Both topics are interesting. Mobile because that's where things are now and it is increasing rapidly. I see significant differences in mobile access between last year and this in my travels, but the phone systems haven't seemed to improve much and those still need some improvement. "Green" is, as Larry points out a relative term and while many companies like to tout themselves as being "Green", I don't see many that really fit the description very well.
'Green' is a relative term, not an absolute one. Anything that we manufacture changes materials and uses energy. It could probably be described in terms of thermodynamics, since much of manufacturing is adding order to materials which start out in their relatively chaotic natural state. How could we do that in a way which could really be 'green'?
It's almost all greenwashing.
Is a Prius green? Nope. If you listed to some rabid fans you would think that driving a Prius sucks in pollution and pure filtered air comes out the tail pipe. In reality a Prius is still 80% as dirty at the tailpipe and a hell of a lot more dirty than a conventional car to manufacture.
Read up on Jevon's paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox . Increased efficiency often leads to an increase in resource usage, not a reduction.
Consumption for the sake of consumption is never green. If you can get faster TV graphics without increase in power that's not nearly as green as turning the damn TV off. Or, better still, not buying a TV at all.
If you want the greenest possible cellphone go buy a used Nokia candybar phone on ebay. Not only are you effectively recycling, you will also find it uses far less power than a new smartphone. It also uses far less back-end services (cell bandwidth, servers,...) which also consume power.
So the real answer is: we're not there yet and we're probably heading in the wrong direction.
So When can I get my hands on a tri-core ARM?
One new 64 bit and two 32 bit A15 on the same core. Turn off the 64 bit for phone calls and simple tasks, only use 64 bit running video or bloatware.
I will by a smartphone and a tablet then and only then on the same day.
Your 2-way radio example is interesting.
While replacing 2-way radio with cell phones has some upsides, there are also downsides.
In emergency situations cell phone services get overloaded and become extremely unreliable forms of communication. For example today's earthquake in DC resulted in everyone calling and tweeting their friends "OMG!!! Did you feel that!!!" making it hard to actually perform useful comms.
As for tablets vs phones... They don't really compete. Nobody wants to carry around a tablet in their pocket.
The tablet really fills the gab between a PC and a phone. A bigger screen than a phone, but still more portable than a PC.
Growth for growth's sake, just like jobs for jobs' sake is not sustainable.
Unless the growth and jobs add value then it is just a road to nowhere.
We can keep on adding features, but how many of those really add benefits? Half of the appeal of devices like the early ipods was that they stripped out features and made the MP3 players easier to use.
Far too many products compromise their core features to support cute add-on features.
For example I have a kitchen scale that has an extra clock/ timer feature. Why? I already have a clock! It adds more complexity to the UI. When you turn it on, it first wants you to set the clock. That's a whole bunch of extra buttons and button presses to do what you really want - weight some ingredients.
Mobile products are getting a bit like that too. Try try and do so much that it is getting harder and harder to do the basic things like..... ummmm..... make a phone call!
Agreed about the large screen. Although I'd need much laregr still, to truly replace my physical desktop. And too, you need a machine that does not fully depend on the "apps" written by someone else. So this tablet of the future becomes a more streamlined looking laptop or notebook. In short, my contention is that the term "post PC era" is fundamentally flawed. Here's my version of what happened.
CB radio provided the original portable, private two-way comms for consumers. The original cell phone turned this into a viable and much more effective service for the masses, by leveraging directly off the wireline telephone system. Huge improvement on CB radio.
Then the smart phone expanded on the cell phone, offering text, graphics, and some measure of web browsing capability. And today's tablet is an acknowledgment that the smart phone's display is just too small for what people often want to do with a smart phone. So tablets take over some of the smart phone uses.
So at the bottom of it all, the tablet and smart phone replace, popularize, and expand on CB radio, if anything. Not PCs. CB radio and the basic cell phone are disappearing, no question. But PCs, toasters, and refrigerators soldier on. Their functions are not being replaced yet.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.