Mobility

Do we really need one more mobile device?

Here's a video showing Intel CEO Paul Otellini demoing a new mobile Internet based device. After notebooks, netbooks, MIDs, and cell phones, do we really need one more mobile device? What do you think and how will it affect IT?

Here's a video showing Intel CEO Paul Otellini demoing a new mobile Internet-based device. After notebooks, netbooks, MIDs, and cell phones, do we really need one more mobile device? What do you think and how will it affect IT?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry Dignan showed this video from the Web 2.0 summit last week on ZDNet. In it, Intel CEO Paul Otellini demos a new handheld mobile Internet device. It appears to be an oversized iPod Touch, blending a Web cam with Internet connectivity to do translations and Web searches among other things.

There was no formal product announcement, so it's probably more conceptual than anything else. The form factor seems to be reasonable, and the ability to translate text on the fly certainly is interesting.

I just wonder what effect it will have on IT if and when it comes out. That just means that we have one more mobile device to either officially support or learn to deal with as users sneak them onto the network and expect to be supported.

Does this device bring anything new to the table that users can't already do with notebooks, netbooks, smartphones, or any of the plethora of other mobile devices we have to deal with? Do you think it's a good idea or bad idea, and what kind of effect do you think another mobile device would have for IT?

8 comments
CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I've gotten along quite nicely without the first mobile device, much less an additional one.

John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro
John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro

As I've noted before, I refuse to have one of those infernal devices until I'm absolutely forced to. And here I thought I was alone in that regard. :)

Mikebanks
Mikebanks

And more than a couple of service providers. --Mike

Mikebanks
Mikebanks

What's really needed, of course, is one device to do it all. --Mike

dogknees
dogknees

Unless we can all agree that our current devices are absolutely perfect and could not be improved in any way, then of course we need new devices. We are a long way from the end of this path. We've barely even got to the first step.

Tig2
Tig2

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2334167,00.asp Intel is marketing this device first in pilot programs with Aetna and others in an effort to improve the quality of health care. It would enable people with chronic disease to be monitored more fully and therefore increase quality of life. It can also provide a method of long distance monitoring which will help people whose parents are too far away geographically. The PC Magazine article is long but certainly well worth the read. This device represents a sea change for Intel and adoption of the device will be interesting. I think that those of us who are concerned about security will want to keep a watch on this as medical information is extremely sensitive information and there will need to be safeguards to the system. This also will impact medical administration if the device enables health care to step away from the mainframe. Health care is nearly predominantly mainframe driven. Definitely one to watch!

John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro
John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro

In Decision Central, I put up a video showing a demo from Web 2.0 by Intel's CEO showing a potential new Mobile Internet device. http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/decisioncentral/?p=169 It looks potentially pretty cool, but from an IT support perspective, it looks problematic. It's just one more device we have to figure out how to integrate into our systems. Is this the straw that breaks the camel's back? Or do think that it would be worth the extra effort?

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

are we going to escape the insanity if we carry it around with us wherever we go? That would be a no from the peanut gallery.

Editor's Picks