Talk:Phonebloks

References

I’m not good at writing articles, so if anybody’s willing to improve the article here’s a list of some things that can be used as references. The Register, Co.Design, Herald Sun, Huffington Post, Yahoo! News, CBS News, Kotaku, Mashable, Yahoo! News Canada, Engadget. W. A. Bulatovic (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Also Tested.com W. A. Bulatovic (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There's also an interview in Dutch television show De Wereld Draait Door [1] --Waldir ^talk 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Please keep edits within the guidelines of Wikipedia. --Mike409 21:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Incompleteness

About the {{incomplete}} template: the article seems to be pretty complete (although not detailed, but that's another issue), especially for a concept that is still in the design phase. I would say the main thing that's missing is the notably successful social media campaign, including:

• the Thunderclap campaign which has already become one of the most successful "thunderclaps" ever, engaging 800 thousand people and counting
• the YouTube video, which, at the time I'm writing this, has about 15 million views
• endorsements by several high-profile people such as Elijah Wood [2]

--Waldir ^talk 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference doesn't seem to support statement

In regards to citation number 6, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonebloks#cite_note-Engadget-6 the statement says, "Some analysts say that Phonebloks has many issues which will not allow it to succeed." but the Engadget article seems to be just the writer's personal feelings about whether the phone will work or not, rather than a list of potential issues. I don't know if this is misleading enough to warrant removal, so i thought i would bring it up here. Thoughts? --Tenebrius.neith (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence is quite generic anyway and was written using poor grammar; I tried to rescue it but sill reads awkwardly. Feel free to remove it, but make sure to integrate the references in other parts of the text if they have useful content. --Waldir ^talk 10:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I came up with the concept first

what also missing is that I came up with that exact same ideer a year earlier only on a broader scale,"29 jul. 2012 lego and computer parts is a good match. In fact the whole computer should be clickable like lego blocks.

my concept was about building computers based on components clickable as lego, In my eyes a smart phone is just another computer just smaller and more portable. So what this guy did was take my concept of a clickable computer restrickt it to just smartphones and call it his own! in my previous edit i added 2 links to pages on the G+ site inwich i discuss my concept of a computer made up of clickable blocks, I see Mark Arsten (an administrator here on wikipedea) has removed those links just 2 min after posting, under the pretext of it being vandalism? If you want wikipedea to reflect the truth it should metion that I came up with the concept first. I just didnt make a website and rendered some pics but thats just about a couple of hours work. I guess he did that for a school project anyhow. Marc I ask you politely to put back the links that proof i came up with the concept first. And if you think somethings wrong with the links please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysvry (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you made the concept before Modu?Uziel302 (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Our team developed such concept in 2004-2005:) But here in Ukraine and Russia there is no investors who may be interested in this. And our concept was much earlier than Modu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.25.20 (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Importance

What the importance of an idea of a design student without technology background? He only made a cool youtube clip and website. That's all. No company, no money, no technical protocol and of course no prototype.Uziel302 (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What's notable is that this concept got the attention of the media unlike many other concepts (even though this isn't a novel idea), and Motorola is now collaborating with him/Phonebloks on Project Ara. Though if this ends up being a dud, then we should merge it into the Project Ara article. - M0rphzone (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is a stud, i agree it should be merged with project ara.-Jack (User:Jacksalssome) (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, basically Phonebloks has been entirely incorporated into Project Ara so there isn't really a need for keeping a separate article on it. It does, however, provide a pretty decent section on the background, basic concept and opinions of critics. I've added a proposed merger template to both pages and all discussion on whether or not to merge it should go here. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be correct. I mean, Phonebloks is the main idea while Project Ara and the Grey phone are Google products/outcomes. There could be one day another producer of phonebloks that is not Google. Sbenny Mirror (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. These two are related, but distinct projects. Both have enough notability to be covered on their own. F (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think these articles should be merged either. Phonebloks developed completely independently from Ara for the most part of 2013, and the 950k Thunderclap supporters is a good proof of its independent notability. A merge would unnecessarily clutter the article on Ara. Deryck C. 12:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - they're related, but definitely distinct. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged, I have heard of phoneblocks and discussed it with people over coffee etc - never heard of the other one. I came here looking for phoneblocks :) - Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.52.42 (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the two should be merged, as the articles are still different in topic/nature. I heard of phoneblocks before I heard of Project Ara, and phoneblocks was the more well known out of the two. - Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.47.71 (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everyone saying they should not be merged. Yes, the phoneblocks concept has no engineering behind it, no material investment, no product. But the phoneblocks team has obviously had a huge impact with their ideas and promotion. Further, these are actually two distinct projects with two slightly different goals. Phoneblocks supports, encourages, and promotes all efforts at increased modularity, not just the google project.

One day Project Ara and other projects will eclipse phoneblocks, but even then this page should be kept since phoneblocks will have been important to the history of modular tech in mobile devices. 172.56.39.51 (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't merge Project Ara with "Modular Smartphones"

You should merge it with Phonebloks though. Fix101 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)