# Does the world really need an all-in-one device?



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 15, 2005)

I've been thinking about this a fair bit over the past few months and the conclusion I've reached is that I could care less about an all-in-one device.

Basically, I would like to comfortably carry 4 devices with me:

1. Mobile phone/organiser, with a built in thumb keyboard

2. MP3 player

3. Digital camera

4. Personal video player

Today, there are already phones (e.g. Nokia 6822) and MP3 players (e.g. iPod shuffle/mini) that are the perfect size and weight for carrying around.

Truly pocketable digital cameras, which take decent quality pictures (esp. distance and low light shots), aren't that far off at all.

Personal video players are still fairly brick-like, but they'll probably be acceptable within 2 - 4 years.

Arguments against an all-in-one device:




4 devices will always give you better battery life than one all-in-one device
You can use up the battery on your MP3 player completely and still have phone capability
You can have one device break (or stolen, etc) and still have the other devices
You can split the weight of devices between pockets
Anyone else have an opinion about this?

Kap


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Feb 15, 2005)

I don't fully agree although your arguments are justified. I think it is much more important to have 4 devices in one than a longer battery-life. My mobility will end after approximately 16h in my bed and I don't expect my device to be longer mobil unless I have no opportunities to plug it for recharging. I think it is better to have only one screen showing your phone status, calender, song playback, video and pictures than having 4 screens. And I also think it will be a lot more expensive to have all these 4 devices bought seperately (not considering that they definitely will have a better quality) than one device.
So, I would rather like to have an all-in-one solution if I would need all 4 components. If I only use the phone as such and rarely listen to mp3s not to mention watching videos or taking lousy pics than it's a very clear decission.
But your discussion is assuming that one needs all 4 of them..


----------



## cfleck (Feb 15, 2005)

my argument against an all-in-one goes like this.  i'd rather have a cheap phone that works as a phone than an all in one that costs an arm and a leg for crappy quality on fronts i rarely use.


----------



## CreativeEye (Feb 15, 2005)

cfleck - i doubt choice would disappear as a result of an all-in-one device being bought to market.

i have a samsung d500 - its got an mp3 player, 1.3m pixel cam (surpisingly good quality), video (albeit not great quality), basic organiser functionality and it makes and receives phone calls! 

sure, the 'extras' on the device arent up to the standards of some of the stand alone cameras and mp3 players - but its a step in the right direction and a step closer to a great all-in-one.

you'll always be able to buy a device which is 'just a phone'.


----------



## cfleck (Feb 15, 2005)

actually parb, i question that.  i've mentioned it before on these forums, but i hate phones with all the crap on them.  its getting harder to find a phone that lacks a camera but has a decent feature set.


----------



## Pengu (Feb 15, 2005)

Ok. i see the point. but.
i think mp3 player and "personal video player" are effectively doing the same thing. you can't use both at once.
as for the camera. unless you're amish and walk everywhere, put a decent quality small digi cam in your bag/backpack/car/office/whatever. as for the phone.
i will be buying the SE0910i soon, so don't talk to me about "i like cheap phones".

everything today is convergance. it's a good thing. less crap to carry/find/lose/remember how to use.


----------



## fryke (Feb 15, 2005)

Well, then let's go imaginary for a moment.  If Apple were to release the "iDoitall", which'd have the form factor of a Nokia Communicator 9300 (maybe slightly wider even), a good keyboard, media playing, messaging-multitalent (3G, GSM, EGPRS/GPRS, WiFi, Bluetooth, everything) with a decent 3-5 MegaPixel camera today, I guess they'd do so because they got it right. Alas, I just don't _think_ Apple will do that. And as long as the device is something that somehow caters to a Nokia's or a SonyEricsson's needs, I guess Mac compatibility and iTunes/iMedia integration will be an afterthought. Plus: It'll be slow. Or at least JUST so imperfect that you're going to want the next version, too. 

It's a sad thing, but none of the mobile phone makers actually want to create the 'finished' mobile phone. Unless we're talking Vertu. But they _do_ charge.


----------



## Cat (Feb 15, 2005)

What about the Siemens "Buisness class" SK65? Cost ~500,- plays music and videos, gets you e-mail, etc. etc. Sure, it doesn't come cheap, but I don't even want to know what a Vertu costs ... (which btw. I guess is ten times that ...) Cheaper than the newest Communicator, but with a smaller screen. Sounds good.


----------



## cfleck (Feb 15, 2005)

well i'll talk cheap phones because thats what i like.  

anyway, i'm yet to hear a really good argument for why it seems that every phone maker out there seems to feel like they need to put all this crap in the phones.  i'm sure there are plenty of people (like some of you) who like this multifunction strategy and are willing to pay for it.

the rest of us however, just want a phone to talk on.  thats it.

personal video player?  i'd rather talk to someone. 
personal music player?  only when i'm reading
digital camera? i'll take my d70 over a camera phone any day.

some of us just aren't the right people for this crap.  and everyone says "well, it will get better".  i promise you'll never see a camera in a phone as good as a quality stand-alone camera.  and thats what i want.  if i'm going to do it, i'm going to do it right.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 15, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> i think mp3 player and "personal video player" are effectively doing the same thing. you can't use both at once.


The personal video player is going to need a reasonably sized screen which you  _really_ wouldn't want drop when jogging (while listening to MP3s).

i.e. The _environment_ where you use these devices doesn't always overlap, even though the functionality does.



			
				fryke said:
			
		

> If Apple were to release the "iDoitall"


Of course, if _Apple_ released such a gadget, I'd feel compelled to buy it.  



			
				cfleck said:
			
		

> i'm yet to hear a really good argument for why it seems that every phone maker out there seems to feel like they need to put all this crap in the phones.


The argument that can I semi-relate to: The phone is the one gadget that you're most likely to want with you all the time (plus, it's the biggest market segment). So, if you're going to build an all-in-one device it would be best to centre it around the phone.

However, I'm like you and would prefer if manufacturers gave us better options in the stripped down side of the spectrum (esp. get annoyed when I see phone manufacturers putting in a Java Virtual Machine).

Kap


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 15, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> It's a sad thing, but none of the mobile phone makers actually want to create the 'finished' mobile phone. Unless we're talking Vertu. But they _do_ charge.


Just had a look at the Vertu site - what a piece of garbage! Very pretty and very useless. Not my idea of the "finished" mobile phone at all.

Kap


----------



## texanpenguin (Feb 16, 2005)

I agree completely.

For me, there's another reason:

I hate worrying about my phone. I've always given my phones a beating; I don't want a phone that I can't have in my pocket with my keys. I need it to be able to withstand a reasonable fall onto concrete and survive. I currently have a Nokia 3530, which is starting to look truly dated by today's standards. Yet still, I like it (I would be 100% happy with it if it had Bluetooth (or even IR) and if all its bits still worked as new (vibrator functions have recently died, ringtone volume is inaudible))

I hate the idea of a smartphone (especially the ones with keyboards). I have my iPod for calendar and addresses (would be nice for all the Address Book data to be copied (photo etc) and view nicely (like on some sort of colour screen).

Even my crappy phone can e-mail, not that I do all that much of that on the road. If it had Bluetooth, I could use its GPRS on my laptop (which would be nice). Till then, I think it's fine.

As for portable video; well I wouldn't use that. I have a large collection of Music Videos, but they're not any good for watching on the road (my iPod is used for playing music in the car mostly, and Solitaire and timetables while at Uni). I think I could understand if the iPod Photo (at those exorbitant prices) could play video, but I don't know if it's exactly something I'd pay for. It's just novelty, I figure.

Phones are morphing into PDAs, which was and is (as far as I care) a dying market.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 16, 2005)

My needs for camera make it that it can't be on the phone. I need at least 10x optical zoom. I need the camera to have a camera feel. I need to be use the camera even in my dreams. A mobile phone camera I can't. Or show me a mobile phone with a camera with 10x optical zoom, starting from 5-6 MPI, flash and so on. 

I don't want my mp3 player be mixed with a phone either. Unless you can make a phone with everything I need, the size of iPod mini, with 5 GB storage for mp3s, and that works seamlessly with OS X (and the nerd in me wants to add FreeBSD, and Debian to this). Basically looking like an iPod mini, maybe with a pen and touch screen, so I would not even need the annoying numeric pad.

I did not really need an organizer. Now I do have one, in p800. And as Newton 2000, of course.

I do have a camera on the SE p800, however the only use it is for is instant shots, for web quality. So not for photgraphing itself.

On a typical day, I carry at least the phone, and at least 1 iPod (most likely the mni, sometimes shuffle). Depending on the day, I also may or may not have a portable 40 GB firewire hard drive (at work I do), an iSight (work), a camera (on free time), mayne 2 iPods in total (never carry all 3), maybe even the Newton.

And, fortunately I have the option in the phone to have it on, but not taking any calls. Since someone with home phone only is never asked "why weren't you home to answer the calls", I don't htink I am required to be reachable 24 7. If it's urgent, people know how to reach anyway - email or AIM (and no, not even waniting to use those on phone, even those both are enabled on mine), or when I need a break, I'll be back to the projects.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Feb 16, 2005)

I'm, with cfleck on this one.

I want a new phone, but I don't want it to be big and ugly with a crappy camera and a crappy mp3 player.  I just want a small simple stylish (and cheap) phone.  The one feature I would like though is bluetooth so I can sync address books.  Does such a thing exists?  Does it bollo....



Anyway, in more general terms, I don't want an all-in-one device.  What I'd like is a number of separate small devices that can all work together through some kind of wireless communications.

It'd be great if my PDA and my digital camera could just wirelessly use my iPod as their storage device, and wirelessly use my phone as a modem, and my phone in turn could be ultra small, as all the extra functions would be moved to my PDA.  The PDA would also act as a screen for playing movies that would be stored on my iPod.

All of these devices could then, individually, be a lot smaller than an all in one device could ever be, so you'd never have a big brick of a device to lug around.

With an all in one device, it can only ever be as small as the screen it has (which needs to be of a reasonable size for video and so on) so you tend to have a pretty large device.  If this was separate from the phone part, and the mp3 part, you'd only need to use the big screen when you wanted to.  (of course, if any of these roll-able screen technologies take off, this point may become moot).

I strongly believe that interoperability is the way to go, rather than an all-in-one.

All-in-ones just seem to be a compromise in every respect.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Feb 16, 2005)

Just for the record: the question is not, if someone needs an mp3 or video device on the road. We are talking about the case that someone DOES need those 4 devices on the road and the question is if it makes more sense to have it all in one or not. 
We are not even considering the lower quality of these components in such all-in-one phones/PDAs since it's a matter of time to improve this.


----------



## Randman (Feb 16, 2005)

I think that pdas are on the way out, though the treo isn't going without a fight. Still, those look really "geeky" to me, worse than the Nokia 9600 Communicator.

I think it's more of a couple of devices that do one thing really good and do a few others. My iPods play music wonderfully. The fact that I can carry data and basic notes and calendar items and a few games are icing on the cake.

 For phones, so many are crap. I'm very happy right now with the Nokia 6630. It's fast, has a great battery life and the reception is superb. The fact that I can watch videos on it (3G or bluetoothed from my PB), play mp3s (including stuff from the iTMS) and I have notes and calendar functions are icing on the cake. Between the two, I really don't need a pda anymore.


----------



## Pengu (Feb 16, 2005)

Gia.. why not get a 1Gb Sony MS Pro, pop it in your p800 and use that instead of an ipod?


----------



## cfleck (Feb 16, 2005)

Zammy - Actually, the question is "Does the world really need an all-in-one device?"  

Some of us are saying, "not really".

We are not even considering the lower quality of these components in such all-in-one phones/PDAs since it's a matter of time to improve this.


----------



## cfleck (Feb 16, 2005)

Zammy - Actually, the question is "Does the world really need an all-in-one device?"  

Some of us are saying, "not really".



> We are not even considering the lower quality of these components in such all-in-one phones/PDAs since it's a matter of time to improve this.



If you take a look at my argument from above, you can see why this is somewhat important.  There are those of us that want a camera/mp3 player/can opener that is the bomb.  There will never be a camera in a phone that is as good as a stand alone.  Same with these other devices.  There will always be benefits to multiple devices vs. and all-in-one.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Feb 16, 2005)

cfleck, yes but considering you NEED all those mentioned devices. Our discussion is breaking when ppl start with: I don't need mp3 player or video playback..


----------



## cfleck (Feb 16, 2005)

Fair enough, although that stance alone seems to be a reasonable argument against.  I would say, though, that my previous post still has a valid point if you consider only the case where the person wants everything.  

The statement should be ammended to something like, "Does the world want an all-in-one considering the components won't be as good as the stuff in stand alones?"


----------



## CreativeEye (Feb 16, 2005)

there will always be customers who want just a phone - and you'll have that choice...

there will always be customers who want just a phone - but maybe an extra feature or two...and you'll have the choice....

choice is good - im sure if you walked into a phone shop and said - 'dont sell me a camera phone with web and bells and whistles - sell me a phone'...thats exactly what you'd get.

and the choices can only get better as technology converges and becomes more ubiquitous...if you only look at the here and now of what tech can offer then there'll never be innovation in things like speed or miniaturisation of componants...if an all in one was introduced to the market now it would bomb - it'd be too big, and too expensive.

just look at 15 years ago when mobile fones were the size of briefcases...how far we've come...


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2005)

Yep, if you want 'just a phone', cfleck, then you have two VERY good options:

1) Keep your old one. Get a new battery for it, if that's getting old.

2) In case your old one isn't "good enough" anymore or you want a change in style, get a new one. I hear that ANY bl**dy mobile phone out there can still make and receive calls quite easily. And yes all the phone makers still have models without cameras. Some even still have greyscale screens (which in "just a phone" is more than good enough).

And now for the other arguments... 

Okay, we can of course agree that a separate digital camera bought at the same point in time will always be 'better technology' than what you get in a 'mixed device'. Yet phones will probably reach the day when they make more than good enough digicams for 'most' people. Then at least for _them_ it could be a tougher decision. I don't guess that right now anyone would take one of those 1.3 MP cameraphones and replace a 'real' digicam with it.

With the music player, this could theoretically happen earlier. I mean: The iPod Shuffle? Come on: A phone can beat THAT any old day if it's totally iTunes compatible and has a fast enough (read USB-2) connection to Macs and PCs. And those RS-MMCs and SD-Cards aren't _that_ expensive, either. It's rather the software there that is lacking.

And as for PIM integration: iSync does a great job - if Apple only would support more new phones faster. But you can use mobical.net if a certain phone isn't iSync-supported, so although you won't be able to integrate totally with iCal and Address Book, you'll still have some integration with your desktop or notebook Mac.

Technologically, a really good smartphone would not only be feasible today, it _could_ incorporate an iTunes compatible mobile player, it _could_ have a more or less decent 3 MP camera and it _could_ come with good iSync integration. But like I said earlier: No-one's really interested in selling you a mobile phone they can't really top in three or four months themselves. They want addicts, not customers. (Well, they want customers, too, of course, but they're much more interested in those who replace their mobile phones every few months...) - That's why I suggested Apple. There _is_ a market for 'the finished phone'. Sure, Vertu might not be _the_ perfect example for you, but it is _one_ attempt at producing the finished phone (for those who buy RADO watches and drive Mercedes Benz cars) and you _can_ drop it btw., since it's made from very durable materials, very unlike your Moto or Nokia... But it was a good example for how there _are_ a lot of niches to be found in the mobile phone market.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 16, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> With the music player, this could theoretically happen earlier. I mean: The iPod Shuffle? Come on: A phone can beat THAT any old day if it's totally iTunes compatible and has a fast enough (read USB-2) connection to Macs and PCs. And those RS-MMCs and SD-Cards aren't _that_ expensive, either. It's rather the software there that is lacking.


I take your point that it's mainly just the software that's lacking.

However, I put it to you that the shuffle is still a much better MP3 player than a phone in certain environments, from a hardware perspective (e.g. while jogging) where size, weight and durability count.

Kap


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2005)

I think jogging is overhyped, anyway. And btw.: A little more weight lets you lose more calories per minute.


----------



## cfleck (Feb 16, 2005)

but when you add more weight you have to be care where you put it as it will throw off your gait.  no one wants to run lopsided.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 16, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> I think jogging is overhyped, anyway. And btw.: A little more weight lets you lose more calories per minute.


So do I.  

Much prefer kayaking.

Kap


----------



## lnoelstorr (Feb 17, 2005)

OK, I challenge anyone to find me a mobile phone that is:

1) Cheap
2) Small
3) Stylish
4) Has Bluetooth
5) _Doesn't_ have MP3, Camera, etc...

The argument that you will always be able to buy a phone without all the 'all-in-one' features already proves to be untrue.  In this day and age I see Bluetooth as a _basic_ option a phone should have to provide syncing and/or use as a bluetooth modem; however, it is only available in expensive (and usually large and ugly) phones, which have umpteen features I couldn't care less about, and are generally pretty useless, and I have better alternatives to, but which push the price up all the same.

The other problem at the moment is that no device offers all the functions, but nearly all of them offer more than one.  It's hard these days to buy any gadget without it having a crappy built-in camera.   OK, maybe one day there will be a true all-in-one, but I doubt it.


And yes, an all-in-one is _always_ going to be a compromise compared to individual items.  It will always be bigger than a stand-alone phone (due to the screen), the screen will always be smaller than that of a stand-alone video player and/or PDA (due to trying to keep the size down), them camera and MP3 player will always compromise on quality and features, etc...

Does the world really need an all-in-one device?  Well, there will always be people to buy them, who will be happy with the compromise.  Personally however, I think what the world _really_ needs are for the companies to start working on making a number of separate small devices that can all take advantage of each other to offer the functions to a much higher standard than an all-in-one ever could.

If the screen isn't attached to the phone, or the storage device, then no size compromise is needed in either case.  If the storage isn't physically part of the phone, or MP3 player, or the PDA or the video device, then its physical size isn't as important.

It would be great if I could connect my Clie into my iPod, and use it as a hard drive so I could play back movies on my Clie (with it's much larger screen), and if my Clie could use bluetooth to talk to my mobile phone and use it as a modem, so again I could use the larger screen of my Clie to browse the web on the move, and if my Ixus camera could also use my iPod to store it's photos, and use the larger screen of my Clie to view them on the go.

That's what the world needs (or, at least, what I do), a number of small devices that work together.  Not some all-in-one compromise.


Oh, and obviously there is a place in the world for both, but as I said at the start of this post, it is already becoming _very_ hard to find gadgets that aren't trying to jump on the all-in-one bandwagon.


----------



## CreativeEye (Feb 17, 2005)

isnt this all terribly subjective?

i know people with mobile phones with bluetooth who dont even know what bluetooth is. but just because its there doesnt mean they dont want it there!

i have a microwave with a grill setting - i've never used that setting - but that doesnt mean that when i bought it the fact it had it swayed my decision in buying it.

i know a couple of people who dont even have mobile fones! yes thats right! - they are totally uncontactable unless they're at home!

seriously - if you want 'just the phone' you can get them - there are good models circa 2002 that might be perfect.

isn't it a bit like saying - i dont want a ferrari because its top speed is too high for me - i want something that doesnt go as fast please.

my mac can do so many things that i might never make it do - all that 'apache' stuff and the command line gubbins...i'll probably never find an everyday use for them - but i'm glad they're there. i'm glad that in the evolution of macs and the OS that i can have pure power but still keep it nice and simple...

the amount of times i totally forget that theres even a camera in my fone is alot! let alone a grill option in my microwave...but both things do exactly what their original purpose was amazingly well.

heck! how many times have i needed to make a phone call but cant recall a persons number because i dont have my address book with me - only to find half an hour later that i'm actually carrying a copy of it on my ipod! doh!

devices are jumping on the all-in-one bangwagon - because they all want to be the next ipod! - 'bring our product to market first and flood it' - but that -as we know - won't work, because the innovation hasnt quited bloomed yet- its early days, and the first team to make an all-in-one that makes you forget its 10 other things apart from the one mode your currently using it in will come out on top.


----------



## Pengu (Feb 17, 2005)

i just bought a cheapo temporary phone (cus my last one died) while im saving for a p910. it cost me $AU69 with $30 of included credits and a pre-paid (aka Pay As You Go)sim card. That is effectively $30 for a phone. $30 Australian. That is $23US.

It has a monocrhome screen, with blue backlight. it makes calls. receives calls. sends SMS. receives SMS. plays a few crappy games. it has a clown tune ringtone (by far the best feature). it is very sexy silver/aluminium that would match the g5 perfectly (if it could communicate with it).

You CAN buy cheap NEW phones. not many people do though. some of my friends get new phones every few months. i don't know why. they just do. "ooh look it does this. it does that". Whoopie. when you keep using a crap network with no coverage it makes no difference how cool your phone is.


----------



## fryke (Feb 17, 2005)

lnoelstorr: Well, then simply get one WITH camera and WITH colour display. What do you care? They don't cost much with a contract anyway. If you want, you can install a greyscale background or remove it totally. Let's say you get a SE T630 or a similar phone. They're quite good. Just ignore all the bells and whistles. iSync works. SMS works. Calling works. Just _ignore_ the rest of the features if you don't care for them. Simple as that.


----------



## Pengu (Feb 17, 2005)

maybe people don't want a contract?


----------



## lnoelstorr (Feb 17, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> lnoelstorr: Well, then simply get one WITH camera and WITH colour display. What do you care? They don't cost much with a contract anyway.



1) They _do_ cost much with a contract, because a contract is expensive.  Plus I'd probably have to change my number if I signed up to a contract.  So, Expensive and hassle.

2) Because they tend to be too big, bulky and ugly, etc...


_If_ they cost no more, were no bigger, no bulkier, no uglier, etc... Then I wouldn't care; however, that is simply not the case.


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 17, 2005)

I'm mostly with Inoelstorr on this subject.  There's nothing wrong with having extra features on the phone, but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that you *are* paying extra for those extra features in some way.

I have a Sony Ericsson T616 and while it's small, it's still got a bad camera.  The interface absolutely sucks because there are SO many options to scroll through (lots of bells and whistles).  I got the phone because I knew it had excellent Bluetooth support, but that's pretty much it.  I wish I got another phone now, one that Inoelstorr is describing.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 17, 2005)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> OK, I challenge anyone to find me a mobile phone that is:
> 
> 1) Cheap
> 2) Small
> ...



Ericsson t39m. Shouldn't be too pricy any more. B&w screen, BUT is small, battery life is a week of standby, is small, has bluetooth, and does NOT have cameras, mp3s etc.

I am keeping mine as a spare phone, as well for friends who will be visiting us, and don't have a phone taht works here. So one more prepaid card in it, and "here, this is a number people can call you to, and this is our number".


----------



## ApeintheShell (Feb 17, 2005)

I hope so! I would hate to do away with all-in-one devices because the world doesn't need them. We have alot of examples where they have been successful: iMac, eMac, Any laptop, Playstation 2, Xbox, Brother Fax Machines, Nokia and Sony Ericsson phones, Digital Video Camcorders, Pocket Knife, Lunchboxes[its all in one!], Personal Digital Assistants. 
I am sure there are much more that we take for granted everyday like the refridgerator that preserves food cool and frozen. It doesn't have to be computer related to be technology and an all in one device. It all depends on what you are using that all in one device for.


----------



## texanpenguin (Feb 17, 2005)

Really, I think the best phone for me at the moment is the Sony Ericsson T68:

http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp...4001&template=pp1_1_1&zone=pp&lm=pp1&pid=9773

I wouldn't lose the large colour screen (useful and nice), it's got Bluetooth, GPRS (which are the two main uses for it), and most importantly, it has nothing else! And you're not just buying an old, old phone when that technology wasn't invented yet (like Gia's example ). I think it's easy enough to get what you want, but it ought to be easier.

I also have no idea how good the iSync capabilities of that phone are.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 18, 2005)

t68i is anyway ... big. I'm not used to even p800 yet, everything feels too big compared to t39m. Mobile is one of the devices I like small, I don't have big pockets and it annoys if it doesnt fit there.


----------



## fryke (Feb 18, 2005)

The T68i isn't big, Gia... As small as current SE small phones. Just a bit more oddly shaped, and the colour screen was bad. I had one back then when it was new. (and iSync came out first...)


----------



## Randman (Feb 18, 2005)

I had a t68 and my g/f also did (that was the phone that pushed me back to Nokia). The quality sucked. I had to take it to the shop for repairs multiple times (the microphone would come loose). The reception was terrible. Once, the infra-red port popped out when I was typing an sms.
  It was fun at first but very, very limited in what it could do and quickly outdated. The i's were a little better but uglier.
  That off my chest, 3G services were just launched here and it makes the Series 60 so much better. I actually watched a news program on the way to work today.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Feb 18, 2005)

Hmm, thanks for the suggestions guys, the T39 looks quite good in terms of size and function, but is pretty ugly, oh, and discontinued.

The T69(i), is um, pretty ugly too.

Also, neither really seem as small as they could be.


I may try and find a T39 on ebay or something though - I don't suppose they make an updated version of it?


----------



## fryke (Feb 18, 2005)

See, that's where _I_ don't believe in convergence... TV shows on a mobile's tiny display... Quality isn't all that good, you pay too much etc. I'm sure if I had a SonyEricsson V800 (nice phone, but I'm sure it has all the SE drawbacks in the interface) I'd watch TV shows all the time on it - just to defend myself buying a 3G phone (and service) in the first place... Alas: I want my all-in-one devices to be truly helping my productivity. And the Nokia 9500 does just that. Serves my PB and iBook as a GPRS modem when I'm on my way (Orange in Switzerland has free E-Mail access through GPRS for 5 CHF a month, can't beat that unless you give me whole internet access for free at the same monthly rate ) and when I leave the 'books at home, it still gives me all my PIM stuff, lets me handle my E-Mail for free and even lets me type my stories on the (real but small) keyboard. It has some MP3s on an MMC that I sometimes play through the mono speaker (course it doesn't beat my iPod with headphones, but then again I don't ALWAYS want to carry too many devices...) and I don't really dig its camera since I have a 'real' Sony DSC P-150 for when I actually want to take photos. So: I _am_ a smartphone user. But rather than eliminating my need for a separate MP3 player or digital camera, what it really shines in is minimizing the weight I carry by letting me work without my iBook or PowerBook. An office away from the office, so to speak. All-in-one doesn't necessarily mean camera or MP3, you see... There are other things that might be more important to some. Like good E-Mail handling (i.e. not on a 128*128 pixel screen, not with a stupid toothpicker-graffitti-type input device etc.). Or for other people: Games. I mean: What do I need a gameboy or portable playstation for, when my mobile phone handles my distraction needs.

A smartphone (a good one at least) can take care of many, many other things, because it can handle third party applications. Important things, too, like diabetes-monitoring (yes, that's only for people with diabetes, but there ARE very different needs with different people) etc. A smartphone can do those things and reduce the stuff you carry around. Whether it eliminates a specific device you have, of course depends on what _exactly_ your needs are. If it's just "music" in General: The mobile phones can do that. Sure, an iPod is 'better', but even better is a home stereo - only not so portable. But it depends on the individual's quality requirements.
Don't forget about E-Books either. Have some documents in PDF-format you have to read over the weekend? You can carry your notebook - or just a Nokia 9500 with Adobe Reader. Works just fine.

So I just want to reiterate: I'm definitely for manythings-in-one devices. Doesn't have to do ALL I want, but if it lets me travel lighter, I'm all for it.

And back to the off-topic-topic in this thread: You see, you may think Bluetooth is a basic feature, really, but the phone makers don't seem to think so. They generally offer Bluetooth only in 'higher-end' phones. And creating mobile phones for highly specialised wishes (I want this but not that, that but not those...) doesn't make financial sense to them. And I again reiterate: If your phone has a feature you strictly don't want: Just don't hit the button that activates that specific feature. My communicator has IrDA. Don't use it ever. But I sure don't go to Nokia and complain that they don't make a communicator that erases that feature. Coz that's just whining in my book.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Feb 18, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> And back to the off-topic-topic in this thread: You see, you may think Bluetooth is a basic feature, really, but the phone makers don't seem to think so. They generally offer Bluetooth only in 'higher-end' phones. And creating mobile phones for highly specialised wishes (I want this but not that, that but not those...) doesn't make financial sense to them. And I again reiterate: If your phone has a feature you strictly don't want: Just don't hit the button that activates that specific feature. My communicator has IrDA. Don't use it ever. But I sure don't go to Nokia and complain that they don't make a communicator that erases that feature. Coz that's just whining in my book.



The point is, though, that all these additional features (camera, mp3, etc...) add unnecessarily to both the size and cost of the phone.

It's not a matter of not hitting the button, it's a matter of not wanting to pay more for a phone that is bigger (and, gernerally, uglier) than it needs to be, as well as cluttering the user interface.

It's also the point that already manufacturers are moving more and more to all-in-one devices, and that it simply isn't true that you will always have an option - already you have very little option on the matter, and more and more phones have integrated cameras, and fewer and fewer phones don't.

You may consider it to be whining for me to complain about having to pay more for features I will never use, and that make my phone bigger than it needs to be, but that suggests to me that you just have more money (and pocket space) than sense.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 18, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Alas: I want my all-in-one devices to be truly helping my productivity. And the Nokia 9500 does just that.


I looked at this phone - what makes it better for you than a (less expensive) Treo 650?

Kap


----------



## fryke (Feb 18, 2005)

Well, I think the treo is a very good smartphone, too. But the N9500 gives me a keyboard I can work with (the treo one's too fumbly for me) and a widescreen, which I like more. It also has WiFi, which is kinda important nowadays - and often cheaper than GPRS etc.  ... But I guess it's all a matter of taste, too. I've found that Nokia gives me the integration between phone and PDA, whereas on the Palm-based smartphones, I feel like using a PDA that also has some telephony features...


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 19, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Well, I think the treo is a very good smartphone, too. But the N9500 gives me a keyboard I can work with (the treo one's too fumbly for me) and a widescreen, which I like more. It also has WiFi, which is kinda important nowadays - and often cheaper than GPRS etc.  ... But I guess it's all a matter of taste, too. I've found that Nokia gives me the integration between phone and PDA, whereas on the Palm-based smartphones, I feel like using a PDA that also has some telephony features...


Very compelling arguments - in fact, if I do end up getting a smart phone, you've just about sold me.  

Further questions on the N9500 (mainly about how well it plays with Apple):

Does the WiFi allow you to browse the web via an Apple WiFi (Express/Extreme) base station?
Does it sync Address book and iCal info without hassle?
Is there a limit on text file size? How do you transfer text files back and forth with your Mac?
Any problems playing video, rendered on your Mac, on the N9500?
Is the battery easily replaceable?
Kap


----------



## texanpenguin (Feb 20, 2005)

My problem with all the add-ons has always been the fragility that those things introduce.

I also dislike that phones are always so unusably small these days. My fingers are quite large (apparently) and I can't use the buttons on many of the phones around these days.


----------



## pjuffo (Feb 21, 2005)

As somone on the first page of this thread pointed out, all-in-one device usually means a great deal of comprimise.  Sometimes that fits, and it's a good thing.

And I'm all for convergence, but not exclusively.  If you want a cellphone with all the bells and whistles, go get one.  Great for you.  But I dont' like the industry only catering to you.

I, and I feel many others like me, do not need to carry around a video player with us everywhere we go, or a digital camera.

I love my ipod, but honestly, games and calenders don't really fit with playing music.  It doesn't do a good enough job of that to warrant having the extras.  It's not usefull.  The notes feature could be usefull if your using the ipod for audio books.

A contact list/organizer makes sense in a phone.  Why?  Cause you use a phone to contact/communicate with people.

Using a phone as an all in one music player/camera palm device...not so much.

I'd like a good PDA (Newton 2.0....  though Palm might get it right with Linux).  A small decent camera, my iPod and phone.

I don't need all at the same time.  I won't use them all at the same time.  So why put them all in one form factor and make comprimises, when you can make them seperate and great on their own.

But that's just me.  Choices are nice.


----------



## JJMorgan123 (Feb 21, 2005)

I have thought this over alot and been through many different devices, searching out the best and (most of the time) most portable. The fact stands that there is no all-in-one device on the market that has all 5star devices. The camera is very important to me, as well as the mp3 (memory capacity). When there is a 5mp + camera and a 20gb + mp3 player built into a cell phone you can count me in. There portable charging options out there, and they will continue to improve.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 21, 2005)

all in one device? dunno.  camera phone - yes.  although my current phone is no SLR, the amount of stuff i have captured on it is unbeleivable - i have a camera with me the whole time, because i have my phone on me the whole time - some of my favourite photo's are shoddy lo quality ones, but at least i captured them! moments that would have other wise bewen lost, i got.  

the camera's are getting better - the very first digicams only did 640x480 and were terrible, but then they got better!  just because there's a phone attached to it doesn't automatically mean it's going to be crap, just that the ones at the moment are, but they are getting better.

http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_6630-review-20.php

here are some samples off the 6630, the phone i have just bought and am awaiting arrival - you have to agree that is progress - very good, vibrant, crisp shots, with very good colour, not fuzzy or grainy at all in the right lighting.  (many phones now have flashes as well) - if you added the ability to text someone off your digital ixus, would it become crap? no.

mp3? it would need a hard drive to become viable, which is actually where the industry is going - with HDDs getting smaller, rapidly, many companies are thinking of HDD camera's and even HDD phones, using something like a next generation Hitachi-like 1.8" drive. capacity and size can only get better.  look at the progress in the last ten years! (what HDD did you have 10 years ago? i had a 500MB main hard disk - it was plenty. my brother now has 500GB).  

again progress and logical progression would point to you filling it with music as well.

video is the moot point though.  it would need a very large screen to become effective - i watched AvP (sh*t!) on my friends Ngage and it was crap - the screen was just too small, and there was just too much going on.  it would need a big wide screen monitor, eg nokia 7710.  this makes the device a lot bigger, especially with the HDD.

I can quite easily see me buying a HDD camera phone with Mp3 ability, if done well, and shrunk enough to not be cumbersome (ipod )

listen,  apple - your logical way of manufacture would point to you making a very good device - ipod ease of use!


----------



## texanpenguin (Feb 23, 2005)

Phone cameras can't ever be as good as digicams, because there's just no room for proper lens function and any sort of good focal length. In other words, the CCD isn't getting a nice, crystal, focused image.

Until people are willing to have a phone with a pop-out lens in the back (which then increases the depth of the phone, measurement wise). It's just stupid.

Bah! to camera phones .


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 23, 2005)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> Phone cameras can't ever be as good as digicams, because there's just no room for proper lens function and any sort of good focal length. In other words, the CCD isn't getting a nice, crystal, focused image.
> 
> Until people are willing to have a phone with a pop-out lens in the back (which then increases the depth of the phone, measurement wise). It's just stupid.
> 
> Bah! to camera phones .


Why can't they just put the camera lens on the *top* of the phone? Then they get the increased focal length without needing to increase the phone thickness.

Kap


----------



## texanpenguin (Feb 23, 2005)

They did that (well, the bottom) with an add-on for Sony Ericsson phones. That was great! I loved that you could do that; if you wanted to have a camera phone, you made it one!

Only problem with that is the handiness of having a camera with you at all times.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 23, 2005)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> They did that (well, the bottom) with an add-on for Sony Ericsson phones. That was great! I loved that you could do that; if you wanted to have a camera phone, you made it one!
> 
> Only problem with that is the handiness of having a camera with you at all times.


I don't mind the idea of a clip on, but it should attach so snugly and securely as to be indistinguishable from a phone with a built in camera.

Got an mp3 attachment for my Ericsson phone a few years ago and it was a nightmare - stupid thing was always coming out (esp. when I kept the phone in my pocket to listen to mp3s).

Kap


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 24, 2005)

the sony t1
http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/sony-cybershot-dsct1-reviews.html
has a tiny body, and a full 3x optical zoom _inside_ the body. it's really good.
not perfect - but really good - 

my point is, just because camera-phones started off being crap, does'nt mean they are destined to be that way forever. you are all being very closed minded about this

what if the word was, What If? - you are all apple enthusiasts - you should be always thinking outside the box - the potential of something to it's nth degree.

i want a device i have with me everywhere - it needs something essential to  keep it in my pocket - a phone already has this - contactability.  if i want to take pictures of something - i have to activily think - take ixus.  it should be:

"wow! that's so cool - i want a picture of that.... wait, i have my camera[phone] with me, as always.  thank geeks for technology"

Think Different.  who said that...?


----------



## cfleck (Feb 24, 2005)

I think the point of it all really comes down to this...

Yes, there is a market for an all-in-one, but it isn't the only market.  

Many of us don't want to have to pay for all-in-one devices, but we are forced to because that is seemingly all the phone people want to make.


----------

