Android phones are considered 'smart phones' no matter how much you wish it wasn't.
If they run Android, iOS, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, they are smart phones.
I'll say a smartphone can run apps and that is what seperates it from a feature phone which in general can only run stuff or features that came with the phone.
And that is how the majority of Android phones ARE. They come with older Android, they never get updated, and they can't reliably run a lot of the apps out there. NO MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO THINK, A LOT OF ANDROID PHONES ARE SMART PHONES IN NAME ONLY.
And those phones usage patterns are also in the feature phone usage case.
Just because it runs Android does not mean it is really a smart phone. Get over it. That is the truth.
Go look at most of the white box $49-$99 or so class of white box Android. Those are feature phone class phones. They run old, never updated Android and don't reliably run many apps you download on them and the users of them don't download apps anyway. Same goes for the low end "good enough carrier friendly" name brand phones.
There are lots of smartphones that run Android, but not all Android phones are smartphones except in name only.
Ah, the slippery undefined feature phone claim. Gotcha. Well I guess technically you couldn't be wrong as everyone gets to make up their own definition of what a smartphone feature-phone is.
Nothing slippery. I gave one definition already, and others will have very similar definitions that vary in some details but not in the general gist of it.
That was tried already. Nobody is going to continually spend money developing an OS for devices with low margins, and that few people will buy. That's why they went with Android.
It has been tried? Really? Show me. Again, show me one such device. Most all the devices you have shown are 5 (give or take) year old plus old style feature phones (flip, brick, etc).
The reason they went with Android is two reasons: they got it for free, and they could ride the Android bus for free (in terms of mindshare). They are making feature phones with Android. They could convince people, through marketing, that because if has Android that the people have a so-called "smart phone" when in reality they have a feature phone that uses Android. Not because it is the best solution, but because they are bottom feeder companies that like the word "free" and don't care if they lie to the customer.
And you claim those and their brethren make up the majority of Android phones sold? it doesn't look like even one of those has ever sold.
There are a quadrillion of this sort of phone sold in 3rd world countries. This model is just representative. Where do you think all those millions of Android activations come from? They are not Samsung Galaxy or HTC or LG or Moto or equivalent type smart phones. The sales of ALL of those ones I just listed are less than what Apple sells in iPhones and yet the Android activations are a few times the iPhone if you believe Google and company.
It is this type of cheap low end Android feature phone that makes up the bulk of the activations. (that and "Android PC" type devices and Android based TV sticks and stuff).
Where do you think all those millions of Android activations come from? They are not Samsung Galaxy or HTC or LG or Moto or equivalent type smart phones. The sales of ALL of those ones I just listed are less than what Apple sells in iPhones and yet the Android activations are a few times the iPhone if you believe Google and company.
It is this type of cheap low end Android feature phone that makes up the bulk of the activations.
You realize that if a phone can't use Google Play then it's not included in their numbers right?
...and further a phone that can connect to Google Play for apps would then by definition be a, wait for it. . . Smartphone. :smokey:
Do you just make it up as you go along or actually make sure your claims are grounded in fact with some at least semi-reliable citations?
No, I am not making this up. There are lots of studies out there.
But tell me, if the so-called "premium smart phones" total sales are less than the iPhones, yet the Android market share is 2-3 times that of iOS, where and what sort of devices make up the difference? Pray tell.
It has been tried? Really? Show me. Again, show me one such device. Most all the devices you have shown are 5 (give or take) year old plus old style feature phones (flip, brick, etc).
The reason they went with Android is two reasons: they got it for free, and they could ride the Android bus for free (in terms of mindshare). They are making feature phones with Android. They could convince people, through marketing, that because if has Android that the people have a so-called "smart phone" when in reality they have a feature phone that uses Android. Not because it is the best solution, but because they are bottom feeder companies that like the word "free" and don't care if they lie to the customer.
You really think it's a good idea for a company to spend R&D dollars designing a device, designing a new OS, and then spend tons more on marketing for a low margin device that the carriers will put on display in the back of the store, because they'd rather have their customers sign up for smartphone plans?
Long gone are the days of people being content with just sending texts, and making phone calls. People want to post of FB, they want to tweet, they want to take pics/videos and post them on IG/Vine. Even my 8 yr old son records videos using Hyperlapse, and uploads them to YouTube with his iPod. What kind of phone do you think he's going to want when it's time to get him one?
Edit: Btw very few companies set out to be bottom feeders.
You realize that if a phone can't use Google Play then it's not included in their numbers right?
...and further a phone that can connect to Google Play for apps would then by definition be a, wait for it. . . Smartphone.
No, just because they install Google Apps including play does not mean they can actually run the apps in Google play. There are lots of devices that have been shown to install Google Play that get counted that cannot even access Google Play for real to download. There was a case I read about of a no name TV stick that installed Google Play and activated but had no UI to even download or run an app.
And not all marketshare numbers rely on the Google activation numbers.
You really think it's a good idea for a company to spend R&D dollars designing a device, designing a new OS, and then spend tons more on marketing for a low margin device that the carriers will put on display in the back of the store, because they'd rather have their customers sign up for smartphone plans?
Long gone are the days of people being content with just sending texts, and making phone calls. People want to post of FB, they want to tweet, they want to take pics/videos and post them on IG/Vine. Even my 8 yr old son records videos using Hyperlapse, and uploads them to YouTube with his iPod. What kind of phone do you think he's going to want when it's time to get him one?
Nothing says a feature phone cannot have built in twitter or Facebook. Many of the Android based feature phones may include that sort of thing.
And a feature phone would still need a data plan so the carriers don't care. Right now they call it a smart phone, even when it is not really, and sell the plan. Around the world, the carriers are already selling Android based feature phones and the carriers are happy.
Anyway, I've got to get back to work. I'll check back in on this discussion tonight.
No, just because they install Google Apps including play does not mean they can actually run the apps in Google play. There are lots of devices that have been shown to install Google Play that get counted that cannot even access Google Play for real to download. There was a case I read about of a no name TV stick that installed Google Play and activated but had no UI to even download or run an app.
They can't install anything they can't run. In fact they won't even see apps they can't run. * So you really are making it up as you go along. Well just continue on then. No reason to for me to continue trying to have an honest discussion with someone having an imaginary moment.
*unless the user has rooted and spoofed their device to appear as another higher-end one (exceedingly rare IMO), something a buyer of $50 phones would have no reason to do.
Nothing says a feature phone cannot have built in twitter or Facebook. Many of the Android based feature phones may include that sort of thing.
And a feature phone would still need a data plan so the carriers don't care. Right now they call it a smart phone, even when it is not really, and sell the plan. Around the world, the carriers are already selling Android based feature phones and the carriers are happy.
Anyway, I've got to get back to work. I'll check back in on this discussion tonight.
Ok, so modern design, old components, runs FB, and Twitter, needs data plan, and doesn't run Android?
As long as the phone is able to download apps, has a modern web brower, and makes cell calls its a smart phone.
I don't give a sheet what the user uses it for. I used a $99 off contract smartphone for 2 years. Was it a POS? Yes. But I was able to download music on it, browse the web, have an ESPN RAdio app, run Maps, on it ect. That is 100x more advanced than any feature phone. Today's $99 smartphones are way better than what I had. Just because it isn't cutting edge like iPhone6 does not mean it isn't a smartphone.
By your idiotic definiton than there are thousands of iPhones that are not smartphones. I know a bunch of people who uses their iPhones just for making calls, texting, and email. You can do all those things on a feature phone. But I'm not an idiot to call those feature phones.
my Moto V3 could download apps too. Go back and check.
They can't install anything they can't run. In fact they won't even see apps they can't run. * So you really are making it up as you go along. Well just continue on then. No reason to for me to continue trying to have an honest discussion with someone having an imaginary moment.
*unless the user has rooted and spoofed their device to appear as another higher-end one (exceedingly rare IMO), something a buyer of $50 phones would have no reason to do.
No, I am not making things up. There is a difference between "technically can run" which means they can install it or not, and "practically can't run" which means it "runs" but the experience is not at all pleasant due to poor performance.
Comments
No, this is not a smartphone no matter how much you wish it was.
Stop spewing hot garbage.
Android phones are considered 'smart phones' no matter how much you wish it wasn't.
If they run Android, iOS, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, they are smart phones.
I'll say a smartphone can run apps and that is what seperates it from a feature phone which in general can only run stuff or features that came with the phone.
And that is how the majority of Android phones ARE. They come with older Android, they never get updated, and they can't reliably run a lot of the apps out there. NO MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO THINK, A LOT OF ANDROID PHONES ARE SMART PHONES IN NAME ONLY.
And those phones usage patterns are also in the feature phone usage case.
Just because it runs Android does not mean it is really a smart phone. Get over it. That is the truth.
Go look at most of the white box $49-$99 or so class of white box Android. Those are feature phone class phones. They run old, never updated Android and don't reliably run many apps you download on them and the users of them don't download apps anyway. Same goes for the low end "good enough carrier friendly" name brand phones.
There are lots of smartphones that run Android, but not all Android phones are smartphones except in name only.
Ah, the slippery undefined feature phone claim. Gotcha. Well I guess technically you couldn't be wrong as everyone gets to make up their own definition of what a smartphone feature-phone is.
Nothing slippery. I gave one definition already, and others will have very similar definitions that vary in some details but not in the general gist of it.
Forget smart, that's not even a phone.
That was tried already. Nobody is going to continually spend money developing an OS for devices with low margins, and that few people will buy. That's why they went with Android.
It has been tried? Really? Show me. Again, show me one such device. Most all the devices you have shown are 5 (give or take) year old plus old style feature phones (flip, brick, etc).
The reason they went with Android is two reasons: they got it for free, and they could ride the Android bus for free (in terms of mindshare). They are making feature phones with Android. They could convince people, through marketing, that because if has Android that the people have a so-called "smart phone" when in reality they have a feature phone that uses Android. Not because it is the best solution, but because they are bottom feeder companies that like the word "free" and don't care if they lie to the customer.
Forget smart, that's not even a phone.
This is not one either:
http://www.tmart.com/M-HORSE-S4-Mini-4.0-256-256MB-SC6820-Single-Core-1.0GHz-Android-2.3-Bar-Smartphone-US-Standard-Blue_p280961.html
And you claim those and their brethren make up the majority of Android phones sold? it doesn't look like even one of those has ever sold.
And you claim those and their brethren make up the majority of Android phones sold? it doesn't look like even one of those has ever sold.
There are a quadrillion of this sort of phone sold in 3rd world countries. This model is just representative. Where do you think all those millions of Android activations come from? They are not Samsung Galaxy or HTC or LG or Moto or equivalent type smart phones. The sales of ALL of those ones I just listed are less than what Apple sells in iPhones and yet the Android activations are a few times the iPhone if you believe Google and company.
It is this type of cheap low end Android feature phone that makes up the bulk of the activations. (that and "Android PC" type devices and Android based TV sticks and stuff).
Do you just make it up as you go along or actually make sure your claims are grounded in fact with some at least semi-reliable citations?
You realize that if a phone can't use Google Play then it's not included in their numbers right?
...and further a phone that can connect to Google Play for apps would then by definition be a, wait for it. . . Smartphone. :smokey:
Do you just make it up as you go along or actually make sure your claims are grounded in fact with some at least semi-reliable citations?
No, I am not making this up. There are lots of studies out there.
But tell me, if the so-called "premium smart phones" total sales are less than the iPhones, yet the Android market share is 2-3 times that of iOS, where and what sort of devices make up the difference? Pray tell.
You really think it's a good idea for a company to spend R&D dollars designing a device, designing a new OS, and then spend tons more on marketing for a low margin device that the carriers will put on display in the back of the store, because they'd rather have their customers sign up for smartphone plans?
Long gone are the days of people being content with just sending texts, and making phone calls. People want to post of FB, they want to tweet, they want to take pics/videos and post them on IG/Vine. Even my 8 yr old son records videos using Hyperlapse, and uploads them to YouTube with his iPod. What kind of phone do you think he's going to want when it's time to get him one?
Edit: Btw very few companies set out to be bottom feeders.
You realize that if a phone can't use Google Play then it's not included in their numbers right?
...and further a phone that can connect to Google Play for apps would then by definition be a, wait for it. . . Smartphone.
No, just because they install Google Apps including play does not mean they can actually run the apps in Google play. There are lots of devices that have been shown to install Google Play that get counted that cannot even access Google Play for real to download. There was a case I read about of a no name TV stick that installed Google Play and activated but had no UI to even download or run an app.
And not all marketshare numbers rely on the Google activation numbers.
You really think it's a good idea for a company to spend R&D dollars designing a device, designing a new OS, and then spend tons more on marketing for a low margin device that the carriers will put on display in the back of the store, because they'd rather have their customers sign up for smartphone plans?
Long gone are the days of people being content with just sending texts, and making phone calls. People want to post of FB, they want to tweet, they want to take pics/videos and post them on IG/Vine. Even my 8 yr old son records videos using Hyperlapse, and uploads them to YouTube with his iPod. What kind of phone do you think he's going to want when it's time to get him one?
Nothing says a feature phone cannot have built in twitter or Facebook. Many of the Android based feature phones may include that sort of thing.
And a feature phone would still need a data plan so the carriers don't care. Right now they call it a smart phone, even when it is not really, and sell the plan. Around the world, the carriers are already selling Android based feature phones and the carriers are happy.
Anyway, I've got to get back to work. I'll check back in on this discussion tonight.
They can't install anything they can't run. In fact they won't even see apps they can't run. * So you really are making it up as you go along. Well just continue on then. No reason to for me to continue trying to have an honest discussion with someone having an imaginary moment.
*unless the user has rooted and spoofed their device to appear as another higher-end one (exceedingly rare IMO), something a buyer of $50 phones would have no reason to do.
Ok, so modern design, old components, runs FB, and Twitter, needs data plan, and doesn't run Android?
Ohhh I know, the iPhone 4
Exactly, which is why the statement, "If it runs Android is a smartphone," it's stupid.
They can't install anything they can't run. In fact they won't even see apps they can't run. * So you really are making it up as you go along. Well just continue on then. No reason to for me to continue trying to have an honest discussion with someone having an imaginary moment.
*unless the user has rooted and spoofed their device to appear as another higher-end one (exceedingly rare IMO), something a buyer of $50 phones would have no reason to do.
No, I am not making things up. There is a difference between "technically can run" which means they can install it or not, and "practically can't run" which means it "runs" but the experience is not at all pleasant due to poor performance.