Talk:E-waste: Difference between revisions
(anwser) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Time to review the so-called [[hardware requirements]] and see if they are actually [[e-waste]] creation non-requirements. | Time to review the so-called [[hardware requirements]] and see if they are actually [[e-waste]] creation non-requirements. | ||
:I view the hardware requirements as something that by market dynamics will be implemented because of demand for such versatile techonologies as [[Bluetooth]] for example. [[NFC]] is another thing that will in my guess be wildly popular within a few years if the mobile phone manufacturers decide to go that way. I guess i should contact the major vendors for inquiring about their intentions regarding [[NFC]] because for [[Consumerium:Usability]] it would be great feature on mobile terminals. It is not controversial and potentially dangerous as [[RFID]] is seen by many. | :I view the hardware requirements as something that by market dynamics will be implemented because of demand for such versatile techonologies as [[Bluetooth]] for example. [[NFC]] is another thing that will in my guess be wildly popular within a few years if the mobile phone manufacturers decide to go that way. I guess i should contact the major vendors for inquiring about their intentions | ||
::These are just assumptions, and "intentions" mean nothing. Again I refer to [[PCS base station handoff]], which was certainly intended and promised, but which quite a few small companies died waiting for. Let's not go that way. THere is also no demand for "technologies", there is demand for features. | |||
: regarding [[NFC]] because for [[Consumerium:Usability]] it would be great feature on mobile terminals. It is not controversial and potentially dangerous as [[RFID]] is seen by many.n --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 13:49, 10 Mar 2004 (EET) | |||
::Perhaps true, but, until it hits the [[retail shelf]], it's not our problem, nor our opportunity. [[Paper Consumerium]] is far more promising an avenue, and after that, I'd shoot for [[audio]] delivery using [[FM radio]] or [[cordless protocol]]. These other things always take longer than you think, and only a tiny number of people have them. | |||
------------------ | |||
The term '''[[e-waste]]''' is actually inadequate as it focuses on [[waste disposal]] and not the whole [[comprehensive outcome]], e.g. of [[tantallum]] mining. | |||
Latest revision as of 22:30, 12 March 2004
Time to review the so-called hardware requirements and see if they are actually e-waste creation non-requirements.
- I view the hardware requirements as something that by market dynamics will be implemented because of demand for such versatile techonologies as Bluetooth for example. NFC is another thing that will in my guess be wildly popular within a few years if the mobile phone manufacturers decide to go that way. I guess i should contact the major vendors for inquiring about their intentions
- These are just assumptions, and "intentions" mean nothing. Again I refer to PCS base station handoff, which was certainly intended and promised, but which quite a few small companies died waiting for. Let's not go that way. THere is also no demand for "technologies", there is demand for features.
- regarding NFC because for Consumerium:Usability it would be great feature on mobile terminals. It is not controversial and potentially dangerous as RFID is seen by many.n --Juxo 13:49, 10 Mar 2004 (EET)
- Perhaps true, but, until it hits the retail shelf, it's not our problem, nor our opportunity. Paper Consumerium is far more promising an avenue, and after that, I'd shoot for audio delivery using FM radio or cordless protocol. These other things always take longer than you think, and only a tiny number of people have them.
The term e-waste is actually inadequate as it focuses on waste disposal and not the whole comprehensive outcome, e.g. of tantallum mining.