<strong>There is a fallacy here, I think, between speculating whether iPhone will be an iApp or hardware.So here's my idea:
Right after the iPod was released, it was noted that the 1/8" plug was deeper than the standard variety, allowing Apple to send additional information through that wire. I've read that the actual working bits of a cellphone could fit on a fingernail. So, put the working bits in the iPod. Now, sell a headset with a mic' whose jack fits all the way into the iPod's plug. iPod now knows it can make phone calls. So you use the scroll wheel to find the person you want to call, and call them. The hardware and software interface to the iPod is no more complex, and the headgear is not significantly more complicated. This would, I think, handle the majority of what people actually want out of a cell phone, except that it would be much easier to learn and to use. And it would also play MP3s.
Thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have an iPod but played with one briefly at the Apple store. So what if you wanted to call someone not in your files? Where's the key pad? It would need a key pad to be successful as a phone I believe. It would need more buttons, talk, end, hold, mute, redial, add to memory, etc. So I think the current deisng is too limited and would have to be re-worked. Also, what you describe is like a headless phone, or an ipod that can take calls. Just doesn't sound that exciting. I think if it is hardware, it would be something else. Something that would make the iPod more of a comminication device then strictly an mp3 player with some address features. Also, I think the OS would need to be expanded. Even so, I think I'd pass and get some of the new Sprint phones with color displays, cameras, video, games, etc. $250 for a sprint phone or $500 for an iPod that I have to fumble with a headset and scroll wheel to place or take a call? I don't think that's the way to go. I think that's the 'too simple' approach. Apple would need to have another 'wow, I never thought of that' in order to be a success.
I don't have an iPod but played with one briefly at the Apple store.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have a cell phone or an iPod - although I've also played with one at an Apple Store - so there's a good chance that my idea is horribly wrong. But then, one of the things that has consistently put me off of cell phones is the prospect of poking endlessly at obscure buttons in order to get them to do anything more complicated than call the number I just punched in. As it stands, and notwithstanding their popularity, they're a case study in poor UE. And the UE seems to get worse the more you spend, as the feature list grows but the hardware interface remains unchanged.
[quote]<strong>So what if you wanted to call someone not in your files? Where's the key pad? It would need a key pad to be successful as a phone I believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In that case you would be looking at different hardware, since a keypad on the iPod makes no sense. On the other hand, the keypad would only be use for what it was designed for. I was going off assertions by people in Digital Hub that they mostly only called from their contacts list anyway; to the extent that people currently don't, it might be because it's a royal PITA to enter people into the average cell phone's contact list. Phone keypads were never meant to handle that sort of thing, and it shows. Using Address Book, OTOH, is a cinch.
As for fumbling with the headset: You have to do that with the iPod anyway. Presumably, if you have an iPod on you, you're already wearing the headset.
No "add to memory" is necessary, and the iPod's current wheel and buttons can handle most of the other functions you cite. This is strictly a retrieval device, like the iPod. Remember: Simple. If you want more, get one of the fancy phones, and wrestle with the significant increase in the complexity of operating the thing.
As for originality, I don't think anyone else has thought of anything like this. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know. But it would certainly get people saying "I'd never imagined that!"
<strong>yeah, apple had two patents/things from Pixo, one for iPod, and the other, it seems, for the iPhone.... the iPhone is not a video/audio conferencing app</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did you get this tidbit from?
Apple's agreement with Pixo was to license their software for two devices, one the iPod, the second one as yet unspecified. It seems likely that it would be the iPhone if the iPhone is indeed coming soon. Then again it could be something else entirely.
And Amorph, I do agree with you in principle, but I don't agree with the iPhone being a hack onto the iPod. Seems kind of inelegant, don't you think? However, if one were to apply the basic principles of the iPod to a mobile phone device, things could get a lot more fun. Instead of fussing with obscure functions on a mobile phone, control it from your Mac if you happen to be on it at the moment. Say you're chatting with a friend on iChat and decide to start up a conversation over the phone.. click a button and your phone rings her up.
By the way (this is tangentially related), why is Apple working with Cingular anyway? What Steve discussed at the last MacWorld had to do with client-to-client solutions only... Mac to phone, phone to Mac. Cingular would have nothing to do with that. I think Apple may be working with Cingular to provide .Mac services over phones. Publish your iCal calendar to .Mac and view it on a phone. This way no having to view a static calendar on an iPod.. you can actually edit your schedule on your phone and your calendar will automatically update on the web.
The iPod will remain a dedicated device for music (and possibly video) and not be a multi-purpose digital player/recevier/computer/communicator. Apple is smart to know that keeping things relatively simple is the way to go. It keeps prices resonable and simplifies things for the consumer. Techies want complicated things. The general public does not. Think appliance.
Why don't they just make a thing where you spin the scroll wheel around to the number you want, then press ENTER, and then go to the next number
it is probably just as fast <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I don't see why an extension to the iPod would be that strange. It's like the car stereo adapter device.
But it would be sort of inelegant. And break with the etablished "phone paradigm" that people are used to, like the qwerty keyboard that make people type slower than optimal. If people can't find the little buttons with numbers on, they won't think its a phone... Then again, Apple users are of course better educated than the average..
If we combine Amorph and Nebaka's ideas, we come up with a very simple device that would give a much improved UE over the existing phones.
Why not throw in speech recognition there? Most current phones have some minimal speech recognition. Given the direction most states are headed to ban cell phone use while driving, speech recognition is a must.
<strong>The iPod will remain a dedicated device for music (and possibly video) and not be a multi-purpose digital player/recevier/computer/communicator. Apple is smart to know that keeping things relatively simple is the way to go. It keeps prices resonable and simplifies things for the consumer. Techies want complicated things. The general public does not. Think appliance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just hope that they make it so I can download pictures from my camera to my iPod, at least for storage, viewing is still possible on the camera before DL to the iPod. Viewing on the iPod would be nice (especially if they put one of those OLED screens in there)
iPod now knows it can make phone calls. So you use the scroll wheel to find the person you want to call, and call them. The hardware and software interface to the iPod is no more complex, and the headgear is not significantly more complicated.
Thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sony "invented" one handed operation long before Apple with the introduction of Jog-Dial.
And mobile phone interfaces to make just a call are not complex at all. However there needs to be an elegant solution for services like WAP provides. This is where Apple may jump in.
Sony "invented" one handed operation long before Apple with the introduction of Jog-Dial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did not claim that Apple had invented the idea, only that they already had an implementation that has proven to be extremely popular and general-purpose. The iPod needs only the most minimal extensions to its interface to work the way I want it to. It's about 95% there. There just needs to be a way to call a contact that you've brought up with the existing interface. If the contact has a number, a single press of a single button could accomplish that.
[quote]<strong>And mobile phone interfaces to make just a call are not complex at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said that. My complaint, explicitly, was with the use of the dialpads to e.g. maintain contact lists, and navigate through an interface. Obviously dialpads are just fine for dialing.
I said that. My complaint, explicitly, was with the use of the dialpads to e.g. maintain contact lists, and navigate through an interface. Obviously dialpads are just fine for dialing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I had no intension offending you. My language may sound harsh at times, because I'm not used to write in english.
What I meant is maybe better described like this: There is no need/advantage for Apple to shine with a simple interface, because it already exists in this market. There has to be more to catch attention.
The reason I don't see the iPod as a mobile phone also lies in it's form factor. Here in Switzerland mobile phones are called "handys". The iPod does not feel handy enough with it's "boxy" shape.
How plausible is it for the new iPods with trackpads to have points on the trackpad marked with numbers (as in the loony mockup earlier in this thread) and function as such? Wouldn't this get rid of the elementary data-input problem (i.e. dial a new number) needed with mobile phone technology?
personally, i hope this iPod/iPhone combined device doesn't happen unless the following two conditions are met:
the iPod is great for those long dreary plane trips. with mobile telephony included, it would preclude using it on a plane unless there was a virtual phone on/off functionality for just such an occasion (as well as the bluetooth).
the other caveat would be device size, the combo device would have to retain the iPods ciggy-box size which i'm not sure would be that feasible given how they have the current components squeezed tightly in there already.
but hey, i have a nokia 7650 and that's just too big (all you who are drooling over the SE p800, it's about the same dimensions...) yes girls size does matter
My 5 cents canadian (2 cents american) and since we are all guessing...
iPhone will be software/hardware. Much like iSync, only useful if you have the hardware.
Hardware will be airport enabled portable phone, possibly video (albeit small) enabled. Possibly bluetooth, most likely not. I can't see them utilizing a cell phone tech, unless it behaves like a Blackberry...
Software will enable connections to a normal phone line or tcp/ip packet switching on the internet, through (where else?) iphone.org. @mac account required. Users without the phone can use a microphone on the computer, maybe a webcam as well.
May use quicktime streaming for connections. Not likely unless both parties have compatable connection speeds. Doubtful if it would allow video confrencing... unless new formats for compression in real time are developed.
iPhone account will enable storage of messages, much like @mac. Compressed files are downloaded and played later.
I can't see Apple trying to totally reinvent the wheel with a cell phone. The ipod was a collection of already made items released in a unique package. Perhaps the most unique part of the whole being the use of firewire for download and power.
For them to take something simlar to a portable phone, incorporate a lowres camera (or newer?), the already existing airport/bluetooth and freeing you from long distance phone charges and phone cables... Well, that smacks of genuis to me... Find another use for technology which is already here, instead of inventing new tech from the ground up.
Now, if they could incorporate this in a format like the blackberry, where messages are stored elsewhere and relayed, and if those messages can include video... anywhere witin a digital broadcasting area... well, that would be icing on the cake.
Don't be too hard on criticising me... I just made this up...
Sorry, Amorph, I find it is a simple task to store new numbers into my mobile phone. For instance, I can store the number "15555551212" and assign the name "Amorph" (with a capital "A") to it, completing the process and saving it to my phone's memory in a total of 25 keystrokes.
[...]
I don't know a single person who'd rather do it the second way. Perhaps you're more technophobic than I thought possible for a forum moderator (or is it "cellophobic"?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might be because my only experience with this involved a Motorola cell phone? It was ugly, and although it didn't take me that long to figure out (without a manual) it was tedious and maddening, and I could easily see why my mom had punted the task of entering her contacts to me.
I'm not really concerned with what I can handle - I'm the sort of person who is lured by blinking 12:00s into figuring out how to set the clock, and I can usually suss it out quickly even if it's buried in a submenu somewhere. I'm concerned with the people who call me because they know I can do that. Apple products are, first and foremost, for "the rest of us," meaning the nontechnical people who just want things to work in the most straightforward manner possible.
As an aside, the number of keystrokes it takes you to accomplish something isn't as relevant as the ease with which those keystrokes can be discovered, and the clarity with which the interface reminds you of what the proper keystroke is. Most people never bother if the learning curve's too high. We're exceptions. Even if it takes longer to get somewhere (e.g. with the iPod's dial) it's acceptable if the way there is more obvious. The iPod's interface is almost ridiculously simple, and direct insofar as it doesn't require you to approximate letters with numbers.
But then, my main experience is with a cheap Motorola phone, so YMMV.
<strong>On the other hand, on Motorolas, you notoriously have to navigate to "add name" (takes a few steps in the menus) and enter the name (without automatic capitalization) before you can even begin to type a number. It's a horrible interface. I'm not surprised that was enough to turn you off from mobile phones. It's like being introduced to computing in the days of a GUI with a machine that boots straight into DOS. I still know many, many people who are still turned off from computers because of their experiences with a bad interface. They never allow themselves to realize and accept that it doesn't have to be that difficult.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm! On my Motorola, all you have to do is enter the number, choose "Store" and then a contact will automatically be entered with that phone number. All that remains is adding a name (which will be automatically capitalized) to that contact.
HAs anyone used the Sony Ericsson T68i? I just got one and I was impressed at the ease of use, it is by far the easiest phone to use I've ever had.
I used to buy only Nokia, they were pretty good for intuitiveness, then I moved to Samsung and that was so bad I decided to switch to the T68i despite the Samsung being less than a year old.
I can't say I really like the look of the T68i interface (it's all a bit Crayola) but it was darn easy to enter all my contacts.
The main problem I find with all the 'advanced' stuff like GPRS and whatnot is that it's just all so fiddly in a phone that I can't be bothered to use any of it. I think this is a limitation with the phones size more than anything else. A cell phone is always going to be second rate at using the web IMO, doesn't matter who makes it.
<strong>HAs anyone used the Sony Ericsson T68i? I just got one and I was impressed at the ease of use, it is by far the easiest phone to use I've ever had.
I used to buy only Nokia, they were pretty good for intuitiveness, then I moved to Samsung and that was so bad I decided to switch to the T68i despite the Samsung being less than a year old.
I can't say I really like the look of the T68i interface (it's all a bit Crayola) but it was darn easy to enter all my contacts.
The main problem I find with all the 'advanced' stuff like GPRS and whatnot is that it's just all so fiddly in a phone that I can't be bothered to use any of it. I think this is a limitation with the phones size more than anything else. A cell phone is always going to be second rate at using the web IMO, doesn't matter who makes it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just got the T300 and I imagine the interface is similar. It is a pretty simple interface.
Comments
<strong>There is a fallacy here, I think, between speculating whether iPhone will be an iApp or hardware.So here's my idea:
Right after the iPod was released, it was noted that the 1/8" plug was deeper than the standard variety, allowing Apple to send additional information through that wire. I've read that the actual working bits of a cellphone could fit on a fingernail. So, put the working bits in the iPod. Now, sell a headset with a mic' whose jack fits all the way into the iPod's plug. iPod now knows it can make phone calls. So you use the scroll wheel to find the person you want to call, and call them. The hardware and software interface to the iPod is no more complex, and the headgear is not significantly more complicated. This would, I think, handle the majority of what people actually want out of a cell phone, except that it would be much easier to learn and to use. And it would also play MP3s.
Thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have an iPod but played with one briefly at the Apple store. So what if you wanted to call someone not in your files? Where's the key pad? It would need a key pad to be successful as a phone I believe. It would need more buttons, talk, end, hold, mute, redial, add to memory, etc. So I think the current deisng is too limited and would have to be re-worked. Also, what you describe is like a headless phone, or an ipod that can take calls. Just doesn't sound that exciting. I think if it is hardware, it would be something else. Something that would make the iPod more of a comminication device then strictly an mp3 player with some address features. Also, I think the OS would need to be expanded. Even so, I think I'd pass and get some of the new Sprint phones with color displays, cameras, video, games, etc. $250 for a sprint phone or $500 for an iPod that I have to fumble with a headset and scroll wheel to place or take a call? I don't think that's the way to go. I think that's the 'too simple' approach. Apple would need to have another 'wow, I never thought of that' in order to be a success.
<strong>
I don't have an iPod but played with one briefly at the Apple store.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have a cell phone or an iPod - although I've also played with one at an Apple Store - so there's a good chance that my idea is horribly wrong. But then, one of the things that has consistently put me off of cell phones is the prospect of poking endlessly at obscure buttons in order to get them to do anything more complicated than call the number I just punched in. As it stands, and notwithstanding their popularity, they're a case study in poor UE. And the UE seems to get worse the more you spend, as the feature list grows but the hardware interface remains unchanged.
[quote]<strong>So what if you wanted to call someone not in your files? Where's the key pad? It would need a key pad to be successful as a phone I believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In that case you would be looking at different hardware, since a keypad on the iPod makes no sense. On the other hand, the keypad would only be use for what it was designed for. I was going off assertions by people in Digital Hub that they mostly only called from their contacts list anyway; to the extent that people currently don't, it might be because it's a royal PITA to enter people into the average cell phone's contact list. Phone keypads were never meant to handle that sort of thing, and it shows. Using Address Book, OTOH, is a cinch.
As for fumbling with the headset: You have to do that with the iPod anyway. Presumably, if you have an iPod on you, you're already wearing the headset.
No "add to memory" is necessary, and the iPod's current wheel and buttons can handle most of the other functions you cite. This is strictly a retrieval device, like the iPod. Remember: Simple. If you want more, get one of the fancy phones, and wrestle with the significant increase in the complexity of operating the thing.
As for originality, I don't think anyone else has thought of anything like this. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>yeah, apple had two patents/things from Pixo, one for iPod, and the other, it seems, for the iPhone.... the iPhone is not a video/audio conferencing app</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did you get this tidbit from?
Apple's agreement with Pixo was to license their software for two devices, one the iPod, the second one as yet unspecified. It seems likely that it would be the iPhone if the iPhone is indeed coming soon. Then again it could be something else entirely.
And Amorph, I do agree with you in principle, but I don't agree with the iPhone being a hack onto the iPod. Seems kind of inelegant, don't you think? However, if one were to apply the basic principles of the iPod to a mobile phone device, things could get a lot more fun. Instead of fussing with obscure functions on a mobile phone, control it from your Mac if you happen to be on it at the moment. Say you're chatting with a friend on iChat and decide to start up a conversation over the phone.. click a button and your phone rings her up.
By the way (this is tangentially related), why is Apple working with Cingular anyway? What Steve discussed at the last MacWorld had to do with client-to-client solutions only... Mac to phone, phone to Mac. Cingular would have nothing to do with that. I think Apple may be working with Cingular to provide .Mac services over phones. Publish your iCal calendar to .Mac and view it on a phone. This way no having to view a static calendar on an iPod.. you can actually edit your schedule on your phone and your calendar will automatically update on the web.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: frawgz ]</p>
Why don't they just make a thing where you spin the scroll wheel around to the number you want, then press ENTER, and then go to the next number
it is probably just as fast <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
But it would be sort of inelegant. And break with the etablished "phone paradigm" that people are used to, like the qwerty keyboard that make people type slower than optimal. If people can't find the little buttons with numbers on, they won't think its a phone... Then again, Apple users are of course better educated than the average..
Why not throw in speech recognition there? Most current phones have some minimal speech recognition. Given the direction most states are headed to ban cell phone use while driving, speech recognition is a must.
<strong>The iPod will remain a dedicated device for music (and possibly video) and not be a multi-purpose digital player/recevier/computer/communicator. Apple is smart to know that keeping things relatively simple is the way to go. It keeps prices resonable and simplifies things for the consumer. Techies want complicated things. The general public does not. Think appliance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just hope that they make it so I can download pictures from my camera to my iPod, at least for storage, viewing is still possible on the camera before DL to the iPod. Viewing on the iPod would be nice (especially if they put one of those OLED screens in there)
It seems to me the advantage of bluetooth is that all the elements of a device can be separated (within reason).
-12
<strong>
iPod now knows it can make phone calls. So you use the scroll wheel to find the person you want to call, and call them. The hardware and software interface to the iPod is no more complex, and the headgear is not significantly more complicated.
Thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sony "invented" one handed operation long before Apple with the introduction of Jog-Dial.
And mobile phone interfaces to make just a call are not complex at all. However there needs to be an elegant solution for services like WAP provides. This is where Apple may jump in.
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>
<strong>
Sony "invented" one handed operation long before Apple with the introduction of Jog-Dial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did not claim that Apple had invented the idea, only that they already had an implementation that has proven to be extremely popular and general-purpose. The iPod needs only the most minimal extensions to its interface to work the way I want it to. It's about 95% there. There just needs to be a way to call a contact that you've brought up with the existing interface. If the contact has a number, a single press of a single button could accomplish that.
[quote]<strong>And mobile phone interfaces to make just a call are not complex at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said that. My complaint, explicitly, was with the use of the dialpads to e.g. maintain contact lists, and navigate through an interface. Obviously dialpads are just fine for dialing.
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
I said that. My complaint, explicitly, was with the use of the dialpads to e.g. maintain contact lists, and navigate through an interface. Obviously dialpads are just fine for dialing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I had no intension offending you. My language may sound harsh at times, because I'm not used to write in english.
What I meant is maybe better described like this: There is no need/advantage for Apple to shine with a simple interface, because it already exists in this market. There has to be more to catch attention.
The reason I don't see the iPod as a mobile phone also lies in it's form factor. Here in Switzerland mobile phones are called "handys". The iPod does not feel handy enough with it's "boxy" shape.
Just musing to myself,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
the iPod is great for those long dreary plane trips. with mobile telephony included, it would preclude using it on a plane unless there was a virtual phone on/off functionality for just such an occasion (as well as the bluetooth).
the other caveat would be device size, the combo device would have to retain the iPods ciggy-box size which i'm not sure would be that feasible given how they have the current components squeezed tightly in there already.
but hey, i have a nokia 7650 and that's just too big (all you who are drooling over the SE p800, it's about the same dimensions...) yes girls size does matter
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
iPhone will be software/hardware. Much like iSync, only useful if you have the hardware.
Hardware will be airport enabled portable phone, possibly video (albeit small) enabled. Possibly bluetooth, most likely not. I can't see them utilizing a cell phone tech, unless it behaves like a Blackberry...
Software will enable connections to a normal phone line or tcp/ip packet switching on the internet, through (where else?) iphone.org. @mac account required. Users without the phone can use a microphone on the computer, maybe a webcam as well.
May use quicktime streaming for connections. Not likely unless both parties have compatable connection speeds. Doubtful if it would allow video confrencing... unless new formats for compression in real time are developed.
iPhone account will enable storage of messages, much like @mac. Compressed files are downloaded and played later.
I can't see Apple trying to totally reinvent the wheel with a cell phone. The ipod was a collection of already made items released in a unique package. Perhaps the most unique part of the whole being the use of firewire for download and power.
For them to take something simlar to a portable phone, incorporate a lowres camera (or newer?), the already existing airport/bluetooth and freeing you from long distance phone charges and phone cables... Well, that smacks of genuis to me... Find another use for technology which is already here, instead of inventing new tech from the ground up.
Now, if they could incorporate this in a format like the blackberry, where messages are stored elsewhere and relayed, and if those messages can include video... anywhere witin a digital broadcasting area... well, that would be icing on the cake.
Don't be too hard on criticising me... I just made this up...
<strong>
Sorry, Amorph, I find it is a simple task to store new numbers into my mobile phone. For instance, I can store the number "15555551212" and assign the name "Amorph" (with a capital "A") to it, completing the process and saving it to my phone's memory in a total of 25 keystrokes.
[...]
I don't know a single person who'd rather do it the second way. Perhaps you're more technophobic than I thought possible for a forum moderator (or is it "cellophobic"?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might be because my only experience with this involved a Motorola cell phone? It was ugly, and although it didn't take me that long to figure out (without a manual) it was tedious and maddening, and I could easily see why my mom had punted the task of entering her contacts to me.
I'm not really concerned with what I can handle - I'm the sort of person who is lured by blinking 12:00s into figuring out how to set the clock, and I can usually suss it out quickly even if it's buried in a submenu somewhere. I'm concerned with the people who call me because they know I can do that. Apple products are, first and foremost, for "the rest of us," meaning the nontechnical people who just want things to work in the most straightforward manner possible.
As an aside, the number of keystrokes it takes you to accomplish something isn't as relevant as the ease with which those keystrokes can be discovered, and the clarity with which the interface reminds you of what the proper keystroke is. Most people never bother if the learning curve's too high. We're exceptions. Even if it takes longer to get somewhere (e.g. with the iPod's dial) it's acceptable if the way there is more obvious. The iPod's interface is almost ridiculously simple, and direct insofar as it doesn't require you to approximate letters with numbers.
But then, my main experience is with a cheap Motorola phone, so YMMV.
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>On the other hand, on Motorolas, you notoriously have to navigate to "add name" (takes a few steps in the menus) and enter the name (without automatic capitalization) before you can even begin to type a number. It's a horrible interface. I'm not surprised that was enough to turn you off from mobile phones. It's like being introduced to computing in the days of a GUI with a machine that boots straight into DOS. I still know many, many people who are still turned off from computers because of their experiences with a bad interface. They never allow themselves to realize and accept that it doesn't have to be that difficult.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm! On my Motorola, all you have to do is enter the number, choose "Store" and then a contact will automatically be entered with that phone number. All that remains is adding a name (which will be automatically capitalized) to that contact.
I used to buy only Nokia, they were pretty good for intuitiveness, then I moved to Samsung and that was so bad I decided to switch to the T68i despite the Samsung being less than a year old.
I can't say I really like the look of the T68i interface (it's all a bit Crayola) but it was darn easy to enter all my contacts.
The main problem I find with all the 'advanced' stuff like GPRS and whatnot is that it's just all so fiddly in a phone that I can't be bothered to use any of it. I think this is a limitation with the phones size more than anything else. A cell phone is always going to be second rate at using the web IMO, doesn't matter who makes it.
G
<strong>HAs anyone used the Sony Ericsson T68i? I just got one and I was impressed at the ease of use, it is by far the easiest phone to use I've ever had.
I used to buy only Nokia, they were pretty good for intuitiveness, then I moved to Samsung and that was so bad I decided to switch to the T68i despite the Samsung being less than a year old.
I can't say I really like the look of the T68i interface (it's all a bit Crayola) but it was darn easy to enter all my contacts.
The main problem I find with all the 'advanced' stuff like GPRS and whatnot is that it's just all so fiddly in a phone that I can't be bothered to use any of it. I think this is a limitation with the phones size more than anything else. A cell phone is always going to be second rate at using the web IMO, doesn't matter who makes it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just got the T300 and I imagine the interface is similar. It is a pretty simple interface.