05 Jun 2003 | Michael Spina said...

That Kyocera doesn't look bad. I'm in the market for a new phone and don't need anything more than a decent phone and address book. Too bad it doesn't work with Apple's iSynch. I was looking foward to a setup that doesn't involve me re-typing any phone numbers.

05 Jun 2003 | hurley#1 said...

It'll be interesting to see how the whole feature-bloat tend settles out.

On the one hand, I can see why some people would want one device that does everything, serving as a phone, a PDA, a digital camera, and an MP3 player. Then you'd only have to lug around one expensive electronic device with you instead of four.

But the problem is that a lot of people already have a PDA, a digital camera, and an MP3 player. They had to spend time learning how to use them, and if they go out now and buy a multipurpose cell phone they'd have to relearn how to use those functions through the cell phone's interface -- an interface that is going to have a hard time meeting all those demands without being frustratingly complex and non-intuitive. It's a big price to pay for a bit of convenience.

05 Jun 2003 | Chris said...

It's been my experience that combination devices almost never do their respective jobs as well as discreet devices.I'm still using a 2-3 year old Nokia that works fine. I've also got a Palm IIIXE, a Rio 500, and a digital camera. The digital camera is new and "state of the art" everything else is at least several product generations old. I've never needed them all at one, and in fact the Palm has really become nothing more than a backup device for my calendar, contacts etc.

06 Jun 2003 | malross said...

Although I've not used most of the models in that test, I'm surprised Nokia didn't fare better. I've always found them incredibly simple to use and the retractable antenna is a non-issue (in Europe, at least, where coverage is excellent). In fact, having a nobbly bit sticking out of my phone like that would really piss me off, not to mention make me feel like I was stuck in the 80's. Different strokes, I guess.

06 Jun 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I love my Nokia 8260. It's small and light enough to carry around in my pocket. Just the other day, after two years, I learned how to use the dictionary for text messaging.

I've been shunning those new, color-screen phones, mostly because of the size, weight and cost.

06 Jun 2003 | Tim said...

I've been idly looking around for a new cell phone for a while...since i've been using my Sprint Touchpoint 120 for seemingly forever. Thing is, the Touchpoint really is a workhorse...good battery life, excellent reception, minimal features (the most advanced it gets are the "dice" and 'football" games that came preinstalled...and these are both just text-based)...in short, it's everything I want with a phone.

All my friends have been badgering me about it. "Dude, you totally need to get a color screen," or "listen to the quality of this ringtone," or "this comes with a GPS service." Then they continue to complain about how all these added features break down, and they have to return their phones for new ones.

Not to say i am "hard-set old-fashioned." I went to BestBuy a few weeks back to look at newer flip phones...and inquired about one that I wasn't particularly enamoured with, but it was fairly inexpensive, and it looked ok...I asked the salesperson "I've heard that the newer phones have pretty dodgy quality records...could you tell me if this particular model has a decent track record in terms of breaking down...?"

His reply was: "Well, with any cell phone, things are going to break...."

I was _not_ sold on that 'accepted lack of quality.' Still going with the Touchpoint ;)

06 Jun 2003 | Benjy said...

I agree that the execution of multi-use products typically lags well behind the idea. The differences in functionality, user interfaces, power usage, etc. pretty much make it impossible to do each task well.

I'm sure I'm much happier with the user experience of the 4 electronics items I regularly carry -- Nokia 8265 phone; Canon S110 Elph digital camera; Palm IIIxe; and the new iPod. I've always been drawn to high design, high quality products and I hate to compromise on functionality, which all multipurpose products require.

The only product which I see real potential for is the cell phone/PDA. That's a logical fit. Do we really need to send photos of ceramic frogs from garage sales to our curator uncle?

06 Jun 2003 | ~bc said...

I want a phone to make phone calls that don't suck. I want a phone that can sync with my existing information (via iSync and Bluetooth/UWB. Standards would help, of course). I want a phone that can capture caller's numbers easily, and turn them into contacts if need-be. I want a ringtone that's pleasant and not annoying (to me and those around me), and a way to be informed of a call silently. I want good battery life. I want the phone to be able to relay internet to a laptop on occasion, but at faster-than-dial up speeds, and for a low flat ($) rate.

Perhaps I want GPS capabilities, but I would consider (and possibly prefer) letting it interface with my car or laptop for the graphic representation. I'd be interested in digital two-way, but would have to try it before adding it to this list.

I don't want to hear bad interpetations of famous music as a ringtone. I don't want to send text messages using a number pad as a input device (figure out a way to fit a thumb-board on there, and we'll talk). I don't want a color screen* (not that I'm against color, I'm only against the price and complexity). I don't want to surf the net on a 120x120 screen. I don't want to take 120x120 video** or pictures. I have zero desire to play games or music on the phone (I'm against neither, but against the battery life useage, lack of storage, and poor experience to the gameplaying).

* & **= I would be interested in trying out video phone capabilities when and only when the picture gets to the quality of TV, playback has to be a reasonable size. And the networks have to support instant streaming. The kicker: all this has to be in a phone no more expensive than $100.

I see a future in something like the Danger product for people who want to do all of the above, but it needs to incorporate all the above things I want and don't want and add the ability to play GameBoy games. To hell with all these crappy cell phone games: they're lame. If you're going to game, even as simple a Tetris, the experience has to be rich.

Lastly, I'm against paying for incoming calls and toll-free numbers. I want all networks to be interoperable so I don't have to figure out what kind of phone to get, or won't roam outside of a network when I may need the phone the most (safety is a big reason people buy the phone in the first place). But none of these have anything to do with the actual phone set.

06 Jun 2003 | LukeW said...

The only product which I see real potential for is the cell phone/PDA.

I've been wating for a "tiny" one of these for sooooo long. Looks like it may finally happen: Samsung's SPH-i500. And you know, what keypad be damned. Can't the whole thing just be a display? I'll use my Palm address book to make the calls. Course it's got to get small. Folding displays.... now we're talking. Roll up your 28 inch cinema display and go.

06 Jun 2003 | Steve said...

I don't want a device that does everything. Looking to my phone to take pictures is like looking for really good pizza from a Chinese restaurant.

I'll admit that part of my decision factor when choosing a phone is style. I like to have a phone I look at. I'm still very happy with my Nokia 8260 after 2.5 years on that standpoint (and in other areas as well).

What I would like is a phone that easily synchs with my Outlook contacts list, Visor, etc. Whither Bluetooth? Hell, just an IR link would be nice.

06 Jun 2003 | 8500 said...

If multi-function devices are innately inferior to single function ones please explain how thousands of years of evolution and/or God arrived at the design for the penis (the original multi-function device).

06 Jun 2003 | LukeW said...

the original multi-function device

Multi-function, yes. But what an easy interface.

06 Jun 2003 | fajalar said...

The original point-and-shoot?

Okay, my crassness identifier/limiter subroutine seems to not be functioning.

Crap, been watching too much Futurama.

06 Jun 2003 | Timo said...

I haven't seen a retractible antenna since the early '90s, they used to be a major annoyance.

06 Jun 2003 | dave said...

Kinda on topic, but can someone tell me why no phone company advertises a *good* use for a camera in a phone? I understand how it could be useful, but why is the push of the advertising campaigns showing us thats its good for "taking pictures of pancakes that look like my mom" (Sprint ad). Come on.. its like bloat for bloat's sake...

Im with the author.. simple phone please (actually, I only have the one assigned by work.. I haven't even been convinced a cel phone is a good idea for anything other than emergencies...)

06 Jun 2003 | jeremy said...

I am looking forward to the Sony Ericsson T610, which is supposed to be available in the US any minute. apparently there was a speaker problem with the first run of production units, so release was delayed, but should be ramping up soon. I have yet to find which carriers will be providing them in the US, though you can buy unlocked units for around $500 (a bit too much for me), so I'll have to wait it out.

09 Jun 2003 | Don Schenck said...

"I want a girl with a short skirt ..."

09 Jun 2003 | JF said...

I just switched from SprintPCS to Verizon and have been very happy with Verizon's service/coverage, receiption, and prices. Their phones aren't the greatest, but I went with the LG VX4400. So far so good. Ringers suck (where are the NORMAL ringers?), but other than that it's a nice, solid flip-phone.

10 Jun 2003 | pb said...

I don't foresee the Danger/Treo style combos ever being very big. As many have pointed out, the hybrids tend to be inferior at both tasks.

It's criminal that Nokia's do not have ring volume on two dedicated buttons like most phones. That's why you generally only here the stupid Nokia ring at inopportune times. Non-Nokia owners have a much easier time turning off their ringers.

It's also criminal that no phone manufacturers use wheels for scrolling. The Samsung joystick is horrendous and using up/down arrows is a terrible way to scroll.

The whole state of cell phones is kind of a joke since the service providers are not at all responding to demand when they put all these lame-o functions into the new phones. The killer app of cell phones is voice. Period.

10 Jun 2003 | Steve said...

It's also criminal that no phone manufacturers use wheels for scrolling. The Samsung joystick is horrendous and using up/down arrows is a terrible way to scroll.

Sony used to manufacture phones with scroll wheels, and I believe Qualcomm had one or two back in the day. I don't necessarily find them to be that much easier to use. Especially when most phone manufacturers still can't get how to make understandable, easy-to-learn software. Most of them used to be horrendous; one of the reasons Nokia has dominated the handset business for years is because their software is the best. Very straightforward, functions are gouped together well (the only confusing thing is the distinction between "Profiles" and "Settings," and once you've learned the difference on one Nokia phone you're set, even if it was a Nokia you owned five years ago), and things are labeled well.

Contrast Motorola which, while their software has gotten much better, has always felt like it's what the engineers thought made the most sense. And, they've changed their software so many times, you have to relearn how to use the phone each time you get a new one. Whereas I'm on my fourth Nokia, and even though each one has had new fuctions, the basics of using the phone have never, ever changed since 1997. I can get my new Nokia set up in minutes without having to crack open a manual.

10 Jun 2003 | Steve said...

The whole state of cell phones is kind of a joke since the service providers are not at all responding to demand when they put all these lame-o functions into the new phones. The killer app of cell phones is voice. Period.

Forgot to reply to this in my other post.

The primary driver behind this is the need for the telecom companies to find ways to drive new demand. Voice communications have largely become commoditized, and the latest court ruling (a good and proper one, I think) that will enable number portability, will make it more so. And the market is nearing saturation. US usage rates still aren't up to European and Far East levels, but they're getting about as high as you can reasonably expect in this country (the discincentives against landline use aren't nearly as strong as in Europe or Japan). So, they have to come up with other ways of trying to win customers and get them to pay bigger bills. The handset makers have similar issues, and they drive a lot of this as well.

There's also a plague of differences between stated customer demand and what customers demand in practice. It's like the old saw about the focus group that said they preferred the yellow product, but when they were allowed to take home a black or yellow one, they pretty much all chose black. People say they'd like to be able not to have to carry around a PDA, a phone, and be able to do data-related work wirelessly. In practice, they don't do any of these things, certainly not with a single device. If they work wirelessly, they still want to do it with their computer. They have their phone, they have their PDA, and mixing them has always meant one or the other doesn't work as well, usually on the size part of the coin.

And don't forget (and research bears this out) - people are not willing to part with their small, stylish phones. Mobile phones have become an identity thing, and the phone someone choses does have something to say about the person.

10 Jun 2003 | Don Schenck said...

"... and a long jacket."

12 Jun 2003 | hurley #1 said...

This just in from David Pogue's weekly newsletter:

From the Desk of David Pogue: The Cellphones We Ought to
Have
===========================================

In last week's Circuits, I reviewed super-simple cellphones.
I gave top honors to the Kyocera 2325, where every useful
feature is a single button-press away.

Since writing that article, I've found myself daydreaming about features that ought to be standard but aren't. For example:

* An honest call timer - Each phone I tested keeps track of
how many minutes you've used up in phone calls. But I submit that that's a worthless feature.

For one thing, these timers ignore the fact that cell
carriers round up each call to the nearest minute, adding
all kinds of charges to your bill.

Furthermore, who cares how many minutes they've used up
during free nights and weekends? A cellphone should track
how many of the "anytime" minutes we've used up each month. Now THAT would be useful.

* Ringer scheduler - Not only should there be a ringer-off
switch, but there should also be a ringer-off timer. As one
reader suggested, you should be able to tap the ringer-off
button once, twice or three times for "Stay off for one, two
or three hours." That way, you wouldn't miss calls when you
walk out of the theater and forget to switch the ringer back
on.

Phones should have a programmable ringer timer, too. You
should be able to tell it never to ring during the hours
that you sleep, never on Sundays before noon or whatever.

* Hearing-aid compatibility - A number of readers wrote to
ask which of the phones work with hearing aids, a topic
about which I know very little. Some phone makers sell
something called a loopset, a hearing-aid-compatible add-on
that hangs around your neck. Unfortunately, it requires
batteries and is awkward to carry. (If you've found a good
hearing-aid-compatible cellphone, please visit the feedback
board -- at
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?50@@.f16bec4 -- and let us know.)

* Easily Downloadable numbers from the Mac or PC - Having to program your phone numbers is always one of the least
attractive moments of new-phone ownership.

Of course, if you're switching from one GSM-network phone to another, you can just swap its memory card. And if you have a Palm phone or PocketPC phone, your whole address book syncs with the computer. Some carriers also offer added-fee features that let you upload, say, your Outlook phone book to the phone.

But this feature ought to be standard -- and free.

* "Please hold" message - When a cellphone rings, you
usually have two options: Answer it or send it to voicemail.
But there should be a third button that answers the call but
plays a message like this: "Please hold while the owner of
this phone tries to find a place where answering your call
won't annoy everyone else in the room."

11 Aug 2003 | Suzanne Butler said...

Why can't a phone just be a phone?

I realize a young person is the major target for manufacturers and sellers---that's were the money is. But what about us not so young and the real senior citizens who just need a simple phone to carry in a purse or pocket?

I am a woman in my 50's, my husband in his 60's and my father is in his late 80's. We don't need games, text, camera, or internet. If there is engine trouble, a flat, an accident, a delay in returning home, check on the grocery list at home, etc. we need to make a call.

My father is very active, alert and independent at age 86 with some heart problems. He needs a phone he can hear--the tones are too high pitched; a phone he can handle--the buttons are too small to see much less operate adequately; a 'simple to use' phone--dial a number, listen/talk and hang up. We bought him a phone and I programmed speed dial, uped the volume, everything the technician and I could think of. We finally returned the phone and lost some money on the deal.

I consider myself computer literate; I've worked with them since college in the 60's. But I don't need a computer in my purse.
I can operate my cell phone ok but why should I have to pay for all the technology I have no use for?

My husband still hasn't figured out e-mail and has no interest to learn. He gave up his cell phone long ago. I know what all you 'techies' out there are thinking--but I assure you there's a lot more of us ol' foggies than you realize.

Does anyone out there know where we can get a simple cell phone? Does anyone make one & I don't mean those one button phones that places a call to an answering service.

Thanks for letting me vent my frustration.....

29 Sep 2003 | Mike said...

I would like a cell phone ringer that is an actual mp3 - not just a midi version of a song with no vocals. How can I get one? I have a Sanyo 8100 with Sprint Vision. Thanks a lot

29 Dec 2003 | http://www.versicherung01.de said...

nothing

03 Jan 2004 | keno said...

good read

06 Jan 2004 | Java Games said...

The best site I have seen recently. Thanks!
SMS
Java Games
Free Ringtones

22 Jan 2004 | swinger said...

Erotik Swingerclub