Talk:Smartphone/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

This article is garbage

I'm not trying to be mean or a vandal here, but this article can't even get the definition of an operating system right, let alone explain what a smartphone is. Here is an operating system (basic diagram for you) Hardware > Assembler > Kernel > OS > User Interface. All these phones have that so technically the iphone should be on here from that criteria. In fact a lot more phones (anything using ARM cpu's with a user interface) could be on here. So what is you definition of smart anyways? That third party apps can be made for it? No thats actually the definition of an incomplete end user experience, which requires third party apps to be made for it in order to make the phone as useful as the end user originally wanted it to be. So if the iphone prepackages all that functionality, then it should be a smartphone in that respect, in fact it is a smarter phone for anticipating it. But then if someone wants to use a linux-based OpenMoko phone, doesn't want IM or e-mail browser, but instead ports Doom or some other game to it, is it now a dumbphone? No it's still a smartphone, just because some people won't want basic apps that others do just makes it more modular and not proprietary like the iphone. But they should both be considered smartphones (as well as others on here) and the definition should reflect this accordingly. Right now it doesn't, and this article needs some major reworking.Orthuberra 22:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so basically you're saying you like the iPhone and want it included? I'm not sure a "smartphone" would still be using older networks? Doesn't that kind of dumb it down a little? Limiting it's internet speed and call quality? I'm not sure, I'm just sounding it out here.
I don't think you can argue an entire article is "garbage" by just argueing that an iPhone is "Smart" though.
CHSoarer 10:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


As strange as I personally find your comments (I install third party apps on both my phone and my PC, and I'd rather not pay for apps I don't use, thanks), I've rewritten the iPhone section a little. Hypnotist uk 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No Linux smartphones?

According to this page, Linux has the #2 market share at 16.7%. Yet there isn't a single Linux smartphone in the comparison chart? How is this possible? There must be Linux smartphones, how else would they have the Linux #2 market share? Or does that share come from customers installing Linux on the device as an after market modification? In which case, applicable devices should have an indication that a Linux OS is available to replace the one the device comes with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zerothis (talk • contribs) 03:08, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any in the table because most of the wikieditors are from America or Europe, and most of the Linux smartphones are in Asia. Hypnotist uk 12:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

More Comparison Table

I've done some cleanup. Comments:

  • I want to add Nokia E90, N95 and Motorola Z8, and replace E62 with E61i. Also thinking of adding the E65, which is selling very well.
  • Do the Palm and WM phones support soft keyboards as well?
  • I want to add 'Communications' with WLAN, phone technologies, etc, but need a better heading name - suggestions? I see some people have added Bluetooth and WiFi to a couple of the phones but this is far from complete!
  • I'd like to change the weight to SI units, and add size (cc) as well - I imagine there might be push-back on that... Although some additions have been done in hxwxd rather than cc. Please can we standardise.
  • Year of release would be good, too (quarter of release even better, but I've no idea where we'd get that info)
  • Not forgetting references :)

Hypnotist uk 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC), updated by Hypnotist uk 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) and again by Hypnotist uk 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

cc seems like a bit of an odd way of giving the size - to pick a ridiculous example, a 1m x 1cm x 1cm phone would be 100 cc, but would probably not be an adequate replacement for other 100 cc phones. A quick look at the Nokia Irish site shows that at least one phone's technical specs include both the volume in cc and the hxwxd in mm; should both be given? Guy Harris 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to reductio ad absurdum! hxwxd is good but IMHO hardly makes for easy comparison in what is already a very cluttered table. cc has the advantage of being a single number (and the fact most phone tech specs seem to quote it suggests it does indicate something useful). Most smartphones are of a fairly consistent form factor. Whichever is chosen should be consistent across the table in any case... Hypnotist uk 07:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Canalys report - smart phones, or all "smart mobile devices"?

The Canalys report talks in some places about "smart phones" (e.g., "Canalys estimates that Linux devices represented more than 90% of the 1.5 million smart phones shipped by Motorola in Q4 2006."), and in other places about all "smart mobile devices" (e.g., "Year-on-year market growth for all smart mobile devices combined shifted down to 30%, compared to the 50% seen in Q3 2006, but unit volumes still hit a new quarterly peak of 22.1 million."). "Smart mobile devices" includes "smart phones", "wireless handhelds" (is that "handhelds with 802.11 but no connection to mobile phone networks", or "handhelds with connection to mobile phone or paging networks but no voice capability" such as older RIM devices, or what?), and "handhelds" (presumably like the original Palm, which had no networking).

For the OS market shares, I'm not sure whether it's referring just to "smart phones" or "smart mobile devices" as a whole. Guy Harris 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

IXI Ogo2.0

I don't know anything about this - is it actually a smartphone? The website doesn't give any evidence that it's even marketed as one. I'm proposing to delete this from the table. Hypnotist uk 22:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, all the QWERTY Nokia phones also come in AZERTY, QWERTZ, etc. I assume the phones from other manufacturers do so as well. It's simply not necessary to include this only for the IXI (which I still don't believe should be here). Hypnotist uk 07:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any reference to the IXI Ogo2.0 being a smartphone - not on IXI's own site, not on the news sites, and not in a Google search. It also doesn't seem to offer a significantly greater feature set than most 'featurephones' (unlike the other phones listed). So I'm deleting it. Happy to hear arguments for why it should return. Hypnotist uk 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Market Share

This isn't very hard. The referenced article is about Smartphones. It is the same source used before.

"Canalys estimates that global smart phone shipments for the full year reached 64.1 million units, up from 39.4 million in 2005, equating to annual growth of 63%. Wireless handheld shipments in 2006 rose 44% from 5.3 million in 2005 to 7.5 million, overtaking their unconnected handheld predecessors. Shipments of the latter fell 33% to 5.6 million units.

In operating system terms, for the full year, Canalys estimates that Symbian had 67% share, up from 63% in 2005, Microsoft was in second with a slightly reduced 14% share, RIM came in third on 7% followed by Linux on 6% and ACCESS/PalmSource with the Garnet OS on 5%. " -- KelleyCook 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So do you agree that the 5.6 million unconnected handhelds are included in the os market share numbers? (81.161.165.133 22:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

If the referenced article is the Canalys article, then it's about "smart mobile devices", a category that appears to include "smart phones" (to use Canalys' spelling), "wireless handhelds", and "handhelds" (presumably those are "unconnected handhelds"). If the 5.6 million unconnected handhelds are included in the OS market share numbers, then, unless you somehow determine how many of the Microsoft and Garnet devices are "unconnected handhelds" (are there any Windows CE or Palm OS/Garnet devices being shipped without any networking?) and how many of the devices listed are "wireless handhelds", you can't determine from those numbers what the OS market shares are for smartphones. Guy Harris 22:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So why can't we use the figures from the "Worldwide smart mobile device market, Canalys Q2 2007" report as Symbian does? Given the Canalys report linked is a) from Feb 07 (and thus covers Q4 2006), b) in abstract only and c) doesn't cover Smartphones as distinct from "smart mobile devices", it seems ridiculous to use the earlier, less accurate figures. Hypnotist uk 07:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Hypnotist uk 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X's "proper spot"

Hardly one of "[t]he most common operating systems (OS) used in smartphones", is it? Hypnotist uk 07:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can live with it as it only has 0.3% less share than Palm, by the latest figures. Hypnotist uk 09:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

iPhone Q2 2007 Marketshare???

Can someone explain to me how Apple had smartphone marketshare in Q2 of 2007? I'm going to have to remove this unless someone can justify these bogus figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmathies (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The iPhone was released two days before Q2 end, and saw substantial sales that weekend. Besides, the figures come from Canalys (via Symbian's website), a reputable analyst in this space. Hypnotist uk 05:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Great chart

This page now rocks. I love the chart. Mathiastck 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

iPhone again

Pace User:HuskyMoon, I do think that the page needs to have something more about the iPhone-as-a-smartphone controversy (it has been all over the tech press as well as this talk page!). Though I didn't have time to find any references they're certainly out there. The iPhone was launched with a direct comparison to several other manufacturer's smartphones, which I also believe is worth mentioning.

I also wish more people would explain their thinking on the talk page when (or before) editing this article, but that's life... Hypnotist uk 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, what's the deal here? Many people, including the fine folks at AT&T Wireless, the iPhone's exclusive carrier, say that the Apple device isn't a smartphone but rather an "entertainment device." I don't think there should be anything in the article on this "controversy," but there should be consistency throughout Wikipedia. In other words, the iPhone and smartphone articles should be consistent with this article. After hearing the taxonomical designation given by AT&T and seeing the discussion on the iPhone talk page, I removed it from Category:Smartphones but then came across the iPhone references in this article. Without consistency, all of these articles look dubious. And, whatever the results of this argument turn out to be, they shouldn't be based on guessing or people presuming what does or doesn't qualify as a smartphone. There is a definition of "smartphone" and that either does or doesn't cover the iPhone. ask123 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your change. Please find a reference to an authoritative official definition of Smartphone otherwise your opinion is just Original Research. As it is Apple markets it a Smartphone and iSuppli recently remarked that the iPhone outsold all other smartphones by a wide margin, both of those appear authoritative (not for a definition, but for the inclusion of iPhone). Furthermore, the Canalys stats referenced in the Article for Market share consider the iPhone and iPhone OS X a smartphone. -- KelleyCook 20:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Woa, pls retract the fangs! AGF, my friend! I don't care about margins, just about what is included in the definition of smartphone. As for inclusion, there is no indication here that the iPhone may not be a smartphone. It is listed in tandem with the other devices/operating systems. If you are arguing for mere inclusion, then shouldn't there be a discalimer sentence of some kind indicating that it may not be a smartphone after all? As far as a definition goes, there is no definition in a prominent English language dictionary for the word "smartphone." Also, as of now, there is no mention in the iPhone article of it being a smartphone. In fact, at one point, the article even suggests that the iPhone isn't a smartphone by comparing it to other "non-smartphones." These inconsistencies are compounded by the fact that there are equally legitimate sources (e.g. AT&T Wireless) that do not consider the device to be a smartphone. I suspect that in the end, if other publications follow Canalys tracks, the device will be considered a smartphone. But, you never know, the tech publishing world may not take to that; it certainly hasn't already. (As far as iSuppli goes, they're probably as clueless as the rest of us and hardly constitute a reliable source.)
One thing's for certain, though, regardless of where you come down on this issue, your response can be said to be disruptive of Wikipedia to prove a point, as well as in violation of WP:OR (and any other piece of WP policy up that alley that you can think of). I can find plenty of sources that would put you also in WP:OR territory on this issue. Why? Because the authoritative sources (e.g. prominent, unbiased tech publications and organizations that aren't conflicted by the fact that they are manufacturing/marketing the product) haven't come down on this issue yet. The only group that's taken a clear position is Apple, Inc., a company doesn't exactly fit that particular bill.
For the time being, why doesn't someone who's invested in this article take the task of finding consensus on this issue (which is really the most important thing here) and make all of the articles consistent. Of course, I hope that you can do it in a way that doesn't grossly violate about a hundred WP policies and guidelines. Because, if you don't, plenty of people will start throwing around WP:OR accusations at the drop of a dime. Take my word for it! ;) Cheers, ask123 21:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Goodness me, what a long comment. I've tried to tease people towards consensus on this issue, and I've failed, and people without wiki accounts continue to delete the iPhone from the page. Que sera sera. I agree with KelleyCook - given that a) the iPhone (more or less) fits the criteria for smartphoneness that we have in the article, b) the people ranking smartphone market share include it and c) the number of people saying it's not a smartphone are reducing by the day (because third party apps are now supported, albeit unofficially). Who are these "prominent, unbiased tech publications and organizations" of which you speak? Hypnotist uk 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ach, I succumbed and re-wrote the entire first two sections. Cut out loads of the repetition and hopefully captured the spirit of the iPhone is-it-isn't-it debate without actually referring to it.
Tear my edit to pieces at will - but a comment on this page explaining any major edits would be nice. :) Hypnotist uk 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackberrys as smartphones

Why are RIM devices considered smartphones? They seem only to run sandboxed Java apps and web applets, and beyond that all they really do that most featurephones don't is push email... Hypnotist uk 07:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

iPhone does not belong on this list

I agree. The iPhone does not belong on this list. It is not a smart phone because it does not allow you to install any third party applications to expand functionality. The fact that Apple's marketing propaganda calls it a smart phone does not make it one. It's more a like a phone appliance. Because it can't do anything other than what it can do out of the box. So I think there is a very good reason to remove it. Apple's propaganda regarding it does not have any business being the criteria that determines whether it really is considered one or not.

The iPhone is not a smartphone, as it is a closed platform that does not allow the installation of third party applications to expand its functionality. It has been removed from the article, and the list of smartphones article.

Given we can't seem to pin down the definition of smartphone, this doesn't seem like a good enough reason to remove. Apple positions the iPhone as a smartphone, even if API Research doesn't [1]. Also, it seems the iPhone is 'semi-open' in that 3rd party applications distributed through Apple might become available (as Google and Yahoo appear to have done already)[2]. Hypnotist uk 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Hypnotist, I agree. The iPhone is a Smartphone because it is positioned that way and because the definition of a Smartphone has evolved quite a bit in the last coule of years. From being a computer in a phone, it seems that it is now a high end camera phone, with extensive email and web-browsing functionality. All these have contact lists, calendars and notepads that can be synchronized these days. We could look incomplete and partial by not including the iPhone. HuskyMoon 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple can position it whatever it likes, it still doesn't make it up to be a smartphone. Who said that smartphone became something like camphone with other features - it would make SE K800 one of the best smartphones ever. Let’s just include everything like this. The definition was (and still) precise - smartphone should possess open operating system. That’s it. For now iPhone doesn't meet this requirement. Dreambringer 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone cite an actual authoritative definition of the term smartphone? I imagine the term was invented for marketing purposes, and has been applied by various people to various devices. So one can never say that something is a smartphone, just that it has been described by someone as such....? Alf Boggis 15:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this [3]

will be helpful. This is simplified version [4]. Dreambringer 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd note that it's quite possible the criteria in the Nokia document and the phonescoop page could yet apply to the iPhone. We don't yet know. I'd prefer the iPhone to be here (following most press commentary) until we do. Hypnotist uk 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is not about "good" and "bad" Apple. Market analysts make money at selling research services and have a clear vested interest. We may not be here to repeat what they have to say but to document in a modern encyclopedia "all there is to know about SmartPhones". There doesn't seem to be a right or wrong answer here and it may be better be more complete than incomplete. All the information is factually correct and sourced. HuskyMoon 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • .#1 The iPhone isn't out yet, it's difficult to say what definition it will fit (once we have an authoritative one). #2 It's widely assumed that, just as you can buy iPod games now on iTunes, you will be able to get extra USER-INSTALLABLE apps for your iPhone. #3 It's unknown if these apps will be strictly 1st party, licensed 3rd party, unlicensed 3rd party, etc. The only way in which an iPhone is not a smartphone as has often been referred to in the past is that the extra user-installable apps are very unlikely to be unlicensed 3rd party, at least initially (Apple exec quotes say there are no 3rd party opportunities "for now"). Does this make it not a smartphone? Who says? Why? My opinion, regardless of what a claimed "authoritative" site says, if a phone has a flexible, powerful, extensible s.w./h.w. architecture, with advanced convenience features, more sophisticated software abilities, and a larger display than a typical low-end cell phone, that makes it a smartphone. If someone says we should be going by the "popular" definition, what is that? The opinion of us computer/cell phone geeks? There are plenty of less-informed non-smartphone-using people out there that might call any phone with voicedial a smartphone, do you really want to go with the most "popular" definition? According to P.C. Magazine & PhoneScoop, the 2 biggest sites I could find in a quick search, iPhone fits their definition of smartphone.
Jason C.K. 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Until somebody will prove to me that K800 isn't a smartphone, I'm going to add it too. Seems to me it meets all criteria:"has a flexible, powerful, extensible s.w./h.w. architecture" (whatever this mean... never heard of extensible software architecture concerning smartphones... nor about the extensible hardware for sure), "with advanced convenience features, more sophisticated software abilities, and a larger display than a typical low-end cell phone". It even has one of the best cameras! I think it would be a huge list... Dreambringer 07:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Next, you are quite right about #1... There are a lot of upcoming products, and what about them? Should we include everything that could be a smartphone? As you just said: Apple exec quotes say there are no 3rd party opportunities "for now". So, it's not a smartphone "for now". #2 there is a great number of Java applets for almost every phone nowadays - that doesn't mean anything. And about the positioning of products - all the N series handsets from Nokia are "Multimedia computers" as they put it. Is that supposed to mean that they aren't smartphones anymore? Dreambringer 07:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I know nothing about the K800, nor do I care to. I'm suspecting it doesn't fit anyone's definition of a smartphone? As for picking-apart my criteria (which ultimately mean nothing in terms of arbitrating what's put in an article), I will spell it out since you seem to be interested. Flexible = multi-functional, and extendable (i.e.--add s.w.; 1st party, 3rd party, I don't care, it just has to be extendable). Powerful = the hardware has to be powerful with respect to what else is on the market at the time. Architecture...look it up. All s.w. & h.w. has a design, an architecture, etc. "Advanced/sophisticated" = in comparison to the low-end on the market at the time. "Should we include everything that could be a smartphone?" If they have wiki articles and are smartphones, then, yes. "So, it's not a smartphone "for now". Only if a smartphone requires 3rd party unlicensed apps. I do not think that's an appropriate definition. For 4 more sources that don't think so, visit Talk:IPhone/Archive 2#Smartphone "controversy". Technology definitions change. A computer used to mean a giant machine that accepted punch cards. By that definition, a tablet PC wouldn't be a computer.
--Jason C.K. 08:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Flexible - could be applied to every handset that costs more than $100, Extendable - could be applied to every handset with support for Java applets (every handset that costs more than $100), Powerful - do you know the exact specification of iPhone? As far as I know, Nokia N80 possessed 220MHz processor as well as Nokia 6233 and a lot of other products nowadays. Seems that every phone with the cost over $100 is a smartphone. I know the meaning of the architecture, I just want to say that it can't be extendable for smartphones. "Smartphones run complete operating system software that provides a standardized interface and platform for application developers" - that is exactly what I'm talking about. By the way, I am a goddamned application developer ^_- Dreambringer 09:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Flexible" It's all relative. "Extendable" It's all relative. "Powerful - do you know the exact specification of iPhone?" No, but it's clearly not running with the power of an 80286 (i.e.--it ain't gonna' work at all with a weak chip). "Smartphones run complete operating system software that provides a standardized interface and platform for application developers" Maybe. But 3rd party, licensed or not, is irrelevant. If it has an OS with APIs, then it's a smartphone. "I am a goddamned application developer" So what? I am too. Profanity is unnecessary.
--Jason C.K. 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Extensible refers to more than running extra applications. For example, certainly on Symbian and WM phones, and I presume on Palm and BB phones as well, one can install new audio / video codecs after purchase. The architecture allows that kind of extension, which is generally not possible in featurephones such as the K800. OS X clearly does allow that, though we'll have to wait and see whether the iPhone supports this kind of thing... FWIW I'm unhappy with the iPhone being called a smartphone in just about every article that writes about it - but it is. And while we're doing Appeal to authority, I used to be a smartphone OS developer. :) Hypnotist uk 11:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Your are all specialists and it is nice to work with specialists. We must be careful to not make the definition of the Smartphone to be a Symbian phone or a Windows Mobile phone. Those definitions change as the market matures. For example it used to be so important to be able to run office applications on PCs. Within a few years they will be web-based and local processing will not be that important... Still things changed..... The challenge with Wiki when it comes to technology is that technology and progress advance every day and so definition. If it is someone's bio Albert Einstein or an article on the slack key guitar, it's about getting things right and once they are not much changes. But this is also what makes Wiki great! HuskyMoon 10:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has added: "However, at the recent "D5: All Things Digital" Conference hosted by WSJ's Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, Steve Jobs mentioned openness as a "security issue, but that Apple is working to find a way to allow developers to build applications for it. He doesn’t want the iPhone to be 'one of those phones that crashes a few times a day.'” [20]" I think the first sentance is relevant since it may lead to third party applications after all. I have removed the second because it's irrelevant what motives Jobs may have for not allowing or limiting or being cautious about third party apps (thus effectively making it less smartphone like). It's also quite a rhetorical statement to which many may have basic objections. I also deleted the exact names of the hosts of the conference, since they are not essential in this article and they can be found in the link anyway. Cmlewan 10:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm repeating my comment from Definition above. As someone who has worked in the cellular industry for ten years the definition of smartphone has always been "a mobile phone using an open, commercial operating system that supports third party applications". It's pretty specific and clearly the iPhone does not meet the criteria. Yes the iPhone is neat, clever, state-of-the-art even but it's not a smartphone just because Apple want to position it as such. If at some point in the future the iPhone supports third party applications then at that point it becomes a smartphone but until then it's not and doesn't belong in this article. MyronAub 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We're going to be under increasing pressure to add it here now it's been proven that the iPhone can (via some hacking around) support third party apps. The situation is far from clear-cut. Hypnotist uk 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Although via a "hack" the iPhone can run compiled (I think they call it "Cocoa") 3rd-party applications, shouldn't the 3rd-party app support be an Apple Inc "official" feature of the iPhone, in order to qualify it as a smartphone? The definition of smartphone does not specifically talk about running apps via non-hacked means, probably because no one had to until the the release of the iPhone. If this is fine, then ANY phone that can be hacked and run apps can qualify as smartphones. This may set a precedence regarding smartphones that some people wouldn't want. Something to think about... Groink 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Apple have announced an SDK, it will be an official feature. Time will tell exactly what that involves, of course. Nevertheless, as it says in the first two sections, running third party apps is not the universally agreed definition of a smartphone. Hypnotist uk 20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)