Some Samsung Speculation

A few days ago, Samsung unveiled their latest-and-greatest flagship, the Note 9. While several news outlets and tech review websites will write pages on pages about the device, I'd like to point out the recent changes that Samsung made to the DeX software, by changing the requirements for the desktop emulation experience to just a single HDMI to USB-C adapter. My brief glances around the Internet haven't left me confident as to whether a special Samsung cable is required or not, but that's not the point - the highlight here is that on a Note 9, the only tool necessary for desktop emulation is a cable. Let's also highlight the relevant hardware specs: 8 GB of RAM, plenty (up to 512 GB!) of storage on a fast SSD, a Snapdragon 845 processor, and a more powerful cooling system that's designed to ensure better sustained thermal performance.

I'm not making predictions here. But the technology and business motivations are now present for the mobile phone that you and I carry around with us all day to start doing double-duty as a desktop.

Let's start off with the technology. I'm typing this on a Surface Book, which also has 8 GB of RAM, plenty of storage on a fast SSD, and a processor that's capable on running a full desktop operating system. Only recently did that last part become available to mobile devices. In December of 2017, Windows added support for ARM CPUs, the type that most phones use today. So theoretically, a hardware package like the Note 9 would be more than capable of running a full Windows 10 desktop experience - not just Samsung's desktop software, but full-on Windows 10. To repeat: not a desktop-lite experience, designed by Samsung that's likely unfamiliar to the average user and also limited compared to Windows and Mac OS, but the same Windows that most people know and use on a daily basis. Furthermore, the Note 9 could probably run that desktop experience well, providing users with a smooth experience, thanks to the power of the hardware.

Other important aspects of a desktop experience include sustained performance, and compatibility with various peripherals. My laptop has the hardware required to cool itself down during longer and heavier workloads, and it also has a total of 6 ports to connect to other devices. I'll grant that the fans in the Surface Book are much more powerful than those on the Note 9's, and that only 2 ports (counting the headphone jack) is limiting, but Samsung also offers the DeX Station, which expands the I/O and adds a fan to help with thermal performance.

Add in Bluetooth peripherals such as a printer, mouse, and keyboard, and I'd argue that replacing the desktops is technologically feasible - the humble home computer, not the hardcore gaming rigs, battlestations, or workstations with multiple GPUs. I'll discuss what's needed to go the distance later, but for now, consider the ramifications of that: technology has progressed sufficiently to enable a world where a phone can mimic a desktop.

What might that look like? While I haven't used DeX in person, I'd imagine it'd ideally be as simple as connecting a cable from your monitor to your phone (or, docking your phone at a station) and pressing a button on the screen to confirm that you want to start running the desktop. After that, the desktop would launch to life, and you'd be able to use all the wireless peripherals to your heart's content. Since everything is running on the same machine, all of your files - documents, photos, music, and the rest - would already be on your desktop or in your File Explorer, just where you'd expect. If you were to open up Chrome on the desktop when you had the Chrome app already open on your phone, all the Chrome tabs you had open would already be loaded and ready-to-go, and the same would apply for YouTube, Netflix, Photos, or other apps.

Later down the line, improved I/O in either the phone or the docking station could enable external GPU support or more and faster connections to other devices. For example, the current Samsung DeX station only USB 2.0 speeds, which is pretty limited. Should Intel be on board, the addition of Thunderbolt 3 could enable external hardware support, allowing performance to rival setups.

Could it ever actually happen? I'd argue that Microsoft and Samsung are both in position for this pipe dream to actually be quite possible.

Microsoft's former mobile strategy of a smartphone OS failed, and their new strategy revolves creating "experiences" in the Microsoft ecosystem regardless of device or OS. The last time I visited a Microsoft store, the phones I saw on display were the Galaxy S9 and S9+, both of which had Microsoft apps installed (not just Office, but even the launcher). Even if you prefer iOS, Microsoft wants to make sure you're using their software - Outlook instead of Mail, OneNote instead of Notes, etc. With the ability to emulate a desktop, such flexibility on the most personal of people's devices would likely increase adoption of the more powerful productivity services, and I'd imagine that Microsoft is well-positioned to benefit from such a trend. Anecdotally, while I love OneNote on my laptop, I don't have it on my phone, and I use Google Keep on the go. If I had merged those devices, I'd probably switch entirely over to OneNote, as it's more powerful and flexible.

I also think that Samsung has three key reasons they'd be willing to try such an idea out. First, Samsung is known for experimenting, especially with their mobile software. They've pioneered many new technologies (as of writing, it's rumored that they're working on a smartphone with a foldable display), and they started the larger phone segment. Samsung is a company willing to try new things out, even if they won't always work or seem a little gimmicky. Next, Samsung doesn't have a strong PC business. The company manufacturers high-volume, low-margin Chromebooks, while their higher-end PCs are relatively unheard of (at least in the US). Their Q1 financial results announcement doesn't mention the words "computer", "laptop", or "Chromebook" once. Finally, such a feature could potentially increase Samsung's pricing power on an extremely high-margin segment, driving profits, while also making the company seem more innovative (not that Samsung needs to convince people that it's innovative). Add these factors together, and you've got a company that's willing to try new stuff out, without much cannibalization risk.

I'd also argue that a company like Apple would be able to execute on such an idea just as well, though I don't know that they would - Apple would probably prefer to sell multiple high-margin devices, and improve Continuity toward the goal of providing a seamless end-user experience.

In this post, I've speculated on what might be a possibility for the future of the devices in our lives. I could be completely wrong - in fact, I'm willing to bet that I'm wrong. But it's certainly interesting to think that such a possibility is no longer hampered by technological barriers.

P.S. Just to be clear, I've never used a Samsung smartphone for any longer than 30 seconds. I certainly haven't used DeX in person, and I generally dislike Samsung's software. Because of my personal feelings, and because I feel like the average person would prefer Windows 10 to a new/limited Samsung desktop-esque experience, I focus on the ability to run Microsoft's OS.

Yes, it's a smartwatch.

Not many things come to mind when I talk about men's fashion. There just aren't that many things that men can wear on a daily basis to express a sense of design or style. I've already written about the backpack as the first item, but the second one for me is the watch.

A bit of background

I've been wearing watches every day since I was 10 and my uncle got one for me as a gift. It was a $35 Timex with Ironman (the race, not the hero) branding, and I loved it. It was perfectly functional - timers, a stopwatch, a backlight, incredibly waterproof, the whole nine yards. I wore it pretty much nonstop (yes, including to bed and when I showered) for about 2 years until it died. Throughout middle school and high school, I more or less stuck with those fitness-oriented watches, as I ran cross country and being able to view splits on my wrist was incredibly important.

But as my love of tech and design grew, I started looking for alternatives. And then, in late 2014, Motorola (who was on a streak of releasing stellar products) put out the Moto 360. It was beautiful - the first smartwatch to mix form and function, a watch with all the tech while looking drop-dead gorgeous. I got the first version in high school, and sometime in college switched over to the second generation. To this date, I remember the leather straps (by Horween, if I'm not mistaken) as the best I've ever used - soft, supple, and no weird pointy ends.

Moto 360, the original

Moto 360, redux

Left: The first-generation Moto 360. The watchfaces were interchangeable, of course, but the band was slightly difficult to switch out without the right tool. Right: The second generation can be identified by the lugs on the corners of the watch, which enabled easier strap switching, and by the movement of the button from 3 o’clock to 2 o’clock. While the aesthetics didn’t change much, the tech was vastly superior.

But, sometime during sophomore year, I was chatting with a friend while a bit inebriated, and my response to "how durable is it?" was to pitch it, baseball-style, at a wall. It gave up after about 2 weeks. 

The smartwatch problem

While I loved my Moto 360, I found that I just wasn't using it to its fullest potential. The most futuristic thing I did with a screen on my wrist was use it to board the plane one time. Other than that, all I really did was check the time, count my steps, and briefly examine notifications. As Apple eventually discovered, the watch wasn't a communication tool - it was an organizational one with a fitness bonus. But I found myself getting distracted by having instant access to notifications on my wrist. If I was at work or in class, the ability to check notifications at a glance turned into a nagging need to make sure that nothing was going on.

Enter Fossil, with their "Q Commuter Hybrid Smartwatch." I wasn't looking to spend anywhere near the hundreds of dollars I spent on the Moto 360, and wasn't looking for something with features that I'd never use.

Yes, it's a watch

The main draw, for me, was the design. First and foremost, this thing was a watch - no screens, no speakers, just an ordinary and uncomplicated circle with some straps attached to it. It had the added benefit of a Bluetooth chip and a vibration motor to assist with notifications, but to everyone around me it was just a (good-looking) watch. Like the second-gen Moto 360, it had lugs and was compatible with 22mm bands. The buttons on the side didn't draw much attention - for all people knew, it was just a design thing. And the orange accents worked perfectly for a student at UT.

But Fossil also nailed the core of the smartwatch experience. This thing does the 3 main things I wanted a watch to do, and then some. It tells the time (duh), it keeps me connected and aware, and it helps me track my fitness levels. The watch contains a Bluetooth chip inside which connects to a single app on my phone. That app enables my watch to alert me with a light buzz whenever I get a notification, and the hands quickly move over to let me know what's going on - 12 o'clock means that someone's calling, 3 o'clock means I got an email, and 4 o'clock means that one of my group messaging apps is buzzing me. At the same time, if I enable Do Not Disturb on my phone, it'll mute the watch - and because there's no screen, I can actually focus on whatever I need to.

The fitness aspect is also pretty nice. I don't ask for much here - really just something that can count my steps - and the Q Commuter Hybrid delivers wonderfully, with a small dial in the corner of the watch telling me how far I am to my daily step goal. Since the straps are replaceable, it takes me about 30 seconds to transition from a leather strap to a silicone one before I head out on a run. The app also keeps a log of my activity, and breaks everything down into whether I was casually strolling or really pushing myself.

Those buttons on the side are probably the most underrated feature - they're all programmable to a few quick functions, and I have mine set up to control music (the top button turns the volume up, the bottom one turns it down, and the middle one is used to play/pause/fast forward/rewind). This is the "next level" feature here. When I'm walking around outside or working at my desk, the volume control on my earphones is hard to immediately find, and my phone is usually in my pocket. Being able to quickly adjust volume on my wrist is so much easier.

It gets out of the way

So the Q Commuter Hybrid blends form with function incredibly well. But it also does so while staying out of my mind. The battery is rated for about 6 months or so, and when that comes time it shouldn't take any more than $5 and 5 minutes. It looks like a regular watch, which is great for everyday use, and it fits into my fitness routine wonderfully. At $155, it's also fairly priced (though I got mine during a sale for about $120). It's not a perfect fitness watch, and it doesn't have the same amount of power and flexibility that a true smartwatch can provide, but it's simple and it looks good.

The Wireless Tax

Is the price right?

OnePlus makes two sets of earbuds - the Bullets V2 and the Bullets Wireless. Both are among the best earbuds I've used in their price range, and I'd wholeheartedly recommend them to anyone looking for a cheap pair of well-designed, gets-the-job-done, decent quality earbuds. This post isn't about them. It's about the realization I've come to over the last few months, that the "wireless tax" - the price differential between the wired and wireless version of an otherwise identical product - companies are charging is still too high.

Let's start off by talking about that tax: Apple charges $160 for their AirPods, which are wireless versions of their $30 EarPods, so their wireless tax is $130. OnePlus' Bullets Wireless are $70, and the Bullets V2 are $20, so OnePlus' wireless tax is $50. Now, it's true that AirPods are different from the Bullets Wireless in that they're truly cable free, and it's also true that both wireless products have a few more features than their wired counterparts, but let's focus on the fact that these companies could have added all of the wireless features into the wired products.

Left-to-right: Bullets Wireless ($70), Bullets V2 ($20), AirPods ($160), and EarPods ($30)

One of the best intangibles that AirPods have is a sensor that detects when the earbud is in your ear. If you take an AirPod out, the music pauses, and it resumes instantly once you put the AirPod back in. On the Bullets Wireless, that's done via snapping the magnetic backs of the two buds together and pulling them apart again (assuming, of course, that you have an iPhone or a OnePlus phone, respectively). But why do these features need to be only available on the wireless versions of these products? Certainly, magnets are possible to fit into wired earbuds. Sensors couldn't be that hard to fit into an EarPod, given that both AirPods and EarPods share the exact same in-ear design.

The same goes, so I'd assume, for the waterproofing and splash (or rain) resistance for both wireless products. Ignoring the waterproofing of the 3.5mm jack, why should the wired versions of a product be any worse for the wear if I was walking home or running in the rain? It's possible that the wired versions are already waterproof, and that OnePlus simply chooses to not advertise their products as such, but in that case that's one less feature to differentiate between wired and wireless earbuds.

And of course, the primary purpose of earbuds is to play music. OnePlus says they incorporated an "Energy Tube" into the earbud to minimize distortion, and from my personal experience, I will say that I've heard layers in music using the Bullets Wireless that I've never heard before. Most AirPod reviews mention that they sound marginally better than EarPods. But again, what's so special about wireless earbuds that OnePlus couldn't have incorporated an "Energy Tube", or that Apple couldn't have made EarPods sound better?

I don't believe that wireless earbuds add any value other than the fact that they're wireless. They're less likely to get in the way, you don't always need to bring your phone with you, the lack of cables means they're more likely to stay in your ear, etc. But there are also drawbacks, like less reliability than a wired connection, the hassle of charging one more device, and not being able to use them in while traveling until you're 10,000 feet in the air (at least, you're not supposed to use them).

On its own, how much do you think you'd pay for that? As a runner, that cable-free convenience is worth a lot. And while I might have complained at the $160 price point of the AirPods, they were sold out for quite a while (though that was likely due to artificially restricted supply). While I may be complaining about the wireless tax, I daily the Bullets Wireless. Greater industry trends are heading toward a world without the 3.5mm port. And while I'm no audiophile, I've never been happier using a pair of headphones/earbuds before. So the $50 premium is fine by me. $130? Probably not as much, but that won't stop others.

There's still something that nags me in the back of my mind, and I think it's the $70/$160 price tag. People are clumsy, and shit happens. I was walking down the street one day fiddling with my Bullets V2, when they fell out of my ear (my arm got caught on the cable) and they fell to the ground just as/where I put my right foot. Crunch. They're gone. Within a week, I had found the time to pick up another set of Bullets (again, for $20), and due to some shipping problems and excellent customer support from OnePlus, I actually ended up with another two pairs of earbuds for $20. People lose things - and the price of a mistake shouldn't be $70 or more. Blame the wireless tax.

Update [07/22/2019]: It’s worth mentioning that the true Apple analog to the Bullets Wireless would be the BeatsX Earphones.

Exploring and Exploiting in Employment

Let's set the scene. I'm from Texas, and for the first time ever, I'm interning for a summer in a brand new location, Chicago. I'm also a foodie, so my goal is to be able to eat as much good food as possible, but I can't do that without first discovering the best places to eat. Of course, once I find the best places to eat, I shouldn't be venturing out to new restaurants, only to have an inferior meal. The challenge is simple, then: how do I know when to explore the area around me for a new restaurant versus exploiting the information I already have?

If we were able to quantify the utility from previous choices, and the expected utility from future choices, and how much a good meal tomorrow is worth in terms of a good meal today, then this would be fairly straightforward, using a variety of explore/exploit frameworks that the field of computer science has developed. We might look into the Gittins Index, which is well suited to just this type of quantitative analysis. But our tastes change, it's hard to quantify just how good a restaurant is, and doing so would be quite a bit of work, so we need a more "gut-feel" solution.

Jeff Bezos, when he started Amazon, said that all he thought about was how much he'd regret not doing it. He termed it a "regret minimization framework," and it's a perfectly valid way that we as humans can solve the explore/exploit problem. Let's simply do whatever we would most regret not doing. We could spin this into a similar (though not quite identical) formulation: do whatever you think will end up turning out the best, a framework which others called the Upper Confidence Bound.

The interesting thing, though, is that there's so much more that you can think of as an explore/exploit problem than just restaurants. I've approached the search for a full-time position much in the same way. With a career, there are certain factors that feed into job satisfaction: location, coworkers, salary and benefits, work/life balance, promotional opportunities, the work itself, etc. An internship is a great way to learn as much as possible about how those factors look, and how much you might personally weigh those factors.

But that's just for one particular job. If the goal is to not just get a job, but to get the right job, you need to explore.

I'm still in college, with another three years to go. That's a fair bit of time. Nevertheless, with my current internship and the two that come afterwards, I have three questions I need to answer:

1. Which industry do I want to work in?

2. Where do I want to be?

3. How much I do weigh one factor over another?

I'm currently enjoying a really amazing internship at Akuna Capital. The salary is amazing, Chicago is great, the work is stimulating… there's nothing that I could complain about, other than the impact that my work has. And if I were to pick one job to do for the rest of my life, I'd probably pick trading at Akuna. It's unlikely that I could find anything that really beats out working with Australians.

But I still want to explore some more. I don't yet know how I feel about data science or consulting - while some of the niceties might not be as ideal, it's unlikely that I find those jobs to be worse across-the-board. Even if I end up deciding to stick with trading, I'll only have had more confidence in my decision.

P.S. I was first exposed to the explore/exploit framework in a book, Algorithms to Live By. The book is one of my all-time favorites, one of the few that I recommend without reservation. It's by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths.