

There Will Be No Such Thing As A “SMARTPHONE” - rampok
http://dailysocial.net/en/2011/08/23/there-will-be-no-such-thing-as-a-smartphone/
So I tried really hard to make a sense of this separation between Smartphone and Feature phones, and I find it to be very shallow.
======
D_Alex
Well... what about this then: <http://www.johnsphones.com/>?

Also, look at the history of wristwatches. In the early 80's new features were
being adopted: digital displays, stopwatches, alarms, calculators... but the
trend reversed, and now a watch that "only shows time" is typical.

I _think_ smartphones will end up taking the lion's share of the mobile phone
market, but there will be plenty of room for simple low end phones. One,
simplicity is not a bad thing. Two, low cost is good too.

BTW, my "uncle" runs a jetski rental business... low cost is his main
criterion when choosing a mobile phone. He buys a couple of dozen each year...

------
bad_user

        What about feature phones? Guess what, they have 
        exactly the same features as smartphone!
    

I own a Nokia 1100, besides a Galaxy S and an iPhone 3GS -- it's one of the
best phones I ever had and I use it when I'm on the road and I want a reliable
phone that doesn't die on me in the middle of the day.

As far as features go, it doesn't even have a color screen. No MMS, no GPS, no
Wifi, no Internet browser, no built-in camera, no MP3 ringtones. It's just a
phone that can also do SMS, and despite being released in a time when phones
came with most of the above crap, Nokia 1100 was one of their most popular
models.

You see, there is value in building these simple phones. And this is the main
difference between a smartphone and a regular phone -- the smartphone is
primarily a computing device that also happens to be able to make phone calls.

And if Apple were to build such a phone, it would be like a Nokia 1100, but
better looking. Because simple is better in case you just want a phone.

Of course, there are feature phones and then there are really crappy feature
phones. Just because a phone can open a web browser, doesn't mean that you can
actually use it to browse the web, and everything before the iPhone was
unusable in that regard.

------
wtracy
The definition that I work with is:

A smartphone has enough horsepower to run a general-purpose operating system
(iOS, Android, webOS, etc.). There is an expectation that apps targeting this
OS will be portable across most or all devices running the targeted OS.
Typically, third-party developers have access to the platform.

A feature phone only has enough memory to run custom-built firmware. There is
no real expectation that applications will be portable across devices.
Typically, the platform is only open to business partners of the manufacturer
or carrier.

To a certain extent Brew- and J2ME-capable phones trip up my definitions, as
they are generally considered feature phones these days, but (in theory) you
can write portable applications for them. They certainly feel like feature
phones (developer access is very limited, and compatibility is iffy). For now
I'll argue they meet my definition of a "feature phone" because you can only
write any kind of portable application for them via a middleware layer.

Anybody else want to throw in their two cents?

------
tjoff
Smartphones are extinct.

In the old days a smartphone was a phone with a lot of features, it had a
(relatively) complex operating system where could tweak your phone and it had
just about all the features the market could come up with bundled.

Today people call iPhones, Androids phones, windows phones etc. for
smartphones. Why? They are really dumb. They can't do anything without
installing an app (and installing apps is not something unique to
smartphones...). Are you annoyed at the start-sound of your HTC-device, simple
- install an app to remove it! Do you want to use the camera-LED on your
nexus-S to use as a flashlight - download an app! (wait, download 50 apps and
take away those that only makes the screen white, dismiss 30 for having ads or
fishy permissions).

Guys, theese are not smartphones... They are locked down browsers that you can
install apps on. Thats the whole point though but they fail every test of
being a smartphone. It's kinda sad because I somewhat cringe when I think
about it, there are no enthusiast-alternative left on the market.

The old focus of an smartphone wasn't to be mainstream, it was about as far
away as you can possible come from iOS/Android/WP7.

When the iPhone first came it was about the dumbest phone money could buy (and
it was about the most expensive phone as well). But it had a lot of developer
support that made it somewhat usable (and for the basic (mainstream) use it
was great). My, altered, definition of an smartphone is today "a phone with a
large screen" - it's kind of dumb but it seems to work.

Maemo is the only real enthusiast-OS left and the only OS I'd consider to be a
true smartphone-OS (given the old definition), too bad it's dead. Hopefully
there will be something of value in MeeGo (and the devices that will be able
to run it).

~~~
bad_user
My definition of a smartphone is -- a general-purpose computing device that
can connect to the Internet, can run third-party apps and also happens to be
able to make phone calls.

Both iPhone and Android pass this definition with flying colors.

    
    
        Do you want to use the camera-LED on your nexus-S 
        to use as a flashlight - download an app! (
    

And you don't consider this to be great? Also, it is really easy to make such
an app yourself. And in the case of Android it is really easy to distribute it
to others.

So what's the problem there?

    
    
        Maemo is the only real enthusiast-OS left and 
        the only OS I'd consider to be a true smartphone-OS
    

Except that it is pretty crappy ... I had faith in Nokia, eventually they
could have come up with something great, but now they dropped the ball.

But if you don't like the status quo, no need to spread bitterness around --
just go and do your own stuff. Some of the greatest projects in history have
started as hobbies you know.

~~~
tjoff
With that definition there have barely been any dumb phones for the last 10
years... Again, smartphones weren't supposed to be mainstream phones and the
old sony ericsson phones (for instance) that ran java apps, could copy +
paste, tether via USB or bluetooth many many years before iPhone and android
and were certainly not considered smartphones by anyone.

"And you don't consider this to be great?" No, I expect that such basic
features to be available from the get go. Of course you should be able to
download alternatives but at some point you have to draw the line. The phone
must be usable when you get it. And requiring all users to download hundreds
of apps isn't a solution.

On my android-phone I can't even get it to automatically update the time
correctly (because my network doesn't provide it?), so I use the app clocksync
which can only set the time with 30 sec accuracy if I haven't rooted the phone
and it can't update the time automatically unless I've rooted my phone. So
much for being a smartphone.

On maemo you just just ntp as you would on any linux box. And to backup
everything? Run rsync. Done. I haven't even begun to start the long process of
validating all of the backup-applications for android. And unless I root my
phone I bet I won't be able to backup what I want anyway.

Perhaps a new definition is in place. A smartphone is a device that must be
rooted if you want to do anything with it :P

Not saying that sandboxing isn't great and that it is just what the market
needs - but it is not a smartphone (again, using the "old/original"
definition)

