At the moment, there is just one actively maintained Jolla mobile device with according mechanical specifications for its TOH (see Jolla Phone TOH | Sailfish OS Documentation ). But what if…
…a new device with different dimensions is released by Jolla in the future?
…major components such as display, battery, camera modules, etc. are discontinued by their respective manufacturers, become harder to obtain (e.g. due to global supply chain problems), and so on - all of which would drastically increase costs - forcing Jolla to change device dimensions, relocate camera lenses, relocate the TOH mounting clips or screw holes, etc.?
All TOHs produced up to that point would become unusable on such new devices, creating an unnecessary pile of electronic waste. If however the active TOH parts (electronics) can easily be detached from the TOH shell, one only needs to buy (or 3D-print) a new shell with the changed dimensions and then just transplant the TOH electronics into this new shell.
What do you think? It probably won’t be feasible for every type of TOH, but as a general recommendation or best practice?
Jolla has some TOH plans as they announced in Day1 that to me they look more oriented to businesses and others like focus/profile/secure folder, however you want to name it.
So far it looks like it will be up to individuals to create whatever they want, same as the first phone. That being said, if you have a convincing solution to that problem maybe others (if we see anything popular) will follow.
I totally agree with @BH’s thoughts concerning long-term-compatibility and the launching of a credible long-term standard for professional-grade modular attachments.
That it is a very limited problem. (Reasonably nice feature though).
The average TOH will have not even 1% of the electronics of the phone.
We shouldn’t be switching devices every 18 months anyway - and longevity of the phone is much more important. Related TOH longevity comes “free” from that.
… that’s why I’m supporting longterm-evolvable TOH-standards, employing most simple, reliable and mechanically least-straining polymer-solutions, which can be easily replicated for molding or 3D-printing. It could be even just temporarly slid-on powerbanks, which could be held safely in place until swapping again for the camera-grip-module, DAC, or you name it …
You’re completely right : TOHs could be housing quite irrelevant things - especially regarding completely dumb or LED-lit-shells - but when it comes to a bit more serious or mission-critical applications ( DAC-modules or attached keyboards above 100€+ ) you might be wishing a bit of longterm-compatibility & -reliability that is capable of bridging both TOH- and device-related release-cycles easily.
Why I’d need to throw away a perfectly implemented e-ink-display module when I want to upgrade my jolla phone ? With that limited amount of jolla- and community-based devel resources ?
Even dumb shells come nowadays at 30€/unit. It’s not gadgets for one-off Reeder-phones, but convincable jolla-platform-standrads we’re talking about …
Yes, perhaps; but i think the stratum of devices between “trivial” and “too advanced to be able to comply” might be too thin anyway.
This might hit that stratum. But it seems unlikely that the TOH connector would sit in the exact same relative position to any corner but its own (and you probably don’t want the 3.5mm stacked right on top if it anyway). So just making the fpc part of whatever module detachable/swappable solved the same issue.
I don’t see this being able to fit within a standard and be all that applicable across phone models/sizes anyway.
… well it could of course. I’m suggesting a design settlement within the 2D-plane - any devel could blow TOH-modules up 3D-wise to needs / requirements. No inhibitions thickness-wise
I think this is a worthy goal (maybe I would rather call it “Make TOH electronics fit a range of devices”).
To achieve it, Jolla would have to define a couple of device outlines (e.g. small phone, big phone, small tablet, big tablet) and define where the interfaces are located. With interfaces, I mean connectors, attachment points (for mounting PCB in TOH) and keep-out areas.
This is hard.
Attachment points could be in the same locations on a small and a big phone, and a tablet could have additional attachment points for bigger PCBs.
But then it gets hairy. Space is limited and components can’t be placed arbitrarily, due e.g. to thermal and radio frequency considerations.
There is a substantial risk that you lock the interfaces in places that are difficult for future devices, especially smaller ones. I would not expect current TOH electronics to fit a new Jolla Phone for the small-display crowd.
As I wrote in the initial post of this thread: “It probably won’t be feasible for every type of TOH.”
A TOH may feature a big e-Ink display that occupies large parts of the shell. Another TOH may feature nothing more but a tiny environmental sensor that is safely hidden behind the shell. The e-Ink display definitely requires a more complex mounting method than the PCB with the tiny environmental sensor. So there is no “One strategy fits them all” approach.
Wanting to transplant the e-Ink display from a phone-sized TOH into a tablet-sized TOH doesn’t make much sense and is outright impossible when the new device has a smaller outline. But the tiny sensor PCB? Totally legitimate and doable IMHO - as long as the PCB isn’t glued into the shell, but instead fixed by screws or bendable retention clips. Which is exactly that “food for thought” I wanted to give to potential TOH developers with this thread.
I totally agree with you. But eventually your phone gets damaged beyond meaningful repairability after some years of heavy daily use and the new device doesn’t have the same dimensions than your old device anymore, for legitimate reasons as outlined in the initial post of this thread. Additionally, the original manfufacturer of the TOH which you use every day doesn’t exist anymore or is unwilling to produce a new version, and proper alternatives from other manufacturers are not available. You can 3D-print a new TOH shell with the adapted dimensions quite easily yourself (or ask a friend to print it for you), but replicating the TOH electronics yourself with the PCB and all ICs and other components? That’s much more difficult.
And all I said that this sounds nice, but show us a proposal because we should not expect these type of TOHs from Jolla.
If YOU are planning to make something, that problem (TOH not being detachable), it’s going to be your problem. So if you can present a solution, IF others do the same maybe they will follow your solution.
If you only make a TOH for yourself, without any intentions to create a business around it, do however you want and don’t let others limit you. But if you plan to sell these TOHs to others, it IMHO makes sense to at least consider the detachability aspect when you start the development process. If detachability can’t be realized feasibly, don’t implement it.
How it could (or should) be properly done entirely depends on what kind of TOH someone wants to make (see my previous post). This does not just apply to Jolla, but everyone in this community who wants to make TOHs. TOH is an open platform after all, to which anyone can contribute, not just Jolla. Anyone can share their ideas - that’s why this thread was created.
And yes, should I ever venture into TOH development myself, I’ll likely share my solutions to this topic here too.
But in those cases it likely would make more sense to just have that part removable with a few screws, so that you can mount it to a new TOH. But it depends a lot on how much effort the TOH maker wants to spend on it (and if people actually start producing larger batches instead of just building one for themselves).
