CTIA2012 hands-ons
- by:
- Date
- Popularity
At what point do "smartphones" become just "phones"?
Share:
- That there is such a thing as a "dumb" phone.
- That users need to be "smarter" in some way in order to use these devices.
Share:
57 Comments
2. Synack posted on 0 2
My Galaxy Nexus is just a phone. The Galaxy S3 also did not impress me, just like the iPhone4S. Somebody needs to take a giant step out of the box that all of the smartphones are currently in. Everything seems to be the same except for screen sizes.
3. frmrVZguy posted on 1 0
Title this: "SMART is DUMB if it doesn't work dependably."
There's a different point of view about all this 'smartness' that relates to what the device can DO FOR you. I've had the chance to ride the tide of the 'smartphone wave' for the last 7-8 years and the definition of DO has changed from business communication to (that+business documentation tool) to (all that+production tool) and now to (all of that+multimedia device). I use each of those terms very broadly.
A huge change in customer expectation occured as perceived and real affordability came along. Kids saw what mommy and daddy had in their pocket and it was like 'MAGIC' and eyecandy. They played and stayed with it.
BUT, dependability is the ingredient that makes or breaks a concept. We just witnessed Blackberry outages and (Palm, WinMo and Blackberry) device failures (nerver mind what reason) cause the mighty to fall. The so-called smartphone is becoming THAT dependable that the customer EXPECTS 'Utility-grade' dependability and if it ever fails, so does customer trust. SMART is DUMB if it doesn't work dependably. The stories I know from behind the scenes just makes me shake my head in wonder: "How could THEY be so sloppy?"
The big CAN fall merely due to quality and dependability problems that sabotage reputation and desirability. Remember THAT Apple. Who makes your phones and what is THEIR motivation to keep you as the top brand? Hmmmm?
4. wendygarett posted on 0 2
Another great article michael :)
im searching whether ther are some thumb up for you :)
32. -box- posted on 0 0
Good article, but one concern I had about it was about the pricing. There are no truly "free" phones, just ones that are discounted with a contract and equipment subsidy. The way it's presented now is misleading
40. remixfa posted on 0 0
thats true. it may be free up front but your going to pay an averaged premium on it over the life of the contract...
5. Lucas777 posted on 2 0
personally i think price is a large hurdle smartphones need to overcome... not the phone itself per say, but the price of the service... plenty of people would buy a smartphone, but the extra cost of a data plan is too much and uneeded... but none of the carriers are willing to sell smartphones without a data plan, which limits the amount of people who can access them and who are relegated to feature/regularphones
6. nando2do posted on 1 0
agree on most of it. except when you say that carriers dont want to sell smartphones without data plan, that might happen on the US but not necessary on the rest of the world.
but if you think about it, in basic economics, if the demand keeps growing like right now, the price will be have to be increase. just like iphones, those phones are not made by gold (some of the parts on the chips only) and still have stupid prices like 1,000 per unit if buy it without contract.
next year the phones that right now have 2 cores will be obsolete since the competition keeps pushing the boundaries on expansion of hardware which actually doesnt necessary means its worth it.
the idea of a smart phone was to make your online assets easy and common ones like phone calls and txt easier. right now we find phones with 4 cores, retina display, ultra thin. etc.. stuff that makes people look and think is better just because is thinner, bigger, and good looking.
the thing is, whats next? what would you get on 2014? a 5.6 inch phone, 7 inches thick with super ultra amoled or super retina whatever they come out with. will never know till we get there :D
in the meantime we can still keep playing with our toys
7. Lucas777 posted on 0 0
well the US is the only place i am familiar with, but i understand the rest of the world functions without contracts.. i think u mean 7 millimeters btw..
the carriers complain about subsidizing costs of smartphones.. but i dont see any of them giving up the model and moving toward one where people are not locked into data contracts-- except for sort-of tmbile.. but its not really much of a change..
8. potatosalad posted on 1 0
..is when you can have free internet on your mobile. and i'm speaking zero balance of your credit. (plan subscription not included)
9. ilia1986 posted on 4 4
I think that there needs to be a clear distiction here, Michael.
Smartphones used to be defined as a phone on which one can install 3rd party apps which bring additional functionality. These days there are still smart and "dumb" phones as you described, however this is indeed changing wildly - but in a different way.
I think that the distincion in the future will be between smart phones - and super smart phones. Or "dumb" phones and smart phones. Let me explain.
IMO, in the future, a smartphone will be considered a device which would be truly smart - capable of performing actions beyond the range of other phones not because it has necessarily better hardware or a different form factor, but because of the phylosophy driving the nature of it's OS.
A phone that allows you for example to take a picture of an icon of a file on your PC via it's monitor, and which then proceeds to automatically connect with said PC over Wifi, and download the file to your device. A phone which can be set to ring the alarm at a certain rate, and detect that if it is not picked up, put a status on every social network telling everyone how lazy you are. A phone which can truly do everything because of the open nature of it's OS, and the freedom given to both developers who write apps for it, and the user who ends up using it. A phone customizable in every way which is possible, as needed. I am talking of course about phones running Open Source OSs - Android and (hopefully in the future) WebOS
On the other hand, there are other types of phones - which in my opinion are "dumb" phones. Sure, they may be considered smartphones right now, but as you said - Times - they are a'-changin. These phones contrary to those mentioned earlier, provide the end user with a 95% fixed user experience. In order to get a different experience out of their phone, a user needs to download a 3rd party app, simply because he\she cannot change almost anything on the device otherwise. These apps also are very restrictive in their nature, and cannot interface or change directly various aspects of the phone itself. These phones have a closed OS. What you see is what you get. A good exapmple would be of course phones running iOS and Windows Phone 7, but there is also RIM with it's BB platform. In my opinion, these phones are very very similar to "dumb" phones nowdays, if we were to take dumb phones, give them a touch-screen and add a proprietary application store for them.
So, to conclude, I believe that the future distinction will be between "dumb" phones which only give the end user a fixed user experience, and only provide 3rd party apps in order to enhance it in very fixed ways, and between smartphones which are capable of literally anything a person can think of and the hardware can perform, and give the end user almost unlimited choice and have virtually unlimited potential.
So in short - IMO, the times are changing - but the distinction will stay pretty much the same.
11. MichaelHeller posted on 3 0
Sorry, but I can't agree with any of that. You've got yourself a great start to an Android/Open source religion, but that's about it. Your definition of "smartphone" is way too exclusive for my tastes.
13. ilia1986 posted on 2 2
Why is it exclusive, Michael? Isn't a smartphone a phone which can do more - much more - than the regular dumbphones?
And Android\Open source is not a religion. It's more of a philosophy. Religion requires donations\cash to exist. Android does not. :)
What is your definition of a smartphone, Michael?
15. MichaelHeller posted on 2 0
It's exclusive because it is defining something not just on potential, but the potential to provide functionality that 99% of users will never use or care about. If you're going to define like that, you quickly get into some murky water.
So, an old G1 would be considered a "smartphone" just because it's running Android, but a Windows 8 phone or the iPhone 5 wouldn't because of the platform? That's absurd.
Just because something is "closed" rather than "open" doesn't mean that there aren't APIs to allow 3rd party devs to extend the functionality of the system past what the base platform offers.
I don't think "smartphone" is something that can have a static definition. Just like you can't have a static definition for "computer". Static definitions don't work well in tech, because everything evolves too fast. The loose definition you give is good enough for me. A smartphone is a phone which can do much more than a dumbphone. That gives a loose definition on both ends which can evolve over time.
That said, iOS, WP7, BB, webOS, Symbian, bada, and Android are all smartphones (some smarter than others in various ways).
19. ilia1986 posted on 2 3
Well that's some yet-to-be-proven statistics you got there, Michael. I believe - as evidenced by countless YouTube videos, articles, and number of tweaks\apps\launchers\etc in Google Play - that there are a whole lot of things which are widely used by a lot of people - and these things provide functionality which people do care about - a lot of people - not just 1%.
And yes - potentially a G1 would be smarter when compared to an iPhone 5 or WP8. Just like the original Droid for example would be smarter than a Nokia S40 phone with a 1Ghz processor, despite having inferior specs.
"Just because something is "closed" rather than "open" doesn't mean that there aren't APIs to allow 3rd party devs to extend the functionality of the system past what the base platform offers. "
I am sorry but this is wrong. A closed platform wouldn't allow a developer to change it's core aspects, or interface with them in any matter. Apps for the iPhone can only interface with the hardware components - not with the software one. That's why you can use a different web browser - but when you open a link in your mail app - Safari opens no matter what. And that's just one example out of many.
And yes, the world is evolving - and as I said - IMO in the future there will be smartphones and there will be no-so-smart phones, aka dumbphones. Yes, as you said, all those aforementioned platforms are considered smart today, but remember than backn in the 1990's, having access to your mail via GPRS was considered the pinnacle of technology, where today almost any phone can do that. Times - they are a'-changin :)
20. MichaelHeller posted on 2 0
Open source doesn't mean unlimited access. There are limits on Android developer access just like any other platform. There are plenty of things you can't do without root access, which is no different than rooting WP or jailbreaking iOS. As I said, you can't define based on potential. The potential for Android is greater just because the source is open, but the functionality borne from that potential is only open to the very low percentage that roots their devices. You can only define for the base user.
22. ilia1986 posted on 2 1
Yes, and this is why I was talking about the future. I believe that in the future every Android phone will be rooted, or at least the user can enable SU privilieges via the settings menu. Already we can see some companies openly providing tools to unlock the bootloaders of their devices. Besides - again - given the amount of custom ROMs and tweaks which require user access, I would argue that that the percentage of users who do root their device isn't nearly as low as you might think.
A produce can be defined based on potential, just like you'd rather buy a car which potentially could go 1000 miles on a single gallon of gas (for this example's sake) than a car which can only go for 30 miles on a single gallon. Given of course that both cars are evenly priced. Potential does matter. A lot.
As for this "base user" - he\she too is changing. People are becoming more and more aware of what smartphones do. That in turn will cause those of them who are curious by nature to explore, research and discover new things they can do with their phone, and if they ever find out that their phone can't do all these cool things that their friend's phone can because the company which made it decided that it should control the user experience, and not them, may God help that company once the number of such people grows large enough.
33. MichaelHeller posted on 1 0
Aha, so your definition of smartphone doesn't actually cover any existing "smartphones". According to your definition, everyone is buying a dumbphone, and those that choose to root are then converting their devices into smartphones. How is that not exclusionary?
Whether it gets 30MPG or 1000MPG, it's still called a car is it not?
Increased awareness of potential has very little bearing on choice with many consumers, because as I pointed out in the article, many people are simply too lazy or too disinterested to learn or take advantage of what smartphones can do. There are plenty of people who buy an Android, but never really install more than a few apps. Yes, the base user is changing, but not nearly as much as you think.
All of this leads right back to my point. You are not only setting a static definition, but one that may never come to pass (all phones rooted? really?), and one that doesn't even cover any current smartphones. As I said originally, that is far far too exclusionary for me.
Just because you have an idea of what the perfect smartphone would be for you, doesn't mean that everyone agrees, or even wants that idea to be true. That is exclusionary. Just because someone wants a touchscreen and a few apps, but doesn't want or care about advanced features doesn't mean they aren't buying a smartphone, it just means they aren't using it to its fullest potential, but it's still a smartphone.
According to your definition, only Linux boxes would be considered computers, not Windows or Mac. So, even a Chromebook, which is a Linux box that only runs a browser would be considered more of a computer than any Windows PC. That's the danger of defining on potential and philosophy.
44. ilia1986 posted on 0 0
Well first of all we are all aware than even an unrooted Android phone can do much much much more than the most advanced iPhone will ever be able to.
But yes - essentially I see a smartphone - in the future - as a rooted Android\Open source phone. Sorry. That's just how I see it - because it's capable of virtually anything. It's a bit extreme, I know - but this is how I envision the industry in 10+ years - Smartphones which give the end user almost complete control over the device, and not-so-smart-phones which provide the user with a fixed user experience. If we compare it to the pre-iPhone era - this distinction is about right as well. There were dumb phones which couldn't do anything more than what they already did, and gave the end user very little if any control over the device, and there were the Nokia\Blackberry\WinMo smartphones which gave the user a whole lot more control over the device.
As for the root thing - as I said - a LOT of people are rooting their Android phones. There wouldn't be as many custom roms, tweaks and apps which require rooting if that wasn't true.
So yes - a car is still a car - just like a phone is still a phone is still a phone. But there is a clear and distinct difference in potential.
"Increased awareness of potential has very little bearing on choice with many consumers, because as I pointed out in the article, many people are simply too lazy or too disinterested to learn or take advantage of what smartphones can do."
True. For now. But remember the late 90's. Windows 95 launch. People bought it just out of hype, not even sure what to do with that. People bought it even though they didn't have a PC! Fast forward 2012. Show me a person who is willing to buy PC software just out of hype without being aware of it's core features and benefits, and I will show you a man who is either very rich, or loves gambling.
This is what is going to happen in the mobile market as well. It's already starting to happen. People are becoming more and more aware than the smartphone is a PC - and they don't wanna get stuck with a PC which can't do things while another PC which costs the same and exists in the same time - can.
Again, a "smartphone" is really definition dependent. We just happen to define it differently, I guess.
Btw - Linux IS superior to anything else. The problem with it is lack of support from large companies. If linux had the amount of support Android does today - I assure you that the desktop market would have looked drastically different by now.
But hell, at least Microsoft has the fracking basic decency to provide the user access to it's file system.
