone will be like all the new top tier phone and offer IR transmitter so we can control TV's and other devices from it?
anyone has any clues?

Aydthird said:
So curious to know if this phone will be like all the new top tier phone and offer IR transmitter so we can control TV's and other devices from it?
anyone has any clues?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only speculation. The FCC photo shows a strange cut-out/window in the upper back middle, which led to the speculation, but the recent Service Manual leak had no mention of this hardware and capability.

wideasleep1 said:
Only speculation. The FCC photo shows a strange cut-out/window in the upper back middle, which led to the speculation, but the recent Service Manual leak had no mention of this hardware and capability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had been waiting, I know the LG G2 and original G had them, and Kit Kat is said to improve IR remote control yet they didn't implement it on their new device... Weird

Aydthird said:
I had been waiting, I know the LG G2 and original G had them, and Kit Kat is said to improve IR remote control yet they didn't implement it on their new device... Weird
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not that Kit-Kat improved it, they added initial support. Prior to 4.4, all IR phones had proprietary interfaces that were not inter-operable.
Considering these phones are in development for over a year prior to release, IR wasn't even on the table for Google when the HTC One and Galaxy S4 were released. Adding it at that point would have been a dramatic setback on the release, and mostly a pointless one. There's no apps out right now that would even support it (as they all are designed to run on the proprietary IR emitters, not KitKat's).