An amazing Eve Phone


Think about this: .3% still equates to millions of users. That market share also doesn’t account for the fact that many people don’t have the options they want to buy a new Windows mobile device so they are holding off. Now some people think several million people don’t matter, but if Eve used 1,000 devices as their baseline for success on the Eve V don’t you think potentially millions of Windows mobile fans is something worthy to shoot for?


Well, all i can say is if you go the Android route you can count me out. I’m sure you can put together another Community of android fans to make it work, but it seems pretty obvious there is some strong support for Windows mobile here, it would be a pity to ignore that and go with something else. For better or for worse, I’m staying with Windows through it’s journey.


Disclaimer: What I will post here is the culmination of over a decade and a half of my work and experience. Please be kind. :slight_smile:

Part 1:
Ok, with that out of the way, there are few things that must first be considered for the design direction, even at the conceptual level.

1 A mobile wearable should not be a watch.

I have seen so many smart-watches over the past few years and before them, so many watch phones going as far back as Samsung’s SPH-WP10 in 1999. I have owned a few watch phones over those years as well and I can tell you both from professional and personal experience that a wearable that tries to be your watch will ultimately fail in the mass market.

There are so many issues with this approach, from the obvious style factor, to the impracticability of the tiny unusable screen that will no doubt grace its face.

Q: What happens when someone who wants to wear their favourite Chopard, Breguet or IWC buys a smartwatch-styled phone?

A: They will leave the smartwatch behind in favour of a traditional phone on the occasion that wearing two watches just would not work.

Remember, the wrist was not where that class of timepiece started. It started in the pocket and fashion and practicality dictated its final resting place on your forearm. So if we take a cue from history, we will see that copying the wrist watch isn’t the way forward for wearables.

2 The wearable should not be the accessory of a larger device but should be the core of an ecosystem.

Your usage scenarios should dictate what kind of UX and UI you have at the time. Therefore, the wearable should be small, kept out of the way and worn for the convenience of transportation. The ideal interaction with it should be done with a series of wireless dumb accessories designed to take your input and give output in a form-factor that matches the application.

3 Do not put a screen on it.

Aside from the obvious style issue (ala point #1), there is the fact that in order to be usable, your screen will dictate the size of the wearable and to a certain extent, its battery life.

Use an alternative method of display technology for the scenarios where you will be interacting with it directly, sans wireless accessories.

4 It must be water-resistant.

A practical wearable should be something you put on your body and not think about as you go about your day. Having to worry about your wearable when it rains, when you sweat or if you go to the pool is counter-intuitive and unnecessary with today’s technologies.

5 Battery life is everything and contactless wireless charging is a must.

Being able to charge your wearable without having to take it off will change the way people use it for the better. Contactless wireless charging that can put a few metres between you and the charger is the ideal solution and it exists today.

6 Processing power, storage and RAM are your make or break specs.

If you are going to build a wearable that is worth buying, it should be able to replace more than someone’s aging iPad. Today we can make a dual 64-bit processor wearable with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, that runs Windows 10 and has the power to rival your Core i5. It won’t be in the price range of your entry level Apple Watch or Asus ZenWatch but then, why should it be?

7 Understanding your target price point is important.

You wouldn’t expect to buy a new Core i5 powered ultra thin tablet for the price of a cheap smartwatch. So then don’t try to build a cutting edge wearable that can replace your tablet/laptop at the price point of the Apple Watch.

8 Security is paramount.

A wearable that is properly made will be more attractive than a traditional smartphone. This also means it’s more likely to be stolen. If your files are not well protected, then this will be yet another potential threat to your privacy and identity. If the wearable uses biometric security to encrypt its filesystem and has as few physical interfaces as possible, then while it may be a pretty target for thieves, it will be nothing more than a pretty paperweight without its owner.

9 Design from the perspective of jewellery first, technology second.

While many of us engineers tend to overlook the aesthetics of our creations as a vital point to be examined at the start of development, we should always remember that what something looks like can already be more than 50% of the battle won when you are trying to get the final product sold.

Taking the above points into consideration, the wearable should look like a piece of jewellery. It should be elegant, yet subtle. It must be something that a 15 year old will want to wear and at the same time, something that her 60 year old grandfather would wear as well. You must make it a piece of fine jewellery that takes design cues from the established fashion houses.

Do not make a piece of technology then slap a fashion brand on it after the fact, like some famous product designers have done.

10 Support multiple Operating Systems.

A worthwhile wearable must not be limited to just one OS like most traditional smartphones. As with a laptop/tablet PC, this is a portable computer that will be used by a diverse range of end users. Much like the Eve V, it must be able to support all of the major Operating Systems that may be used by its target market.

With these 10 pints as a discussion starter, I will give you guys some time to mull over the design direction before I post Part 2.



So the whole idea seems to converge in a fundamental point. A CPU on the wrist to enable any type of device you hold and with the possibility to switch between different OS.
Maybe I haven’t got your point and I’m not so keen on this type of subject but with actual intel CPUs is it feasible? I would be worried to keep something that reaches high temperatures on my wrist :sweat_smile: and if you want the wearable to be the core of an ecosystem it has to be powerfull like a PC cpu, not a “simple” Snapdragon.

1 Like

Having totally fallen in love with the Eve philosophy, and now desperate to get my hands on my Eve V - I would love to see an Eve phone. It’s the natural next step for this company.

Whilst you could go mad, and throw every top tier component in there - what’s the point?

Surely the philosophy is to create something that perfectly blends form and function, it’s a phone after all! If you want a portable computing powerhouse, reach for your V.

I’d start with a reasonable expectation on price. Entry level has to be sub €500.

Set yourself apart; smart design with easy repairability. Imagine a phone held together with 4 screws! Dual sim, micro SD and a user replaceable battery, all hidden under a back cover that can be removed with a screw in each corner. Keeping the design simple and functional would lead to simpler water & dust proofing.

My personal preference would also be for Android OS… But in this case I’ll go with the community!

1 Like

We discussed Neptune Suite a wee bit here on the community already.


To add to the discussion, what are the thoughts on a dual-boot phone?
Since many in the community seem to favor Android for the apps, but Windows Mobile for the UI, what if we could have both?

Also, a thought I had today at lunch - would it possible to run something similar to the Mac’s “Parallels” software on a mobile phone, to where with just a simple swipe, one could switch between two different operating systems?

This might be a separate topic, but thought I’d add.


It wouldn’t be possible because it relies on virtualization and ARM is no good for that :frowning:

And dual boot mostly doesn’t work, either… Because Google won’t license Google Play to such a phone, so all the apps won’t be easily accessible. Not sure about Microsoft… The old Bill Gates’s Microsoft probably wouldn’t have allowed it either, but seems like they’re now desperately trying to get into the market forgetting their principles (they even ported WP to an Android device themselves).


LOL sorry, but you made my day :smiley: a wearable with 512GB SSD running Windows? :smiley: What would that be, a wearable helmet with a solar panel and a propeller on top? :smiley:

1 Like

@Fabio_CF: The new generation of 10nm arm processors such as the Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 are anything but ‘simple’. These SoCs can each address 8GB RAM and potential revision may go as high as 12GB and the processor’s raw power can rival a Core i3 at this time.

Intel’s Atom processor line has been all but discontinued for PCs and so far nothing in that series had either the raw horsepower nor the thermal pedigree to be suitable for this application.

As for the OS support, I was suggesting that the system ships with one OS but is built to support more than one so the user decides what version he/she wants to have. In other words, instead of releasing a system with Android and waiting for the Jolla dev community to get SailfishOS running on it, it should be built with an available SailfishOS model, an Android model and a Windows Model for example. Let the user decide what they want to run. Of course what I have in mind would make options for Ubuntu Touch and Windows 10 available as well with x86 CPU emulation.

@Niloc: Thanks for the details on the discussion about the Neptune. I hadn’t seen that post on the forum so I didn’t know it was formally discussed before.

@pauliunas: I’m seriously beginning to question if you do any reading at all… You seem to have very strong opinions on things about which you clearly know nothing. If you don’t know, just read, learn something new and stop assuming. It is clear you know very little about arm architecture and performance, very little about the x86-32 hybrid virtualiszation you are so quick to dismiss, little or nothing about SSD technology and what is available today and even little about Microsoft’s historical business models, products and even their history. Please do some research before you make your next comment. I have no problem with an open fair discussion but it’s annoying to have someone constantly offer nothing but distracting noise to what should be a productive discussion.

Part 2 follows in a few…

1 Like

Disclaimer: What I will post here is the culmination of over a decade and a half of my work and experience. Please be kind.

Part 2:

The following product design is powered by the much anticipated Qualcomm MSM8998 which you may know as the Snapdragon 835 10nm SoC, and shares design characteristics of the Neptune Suite and the Ritot Bracelet. The 10nm process produces a SoC with better thermal properties, making a wearable with this chip a much cooler running and practical device, while simultaneously offering PC-class performance.

It is rumoured that the upcoming OnePlus 4 smartphone will be powered by a single Qualcomm MSM8998 SoC bundled with 8GB RAM. Given the lower power consumption that should be expected of the MSM8998’s combination of LPDDR4X RAM and the 10nm manufacturing process, along with its thermal savings, these choices set the bar for the next generation of performance smartphones.

Today, high-quality, lowlight camera performance is a must and so this core product and its accessories should have main cameras of at least 23MP resolutions (with the exception of the bundled 4-inch accessory) with aperture sizes of at least f/1.6, laser autofocus or dual lens designs optimized for for low-light shooting. It should also integrate a 32MP main camera into the core device which will have another positioned on its opposing side (one at the top and one at the bottom of the wearer’s wrist respectively). The second, an 16MP with an aperture size of at least f/1.9 and a wide-angle lens, should be positioned as a front/selfie camera. With all cameras, we should pay careful attention to the choices of lenses and optical array designs.

With the concept of the Neptune Suite as a starting point, we should first re-imagine the hub as a screen-less, laser pico projector based bracelet, inspired by the the Ritot. This bracelet should be factory sealed carrying no ports or other openings in its body making it more effectively water resistant and along with all compatible accessories, will use wireless contact-less battery recharging technology licensed from Energeous. Furthermore, by standardizing the wireless link interface it uses, third-parties can create other compatible accessories for this product.

This is the preliminary specifications list:

• Dual Qualcomm MSM8998 (Snapdragon 835) 10nm SoCs (w/x86 emulation support)
• 16GB LPDDR4X RAM (2x8GB… yes insane, but keep reading)
• Dual Band 802.11ac
• 60GHz WiGig 802.11ad
• Bluetooth 5.0
• Dual LTE Cat.16 (Gigabit-class) radios
• Dual LTE 4G Machine-to-Machine UICC (M2M Form Factor/eSIM) support
• 6000-9000mAh battery from SolidEnergy Systems (yes, it is possible in that physical space, read here )
• Qualcomm QuickCharge 4.0 (if compatible with the SolidEnergy Systems battery technology and Energous WattUP contactless charging technology)
• Onboard 512GB/1TB SSD using Samsung’s new V-NAND MLC based SSD technology
• 16MP front camera with embedded LED ring flash, f/1.9 aperture, OIS & EIS
• 32MP rear camera with embedded LED ring flash, f/1.7 aperture, OIS & EIS
MicroVision PicoP® Embedded 1280x720 pixel resolution (720p) laser pico projector
• AGPS/GLONASS support
• Accelerometer
• 6-Axis Gyroscope
• Digital Compass
• Stereo speakers each positioned on opposing sides of the bracelet
• Dual Microphones
• Vibration motor
Seiko Kinetic generator (to jump-start wireless charging module if battery is completely depleted)
Fujitsu PalmSecure authentication technology (applied to wrist not palm)
Energous WattUp contact-less charging
• IP67/MilSpec 810G (it is inevitable that a wearable will be dropped, bumped or accidentally submerged)

Part 3 will follow after this has been discussed.


1 Like

Being honest I feel this would cost substantially more than Neptune Suite was advertised at on IGG. And I don’t know if it’s a project Eve would take on. It’s very experimental and “out there”. I would class the V as a “safe” design, as it’s similar enough to a Microsoft Surface while also improving on it.

This is just a whole new concept with previous examples of poor execution (no offense… I just find that IGG campaign heart breaking for the people that paid into it, and from the updates they get it seems like it’s miles away from fruition; and nothing like the original design).

I couldn’t entertain a system like this until it was fully fledged and out of design and securely into production. I don’t necessarily believe it’s achievable without a huge budget set aside for research.


@Niloc: The price point for this product is about $1,000 retail as an entry level so yes, more than the Neptune. If you look at my Part 1 post, you’ll recall I did say this won’t be in the same price point as a smartwatch which was the pricepoint target of the Neptune. That was a mistake on their part but I had no say in that, I was just the guy who contributed the concept free of charge.

No offence taken on the ‘poor execution’ comment, in fact I fully agree with you. There is no point to pretend, they botched it badly. In fact, even their initial design was not what I had come up with so the redesign wasn’t the first disappointment for me, yet I was one of those backers.

Truth be told, an experienced and professional team who have worked together before, like the engineering team of Eve Tech, could in theory prototype this within 10-18 months. They would need to hire a jewellery designer though but I think the more important question would be whether the community is interested or not.



Seems fun to comment on these points, please don’t mind :smile:

  1. A mobile wearable should not be a watch.
    What happens when someone who wants to wear their …

I believe you hit the nail on the head here! Very few people (that I know of) would wear two watches. Those who are wearing luxury watches probably won’t even give a slight consideration for getting a smart watch (maybe for exercising? we’ve got smart health bands for that purpose).

Knowing your market is important though, who’s going to spend $1,000 for a general computing device that is not a smartphone or a PC/Mac. Not that I know though.

2 The wearable should not be the accessory of a larger device but should be the core of an ecosystem.

Partially agreed (if I understood correctly), I would say it should be a smartphone replacement itself.

Cannot fully agree, if skeptical, if you mean it’s the only device lay users ever need.
I’d say that’s overly ambitious but rational.

3 Do not put a screen on it.

This is tricky. Any other display methods IMO doesn’t really work, including pico projectors.

In fact, at some point I though the Google Glass solution, or visors, would have worked. If there was something that can project a reasonably sharp image to just about any consumer glasses, it’s going work.

Now I’m thinking about AR and the technology Hololens used.

4 It must be water-resistant.

I’ll take this for granted.

5 Battery life is everything and contactless wireless charging is a must.

I’ll also take zero-interfacing as granted for such wearables.
Wearable accessory should not have any holes you plug stuff in.
Holes are necessary evils from the start, they accumulate dust, make things less water resistant and stuff…

I kind of understand why Apple is trying to push towards wireless-everything. Not that I like what they’re doing it to a smartphone though.

6 Processing power, storage and RAM are your make or break specs.

I do not fully agree with this.
As a user, there are things you can and cannot do effectively and efficiently with a cannot-be-seen device, interface-less device.

I see that this compliments you 2nd point, if it means to be the One Device though.

I can picture that if someone has a Bluetooth keyboard at home, along with a supported smart TV, can flick a finger to connect everything together (we already have these technology) and the TV suddenly becomes a full PC wirelessly powered by the strap on your wrist.

This doesn’t mean the users who would prefer doing this needs top-notch computing specs.

I believe professionals of different fields - graphical artists, designers, photographers, animators, etc. - those who need 16GB/(top-notch) 512GB SSDs, have strong preference on what device they work on.

Again, I’m not one of them so it’s just my imagination.

7 Understanding your target price point is important.

Agreed. In fact in my opinion, utmost important point in terms of business.

8 Security is paramount.

Again, taking this for granted. Not much to say about it.

9 Design from the perspective of jewellery first, technology second.

Agreed. There’s always a gap between Engineering perfection, Aesthetics and Usability though. Striking the balance between the three is difficult, doing it right alone would imply partial success of a product (or more accurately, doing it wrong alone would imply failure).

10 Support multiple Operating Systems.

Cool idea but hard to realize.


@hatter: May it be possible that you open a new thread for this idea.
I think that there are far more things to discuss on this than it suits the amazing Eve Phone thread.

Here we should discuss a phone and in a new thread we can discuss your well thought ideas.

Amazing Eve Wearable Computer

@kaum: I have taken your advice, please see the new thread over here on this topic.

@kazenorin: I absolutely do not mind, after all the whole point of the post was to stir discussion first then see if there is enough of an interest that Eve Tech may take this seriously enough to investigate possible research into doing it.

The “only device” comment refers to the fact that it would replace a smartphone, android-style tablet and smartwatch plus could take the place of a regular Windows 10 tablet/convertible for example. I don’t expect that a user will replace his Nvidia powered 32GB RAM Core i7 powerhouse of a notebook with it just as they wouldn’t replace that with the Eve V either.

In reference to your response about the screen and A/R etc, it is fully explained in the new thread over here. My application of the pico projector technology is more along the lines of the ASU Cast 1.



Maybe not currently, but I look forward to the day. I think it would be awesome to have a handheld device that functions as a PC, with dual-boot option.

I won’t even ask “what about Microsoft’s full Windows 10 on ARM experiment?” because I’ve already seen some of your responses to this.


1 Like

Yes ARM is improving. But as I said earlier, Intel (and maybe AMD now) is improving at equal speed. So, trying to race it is not an insanely smart idea :smile:
That Microsoft’s experiment is just an experiment and I strongly believe it will soon fail just like Windows RT :slight_smile:

And that’s why I’m suggesting to use a real Intel processor and forget all the emulation. Most Android apps work natively on x86 processors, but not the other way around: Windows apps don’t work on ARM without emulation. (If AMD releases something noteworthy with low enough TDP, then why the hell not :wink: )


@pauliunas: …again speaking authoritatively about things you don’t actually understand.

Windows 32-bit apps don’t work natively on 64-bit Windows either.

They run on an emulation layer that is all software so what’s the difference?

In fact I think the new arm x86-32 hybrid software+hardware emulation support found in the new Qualcomm processors might be even more efficient and offer better performance than the built in Microsoft windows software-only emulation found in Windows x64.

Windows 10 on arm that will come later this year is the same full version of Windows 10 that will run everywhere else. The apps that will be supported natively will be arm based versions of existing apps and everythng else willb be 32-bit x86, so they should be able to get coverage for more than 90% of what’s out there right off the line.



I know, but x86 32bit code is hardware-compatible with 64bit processors. They are capable of following the same instructions, so that “emulation” is not the same. Only the OS functions need to be “emulated”, since the rest of the OS is running in 64bit mode.
You should really learn to be wrong sometimes, because all of your comments seem to begin with " you don’t know anything" without even considering that YOU might be wrong.