When is a phone not a phone? (rant)

"Paul Hopwood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "rachel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I never said I've never tried them. You asked if I'd used them for
> any length I time, which I've not, having tried and realised they're
> simply not "me".
>

Well, you have not defined time, but a few minutes does not equte to a
proper test to me at least?

> >Cameras are not on ALL phones are they?
>
> It's becoming increasingly difficult to find phones without one.
>

But why is this an issue?
[Update]I read that you go to places where you are not allowed a camera.
My phone has an on/off switch. Might wanna try it.
OK, not a reasonable solution at all, sorry, but you really are making a
real big deal out of this.
I have offered you my old 702.

>
> Why should I pay for a camera I don't want which actually makes my
> phone *less* useful as a phone?
>

You must be one of the few who "pay" for phones these days.
They are so heavily subsidised that they are free, and no where near market
value.

>
> Instead, you end up holding a gadget to your ear which is far more
> attractive to a perspective thief it appeals to other gadget freaks
> and flashes "rob me" in big neon letters! ;-)

Not really.
You take a call on your simple phone.
You need to check your PDA to arrange a meeting.
You now have your hands full, a nice gadget in each. OOOO!! Thief alert! It
works both ways!

>
> Want, or have been persuaded they want by advertising by the mobile
> networks who charge for these premium services? Not all people read
> The Sun (those who do probably have camera phones). ;-) That doesn't
> prevent News International from publishing The Times.
>

Want, for me at least. I like my gadgets, always have. I do not use the
premium services. Cannot speak for all mind.
Such a pompous statement regarding to Sun readers, really pathetic, and no I
don't read the Sun, just the local paper, the Manchester Evening News.

---

› See More: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)

"rachel" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I never said I've never tried them. You asked if I'd used them for
>> any length I time, which I've not, having tried and realised they're
>> simply not "me".

>Well, you have not defined time, but a few minutes does not equte to a
>proper test to me at least?

I confess to not actually timing it my toying with it, but I think
I've gone on quite long enough about what I want from a phone and the
7600 and it's ilk quite obviously do *not* meet my requirements.

I could repeat all the things I dislike about it but I this wasn't
intended to be slagging match over your choice of phone.

>> It's becoming increasingly difficult to find phones without one.

>But why is this an issue?

>[Update]I read that you go to places where you are not allowed a camera.
>My phone has an on/off switch. Might wanna try it.

Places which prohibit cameras aren't going to be satisfied with simply
turning them off. Same goes for camera phones.

Besides which, a mobile phone which is switched off is as good as
having no mobile phone! And why should I have a crap camera forced on
me what I have no wish to use or pay for it; if I wanted a camera I'd
buy a decent camera. I'd like to be able to buy a mobile phone which
is just a friggin phone! ;-)

>OK, not a reasonable solution at all, sorry, but you really are making a
>real big deal out of this.

I, like many people, have become increasing dependent on my mobile
phone to the point it would be inconvenient to do without one. Now,
after years of filling the coffers of Nokia and the networks, it's
become quite difficult for me to acquire a functional mobile phone
which isn't an overly-bloated jumble of toys I don't require.

>I have offered you my old 702.

Thanks for the offer. I seem to recall the 702 lacked tri-band,
bluetooth and a decent address book? They were also rather heavy and
I suspect the battery isn't too healthy after all this time so it
probably misses the spot on all counts. But thanks, I'll bear it in
mind. ;-)

>> Why should I pay for a camera I don't want which actually makes my
>> phone *less* useful as a phone?

>You must be one of the few who "pay" for phones these days.

>They are so heavily subsidised that they are free, and no where near market
>value.

I don't pay directly, but ultimately someone does. As it happens I'm
on a business contract and, unlike domestic users, have to pay the
contract-free price. But the point is they're not free either way,
you end up paying for them somewhere down the line.

>Not really.
>You take a call on your simple phone.
>You need to check your PDA to arrange a meeting.

I don't tend to do both in public places and I can put my PDA safely
out of eyes reach. When I'm making a phone call I'm using my boring
handset devoid of all the features most people obviously feel
necessary in a phone these days. You try detaching your PDA, MP3,
Camera etc.

>Such a pompous statement regarding to Sun readers, really pathetic, and no I
>don't read the Sun, just the local paper, the Manchester Evening News.

It was pompous but I make no apologies for it. <g>

My point was that just because the mass-market have certain demands it
isn't necessary to remove the element choice. If newspapers went the
same way as phones your Manchester Evening News would become the
Manchester Sun and be full of t*ts and dumbed down sensationalist
crap. That said I've *never* read the paper so it may well already
be. :-)

Anyway, the point of my post was ... well, in all honestly it was to
vent, but I *was* kind of interested in finding out if anyone else
felt the same way. You evidently don't.

As I said early in this thread, if you like your 7600 I'm glad you
have a handset you're happy with. If you're a gadget freak and want
all those features, with the current trend in mobile phone development
leaning heavily towards hype over substance I suspect you're going to
remain happy for some time to come.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:36:10 +0100, rachel wrote:

> "Paul Hopwood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "rachel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I never said I've never tried them. You asked if I'd used them for
>> any length I time, which I've not, having tried and realised they're
>> simply not "me".
>>
>
> Well, you have not defined time, but a few minutes does not equte to a
> proper test to me at least?
>
>> >Cameras are not on ALL phones are they?
>>
>> It's becoming increasingly difficult to find phones without one.
>>
>
> But why is this an issue?
> [Update]I read that you go to places where you are not allowed a camera.
> My phone has an on/off switch. Might wanna try it.

OFF may NOT be an option, i.e. cameras MUST not be left with security at
the gate, and that includes camera-phones.

> OK, not a reasonable solution at all, sorry, but you really are making a
> real big deal out of this.
> I have offered you my old 702.
>
>>
>> Why should I pay for a camera I don't want which actually makes my
>> phone *less* useful as a phone?
>>
>
> You must be one of the few who "pay" for phones these days.

PAYG is still very popular. And PAYG handset's ain't AFAIK subsidised.

> They are so heavily subsidised that they are free, and no where near market
> value.

Contract handsets may be free and subsidised. But the SP going to get at
least £200-£300(maybe a lot more) out of a typical mobile subscriber
during the 12-month contract.

>> Instead, you end up holding a gadget to your ear which is far more
>> attractive to a perspective thief it appeals to other gadget freaks
>> and flashes "rob me" in big neon letters! ;-)
>
> Not really.
> You take a call on your simple phone.
> You need to check your PDA to arrange a meeting.
> You now have your hands full, a nice gadget in each. OOOO!! Thief alert! It
> works both ways!

Nah the thief just goes for the all singing and dancing gizmo
camera-phones, not the boring basic ones.

Who's the best mugging target ? the one flashing the 6600, or the one
flashing the 3310 ?

>> Want, or have been persuaded they want by advertising by the mobile
>> networks who charge for these premium services? Not all people read
>> The Sun (those who do probably have camera phones). ;-) That doesn't
>> prevent News International from publishing The Times.
>>
>
> Want, for me at least. I like my gadgets,

And so do muggers.

--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
[email protected]

Can I sum up on this thread, for me at least?

It seems we have a clear polarised opinion here, and a vocal one too, which
is fantastic, and has created some intelligent debate from some, (I do not
include myself!), and some not so, (more me perhaps)

It seems that the all encompassing phone is great for some, and not for all.
It seems that the major players need to develop a phone:

with tri/quad band,
bluetooth,
infra-red,
a light-dimming feature,
with elementary software, (so not to drain the battery),
no camera,
no mp3 player,
no radio,
and more onus on the PDA functionality.
It must be on a network that offers fast, reliable and varied 'net access,
and not much else.

Sounds like your phone Paul and Michael.

Now, does one exist, cos we have at least two buyers out there.

I (naively) did not appreciate that the business buyer does not get
discounted handsets, although I do draw your attention to the Orange for
business range, and similar, that offer multiple handsets on one tariff, and
with cheap(er) handsets.
PAYG are discounted hand-sets, but i have not spotted a free one yet.
When I upgrade, I put my PAYG sim, in my old-contract phone, yes, I have two
mobiles, sad eh?

I hope this thread has no caused offence, and it certainly wasn't a mine
phone is better/worse than your phone, just a bit of vent spleaning it
seems.
Hope you guys get what you want!
neil

(the 702 is heavy, is single-band, and a bit dusty!)

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:36:09 +0100, rachel wrote:

> Can I sum up on this thread, for me at least?
>
> It seems we have a clear polarised opinion here, and a vocal one too, which
> is fantastic, and has created some intelligent debate from some, (I do not
> include myself!), and some not so, (more me perhaps)
>
> It seems that the all encompassing phone is great for some, and not for all.
> It seems that the major players need to develop a phone:
>
> with tri/quad band,
> bluetooth,
> infra-red,

Definately.

> a light-dimming feature,

IMO the 6310i's backlight is just about right.

> with elementary software, (so not to drain the battery),

I find one or two basic Java games to be a useful 5 minute diversion on
occasions, while waiting for the bus or train etc.

> no camera,

Absolutely.

> no mp3 player,

I use an iPod thru the car's stereo while driving, but nowhere else.

> no radio,

See above.

> and more onus on the PDA functionality.

Names, numbers and emails is enough for me.

> It must be on a network that offers fast, reliable and varied 'net access,
> and not much else.

GPRS is enough for me for the moment.

> Sounds like your phone Paul and Michael.

Absolutely

> Now, does one exist, cos we have at least two buyers out there.

Well it was the 6310i, but that looks like it's being discontinued.
Although I can't see why, especially as Nokia is still producing very
basic handsets like the 3310(which my employer still issues as it's
standard corporate handset)

> I (naively) did not appreciate that the business buyer does not get
> discounted handsets, although I do draw your attention to the Orange for
> business range, and similar, that offer multiple handsets on one tariff,
> and with cheap(er) handsets.
> PAYG are discounted hand-sets, but i have not spotted a free one yet.
> When I upgrade, I put my PAYG sim, in my old-contract phone, yes, I have
> two mobiles, sad eh?

> I hope this thread has no caused offence, and it certainly wasn't a mine
> phone is better/worse than your phone, just a bit of vent spleaning it
> seems.

No probs, I find it quite interesting discussion.

> Hope you guys get what you want!

:-)

--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
[email protected]

>Well it was the 6310i, but that looks like it's being discontinued.
>Although I can't see why, especially as Nokia is still producing very
>basic handsets like the 3310(which my employer still issues as it's
>standard corporate handset)


is the 3310 still being made by nokia? i thought that places that sell
it just have a lot of stock??

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 13:45:50 +0100, eggster2k wrote:

>
>>Well it was the 6310i, but that looks like it's being discontinued.
>>Although I can't see why, especially as Nokia is still producing very
>>basic handsets like the 3310(which my employer still issues as it's
>>standard corporate handset)
>
>
> is the 3310 still being made by nokia? i thought that places that sell
> it just have a lot of stock??

I think you may be right, just checked and Expansys list it as
'discontinued'.

Guess my company will be looking for a new corporate handset. Probably in
the shape of the 3410, which appears to be similar to the 3310 even down
to the built-in games (Space Impact, Bantumi and Snake II), but has WAP
and Java added.

--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
[email protected]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:03:16 +0100, michael turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 13:45:50 +0100, eggster2k wrote:
>
>>
>>>Well it was the 6310i, but that looks like it's being discontinued.
>>>Although I can't see why, especially as Nokia is still producing very
>>>basic handsets like the 3310(which my employer still issues as it's
>>>standard corporate handset)
>>
>>
>> is the 3310 still being made by nokia? i thought that places that sell
>> it just have a lot of stock??
>
>I think you may be right, just checked and Expansys list it as
>'discontinued'.
>
>Guess my company will be looking for a new corporate handset. Probably in
>the shape of the 3410, which appears to be similar to the 3310 even down
>to the built-in games (Space Impact, Bantumi and Snake II), but has WAP
>and Java added.


3410 does look a good handset and is only 30 quid at fwdcellular.

michael turner <[email protected]> wrote:

>> [Update]I read that you go to places where you are not allowed a camera.
>> My phone has an on/off switch. Might wanna try it.
>
>OFF may NOT be an option, i.e. cameras MUST not be left with security at
>the gate, and that includes camera-phones.

I presume you mean MUST be left... ;-)

Companies that ban cameras, in my experience, tend to insist they're
left either in your car or with security. The former being downright
stupid the latter being merely inconvenient.

>> You must be one of the few who "pay" for phones these days.

>PAYG is still very popular. And PAYG handset's ain't AFAIK subsidised.

Nor are handsets on the larger business contracts. Heavy
subsidisation is restricted largely to domestic contracts.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

"rachel" <[email protected]> wrote:

>It seems that the all encompassing phone is great for some, and not for all.
>It seems that the major players need to develop a phone:

>with tri/quad band,

Tri-band at least. Not had need for quad yet but I'm sure some would
find it handy.

>bluetooth,

I manage without at the moment but it's handy.

>infra-red,

Don't use it often, but again worthwhile on a business phone.

>a light-dimming feature,

Not really thought about that, but with the obvious impact on battery
life it would make sense.

>with elementary software, (so not to drain the battery),

Definitely. Also to increase reliability. It seems many of these
clever phones are plagued by firmware problems. Gadget lovers are
probably happier to accept the odd glitch in order to get "leading
edge" capabilities but a business phone should, above all, be
dependable.

>no camera,

Definitely not!

>no mp3 player,
>no radio,

No need for either of these.

>and more onus on the PDA functionality.

I personally wouldn't use it; imho it adds complexity, a sensible
handset screen is too small for proper PDA use (and a larger screen
would be unnecessary, increase size, weight and drain the battery). I
find it essential to operate both on occasion so I favour two separate
devices. That said, some might find it useful and if it didn't impact
greatly on the other criteria I'd be happy for a phone to have
rudimentary PDA functionality and simply not use it, if the inclusion
of would make the phone appeal to a larger business audience and thus
make it more viable.

>It must be on a network that offers fast, reliable and varied 'net access,
>and not much else.

Pretty much. I essentially make and receive phone calls so coverage
has to be good and reliable. I get the occasional text and rarely use
WAP; I imagine other people make more use of them and in all honestly
I'd probably miss them more if they were absent so that's about it;
good voice coverage, GPRS for data and WAP. Little else.

Oh, and it must have a "proper" car kit! Support from the car
manufacturers would be particularly nice but the only phone to have
the best of both worlds is (or rather was) the Nokia 6210 and 6310 to
the best of my knowledge.

>Sounds like your phone Paul and Michael.

Definitely, if you add small, lightweight and elegant yet understated
to the list. ;-)

>I (naively) did not appreciate that the business buyer does not get
>discounted handsets, although I do draw your attention to the Orange for
>business range, and similar, that offer multiple handsets on one tariff, and
>with cheap(er) handsets.
>PAYG are discounted hand-sets, but i have not spotted a free one yet.
>When I upgrade, I put my PAYG sim, in my old-contract phone, yes, I have two
>mobiles, sad eh?

Businesses often negotiate tariffs with favourable call rates and
billing arrangements but at the expense of subsidised handsets, which
they often have to buy at the full RRP or "sim-free" price.

>I hope this thread has no caused offence, and it certainly wasn't a mine
>phone is better/worse than your phone, just a bit of vent spleaning it
>seems.

No offence taken and none caused I hope. We clearly have very
different needs. If your handset meets yours then, for you, it's a
good phone. It simply doesn't do "the business" for me. ;-)

>Hope you guys get what you want!

Thanks. I'm not holding my breath.

>(the 702 is heavy, is single-band, and a bit dusty!)

Don't lob it in the skip just yet; I'd still take it over your 7600!
;-))

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

Paul Hopwood wrote:
> My point was that just because the mass-market have certain demands it
> isn't necessary to remove the element choice.

Indeed. Especially when Nokia alone are coming up with around 40 new phones
a year now. Quite a spectacular figure.

I haven't found a good replacement for my 6310i, was looking at the 6230:

Camera: crap (640x480), gets in the way when there are no-camera policies.
Too small, fiddly keys.
Battery life much shorter than 6310i.

At least the screen has reasonable contrast.

> Anyway, the point of my post was ... well, in all honestly it was to
> vent, but I *was* kind of interested in finding out if anyone else
> felt the same way. You evidently don't.

I do.

I don't mind all the software features, I like Java with a full TCP/IP
stack, thats kinda cool. The software "bloat" doesn't significantly reduce
battery life, in fact, you'd be hard pushed to find any difference in
battery life, regardless of software features. Colour screens (Why, when
they have crap contrast?) are what eat battery life.

My main concerns are:

Good Screen. Mono is fine. Smallish (like the 6310i) is fine. Contrast
wins the battle here.
Decent address book (like to store LOTS of numbers, addresses, email etc)
Bluetooth
Tri-Band
Battery Life!
Not too small - I have small hands but I have no idea how people use such
small phones. 6310i is about right.
Media Card, MMC is fine, but why not just support SD as well!
Decent data support, GPRS, HSCSD etc.

To all of those people that say this type of phone has no market, I ask you
why the 6310i was so popular over a year from it's release date.

Now, features I also like, but are not a primary concern, are:
radio & mp3 player.
touch screen (if it's gonna be a big one) but I know that will totally
conflict with the battery life.

Poly tones I couldn't care less about, most tunes I've heard are plain
annoying. I'd rather hear the mono thing in mine, than something that
approaches the musical abilities of the first PC sound cards. You remember
the ones, pre-wavetable, 'orrible. Great at the time. Hmm.

Ok, thats the features that are out there now.

Here's a thought:
You have an MMC (or preferably an SD) slot in the phone. Capacity for loads
of stuff. Why not add a USB interface, so I can easily transfer files to
that card? I could then use my phone as a USB flash device, perfect! And
since the phone might as well play MP3s (preferably AAC as well), it will be
a quick & easy way to get MP3s on there.

Not to worry, at the rate Nokia are going, they'll be able to make custom
phones with the specific features you require, they'll certainly have had a
lot of practice in making a lot of different phones... 40/year, still can't
get over that, a new phone almost every week!

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

rachel wrote:
> Can I sum up on this thread, for me at least?
>
> It seems we have a clear polarised opinion here, and a vocal one too,
> which is fantastic, and has created some intelligent debate from some, (I
> do not include myself!), and some not so, (more me perhaps)
>
> It seems that the all encompassing phone is great for some, and not for
> all. It seems that the major players need to develop a phone:
>
> with tri/quad band,
> bluetooth,
> infra-red,

Yeah. Infra-Red is kinda not necessary, as Bluetooth is a significant
improvement and an absolute replacement for IR. When it works properly

> a light-dimming feature,

The lights are blue, right?

> with elementary software, (so not to drain the battery),

Not really an issue. It's not really the software that drains the battery,
however, depending on what the software needs to do, might mean a more power
hungry CPU... There are some pretty amazing things being done with power
saving now though.

> no camera,

Indeed. Unless it comes with an optical zoom and 2+ megapixels, there's not
much point. I've never been a fan of digital cameras until recently, where
the technology can actually replace film. Some of the Fuji (and I'm sure
others) digital cameras are amazing, look at the S ranges.

> no mp3 player,
> no radio,

Hmm. I doubt I'd use them, to be honest.

> and more onus on the PDA functionality.

I had a Psion 5, didn't use it. I just wanna be able to store elementary
details about people. Found the 6310i phone book to be about right, various
text fields are useful, as are the categories. Calendar is also adequate -
birthdays, meetings, alarms, fine.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

>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 think that you will find that Bluetooth is a dying technoligy. It has had
some sucess in Europe but for the most part, the rest of the world has not
embraced it.



--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:58:47 +0000, John S. wrote:

>>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 think that you will find that Bluetooth is a dying technoligy.

Any idea what's going to replace it ?

> It has
> had some sucess in Europe but for the most part, the rest of the world has
> not embraced it.

Is the rest of the world still using wired headsets ?

--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
[email protected]

"michael turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
| On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:58:47 +0000, John S. wrote:
|
| >>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 think that you will find that Bluetooth is a dying technoligy.
|
| Any idea what's going to replace it ?
|
| > It has
| > had some sucess in Europe but for the most part, the rest of the world
has
| > not embraced it.
|
| Is the rest of the world still using wired headsets ?
|
| --
| Michael Turner
| Email (ROT13)
| [email protected]

A more open WiFi standard would be better than B/tooth..
Well...here in my place we dont bother much with headsets...lol... wired
ones if used are more common here