Results 1 to 15 of 64
- 07-03-2004, 01:46 PM #1Paul HopwoodGuest
Quick straw poll. Is it possible that I am the only person still
alive to think a phone should be a phone?
I mean, what's with all these "toys" Nokia seem to be pushing into the
market and everyone in this newsgroup seems to be getting so excited
by?
A mobile phone used to be precisely that; a telephone that was, well,
mobile! Just like a telephone, you would use it to receive and make
phone calls but you could carry it around with you. Neat, huh?
Now it seems the world is full of "phones" that take pictures,
"phones" that play tunes, "phones" that allow you to surf your
favourite porn sites when away from the privacy of your home computer,
useless "phones" that connect to other equally useless devices over
distances of up to 30ft, "phones" that play the crap games most games
companies dropped decades ago, "phones" with keyboards only fit for
the digits of alien species from other galaxies. The evolution of
phones has been great with handsets getting smaller (thus more mobile)
and batteries that last longer (thus, again, more mobile) but some
twisted marketing individual in the marketing department evidently
wasn't content with making phones more useful so instead they've
started adding useless features to make mobile phones bigger again and
which put sufficient drain on the battery that they last barely long
enough for you to dash between power outlets.
Me? I want a mobile phone to be *precisely* what it says on the tin!
It should be a phone, designed for the purpose of making and receiving
phone calls, and it needs to be mobile. Anything that won't fit into
my pocket unless I'm wearing an oversized kagool and a battery life
insufficient to allow me to leave the house for five minutes without
recharging the damned thing simply won't cut the mustard!
Ok, as a business user I can see some value in large address books,
tri-band, bluetooth, modem/data capabilities and even, to a lesser
extent, WAP (as terrible and largely useless that it is for actually
accessing information!). I'd even admit I find colour screens
aesthetically pleasing but what's with all these other gimmicks and
why-oh-why-oh-why do Nokia insist on employing the same designers as
Fisher Price?
IMHO the only respectable business phone in the Nokia portfolio is the
6310i. While I'd concede it's probably outdated and Nokia are
justified in ceasing manufacture of this old favourite, where is the
replacement for those of us who just want a mobile phone to be a phone
which is mobile? Or am I the only remaining citizen to support the
cause?
--
>iv< Paul >iv<
› See More: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
- 07-03-2004, 02:00 PM #2DetriousGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 20:46:28 +0100, Paul Hopwood <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>IMHO the only respectable business phone in the Nokia portfolio is the
>6310i. While I'd concede it's probably outdated and Nokia are
>justified in ceasing manufacture of this old favourite, where is the
>replacement for those of us who just want a mobile phone to be a phone
>which is mobile? Or am I the only remaining citizen to support the
>cause?
No.
I don't want a camera on my phone, I have a camera.
I find the diary useful when I am out on either business or pleasure,
so I can organise my life.
My A4 diary doesn't beep and vibrate an hour before a meeting. (if it
did, I would have a new seat cusion in the car ;-) )
The bluetooth is very useful, so I can link up to the laptop and sync
with my diary on there.
The long battery life is a godsend.
I don't play games on my phone, I have spent a stupid amount on a pc
for those (damn those beasts in far cry!!)
So I am with you Paul.
D
- 07-03-2004, 02:57 PM #3rachelGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
"Paul Hopwood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Quick straw poll. Is it possible that I am the only person still
> alive to think a phone should be a phone?
>
No, I don't think you are, but I disagree.
I have a 7600. Why? Well, it is on 3, and I get 500 any network mins for
£25/month
It has a camera built in, which is good enough for me.
It has a built in mp3 player, which is good enough for me.
It has all the other stuff that come with modern phones.
I therefore, just carry a phone, and do not need to carry a phone, camera,
mp3 player, PDA etc.
Simple solution for me.
- 07-03-2004, 03:10 PM #4Peter ShawGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
"Detrious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 20:46:28 +0100, Paul Hopwood <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >IMHO the only respectable business phone in the Nokia portfolio is the
> >6310i. While I'd concede it's probably outdated and Nokia are
> >justified in ceasing manufacture of this old favourite, where is the
> >replacement for those of us who just want a mobile phone to be a phone
> >which is mobile? Or am I the only remaining citizen to support the
> >cause?
>
> No.
>
> I don't want a camera on my phone, I have a camera.
> I find the diary useful when I am out on either business or pleasure,
> so I can organise my life.
> My A4 diary doesn't beep and vibrate an hour before a meeting. (if it
> did, I would have a new seat cusion in the car ;-) )
> The bluetooth is very useful, so I can link up to the laptop and sync
> with my diary on there.
>
> The long battery life is a godsend.
>
> I don't play games on my phone, I have spent a stupid amount on a pc
> for those (damn those beasts in far cry!!)
>
> So I am with you Paul.
So am I! As a business user it's very difficult to find a phone which has
the features you want without being weighed down with battery draining
features that just get in the way. Also, Nokia had a severe attack of
stupidity last year by releasing a few reasonable phones such as the 6100
and the 6610 but omitting Bluetooth.
I have owned the 6210 and the 6310 and I agree they were excellent business
tools. They also looked good in a kind of smart, understated 'I mean
business' kind of way.
I am now looking for a modern version of such a phone and like you I am not
succeeding. I have two on my shortlist - Nokia 7610 - good feature set and I
am assured by all the reviews I've read that although the keyboard looks a
little strange at the lower left end it is in fact very satisfying to use;
secondly the Sony Ericsson K700i. Smart looking and well designed.
However there seems to be a new contender which I've been reading about
today - the Orange SPV C500, which is a genuine smart phone with good PDA
features but is only 100g, slim but with a big screen. I've read that it
will be introduced by the end of July for around £100 on a £30 per month
contract. It has pocket versions of MS office applications and also
Bluetooth and USB connection to the pc. It also looks to be the same breed
as a 6310 - not pretty but kind of business-like and rugged!
here's a link:
http://www.coolsmartphone.com/index....rticle&sid=840
In conclusion, there must be a reason that phone manufacturers have decided
to go down the road of making their phones jack of all trades and masters of
none. I just don't know what it is. Is it to attract the largest possible
catchment for each phone they produce?
As colleagues of mine have agreed, what is the purpose of having a phone
with masses of features when it can barely last a day? Most of the business
people I know, including myself, have unlocked their old 6210 or 6310 and
put in a Virgin SIM - that way at least you'll be able to keep in contact on
the move when your stupid camera phone has long since died on you!
- 07-03-2004, 03:13 PM #5Peter ShawGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
"rachel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Paul Hopwood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Quick straw poll. Is it possible that I am the only person still
> > alive to think a phone should be a phone?
> >
>
> No, I don't think you are, but I disagree.
>
> I have a 7600. Why? Well, it is on 3, and I get 500 any network mins for
> £25/month
> It has a camera built in, which is good enough for me.
> It has a built in mp3 player, which is good enough for me.
> It has all the other stuff that come with modern phones.
>
> I therefore, just carry a phone, and do not need to carry a phone, camera,
> mp3 player, PDA etc.
> Simple solution for me.
Maybe, but it looks ridiculous and does none of those things very well. And
it's on 3, ugh!
- 07-03-2004, 03:30 PM #6rachelGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
"Peter Shaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Maybe, but it looks ridiculous and does none of those things very well.
And
> it's on 3, ugh!
>
It is ugly, and don't try and send texts.
What does it not do well though?
Have long have you tried to use one for?
I have had it for four months without hassle.
I have tried a myriad of Nokias, since the 702, all on Orange, and have
found this to be fine.
I have had the 702, 7110e, 3330, 3510i, 6600, the later is poor in bright
light for a start!
And what is wrong with 3?
Good coverage where I am, central Manchester, not had to ring them, since
all is well, (touch wood), so why the problem?
- 07-03-2004, 03:43 PM #7DetriousGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 22:30:46 +0100, "rachel" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Peter Shaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Maybe, but it looks ridiculous and does none of those things very well.
>And
>> it's on 3, ugh!
>>
>
>It is ugly, and don't try and send texts.
>
>What does it not do well though?
>Have long have you tried to use one for?
>I have had it for four months without hassle.
>I have tried a myriad of Nokias, since the 702, all on Orange, and have
>found this to be fine.
>I have had the 702, 7110e, 3330, 3510i, 6600, the later is poor in bright
>light for a start!
>
>And what is wrong with 3?
>Good coverage where I am, central Manchester, not had to ring them, since
>all is well, (touch wood), so why the problem?
>
I guess, to be honest, Nokia have had to go with the larger market.
As the mobile owner has changed from the business user, to the average
person on the street, they have had to change their direction and add
more innovative 'fun' features to keep a foothold in the market.
I know a lot of people who do want those fun features.
My partner has just upgraded to a Motorola V300, because she wanted a
phone with a camera to take pictures of the sprog as he hurtles about
the playground.
She is back home every night, so he isn't worried about battery life.
I also know a fair few business users who are absolute tarts for new
toys and gadgets :-)
D
- 07-03-2004, 05:35 PM #8Paul HopwoodGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
"rachel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Quick straw poll. Is it possible that I am the only person still
>> alive to think a phone should be a phone?
>No, I don't think you are, but I disagree.
>I have a 7600. Why? Well, it is on 3, and I get 500 any network mins for
>£25/month
>It has a camera built in, which is good enough for me.
>It has a built in mp3 player, which is good enough for me.
>It has all the other stuff that come with modern phones.
>I therefore, just carry a phone, and do not need to carry a phone, camera,
>mp3 player, PDA etc.
>Simple solution for me.
The 7600 and it's ilk being *just* the case in point really. How many
people really *need* all those things at the same time? I mean, it
might include be a phone, pda and camera all rolled into one but it's
a crap phone, crap pda and crap camera.
Compared to a supposedly ancient and obsolete phone like the 6310i,
it's actually bigger, heavier, has shorter battery life, a "keypad"
which is practically useless unless you use it two-handed and you
can't get a proper car kit for it. That's before you even consider
the shape and the fact it bears more than a passing resemblance to an
etch-a-sketch.
No offence; I'm not trying to rip apart your choice of phone and if
you like your phone I'm glad you're happy with it, but a serious
business phone it most definitely is not. I'm sure there's space in
the market for gimmicky devices but Nokia seem to have forgotten about
the neglect the business users who are actually the bread and butter
of the mobile phone networks and actually use them _as_a_phone_ rather
than taking pictures of their mates pissed up/down their trousers etc
or flaunting their latest "cool" device in the pub.
As Peter pointed out, Nokia have actually put out a couple of models
which should rightfully be successors to the 6210 and 6310i but it's
been so long since they mislaid their plot that they omitted key
business features, instead including near oh-so-crucial things like
picture messaging!
--
>iv< Paul >iv<
- 07-03-2004, 05:56 PM #9Paul HopwoodGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
"Peter Shaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In conclusion, there must be a reason that phone manufacturers have decided
>to go down the road of making their phones jack of all trades and masters of
>none. I just don't know what it is. Is it to attract the largest possible
>catchment for each phone they produce?
I suspect it's exactly the same phenomena which caused the
proliferation of calculator, space invaders and pac man watches back
in the early 1980's.
I believe that, just as then, people will get bored of having daft
shaped phones with keypads which are hopeless for dialling phone
numbers, even presuming the battery has lasted long enough to make a
phone call, and eventually the market will regress to making phones
which are better phones rather than phones which do just about
everything but.
Until then, the rest of us should stock up on "real" phones while
they're still available and wait for the mass hysteria to settle down!
;-)
--
>iv< Paul >iv<
- 07-03-2004, 05:56 PM #10rachelGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
Paul,
that is way I posted, 'cos I figured that your angst would be ideal at my
phone!
It is not a crap phone. It is not a crap camera. It is not a crap pda. I ask
you this time, have you tried one for any length of time?
It is not intended to be a top-of-the-range digital camera, boasting 6MP,
not a iPod, nor a PDA, just basic elements of each.
Would you drive a Daewoo Matiz, a Ford Focus, or a Bentley?
All are cars, and all get you from A-B, but in different ways Paul?
Each to his own, and each person likes what they need, and can afford.
Supply and demand. Nokia et.al have developed phones with functions and
features Jo Public has requested.
I admit it is ugly, an etch-a-sketch, maybe not, lol!
It is not intended as a business phone, it's target market was 20
somethings, who are gadget savvy.
Try the Orange SPV for a business phone, or the 02 XDA.
Beware though, the former is a MS based phone.....need I say more?
No more are the business man the bread and butter.
More money is made out of texting/picture messaging/games and downloadable
content, that is why the providers have started the Premium Services, such
as the personal touch of taking messages, instead of voicemail etc.
neil
- 07-03-2004, 06:50 PM #11michael turnerGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:30:46 +0100, rachel wrote:
> And what is wrong with 3?
Two words "Walled Garden" ... NO internet access.
Expensive video clips of football goals is something I can quite happily
live without.
Real internet access is something I find quite essential for my
day-to-day activities, and would be required before I'd even consider a 3G
phone.
> Good coverage where I am, central Manchester,
....and lousy coverage once you leave the big-city. Then it reverts to
GSM mode on the O2 network. I may as well stay with what I've already got,
which is a Nokia 6310i on Vodafone contract.
--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
[email protected]
- 07-03-2004, 07:10 PM #12DaveTGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
"Paul Hopwood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "rachel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Quick straw poll. Is it possible that I am the only person still
> >> alive to think a phone should be a phone?
>
> >No, I don't think you are, but I disagree.
>
> >I have a 7600. Why? Well, it is on 3, and I get 500 any network mins for
> >£25/month
>
> >It has a camera built in, which is good enough for me.
> >It has a built in mp3 player, which is good enough for me.
> >It has all the other stuff that come with modern phones.
>
> >I therefore, just carry a phone, and do not need to carry a phone,
camera,
> >mp3 player, PDA etc.
> >Simple solution for me.
>
> The 7600 and it's ilk being *just* the case in point really. How many
> people really *need* all those things at the same time? I mean, it
> might include be a phone, pda and camera all rolled into one but it's
> a crap phone, crap pda and crap camera.
>
> Compared to a supposedly ancient and obsolete phone like the 6310i,
> it's actually bigger, heavier, has shorter battery life, a "keypad"
> which is practically useless unless you use it two-handed and you
> can't get a proper car kit for it. That's before you even consider
> the shape and the fact it bears more than a passing resemblance to an
> etch-a-sketch.
>
> No offence; I'm not trying to rip apart your choice of phone and if
> you like your phone I'm glad you're happy with it, but a serious
> business phone it most definitely is not. I'm sure there's space in
> the market for gimmicky devices but Nokia seem to have forgotten about
> the neglect the business users who are actually the bread and butter
> of the mobile phone networks and actually use them _as_a_phone_ rather
> than taking pictures of their mates pissed up/down their trousers etc
> or flaunting their latest "cool" device in the pub.
>
> As Peter pointed out, Nokia have actually put out a couple of models
> which should rightfully be successors to the 6210 and 6310i but it's
> been so long since they mislaid their plot that they omitted key
> business features, instead including near oh-so-crucial things like
> picture messaging!
>
> --
> >iv< Paul >iv<
The phone makers like Nokia Sony E have to make phones for the people who
buy their phones and that is the networks not us the end users. Those few
who buy conntract free phones are stuck with what is available.
Business users maybe the bread and butter of the mobile networks but as can
be seen it is the mobile networks that have the say in what does or does not
get put into a phone as the major purchasers of phones. Networks hope to
make money from WAP selling downloads and useless pages of news they demand
cameras to sell MMS and that is about as good as we have got from the
cameras on phones no optical zooms and no useable flash's, they are not made
to be useable alternatives to 'real camera'. The networks have stuffed the
idea of having smartphones with them demanding software locks. No wonder
Psion pulled out of Symbian.
It has even been suggested that we (the users) should be stopped from being
able to load the phones from our PCs so we download ringtones pictures and
software over WAP on the network.
DaveT
- 07-04-2004, 02:53 AM #13Peter ShawGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
<snip>
> The phone makers like Nokia Sony E have to make phones for the people who
> buy their phones and that is the networks not us the end users. Those few
> who buy conntract free phones are stuck with what is available.
> Business users are maybe the bread and butter of the mobile networks, but
as can
> be seen it is the mobile networks that have the say in what does or does
not
> get put into a phone as the major purchasers of phones.
>Networks hope to make money from WAP selling downloads and useless pages of
news,
>they demand cameras to sell MMS and that is about as good as we have got
from the
> cameras on phones - no optical zooms and no useable flashes.They are not
made
> to be useable alternatives to 'real cameras'.
>The networks have stuffed the idea of having smartphones with their demands
for software locks. No wonder
> Psion pulled out of Symbian. It has even been suggested that we (the
users) should be stopped from being
> able to load the phones from our PCs so we that download ringtones,
pictures and
> software over WAP on the network.
I hadn't looked at it like that before - very good point. So all these
useless add-ons are simply to maximise the networks' revenue and are
demanded by them in the first place.
- 07-04-2004, 05:38 AM #14DaveTGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
"Peter Shaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
>
> > The phone makers like Nokia Sony E have to make phones for the people
who
> > buy their phones and that is the networks not us the end users. Those
few
> > who buy conntract free phones are stuck with what is available.
>
> > Business users are maybe the bread and butter of the mobile networks,
but
> as can
> > be seen it is the mobile networks that have the say in what does or does
> not
> > get put into a phone as the major purchasers of phones.
>
> >Networks hope to make money from WAP selling downloads and useless pages
of
> news,
> >they demand cameras to sell MMS and that is about as good as we have got
> from the
> > cameras on phones - no optical zooms and no useable flashes.They are not
> made
> > to be useable alternatives to 'real cameras'.
>
> >The networks have stuffed the idea of having smartphones with their
demands
> for software locks. No wonder
> > Psion pulled out of Symbian. It has even been suggested that we (the
> users) should be stopped from being
> > able to load the phones from our PCs so we that download ringtones,
> pictures and
> > software over WAP on the network.
>
>
> I hadn't looked at it like that before - very good point. So all these
> useless add-ons are simply to maximise the networks' revenue and are
> demanded by them in the first place.
>
>
The only way to bring good useable phones back is to complain to your
service provider not through customer services but to try and get to the
purchase department or management usually you have to use snail mail to get
to them.
If court actions against blackmailers and paedophiles are proved to involve
camera phones that may make them think again about going back to add-on
cameras as it is there are a growing amount of places were camera phones are
now unusable. So in time there may be more phones available without cameras
..
DaveT
- 07-04-2004, 05:55 AM #15Daniel JuhnGuest
Re: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)
noone is forcing you to upgrade to the latest and greatest you ****ing idiot
"Paul Hopwood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Quick straw poll. Is it possible that I am the only person still
> alive to think a phone should be a phone?
>
> I mean, what's with all these "toys" Nokia seem to be pushing into the
> market and everyone in this newsgroup seems to be getting so excited
> by?
>
> A mobile phone used to be precisely that; a telephone that was, well,
> mobile! Just like a telephone, you would use it to receive and make
> phone calls but you could carry it around with you. Neat, huh?
>
> Now it seems the world is full of "phones" that take pictures,
> "phones" that play tunes, "phones" that allow you to surf your
> favourite porn sites when away from the privacy of your home computer,
> useless "phones" that connect to other equally useless devices over
> distances of up to 30ft, "phones" that play the crap games most games
> companies dropped decades ago, "phones" with keyboards only fit for
> the digits of alien species from other galaxies. The evolution of
> phones has been great with handsets getting smaller (thus more mobile)
> and batteries that last longer (thus, again, more mobile) but some
> twisted marketing individual in the marketing department evidently
> wasn't content with making phones more useful so instead they've
> started adding useless features to make mobile phones bigger again and
> which put sufficient drain on the battery that they last barely long
> enough for you to dash between power outlets.
>
> Me? I want a mobile phone to be *precisely* what it says on the tin!
> It should be a phone, designed for the purpose of making and receiving
> phone calls, and it needs to be mobile. Anything that won't fit into
> my pocket unless I'm wearing an oversized kagool and a battery life
> insufficient to allow me to leave the house for five minutes without
> recharging the damned thing simply won't cut the mustard!
>
> Ok, as a business user I can see some value in large address books,
> tri-band, bluetooth, modem/data capabilities and even, to a lesser
> extent, WAP (as terrible and largely useless that it is for actually
> accessing information!). I'd even admit I find colour screens
> aesthetically pleasing but what's with all these other gimmicks and
> why-oh-why-oh-why do Nokia insist on employing the same designers as
> Fisher Price?
>
> IMHO the only respectable business phone in the Nokia portfolio is the
> 6310i. While I'd concede it's probably outdated and Nokia are
> justified in ceasing manufacture of this old favourite, where is the
> replacement for those of us who just want a mobile phone to be a phone
> which is mobile? Or am I the only remaining citizen to support the
> cause?
>
> --
> >iv< Paul >iv<
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- Panasonic
- General Cell Phone Forum
- Sprint PCS
- General Cell Phone Forum
Buy passports,drivers licenses,id cards,birth certificates
in New Member Introductions