The LG Nexus 4 lands on the 13^th of November. For those that prefer to avoid contracts or simply wish to go down the prepaid route, the LG Nexus 4 represents a powerful, vanilla Android experience that is extremely tempting. If you are a developer who wants an unlocked and incredible Android experience without the hassle, this Nexus smartphone certainly could fit the bill.

That being said, you’ve probably heard about a few “negative” aspects for the Nexus 4 as well, such as the lack of LTE– which primarily only affects select U.S. Markets but is largely a non-issue for the vast majority of the globe– for now.

So is the Nexus 4 what it is cracked up to be? While we’ve yet to get our hands on the Nexus 4 directly at Mobile Magazine yet, we have done quite a bit of research, read several reviews and other first impressions in order to bring you a run down of the hardware and other factors like battery.

Overall Design

The LG Nexus 4 is essentially a rebranded LG Optimus G with a few tweaks, such as the removal of LTE support. While not be considered a “gorgeous” device, it isn’t ugly either. It has an all-black chassis that might be a little boring for some consumers.

It is also worth noting that the device’s frame is plastic, though the screen does feature Corning Glass 2 so it isn’t a ‘cheap’ build design by any means.

The design probably won’t WOW everyone around you, but that doesn’t detract from the many other WOW factors that surround its low pricing and powerful hardware.

As for size, the phone measures 133.9x7x9.1mm and weighs just 139 grams. This might not be as light as the iPhone 5′s 122 gram weight– but it isn’t a massive difference either.

The Actual Hardware

Alright, let’s start with a spec list that gives us a run down of the hardware inside this beast of a Nexus:

• 1.5GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro quad-core processor
• 2GB of RAM
• 8 or 16GB internal storage4.7-inch-inch IPS display with 1280 x 768 resolution
• no microSD support
• 8-megapixel camera
• 1.3-megapixel front-facing camera
• Quad-band GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
• Penta-band 3G (850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz)
• HSPA+ 21Mbps support
• Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n
• 3.5mm headphone jack
• 2100mAh Litium polymer battery
• Sensors: compass, gyroscope, microphone, ambient light, barometer, accelerometer
• Bluetooth
• NFC
• GPS
• Micro USB
• SlimPort HDMI
• Weight: 139g
• Size: 133.9 x 68.7 x 9.1mm
• wireless charging (optional)
• Android 4.2 Jelly Bean

With a quad-core Snapdragon S4 Pro, and Adreno 320 GPU and 2GB of RAM— the Nexus 4 is no slouch. But how well does it actually perform when it comes to real world results?

As you can see from GeekBench, the LG Nexus 4 actually does quite well for itself, outpacing other major devices like the Galaxy S3 and the iPhone 5. For some reason it even manages to out perform the LG Optimus G that it is based on — probably because it is a vanilla experience without out all the extra ‘fluff’ to weight it down?

It is worth noting that the LG Nexus 4 is said to get rather hot during extreme use sessions. Bottom-line, you will be hard-pressed to find another smartphone that performs much better. Of course the smartphone world is constantly changing and it won’t be long before something better comes along, but the quad-core power in the LG Nexus 4 isn’t going to disappoint and should happily chug along with any app out there into the foreseeable future.

The Display

So how good is the LG Nexus 4′s display? A 1280 x 768 IPS display with 320 ppi is a slightly less in pixels than the iPhone 5, though it probably would be almost impossible to notice the difference for the average person. The screen is easy to read and is one of the best display around.

The Camera

The Nexus 4 features a 8MP back cam and 1.3MP front cam. Are they the best smartphone cameras around? Probably not, but the 8MP back cam seems more than good enough for taking clear and vibrant pictures and new features like “Photo Sphere” and new photo filters in Android 4.2 can take your camera experience to the next level.

Battery Performance

The LG Nexus 4 should handle moderate usage quite well and will last about a day and a half, according to most of the reviews showing up on the net. As for high usage? If you are pounding the device hard with things like videos, expect about 4 ½ hours of battery life.

Other Notable Stuff

The LG Nexus 4 not only comes with the newest version of Android, Jelly Bean 4.2, but being a Nexus device means it will get first dibs on upgrades and other improvements for quite a while to come.

Yes, there is no LTE, but this really isn’t as big of an issue as many folks are making it out to be. If you live in an LTE market— it might be a dealbreaker. The fact is that globally, that’s a pretty small amount of folks. If you want a phone with LTE and don’t mind a locked experience, perhaps you should look for the LG Optimus G or maybe even go for something entirely different like the upcoming HTC Droid DNA 5-inch 1080p smartphone.

Also worth mentioning, the Nexus 4 has a few “negative” aspects such as a non-removable battery, the aforementioned lack of LTE and the lack of a micro-SD port.

Bottom Line

For $299 unlocked for an 8GB version, the LG Nexus 4 is a steal. Is it perfect? No.. LTE would have been nice. Having a microSD port and a removable battery would have been epic as well.

There are some trade-offs, here– that much is true. In many ways, the “openness” we love about Android is stifled a little by the lack of these features but from a developer/modder point of view, the ability to load ROMs and other customizations with ease makes up for some of this. If you can’t live without LTE, microSD and don’t want a non-removable battery— there are other phones out there that might appeal to you more. If you want a solid vanilla Android experience that is blazing fast (with the exception of mobile broadband speed), this is an excellent phone. Aside from the few missing features, this is a wonderful device.

So what do you think? Interested in getting the LG Nexus 4 or is there another phone that looks like a better fit for you?

Looking for even more great information on the Nexus 4? Here are just a few of the great Nexus 4 hands-on reviews out there on the net:

This Tuesday the gaming industry will receive a huge shot in the pocketbook when Activision’s billion dollar franchise returns with this year’s offering, Call of Duty: Black Ops II. To prepare, we’ve rounded up all the news to get you ready.

Love it or hate it, this Tuesday marks the release of what will almost certainly be the biggest game of the year (in terms of sales), Call of Duty: Black Ops 2. It’s a billion dollar franchise, and while this year’s version doesn’t seem to have quite the heat that the last few offerings did, there is no reason to think it won’t reach that same seven figure milestone. But with great popularity comes a great backlash.

Will this be the year when Call of Duty fails to surpass its predecessor, or is this the year that reignites the passion that has made it a generation-defining game? We’ll know soon enough.

For now though, we’ve rounded up all the Black Ops II news in order to get you properly situated for this year’s outing. Click on the banner below, and if you are a fan of the series, go ahead and take Tuesday off of work. Be sure to check back with us for our full review as well.

There are a lot of companies, technologies, and services banking on the fact that you want to use your phone as a credit card, but do you? And what about retailers? We examine the past, present, and murky future of NFC and mobile payments.

Mobile payments. NFC. RFID. Digital Wallets. We’ve been hearing about these buzzwords for years. Entire companies have thrown their weight behind various mobile payment systems on many occasions, including Google. Yet, despite the attention the space has gotten, mainstream adoption remains elusive. According to a Gartner forecast back in May, there will be 448 million mobile payment users transacting $617 billion worth of business by 2016. That could be the case, but there are some important questions that remain unanswered.

Lately, all the talk is about ‘NFC’ or Near-Field Communication technology. (It’s a chip in your phone or gadget that can allow for a secure data transfer if you tap your device onto another NFC-enabled receiver.) There’s plenty of evidence that financial industry execs are ready, but what about everyone else? What is the benefit for retailers to join up? There’s also evidence to suggest that consumers are not averse to the idea of a mobile wallet, but few people are jumping onboard the options that currently exist. What is it going to take for NFC or some similar mobile payment technology to take off?

Are consumers ready?

Surveys of consumers show that people are interested in tapping their phones or credit cards at points of sale in order to make purchases. Contactless card payments and contactless mobile payments are steadily rising in popularity, but people overwhelmingly see them as a convenient way to pay for low cost items. A Forrester survey in the U.S. back in 2010 showed that 18 percent of respondents were interested in mobile payments. The same survey conducted in 2012 showed that 30 percent were interested.

In a study by M for Mobile UK, the vast majority of respondents thought the limit for mobile payments should be low. There was also a significant difference in the findings if contactless payments involved entering a PIN. Without a PIN, people were either not interested due to security concerns or thought the limit should be around £20.

You have to wonder what the benefit for consumers actually is. Contactless payment with a simple tap sounds convenient and could speed up queues to buy lunch or coffee in the morning, but if you have to toggle NFC on and off for security purposes, or stop to enter the PIN on your smartphone, then that boost in convenience is surely being lost. Our own security concerns may ruin the convenience NFC offers.

The industry incentives

Banks, wireless carriers, and retailers are the big companies hoping to push mobile payments. The reason is simple: money. They all believe it is the next big thing and expect it to be a growing source of revenue in the future. And to banks, carriers, and retailers, money is everything.

A white paper by M for Mobile discussing NFC and mobile payments found that, “For mobile network operators (MNOs) it is a question of reducing churn while banking brands can expect to see uplift through an increased volume of intermediary payments.”

The situation for retailers is a little more complex. On the one hand, “mobile payments is expected to deliver better cross and upselling.” On the other hand there is a relatively high cost for Point-of-Sale technology, if NFC is to be adopted. Retailers have to purchase and install cash registers that can handle NFC bumping and tapping instead of just credit card swiping. There is also a lack of demonstrable Return on Investment.

Have you ever been at a small retailer and seen a sign related to a minimum payment value for card payments? Retailers do that because credit card companies charge them a fee for every transaction. It may not be such a big issue for large retailers like McDonalds and Starbucks, but smaller retailers still aren’t completely on board with standard credit cards, let alone wireless forms of payment.

The big backers

Some companies are betting big on NFC and seem convinced mobile payments are set to take off. As such, they all want to get in on the ground floor.

Brad Greene, Sr. Business Leader for Visa told us, “Consumers in developed countries are becoming increasingly comfortable with using mobile devices to manage their finances. Banks are launching mobile applications that enable their customers to view account information, including balances, perform account transfers and mobile-check deposits. Adding payments to mobile banking is no longer considered a big leap but the natural next step.”

The AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile backed ISIS digital wallet service recently began trials in a couple cities, as well. As you might expect, they are similarly confident about mobile payments based on NFC technology taking off. An ISIS spokesperson told us, “Consumers are ready for a comprehensive and secure mobile commerce experience. We believe – and the ecosystem agrees – NFC is the best, most secure technology to modernize the payments process. Payment networks, card issuers, payment terminal manufacturers and mobile handset manufacturers have consolidated around and embraced NFC on a global scale.”

The current problem

There’s one big problem gumming up the works for NFC and that’s the lack of NFC-enabled handsets on the market and in circulation right now. M for Mobile research suggests that the tipping point will come in 2015 when we can expect NFC handset penetration to reach 51 percent. Forrester is less confident, suggesting that most new smartphones will ship with NFC by 2013 and that over 25 percent of Americans will own one by 2016. That’s a big gap.

The new iPhone 5 was widely expected to support NFC, but even back in March of 2011, sources reported that Apple would not adopt NFC and they were right. Patently Apple just revealed that the company has been granted a patent for an alternative technology that could be used for mobile payments.

No consensus on technology or consumer demand

Apple revealed a new service called Passbook with the iPhone 5, which looks like a baby step toward mobile payments. It is focused on coupons, tickets, and membership cards, but we are seeing a lot of interest from big names like American Express. Passbook isn’t a digital wallet yet, but it has ambitions to grow into one. Consumer confidence in using a smartphone for tickets, loyalty or membership cards, and redeeming coupons is higher than it is for mobile payments. As confidence grows further through use, this could grow into an NFC alternative for mobile payments, and it’s not the only one.

Square’s mobile payment system, which attaches a credit card scanner to any smartphone, is another NFC alternative that’s taking off quick. Starbucks will begin accepting Square payments early next month, which should be a real boost for the platform. Starbucks has also integrated its iOS app with the new Passbook service.

Another potentially huge player in the mobile payment space remains unconvinced that mobile wallets are really the answer. In a recent blog post, Anuj Nayar, Senior Director of Global Communications for PayPal, argues that many of the new mobile payment solutions, like those powered by NFC, are not solving a problem for consumers. He says, “Putting your wallet in the cloud and making it smart enough to work out the best way to pay for you solves a real consumer problem that mobile wallets simply do not.”

He argues that mobile devices are just another way to access your digital wallet, “At PayPal we have had a digital wallet for 14 years, we are just updating it to let our customers shop wherever they want, not just online.”

As Carey Kolaja, Head of Solutions Management for the Americas, PayPal, argued in an AllThingsD op/ed, “NFC is a technology, not a strategy. It enables communication between two devices that are close to each other (hence the name). It is not the Holy Grail for mobile payments.”

Worth remembering

One potential driver for Near-Field Communication technology is the fact that it has many potential uses beyond mobile payments. If consumers see the benefit of those uses, such as digital keys, tickets, and newspaper downloads, and companies realize their potential, then NFC could become a must-have feature. Once it is already present on a large number of handsets, it is obviously a viable solution for mobile payments as well, but that’s not the case right now and there’s clearly time for another solution to win out.

The future for mobile payments

The mobile payments market is still in its infancy, but there are signs that NFC may not be the winning technology in 5 or 10 years time. There are already rumblings about Google Wallet not working out – that the demand from consumers has been lower than Google predicted. Google relied on NFC and carrier backing by Sprint, but has been blocked by other wireless carriers who now back ISIS.

Even big adopters like Visa won’t hesitate to jump from the NFC ship if a better opportunity presents itself. Brad Greene at Visa told us, “Visa continues to see NFC as the near-term opportunity to make mobile payments a reality for consumers in developed countries…” but also went on to say, “…we are evaluating new and emerging technologies, including cloud-based technologies.”

Right now it looks as though mobile payments offer clear benefits for the companies offering solutions and for bigger retailers. What isn’t clear is the benefit for small retailers, and more importantly, the incentive for consumers. A mobile payment solution that is cheaper than NFC for retailers to adopt would be an attractive alternative. There isn’t much evidence that consumers care about the technology behind making mobile payments, so long as it’s secure.

It’s a muddy space at the moment, with service providers and technologies jockeying for position and there’s no clear leader in the pack yet. Years from now, we may all be paying for goods with our smartphones, tapping and bumping away at objects for sale, but that day isn’t here yet. And right now, despite major advances in Near-Field Communication and some high-profile product launches, the market for mobile payments seems as lost as ever. Until a hit service comes out, the mobile payment space is still on the move, and still for sale.

After leaving a Nexus 7 charging unattended, a user was greeted to a room filled with smoke and a melted 7-inch tablet. Asus has reportedly offered a replacement device and Google Glass as compensation.

The release of the Nexus 7 set the tech world on fire (figuratively) when it showed us all how powerful and joyous a smaller tablet could be. However, for a user on China’s Google equivalent, Baidu, the fire was started in a much more literal sense.

The user posted the above photo to Baidu, showing a Nexus 7 after a tragic meltdown. Apparently the device began smoking while charging using the official connector and ended up filling the entire room with thick, black smoke. The device had only been charging for a total of three hours. Not surprisingly, the internals as well as the shell were completely ruined in the fire.

There are a number of reasons that this fire could have started, not all of them directly related to a mistake made by Google or Asus. It could have been an infrastructure issue or electrical surge just as easily as a faulty battery or wiring issue. Plus, this isn’t the first time a device has spontaneously combusted.

To Asus’ credit the user’s story has been taken as truth, even though there is really no way to tell who or what is at fault in a case like this. In response, Asus has allegedly offered to replace the Nexus 7 and include a free pair of Google Glass as an added bonus. It’s certainly admirable that Asus has stepped up to the plate and plans to set things right. However, since this particular incident has been so highly publicized there’s no doubt Asus realizes this is a necessary response if it wants to keep a positive brand image.

It’s certainly a dangerous line for Asus and Google — if the offering of Glass is true — to straddle. Once one fried device is replaced, it opens the floodgates for similar cases. Unfortunately, not all of those cases will be legitimate. It’s pretty easy (and arguably crazy) to torch a device once you’ve scratched the screen or broke some part of it. It may not be morally advisable, but we could see the generosity being exploited quite easily. Just as a disclaimer, if you’re thinking of setting fire to your Nexus 7 to earn a replacement then please refrain.

Since we’re innately curious about our readers, we have to ask if this has ever happened to you before. Any of you Nexus 7 owners had an unwelcome flame erupt from your tiny tablet? What about combusting devices in general? Any firsthand experience you’d like to share?

Tech-savvy city slickers across the U.S. have made mobile car service provider Uber one of the country's hottest startups, thanks to its ability to call you a cab at the push of a button. But a quick look at Uber's terms of service show the company needs to polish up its legal language, or it might scare people away.

What are you really agreeing to when you click that fateful “agree button? Terms & Conditions cuts out the legal lingo to spell it out in plain English.

Mobile car service company Uber has made a name for itself over the past year as one of the hottest startups out of Silicon Valley. And for good reason: It lets users in an increasing number of cities around the country call a cab, and pay for the fare, quickly and easily. But a quick look at Uber’s terms of service reveal a number of disturbing provisions that should give any Uber user pause. Here are the key bits from Uber’s terms of service.

Terms of service

Unlike some other companies, Uber’s terms are still long and next to impenetrable – an odd move for a hot Silicon Valley startup. But there it is. In the future, I’d like to see Uber either trim out the legalese from its terms, or offer a summary of the key things users need to know before clicking “I agree.” For now, we’ll just have to do the summarizing for them.

Obvious and boring

A huge chunk of Uber’s terms are mostly useless for the average user. But they basically boil down to: You have to be 18-years-old or greater to use Uber; don’t use a stolen credit card to pay for your Uber rides; download Uber from either iTunes or Google Play; you’re responsible for the cost of SMS messages sent to and from Uber.

Giant thing about Apple

One of the largest sections in Uber’s terms has to do with Apple. Here’s what it basically says: Even though you may have downloaded Uber from Apple, the Cupertino giant has nothing to do with Uber, its services, or your experience with it.

Pricing

A key feature of Uber is that you pay for your ride directly through the app – even tip is included. Uber is responsible for negotiating the price of your fare with the cab company. And whatever the app tells you the price is, that’s what it is. Uber sometimes offers promotional deals to some customers. But if you don’t get one directly, you can’t have that deal.

Bad cabbies

If you take a gander at Uber’s array of customer service Twitter accounts (there’s a separate one for each city of operation), you’ll quickly find disgruntled people complaining about bad, rude, or dangerous cab drivers. Now, if you have a bad experience using Uber, contact the company immediately. (Find contact info here, for all cities.) Based on the conversations on Twitter, one can see that Uber has a pretty standard policy to reprimand or remove drivers from its ranks who treat customers badly. Also, if a driver simply doesn’t show up, but still charges you for the ride, tell Uber and they’ll probably refund you the money.

But here’s the thing: Uber’s terms make it clear that the company doesn’t have to do any of this. From the terms: “[Uber] WILL NOT BE A PARTY TO DISPUTES, NEGOTIATIONS OF DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND [cab drivers]. WE CANNOT AND WILL NOT PLAY ANY ROLE IN MANAGING PAYMENTS BETWEEN YOU AND THE THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE REGARDING SERVICES OFFERED VIA THE APPLICATION OR SERVICE (WITH ALL ITS IMPLICATIONS) RESTS SOLELY WITH YOU.”

It’s all on you. Got it?

Speaking of which, what the heck is this all about?

In a subsequent paragraph, Uber goes on to completely alleviate itself of any responsibility if you happen to get in the car with a crazy driver. From the terms:

“THE QUALITY OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SCHEDULED THROUGH THE USE OF THE SERVICE OR APPLICATION IS ENTIRELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE THIRD PARTY PROVIDER WHO ULTIMATELY PROVIDES SUCH TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO YOU. YOU UNDERSTAND, THEREFORE, THAT BY USING THE APPLICATION AND THE SERVICE, YOU MAY BE EXPOSED TO TRANSPORTATION THAT IS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS, OFFENSIVE, HARMFUL TO MINORS, UNSAFE OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE, AND THAT YOU USE THE APPLICATION AND THE SERVICE AT YOUR OWN RISK.” (Emphasis mine.)

Yikes! Of course, if someone gets kidnapped or raped as an indirect result of Uber, you better believe that the company is going to do whatever it can to make that problem go away. Failure to do so could easily result in Uber going out of business. Also, it should be noted that the risk of using Uber drivers is probably less than just calling up whatever random car service you happen to come across on Google, given the company’s high standards for drivers. Still, the language above has me officially freaked out.

Researchers at IBM have detailed methods that could let chip designers move away from silicon transistors to smaller – and faster – carbon nanotubes.

For most of the last five decades, the processing hearts of all our computers, game consoles, smartphones, cars, media players and even alarm clocks have been made of silicon. No surprise: The namesake of Silicon Valley is cheap, readily available, and easily manipulated during manufacturing processes.

But scientists and researchers now believe silicon-based processors are reaching their limits. Physical laws limit how small silicon transistors can get before the signals they process just become a random electrical haze. That’s why new research from scientists at IBM seems to hold so much promise for the future of computing: They may have found a realistic way to ditch silicon in favor of carbon nanotubes.

Carbo-nano-what?

Carbon is one of the most versatile elements in nature, taking the form of everything from coal to pencil lead and diamonds. One of the forms it can take is graphene. You can think of graphene as a bit like molecular chicken wire: individual carbon atoms bond together in a hexagonal pattern, forming a sheet that can be just one atom thick. At a very basic level, a carbon nanotube is a sheet of graphene that’s rolled up and joined with itself to form a cylinder: The hexagonal structure of the carbon bonds means that tube can ideally be seamless — no point is weaker than any other — and the tubes can be very, very long — molecularly speaking, anyway. Carbon nanotubes have been constructed that are more than 100 million times longer than they are wide. Sure, that’s still tiny to you and me, but carbon nanotubes can be far larger than any other known cylindrical nanostructure — and that’s a tremendously useful characteristic if you’re trying to design very tiny things like processor chips.

Like silicon, carbon nanotubes are also semiconducting, and (in some cases, in theory) can be more than 1,000 times more conductive than copper. This makes them one of the very few nano-materials that could feasibly be used to replace silicon in chip design.

Creating order from chaos

Chip designers looking to use carbon nanotubes for processors face one major problem: how to manipulate them and lay them out in the kinds of tiny, very precise patterns needed for processors. Current chip manufacturers essentially create wafers of silicon embedded between layers of non-conductive material, then use chemicals or lasers and particle beam etching to trace out paths and individual transistors.

Transistors are the absolute heart of digital processors, acting at the gates that control the individual ones and zeros (or bits) that define digital technology. A single character in the most basic email message or text takes seven bits (or transistors) to represent; a single pixel in a digital photograph requires over 500 bits. Transistors are responsible for both memory (like RAM and flash storage), but (by switching on and off again to transform and manipulate data) for all execution and code running on a device.

The old-school etching approaches to making transistors wouldn’t work with nanotubes, but researchers at IBM came up with a new technique, reported in Nature Nanotechnology. First, the researchers made a traditional wafer, but with a layer of hafnium deposited on silicon. Next, they put the carbon nanotubes in a chemical that made them soluble in water. Finally, they dipped the hafnium wafer in the solution of nanotubes, then dipped the wafer in a second chemical that sticks to the hafnium and acts as a two-part epoxy to bind the nanotubes — but only to the areas of the wafer with exposed hafnium. The result? Carbon nanotubes neatly lined up on paths etched in a wafer — just the sort of thing you’d want for a chip. The IBM team was able to make both memory and microprocessor chips with more than 10,000 working transistors.

How tightly packed are the nanotubes? About one billion nanotubes per square centimeter. According to IBM materials scientist (and study co-author) James Hannon, the technique deposited one nanotube roughly every 150 to 200 nanometers. That’s not small enough for a realistic microprocessor, and it’s a far cry from 22 nanometer distances that have been used by memory manufacturers since 2008 (and which are currently mainstream in Intel’s Ivy Bridge processors), but Hannon told the BBC that represents a 100-fold improvement over previous efforts to pack nanotubes into chip-like configurations — and puts the technology within striking distance of silicon.

Nanotubes might power your future

Processors built using carbon nanotubes could be the breakthrough that enables digital technology to continue advancing at a steady pace. Since the development of the first integrated circuit in 1958, the number of transistors chipmakers have been able to cram into the same are has been doubled roughly every two years — a maxim known as Moore’s Law, named for Intel co-founder Gordon Moore. When Moore first articulated the idea back in 1965, nobody really thought the industry would be able to sustain that pace for long. Yet despite a few hiccups, engineers and researchers have largely been able to maintain that pace through innovations in chip manufacturing processes (like Intel’s “3D” tri-gate transistors and exotic new materials). The first integrated circuits contained only a few transistors; today, mainstream chips like Intel’s Ivy Bridge line carry as many as 1.4 billion.

Silicon hasn’t reached the end of the road yet; chipmakers already have the next generation or two of silicon chips planned out. After the current 22nm process, expect to see 14nm chips — switches are getting so small they can be meaningfully measured in individual atoms. That sets a startlingly high bar for the plants that make them, which would have to execute near atom-accurate operations billions of times for every single processor they produce. On the other hand, the techniques outlined by IBM’s nanotube research point toward self-assembling solutions where molecules wind up in the proper placed through chemical reactions.

In theory, processors built around carbon nanotubes could be considerably smaller than today’s transistor technology. Just like today’s processors, smaller means they consume less power. That means less heat and far longer battery life for mobile devices. Furthermore, the electrical properties of carbon nanotubes also means they can switch on and off faster than silicon-based transistors, meaning they could operate at significantly higher clock speeds than today’s chips. That’s a good thing: While Moore’s Law is still in force for transistor density, processor clock speeds have started to plateau in recent years, with chipmakers getting more performance out of chips by adding additional processor cores rather than making those cores run faster. Carbon nanotube processors could theoretically handle speeds as high as 8GHz or 9GHz and run at half or one third the power of today’s chips – at least in rough calculations.

So nanotube processors would be smaller, faster — and since they’re made of carbon, they’d be greener, right? Probably not. Although carbon nanotubes are certainly less damaging to the environment than many compounds and materials used in high-tech products, the process of manufacturing carbon nanotube processors isn’t likely to be inherently greener than making silicon wafers — and don’t expect the devices they power to be magically biodegradable.

Similarly, the chips will still be difficult to make and expensive. Just like today’s chips, the newest, fastest versions will only power the newest, flashiest, high-end devices — but those devices could be much smaller than today’s gizmos. For instance, with the iPhone 5 Apple has packed more processing power into a handset than it ever put into a PowerPC-based notebook. Extend trends like that, and you start to see tablets that only a few millimeters thick, technology that might be able to support things like bendable and flexible portable devices and wearable computing technology like Google Project Glass - with enough processing power to handle speech recognition, augmented reality, multitasking and high-end graphics — and batteries that last for days or even weeks.

When will they be on sale?

Carbon nanotube processors might prove to be the future of computing … but it’s going to be a long while before they appear retailer’s shelves. The process outlined by IBM still has to be considerably refined to make it practical in the real world. Assuming that can be done, existing chip manufacturing facilities will have to be converted to use the new processors, or (as likely) whole new chip fabrication facilities will have to be built. All in all, we’re probably looking at at least another decade before the technology is commercially viable. But, conveniently, that’s just about when silicon will probably hit the end of its feasible development.

[Images via Shutterstock / imredesiuk, Wikimedia Commons / AlexanderAlUS ]

Apple did a pretty good job at not showing us the back of its new, 5mm-thick iMac during its keynote on Thursday, and we think the new iMac may actually be hiding something behind it's svelte exterior.

A few weeks have passed since Apple announced its new line of iMacs, which means we’ve had plenty of time to speculate about the product. One thing we thought long and hard about is the iMac’s backside. The new iMac is a lot like a lady straight from Sir Mix-A-Lot’s id. It’s so thin from the front it practically melts away, but once you get a profile shot … bam! Baby got back. (Ars Technica and The Mac Observer have the pictures that Apple doesn’t want to show you.) 

At 5mm thick on the edges, and 80 percent thinner than its predecessor, it’s the thinnest iMac yet, which seems to fall right into Apple’s obsession with size. The iPhone 5 is “the biggest thing to happen to iPhone since iPhone” and the new iPad mini is “every inch an iPad.” Before that, the iPad 2 was 33 percent thinner than the original. The first update since May 2011, Apple’s new iMac will be 40 percent less in volume. But all those savings exist up front. Where the stand connects to the body, however, appears nearly as thick as the last iMac, resulting in a bulbous backside. So, what is the junk in the new iMac’s trunk?

The updates to the iMac line aren’t just skin deep. The insides of the iMac now feature the Fusion Drive, a new addition to Apple’s hardware that couples 128GB of NAND flash with either a 1TB or 3TB hard drive. The Fusion Drive moves the files you use the most to Flash storage and the files you use the least often to the hard disk, resulting in faster startup times, faster app launches, and quicker file access. The new iMacs also are upgrading to Intel’s Ivy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7 processors.  

While the promise that each iMac is “individually color calibrated using an advanced spectroradiometer” sounds like a gimmick, the option to get NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX graphics, perhaps the best available for an all-in-one computer, is a definite plus for designers, cinephiles or graphics junkies in general. But what are iMac customers losing out on when they trade up to a thinner, lighter desktop? An optical drive to play Blu-Ray discs? Expanded storage? Being able to easily upgrade in the future? The answer is yes; all those things will be sacrificed for a slim body, and here’s why …

Some of the changes are skin deep – specifically the gapless, less-reflective laminated-glass face built using “friction-stir welding,” a technique ”that required unprecedented feats of engineering,” according to Apple. Switching to “friction-stir welding,” Apple’s Phil Schiller said the company figured out a way to merge the molecules of the aluminum to make it one piece. That sounds pretty awesome, but it also makes it impossible to actually get into the computer if you ever want to upgrade the RAM. Previous models of the iMac allowed users to unscrew a small metal plate situated between the speakers and the bottom of the iMac to bump up the  memory. But that option is no more. Because of the new slim body, and laminating the glass face to its LCD panel, three out of the four models are not upgradeable.

Of course, the one model that is upgradable is the most expensive, high-end iMac: the 27-inch 3.2GHz 1TB model with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX graphics processor configurable to 680MX. However, starting at a base price of $1,999 before the graphics upgrade, that’s a lot to pay, especially considering you could get a PC with the same (or better specs) for less money. Sure, the Dell XPS One 27 isn’t 5mm thin, but considering a desktop computer isn’t an item we buy every one to two years, like our phone or tablet, do you really want to commit to a non-upgradeable iMac for the next couple of years? 

What’s the good in hiding all the good stuff on the back if you can’t even What are the features you wish Apple had included in the new iMac?