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/wireless/2005/08/23/whatissmartphone.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.