Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 64
  1. #1
    Paul Hopwood
    Guest
    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)




  2. #2
    Detrious
    Guest

    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



  3. #3
    rachel
    Guest

    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.





  4. #4
    Peter Shaw
    Guest

    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!





  5. #5
    Peter Shaw
    Guest

    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!





  6. #6
    rachel
    Guest

    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?





  7. #7
    Detrious
    Guest

    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



  8. #8
    Paul Hopwood
    Guest

    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<




  9. #9
    Paul Hopwood
    Guest

    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<




  10. #10
    rachel
    Guest

    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





  11. #11
    michael turner
    Guest

    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]



  12. #12
    DaveT
    Guest

    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





  13. #13
    Peter Shaw
    Guest

    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.





  14. #14
    DaveT
    Guest

    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





  15. #15
    Daniel Juhn
    Guest

    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




  • Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast