If Apple would make the iPhone just a silly 2mm (0.08") thicker it would have room for a a larger Li-Poly battery. Those things are really thin, and one the entire size of the iPhone would add nearly twice the capacity to what it already has. But no, thin is in I guess, and endurance plays second fiddle to thin.
I specifically stated 3G penetration --- which the US (with a population of 300 million) has surpassed Europe's 5 largest countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain with a total population of 300 million) in 2008.
I think it's better to speak about 3G coverage and the 3G services provided by cellular carriers, not about percentage of 3G devices. In this area Europe overpassed the USA.
Meanwhile, if you want to compare percentage of 3G phones, why not to compare current 37% in US against Spain with 38%, or Sweden with the same 37%, or Austria with 37%?
Then you look at SMS usage in the US --- which is publicly available information (the carriers will say in their quarterly filings that they carry x billion sms messages in the last 3 months). That's close to 12 sms every single day for every American --- a number that dwarfed European sms usage.
So what if they have a couple of cities up in finland and sweden to have LTE. Verizon has LTE up in Boston and Seattle. None are commercialized yet because you can't buy LTE gears yet.
Oops! They did launch commercial 4G network in Europe
I specifically stated 3G penetration --- which the US (with a population of 300 million) has surpassed Europe's 5 largest countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain with a total population of 300 million) in 2008.
Then you look at SMS usage in the US --- which is publicly available information (the carriers will say in their quarterly filings that they carry x billion sms messages in the last 3 months). That's close to 12 sms every single day for every American --- a number that dwarfed European sms usage.
UK is the second largest texters in the world (behind the US) --- guess how many sms do Brits send every single day? Americans send 10 times more sms than the Brits.
So what if they have a couple of cities up in finland and sweden to have LTE. Verizon has LTE up in Boston and Seattle. None are commercialized yet because you can't buy LTE gears yet.
All good answers. Except, you forgot to address the following, which you quoted in your response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Which other 'first world' countries? (Btw, who's the 'second world' today?)
You should not make empirical statements about the real world based on children's stories.
Still waiting (esp. on CDMA adoption, and the empirical data on tortoise v. hare.)
I think it's better to speak about 3G coverage and the 3G services provided by cellular carriers, not about percentage of 3G devices. In this area Europe overpassed the USA.
Meanwhile, if you want to compare percentage of 3G phones, why not to compare current 37% in US against Spain with 38%, or Sweden with the same 37%, or Austria with 37%?
3G coverage --- haven't you seen all those Verizon commercials? 3G service? --- even the much blamed AT&T has given Americans the world's largest data allowance for the iphone, the second cheapest iphone plans in the G7 and the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.
Why don't you compare the 3G penetration of something like NY or California against Spain? It's just so happens that the US population is equal to the total of Europe's big 5 combined --- perfect comparision.
As I said it before, the turtle always wins. Do you want to having bragging rights to which country launches 3G first, or uses SMS first or uses MMS first ---- or do you want to have the final laugh. Europe had their bragging rights, but the US is having the final laugh right now. I haven't seen the MMS usage statistics on both sides of the Altantic --- but it is natural to assume that the US (with a higher 3G penetration) to have more MMS usage than Europe.
My mistake, so they did launch a 2 city LTE commercially. But so what? So is America massively behind just because Verizon decides to basically have one big launch instead of a symbolic 2 city launch.
All good answers. Except, you forgot to address the following, which you quoted in your response:
Still waiting (esp. on CDMA adoption, and the empirical data on tortoise v. hare.)
There is nothing really to address. Apple can make very good money just on those 3 countries with sizeable CDMA subscribers.
As for the tortoise v hare, I was responding to saarek in that he stated a widely accepted, but incorrect view that the US is somehow behind the world in mobile technology.
You could atleast try the N900, it has the best mobile browser to date. It's also the first to recieve Mozilla Fennec.
BTW, here's a *real* smartphone for you:
please don't give us that tired old "it doesn't run Flash" (or Silverlight) shibboleth. and i didn't say it runs a desktop browser. that it displays any standard web site with all its links is the point. it was the first smartphone to do so. instead of only stripped down mobile web sites as before.
that revolutionized the smartphone world, whether you like Safari or not. browser snobbing is irrelevant.
what is the definition for "super" smartphones? easy - they run a full web browser, not a dumbed-down "web" version. this was one of the big breakthroughs of the original iPhone in 2007. practically this requires a large touchscreen, but that need not be stated.
Every single one of Nokia's smartphones included in this report runs a WebKit-based web browser. Nokia's WebKit browser was around before the iPhone was even announced.
And yes, they can all run complex third party apps like turn-by-turn satellite navigation too.
It is a difficult and ever-changing definition, the basic definition WAS based on an ability to install and run native applications.
Before the iPhone came along there were a lot of smartphones that weren't being used as smartphones, networks around the world were trying for years to get people to use data and services that accompanied them which was restricted to a fairly small subset of mainly business users.
An example of this were the N95 and earlier models such as the N70, N73 E65 etc which were marketed to the "normal" consumer, phone network data usage during this time may provide an indication of how many of these "smartphone features" were being used.
What Nokia is doing is selling S60 devices at the lower end by stripping out features like GPS, memory, wifi, 3G and higher megapixel Carl Zeiss equipped camera's, in the accepted sense of the earlier definition they are still smartphones but are they being used as such?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
The smartphone definition is definitely a problem if one wants to make it be so.
What is a "simpleton-smartphone?". What is a super-smartphone? I've asked this before, but haven't seen a real answer. What makes the iPhone a smartphone that no other phone is? A Big screen and an improved user interface doesn't really do that in my book (even though it's a brilliant improvement). That would be cherry picking the features for a smartphone from those that the iPhone happens to improve upon conveniently disregarding some that many others regard as crucial for a smartphone but are lacking in the iPhone.
iPhone is a game changer and making tons of profit, but are other vendors phones really that much worse than the iPhone in any other field except the perhaps the UI and Apple Store? How many of the most vocal iPhone worshippes have done any real world comparisons with current phones of more than one or two vendors with touch screens et al?
Some that have, don't seem to have a such a black and white view of the smartphone definion than is often posted.
Regs, Jarkko
The only way to get an N900 to work with 3G in the US is with T-Mobile.
It's in landscape mode ALL the time, apart from the phone function.
It's a geek phone with a very limited market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
please don't give us that tired old "it doesn't run Flash" (or Silverlight) shibboleth. and i didn't say it runs a desktop browser. that it displays any standard web site with all its links is the point. it was the first smartphone to do so. instead of only stripped down mobile web sites as before.
that revolutionized the smartphone world, whether you like Safari or not. browser snobbing is irrelevant.
When Orange UK launched the iPhone late last rear they sold 30,000 on the first day, when Vodafone UK launched the iPhone earlier this year they sold 50,000 the first day.
I don't think Apple should be too worried about £99 PAYG phone's.
Before the iPhone came along there were a lot of smartphones that weren't being used as smartphones, networks around the world were trying for years to get people to use data and services that accompanied them which was restricted to a fairly small subset of mainly business users.
Who cares what they are being used for, if the model is a smartphone, when it is sold it counts as a smartphone sale. Otherwise in another industry, they would have to stop counting some "portable" device sales as a lot of laptops sit on a desk, and never move from that spot
Who cares what they are being used for, if the model is a smartphone, when it is sold it counts as a smartphone sale. Otherwise in another industry, they would have to stop counting some "portable" device sales as a lot of laptops sit on a desk, and never move from that spot
There is quite a bit of difference between a laptop being used primarily as a desktop than a glorified high-end feature phone being labelled by surveying firms as smartphones.
There is quite a bit of difference between a laptop being used primarily as a desktop than a glorified high-end feature phone being labelled by surveying firms as smartphones.
That's not what I said, and it isn't what the original poster said, they were talking about people buying smartphones and not using them as smartphones, at the end of the day it doesn't matter, a sale is a sale.
That's not what I said, and it isn't what the original poster said, they were talking about people buying smartphones and not using them as smartphones, at the end of the day it doesn't matter, a sale is a sale.
They aren't used as smartphones because they are really glorified high-end feature phones to begin with (which just happens to have an OS that would classified them as smartphones).
Conversely, you can get any zero dollar feature phone from Verizon and be able to get it basically running like a real smartphone. You can play games on it (real $10 games like guitar hero), you can get turn-by-turn navigation on it, you can get corporate e-mail on it (via Verizon's monthly service).
My daughters S40 based Nokia phones has a full web browser, do you start counting that as well?
From Wikipedia:
"The integrated web browser can access most web content through the service provider's XHTML/HTML gateway. The latest version of Series 40, called Series 40 6th Edition, introduced a new browser based on the WebKit open source components WebCore and JavaScriptCore. The new browser delivers support for HTML 4.01, CSS2, JavaScript 1.5, and Ajax."
the 6th edition was announced in June 2008, one year after the iPhone launch.
and with more detail on whole evolution of Nokia "smartphones" and their browsers:
the Series 60 5th edition - first with touchscreen support and a large display comparable to the iPhone - was introduced in October 2008, four months later than the other one.
great thing about the web, you can get your facts straight.
that it displays any standard web site with all its links is the point. it was the first smartphone to do so. instead of only stripped down mobile web sites as before.
That is incorrect. My Palm Treo did it years before the iPhone.
Comments
If Apple would make the iPhone just a silly 2mm (0.08") thicker it would have room for a a larger Li-Poly battery. Those things are really thin, and one the entire size of the iPhone would add nearly twice the capacity to what it already has. But no, thin is in I guess, and endurance plays second fiddle to thin.
And a flash with better camera.
You tell 'em Tek! This kind of thing doesn't happen to Palm et al...
Like what ever happend to the iPhone Nano- the Apple phone for everybody else?
I specifically stated 3G penetration --- which the US (with a population of 300 million) has surpassed Europe's 5 largest countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain with a total population of 300 million) in 2008.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090400776.html
I think it's better to speak about 3G coverage and the 3G services provided by cellular carriers, not about percentage of 3G devices. In this area Europe overpassed the USA.
Meanwhile, if you want to compare percentage of 3G phones, why not to compare current 37% in US against Spain with 38%, or Sweden with the same 37%, or Austria with 37%?
http://digital-stats.blogspot.com/20...t-q2-2009.html
Then you look at SMS usage in the US --- which is publicly available information (the carriers will say in their quarterly filings that they carry x billion sms messages in the last 3 months). That's close to 12 sms every single day for every American --- a number that dwarfed European sms usage.
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/patterson/57781
What's about more technologicaly advanced MMS?
So what if they have a couple of cities up in finland and sweden to have LTE. Verizon has LTE up in Boston and Seattle. None are commercialized yet because you can't buy LTE gears yet.
Oops! They did launch commercial 4G network in Europe
http://www.physorg.com/news179995754.html
And what's about HSPA+?
I specifically stated 3G penetration --- which the US (with a population of 300 million) has surpassed Europe's 5 largest countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain with a total population of 300 million) in 2008.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090400776.html
Then you look at SMS usage in the US --- which is publicly available information (the carriers will say in their quarterly filings that they carry x billion sms messages in the last 3 months). That's close to 12 sms every single day for every American --- a number that dwarfed European sms usage.
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/patterson/57781
UK is the second largest texters in the world (behind the US) --- guess how many sms do Brits send every single day? Americans send 10 times more sms than the Brits.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consumer/200...ommunications/
So what if they have a couple of cities up in finland and sweden to have LTE. Verizon has LTE up in Boston and Seattle. None are commercialized yet because you can't buy LTE gears yet.
All good answers. Except, you forgot to address the following, which you quoted in your response:
Which other 'first world' countries? (Btw, who's the 'second world' today?)
You should not make empirical statements about the real world based on children's stories.
Still waiting (esp. on CDMA adoption, and the empirical data on tortoise v. hare.)
I think it's better to speak about 3G coverage and the 3G services provided by cellular carriers, not about percentage of 3G devices. In this area Europe overpassed the USA.
Meanwhile, if you want to compare percentage of 3G phones, why not to compare current 37% in US against Spain with 38%, or Sweden with the same 37%, or Austria with 37%?
http://digital-stats.blogspot.com/20...t-q2-2009.html
What's about more technologicaly advanced MMS?
Oops! They did launch commercial 4G network in Europe
http://www.physorg.com/news179995754.html
And what's about HSPA+?
3G coverage --- haven't you seen all those Verizon commercials? 3G service? --- even the much blamed AT&T has given Americans the world's largest data allowance for the iphone, the second cheapest iphone plans in the G7 and the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.
Why don't you compare the 3G penetration of something like NY or California against Spain? It's just so happens that the US population is equal to the total of Europe's big 5 combined --- perfect comparision.
As I said it before, the turtle always wins. Do you want to having bragging rights to which country launches 3G first, or uses SMS first or uses MMS first ---- or do you want to have the final laugh. Europe had their bragging rights, but the US is having the final laugh right now. I haven't seen the MMS usage statistics on both sides of the Altantic --- but it is natural to assume that the US (with a higher 3G penetration) to have more MMS usage than Europe.
My mistake, so they did launch a 2 city LTE commercially. But so what? So is America massively behind just because Verizon decides to basically have one big launch instead of a symbolic 2 city launch.
All good answers. Except, you forgot to address the following, which you quoted in your response:
Still waiting (esp. on CDMA adoption, and the empirical data on tortoise v. hare.)
There is nothing really to address. Apple can make very good money just on those 3 countries with sizeable CDMA subscribers.
As for the tortoise v hare, I was responding to saarek in that he stated a widely accepted, but incorrect view that the US is somehow behind the world in mobile technology.
Full web browser? Well that knocks iPhone out.
You could atleast try the N900, it has the best mobile browser to date. It's also the first to recieve Mozilla Fennec.
BTW, here's a *real* smartphone for you:
please don't give us that tired old "it doesn't run Flash" (or Silverlight) shibboleth. and i didn't say it runs a desktop browser. that it displays any standard web site with all its links is the point. it was the first smartphone to do so. instead of only stripped down mobile web sites as before.
that revolutionized the smartphone world, whether you like Safari or not. browser snobbing is irrelevant.
what is the definition for "super" smartphones? easy - they run a full web browser, not a dumbed-down "web" version. this was one of the big breakthroughs of the original iPhone in 2007. practically this requires a large touchscreen, but that need not be stated.
Every single one of Nokia's smartphones included in this report runs a WebKit-based web browser. Nokia's WebKit browser was around before the iPhone was even announced.
And yes, they can all run complex third party apps like turn-by-turn satellite navigation too.
Before the iPhone came along there were a lot of smartphones that weren't being used as smartphones, networks around the world were trying for years to get people to use data and services that accompanied them which was restricted to a fairly small subset of mainly business users.
An example of this were the N95 and earlier models such as the N70, N73 E65 etc which were marketed to the "normal" consumer, phone network data usage during this time may provide an indication of how many of these "smartphone features" were being used.
What Nokia is doing is selling S60 devices at the lower end by stripping out features like GPS, memory, wifi, 3G and higher megapixel Carl Zeiss equipped camera's, in the accepted sense of the earlier definition they are still smartphones but are they being used as such?
The smartphone definition is definitely a problem if one wants to make it be so.
What is a "simpleton-smartphone?". What is a super-smartphone? I've asked this before, but haven't seen a real answer. What makes the iPhone a smartphone that no other phone is? A Big screen and an improved user interface doesn't really do that in my book (even though it's a brilliant improvement). That would be cherry picking the features for a smartphone from those that the iPhone happens to improve upon conveniently disregarding some that many others regard as crucial for a smartphone but are lacking in the iPhone.
iPhone is a game changer and making tons of profit, but are other vendors phones really that much worse than the iPhone in any other field except the perhaps the UI and Apple Store? How many of the most vocal iPhone worshippes have done any real world comparisons with current phones of more than one or two vendors with touch screens et al?
Some that have, don't seem to have a such a black and white view of the smartphone definion than is often posted.
Regs, Jarkko
The only way to get an N900 to work with 3G in the US is with T-Mobile.
It's in landscape mode ALL the time, apart from the phone function.
It's a geek phone with a very limited market.
please don't give us that tired old "it doesn't run Flash" (or Silverlight) shibboleth. and i didn't say it runs a desktop browser. that it displays any standard web site with all its links is the point. it was the first smartphone to do so. instead of only stripped down mobile web sites as before.
that revolutionized the smartphone world, whether you like Safari or not. browser snobbing is irrelevant.
so i added the definition - runs a full web browser. that knocks out nearly all Nokia phones, many Blackberries, and most WinMo's.
My daughters S40 based Nokia phones has a full web browser, do you start counting that as well?
When Orange UK launched the iPhone late last rear they sold 30,000 on the first day, when Vodafone UK launched the iPhone earlier this year they sold 50,000 the first day.
I don't think Apple should be too worried about £99 PAYG phone's.
Except Nokia sold 430 million phones last year.
it was the first smartphone to do so. instead of only stripped down mobile web sites as before.
No it wasn't
Before the iPhone came along there were a lot of smartphones that weren't being used as smartphones, networks around the world were trying for years to get people to use data and services that accompanied them which was restricted to a fairly small subset of mainly business users.
Who cares what they are being used for, if the model is a smartphone, when it is sold it counts as a smartphone sale. Otherwise in another industry, they would have to stop counting some "portable" device sales as a lot of laptops sit on a desk, and never move from that spot
Who cares what they are being used for, if the model is a smartphone, when it is sold it counts as a smartphone sale. Otherwise in another industry, they would have to stop counting some "portable" device sales as a lot of laptops sit on a desk, and never move from that spot
There is quite a bit of difference between a laptop being used primarily as a desktop than a glorified high-end feature phone being labelled by surveying firms as smartphones.
There is quite a bit of difference between a laptop being used primarily as a desktop than a glorified high-end feature phone being labelled by surveying firms as smartphones.
That's not what I said, and it isn't what the original poster said, they were talking about people buying smartphones and not using them as smartphones, at the end of the day it doesn't matter, a sale is a sale.
That's not what I said, and it isn't what the original poster said, they were talking about people buying smartphones and not using them as smartphones, at the end of the day it doesn't matter, a sale is a sale.
They aren't used as smartphones because they are really glorified high-end feature phones to begin with (which just happens to have an OS that would classified them as smartphones).
Conversely, you can get any zero dollar feature phone from Verizon and be able to get it basically running like a real smartphone. You can play games on it (real $10 games like guitar hero), you can get turn-by-turn navigation on it, you can get corporate e-mail on it (via Verizon's monthly service).
Thus it is not classed as a smartphone.
My daughters S40 based Nokia phones has a full web browser, do you start counting that as well?
My daughters S40 based Nokia phones has a full web browser, do you start counting that as well?
From Wikipedia:
"The integrated web browser can access most web content through the service provider's XHTML/HTML gateway. The latest version of Series 40, called Series 40 6th Edition, introduced a new browser based on the WebKit open source components WebCore and JavaScriptCore. The new browser delivers support for HTML 4.01, CSS2, JavaScript 1.5, and Ajax."
the 6th edition was announced in June 2008, one year after the iPhone launch.
and with more detail on whole evolution of Nokia "smartphones" and their browsers:
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/featu..._40_vs_S60.php
the Series 60 5th edition - first with touchscreen support and a large display comparable to the iPhone - was introduced in October 2008, four months later than the other one.
great thing about the web, you can get your facts straight.
PS: here is an even better history:
http://www.mobile-review.com/review/...owser-en.shtml
so yes, the "super smartphone" definition needs to add a touch UI to simply a full web browser.
what is the definition for "super" smartphones? easy - they run a full web browser, not a dumbed-down "web" version.
But the iPhone can't access the "full web". Often you get shunted to a dumbed down mobile website. And flash sites are unusable.
that it displays any standard web site with all its links is the point. it was the first smartphone to do so. instead of only stripped down mobile web sites as before.
That is incorrect. My Palm Treo did it years before the iPhone.