Why LOL? Because it's gotta have an OS and who is going to spend time and resources creating and maintaining one that's 'old school" with limited usefulness?
The OS does not matter in a feature phone. There are plenty of systems that could be used to base a phone on, I am sure. Probably some in the labs of the big boys.
Why LOL? Because it's gotta have an OS and who is going to spend time and resources creating and maintaining one that's 'old school" with limited usefulness?
Google took 7 years for Android to be a decent OS. Imagine how long it would take to develop bio. Worse is the fact that 90% of Android phones of cheap POS and most won't want to pay $50 extra for biometric feature.
They can copy right? That means they don't have to spend 7 years for R&D just like what they've been doing.
The OS does not matter in a feature phone. There are plenty of systems that could be used to base a phone on, I am sure. Probably some in the labs of the big boys.
I don't think you get it. Kyocera has a proprietary OS just for their own feature phones. Ever hear of either of these:
Kyocera Dura
Kyocera Kona
I thought not, tho they're said to be two of the best feature phones available.
How about a Samsung Entro. That's no doubt been a best-seller since it's also of of the top-rated dumbphones this year.
I've been paying attention to the industry, and I cannot recall one. So, please show me one. A modern design feature phone level phone that is not a want-to-be smart phone.
All the manufacturers jumped ship to Android for the feature phone level phones, thinking they could fool people into thinking they now have a smart phone.
What has changed that makes you think that people would go back to a feature phone? Manufacturers stop making them because people stopped buying them.
I don't think you get it. Kyocera has a proprietary OS just for their own feature phones. Ever hear of either of these:
Kyocera Dura
Kyocera Kona
I thought not, tho they're said to be two of the best feature phones available.
How about a Samsung Entro. That's no doubt been a best-seller since it's also of of the top-rated dumbphones this year.
please, what is your point? I have not a clue what you are trying to say. And none of those phones look like a modern design. They look like tired old phone designs from 10 years ago (hardware).
And btw, the Hydro, in your original post, is an Android phone.
There's some confusion about my argument here. It's this:
If you gave financial incentives for someone to choose a dumb phone over a free smart phone, how many would opt for it?
We're talking about whether money is a bigger factor than features. Regardless of whatever philosophy you think people may have about moving from a dumb phone to a smart phone, supply/demand, whatever.
Android enters into the equation here because the vast majority of the Android phone market is in low-end devices. But obviously there are free iPhones too (older gen models).
What has changed that makes you think that people would go back to a feature phone? Manufacturers stop making them because people stopped buying them.
Manufacturers have not stopped making them. They just use Android and make people think they are buying a smart phone. They have the same functionality and the same usage patterns as previous feature phone class phones. Just because they run Android does not mean they are a smart phone.
The discussion is about feature phones. Nothing to do with Android.
It has EVERYTHING to do with Android, as low end Android phones fill the same niche and usage pattern as the old "feature phone" class of phones did. They are the new "feature phones."
The question is, a phone that fulfills the exact same set of features as the dumb Android phones, for the same user usage pattern, in a modern design, would be successful.
please, what is your point? I have not a clue what you are trying to say. And none of those phones look like a modern design. They look like tired old phone designs from 10 years ago (hardware).
And btw, the Hydro, in your original post, is an Android phone.
Then please define 'modern design'. Nobody is going to reimagine the feature phone, because it's simply not cost effective.
Manufacturers have not stopped making them. They just use Android and make people think they are buying a smart phone. They have the same functionality and the same usage patterns as previous feature phone class phones. Just because they run Android does not mean they are a smart phone.
What makes them NOT smartphones if they run Android? Just because the customer doesn't use them as such does not mean they can't.
Example: The son-in-law I mentioned earlier has the most basic mobile plan he could get for his free iPhone. Lacking a wi-fi connection at his home and very limited data how "smart" is his iPhone? Close to if not just as smart as yours, just not used as such. So for all intents tho according to you he has an Apple dumbphone?
It has EVERYTHING to do with Android, as low end Android phones fill the same niche and usage pattern as the old "feature phone" class of phones did. They are the new "feature phones."
The question is, a phone that fulfills the exact same set of features as the dumb Android phones, for the same user usage pattern, in a modern design, would be successful.
We're beyond that, and now discussing a new feature phone that doesn't need a smartphone OS.
We're beyond that, and now discussing a new feature phone that doesn't need a smartphone OS.
Did you read my "question is" part I wrote? The Android is involved as the current batch of feature phone replacements that such a mythical beast as you described (and I described) would have to compete against them.
What makes them NOT smartphones if they run Android? Just because the customer doesn't use them as such does not mean they can't.
Example: The son-in-law I mentioned earlier has the most basic mobile plan he could get for his free iPhone. Lacking a wi-fi connection at his home and very limited data how "smart" is his iPhone? Close to if not just as smart as yours, just not used as such. So for all intents tho according to you he has an Apple dumbphone?
This was answered in an other thread.
Quote:
Look at what Samsung calls "premium smart phones" and that would probably encompass the "real smart phone"
But, probably a few things like:
• launch with and can be updated to the latest or relatively recent version of the OS
• regularly updated OS
• enough horse power to run common apps of the platform across genres (including entertainment/games)
Quote:
I would think the Note 4 would be considered a smartphone (and by Samsung as a "premium smart phone." The idea is all the white box Android devices selling for $50-$100 with dual core 1.0/1.2ghz ARM cpus and 512MB RAM or maybe 1GB RAM which cannot run didly squat, which come with Android 4.0 or 4.1, never get upgraded, and are feature phone replacements. And Samsung has a lot of similar devices, especially in less developed regions like that too.
There's some confusion about my argument here. It's this:
If you gave financial incentives for someone to choose a dumb phone over a free smart phone, how many would opt for it?
We're talking about whether money is a bigger factor than features. Regardless of whatever philosophy you think people may have about moving from a dumb phone to a smart phone, supply/demand, whatever.
Android enters into the equation here because the vast majority of the Android phone market is in low-end devices. But obviously there are free iPhones too (older gen models).
What financial incentives? Are the carriers now going to pay people to take a feature phone on plans that earn them less money?
Apple bought Authentech which has a deadlock on the TouchID tech hardware and software.
Google would need to build it from the ground up.
The TouchID tech is so cutting edge that many experts in the field refused to believe it was possible just a few weeks before release.
I would agree on Touch ID. It's just god damn good that puts any biometric form in a mobile device out there to shame. It looks like Apple Pay with Touch ID will rule mobile NFC payments until someone can come up with something similar and easy to use.
What about others license Touch ID from Apple? Let's forget about saving face. Would Apple do that?
Comments
Why LOL? Because it's gotta have an OS and who is going to spend time and resources creating and maintaining one that's 'old school" with limited usefulness?
The OS does not matter in a feature phone. There are plenty of systems that could be used to base a phone on, I am sure. Probably some in the labs of the big boys.
Why LOL? Because it's gotta have an OS and who is going to spend time and resources creating and maintaining one that's 'old school" with limited usefulness?
There're 2 categories android phones: Smart (premium) android and Dumb (junk) android.
You make it sound like thats so easily.
Google took 7 years for Android to be a decent OS. Imagine how long it would take to develop bio. Worse is the fact that 90% of Android phones of cheap POS and most won't want to pay $50 extra for biometric feature.
They can copy right? That means they don't have to spend 7 years for R&D just like what they've been doing.
I don't think you get it. Kyocera has a proprietary OS just for their own feature phones. Ever hear of either of these:
Kyocera Dura
Kyocera Kona
I thought not, tho they're said to be two of the best feature phones available.
How about a Samsung Entro. That's no doubt been a best-seller since it's also of of the top-rated dumbphones this year.
What has changed that makes you think that people would go back to a feature phone? Manufacturers stop making them because people stopped buying them.
I don't think you get it. Kyocera has a proprietary OS just for their own feature phones. Ever hear of either of these:
Kyocera Dura
Kyocera Kona
I thought not, tho they're said to be two of the best feature phones available.
How about a Samsung Entro. That's no doubt been a best-seller since it's also of of the top-rated dumbphones this year.
please, what is your point? I have not a clue what you are trying to say. And none of those phones look like a modern design. They look like tired old phone designs from 10 years ago (hardware).
And btw, the Hydro, in your original post, is an Android phone.
The discussion is about feature phones. Nothing to do with Android.
There's some confusion about my argument here. It's this:
If you gave financial incentives for someone to choose a dumb phone over a free smart phone, how many would opt for it?
We're talking about whether money is a bigger factor than features. Regardless of whatever philosophy you think people may have about moving from a dumb phone to a smart phone, supply/demand, whatever.
Android enters into the equation here because the vast majority of the Android phone market is in low-end devices. But obviously there are free iPhones too (older gen models).
What has changed that makes you think that people would go back to a feature phone? Manufacturers stop making them because people stopped buying them.
Manufacturers have not stopped making them. They just use Android and make people think they are buying a smart phone. They have the same functionality and the same usage patterns as previous feature phone class phones. Just because they run Android does not mean they are a smart phone.
The discussion is about feature phones. Nothing to do with Android.
It has EVERYTHING to do with Android, as low end Android phones fill the same niche and usage pattern as the old "feature phone" class of phones did. They are the new "feature phones."
The question is, a phone that fulfills the exact same set of features as the dumb Android phones, for the same user usage pattern, in a modern design, would be successful.
Then please define 'modern design'. Nobody is going to reimagine the feature phone, because it's simply not cost effective.
What makes them NOT smartphones if they run Android? Just because the customer doesn't use them as such does not mean they can't.
Example: The son-in-law I mentioned earlier has the most basic mobile plan he could get for his free iPhone. Lacking a wi-fi connection at his home and very limited data how "smart" is his iPhone? Close to if not just as smart as yours, just not used as such. So for all intents tho according to you he has an Apple dumbphone?
We're beyond that, and now discussing a new feature phone that doesn't need a smartphone OS.
We're beyond that, and now discussing a new feature phone that doesn't need a smartphone OS.
Did you read my "question is" part I wrote? The Android is involved as the current batch of feature phone replacements that such a mythical beast as you described (and I described) would have to compete against them.
What makes them NOT smartphones if they run Android? Just because the customer doesn't use them as such does not mean they can't.
Example: The son-in-law I mentioned earlier has the most basic mobile plan he could get for his free iPhone. Lacking a wi-fi connection at his home and very limited data how "smart" is his iPhone? Close to if not just as smart as yours, just not used as such. So for all intents tho according to you he has an Apple dumbphone?
This was answered in an other thread.
Look at what Samsung calls "premium smart phones" and that would probably encompass the "real smart phone"
But, probably a few things like:
• launch with and can be updated to the latest or relatively recent version of the OS
• regularly updated OS
• enough horse power to run common apps of the platform across genres (including entertainment/games)
I would think the Note 4 would be considered a smartphone (and by Samsung as a "premium smart phone." The idea is all the white box Android devices selling for $50-$100 with dual core 1.0/1.2ghz ARM cpus and 512MB RAM or maybe 1GB RAM which cannot run didly squat, which come with Android 4.0 or 4.1, never get upgraded, and are feature phone replacements. And Samsung has a lot of similar devices, especially in less developed regions like that too.
from: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/183072/iphone-6-6-plus-preorders-outpace-galaxy-note-4-in-samsungs-home-country-of-south-korea/40#post_2631327
What financial incentives? Are the carriers now going to pay people to take a feature phone on plans that earn them less money?
Synaptics?
IDEX?
EDIT: Here's yet another, CrucialTec. You're welcome
*crickets*
No they can't
Apple bought Authentech which has a deadlock on the TouchID tech hardware and software.
Google would need to build it from the ground up.
The TouchID tech is so cutting edge that many experts in the field refused to believe it was possible just a few weeks before release.
I would agree on Touch ID. It's just god damn good that puts any biometric form in a mobile device out there to shame. It looks like Apple Pay with Touch ID will rule mobile NFC payments until someone can come up with something similar and easy to use.
What about others license Touch ID from Apple? Let's forget about saving face. Would Apple do that?
FPC?
LOL...