HP has been developing technology to change the way data is stored and transferred, and now the company’s starting to talk about what it wants to do with that technology.

First up, HP hopes to release a new type of server which it’s calling “the machine” which will feature new types of memory, processors that are developed in-house and a custom operating system.

InfoWorld reports eventually we could see the same technology make its way to personal computers and even smartphones. But it could take a while.

HP.com

HP is hoping to build the machine in the next 3 to 6 years. It’s unlikely we’ll see consumer-oriented devices until some time later.

For the past few years HP has been working on a new type of memory called memristors. These memory resistors would replace DRAM and flash storage. They should be faster than existing memory, use less power, and offer nonvolatile data storage which means that unlike traditional RAM, you don’t need any electricity to keep data in memory. This reduces power consumption and helps preserve data in the event of a power loss.

Other key elements of HP’s vision include Photonics which use photons instead of electrons to transfer data without using fiber optics instead of copper wire and new chips and software to hold everything together.

According to InfoWorld, HP figures by the time these technologies make their way to mobile devices, they could enable smartphones with 100 terabytes of storage, among other things. Of course… it’ll probably be about a decade by the time that happens. HP might not be the only company offering phones with massive amounts of storage by then.

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign

or...

Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

Subscribe to Liliputing via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,507 other subscribers

17 replies on “HP envisions smartphones with 100TB of storage… eventually”

  1. Evil ones like Google will never allow this much on-board storage capacity. It means you won’t have to depend on the Cloud for storage – THEIR Cloud!

  2. If their “new operating system” is a rebadged version of webOS then I will forgive them. Otherwise, talk to the hand…

    1. They’re talking about “operating system” at a much deeper level — more like the kernel and below. Changes there may eventually affect all the application-facing APIS, userland tools, and other stuff like the UX of a product like webOS, but their current focus is much *much* farther down in the system. They’re really talking about changing the way data flows and computations occur all the way down to the chip level. This is arguably as much a departure from current computation constructs as is quantum computation, but in a completely different direction.

        1. I wasn’t sure, so I went for the straight answer like a proper pedant.

      1. Well, it may be “a departure from current computation constructs”, but what really looks like is reimplementing the notions of a Smalltalk-80 system on a truly grand scale, basically allowing for a persistent, multi-TB-sized heap.

  3. lol sure thing…
    3D ReRAM is on the roadmap as the next technology after 3D NAND and we should see some this decade but there is a very long way to go to 100TB in a smartphone . We are a lot more likely to not smartphones anymore well before a small chip can hold 100TB.

    1. Maybe but mind that generally how much storage the average person requires has gone up as storage capacities increased…

      We’re already headed to a transition from 1080P to 4K and from there to 8K media, never mind additional data, which allows for multiple viewing angles, multiple focal points, etc. is starting to be introduced as well and that’s all besides other developments like augmented reality, VR, more realistic games, etc.

      Over the last 20 years we’ve gone from things like 100MB Iomega/Zip drive being enough to multiple TB mobile hard drives… So in another 10 years it’s unlikely that 100TB would even seem like a lot as our needs will more than likely rise significantly by then too…

      1. Yes and no. Yes, the amount of data people are consuming is certainly increasing as they switch to HD and (eventually) 4K media, but in reality, the rise of cloud and streaming services like Netflix and its rivals have more than counteracted that rise. The only time I need local storage for my videos is when I’m traveling. Otherwise, I’m streaming about 90% of what I watch.

        Ten years ago, many teens had HDDs filled with mp3 and video files (either ripped or pirated). Today? They’re consuming streamed music and video and rarely save anything on their device.

        I believe this trend will continue. As connectivity continues to improve (and it will), the convenience of cloud-based services will trump the hassle of maintaining a multimedia library on various devices at home. (And yes, of course, the media companies will do everything they can to ensure that it remains that way.)

        When I switched to SSDs for both my laptops, I downsized in terms of storage size. Even though I consume a lot of video content and play video games, I simply do not need more than 250GB of storage to hand. Likewise, I haven’t bought a device or SD card over 16GB in size in years.

        Of course, there will no doubt be other reasons for needing more local storage than we typically have today, but I suspect the lion’s share of the increase in the years ahead will be in the cloud. Yes, some people are averse to using cloud storage because of privacy and security concerns, but for the vast majority of people, it’s not enough to overcome the convenience of those services, and likely will never be.

        1. I have to strongly disagree… Cloud suffers from a lack of speed that is much harder to keep up with the growing demand for capacity and as long as they charge for mobile broadband, never mind data caps, it will always be a limited option, even if they provide oodles of storage for little to no cost!

          Besides, the cloud isn’t really private and there will be times that people are cut off from the cloud and that’s when personal storage will still have a place…

          Sure, Cloud can supplement what we can do and a lot of stuff will be streamed but we’re decades, maybe even a century away from it from seriously being able to replace all the reasons we keep personal storage…

          Really, the present system can barely handle 1080P video streaming at low bit rate for the average user… Sure, there are some places that can handle more but it’ll take a lot more than ten years before that becomes common… Infrastructure improvements can take multiple decades to implement for everyone and everyone isn’t even covered by the present system!

          WiFi on Trains, subway stations, and other public places will help but even those will take years to implement…

          So, it’s far more likely we get 100TB personal storage in phones long before the cloud is ready to make it obsolete…

          1. And yet, Blu-Ray sales and rentals were down almost 10% last year while digital downloads are soaring. Video game companies are eager to complete the transition from disc-based to digital download sales, and it’s very likely that the next generation of the gaming consoles will be digital only.

            I’m not saying that there will come a time when there is no local storage, Of course there will always be some (and there will always be a small number of people who want to have their entire HD video collection in their house), but when it comes storing media files, then for the vast majority of people out there, cloud based solutions will come to dominate. Not within 100 years, but within the next 10.

          2. Again, I’d have to strongly disagree… There is no logical reason, IMO, to assume it will dominate within the next 1o years…

            1) No one is using streaming media to fully replace personal storage! There’s is nothing like Blu-Ray extras, the making of, deleted and alternate scenes, bonus materials for the vast majority of streaming media…

            What is really soaring is streaming the equivalent of youtube videos… basic videos for just watching but little else… ergo, quick and dirty solutions that are only used because people find it more convenient than really investing in the media but that won’t last forever because that’s a very limited usage and eventually people want to know/see/hear more!

            2) The cloud is simply not available everywhere… It’ll take longer than a decade before that changes! Really, this alone rules out your theory!

            3) People still depend on Cellular service to get coverage in most areas outside of their own homes, some even at their homes… but as long as there are data caps, limited bandwidth, and having to pay for that bandwidth all means the cloud remains a very limited service…

            Even at home, many ISPs put either data caps or tier bandwidth limits and not everyone can afford the best bandwidth…

            Sure, there’s plenty it can be used for but realistically the system is only capable of really providing less than 50GB to the average person before it starts getting too slow and/or cost too much to be very practical for most people…

            Most talks of providing widely available public wifi are plans meant to take effect up to 20 years from now!

            So there’s nothing coming that will cause a rapid change in the status quo for the Cloud… It’ll be a least a decade before there is something like next gen networks they’re planning to implement eventually to even attempt trying to meet the growing demand…

            4) Meanwhile, personal storage is still growing at a pretty rapid rate that can far more likely reach higher capacities long before the cloud does…

            Mind, the growth of streaming over purchasing Blu-Rays and such is primarily a matter of convenience but that’s mainly because Blu Rays are becoming obsolete and we need the next gen storage solution to take over and personal storage is actually preferable for digital media because you can maintain high quality digital copies that you can access faster and more reliably…

            So the decline of Blu-Rays is really a red herring, much like DVD’s before it and optical media in general it’s just less convenient in our ever more digital world…

            5) Digital streaming also doesn’t mean it stays in the cloud… everything from apps, games, to media is getting downloaded online as well and that also shows the Cloud isn’t being dependent on…

            Besides, even Cloud devices like Chromebooks still rely on personal storage to a limited degree because of the limits of the cloud that aren’t going to change in just ten years!

            So, I believe you’re being way too optimistic about where Cloud services will be in ten years…

        2. “As connectivity continues to improve (and it will), the convenience of
          cloud-based services will trump the hassle of maintaining a multimedia
          library on various devices at home.”

          You’re talking about “hassle”. But with proper SW solutions, why the need for hassle? All that cloud stuff could as easily work locally, especially if you have a lot of storage to work with.

          1. Sorry, but when you start having to install and configure software on your own computers, tablets, phones, etc. then that is hassle. Maybe not much hassle for the average reader of this website, who tend to be more informed than most, but for the great unwashed out there, cloud based solutions that are no more than a webpage or app away, will always be less hassle.

            Backup is a great example of that. Either way, (local or cloud) you have have to install the software on your device for the backups, but with a cloud service, everything after that is completely transparent. With a local solution, you have to have buy and setup an external drive, and you have to make sure it’s plugged in and switched on, etc. And even then, if your house goes up in flames, your local backup is gone too.

          2. “With a local solution, you have to have buy and setup an external drive,
            and you have to make sure it’s plugged in and switched on, etc.”

            Yeah, and with cloud solutions, on top of paying for the disk space, you have to pay someone considerable money to do the same things for you, even if with different HW (it won’t get magically self-opped), *plus* their profit surcharge, *and* you have to read the SLA very carefully because you might get screwed anyway.

        3. Connectivity may be getting better (on the path to gigabit speeds) but costs to the consumer are increasing when it comes to data fees. At least in the US.

          Anecdotally, I have friends who were convinced to go from unlimited data to limited and are definitely regretting it now. They went from pro cloud storage to demanding a lot of on board storage and SD card slots.

          1. Granted, lack of competition in the ISP/telecom market is a problem, but I suspect that it will only delay the moment when HD streaming will be more than adequate. Why? First, companies like Google and Netflix are actively seeking to pressure companies to lift caps and improve their technology. It’s a struggle, no doubt, but it will happen eventually.

            I live in Austin, TX. Four years ago, Time Warner tried to implement a stingy 60GB/month data cap and had to back down after a massive customer backlash. Today, they still have no cap, and with Google Fiber arriving, they have just more than tripled the bandwidth you get for the same price. Even if Comcast succeeds in taking them over, the data cap, if it happens, will be at least 350GB/month, if not more — a five-fold increase in 5 years. Of course, here in Austin, Google will have no data cap for their gigabit service, and have already offered to host Netflix servers in their data-centers, for free. Change will be slower in other parts of the country, but it will happen, I’m sure of it.

Comments are closed.