Sure, and a cell phone shouldn't be a calendar, task list, notepad, etc. You have purchased a converged device, but are complaining about it being too converged? Odd.

---

Jerry Raia - Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:37 pm
Post subject:

---

I am talking about Smartphones, not regular cell phones. Like the camera, the music player function is just an after thought. We know how great the cameras are too right? The Smartphone IS the Clanedar, Task List etc.

---

Kris Kumar - Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:57 pm
Post subject:

---

Wow Jerry! Great way to start the year - a rant!

I see my Smartphone as a jack of all trades, master of none. I don't expect my Smartphone to store tons of music and have great playlists, but I do expect it to perform decently and sound decent and most important, the extra media buttons better work otherwise I am gonna pluck them out.

The same goes for Wi-Fi, camera, BT based GPS navigation, BT headset etc.

The calendar, task, email and browsing are the most basic operations I expect to my Smartphone to perform really well, and reliably. I wouldn't want Microsoft to waste too much time on anything other than that (and OS tasks - memory, process management, RTOS stuff etc). I would prefer third-party vendors and Smartphone manufacturers to work on the other capabilities. But they should work as advertised otherwise it is not a Smartphone anymore.

---

ifonline - Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:57 pm
Post subject:

---

I understand that. My point was simply that Smartphones are cell phones with added features. There are those that would argue a cell phone should not contain PDA functions, such as a Smartphone does. Then, obviously, there are those that argue that a Smartphone shouldn't contain media functions. It just seems odd to me that someone who bought a Smartphone should be complaining about too many features.

By the way, the Media Player in a Smartphone doesn't really seem like an afterthought to me. I consider the Media Player to be equally as worthless as most of the other applications designed by Microsoft. How long have Smartphones been around? Contacts on my BlackJack doesn't even have all of the fields that Outlook does. Most, but not all. How many more years will it take before Microsoft decides to make that final push over the hill and add all of the fields? There are fields missing that I actually use.

Oh well. I still love my BlackJack, Media Player and all.

---

Jerry Raia - Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:07 pm
Post subject:

---

I would disagree with your premise then. I think Smartphones as we define them here are MS Mobile based devices with a cell phone added (yes I know I'm skipping over the Pocket PC Phone/Smartphone difference). The purpose IMHO is to be a PIM with the convenience of the phone added. Last time I checked music player wasn't part of the definition of a PIM. The cell phone brings it all together by adding connectivity and communication, also part of a true PIM. It is nice to play songs and take pictures, I don't object to that in the least. When you start putting fast forward and rewind buttons on the device, what are you saying the device is? See what I mean?

---

cortez - Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Post subject:

---

my 3125 works well as a PIM/Phone/Music player. i like having these features in a small package. i use my 3125 primarily as a music player/phone when i'm working out or running (daily in the morning). being able to monitor email (while i run) before starting my work day is also a plus. count me as one who likes the [3125] converged device....

---

Rocco Augusto - Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:23 pm
Post subject:

---

Personally, I dig the ability to listen to music and watch movies. I could care less for the media buttons as I feel they should be integrated in the headset and not the actual phone. My personal opinion is that Microsoft should work to better the Smartphones media playback features.

I'm not saying we should all have Zunes that happen to make calls, but I would like to see simple things added to the built in media player such as an equalizer with preset settings.

I use my phone to listen to music on my way to work. I have about a half mile walk to the light rail where I grab some coffee and hop on the train for a few stops and then wait about 10 minutes for my bus. After I hop on the bus, it is about another 15 minutes before I get to work. All in all, I have about 30-45 minutes worth of transit both ways everyday and I find my phone to be a great resource to pass the time.

Lately I haven't been using my phone though do to how many steps it takes just to get everything set up, as you can see below:

1) Bring up the wireless manager
2) open my bluetooth settings
3) tell the phone to connect to my bluetooth headset
4) repeat step three if my phone is being bratty
5) open up WMP
6) load what I want to listen to because I can't tell it to play all songs by all artist or I'll end up listening to all of my ringtones along with my music... which is ALWAYS annoying.
7) lock the phone and put it in my jacket pocket or messenger bag pocket.

It doesn't sound like a lot of steps but it easily takes about a block and a half to two blocks to even get the music playing. There should be an easier way to get everything done.

---

paulvallen - Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:39 pm
Post subject: Yes but...

---

Provided a device can perform the tasks to an acceptable standard, then I am happy for all of the features that you list to be included. This will vary from device to device (depending upon actual features/capabilities) and from user to user (according to personal requirements and standards). For example, the camera in my Orange SPV M3100 is 'acceptable' to 'fairly good' in good lighting (although pretty poor in low light). The music player is half decent, with respect to usability, but quite good in sound quality - and there is the bonus of music pause for an incoming call...
Also, if we want to make it as easy as possible to contact someone, then having all of their contact details to hand is, of course, very useful.
I also think that if a particular phone has a genuinely good music player (functionally and with respect to the quality of sound), then adding dedicated buttons could be viewed as a plus; however, if the player is mediochre, then adding the buttons is pointless and even tantamount to dishonesty.
Personally, I moved to Smartphones for the additional features and associated benefits; otherwise, I'd still be using a basic Nokia 6xxx.

I could say that if adding these features made Windows mobile less stable and removing them made it more stable then I'd be happy to forego the additional capabilities - but that's not true. I want these features and I want them and the phone per-se to work and to work well all of the time. Right now, I can't imagine any more features that I'd like to see added but it must be only a matter of time...

---

encece - Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Post subject:

---

I personally think you are waaaaay off base and you should never post while drinking!

I dont know why a couple of extra buttons that you could choose not to use causes you so much heartache.

But I would say that instead of complaining about poorer implementations of things like cameras and music players on smartphones, demanding their removal....demand that they be bettered. 4MP cameras, large capacity hard-drives and better software, with larger capacity batteries are not out of the question as features in Smartphones. All are possible today and just need to be implemented in MS Smartphones.

Removal of such features is not what's needed....advancement of existing features and addition of more features is what should be requested.

---

Stinger - Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:59 pm
Post subject:

---

Have you played with any of the Sony Ericsson Walkman-branded phones? They're fantastic and sell in huge quantities here in Europe. They also tend to have decent cameras too with 2+ megapixels, auto-focus, macro mode and a proper flash.

Why can't Smartphones do just as well? I thought the whole point of a smartphone OS was that it's extensible and easy to tailor towards different market segments.

Going back to Sony Erisson, they've done exactly that with Symbian. They've written a special music app, added 4GB of flash memory et voila - a very decent music-centric smartphone.

I agree that WMP is far from perfect, but can't the likes of Samsung or Motorola write their own music player to fit their device perfectly? Making a good music phone isn't easy, but certain manufacturers have proved that it is possible.

---

Kris Kumar - Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:05 pm
Post subject:

---

Exactly my take. The features that the packaging claims must work and it should be intuitive.

---

ctmagnus - Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:19 pm
Post subject:

---

imo, part of this is due to the fact that MS has a Windows Media platform to push as well as a Windows Mobile platform. And if everything I read is true, then neither are doing as well as MS would like, so MS integrated (tried to integrate) the two to give each a little push and didn't do particularly well on the media end of Windows Mobile. That's where the aforementioned third-parties come in.

---

Jerry Raia - Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:50 pm
Post subject:

---

I knew this would stir up the troops.

This is like saying that if you put a scalpel in my hand I am now a surgeon. If I turn out to not be such a good surgeon all you need to do is give me a better scalpel. Fish don't fly well because they were designed to swim. I'm not saying take the stuff out. They can put in an Xray machine for all I care. I'm saying leave it in the background like the camera. It will never be any better than it is. I doubt an iPod will ever make a good phone either. We don't need to waste phone real estate with music buttons and telephoto lenses. This obsession some have with only having one device will result in one device with a 10 lb battery to power it all up.

---

alese - Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:00 pm
Post subject:

---

Why wouldn't Smartphone be a decent music player, or even video player?
Of course it can't compare with iPod in terms of usability, storage etc. but it can still do the job for some people in certain situations.

Yes Media Player is not really a good program, but let's be honest, Pocket Outlook is also nothing to brag about, both on Smartphone and Phone Edition.

Personally I think that multimedia usage on the go is going to be the thing that will drive the sales of phones (smartphones especially) in the future and not PIM capabilities...

---

TheFenceChild - Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:05 pm
Post subject:

---

Honestly media is very important to me in choosing a phone. In fact the main reason I'm currently going back to a Windows based phone over my Pearl is the media options. No I don't expect my phone to be able to hold tons of music AND video AND pictures AND still have room for the programs I might want to put on it, but I do want it to be able to do each of those things if I want to do them at different times. And personally I think that Windows Media on the phones is easy to use. I think eventually all phones will be more like Windows Smartphones but each group specializing in different features.

---

stevew - Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:33 pm
Post subject:

---

If you want just a cell phone, buy just a cellphone.
If you want a cellphone with camera, buy a cellphone with camera.
If you want just a music player buy an ipod or equivalent.
If you want just a PDA buy a Pocket PC
If you want a PDA first and a phone second, buy a Pocket PC Phone

If you want all the above in one device by a smartphone with QWERTY keyboard

To each his own. Variety is the spice of life.

---

onlydarksets - Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:15 pm
Post subject:

---

No, what you describe is a cell phone plus the original Palm OS. Microsoft, almost from the get-go, has made clear that the WM5 platform (f/k/a Pocket PC, f/k/a Palm-Size PC & H/PC) was going to be more than just a PIM in your pocket. Why do we need color screens for a PIM? We don't. Microsoft changed the landscape by adding color screens and multimedia capabilities, and, in doing so, redefined the handheld space. "PIM" is no longer a description of a platform - it's a piece of functionality within a platform. A Smartphone is a phone plus WM. WM is PIM + Internet + Multimedia, and that, I'm sorry to say for your sake , ain't gonna change.

---

onlydarksets - Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:17 pm
Post subject:

---

Every built-in application in WM is woefully inadequate. Just to get core PIM functionality you need a 3rd party app like AgendaOne or Papyrus.

---

Pete Paxton - Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:31 pm
Post subject:

---

The reason I have my Dash is because it can do most everything adequately and I only have to carry one slim device. It's my:

Bible
Calendar
Contacts
Tasks
Notes
Email
Alarm Clock
Music Player (with my new BT stereo headphones - it's great!)
IM
Picture viewer
Newsfeeder
Electronic wallet
140,000 word Dictionary
Wifi internet (news, weather, sports, www.Smartphonethoughts.com)

Movie Player - I use Handbrake for the Mac and my movies are now near DVD quality (StarWars looks great!.)

And each and every one of these tasks are good enough for me. Let's face it, it's because of all these things that we call it a smartphone!

---

Jerry Raia - Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:35 pm
Post subject:

---

Even with 3rd party Media Players the Smartphone is still not very good at it. No question the built in applications come up short. The good 3rd party applications however, make it a very nice little platform to work with. I just think it will always come up short as a multimedia platform, regardless of what MS said in the beginning.

---

ctmagnus - Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:39 pm
Post subject:

---

I'm sorry, I have to get this off my chest :

Regarding the title of this thread, of course Smartphones aren't toasters. Toasters fly; Smartphones don't.

---

Jerry Raia - Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:49 pm
Post subject:

---

I was waiting to see who might be the first to catch that.

---

Lurk - Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:34 pm
Post subject:

---

Absolutely agree 100%! I miss the days of dedicated word processors sitting beside the calculator on my desktop, the filing cabinet in the corner, the calendar pad as a desk mat (though, perhaps, they should leave the calendar on the wall), the roll-a-dex tucked to the side. What fool came up with the idea of cramming things into one generic device anyway? they should have built me a dedicatd compiler box and an email machine to sit beside it.

This whole frivolous idea of making a single hardware device and then allowing it to be programmed to do ao many things is absurd. And then, they wanted to minaturize it. Next, they'll probably be expecting me to be able to be contacted anywhere, anytime. And once they contact me, they'll expect me to have all of my information right there with me. I don't think that I could carry so many devices all at once.

But, trying to do so would be very entertaining. and as long as watching me kink and clank around is entertaining to someone else, why shouldn't I be entertained as well?

---

ArthurKnowles - Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Smartphones are not Toasters

---

You are 100% off base here. I bought my first smartphone a Samsung i600 running the 2002 OS because it could replace a cell phone, PIM (my Timex Watch or Compac IPaq), MP3 player, etc. I replaced that just recently with a Cingular 3125 because Verizon stopped supporting the i600 (last upgrade was to 2003) and had no plans to replace it with something similar.

I don't want multiple devices. I like the smartphone I have. I like being able to add 1 GB of music to my i600 and 2 GB to my 3125. And I know that will improve with time. I have bluetooth headsets. One mono and one stereo so I use it as a handsfree phone or handsfree phone and MP3 player. I have a car charger for long trips. I'll buy another battery if I feel I need one. Or an external battery powered charger to charge the onboard battery.

As a plus, my smartphone has the Cingular 3G wireless internet. Bandwidth is pretty good. I have not tested it yet as a wireless modem for my laptop, but I will. From what I have read, I should get pretty good results. I used my i600 as a replacement for my laptop when I traveled. I used a external keyboard and managed my e-mail (buisness requirement). I fully expect to do the same with my new phone when I buy a bluetooth capable keyboard.

I also use it to play the occasional game when waiting for a table, the doctor, etc. I use my camera to take the occasional picture when I did not prepare by taking my larger Sony camera, or when my camera was unavailable. I use my smartphone to do many things.

The bottom line ... the more things the smartphone can do/replace the better.

PS: My smartphone is also much cheaper than a similarly capable MP3 player, PDA/PIM, cell phone, camera, etc. A smartphone is a very cost effective device.

---

Kris Kumar - Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Smartphones are not Toasters

---

Good point. The biggest reason why people favour convergence at the cost of quality (and some times functionality).

---

GreatDay - Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:06 pm
Post subject:

---

Well my two cents isn't gonna help here. I agree with the original post AND everything everybody else just said. It's all true.

I made the jump to the Q because I wanted a really good phone first, but i also wanted one device and not have to carry my Axim around anymore. But then I didn't want to hold a brick up to my head, so I wanted it to be as slim as possible. But then I started missing the larger screen because I'm older than dirt and it's hard to see on these tiny screens. Then come to find out all the cool programs I had on my Axim don't even exist for smartphones yet, but as they become available, yes, you start to need six mega-batteries. Oh yeah, and i forgot, now I find out I really really do miss having a touch screen. No, I can make do and it's pretty cool how you CAN do stuff one-handed, but dammit, a touch screen is just--well--unbeatable for some things.

So we really do want it all. Not everyday, not each time we reach for the thing, but if you've been using "it", and suddenly "it" is back at the house on that other device, you start wondering "what was I thinking" because for a few bucks more I could have gotten.....

We're just not there yet. It's all happening by leaps and bounds---Geez, look at HTC just CRANKING out the variables---and each day we get closer to Nirvana. But then, not only do we have windows Mobile to contend with, who can't or won't give you a simple office app for your phone, then you've got the arbitrary providers to call names. Two of the major things I selected Motorola for, Verizon decided to lock down or rob me blind for.

I feel your pain, but the other part of the truth is, we have moved light-years and are extremely fortunate that any of this works as well as it does. The past is now Toast.

---

T-Will - Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:04 am
Post subject:

---

The Dash did a great job of converging my cell phone and Pocket PC into one small device. But my main issue with using a cell phone as a music player is the battery issue. Since my cell is my only phone I can't have it go dead in the middle of the day, so right now I still carry an iPod Nano around with me in addition to my phone, and at this point I wouldn't want them converged.

Also, when I'm working out or running, I don't want to carry around a bulky phone, the Nano is perfect because it's tiny and is very good at doing what it's made to do. The phone can stay at home (or in the car).

---

spinedoc - Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Smartphones are not Toasters

---

I feel quite the opposite!! Current MP3 players, especially the Apple ones are the ones which are not very good at playing large quantities of music (or movies). The things that a smartphone can do far surpass the capabilities of lets say an ipod. Bottom line a smartphone beats an ipod at its own game, quite handily.

Let's see. I have a good half terabyte of hard drive space on my home PC. I can load up ANY video, song, picture, even files right to my smartphone anytime I want. I do have 2GB of backup locally which is more than enough, but the size of my storage is pretty much unlimited. Makes a 60gb ipod look extremely measly by comparision.

Now for the greatest achilles heel in the ipods and other mp3 players, lack of connectivity. Personally I usually listen to a song once or twice so I could care less if its on my device, although I could have it in my 2gb locally or 500gb over my network. Variety is the spice of life, and in this vein my smartphone can access XM satellite radio, as well as hundreds of interent radio stations which cover every single genre of music I would ever want. I can't stand to transfer music to my device, what a pain and waste of time. I would rather have the music waiting on my hard drive, or better yet be completely randomized with internet radio/satellite radio.

I'm just warming up here. We could go into streaming my very own cable channels from my house, we could talk about the many video streaming sites out there. News, entertainment, etc etc, live!! How about google video or youtube to name a couple of examples?

Bottom line is that the vanilla ipod like device is the device that needs to be discontinued as a (my opinion) worthless waste of pocket space, antiquated beyond belief (A2DP anyone?). I haven't purchased and used a non PPC/smartphone music player in at least 6 plus years, not because I have no use for them, but because I do NOT want to be limited by them.

Rick

---

Rocco Augusto - Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Smartphones are not Toasters

---

not just cable, using Orb (which is a free download... yes i am shamelessly promoting it yet again ), you can stream your entire music, video, picture library and even tap into your windows media center pc (if you happen to have one). let us see an iPod do that!

---

ditch_azeroth - Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:45 am
Post subject:

---

nice rant ^_^

but yeah - i want my smartphone to be the uber device that i keep in my pocket. personally, more buttons = more fun. i'm no die hard audiophile but playing music on my sp5m is kickin. i've re-mapped my media buttons to tcpmp (i dont like the commercial coreplayer...) and i listen to music on my smartphone all the time. as for movies, forget about it... i convert my videos to divx/xvid avi's and enjoy via tcpmp. muy excellente quality.

as for battery, heck, just bring a usb cable with you and you're all set. just plug it in any usb port and you're all charged up. i also have this nifty ultra compact wall charger that has a female usb plug - i charge up my usb devices using this - even my phone.

the only thing that i'd say a smartphone can never do is this: photos and videos. sure, photoviewers are cool if you want to see slideshows of pictures but smartphones can never take really excellent shots. that's why i keep a canon s3 IS in my gadget bag all the time. all i need now is a 3ghz dual core 15" laptop and im all set for gadgets ^_^

---

onlydarksets - Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Smartphones are not Toasters

---

WebGuide also does streaming if you have a WMC PC. I think the developer is charging for it now, but it's really slick.
http://asciiexpress.com/webguide/

---