Pandora 2 is Modular


Mr_Loon

Can't Remember
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
2,332
According to Craig in this post Pandora 2 will be a modular system.


From a personal viewpoint I really like the sound of that, it seems like an innovative approach which will help P2 stand out from the crowd. :)


Any thoughts on what modules people would like to see or how the modules should connect to each other?


My main question would be : Will the screen / SOC be in the form of a mini tablet module that slips nicely into an ICP2? Perhaps as per the dock on a transformer prime / the new Microsoft surface.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must make the disclaimer that anything I say is pure speculation...


I'm sticking with my initial feeling that all the "heavy bits" are getting moved behind the screen and that P2 will basically be a dockable tablet that slots into the ICP2.


This would suggest that P2 would also have it's own battery and so double the battery life! xD


Interesting times, for sure.
 
So i have to buy a ICP 2 if i want the Pandora2 too make everything the Pandora 1 can doo..


I hope the ICP 2 ditnt bee out of sale when i order the Pandora 2..


But whit the Size of the Pandora 1, Pandora 2 cant bee a big Tablet, more a "Ipod Touch" like Device


Hopefully it has more than 32 gb Internal Space, so i can use it as a Ipod Touch like Mp3 Player..


I have a Xperia Play yet, so i ditnt think i need a ICP2 now, but if the ICP2 is also available in about 2 Yeahrs when the Pandora 2 is out, than i want to buy a ICP2 and a P2..
 
matzesu said:
So i have to buy a ICP 2 if i want the Pandora2 too make everything the Pandora 1 can doo..
I hope the ICP 2 ditnt bee out of sale when i order the Pandora 2..


But whit the Size of the Pandora 1, Pandora 2 cant bee a big Tablet, more a "Ipod Touch" like Device


Hopefully it has more than 32 gb Internal Space, so i can use it as a Ipod Touch like Mp3 Player..
seriously? -.-
 
Im bloody Serious :)


Until then, i have enough fun whit the Pandora 1,


And the good thing whit Pandora 2: You have a Pandora 1 to shorten your Waitingthime for the Pandora 2 :)
 
They're probably putting the SoC, memory, PMIC, and maybe some other stuff on separate circuit board. This is a good idea not just because you can swap the board but also because it can be cheaper to manufacture (a small many layer board plus a big few layer board is cheaper than a big many layer board) and less expensive to fix because there's no single point of failure where any bad component can make the whole board useless.


ED agreed with me before that this is a better design and that they would have gone with it for Pandora had they realized it.

I must make the disclaimer that anything I say is pure speculation...


I'm sticking with my initial feeling that all the "heavy bits" are getting moved behind the screen and that P2 will basically be a dockable tablet that slots into the ICP2.


This would suggest that P2 would also have it's own battery and so double the battery life! xD


Interesting times, for sure.

Craig has said pretty much flat out that this won't happen, that putting the main PCB behind the screen makes it too top heavy. Now imagine it with not just the PCB but a battery.. unless iPC2 is going to have a Pandora level battery all by itself..
 
Would it upgradeable i wonder?extra ram or an accelerator that can be swapped out to add more oomph.
 
If the memory is PoP again - like Pandora and most mobile devices these days, although not cheap Chinese ones - then you won't be able to swap it independently of the CPU. If OPT has the PCB space and the availability is right it might make sense for them to avoid PoP in order to reduce assembly costs/risks and allow more options for assembly houses (PoP was the big sticking point that made them go with CC and made it hard for them to find someone to replace them).


But I think Craig has hinted that he expects it to be PoP because I remember he said he'd want to buy an 8GB "module" if it was only $20 more than the 4GB one. I'm not aware of anyone selling non-PoP RAM in single wide multi-channel configurations for your entire RAM (but for PoP it has to be this way).
 
^^^^ So if its not pop then it might be upgradeable. It would be an interesting approach.The base pandora 2 could be upgraded and thus keep up with the then current technology.


It would be cheaper than releasing a whole new machine like say the phone manufacturers do. It would be cool if whole new components could be swapped out but that might be impossible I guess.
 
Putting RAM separately from the SoC on an upgradeable slot may not be a good idea either. There could be challenges routing a big wide high speed interface over a connector. If it's anything like PCs then they also have to deal with partial population where adding termination increases power consumption.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im bloody Serious :)


Until then, i have enough fun whit the Pandora 1,


And the good thing whit Pandora 2: You have a Pandora 1 to shorten your Waitingthime for the Pandora 2 :)

No box to open = not pandora.


Duelforce (as in triforce)


Excalibur (sword & stone)


Anyone got more?


I think the pandora name for the open box like device is pretty good. When I talk to people about it the response indicates clearly that the problems are that there's more powerful stuff now and we pay a larger chunk of the various development costs because of the numbers. The concept is in no way at fault.

^^^^ So if its not pop then it might be upgradeable. It would be an interesting approach.The base pandora 2 could be upgraded and thus keep up with the then current technology.


It would be cheaper than releasing a whole new machine like say the phone manufacturers do. It would be cool if whole new components could be swapped out but that might be impossible I guess.

Cheaper for us but not great business strategy. Plus you'd have the disadvantage pc's have to consoles which is not all pc software works on what you have. A new machine every 4 years would be a way to flog the same keyboard, screen etc over and over and would have a clear consumer advantage to boot. What good to op's bottom line does us buying ram chips do? Sega went for "this'll be good for the gamers" rather than "this is good business" and ended up with a self competing mess of a strategy. Apple on the other hand disappeared the battery compartments (not suggesting op should do that, theres a happy medium).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ed2f1a40-eb58-48b6-b524-8b305696b8a0.jpg



This would be interesting. Having all of the IO attached to a standard plug.. the CPU/NAND/RAM/WIFI+bluetooth located on interchangable modules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sega went for "this'll be good for the gamers" rather than "this is good business" and ended up with a self competing mess of a strategy.

The Mega Drive add-ons? that's not even comparable to being able to upgrade things like RAM, but even if they were, I'm still not sure what you're talking about. They made the add-ons to extend the capability, and therefore the life, of the Mega Drive, not because it was "good for gamers". The SNES did the same thing, but it was more subtle about it (the Super FX and Super FX 2 chips).


Historically, extending the life of successful dedicated home consoles has been a good idea because not only is it tough to get them off the ground, dedicated video game consoles have traditionally been sold at a loss.


Of course, though, the Pandora is not sold at a loss and not comparable to dedicated video game consoles at all in terms of its business strategy. However, I still don't see how they would benefit from re-selling the same hardware. A new device may cost $700, but that doesn't translate directly to profit. It costs money to make the device. And what about people that would be willing to pay $100 for the upgrade, but not $700 for the new unit? Assuming the upgraded part costs less than $100, that's potential profit that was lost in the name of forcing people to buy a new device.
 
Sega went for "this'll be good for the gamers" rather than "this is good business" and ended up with a self competing mess of a strategy.

The Mega Drive add-ons? that's not even comparable to being able to upgrade things like RAM, but even if they were, I'm still not sure what you're talking about. They made the add-ons to extend the capability, and therefore the life, of the Mega Drive, not because it was "good for gamers". The SNES did the same thing, but it was more subtle about it (the Super FX and Super FX 2 chips).


Historically, extending the life of successful dedicated home consoles has been a good idea because not only is it tough to get them off the ground, dedicated video game consoles have traditionally been sold at a loss.


Of course, though, the Pandora is not sold at a loss and not comparable to dedicated video game consoles at all in terms of its business strategy. However, I still don't see how they would benefit from re-selling the same hardware. A new device may cost $700, but that doesn't translate directly to profit. It costs money to make the device. And what about people that would be willing to pay $100 for the upgrade, but not $700 for the new unit? Assuming the upgraded part costs less than $100, that's potential profit that was lost in the name of forcing people to buy a new device.

If your not making money on the hardware you may as well close shop. If you are the more sales the better.


Segas strategy was a shambles. They had the game gear, nomad, md, mcd, 32x and multi mega all in the marketplace at once and if i remember correctly then started putting the virtuas on huge md carts that destroyed the point of the 32x.. I loved sega but its true.


Laptops make money. Tablets, igadgets, netbooks. Manufacturers are making things less easily upgraded and your suggesting the equivalent of ford making an ever lasting car that can be repaired with toyota part because you don't really make any money on cars anyway.


They have most of the legwork done. Bung a totally new board in every 5 years and get thinking about special edition cases with copyright expired retro stuff. There really is nothing wrong with the outer design.
 
If your not making money on the hardware you may as well close shop. If you are the more sales the better.
No console maker I'm aware of sells their console at a profit. They're sold at a loss and a mark-up goes on the games. An example of this practice is Sony withdrawing the PS3 ability to run Linux. Scientists were buying them by the ton to make use of their GPUs and Sony were making a loss on each one as Science labs don't buy (many) videogames.

Of course, though, the Pandora is not deliberately sold at a loss
Fixed that for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
copyright expired retro stuff
Patents expire after 20 years


Copyright is 70 years from author's death or 50 years from publication


Trademarks expire when the stop being used


So you mean retro stuff from the 1960s?


Trademarks from companies that went completely bust?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They're probably putting the SoC, memory, PMIC, and maybe some other stuff on separate circuit board. This is a good idea not just because you can swap the board but also because it can be cheaper to manufacture (a small many layer board plus a big few layer board is cheaper than a big many layer board) and less expensive to fix because there's no single point of failure where any bad component can make the whole board useless.

This is part of the reason, we did want to do the Pandora1 with two boards but it was too complex and would have been too large.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Segas strategy was a shambles. They had the game gear, nomad, md, mcd, 32x and multi mega all in the marketplace at once and if i remember correctly then started putting the virtuas on huge md carts that destroyed the point of the 32x.. I loved sega but its true.

First off, those consoles weren't released all "at once".


Second, only two of what you listed are properly their own consoles: the Game Gear and Mega Drive. The MegaCD and 32x are Mega Drive add-ons, and the Nomad is just a portable version of the Mega Drive.


Third, Mega Drive add-ons are not the reason Sega ultimately left the console market. The biggest factors, as far as I'm aware, were:

  • Early release of the Saturn severely hurt business relations;
  • The Genesis was discontinued much too early in America (and maybe Europe, I don't know);
  • The Dreamcast didn't function as a DVD player.


None of those have anything to do with having too many add-ons or supporting too many consoles. In fact, they would have been better off if they hadn't discontinued supporting the Genesis as early as they did, all in the name of forcing people to buy the latest console.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top