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.
There are phones that are technically able to download apps, but have such poor specs that they can not reliably, with any sort of user experience, run them. Those are not real smart phones. Low end Android phones are not real smart phones. They are feature phones that run Android. They are marketed as smart phones but are not really able to provide the smart phone experience.
My "idiotic" reasoning does not lead to many iPhones not being smart phones. I did not say it is ONLY dependent on the use of the phone. It is a combination of the capabilities of the phone and what it is intended for. All iPhones are intended to have downloadable apps, for example, and can run them reasonably well. Not all Android phones are intended to support downloadable apps in a positive experience way, even if technically Android can install such apps, since the performance of the device is so low that it cannot meaningfully do the job. I posted an example of such a phone that I expect would fall into that category. From memory, 256MB memory, way low end ARM processor, old version of Android without any updates provided.
There are phones that are technically able to download apps, but have such poor specs that they can not reliably, with any sort of user experience, run them. Those are not real smart phones. Low end Android phones are not real smart phones. They are feature phones that run Android. They are marketed as smart phones but are not really able to provide the smart phone experience.
My "idiotic" reasoning does not lead to many iPhones not being smart phones. I did not say it is ONLY dependent on the use of the phone. It is a combination of the capabilities of the phone and what it is intended for. All iPhones are intended to have downloadable apps, for example, and can run them reasonably well. Not all Android phones are intended to support downloadable apps in a positive experience way, even if technically Android can install such apps, since the performance of the device is so low that it cannot meaningfully do the job. I posted an example of such a phone that I expect would fall into that category. From memory, 256MB memory, way low end ARM processor, old version of Android without any updates provided.
Do you consider the first iPhone a smartphone? If yes, why? It couldn't run apps.
Then what do you consider a 800mhz ARM processor if not old?
Depends on the processor. An 800mhz processor from several years ago is old. Not all current ARM processors run at 2+ ghz speeds. There are also current model processor made for various purposes that run at slower speeds. Things besides Android use ARM processors.
Do you consider the first iPhone a smartphone? If yes, why? It couldn't run apps.
I was replying to someone who claimed that if it downloaded apps, and a couple of other things, made it a smartphone. In fact, that very thought about the original iPhone came to my mind when I read his claim.
Personally I would say that the definition of smartphone evolves with the technology.
Personally I would say that the definition of smartphone evolves with the technology.
Remember when a smartphone had to have a full QWERTY keyboard? It wasn't until Google changed up Android and started released "smartphones" that many had to finally accept the iPhone was a smartphone.
I was replying to someone who claimed that if it downloaded apps, and a couple of other things, made it a smartphone. In fact, that very thought about the original iPhone came to my mind when I read his claim.
Personally I would say that the definition of smartphone evolves with the technology.
Then what do you consider a 800mhz ARM processor if not old?
Why are you still wasting your time? Chadbag obviously decided that something was true, period, and made a silly statement framed as fact. instead of opinion. Since then he has been moving around his puzzle pieces to create whatever fantasy picture he needs for whatever question gets posed to him. Just let it be. The justification for his position makes less and less sense the longer it goes on.
Remember when a smartphone had to have a full QWERTY keyboard? It wasn't until Google changed up Android and started released "smartphones" that many had to finally accept the iPhone was a smartphone.
You mean a physical keyboard? I don't recall that ever being a requirement. I always considered the iPhone to be a smartphone.
Why are you still wasting your time? He obviously decided that something was true, period, and made a silly statement framed as fact. Since then he has been moving around his puzzle pieces to create whatever fantasy picture he needs for whatever question gets posed to him. Just let it be. The justification for his position makes less and less sense the longer it goes on.
Why are you still wasting your time? Chadbag obviously decided that something was true, period, and made a silly statement framed as fact. Since then he has been moving around his puzzle pieces to create whatever fantasy picture he needs for whatever question gets posed to him. Just let it be. The justification for his position makes less and less sense the longer it goes on.
What load of horse crap. I have not moved any puzzle pieces around. You and a few others are the ones that have made up their minds and have no capability to look at things critically.
Technology changes, so the definition of a current smartphone (current models, not old models someone still have in their drawer or dresser top [where my original iPhone is]) will change with that technology. Not so hard to understand.
Of course that's correct, but even if one wants to say that the iPhone wasn't a smartphone then it was in 2008 when the App Store launched, right?
I always considered it as one even before the App Store. I don't think that old smartphones lose that designation because the new ones do so much more. A Ford Model T is still a automobile even though it barely resembles cars of today.
Technology changes, so the definition of a current smartphone (current models, not old models someone still have in their drawer or dresser top [where my original iPhone is]) will change with that technology. Not so hard to understand.
The definition doesn’t change because technology does. See my Model T example above.
What load of horse crap. I have not moved any puzzle pieces around. You and a few others are the ones that have made up their minds and have no capability to look at things critically.
I have looked at things critically, and if what you suggest had the possibility of be profitable then someone would have done it already. There's a reason they're in the cell phone making business and you are not. These companies are having a hard enough time going forward, if they decide to go back then they’re effectively done.
Comments
Ok, so modern design, old components, runs FB, and Twitter, needs data plan, and doesn't run Android?
Ohhh I know, the iPhone 4
Ah, how witty.
No one said it had to have "old" components, but it does not need the most beefy components.
You are wrong.
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.
There are phones that are technically able to download apps, but have such poor specs that they can not reliably, with any sort of user experience, run them. Those are not real smart phones. Low end Android phones are not real smart phones. They are feature phones that run Android. They are marketed as smart phones but are not really able to provide the smart phone experience.
My "idiotic" reasoning does not lead to many iPhones not being smart phones. I did not say it is ONLY dependent on the use of the phone. It is a combination of the capabilities of the phone and what it is intended for. All iPhones are intended to have downloadable apps, for example, and can run them reasonably well. Not all Android phones are intended to support downloadable apps in a positive experience way, even if technically Android can install such apps, since the performance of the device is so low that it cannot meaningfully do the job. I posted an example of such a phone that I expect would fall into that category. From memory, 256MB memory, way low end ARM processor, old version of Android without any updates provided.
Then what do you consider a 800mhz ARM processor if not old?
Do you consider the first iPhone a smartphone? If yes, why? It couldn't run apps.
Then what do you consider a 800mhz ARM processor if not old?
Depends on the processor. An 800mhz processor from several years ago is old. Not all current ARM processors run at 2+ ghz speeds. There are also current model processor made for various purposes that run at slower speeds. Things besides Android use ARM processors.
Sure it could. Steve Jobs famously repeated three of its apps over and over as part of the reveal.
Do you consider the first iPhone a smartphone? If yes, why? It couldn't run apps.
I was replying to someone who claimed that if it downloaded apps, and a couple of other things, made it a smartphone. In fact, that very thought about the original iPhone came to my mind when I read his claim.
Personally I would say that the definition of smartphone evolves with the technology.
I stand corrected, but there were no other apps besides the stock ones. Or am I wrong yet again?
Remember when a smartphone had to have a full QWERTY keyboard? It wasn't until Google changed up Android and started released "smartphones" that many had to finally accept the iPhone was a smartphone.
If once a smartphone then always a smartphone.
Of course that's correct, but even if one wants to say that the iPhone wasn't a smartphone then it was in 2008 when the App Store launched, right?
You mean a physical keyboard? I don't recall that ever being a requirement. I always considered the iPhone to be a smartphone.
Why are you still wasting your time? Chadbag obviously decided that something was true, period, and made a silly statement framed as fact. Since then he has been moving around his puzzle pieces to create whatever fantasy picture he needs for whatever question gets posed to him. Just let it be. The justification for his position makes less and less sense the longer it goes on.
What load of horse crap. I have not moved any puzzle pieces around. You and a few others are the ones that have made up their minds and have no capability to look at things critically.
If once a smartphone then always a smartphone.
What does that mean?
Technology changes, so the definition of a current smartphone (current models, not old models someone still have in their drawer or dresser top [where my original iPhone is]) will change with that technology. Not so hard to understand.
I always considered it as one even before the App Store. I don't think that old smartphones lose that designation because the new ones do so much more. A Ford Model T is still a automobile even though it barely resembles cars of today.
The definition doesn’t change because technology does. See my Model T example above.
I have looked at things critically, and if what you suggest had the possibility of be profitable then someone would have done it already. There's a reason they're in the cell phone making business and you are not. These companies are having a hard enough time going forward, if they decide to go back then they’re effectively done.