Nokia shows off nanotech handset
Summary: The partnership between Nokia and Cambridge University bears fruit in the form of a concept handset, unveiled at the Museum of Modern Art in New York
Image 1 of 3
Nokia Research Centre (NRC) and Cambridge University have unveiled a concept phone they say shows the potential benefits of nanotechnology.
Morph, as the device is called, was launched on Monday at the Museum of Modern Art in New York as part of an exhibition entitled "Design and the Elastic Mind".
Morph demonstrates flexible materials, transparent electronics and self-cleaning surfaces — all features made possible in a handheld device through the use of nanotechnology.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Nokia's nano handset
Interesting new features - but what are the benefits for me?
Why should we embrace technoloogy just because it's new?
BL
Nokia Nano-candy?
As with most concept devices, we all want to see them brought out; so long as we're not the one's buying them. Any new product needs to shout out reasons why it should be adopted, this however just inserts extended pauses & awkward silences. Shame, as it'll proberbly be quite good as a thought - maybe that's where it should have stayed?
Worthless- good pictures but the technology already exists
What I find really scary is that the general population will see the introduction of this technology and believe that they are receiving futuristic technology after being told that it has taken 7 years to design.
The reality is that the technology has already been around for the past 8 - 10 years, 4 of which have been conceptual, and the remainder as R&D; yet it is going to take another 5 - 8 years for the marketing people to think up a slogan, during which time the production engineers are working on building the device whilst the technology department are looking further towards the future and improving the handsets.
In all honesty if Nokia have joined-up with Cambridge University, to produce this technology then maybe they should have partnered with another mobile phone solutions company who had this technology two maybe three years ago.
Whilst I embrace technology, it has to be beneficial to me. Sadly in the next 7 years we'll begin to receive technology that is well out of date, but will be pushed by mobile communications providers because they have a couple of people who have decided that this is what the public really wants because of a research and marketing poll & not what the public really wants because it is beneficial; then the "higher technology" will be released to the business line before the general user which is where it belongs.
Hopefully someone will prove me wrong, but then again I live in hope.
What we as technologists should be more concerned with is the design of communications systems that do not intefere with each other and the migration of general usage systems away from the IMSR frequency allocation.
This would allow the production of devices that could be allocated to medical staff allowing improved communications with a view of reducing the number of patient deaths.