Except that @chadbag wants a 'modern day design' which probably means a metal body, and he wants a good camera, etc, etc... Building such a phone would probably end up costing more than it does making a smartphone, so it being cheap goes out the window.
If they can make el-cheapo Android phones with decent camera etc they can make a decent modern design "feature phone" for the same cost. Take the same basic Android feature phone HW and put a modern feature phone oriented OS/software suite on it. Much simpler and probably a lot more performant... And see how it does.
Right, but I can have my iPhone stolen and not be worried about the thief bypassing the biometric by using the magnetic swipe. With that card you can't do that which makes it pointless for security. It's akin to setting up a secure login but then letting everyone know you can get the same access without any password.
Ah I see your point now. Duh!
Not sure how Mastercard will cover that, tho its in their own interest to do so obviously. I would imagine they've considered that scenario but maybe they're just all bout convenience. Dunno.
No, they didn't and didn't, because such a thing does not exist yet. Old style feature phones (flip, slab, etc) lost. Not a hypothetical new generation of more modern design and ease of use.
You still have yet to define 'modern design'. No manufacturer is going to spend money on designing something that people don't want anymore.
If they can make el-cheapo Android phones with decent camera etc they can make a decent modern design "feature phone" for the same cost. Take the same basic Android feature phone HW and put a modern feature phone oriented OS/software suite on it. Much simpler and probably a lot more performant... And see how it does.
I already gave an example of how this might happen (government subsidies to prevent e-waste) so that we could move beyond it and consider something about consumer rationale related to this article. But I guess people would rather argue the details than see the point.
Would you take a horse and buggy if there were incentives offered to do so, or would you buy a inexpensive car instead? Or would you buy a CRT TV if there were incentives, or a inexpensive LCD/LED? You're asking a question that has already been answered. The incentives to buy a feature phone already exist, cheap phone, and cheap plan, and everyday people choose not to take it.
NO ONE WANTS FEATURE PHONES ANY MORE. PERIOD. WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
The cat is out of the bag.
People are not going back to VHS no matter how cheap it is.
People are not going back to horse and buggy no matter how cheap it is.
People are not going back to Polaroid camera's no matter how cheap it is.
People are not going back to FEATURE PHONES no matter how cheap it is.
Also, those finger print scanners haven't even been stress tested in the real use but only claimed by manufacturers of these phones, yup Chinese manufacturers...( very trustworthy? Not).
Also, those finger print scanners haven't even been stress tested in the real use but only claimed by manufacturers of these phones, yup Chinese manufacturers...( very trustworthy? Not).
Are you saying the Touch ID sensor hasn't been stress tested?
NO ONE WANTS FEATURE PHONES ANY MORE. PERIOD. WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
.
.
.
People are not going back to FEATURE PHONES no matter how cheap it is.
This is demonstrably wrong. The majority of the Android phones out there are in the feature phone class. So a lot of people are buying something that no one wants.
You could take one of these low end Android phones, put 512MB of RAM and a 800mhz ARM processor instead of the 1.2-1.4 dual or quad core, and a speciality-built feature phone OS on it and have much better performance, all the same functionality that these Android based feature phones have, and probably make more profit than you do now as you don't need all the beefiness that you need to make Android work. Low end Android based feature phones run the same spec level of HW as an iPhone 5 or so, because Android is so wasteful and piggish in its needs. You could have lower HW costs and a better experience for the user without Android running your feature phone class phones.
And Android itself probably would benefit from no longer being the OS for feature phones as that devalues and pushes down prices on the higher end Android stuff as it competes with itself.
This is demonstrably wrong. The majority of the Android phones out there are in the feature phone class. So a lot of people are buying something that no one wants.
You could take one of these low end Android phones, put 512MB of RAM and a 800mhz ARM processor instead of the 1.2-1.4 dual or quad core, and a speciality-built feature phone OS on it and have much better performance, all the same functionality that these Android based feature phones have, and probably make more profit than you do now as you don't need all the beefiness that you need to make Android work. Low end Android based feature phones run the same spec level of HW as an iPhone 5 or so, because Android is so wasteful and piggish in its needs. You could have lower HW costs and a better experience for the user without Android running your feature phone class phones.
And Android itself probably would benefit from no longer being the OS for feature phones as that devalues and pushes down prices on the higher end Android stuff as it competes with itself.
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.
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.
Tizen, WinPh, and BBOS are all for devices with low margins that few people buy.
This is demonstrably wrong. The majority of the Android phones out there are in the feature phone class.
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.
Comments
Except that @chadbag wants a 'modern day design' which probably means a metal body, and he wants a good camera, etc, etc... Building such a phone would probably end up costing more than it does making a smartphone, so it being cheap goes out the window.
If they can make el-cheapo Android phones with decent camera etc they can make a decent modern design "feature phone" for the same cost. Take the same basic Android feature phone HW and put a modern feature phone oriented OS/software suite on it. Much simpler and probably a lot more performant... And see how it does.
Ah I see your point now. Duh!
Not sure how Mastercard will cover that, tho its in their own interest to do so obviously. I would imagine they've considered that scenario but maybe they're just all bout convenience. Dunno.
Blackberry?
Aren't the modern Blackberry devices more in the smartphone camp?
You still have yet to define 'modern design'. No manufacturer is going to spend money on designing something that people don't want anymore.
Take a look through these.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/Class/Feature/page/2/sort/revrating
Would you take a horse and buggy if there were incentives offered to do so, or would you buy a inexpensive car instead? Or would you buy a CRT TV if there were incentives, or a inexpensive LCD/LED? You're asking a question that has already been answered. The incentives to buy a feature phone already exist, cheap phone, and cheap plan, and everyday people choose not to take it.
You still have yet to define 'modern design'. No manufacturer is going to spend money on designing something that people don't want anymore.
Modern design can be a lot of different things. Look at the "smart phone" and "android feature phone" for inspiration.
You claim no body wants these. No one makes a modern non Android feature phone so we don't know.
Edit. How's this one?
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/LG-New-Chocolate-BL40_id3859/photos
They competed against Android already, and they lost.
No one has made one yet, so how can they have lost?
The old clunky flip phone feature phones and stuff lost.
Did you look through the feature phones I sent you? I think there are some that fit your description.
Edit. How's this one?
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/LG-New-Chocolate-BL40_id3859/photos
Dude, that is like 5 years old.
I know. I'm considering it's overall design. It's not a clunky flip phone.
Based on how I define a smartphone Android activation numbers would be a fraction of what they are if not for the sale of feature phones.
Are you saying the Touch ID sensor hasn't been stress tested?
FOR THE LAST TIME.
NO ONE WANTS FEATURE PHONES ANY MORE. PERIOD. WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
.
.
.
People are not going back to FEATURE PHONES no matter how cheap it is.
This is demonstrably wrong. The majority of the Android phones out there are in the feature phone class. So a lot of people are buying something that no one wants.
You could take one of these low end Android phones, put 512MB of RAM and a 800mhz ARM processor instead of the 1.2-1.4 dual or quad core, and a speciality-built feature phone OS on it and have much better performance, all the same functionality that these Android based feature phones have, and probably make more profit than you do now as you don't need all the beefiness that you need to make Android work. Low end Android based feature phones run the same spec level of HW as an iPhone 5 or so, because Android is so wasteful and piggish in its needs. You could have lower HW costs and a better experience for the user without Android running your feature phone class phones.
And Android itself probably would benefit from no longer being the OS for feature phones as that devalues and pushes down prices on the higher end Android stuff as it competes with itself.
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.
Tizen, WinPh, and BBOS are all for devices with low margins that few people buy.
Lol, but while that's true they weren't developed specifically for low margin devices.
Neither was Symbian but that's where it ended up.
Seriously though, I know exactly what you mean.
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.