Jump to content

Talk:Smartphone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Windows Mobile Smartphone / standard

I got to this page by clicking on a link to Smartphone 2002 (Windows Mobile For Smartphones 2002) and i expected something obout that OS and the devices that run that OS, but i got the page talking about all smartphones in general. There is a difference between smartphones and Smartphones... Rospaya 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

From Windows Media Player? There's a difference between a generic Smartphones and Microsoft Windows Powered Smartphone 2002, and that article probably shouldn't link here. MS don't get this page just because they have a capital letter. That said, I notice Smartphone 2002 redirects here when it should probably go to Windows Mobile... Hypnotist uk 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Smartphone Adoption

If anyone has access to such statistics it would be nice to include current market penetration figures for smartphones, cf Mobile_phone says US market penetration for cell phones was 66% in 2003.

I added a pointer to the figures at http://www.canalys.com/pr/2005/r2005071.htm which are for unit shipments. I'd still really like a market penetration or share of overall mobile market percentage. Mike Linksvayer 19:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Motorola i930 can be used for Southern Linc as well

Removed the Carrier Bias from the Motorola i930 in order to denote that the Motorola i930 can be used for Southern Linc networks as well. -- Vesther 21:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

PS to Definition

I think the term has more to do with marketing than functionality however data-centric/voice-centric = PDA/Smartphone is a good discriminator for the current terminology. I believe the article to be very good considering the definition is widely debated even between marketing research firms. It may be the case that the term Smartphone will replace "wireless" PDA just like PDA replaced Personal Communicator - it makes more sense and is easier to say.--Rob Fraser 22:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 

    It is clearly a relative term.

As noted previously, most refer to Smartphones as high-end camera phones with full fledged email capabilities and other misc. beels and whistles that can include a full programmatic interface or advanced specialized applications. It's mostly a pricing and/or marketing positioning issue. HuskyMoon 10:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Most people couldn't care less about the operating system. The list should be classified on the basis of something else, like manufacturer or chronology or features. Arvindn 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree - if the key feature of a smartphone is that you can install software on it, then it's important to know the OS. Also, consider Palm's Treos - the 700p != 700w by a long way.

Chrisbtoo 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess!

This article is a total mess and it looks like it has been ruined by a series of partisan and spam edits.

I would like propose an almost total re-write of the first few sections. The topics I would like to see included are:

The definition of a smartphone: This is probably the topic that confuses consumers the most and I feel the current description is vague and inaccurate. The definition that is used in the industry is "a phone that uses an open operating system that allows for the installation of natively-coded software". This definition is also used by most analysts (e.g. Canalsys) and equates to Symbian, Windows Mobile, Linux (sometimes) and RIM (though not through their own design). I have never seen a BREW-enabled device count as a smartphone and I would question the source of this edit.

The Evolution of the Smartphone: The paragraph describing the first smartphone ever brought to market is one of the more interesting parts of the current article. I would like to see it expanded to include a list of other key events in the evolution of the smartphone (first Symbian handset, first Windows handset, first smartphone to sell a million units, etc).

Why smartphones?: A section on the reasons for the hype around smartphones and why many of the big players are getting involved would be interesting. However, it has the potential to sound too much like a marketing exercise.

Smartphone Operating Systems: A quick overview of market share and who is backing each platform would be welcome. Any moderator would have to make sure all comments in this section are backed up by references to avoid questions over bias.

Does anyone else share my sentiments?

I would be happy to re-write the article myself, but I do not want to spend a lot of effort only to see it reverted.

While I agree that this article certainly needs to be tidied up, and do agree with the need for more detailed section, I am however sceptical in regards to a section which decribes why an increasing amount of people use smartphones nowadays.-- (A.szczep) 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Origin of the term: I think the article would benefit from some information about the origin of the term smartphone, and how it has been applied over the years. For example, searching Google Groups, the earliest use I found of the word to describe a mobile phone was in 1996, for the Nokia 9000. Microsoft seems to have popularised the word around 2002/2003. I think this information would help avoid debates about whether such-and-such a phone is a smartphone, by showing how the use of the word is continually changing with technology. Alf Boggis 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added a little, but it's quite EU-centric. And it needs cleaning up a little, and wikifying. Still, it's a start and I hope it's useful. Hypnotist uk 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "The definition that is used in the industry is "a phone that uses an open operating system that allows for the installation of natively-coded software". Interesting potential definition. Which industry do you refer to? Specifically the cell phone industry? Can you refer us to sources?
Jason C.K. 06:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

HTC duplication

this article speaks of HTC phones, then of T-Mobile phones, then of Orange phones, then of i-mate phones, then of Vodaphone phones, then of Qtek phones, then of Dopod phones, then of Cingular phones... but those are all one and the same smartphones, just rebranded differently - just try counting how shorter this list would be if it only counted devices that were actually different?? --83.131.143.254 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

featurephone

I'm seeing featurephone used to mean non smart phone. Mathiastck 00:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Feature phone Mathiastck 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

75.209.6.31 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC) We are an encyclopedia at Wiki, not a dictionary! I've never seen someone request a "feature phone". That's venacular used by phone makers and carriers in order to put some order into their product lines. Smartphone, Camera-Phone, Walkie-Talkie phones cover most of the basics. Essentially all SmartPhones are camera-phones except for the Blackberries and a few sepcial order models for coroprate use where a camera is unwanted for security reasons. I think that we will confuse everyone by interoducing more terminology. As encyclopedists we are here to help and clarify while keeping thing ssimple. Of course it would be much easier to have all these buckets. But that is why building an ancyclopedia is so challening.

Removing List??

I don't see the point of the lists of all smartphones in this article. I believe it should be split in its own article or removed? It just created a lot of noise and make this article extremely lond despite the fact that only a small portion of the article is about defining what a smartphone is. Riadlem 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I propose to keep only a category list of smartphones.

"native"

If this article is going to claim that the distinction of a smartphone is "that additional native applications can be installed on the device" we need a citation from a reliable source that such a condition is a requirement to be called a smartphone (issue has arisen regarding Apple's iPhone) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, sometimes logic must rule - even on Wikipedia. What makes a car a car and not a train? Or a tractor? Or a heat source? PDA's and smartphones used today all have the ability to install _native_ software. Maybe then we dare to assume (without quoting source) that one criteria (among many) for calling a gadget a PDA/Smartphone is their ability to install native software?

  • "PDA's and smartphones used today all have the ability to install _native_ software". Original computers used punch cards. Does that mean today's computers aren't computers because they don't accept punch cards? "Maybe then we dare to assume (without quoting source) that one criteria (among many) for calling a gadget a PDA/Smartphone is their ability to install native software" You may not. You need good sources. Please see my other response below.
Jason C.K. 06:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If just adding a calendar and a camera makes a smartphone then any phone manufactured today could be called a smartphone - which would ruin the distinction completely. 81.233.73.177 /HSB on 2007-01-13

75.208.64.219 11:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Very well put. SmartPhones are about development of applications and open operating systems. What puts the iPhone in a gray area is that "widgets" are apparently possible. Of course Apple's label of the iPhone as a SmartPhone is PR and we can't go by that or redefine the category. A Smartphone today is a camera Phone that supports downloadable applications by 3rd party developers and push email. The camera can end-up being used as a bar-code reader, an iris identification device etc... And that is all possible through the 3rd party developer support. The Widgets will most likely not support that level of functionality. Also Apple has ample time to reverse course on the 3rd party developer program as it essentially exists with the Mac OS X. So given all of this and the buzz in the interest of Wiki looking complete and informed we should include the iPhone in this article but make clear that there is no third party applications besides "widgets".

  • "A Smartphone today is a camera Phone that supports downloadable applications by 3rd party developers and push email." Says who? Please see my other response below.
Jason C.K. 06:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • .#1 The iPhone isn't out yet, it's difficult to say what definition it will fit (once we have an authoritative one). #2 It's widely assumed that, just as you can buy iPod games now on iTunes, you will be able to get extra USER-INSTALLABLE apps for your iPhone. #3 It's unknown if these apps will be strictly 1st party, licensed 3rd party, unlicensed 3rd party, etc. The only way in which an iPhone is not a smartphone as has often been referred to in the past is that the extra user-installable apps are very unlikely to be unlicensed 3rd party, at least initially (Apple exec quotes say there are no 3rd party opportunities "for now"). Does this make it not a smartphone? Who says? Why? My opinion, regardless of what a claimed "authoritative" site says, if a phone has a flexible, powerful, extensible s.w./h.w. architecture, with advanced convenience features, more sophisticated software abilities, and a larger display than a typical low-end cell phone, that makes it a smartphone. If someone says we should be going by the "popular" definition, what is that? The opinion of us computer/cell phone geeks? There are plenty of less-informed non-smartphone-using people out there that might call any phone with voicedial a smartphone, do you really want to go with the most "popular" definition? According to P.C. Magazine & PhoneScoop, the 2 biggest sites I could find in a quick search, iPhone fits their definition of smartphone.
Jason C.K. 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sphone?

I've never heard this term during my years as either a consumer or an industry member. Reading through the first four pages of search term results reveals no usage of sphone that remotely justifies using it as a synonym for smartphone in the first sentence of the article. (My favorite was the forum posting that claimed "I need Beyonce Knowle'sphone number.") The term is squishy enough already; let's avoid useless neologisms. That said, I'm happy to look at citations or be shown the error of my ways. Petershank 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Large deletions

user:220.225.247.20 has made a couple of large deletions (the "Definition" section and the comparison table) without giving an explanation either in the edit summary or here. I am going to revert them, because I can't think of any good reason for them. JonoP 13:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Market Shares

Someone has just gone through and changed the market shares of the various operating systems significantly, specifically they changed Symbian OS from 72.8% to 51%, Linux from 16.7% to 23% and Windows Mobile from 5.6% to 17%. As one can see, the new figures differ radically from the old, and no reference has been provided. The original figures were taken from [1], in which Symbian reports figures provided by Canalys, an organisation separate from Symibian. As I am an employee of Symbian, in order to avoid possible violation of WP:NPOV, I will not change the figures back, but would appreciate it if someone could take a look and see whether the change should be reverted. Cheers JonoP 10:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Smartphone Definition

I realize smartphone is difficult to describe, however the current description should be expanded. The key feature of a smartphone is that one can install additional applications to the device. This would seem to include all J2ME and BREW devices yet few people would consider these to be smartphones.

That is very questionable and probably incorrect. Smartphone nowadays means high-end phone, usually camera phone, with full fledged email capability priced at the high-end. ALl phones theser days are pretty much programmable via Java or BREW and can download applications somehow. Most Smartphones like Blackberries, although can, never do. Clearly the low-end has pushed the feature set of the Smartphone elsewhere and it is no longer a "computer in a phone". An example of this would be the announced Apple iPhone referred to as a Smartphone. It is "smart" in many ways because of its accelerometer, proximity sensor, ambient light sensor, sophisticated UI. The market seems to have moved. For the better or the worst. HuskyMoon 10:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has worked in the cellular industry for ten years the definition of smartphone has always been "a mobile phone using an open, commercial operating system that supports third party applications". It's pretty specific and has nothing to do with smart features or innovative light sensors etc. MyronAub 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison Chart

The argument offered in the blog article that inspired that Slashdot article was complete crap (Apple is not bound by the terms of the APSL, so they can do an ARM port of Darwin code without making it part of the released Darwin), and he later retracted his claim that it couldn't possibly be running OS X. Guy Harris 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the "iPhone" from the list. While it have created quite a buzz it may not be considered a smartphone - nor do we know if it will get popular.

75.208.64.219 11:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC) I think that we should keep the iPhone in. That's because everyone is making reference to it and we would look incomplete without it. However, we should leave price out as obviously this will all change. I would like to see European smartphones like the Nokia 5500 in the chart. Because of its Symbian OS it is a Samrtphone: Any Symbian developer can build an application for it. Which seems to be one of the key elements of being a SmartPhone. Apparently the iPhone lets you build "widgets". That would pu the iPhone in a gray zone I think. The Table format is good and allows for a rapid review of functionality.

  • I think that the chart is most helpful given the confusion. I learn much more from it in terms of feature set than the long dissertations in the body of the article. This whole mumbo jumbo about feature phone, dumb phone makes no sense... I'd never gone into a phone store and ask for a feature phone, let alone a dumb phone. I'd ask for a camera phone, a smartphone or a walkie talky phone.... But I'd like to hear about anyone who ever walked into a store asking for a dumb phone or a feature phone (It sounds like jargon used by product line managers at Motorola or Nokia, wanting to justify the existence of the different models: This one is a dumb phone, this one is a feature phone etc... The general public is not there at all......
  • (75.211.31.203 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC))I just reinstated the table which had been deleted by 88.109.83.157 . This should be discussed here before any drastic action taken. That table is the work of several wikipedians and not to be deleted brashly by one user.

The chart is most helpful as it is verifiable information that makes the realive differences between SmartPhones visually clear. I am changing the Apple developer bit to "Widgets" as there are third party applications in that sense. 75.208.62.12 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this chart needs to be removed/throughly updated. New phones are released all the time, and if each one has a unique feature, then that table will need 100 columns for 1 yes. thestick 14:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping this up to date would be a nightmare. Might be nice to turn it into a chart for the historic progress of smartphones: Nokia 9210, Nokia 7650, SonyEricsson P800, Treo 180, HTC Himalaya, whatever the first WM 2003 for Smartphone product was, Nokia 6630, etc. The first product of each new generation, basically. This should also be easily referenced. I don't know where this list of 'popular' smartphones comes from (where's the Nokia 3250, which sold over a million, for example?) and the choice of what to include currently strikes me as WP:OR. Hypnotist uk 17:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This chart is actually quite helpful and may convery more information in some ways than a lot of the rest of the article. The definition of a Smartphone in 2007 seems so nebulous that it is helpful to have a "definition by example". It does visually express the diversity of functionality, form-factors, features set and manufacturers. It seems quite helpful. HuskyMoon 10:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But where does the selection of smartphones come from? Anyway I've changed the title for now. Hypnotist uk 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the list should be maintained as the most significant models.. We can edit/add/delete entries to keep it relevent and up to date. It's a nice no-fluff way of seeing what smartphones really are and see where they are trending. DaisyField 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the fact it exists, but I stil have trouble with how we define 'significant'. I'm fresh out of ideas here though, so I'm happy to see how the table evolves. Hypnotist uk 19:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smartphone/Archive_1&oldid=372655531"