1. mikec#IM's Avatar
    I don't speak l33t so not sure what "As there is not defn of" means. But I know that page well.

    Just look here alone, we have half the people claiming the iPhone it is not a smartphone so that definition goes out the window. The major industry reporters can't even agree on what a smartphone is with many long holding that the Treo and BB's are not in the same category.

    To some people a smart phone has phone and data e-mail capability.
    Others say, web access needed.
    Others say mulktimedia needed
    Others say 3rd party programs needed

    Did ya bother to read ya refrenece.. If ya did you'\d see it confirms my point



    So units w/o touchscreens are not smartphones...well that knocks out a whole lot of so called smartphones.

    Jack, "defn" is short-hand for definition. It's not l33t or whatever disparaging label you want to apply.

    I did read it, and it disconfirms your post, that "there is not agreement on "smartphone".

    Touchscreens are not required on smartphone.

    Here, I will make it brief and simple for you:

    Smartphone has:
    - Phone
    - OS that is designed to do more than just phone/camera/WAP web browsing
    (ex. Palm/WM/OSX/Symbian/BB)
    - MAY have touchscreen
    - Has QWERTY keyboard (physical or virtual; one caveat is those Windows "smartphones" that have the T9 sort of input, which was marketed as smartphone, but really is not)
    - Has 3rd party apps in some form (generally, this goes along with the OS being open and having an SDK)
    - Syncs with desktop PIM
    - Ability to read or edit office automation documents
    - "Regular" internet access (normal web sites, email protocols, etc.)

    That pretty much covers it. Pretty simple. Guess what - the iPhone is a smartphone.

    I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It's just stating that fits the category.

    For you to claim there's no defintion (defacto or otherwise) is incorrect.
    07-19-2007 12:46 PM
  2. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Yep. There sure ain't an agreed definition. I expect a level of agreement will emerge over time but until then the word isn't particularly useful (unless used in a context in which it has already been defined).
    There is a defacto one...see my post...I dare you to find a rational disagreement with it.
    07-19-2007 12:48 PM
  3. mikec#IM's Avatar
    sure they have new features.....they don't have that stubby little antenna on them and their sides are curved in a bit. their batteries are also lesser capacity than the others.
    But a least those batteries are (user) replaceable.
    07-19-2007 12:49 PM
  4. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Not me. I will just take the money that I have made on Apple stock since the availability of the iPhone and buy one.

    That said, history suggests that the Apple people are pricing geniuses. Apple products sell at list and the list falls very slowly. I think that the iPhone can sustain its price for quite a while. I would also expect that a 3G iPhone, whenever introduced, will command a price at least as high as the 2G phone.
    Pricing geniuses - I dunno, I think they have pricing discipline. They rarely cut prices, and only after the product has been aound for a while. They discountine products rather than lower price and sell more.

    Discipline.

    I agree the 3G iPhone will be the same price (or higher) when released. I bet the 2G price stays the same.
    07-19-2007 12:52 PM
  5. surur's Avatar
    Answer the question.
    What question? (in 30 words or less).

    Surur
    07-19-2007 12:58 PM
  6. mikec#IM's Avatar
    So...Macs are so good that Apple didn't have to to sell their product?



    The iPod is one of the worst quality MP3 players on the market. I used to work at a tech-bench where we got defective and malfunctioning iPods that needed to be refurbished on a daily basis. The iPod gets away with being extraordinarily restrictive and crappy because it became a status symbol and a fashon accessory. Apple marketing did that. Non-tech people who had no idea what MP3s are went out and bought them because they wanted the "cool iPod". When you'd ask them how they liked their new MP3 player they'd say "huh? What's an MP3 player?"

    If you look back up a few posts to the graph of iPod sales you'll see it didn't sell well right away, it took time for that marketing machine to take off.

    The iPhone has been a huge sales success initially because the Apple marketing machine was already in full swing, and there was an insanely huge media frenzy surrounding the device.
    Those Ellen Feiss Apple ads; I love how Apple got drugged teenagers to push their product. Where was the outcry?

    Paris Hilton rubs a Carl's Jr. burger on body and it can't be condemned fast enough.

    It's all about the presentation....


    And btw, iPods took off for one reason - Windows compatibility.

    Next.
    07-19-2007 12:59 PM
  7. mikec#IM's Avatar
    shoo fly
    Are you sitting in a hot pile of steaming dung?
    07-19-2007 01:00 PM
  8. braj's Avatar
    Pricing geniuses - I dunno, I think they have pricing discipline. They rarely cut prices, and only after the product has been aound for a while. They discountine products rather than lower price and sell more.

    Discipline.

    I agree the 3G iPhone will be the same price (or higher) when released. I bet the 2G price stays the same.
    Yep, Apple products never really go on 'sale'. They control the price third partie partners charge as well, you may see a $5 difference but that's about it. The only reason not to buy directly from Apple is for lower shipping, no taxes, or because it is otherwise convenient. Unless there is some huge new products released by other vendors Apple likely won't lower prices. The iPod price never went down, just new version have been released. Lower cost/spec versions were made for the lower end of the market.

    This policy actually gives me hope that they will open up the iPhone with an SDK. If there is enough criticism and consumers refuse to buy a device that is so limiting in functional expansion, they may do so to maintain the price point, making it a 'smart' smartphone.
    07-19-2007 01:06 PM
  9. JackNaylorPE's Avatar
    Frankly the iPhone has been out for three weeks. For you to make the claim that it does everything that 99% of people need including ex-treo owners is hardly a logical argument.
    Claim ? Just "doin the math". It's by no emans conjecture, it's simply numbers. Counting sales. Let's define the criteria:

    We all agree that the iPhone is not intended for the business market, so we talking strictly consumer market. My complaint about the iPhone's criticisms has been that 99% of the target user base don't need or want those missing features. The iPhone is not being marketed to business users. Criticizing it because it doesn't have business "features" is inappropriate. It's never been proposed as such.

    Here it says that there were 180 million cell phone users in 2004 and that 130 million will be retired in 2005 and that the rate of increase is about 9 million a year.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3097/

    So "doin the math", that's 130 + 9 + 9 or let's lets say 150 million phone sales in 2006.

    http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/9...-growth-spurt/

    NPD also says that 6% of US sales are "smartphones"

    "On a quarterly basis in 2006, smartphone sales have risen more than four percentage points to more than 6 percent of new phones sold through October in the fourth quarter of 2006.

    So, based upon total sales, 94% of people in the US decided they they don't need nor want smartphone features. With me so far ? No argument possible....these are the sales figures.

    Now the largest seller in the NPD report is the Motorola Q which does not even have a touch screen, therefore it does not fit in the "Treo like" category. But heck, I'l let it go.

    So we have unequivocally established that 94% of US phone users don't want these features. I'm quite happy to say "Ok, it's not 99% it's 94%.....but lets get back to the issue. The iPhone is not intended nor marketed to business users. Of those 9 million US smartphone purchases how many are consumers and how many are business users ? So lets do some math:

    150 million phones - 9 million smart phones means 141 million unequivocally have decided they don't "need" business features in their phone. Now how many of those 9 million smartphone users should be placed in the business category and how many should be placed in the consumer category ? I'd argue that most of those 9 million are "business users". Let's however say that 5/6 buy their "Treos or whatever" because of a legitimate business need and the other 1/6 are just consumers. That's 1.5 million "consumer market" types buying Treos or equivalent.

    let's do the math:

    150 million phones sold.....7.5 million "business market types" using smartphones .... 1.5 million "consumer market" types using smartphones. Consumer market = 142.5 million

    1.5 million / 142 million = 1.05% of "consumer market" types bought a smartphones. That means 98.95% of consumers decided

    Reject my entire argument and you are still left with the cold hard fact that, based upon the data presented, 94% of ALL US purchases have voted with their checkbooks that they do not want nor need smartphone features. This simply is not subject to interpretation. The potential iPhone customer is not a business user, so it takes no great stretch of logic to conclude that taking business users out of the remaining 6 percent easily boosts the base 94% figure up a few % points.

    Argue that half of Treo / BB / equivalent whatever users base their purchase decision on personal rather than business needs (a tough argument to support that would be) and what have ya accomplished ?....geez that 99% is now a paltry 97%. I'm crushed ! How could I be that far off the mark ????













    Give the new iPhone owners time to get over their euphoria, and about 3-4 months I think the shine may be off. Frankly alot of my casual (non-tech) friends use MMS. I know they would be disappointed with the lack of MMS as well as the lackluster camera in the iPhone. (dont get me wrong, the treo camera sucks horribly) They also have custom ringers, although i suspect apple will fix that soon. Granted they dont need the push email as my 700WX has, but they also would rather have a decently formatted mobile web page on 3G vs a full webpage that takes 50 secs to load on the iphone.

    But you have to admit with the 2G iPhone comes out with 3G and retails for $300 in 6-8 months you Appletons are going to be pissed...[/QUOTE]
    07-19-2007 01:17 PM
  10. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Claim ? Just "doin the math". It's by no emans conjecture, it's simply numbers. Counting sales. Let's define the criteria:

    We all agree that the iPhone is not intended for the business market, so we talking strictly consumer market. My complaint about the iPhone's criticisms has been that 99% of the target user base don't need or want those missing features. The iPhone is not being marketed to business users. Criticizing it because it doesn't have business "features" is inappropriate. It's never been proposed as such.

    Here it says that there were 180 million cell phone users in 2004 and that 130 million will be retired in 2005 and that the rate of increase is about 9 million a year.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3097/

    So "doin the math", that's 130 + 9 + 9 or let's lets say 150 million phone sales in 2006.

    http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/9...-growth-spurt/

    NPD also says that 6% of US sales are "smartphones"

    "On a quarterly basis in 2006, smartphone sales have risen more than four percentage points to more than 6 percent of new phones sold through October in the fourth quarter of 2006.

    So, based upon total sales, 94% of people in the US decided they they don't need nor want smartphone features. With me so far ? No argument possible....these are the sales figures.

    Now the largest seller in the NPD report is the Motorola Q which does not even have a touch screen, therefore it does not fit in the "Treo like" category. But heck, I'l let it go.

    So we have unequivocally established that 94% of US phone users don't want these features. I'm quite happy to say "Ok, it's not 99% it's 94%.....but lets get back to the issue. The iPhone is not intended nor marketed to business users. Of those 9 million US smartphone purchases how many are consumers and how many are business users ? So lets do some math:

    150 million phones - 9 million smart phones means 141 million unequivocally have decided they don't "need" business features in their phone. Now how many of those 9 million smartphone users should be placed in the business category and how many should be placed in the consumer category ? I'd argue that most of those 9 million are "business users". Let's however say that 5/6 buy their "Treos or whatever" because of a legitimate business need and the other 1/6 are just consumers. That's 1.5 million "consumer market" types buying Treos or equivalent.

    let's do the math:

    150 million phones sold.....7.5 million "business market types" using smartphones .... 1.5 million "consumer market" types using smartphones. Consumer market = 142.5 million

    1.5 million / 142 million = 1.05% of "consumer market" types bought a smartphones. That means 98.95% of consumers decided

    Reject my entire argument and you are still left with the cold hard fact that, based upon the data presented, 94% of ALL US purchases have voted with their checkbooks that they do not want nor need smartphone features. This simply is not subject to interpretation. The potential iPhone customer is not a business user, so it takes no great stretch of logic to conclude that taking business users out of the remaining 6 percent easily boosts the base 94% figure up a few % points.

    Argue that half of Treo / BB / equivalent whatever users base their purchase decision on personal rather than business needs (a tough argument to support that would be) and what have ya accomplished ?....geez that 99% is now a paltry 97%. I'm crushed ! How could I be that far off the mark ????













    Give the new iPhone owners time to get over their euphoria, and about 3-4 months I think the shine may be off. Frankly alot of my casual (non-tech) friends use MMS. I know they would be disappointed with the lack of MMS as well as the lackluster camera in the iPhone. (dont get me wrong, the treo camera sucks horribly) They also have custom ringers, although i suspect apple will fix that soon. Granted they dont need the push email as my 700WX has, but they also would rather have a decently formatted mobile web page on 3G vs a full webpage that takes 50 secs to load on the iphone.

    But you have to admit with the 2G iPhone comes out with 3G and retails for $300 in 6-8 months you Appletons are going to be pissed...
    [/QUOTE]


    Jack,

    More words != more proof

    Your premise is completely skewed.

    Phone sales, for the most part are subsidized. Most smartphone purchases are subsidized by businesses.

    I agree most people don't need a smartphone - they need a phone.

    But to present it like the market has not chosen smartphones (which the iPhone is included) because they don't need the feature is specious.

    Wanting a feature and accepting the price-point are two different things.

    Again, you make this looooooooooooooong posts, with no points.

    Conciseness is next to godliness.
    07-19-2007 01:30 PM
  11. CountBuggula's Avatar
    Claim ? Just "doin the math". It's by no emans conjecture, it's simply numbers. Counting sales. Let's define the criteria:

    We all agree that the iPhone is not intended for the business market, so we talking strictly consumer market. My complaint about the iPhone's criticisms has been that 99% of the target user base don't need or want those missing features. The iPhone is not being marketed to business users. Criticizing it because it doesn't have business "features" is inappropriate. It's never been proposed as such.

    Here it says that there were 180 million cell phone users in 2004 and that 130 million will be retired in 2005 and that the rate of increase is about 9 million a year.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3097/

    So "doin the math", that's 130 + 9 + 9 or let's lets say 150 million phone sales in 2006.

    http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/9...-growth-spurt/

    NPD also says that 6% of US sales are "smartphones"

    "On a quarterly basis in 2006, smartphone sales have risen more than four percentage points to more than 6 percent of new phones sold through October in the fourth quarter of 2006.

    So, based upon total sales, 94% of people in the US decided they they don't need nor want smartphone features. With me so far ? No argument possible....these are the sales figures.

    Now the largest seller in the NPD report is the Motorola Q which does not even have a touch screen, therefore it does not fit in the "Treo like" category. But heck, I'l let it go.

    So we have unequivocally established that 94% of US phone users don't want these features. I'm quite happy to say "Ok, it's not 99% it's 94%.....but lets get back to the issue. The iPhone is not intended nor marketed to business users. Of those 9 million US smartphone purchases how many are consumers and how many are business users ? So lets do some math:

    150 million phones - 9 million smart phones means 141 million unequivocally have decided they don't "need" business features in their phone. Now how many of those 9 million smartphone users should be placed in the business category and how many should be placed in the consumer category ? I'd argue that most of those 9 million are "business users". Let's however say that 5/6 buy their "Treos or whatever" because of a legitimate business need and the other 1/6 are just consumers. That's 1.5 million "consumer market" types buying Treos or equivalent.

    let's do the math:

    150 million phones sold.....7.5 million "business market types" using smartphones .... 1.5 million "consumer market" types using smartphones. Consumer market = 142.5 million

    1.5 million / 142 million = 1.05% of "consumer market" types bought a smartphones. That means 98.95% of consumers decided

    Reject my entire argument and you are still left with the cold hard fact that, based upon the data presented, 94% of ALL US purchases have voted with their checkbooks that they do not want nor need smartphone features. This simply is not subject to interpretation. The potential iPhone customer is not a business user, so it takes no great stretch of logic to conclude that taking business users out of the remaining 6 percent easily boosts the base 94% figure up a few % points.

    Argue that half of Treo / BB / equivalent whatever users base their purchase decision on personal rather than business needs (a tough argument to support that would be) and what have ya accomplished ?....geez that 99% is now a paltry 97%. I'm crushed ! How could I be that far off the mark ????













    Give the new iPhone owners time to get over their euphoria, and about 3-4 months I think the shine may be off. Frankly alot of my casual (non-tech) friends use MMS. I know they would be disappointed with the lack of MMS as well as the lackluster camera in the iPhone. (dont get me wrong, the treo camera sucks horribly) They also have custom ringers, although i suspect apple will fix that soon. Granted they dont need the push email as my 700WX has, but they also would rather have a decently formatted mobile web page on 3G vs a full webpage that takes 50 secs to load on the iphone.

    But you have to admit with the 2G iPhone comes out with 3G and retails for $300 in 6-8 months you Appletons are going to be pissed...
    You know, I'm really not sure why you're still beating this horse to death. We all know the iPhone has sold remarkably well due do its accompanying media frenzy/hype. We also know that the vast majority of Americans don't want/need a smartphone. Do you have any additional point to make besides these? If not just move on.

    This thread is about reasons why smartphone users (the ones who actually want/need those extra features) might not want an iPhone, lest the iMasses come here with comments like "you idiots, still using that 5-yr old piece of crap technology Treo! The iPhone totally rocks your Treo LOL N00b!", which is exactly what we see everywhere else in any forum where the iPhone has been brought up in discussion.
    07-19-2007 01:35 PM
  12. CountBuggula's Avatar
    shoo fly
    Haha, was this directed at me? I've been called CountChocula so many times lately (is that supposed to be an insult?) by llarson I almost forgot what my alias actually is.
    07-19-2007 01:40 PM
  13. surur's Avatar
    For some reason Jack is saying the iPhone has all the features a consumer needs. Here is just another example that this is not the case.

    Srb Foofy 07-19-2007 07:01

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bluetooth on the iphone!!!

    Ok so i tired getting a pic from my friend with my iphone though bluetooth, He can find me but whenever he trys too connet it fails? Is the bluetooth only for headsets or what??

    JiveDonkey 07-19-2007 07:34

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    for now, yes

    BIGMERF 07-19-2007 07:45

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    are u serious, wow

    ShovelhEd 07-19-2007 12:50

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    yeah, pretty useless stuff. Being able to share songs, contacts, and such would be great. That and a2dp are my biggest gripes

    chinese_fury 07-19-2007 16:52

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bluetooth is pretty much cripled by AT&T / Apple at this point, you can only do what they want you to do. Until some group hacks the iphone.

    harlenm 07-19-2007 17:24

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShovelhEd
    yeah, pretty useless stuff. Being able to share songs, contacts, and such would be great. That and a2dp are my biggest gripes



    You will never be allowed to share songs. The same reason you can only sync your ipod/iphone with one computer at a time.
    http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1204791

    Jack the iPhone lacks features even normal phones have, like MMS, Bluetooth OBEX, RINGTONES!!!

    I'm sure you will explain only geeks want to send pics via bluetooth.

    Surur
    07-19-2007 01:40 PM
  14. braj's Avatar
    I really doubt all iPhone users are 99% happy with the purchase as Jack seems to think. Just because you buy something doesn't mean you were 99% happy about all features. I'm sure many would rather just have 1 device that covered all bases, but got it anyway for various reasons and still have to use another 'smarter' phone for business. And I'm sure there is a segment who bought it a bit uninformed and went 'there's no chat? WTF?' More example could be given of course. The bottom line is that saying just because they shelled out the bucks means it has what 99% of people need is bogus and not based on anything but Jack's imagination. Are most happy about the purchase? I'm sure they are. Do many want to see more and better features? Of course.
    07-19-2007 01:42 PM
  15. surur's Avatar
    I really doubt all iPhone users are 99% happy with the purchase as Jack seems to think. Just because you buy something doesn't mean you were 99% happy about all features. I'm sure many would rather just have 1 device that covered all bases, but got it anyway for various reasons and still have to use another 'smarter' phone for business. And I'm sure there is a segment who bought it a bit uninformed and went 'there's no chat? WTF?' More example could be given of course. The bottom line is that saying just because they shelled out the bucks means it has what 99% of people need is bogus and not based on anything but Jack's imagination. Are most happy about the purchase? I'm sure they are. Do many want to see more and better features? Of course.
    Exactly. Will Jack's argument fall apart when the iPhone gets its much vaunted upgrade to include all the smartphone features its missing?

    Surur
    07-19-2007 01:48 PM
  16. mikec#IM's Avatar
    For some reason Jack is saying the iPhone has all the features a consumer needs. Here is just another example that this is not the case.


    http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1204791

    Jack the iPhone lacks features even normal phones have, like MMS, Bluetooth OBEX, RINGTONES!!!

    I'm sure you will explain only geeks want to send pics via bluetooth.

    Surur
    Jack, I won't use the slang on ya this time. Hint: it rhymes with "boned".
    07-19-2007 01:48 PM
  17. mikec#IM's Avatar
    I really doubt all iPhone users are 99% happy with the purchase as Jack seems to think. Just because you buy something doesn't mean you were 99% happy about all features. I'm sure many would rather just have 1 device that covered all bases, but got it anyway for various reasons and still have to use another 'smarter' phone for business. And I'm sure there is a segment who bought it a bit uninformed and went 'there's no chat? WTF?' More example could be given of course. The bottom line is that saying just because they shelled out the bucks means it has what 99% of people need is bogus and not based on anything but Jack's imagination. Are most happy about the purchase? I'm sure they are. Do many want to see more and better features? Of course.
    Amen, Brother Braj.
    07-19-2007 01:49 PM
  18. oalvarez's Avatar
    You know, I'm really not sure why you're still beating this horse to death.

    This thread is about reasons why smartphone users (the ones who actually want/need those extra features) might not want an iPhone
    how about "Jobs said it was a smartphone"
    how about "the battery isn't replaceable"
    how about "it doesn't offer 3G"
    how about.....

    this thread is about why smartphone users might not want an iPhone?

    really now.....
    07-19-2007 01:58 PM
  19. JackNaylorPE's Avatar
    [QUOTE=mikec;1312220]Jack, "defn" is short-hand for definition. It's not l33t or whatever disparaging label you want to apply.

    So you meant "As there is not definition of"

    Still seems to em we are missing a word or two. Maybe start with an "a" in between "not" and "definition"

    I did read it, and it disconfirms your post, that "there is not agreement on "smartphone".
    I agree there is not a universally accepted definition of smartphone.

    Touchscreens are not required on smartphone.
    Your source disagrees with you:

    Smartphones can be noted by several features which include, but are not limited to, touchscreen, operating system, and tethered modem capabilities on top of the default phone characteristics.
    "Include, but are not limited to" means it it must have the so named but may have additional stuff.

    Now if ya wanna argue that by "can" the author meant that that it "may" include one or more of the following you can't say it applies to "touch screens" and that it doesn't include OS or the rest. So if "touchscreens" are optional, then OS's are optional. Either way, wiki's definition, is flawed.

    And what about this tether stuff ? Doesn't tethered mean "Attached to a data or power source by wire or fiber" ... er where's my Treo's and the iPhone's tethered modem ? My treo modem is wireless. Flawed again.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/tethered?cat=technology

    For you to claim there's no defintion (defacto or otherwise) is incorrect.
    Never claimed there wasn't one, in fact I claimed exactly the opposite. There's many definitions. Search the forum and read the many many posts on RIM versus Palm sales where the BB as placed in a different reporting category by Canolus (spelling ?) and other industry reporters.

    Acoording to this source, a smartphone need not have data capability, strictly a PDA + Phone:

    http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/smartphone.html

    This one says e-mail, phone and PDA programs...no web.

    http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wire...martphone.html

    You will note that it claims the Nokia Series 40 "
    perfectly fits
    the definition of a smartphone'. So yes the reason I said "Treos and Treo like devices" is one can hardly compare a Nokia series 40 with a Treo.

    So three different web sites, all different definitions. Position re-re-confirmed. For there to be a universally accepted definition, all sources would have to be universally the same. That ain't what's out there....pure and simple. And when I have to explain that when comparing market penetration figures you must do apples and apples and when I have to explain that when comparing phone sales you can't compare one model versus a model line, you can be sure I am not going to leave the blanket smartphone definition out there or I will have Surur coming back extolling that Nokia sold s50 million Series 40's.

    Now the definition of what I would call a smartphone more closely follows yours except that I wouldn't "use the word "regular" with regard to internet access. If "regular" implies consistent with the experience you get on a desktop, than no handheld device provides that. Not with mini "mobile" versions having to be written for proper viewing and page navigation an utter nightmare on anything else. The iPhone is leagues above everything else in this respect but currently, our favorite plug ins have not been completed for Safari.
    07-19-2007 02:00 PM
  20. surur's Avatar
    "include, but not limited to..." does not mean what you think it means...

    Surur
    07-19-2007 02:05 PM
  21. marcol's Avatar
    Smartphone has:
    - Phone
    - OS that is designed to do more than just phone/camera/WAP web browsing
    (ex. Palm/WM/OSX/Symbian/BB)
    - MAY have touchscreen
    - Has QWERTY keyboard (physical or virtual; one caveat is those Windows "smartphones" that have the T9 sort of input, which was marketed as smartphone, but really is not)
    - Has 3rd party apps in some form (generally, this goes along with the OS being open and having an SDK)
    - Syncs with desktop PIM
    - Ability to read or edit office automation documents
    - "Regular" internet access (normal web sites, email protocols, etc.)
    There is a defacto one...see my post...I dare you to find a rational disagreement with it.
    For starters, you've excluded every Nokia smartphone that doesn't have a QWERTY keyboard. So according to your definition the entire N series doesn't fit the category. By device sales, the N series phones account for about 50% of what most people would call smartphones.

    http://www.canalys.com/pr/2007/r2007024.htm
    07-19-2007 02:08 PM
  22. mikec#IM's Avatar
    [QUOTE=JackNaylorPE;1312288]
    Jack, "defn" is short-hand for definition. It's not l33t or whatever disparaging label you want to apply.

    So you meant "As there is not definition of"

    Still seems to em we are missing a word or two. Maybe start with an "a" in between "not" and "definition"



    I agree there is not a universally accepted definition of smartphone.



    Your source disagrees with you:



    "Include, but are not limited to" means it it must have the so named but may have additional stuff.

    Now if ya wanna argue that by "can" the author meant that that it "may" include one or more of the following you can't say it applies to "touch screens" and that it doesn't include OS or the rest. So if "touchscreens" are optional, then OS's are optional. Either way, wiki's definition, is flawed.

    And what about this tether stuff ? Doesn't tethered mean "Attached to a data or power source by wire or fiber" ... er where's my Treo's and the iPhone's tethered modem ? My treo modem is wireless. Flawed again.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/tethered?cat=technology



    Never claimed there wasn't one, in fact I claimed exactly the opposite. There's many definitions. Search the forum and read the many many posts on RIM versus Palm sales where the BB as placed in a different reporting category by Canolus (spelling ?) and other industry reporters.

    Acoording to this source, a smartphone need not have data capability, strictly a PDA + Phone:

    http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/smartphone.html

    This one says e-mail, phone and PDA programs...no web.

    http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wire...martphone.html

    You will note that it claims the Nokia Series 40 " the definition of a smartphone'. So yes the reason I said "Treos and Treo like devices" is one can hardly compare a Nokia series 40 with a Treo.

    So three different web sites, all different definitions. Position re-re-confirmed. For there to be a universally accepted definition, all sources would have to be universally the same. That ain't what's out there....pure and simple. And when I have to explain that when comparing market penetration figures you must do apples and apples and when I have to explain that when comparing phone sales you can't compare one model versus a model line, you can be sure I am not going to leave the blanket smartphone definition out there or I will have Surur coming back extolling that Nokia sold s50 million Series 40's.

    Now the definition of what I would call a smartphone more closely follows yours except that I wouldn't "use the word "regular" with regard to internet access. If "regular" implies consistent with the experience you get on a desktop, than no handheld device provides that. Not with mini "mobile" versions having to be written for proper viewing and page navigation an utter nightmare on anything else. The iPhone is leagues above everything else in this respect but currently, our favorite plug ins have not been completed for Safari.
    So now you are arguing with Wikipedia grammar (ex. inlcudes vs may, etc.)

    GMAFB. True, I agree the English language is massacred every day, and people write poorly, but you know that was not their intent!

    They list the Moto Q for crying out loud in the same page!

    Could you be any more dense? I can't believe this is the same JackPE from the early TC days.


    I gave you a definition that is fits. You chose to ignore that, and instead grab other sources to confirm you view.

    How about my defintion. Please find ANYONE that make an rational argument against it.
    07-19-2007 02:11 PM
  23. marcol's Avatar
    Smartphone has:
    - Phone
    - OS that is designed to do more than just phone/camera/WAP web browsing
    (ex. Palm/WM/OSX/Symbian/BB)
    - MAY have touchscreen
    - Has QWERTY keyboard (physical or virtual; one caveat is those Windows "smartphones" that have the T9 sort of input, which was marketed as smartphone, but really is not)
    - Has 3rd party apps in some form (generally, this goes along with the OS being open and having an SDK)
    - Syncs with desktop PIM
    - Ability to read or edit office automation documents
    - "Regular" internet access (normal web sites, email protocols, etc.)

    That pretty much covers it. Pretty simple. Guess what - the iPhone is a smartphone.

    I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It's just stating that fits the category.

    For you to claim there's no defintion (defacto or otherwise) is incorrect.
    This doesn't even make any sense. By the criteria you cite the iPhone isn't a smartphone. It doesn't have third party apps unless you count web apps or Google maps and it can't edit Microsoft Offices files (presuming that's what you mean by 'office automation documents'). Yet you conclude it is a smartphone. Are you drunk?*

    *Disclaimer: I'm on my second glass
    07-19-2007 02:17 PM
  24. mikec#IM's Avatar
    For starters, you've excluded every Nokia smartphone that doesn't have a QWERTY keyboard. So according to your definition the entire N series doesn't fit the category. By device sales, the N series phones account for about 50% of what most people would call smartphones.

    http://www.canalys.com/pr/2007/r2007024.htm
    I did not exclude them; they have an OS, just like WM.

    I would agree they are a odd beast, with many lacking keyboards.

    But they support virtual ones...maybe that should have been my clarification.
    07-19-2007 02:19 PM
  25. mikec#IM's Avatar
    This doesn't even make any sense. By the criteria you cite the iPhone isn't a smartphone. It doesn't have third party apps unless you count web apps or Google maps and it can't edit Microsoft Offices files (presuming that's what you mean by 'office automation documents'). Yet you conclude it is a smartphone. Are you drunk?*

    *Disclaimer: I'm on my second glass
    Before you shoot reply to a comment, you should read it.

    I said "read or edit", not "read and edit"

    "web apps and google maps" count...per Apple's own defintions.

    I should annotate "support for keyboards", however.

    Still, it's a pretty good definition.
    07-19-2007 02:21 PM
3,194 ... 4041424344 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD