Surely You'd need many USB connections to even approach the combined throughput of the Pyra's various I/O? (Which includes USB3.0, SATA, HDMI-out)
Who says a standard USB cable can withstand being twisted back and forth in the same place that many times?
One USB cable... how would that work? For all the connections?
Except for that this solution needs a lot more power, as these USB connections with hubs have quite a bit of loss here
You'd like to have a USB cable stick out of the back of the lid and back into the bottom part? :O
That sounds like a Raspberry Pi Hacker solution, but not like a product.
I think I understand the concept being presented. It is a different concept for what would be a different device with similar feature results. It's being presented as, "Hey, we could theoretically cook an egg this way too," and not directed as a suggested change to the current menu/product/project.
Having the SoC directly interfaced to an aluminum lid would be both a heat sink and a heat dissipation point. With the SoC throttled to 120*C, the lid would not even approach anything remotely near 70*C. On a hot sunny day it would struggle to reach 40*C. We can dig into the thermodynamics if you want, but the idea itself is sound.
The display board would have backlights on one side (front) and the SoC on the other (back). This would reduce the board count. The LCD would be separated from the SoC by the display board itself. With that big heat sink & dissipator (aluminum lid) sucking heat out the other side, it should not get overly warm on the display side. In this concept the heat gets -removed-.
One USB 3.0 -connection-, not cable from the lid to the base. This could/would still be a twisted through-hinge design. It would also carry the power for the display & SoC from the base to the lid - so it would have all of the USB 3.0 connections plus a couple of thicker power leads - though this is included in the USB 3.0 Powered-B specification. This makes 11 leads through the hinge which is far fewer than the Pandora had.
Total bandwidth to the base would be restricted to the 5 gigabits per second of the USB 3.0 connection. By the time this idea could come to fruition USB 3.1 Gen 2 specs might be realized which would be 10 gigabits per second.
The base would need to contain one or more hubs. A USB hub does not necessarily have to be inefficient.
USB 1.0 equivalency 1.5Mbps connections (2):
keyboard & gamepads
left nub (joystick1) + right nub (joystick2)
USB 2.0 equivalency 480Mbps connections (3):
WiFi
Bluetooth 3
USB 2.0 port left (could get upgraded to 3.0)
USB 2.0 port right (could get upgraded to 3.0)
USB 3.0 equivalency 5Gbps connections (4):
microUSB 3.0 (Or USB C) connector
SDXC left 100MB/s = 800Mbps
SDXC right 100MB/s = 800Mbps
microSDXC 100MB/s = 800Mbps
1.5Mbps * 2 + 480Mbps * 3 + 800Mbps * 3 = 3363Mbps.
This design could run everything BUT the HDMI output over a single USB 3.0 through hinge connection, though when using the USB 3.0 on the base some throttling could occur.
USB 3.0 is pretty darn fast.
All hypothetical though - and only a thought exercise and not a critique over current design. But - I consider the design feasible.