1. Ryan Lee Hughes
Applied Computing BSc (Honours)
Build your own phone, a Project too f“ARA”?
2015

2. 2015 Ryan Hughes 1
Build your own phone, a Project too f“ARA”?
Can a modular, customisable mobile phone, such as Google’s
Project ARA, replace the current generation of mobile phone
technology and what kind of an impact would that have on the
consumer market?
Declaration of Ownership
This report is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of BSc (Honours) in
Applied Computing by Ryan Lee Hughes.
Signed declaration
All sentences or passages quoted in this report obtained from other people's work have been
specifically acknowledged by clear cross-referencing to the author, work and page(s). Any
illustrations which are not the work of the author of this report have also been clearly acknowledged
and referenced. I understand that failure to do this will amount to plagiarism and will be subject to
the disciplinary procedure.
Name: Ryan Lee Hughes
Signature:
Date: 01/04/15

3. 2015 Ryan Hughes 2
Abstract
Many differing perspectives have been offered in the public forum on the subject of modularity in
mobile phone design. Unfortunately, most of these sources fall short of credibility because of a lack
of factual evidence to back up their claims. Through an in-depth analysis of consumer’s opinions on
topics such as e-waste and the desirability of certain mobile phone features, as well as expert
opinions on this vibrant and revolutionising subject, this study will find out if today’s consumer is
ready for what a modular phone could mean. This will not only be in terms of share prices and index
figures, but also for the environment itself.
An evaluation of existing literature on modular mobile phones, e-waste awareness and marketing
opportunities is proposed. There will be a balanced research approach, containing both quantitative
and qualitative methods, in the form of surveys and interviews. The findings of these methods will
examine how consumer opinions can affect a variety of subjects, ranging from market dominance (in
the case of Apple’s iPhone) to new ways of recycling old or broken handsets.
A discussion will critically analyse the findings and will compare and contrast these findings with
information gathered from the literature review. The limitations, strengths and weaknesses of this
research project are acknowledged, and avenues for future research to improve the adoption of
modular mobile phones are suggested.

4. 2015 Ryan Hughes 3
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all of the tutors, mentors and staff at Newcastle College for your help and support. You
have helped to get this research off the ground with your guidance and work ethos.
Also, thank you to all of the participants of the study; to all of the anonymous contributors and the
interviewees, all of whom have helped to shed light on the way forward. A special thank you should
go to Sam Blackman of DevBootCamp and Dan Makoski of Capital One. Your input has been
invaluable to this research.
Thank you to my family and friends who have supported me in writing conducting this study,
especially Laura Elliott, who has had the unfortunate pleasure of living with me at the time of
writing.
The final thank you goes to Mr. Jack Daniel, whose life’s work has seen me through many a late night
study session.

5. 2015 Ryan Hughes 4
---- This page has been left intentionally blank ----

6. 2015 Ryan Hughes 5
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................9
Background .........................................................................................................................................9
Modular Technology.....................................................................................................................10
Research Proposal.............................................................................................................................10
Aims and Objectives......................................................................................................................11
Literature Review..................................................................................................................................13
Research Methods ................................................................................................................................18
Types of research..............................................................................................................................18
Quantitative ..................................................................................................................................18
Qualitative.....................................................................................................................................19
Bridging the gap............................................................................................................................19
Conducting the research...................................................................................................................19
Techniques....................................................................................................................................20
Justification.......................................................................................................................................20
Findings.................................................................................................................................................22
Survey One........................................................................................................................................22
Survey Two........................................................................................................................................23
Interviews..........................................................................................................................................24
Analysis .............................................................................................................................................25
Discussion..............................................................................................................................................26
How successful was this research?...................................................................................................26
Survey One....................................................................................................................................27
Survey Two....................................................................................................................................28
Interviews......................................................................................................................................29
Difficulties encountered ...................................................................................................................30
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................32
Limitations, Strengths and Weaknesses ...........................................................................................33

7. 2015 Ryan Hughes 6
Future Work......................................................................................................................................33
Works Cited...........................................................................................................................................34
Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................................35

8. 2015 Ryan Hughes 7
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Survey One Responses Example One.....................................................................................22
Figure 2: Survey One Responses Example Two ....................................................................................23
Figure 3: Survey Two Responses Example One ....................................................................................23
Figure 4: Survey Two Responses Example Two ....................................................................................24
Figure 5: E-waste Awareness................................................................................................................27
Figure 6: Technology News Sources .....................................................................................................28
Figure 7: Survey Two Evidence One......................................................................................................29
Figure 8: Invalid Responses...................................................................................................................31

9. 2015 Ryan Hughes 8
Appendices
Appendix A: Project Timeline................................................................................................................37
Appendix B: Consent Form ...................................................................................................................38
Appendix C: Participant Information One.............................................................................................39
Appendix D: Participant Information Two ............................................................................................40
Appendix E: Participant Questionnaire One.........................................................................................43
Appendix F: Participant Online Survey Information/ Consent .............................................................46
Appendix G: Participant Questionnaire Two ........................................................................................47
Appendix H: Participant Questionnaire Two ........................................................................................52
Appendix I: Online Survey One Results.................................................................................................56
Appendix J: Online Survey Two Results ................................................................................................61
Appendix K: Participant Interview Results One ....................................................................................66
Appendix L: Participant Interview Results Two ....................................................................................69
Appendix M: Participant Interview Results Three ................................................................................73

10. 2015 Ryan Hughes 9
Introduction
Mobile phones are an essential part of today’s culture, where a phone is more of a fashion
statement than a practical device. With fashionable items comes the innate need for customisation,
seen in the early days of major mobile phone usage with the Nokia 3310, offering customisable
features such as faceplates and ringtones. This initial foray into customisation options gave way to
an all-in one device, designed and marketed as sleek and desirable, but with limited customisation
options. These devices, such as Apple’s iPhone and Samsung’s Galaxy lines, provided consumers with
a platform that could handle all manner of applications well, but did this as a jack of all trades, but a
king of none.
Now a new form factor has arrived, stemming from an original design concept by design student
Dave Hakkens. Phonebloks, as the concept was named, immediately grabbed the attention of the
world media. It was not just the world’s media who took note, with concepts being created almost
daily, with Google and ZTE competing for the best designs. Scepticism about whether or not an idea
like this could actually work was, and still is to an extent, rife. Hakkens, the original creator of
Phonebloks, was quoted as saying “Making Phonebloks a reality is probably impossible with current
technologies” (Brownlee, 2013), but Google has taken this as a challenge by setting up Project ARA.
After lengthy board meetings and concept labs, the project team has finally settled on a design, but
had started with a goal of creating a marketable product within two years. Paul Eremenko, the team
project team leader, has said that this hard to reach goal was set because Eremenko believes that
the best work is done under pressure, and a two year timeline (including all design, testing and
marketing) was a realistic, but hard to reach target.
Background
As mentioned above, the idea of a totally customisable phone seemed just a little out of the reach of
current technology. Eremenko disagreed with this, insisting that Project ARA will revolutionise
phone technology, saying that the goal was “to allow users to choose a smartphone first then add
key components, rather than picking a smartphone based on what pre-specified components a
manufacturer has already added that are fixed.” (Briden, 2014).
Consisting of a skeletal hub, users can add and replace components to suit their needs, allowing for a
great deal of customisation options for users. This form factor does come with some drawbacks, as
“potential users will have to deal with a trade-off” (Eremenko, 2014), either in terms of performance

11. 2015 Ryan Hughes 10
or price. This trade-off could come in several forms, ranging from battery life to processing power,
but the main danger could stem from a serious oversight into the financial aspect of this technology
as it could happen that for an equivalent specification, the cost will increase exponentially, as
individual module manufacturers will want their cut of the profits.
Modular Technology
The trade-off could come at a price, but many see this as an opportunity to push the boundaries of
mobile technology. The Project ARA team have recently announced that each module will be held in
place by electropermanent magnets, where an “ON” charge is applied to the magnets to securely
hold the modules in place, and when they need to be changed or upgraded, an “OFF” charge is
applied to the magnets, neutralising the magnetic fields holding the module in place. This
technology is generally used in industrial processes, but the ARA development team has
miniaturised this idea, and applied it to this new form factor.
As the ARA phone will be supplemented by module manufacturers, creating more and more
advanced modules for use in all kinds of applications, the media has predicted that higher cost
products will start to overshadow the cheaper modules, creating a divide between high and low cost
users that could lead to marketing problems. “Cameras are the easiest and most relatable example,
because some users don't care about cameras at all while for others it is a key selling point, and a lot
of phones make a big song and dance about their camera tech.” (Briden, 2014). Another major
selling point for ARA is the ability to 3D print module covers, and with home 3D printers becoming
cheaper and more accessible, this could be a great (and unexpected) selling point for the ARA phone
as users begin to almost infinitely customise their handsets to their liking.
Research Proposal
This project will take the form of a research project and will ask can a modular, customisable mobile
phone, such as Google’s Project ARA, replace the current generation of mobile phone technology
and what kind of an impact would that have on the consumer market? To answer this, there will be
several studies conducted in the following areas; current mobile phone technology, modular design
principles, customisation options for future handsets and cost effectiveness of these new deigns.
Secondary data will be reviewed by using a range of information sources such as the IEEE (Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) system, academic and commercial journals and Internet
search engines. To aid the search for materials, a table of key terms will be constructed and the
sources located and added to a reference list. A secondary cross-reference table will be developed
so that data can be viewed from different perspectives.

12. 2015 Ryan Hughes 11
To test current practice against the historical record a survey will be conducted to gather primary
source data from students and professionals in the IT, Mobile phone network and handset
manufacturer sectors about their views on this new technology. A systematic yet random sample of
people, ranging from students (studying a variety of subjects, such as business and IT) to
professionals studying/ working in their respective fields will provide this data.
There will be two surveys throughout this project, by keeping the participants anonymous and by
sending out a significant amount of surveys to IT students and professionals; this will help to gather
gather a wide range of quantitative data. These surveys will take the form of questionnaires and
informal interviews. The questionnaires will be emailed to participants, after they have agreed to be
part of the survey and signed the consent forms provided. The first survey will be expected to return
results where the majority of participants will want a phone like this, and will be willing to pay a high
price to satiate their need to have ever more technical hardware. The second survey, however, will
look to see a result of a change in opinion, to one of a more conscious recycling process through a
small degree of educational material. The interviews will be conducted in an informal manner,
where questions relating to general mobile use, opinions on damage costs (such as screen
replacement) and whether they would use a modular design and their reasons for doing that. The
expected results of the interviews are that most participants will be happy to use a modular handset,
and agree that it will indeed help the e-waste problem. Finally, a project timeline will be created
(see appendix A for the full timeline) to keep track of the project as it progresses, and to see if
projected times will line up with actual events, including interview and survey deadlines.
Aims and Objectives
The aims and objectives of this research project are to provide an investigation into what the
consumer feels about a modular mobile phone and if the consumer market is ready for one, thus
affecting future market trends.
The aims of this project are:
 To find out if the public are ready for fully customisable handsets.
 To look at the viability of a modular handset.
The objectives of this project are:
 To see why some consumers prefer one device over another.
 To find out what kind of features that the average consumer thinks a modular phone should
have.

13. 2015 Ryan Hughes 12
 To look at how consumers react to the e-waste problem, and how modular phones could
help overcome it.
Having the aims and objectives stated clearly allows for a specific analysis of the data that will be
gathered, and for easy comparison of the results with the initial predations of the project. Now
that some background knowledge has been studied, and the research project set, it is now time
to see what authors, journalists and IT professionals think about modular mobile devices, and
where this technology could go.

14. 2015 Ryan Hughes 13
Literature Review
The large companies that are currently researching modular mobile phones (such as Google and
HTC) are confident that there is a market for consumers, fuelled by creativity and the apparent need
for this kind of device. Money is stemming from both small independent developers and large scale
companies, such as Sennheiser, who are working in conjunction with the manufacturing companies
to develop a well-rounded product. There are many articles and views surrounding modular phones
at the moment. Admittedly, most of these views are from technology news sources and from big
developer conferences where, whilst most of the information is reliable, most are lacking in
technical data about projected sales in the consumer market. There are several different models
that seem to be coming to the market, ranging from the PuzzlePhone to the Eco-Mobius from ZTE.
The main focus this of this project is Google’s Project ARA, which will be the prime example of
modular technology. All of these phones have one thing in common; modularity. This is
implemented differently, from a small degree of customisation options in the case of the
PuzzlePhone (where only the power supply, processing pack and screen can be customised) to a
large degree, such as ARA, where every piece is interchangeable.
Google is currently developing a modular mobile phone called
Project ARA, much like other companies (such as the afore-
mentioned HTC) who are creating a new way for the everyday
consumer to use their phone the way that they want to, not just
how the manufacturer thinks they should be using it. How can this
new way of using a mobile phone affect consumers? And how
might they adopt or reject this idea? That said, as technology
progresses, so too must the need for that technology. This need
can come in a variety of forms, but the current trend being set by
Google is modularisation. Briden, in his article about Project ARA,
says that it is inevitable that smartphones will go modular. It could
be derived from this that Briden foresees this technology
encompassing many other devices, such as tablets, Project Ara (Makoski, 2014)
laptops and TV’s.
Briden hails Project ARA as the flagship of modularisation, the phone that will lead the way in this
new technology. Almost with reverence, he talks about how Google can provide the answer, with a
store (much like Google Play, Google’s proprietary App store) that can provide modules for any
occasion or facility. His extensive article includes videos from conferences by the Project ARA team,

15. 2015 Ryan Hughes 14
showcasing what they have been up to in the last four months. As modularity in mobile phones is a
growing market, there is little to reinforce these claims, even though there are a variety of sources
that corroborate this. Passarry and Warren also seem to bring the same information, but the tightly
sealed lips of Google’s Project ARA team means that unless it is a press release, there is little that we
know about this phone. After talking about the module store, he goes on to talk about Google’s
interest in the modular market, specifically about Puerto Rico, where Project ARA will be market
piloted. Warren contradicts Briden on this point, as she says that “reading the comments sections on
the many news pieces about ARA’s progress can be a big reality check” and that there are “doubts
circling around the aesthetic appeal” (Warren, 2014). This for Briden’s view is a substantial wall to
overcome, and Google will have to try very hard indeed to get customers on their side.
“According to Google, the region itself has a pretty undeveloped landline system –– 77% of the
population use mobile phones as their primary communication tool. This means the mobile space is
pretty competitive too, with AT&T taking the lion’s share of the market with 25%. But there are local
players.” (Briden, 2014) Here he shows research into Puerto Rico, and its ailing landline system.
Small wonder as to why Google have carefully chosen this country to pilot the new device. The
article also provides rumours on how the device will be initially set up, including any optional extras,
such as a choice between 720p and 1020p screens. It is not just Google’s own technology being used
in this phone. The point of a modular device is that it can support modules from a range of different
developers and manufactures. “The coming months are crucial for Project ARA and with partners like
Toshiba and Foxconn Quanta, expectations are riding high.” (Passarry, 2014) Passarry clearly thinks
that the major focus should move away from Google and onto developers, where the majority of the
modules will be made and shipped.
Whilst all of this technology has come into being, where did it all
start? Lacohee, Wakeford and Pearson examined where mobiles
had come from, and where possibly they might yet go. Even
though the article is much, much older (at least a decade) than
the other articles, it does not mean that it has lost relevance.
This article shows us where mobiles have come from, for
example; starting in the 1940’s where Rollerphone (Chugunnikov, 2011)
“commercial mobile telephony began in the USA in 1947 when AT&T began operating a ‘highway
service’ offering a radio-telephone service between New York and Boston” (Lacohee, et al., 2003) and
where the authors think they could go; “It will eventually be possible to print a telephone into your
wrist!” (Lacohee, et al., 2003)

16. 2015 Ryan Hughes 15
Even though the idea of printing a phone to your wrist is still far-fetched, Lacohee and the others
have managed to predict smart environments, high speed Wi-Fi and most importantly,
customisation options. They have managed to identify that users will eventually want a device
tailored to them, for purposes of their own choosing and not what some expert has decided upon.
Some of these ideas, however, seem more like science fiction, with references to the film Minority
Report; they conclude that some cereal boxes will have a screen built into them to provide constant
advertising. Even now though, the predictions in this article are starting to come to fruition, with less
bulky devices, wearable technology (smart watches, pulse trackers), modularisation seems like a
logical step to take in the future of mobile phones. The recently announced iWatch is as close to a
printable wrist phone as consumers are likely to see in the next decade or so, which lends further
credence to what the authors are trying to tell us.
In stark contrast to all of the authors mentioned above, Sam Blackman has, to an extent, spoken out
against modularisation. With a view that shows clear concern about where this technology could
lead, he writes of how the modularisation of PC components consumed much of his life and wage,
and writes “I have created far more electronic waste as a modular-bits-and-pieces PC aficionado
than I have as a discrete-unified-one-piece Mac user.” (Blackman, 2013) Here, Blackman shows that
he is willing to accept a single, manufactured device instead of a multi-module device, where he
believes that more waste will be generated through fickle customers and the throw away culture
that the world has adopted in recent years.
This article shows a clear distrust of the companies who could potentially profit from a venture such
as this. In an almost juxtaposing argument, Dave Hakkens (founder of Phonebloks and potentially
modular mobile phones as a conceptual idea) says that “a phone only lasts a couple of years before it
breaks or becomes obsolete. Although it’s often just one part that killed it, we throw everything away
because it’s almost impossible to repair or upgrade.” (Hakkens, 2013) This statement tells us that the
problem of phones as they are now is that you simply cannot replace a part of the whole, you must
replace the whole. Blackman argues that Hakkens has ‘missed the point’ and not identified the real
problem, a view shared by nature preservation societies around the world, who are now fearful of
the ever increasing e-waste problem: “1 ton of cell phones contains as much gold as 70 tons of gold
ore” (UNU, 2013).
The United Nations University has a very good grasp on the e-waste problem, with many studies
showing the shocking effects of the western consumer culture that has a huge effect on Asian
countries such as the Philippines and China. Standing alone, this research provides a good view of
the global problem, and Blackman manages to capture this perfectly. Whilst only a short article, the

17. 2015 Ryan Hughes 16
points that are made clearly contrast with the initial predictions in this study of modularity curbing
the e-waste problem, but rather that this is a much more wasteful way to use mobile phones. He
does however acknowledge, though in a sub textual way, that modularisation will undoubtedly catch
on and generate great interest from consumers as he himself was a “PC nerd. I bought ‘em, I built
‘em, I customised ‘em. I’m sure that if I had a pie chart breakdown of money spent between 2000 and
2010, a huge slice of that pie would be flavoured Intel, nVidia and Asus.” (Blackman, 2013)
In support of Blackman’s opinion, Brownlee, of FastCoDesign, has stated that Lego principles simply
cannot work on a smartphone platform. He argues that smartphone design is compact for a reason,
and that getting rid of this kind of integration would be catastrophic to the industry, and will in fact
compound the e-waste, rather than help it. This ties in closely with what Blackman is trying to say,
that this modular principle simply will not work with the current level of technology. Brownlee states
that the trade-off is not worth it, that breaking up the specialised integration “up to allow for
modular upgrades wouldn't just make the device run slower, though. It would make your iPhone
consume more power and triple its physical footprint.” (Brownlee, 2013) This raises the question: Are
people willing to make the trade-off? According to Brownlee, at the time of writing, he thinks that
most consumers will be unwilling to make that sacrifice.
He goes onto say that most components
fail, and are subsequently thrown away,
not because of a fault in the device, or
even because of a newer model, but
because of human error. “How do most
smartphones break? They break because
of user error: you drop them, or you
smash them, or you do something you're
not supposed to do with them.”
(Brownlee, 2013) This statement supports (BerryReviewTeam, 2012)
the argument proposed by Blackman, that the modularisation will, undoubtedly, make the e-waste
problem considerably worse, instead of providing a way for consumers to be more conscious of what
happens to their recycled technology.
The articles that have been analysed provide a viewpoint much different to each other, and with the
supporting articles from Warren, UNU and Passarry, the points they all make still stand. Whilst
Briden has managed to look as in depth as he can, the information that he has is simply not as
technical as it could be, although this is more to do with the manufacturing companies keeping their

18. 2015 Ryan Hughes 17
cards close to their chest. Lacohee, Wakeford and Pearson have provided the reader with a very
good background on how mobiles have evolved, and how (at the time of writing) they thought that
technology would advance. This is the only article that has appeared in a technology journal (BT’s
technology journal, vol. 21), and so is far more credible than other works sources for this study.
Finally, Blackman puts forwards a very convincing argument for the opposition to modularisation.
Whilst a short article, the author has portrayed sources that suggest that this is not the way to
reduce a steadily worsening problem. It is, however, a blog article, with no peer reviews, which limits
it’s reliability in terms of research validity even though there are some citations from recognised
environmental bodies.
These articles will form a good basis for the rest of this study, impacting on the research that will be
carried out in later stages. Perhaps future research into this fledgling industry is needed, and as the
modular mobile phase of handset evolution comes into its own, we could see a rise in technical
interest of how to further improve this platform.

19. 2015 Ryan Hughes 18
Research Methods
There are several methods of research that can be employed in a study such as this, ranging from
wide ranging surveys to a series of one to one interviews. Each participant has been given
information on the study (appendices C and D), background knowledge when appropriate and
consent forms. The consent forms have been stored and are available for reference when needed.
Refer to appendix B for the consent form template.
This particular study focuses on how people perceive mobile devices, what they want to gain from
their device and how best a modular phone would suit them, compared to an integrated device,
such as an Apple iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy. Focusing on the consumer opinions, the data gained
through the following methods will show if the average consumer would buy a modular phone, and
for what reasons they would do this.
Types of research
This study has used two specific types of research; a quantitative analysis of public opinion on
modular handsets in the form of two surveys and a qualitative analysis of opinions from both
industry professionals and regular members of the public by conducting interviews to gauge opinion
and responses. Using a blend of these methods, this study will achieve a clear answer as to whether
consumers will take to the new technology of modular mobile phones.
Quantitative
For quantitative research data, this study used an anonymous questionnaire/ survey to gather data
from participants consisting of ten questions, with some follow up questions depending on how they
answer (appendix E). The questions are varied, but all serve to gain a numerical insight into what
people think about issues such as current technology, recycling habits and modularisation.
The survey, posted on esurveycreator.com, had all of the participant information available before
any questions were asked, and also contained a consent clause; informing the potential participant
that the data they enter will be used in a study of customer opinions regarding modular mobile
phones (appendix F).
All of the questions were of a closed nature, providing a clear structure for a numerical analysis. This,
used in conjunction with qualitative data, will provide a strong base from which to prove or disprove
the original hypothesis. For example, question five asks “If you were offered a modular phone, where
every piece is interchangeable and able to suit your needs, would you buy one?” (appendix E) with
the responses of yes, no or unsure.

20. 2015 Ryan Hughes 19
Qualitative
The qualitative aspect of this study was done by holding a series of informal interviews, gaining a
face to face perspective on how people view new technology and what features they look for in a
phone. This method of data gathering is much more open than the closed questions of a survey or a
questionnaire, allowing for a much more in depth answer than a simple yes or no.
The interview questions broached a very narrow view of questioning, focusing on what people feel
about mobile phones, and more importantly, if they think that a modular device could replace the
current iPhone generation. A maximum of 5 interviews will be held, as more than this can over-
shadow the numerical data of the quantitative survey. A copy of the interview question sheet is
available in appendix G.
Bridging the gap
The previous two methods of research will provide clear data on each respective method of
collection, though sometimes a blend of the two can be just as, if not more effective. For this
method, a second survey was created, with both closed and open questions, allowing for greater
response and detail, whilst not taking up too much of the participant’s time.
The survey will have a maximum of 20 participants, and will replace the intended focus groups that
were going to be held. This method is more beneficial as the participant can take the time to answer
what they feel they should, and are not thrust into a situation where nerves or peer pressure can
obscure true results.
Two example questions will show that this type of blended methodology can yield good data, one
being the question “After reading the factsheet provided with your participant information sheet,
would you agree that you will be more conscious in the future of how your electronic waste is
disposed of?” (Appendix H) with four responses, agree, neutral, disagree and prefer not to say. This
provides a numerical value on opinions of the participants. The second example is “Which
companies would you trust to make a reliable product for the modular phone? Please enter your
answers below.” with a small text box beneath for the participant’s answer. This type of open ended
question will provide a limited response as it is the major mobile manufacturing firms; ensuring that
the result can still be quantified and may also provide answers that were previously unthought-of.
Conducting the research
To provide a stable platform for the research, online surveys, emails and video calls were held to
gather the data. As mentioned before, two of the main contributors (Dan Makoski and Sam
Blackman) are based in the US, and were contacted for the interviews by email and video calling.

21. 2015 Ryan Hughes 20
This type of interview still allows for a wide response range, but lacks a personal touch that could
have been gained by a true face to face interview. The other interviews were taken by IT
professionals, one working for a leading software firm.
The surveys were all conducted anonymously and the paper questionnaires that were handed out
had no names attached to them to avoid data bias. Consent forms were signed in conjunction with
the paper surveys, duplicated and given to the participant for their own records.
Techniques
The techniques that were used consisted mainly of anonymous survey submissions and face to face
interviews. The methods that were used helped to gather the correct data for this study on
consumer opinion, and surveys are the fastest and most reliable way to gather data of this type. The
two surveys will show data of what the average consumer thinks about mobile phone technology as
it is now, and where the future of mobile phones could go.
By using carefully constructed questions, in the case of the surveys, the participant was obliged to
provide an answer that provided an absolute value, where the answer was a yes or no, agree or
disagree. This allows for easy reading of received data, and makes the task of relaying that data into
findings easier without compromising the integrity of the data itself. The interviews are much more
difficult to cross reference, with the question responses varying from person to person. The
information gathered is of much greater relevance however, as the in depth questioning will reveal
different areas of further study from each recipient.
This methods that were used, in particular the interview, were very reliable as two primary sources
are from the mobile industry and are in well-respected positions. The information that they have
given will help to shape the numeric data gained from the surveys, putting them into perspective.
These two methods have allowed this study to look at exactly what the hypothesis states, can a
modular, customisable phone replace the current generation of phone technology, and what kind of
impact would that have on consumer markets? The surveys have considered one aspect of the
hypothesis (the consumer’s opinions that could affect current markets) and the interviews have
considered another aspect, such as are phones like this feasible and where this could lead.
Justification
All of the data collected for this study will be very reliable, as the hypothesis is based on consumer
opinions of how they view technology, making for excellent source material for the later findings.
The interviews will also provide excellent data on how experts view this technology, and where they
think it could potentially lead to. This study came about from a desire to see just where smartphone

22. 2015 Ryan Hughes 21
technology can go and what kind of different methods and form factors that companies are willing
to employ. To this end, the methods outlined above have addressed the issues detailed in the
hypothesis very well.
The main strength of these methods of data collection is that they provide a very good look into
firsthand accounts, where the primary data is collected from source, rather than being diluted by
opinion and conjecture. Getting the raw data from the average consumer provides a strong basis for
a conclusion that will reflect the data, and not be influenced by bias or any other factors. The same
can be said for the interviews; raw, detailed information straight from industry sources.
The critical weakness of this kind of research is that while these methods are effective at gathering
detailed insight, they are not as far reaching as a study like this should be. To conduct a proper study
into where markets could go would require studying market values, shares and indexes to see where
a company such as Google could launch their new product. It would also look at consumer trends,
buying patterns and consumer opinions of more than one region of one country. That said, a survey
such as this provides a good, small scale insight into what consumers feel about where this sort of
technology could go.
In summary, the methods that have been outlined above will cover two main areas of research, the
technological aspect of study by interviewing two industry professionals and gauging their opinions
on this emerging field, and the surveys that will gauge public opinion on a range of issues, ranging
from desired phone features to modular awareness. The study has been conducted in an ethical
manner, with consenting participants and anonymous submissions and, where appropriate, express
permission to include quotes from named sources.

23. 2015 Ryan Hughes 22
Figure 1: Survey One Responses Example
One
Findings
After the surveys and interview questions were completed, the data collation and analysing stage
has turned up some varied results. For example, one would expect to have members of the same
age group to have similar opinions, but the results found the opposite. A major separation between
the technology savvy and the average consumer became apparent, with the former actually not
knowing as much about modularization as the average consumer.
This however, was just linked to the surveys (mainly paper copies, as the participant was known to
the researcher at the time) as the interviews, as expected, provided results that the IT professionals
and designers had considerable knowledge of modularisation, not only in the mobile form factor but
in others, such as laptops, televisions and even smart homes.
Following are brief summaries of the data that was collected over the length of the study, and any
correlations that may have presented themselves which could have helped to either prove or
disprove the original hypothesis have been sampled for review.
Survey One
Survey One was a generalised survey, gauging public knowledge and opinion of phones as they are
at the moment, and modular devices and the options associated with them. With a total of 80
participants, split to 10 paper questionnaires and 70 online submissions, the results correlated in
some places, but were drastically dissimilar in other. An example of this was shown in questions 5
and 5b, where the participant was asked “If you were offered a modular phone, where every piece is
interchangeable and able to suit your needs, would you buy one?” (Figure 1) and was followed up by
5b, asking “If YES, what price range would you expect for this technology?” (Figure 2) These two
questions immediately gauge public interest in modular phones, and judge the pricing expectations
of the average consumer over a relatively far reaching scale.
Figure 1: This is the output from question 5,
where the responses were a simple closed yes or
no answer. Following on from this, 5b is much
more varied, as it engages the participant to
balance anticipated cost with a desirable cost.
The variance between the participant group
now suddenly grows to show scattered
responses. (Appendix I)

24. 2015 Ryan Hughes 23
Figure 2: A range of responses,
ranging from £100 to £200 all
the way up to £500 plus,
allowed the participant to make
a decision based on personal
opinions and previous
experiences of smartphone
pricing. (Appendix I)
Survey One was designed as a generalised questionnaire, gauging a baseline response to build upon,
leading onto a more specific second survey and the interview stage, where the quantitative data
presented by this original survey hopefully supported the results of the other two methods of data
collection. A full output of Survey One is available in appendix I.
Survey Two
The second survey began to delve into how consumers feel about mobile phone technology and also
their opinions on phone manufacturers and e-waste products. E-waste may seem an inconsequential
matter in the case of gauging public opinion, but finding out a general awareness of e-waste and
how people view it will help to come to a conclusion of whether the original hypothesis is true or
not. The main focus of this survey however, was to see if the participant was aware of modular
smartphones and what their applications could be, whilst assessing how they recycle old phones and
how they would recycle modular components, if at all. An example of this is question 5, where the
participant is asked “if you owned a modular phone, what would you do with old components that
have either failed or been replaced for some reason?” (Figure 3) This allows an assessment of how
people view themselves and their current recycling habits.
Figure 3: This shows that most participants would keep the component as a backup, in case future
modules fail, and that people are least likely to throw the module away. (Appendix J)
Figure 2: Survey One Responses Example Two
Figure 3: Survey Two Responses Example One

25. 2015 Ryan Hughes 24
Figure 4: Survey Two Responses Example Two
Question 6 asked “After reading the factsheet provided with your participant information sheet,
would you agree that you will be more conscious in the future of how your electronic waste is
disposed of?” (Figure 4) There is overwhelming evidence here that, with a small amount of
education (a few paragraphs of what e-waste is and how it is recycled), consumers will be
considerably more willing to take the time to recycle old components, thus helping the e-waste
problem at a consumer level.
Figure 4: 80% of participants believed that after learning a small amount of information about e-
waste and modularity, they would be more conscious of it in the future. (Appendix J)
After receiving the data, there was a distinction between what the participants thought in the Survey
One to what they thought in the Survey Two. This created an interesting basis for the interview
stage, and that hopefully the quantitative data, and the limited qualitative data, would provide a
good basis to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Interviews
The interview stage was the most time consuming stage, taking a full two weeks to complete just
five interviews. This was due to time differences between the US and the UK. The information
gathered, however, was certainly worth the wait. The quality of the data from the two main sources
(Makoski and Blackman), plus the one other sources (a student named James Roberts) provided a
very good data set that when compared with the preceding surveys, shows a clear correlation
between the results and the hypothesis.
The questions of the interview were standardised, with space at the end for any follow up questions
or additional points. An example of the standard of data gathered would be from Sam Blackman, a
driving force behind the results of this study. When asked “What, on a day to day basis, do you use
for phone for?”, Blackman replied with the standard “text messaging, phone calls” responses, which
were true of all of the participants, but also said “daily productivity (to-do lists, checking investments,
taking notes etc.), playing music (generally streaming via Spotify or Sound Cloud), interacting on
social media, taking photos and videos.” This shows a clear variety of uses, and makes one wonder if
a modular phone could be a good replacement for an all in one device. A full interview sheet for Sam
Blackman is provided in appendix K.

26. 2015 Ryan Hughes 25
The final interviewee, James Roberts, provided some well-rounded data. Considered an average
consumer, James very more concerned with accessibility more than technical specifications and
when asked “What features do you think are essential in a phone?” he responded “Decent sized
application icons / the ability to resize the applications (including the text font/size) to allow users
who have poor eyesight, or good eye sight for that matter, to configure settings to adapt their phone
to their needs.” This issue seems to be of significant importance to this interviewee, and presented
another field of study; accessibility. This study had, until now, not considered the accessibility factor
that some phone users battle with daily and has been a factor that some modular phone concepts
have not considered. A full interview sheet for James Roberts is provided in appendix L.
Analysis
The research data presented here, and appendices H to K, have started to show some correlations
and also some disparities. The balance of the quantitative and qualitative data has provided some
interesting results, with the second survey acting as a bridge for each method of research and
helping to support the other initial ideas and postulations.
The interviews were by far the most informative, with industry experts, a former member of the
Project ARA development team helping to form a general consensus of what a phone should be and
how it should work, but more importantly brought up questions for further research. These
questions will be looked at in the next section.
That said, the surveys were also very informative, and without this data, the interviews would lose
significance. It is the numerical, hard data that has shown just what the average consumer is looking
for, and what kind of a price (both monetarily and environmentally) they are willing to pay for this
foray into the next generation of mobile technology.

27. 2015 Ryan Hughes 26
Discussion
Over the course of this study, the main aim was to see whether or not a modular phone could affect
consumer buying habits and if a phone like this will help to reduce the e-waste problem. Whist most
of the data seemed to support the original hypothesis, some responses did not correlate with the
majority, but instead formed a new avenue of research. The results have answered the research
question well, and have proved the original hypothesis to be true, but only partially. The original
hypothesis was to see if a modular mobile phone would have a significant impact on current market
trends. This research shows that while it would have an effect, creating a new and exciting product
market for consumers, this type of device would still have to compete with the likes of Apple and
Samsung for a market majority, further diversifying the mobile marketplace.
The responses from the quantitative surveys showed that the majority of participants would indeed
buy a phone where each piece could be customised, although the interviews suggested that whilst
the option of total customisation (through 3D printing) was there, most people would be reluctant
to create module covers. This was an interesting development and one that could lead to
manufactures creating custom module covers, increasing revenue even more.
How successful was this research?
The responses that were received here have produced a partially proven hypothesis. A majority of
responses trended favorably toward modular phones having an effect on current markets. Some
responses, along with some literary sources, indicate that without great care this could balloon the
problem of e-waste. This could lead to a crash in marketable modular phones as consumers would
begin to move away from the devices and onto a more sustainable platform.
Evidence to support this conclusion comes in the form of the two surveys, where the quantitative
data shows a clear acceptance of this form of technology, even though the consumers are unaware
of the potential dangers to the environment. This was tempered by the participants trusting a well-
known manufacturer to create a device, rather than a relatively unheard of producer. This could be a
telling sign of the difficulty for small enterprises or start-up module producers to gain a foothold in
Google’s proposed Module Store, akin to their very successful app store, Google Play.
The major counterpoint to the hypothesis was the small percentage of participants who have
swayed the results, showing that whilst the average consumer will welcome the chance to have a
fully customisable handset, there are those who see the dangers of such devices. Sam Blackman, a
driving force behind the idea that these kinds of phones could detriment the e-waste effort, said in
his interview that “based on my own experience in building PCs throughout the early 2000s, if I were

28. 2015 Ryan Hughes 27
to buy into the “modular phone” trend, I would create far more e-waste than I do with my current
trend in buying non-modular phones.” (Appendix K) This is a clear juxtaposition to the majority of
participants, who are expecting a handset that will deliver all and reduce the e-waste problem by a
significant margin.
Survey One
Survey One was mainly about gauging public interest in a handset such as project ARA. The initial
predictions of this survey were that, on the whole, consumers will be more than happy to pay a large
amount of money for a fully customisable phone. The results that were received partially supported
this prediction, with a majority trusting major manufacturing companies to create a phone, and by
extension a modular mobile phone ‘ecosystem’, that would encompass individual module sales and
custom options, but most of the participants were not willing to pay too high a price for this
technology, giving a majority of 40% to the £201 to £300 price range (appendix H, question 5b). This
indicated that the average consumer is willing to pay quite a large amount of money, but not as
much as this study’s initial predictions suggested. This shows that in 2003, Lacohee, Wakeford and
Pearson were correct in assuming that people will eventually want to customise their devices to a
standard never before seen where “increased connectedness makes networks more powerful. In the
future, most people would be constantly accessible (when they want to be) everywhere, and ‘always
on.’” (Lacohee, et al., 2003) In fairness, this is somewhat already true, but the modularity that this
form of handset provides will provide a truly always on experience, as components can be swapped
out without the need to power down the device (with the exceptions of the display, the battery and
the CPU modules).
Question seven showed evidence that consumers are simply unaware of the impact that e-waste is
currently having on the environment and pricing of mobile phones. A massive 70% of participants
weren’t aware of the severe impact that electronic waste is having. This supports what the United
Nations University had stated, that there needs to be “better awareness and policymaking at the
public and private levels.” (UNU, 2013).
Figure 5: E-waste Awareness
Figure 5: A large portion of people surveyed said that
they were unaware of what e-waste is and what kind of
an impact it is having.

29. 2015 Ryan Hughes 28
As mentioned previously, the initial predictions did not match exactly with the results. This is
because some of the participants were aware of the impact that e-waste is having, and believed that
a modular handset will start to increase the amount that is produced.
The problem with this type of device, at the moment at least, seems to be that consumers are simply
unaware of this type of technology. A large majority of participants said they hadn’t heard of Project
ARA, and the participants that had heard something about modular technology had heard it from
largely unreliable sources, such as internet blogs and social media. Some technology news websites
and programs have covered modular mobile phones, but not on a large enough scale (figure 6).
Figure 6: Technology News Sources
Figure 6: participants who have heard of modular technology may have heard it from unreliable
sources.
Survey Two
The second survey, which mainly sought to find out how aware the average consumer was of climate
change and what kind of an impact a little education about e-waste, and the effects that it can have,
had returned almost exactly what was anticipated, with the majority of participants agreeing with
the initial predictions outlined at the beginning of this document. Only one anomalous result came
from this survey, as question seven asked the participants their opinion of whether or not modular
handsets would help to reduce e-waste in any way (appendix I). The results were 50% in agreement,
but with a split remainder for the ‘neutral’ and ‘disagree’ responses, 21% and 29% respectively. This
shows that the average consumer is uncertain, as no clear agreement has been reached, with the
neutral/ disagree values totaling 50%.
This survey was designed to challenge the participant to take on board some facts about modular
phones and e-waste, outlined in a series of bullet points.

30. 2015 Ryan Hughes 29
Figure 7: This question was the only section of survey two that did not agree with the initial
predictions.
Apart from question seven, the survey results were as predicted and generated data that
corresponded to the initial predictions for this study, with expected results such as 60% in favour of
Project ARA being the next iPhone, and most participants either keeping old components as a
backup or giving them away to family members or charitable organizations.
These results seem to go against some literary opinions, such as Blackman and Brownlee, as they see
this either as a phase that will pass or a wrong turn in handset design. Brownlee even goes so far as
to say that “Phonebloks is a pipe dream” (Brownlee, 2013) and that instead of a marketable
smartphone, it should be used as a goal to work towards, but not until the problem of e-waste is
addressed as it stands now. One of the responses to the comments section seems to support this
statement, as the participant wrote “I believe that modular phones will create more waste than non-
modular phones. If the goal is to reduce e-waste, then companies should be working on
manufacturing techniques that allow for easy recycling.” (Appendix J) This information made
understanding the interview results much easier, tempering interpretation with numerical and
supported facts.
Interviews
The interview stage produced some in depth information about how industry experts view modular
technology and how they use their current phones in day to day activities. The purpose of the
interviews was to find out the opinions of two opposing forces that have been crucial to this study;
Dan Makoski and Sam Blackman. For balance, another interview was conducted with James Roberts,
an IT student from the Tyne Metropolitan College.
The first interviewee was Dan Makoski, who was happy to talk about is involvement at ATAP at
Google. Originally part of the ATAP design team, Makoski was the lead designer on the project ARA
build. When asked about 3D printing, and where it could go, he said “3D printing is so cool! I don’t
really understand the tech behind it, but the fact that you can create a simple 2D design and then
turn that into a 3D version is well worth the price tags that some companies are charging.”
Figure 7: Survey Two Evidence One

31. 2015 Ryan Hughes 30
(Appendix M) Clearly excited by 3d printing, he goes onto say
that he “created the first spiral prototype with a 3D printer”
(Appendix M). Blackman agrees that 3D printing has its place,
saying that he “would primarily make small sculptures, works of
art and gifts” for friends and family, and also create
lampshades, in the style of Poul Henningsen. Here is an
example of a 3D printed design by Henningsen, which makes
for a striking design and shows how much attention Blackman
(Henningsen, 2015) pays to the 3D printing ‘scene’. Blackman does seem to stand in
staunch opposition to the current ethos of modularity in all kinds of devices.
This is not to say he is opposed to the idea of modularity, but rather that he would like to see a
sustainable manufacturing process and that “I see e-waste as a critical problem of the 21st century
but also as an opportunity to move away from virgin-material mining and into efficient waste
recycling.” (Appendix K) When asked what features he could not live without, he said “The biggest
feature I cannot live without in a phone is snappiness and responsiveness. A phone slowing down is
the primary reason that I upgrade. Software, rather than hardware, is part of the problem in this
regard.” (Appendix K) He agrees with Makoski that camera quality is key to a good smartphone and
that a “great camera (and its firmware and software) is also a major selling point for me.” (Appendix
K) James Roberts was the final interviewee, who as a student requires a phone to not only be
functional, but also accessible. As mentioned previously, Roberts feels that some smartphones
overlook accessibility in favour of design; “this would mean a touch screen, the ability to resize
applications and the text font/size and overall mass customisation to suit all the needs that might
occur in the future.” (Appendix L)
All of the interviewees had differing opinions, but two out of three interviews (Makoski and Roberts)
seemed to prove my hypothesis and the evidence to support that comes from the quantitative data.
Blackman however shows that while he is not opposed to modularity, he would like to see a
considered approach that does not exist yet. Taking into account the literature from Brownlee and
Warren, this study cannot prove the original hypothesis correct, but can prove a partial success in
that consumers would indeed be willing to pay for this kind of technology, even if they are unaware
of the impact that this could have.
Difficulties encountered
The research had, for the most part, gone ahead as planned, with some small obstacles that at times
impeded the study. This mostly involved issues such as late interview responses and invalid or

32. 2015 Ryan Hughes 31
incomplete survey responses. These issues tended to have arisen due to the main pool where the
data was collected, where some participants used the anonymity provided by the online survey to
submit comments or responses that did not pertain to this study. These responses have were
deleted, but this in turn required more time to find more participants who were willing to answer
the questions in a manner where the data could be recorded and used. Some evidence of this can
still be seen in the comments section of survey one.
Figure 8: Invalid Responses
Figure 8: An example of an invalid response.
When conducting the interviews, the time difference between the UK and the US started to become
a major factor, with two of the main interviewees from America, communications started to become
sporadic and it became increasingly difficult to agree upon a time where all parties were free to join
a conference call so that the interview could go ahead. This process took almost three weeks longer
than predicted in the project timeline (appendix A), and placed significant time constraints so that
the project could finish on time.

33. 2015 Ryan Hughes 32
Conclusion
Now that the data has been collected and analysed, and all sources backed up with factual or literary
evidence, it is time to look at some of the conclusions that have been drawn from this study. As
stated in the previous chapter, this research project was only partially successful in confirming that a
modular mobile phone could replace the current technologies used by mobile phone manufacturers,
but did confirm that consumers would like to own a phone that can be (almost) endlessly
customised. The results from all of the methods proved that modular technology is indeed a viable
design for a smartphone, but was tempered by the fact that e-waste can have such a major impact
and because of this the hypothesis is only partially proven because the design may not be viable in
its recycling abilities. However, as the ecosystem grows so too will the abilities of the phones
themselves. Accessibility is also a factor, so it would be good to see a design that is both ergonomic
and cost effective, whilst still maintaining a level of production that all ages and abilities of users can
appreciate.
All of the data and analysis in this study could be used by manufacturing companies, allowing them
an insight into what consumers expect from a phone, what is essential and what is unwanted.
However, on the subject of e-waste, the results were far from what was expected. Immediately it
became apparent that a device such as project ARA could potentially increase the problem, and that
only through changes set out by the StEP (Solving the E-Waste Problem) initiative proposed by the
United Nations University can a phone such as this help to reduce this problem. Without this change
in design and manufacturing processes, modular devices (like all other current electrical devices) will
compound this problem.
It should be said that while all of the results collected by this study can have far reaching
implications, this is still a small study. More work needs to be done by the manufacturers to create a
process where a modular phone, and all associated components, can be recycled efficiently and not
cause further damage. This point, put forward by Sam Blackman, has shown that while the
technology exists (contrary to what Brownlee wrote), there needs to be a greater awareness of e-
waste and proper methods for recycling. Perhaps a government initiative could have an impact in
this area.
Though this is not a fully conclusive result either way for the research question, as a partial result
cannot account for a proven or disproven hypothesis, the research is still valid and shows that if
manufacturing companies take this research into account, they could attract many more customers,
which in turn will increase popularity and revenue.

34. 2015 Ryan Hughes 33
Limitations, Strengths and Weaknesses
As the study was relatively small, it relied on a small area of comparison, mainly members of the
public based in Newcastle upon Tyne. Because of this, the sample size was also quite small, resulting
in a small scale look into consumer trends. The main limitation of this study was a lack of resources,
as network providers (such as EE, O2) and handset manufacturers will have the power to look at a
much larger sample size, resulting in greater levels of details and much more in depth analysis.
Unfortunately, a student research project tends to be small in nature, but this does not invalidate
the results. There is a clear market for this type of handset, and by the end of 2015 project ARA will
be put to the test, going on general sale for the first time.
This project has two clear strengths; a clear indication that consumers want this kind of device and
that most people, when educated about the problems and dangers of e-waste, are willing to change
their behaviors and habits to contribute in some way. The numerical data that has been collected
shows with clear certainty that these statements have been proven to be true. The data that has
been collected shows that while the average consumer may be worried about e-waste this
knowledge would not stop them from buying into a modular phone ecosystem such as Project ARA.
There are two major weaknesses in this project; the low amount of responses compared to what
was initially expected and that there was no full confirmation of the hypothesis, only a partial
confirmation. The responses that were received were of a very good standard, initially there was an
expectation for more participants, which in turn would have produced more results. The second
drawback shows that more research should be done into how e-waste can be recycled efficiently,
allowing for a better production of modules and handsets, as hopefully manufacturers will begin to
“move away from virgin-material” (appendix K) mining and start to use recycled materials.
Future Work
Possible future works based on this research could include further reaching market research, e-
waste efficiency testing and cost analysis of potential recycling methods. Also, what other devices
could go modular? There are already designs for modular televisions, with upgradable screens and
‘smart’ enhancements. While these designs are still in the conceptual phase, it shows that the idea
of modularity is appealing to manufacturers outside of the mobile phone sector.

35. 2015 Ryan Hughes 34
Works Cited
BerryReviewTeam, 2012. Broken iPhone. [Art].
Blackman, S., 2013. Why Phonebloks/ Project ARA won't help the environment. s.l.:Medium.com.
Briden, P., 2014. Google Project ARA: Smartphones WILL go modular. [Online]
Available at: http://www.knowyourmobile.com/google/project-ara/21923/google-project-ara-2015-
smartphones-will-go-modular
Brownlee, J., 2013. Why lego design principles dont work on smartphones. [Online]
Available at: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3017409/why-lego-design-principles-dont-work-on-
smartphones
Chugunnikov, A., 2011. Rollerphone. [Art].
Eremenko, P., 2014. Project ARA Interview. [Sound Recording] (The Verge).
Hakkens, D., 2013. Phoneblocks. [Online]
Available at: http://www.phoneblocks.com/en
[Accessed 23 10 2014].
Henningsen, P., 2015. Snowball. [Art].
Lacohee, H., Wakeford, N. & Pearson, I., 2003. A social history of the mobile phone and a view to it's
future. BT technology journal, Vol 21 no. 3, pp. 203-211.
Makoski, D., 2014. Project Ara. [Art].
Passarry, A., 2014. You can swap Project Ara modules without having to turn off phone. [Online]
Available at: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/16800/20141001/you-can-swap-project-ara-
modules-without-having-to-turn-off-phone.htm#
UNU, U. N. U., 2013. Step Launches Interactive World E-waste Map. [Online]
Available at: http://unu.edu/news/news/step-launches-interactive-world-e-waste-map-2.html#info
Warren, H., 2014. Modular Phones: A Great Concept, But Will Consumers Buy Them?. [Online]
Available at: http://infospace.ischool.syr.edu/2014/11/18/modular-phones-a-great-concept-but-
will-consumers-buy-them/

36. 2015 Ryan Hughes 35
Bibliography
BerryReviewTeam, 2012. Broken iPhone. [Art].
Blackman, S., 2013. Why Phonebloks/ Project ARA won't help the environment. s.l.:Medium.com.
Blanc, M., 2014. The Lego Smartphone: Everything You Need To Know About Google‘s Project ARA.
[Online]
Available at: http://www.bidnessetc.com/26884-the-lego-smartphone-everything-you-need-to-
know-about-googles-project-ara/
[Accessed 23 10 2014].
Briden, P., 2014. Google Project ARA: Smartphones WILL go modular. [Online]
Available at: http://www.knowyourmobile.com/google/project-ara/21923/google-project-ara-2015-
smartphones-will-go-modular
Brownlee, J., 2013. Why lego design principles dont work on smartphones. [Online]
Available at: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3017409/why-lego-design-principles-dont-work-on-
smartphones
Chugunnikov, A., 2011. Rollerphone. [Art].
Egeland, B., 2008. Varying Project Implementation Approaches. [Online]
Available at: http://pmtips.net/varying-project-implementation-approaches/
[Accessed 19 03 2013].
Eremenko, P., 2014. Project ARA Interview. [Sound Recording] (The Verge).
Hakkens, D., 2013. Phoneblocks. [Online]
Available at: http://www.phoneblocks.com/en
[Accessed 23 10 2014].
Henningsen, P., 2015. Snowball. [Art].
Kremer, W., 2013. Phonebloks: The phone you can build like Lego. [Online]
Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24490331
[Accessed 23 10 2014].
Lacohee, H., Wakeford, N. & Pearson, I., 2003. A social history of the mobile phone and a view to it's
future. BT technology journal, Vol 21 no. 3, pp. 203-211.

37. 2015 Ryan Hughes 36
Learn Higher, 2008. Learning to analyse qualitative data. [Online].
Makoski, D., 2014. Project Ara. [Art].
Passarry, A., 2014. You can swap Project Ara modules without having to turn off phone. [Online]
Available at: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/16800/20141001/you-can-swap-project-ara-
modules-without-having-to-turn-off-phone.htm#
Sage Publications, 2010. Introduction to quantitative research. [Online]
Available at: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/36869_muijs.pdf
Shah, A., 2014. Google to build Play-like hardware store for Project Ara. [Online]
Available at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2837732/google-to-build-playlike-hardware-store-for-
project-ara.html
[Accessed 23 10 2014].
Snap Surveys, n.d. Qualitative vs Quantitative Research. [Online]
Available at: http://www.snapsurveys.com/qualitative-quantitative-research/
Tofel, K. C., 2014. Google’s modular phone will let you swap out parts without powering down.
[Online]
Available at: https://gigaom.com/2014/09/30/googles-modular-phone-will-let-you-swap-out-parts-
without-powering-down/
[Accessed 23 10 2014].
UNU, U. N. U., 2013. Step Launches Interactive World E-waste Map. [Online]
Available at: http://unu.edu/news/news/step-launches-interactive-world-e-waste-map-2.html#info
Warren, H., 2014. Modular Phones: A Great Concept, But Will Consumers Buy Them?. [Online]
Available at: http://infospace.ischool.syr.edu/2014/11/18/modular-phones-a-great-concept-but-
will-consumers-buy-them/

38. 2015 Ryan Hughes 37
Appendix A: Project Timeline

39. 2015 Ryan Hughes 38
Appendix B: Consent Form
Consent Form
Your signature below indicates that you have understood the information about the proposed study
(Information for Participants handout) and consent to the information that you provide being used
in this study.
The participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer question that you feel uncomfortable
answering, and withdraw from the study at any time with no penalty. This does not affect your legal
rights and all data received will be kept anonymous and confidential.
You should receive a copy of the consent form for your own records. If you have further questions
related to this research, please contact the researcher through details provided.
Participant: ____________ Date: ___________
Researcher: Date: ___________
Contact Details
Ryan Hughes
Email: s91875@students.ncl-coll.ac.uk
Please leave up to 24 hours for a reply.

40. 2015 Ryan Hughes 39
Appendix C: Participant Information One
Participant Information
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Under supervision from Newcastle College, I am conducting a study into an emerging
mobile phone technology, with focus on modular handsets that can be tailored to suit
consumers’ specific needs
To gain a quantitative perspective, the questions that will be asked will cover the following subject
areas:
 How much the general public have heard about modular mobile phones.
 Public opinion on affordable, customisable mobile phones.
 Recent advances and how well known they are.
There will be 10 questions, and space at the end for any additional comments or thoughts. You
support in this research would be invaluable in proving my research question.
If you agree to be part of this study, data will be gathered in the form of anonymous questionnaire
data.
Thank you for your time and insight.
Ryan Hughes

41. 2015 Ryan Hughes 40
Appendix D: Participant Information Two
Participant Information
E waste facts
 E-waste is the largest source of lead in solid waste.
 Circuit boards in computers and other electronics contain toxic materials like
chromium, nickel, and zinc.
 Switches and liquid crystal displays (LCDs) may contain mercury.
 Batteries may contain nickel and cadmium.
 It is estimated that 70% of heavy metals in landfills comes from e-waste.
 E-waste may contain carcinogenic substances including polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs).
 About 80% (this figure is disputed) of the e-waste sent for recycling in the U.S. is
actually packed on container ships and sent to countries such as China.
 Poor controls over e-waste recycling methods can cause groundwater
contamination, air pollution, water pollution, and health effects in those directly
involved.
 Less than 20% of e-waste is recycled in the United States.

42. 2015 Ryan Hughes 41
 E-waste can also contain valuable substances suitable for reclamation including
copper and gold.
Modular mobile facts
 Availability: The phone is still in the early phases of development. But an
introductory phone is expected sometime in 2015.
 Cost: Google is hoping to introduce an entry-level Grey Phone into the market that
will cost $50 to produce. Paul Eremenko, head of the Project Ara was quick to point
out that the street price of the phone would be determined by commerce partners.
Google is also planning a high-end phone with a $500 production cost. Like the Grey
Phone, that is a manufacturing cost not the street price.
 Modules: The feature tiles known as modules will connect to the phone’s skeleton,
known as the Endo via electropermanent magnets. When the magnets are hit with
an “On” electrical pulse they will create a solid bond between the Endo and module.
When they are hit with an “Off” pulse, the magnets will release the bond and you
can replace the module. The magnets don’t need a constant charge to keep a bond.
These modules will be created by various developers using the open source MDK
that was released today. Cameras, antennas, batteries, processors, and anything that
can be fit into a module shell will be available. The shells of those modules will be 3D
printed to a user’s specified design.
 Buying Modules: Google will have a ecommerce site that will work alongside the
Google Play store. Like purchasing an app, you will be able to purchase modules
online. To help you decide which modules to purchase, Google has three potential
systems. One is to sell the Grey Phone and allow users to purchase modules via an
app that demos module functionality. The second is to use a friend’s phone in guest
mode to test out modules on that phone. The third option is physical pop-up kiosks.

43. 2015 Ryan Hughes 42
 Prototype: A pre-production prototype will be shown off in September of this year.
The current prototype shown off at the Project ARA event doesn’t have the
electropermanent magnet system. It uses clips to keep the modules in place. The
power bus is also still being worked on.
 Modules can have multiple functions: A module can support as many features as a
developer can cram into it. A rear-facing display module could also be a tiny battery
to offset the power drain of the display. If it fits within the module’s physical
constraints, it’s good to go.
 Why you should care: Project Ara phones are expected to have a life of five to six
years – far longer than your current smartphone. Instead of updating your phone
every two years, you save up for the latest modules. The goal is that when a new
processor or high-megapixel camera is introduced, it’ll be available as a module for
Ara owners to purchase. Plus, like the prototype at today’s event, when you break
the screen, you can quickly replace it with a module.

44. 2015 Ryan Hughes 43
Appendix E: Participant Questionnaire One
Participant Questionnaire
IMPORTANT!
Please ensure that you have read the Information for Participants hand-out and have signed a
consent form agreeing to be part of this study.
The questionnaire will cover three areas, the perception of mobile phones as they currently are (and
the differing opinions surrounding them), an opinion on affordable, customisable mobile phones and
finally to see if the general public know much about the recent advancements in handset technology.
1. What is your age group?
18 – 30 ☐ 40 – 50 ☐ 50 – 60 ☐ Prefer not to say ☐
2. Do you own a mobile phone?
Yes ☐ No ☐
3. Are you aware of any recent advancement in handset technology?
Yes ☐ No ☐
If YES, how did you find out about the research?
Social Media ☐ Scientific Journals ☐
Internet Blogs ☐ Other ☐

45. 2015 Ryan Hughes 44
4. Would you trust a brand you know rather than an unheard of company?
Yes ☐ No ☐
5. If you were offered a modular phone, where every piece is interchangeable and
able to suit your needs, would you buy one?
Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure ☐
5b. If YES, what price range would you expect for this
technology?
£100 - £200 ☐ £200 - £300 ☐
£300 - £400 ☐ £400 - £500 ☐
£500 + ☐
6. If Apple© created a modular mobile phone, would you be interested in buying
their product over that of a Google project group?
Yes ☐ No ☐
7. Are you aware of the current e-waste problem and the impact that handset
producers have?
Yes ☐ No ☐
7b. If YES, where did you hear about this problem?
Social Media ☐ Scientific Journals ☐
Internet Blogs ☐ Other ☐

46. 2015 Ryan Hughes 45
8. If, after hearing about the e-waste problem (outlined in the information leaflet you
have been given), would you be more inclined to buy a mobile phone designed to
help combat this problem?
Yes ☐ No ☐
9. Are you aware that Google is currently developing a modular mobile phone called
Project ARA?
Yes ☐ No ☐
10. Have you heard of any other companies trying to create a marketable modular
handset? If so, please list them below.
If there is anything else you wish to add, or just to leave a comment on this survey,
please enter it in the box below.
Thank you very much for your input in this study. Your answers are anonymous and
will be safely stored in accordance with the data protection act 1998.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

47. 2015 Ryan Hughes 46
Appendix F: Participant Online Survey Information/ Consent
Screenshot from esurveycreator.com/s/modular-mobile-survey

48. 2015 Ryan Hughes 47
Appendix G: Participant Questionnaire Two
Participant Interview Questions
IMPORTANT!
Please ensure that you have read the Information for Participants hand-out and have signed a
consent form agreeing to be part of this study.
1. What is your name?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. What features do you think are essential in a phone?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. What, on a day to day basis, do you use for phone for?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

49. 2015 Ryan Hughes 48
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Is the technology specification in your phone a major factor to you, and did it
influence your choice of phone?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Does 3D printing interest you, and if you had access to a home version what would
you create?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

50. 2015 Ryan Hughes 49
6. Which companies would you like to invest in modularisation technology?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
7. What does e-waste mean to you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. What would be your perfect phone setup? What features could you not live
without?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

51. 2015 Ryan Hughes 50
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
If there is anything else you wish to add, or just to leave a comment on this survey,
please enter it in the box below.
Thank you very much for your input in this study.
Your answers will be safely stored in accordance
with the data protection act 1998.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________