[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Smartphone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cowicide (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 27 June 2010 (→Needs stats: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


IPhone is Not a smartphone

Iphone cannot be called a Smartphone due to the absense of true multitasking abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.253.59 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:\— Preceding unsigned comment added by AniRaptor2001 (talk • contribs)
You make a good point - it doesn't have any of the features that were usually associated with "smartphones", such as having a keyboard, having a branded off-the-shelf OS, or being able to run multiple applications, or applications installed from anywhere.
As noted above and in the article, the definition of smartphone varies. So the Iphone could be considered as smartphone in the sense that it can run applications and access the Internet, in the same sense that most phones (often called "feature phones") these days do. But there is a problem in the Wikipedia articles, in that we refer to the Iphone as a smartphone, but other phones with Internet and the ability to run applications (e.g., the RAZR) are not. So I would propose some consistency, in that we either use smartphones for all such phones, or we simply refer to the Iphone as a mobile phone, which is a more accurate and well-defined term than the problems of "smartphone". Mdwh (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'Smartphone' is a widely used marketing term, which over the next 5 or so years will disappear, as every phone gains internet ability. It's difficult to define, as every manufacturer defines it according to features they have, which the opposition doesn't have. Microsoft defines it in terms of multitasking, knowing that both Android and iPhone currently don't have it. Others define it in terms of multi-touch, knowing that others don't have it. I think it would be silly to exclude any of the new Android, iPhone, Windows Mobile or WebOS phones from being 'Smartphones'. They all are smartphones.--Lester 07:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can jailbreak an iPhone and install an application that will allow multitasking, though I find it hard to accept the definition of smartphone can hinge on such a small detail.24.18.130.239 (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The iPhone (like the others Lester mentions) is clearly a smartphone by any reasonable definition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but these "other phones" aren't just Android, Windows Mobile and WebOS - we should be including just about every feature phone out there, that's been released since around 2005. But typically when you read articles about the marketshare of "smartphones", they're not doing this (otherwise, e.g., Apple's share would be far lower). Mdwh (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although actually we're already here - as of 2005, all but the cheapest phones gained the ability to access the Internet, including web and email, and run 3rd party apps. Strangely, it seems that the "smartphone" category hasn't gone away. It now seems to be used for simply "high end expensive phones", rather than "phone that can run applications".
Talking of definitions, we give a pic of market share, but what's the definition of smartphone being used? E.g., why is the original Iphone a smartphone, but not other phones, I wonder? The source doesn't give its definition, which is problematic. Mdwh (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original iPhone (before software v2) was really a nice Feature-phone. Now it is a Smartphone as you can install third-party Applications on it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. The operating system on the iPhone does multitask (you can run built-in functionality simultaneously without issue) but Apple designed the user interface to stop third party applications from running in the background due to concerns about background apps running down battery charge. So the truth is that the iPhone does multitask but does not allow third-party apps to run simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.169.1 (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness...

What has happened to this article?! It was in pretty good shape last time I contributed, now it is all over the place:

- No chronological ordering in the history section

- Treo stuff is written twice

- Lack of references for the definition of smartphone

- General lack of flow

I'll try to get time to rewrite the history section in the coming days, but if anyone else would like to have a crack, please feel free... Hypnotist uk (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more info for you to work on ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I noticed these problems as well, plus I would add the following critiques:

- over-representation of Android overall. (I mean, seriously, it gets mentioned far more than other platforms on this article. This isn't a marketing site.)

- The history section jumps from 2005 to 2008. Why?

I realize there is a fanboy battle going on between Android users and iPhone users, but completely omitting the years where Apple released the iPhone, arguably one of the biggest moments in smartphone history, seems a little suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.169.1 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a new, simple definition

The introduction to this article is out of control, trying to list too many features to define what a smartphone is. The problem is that every manufacturer wants to define hardware features that their phone has as being the definition of smartphone, while excluding those features that competitors lack. At the moment, the article is listing all kind of features, such as touchscreen type, keyboard type, Wi-Fi, etc etc. The answer is to get rid of these ambiguous hardware features, and boil the definition down to what is in common with smartphones. The answer is in the phone's computing ability. Here is my suggestion of a smartphone definition:

  • Greater computing ability than a feature phone (that's just a given, isn't it?)
  • While a basic feature phone may be able to run apps based on a generic managed platform such as Java ME or BREW, a smartphone runs apps specific to a particular phone operating system.

Is that a core definition? Features beyond that are optional.--Lester 00:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I rewrote the lede, defining it based on software, rather than hardware features.--Lester 01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs either a software or hardware full keyboard and not just number buttons. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google is working on perfecting voice control, keyboardless input. Smart? Dumb? There are also predictions that glass multi-touch panels will soon be cheaper to manufacture than numeric keypads + a standard screen.--Lester 11:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose I could clarify my point as "not just number buttons" then :p, and I guess that would be in addition to your requirements. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a smartphone is programmable. It doesn't just have the software provided by the manufacturer. Actual speed is not that relevant, as smart is not the same as quick - and all phones currently available will seem slow in future. In short, it is a qualitative feature, not a quantitative one, which distinguishes between inflexible phones which can only do what the manufacturer decided, and flexible phones which can run third party apps beyond the scope of the original manufacturer's imagination. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with user:Lester new simple definition, but the category:smartphones should be consistent with this. I also think that if we continue with user:Lester's definition then individual devices should not be in the main category:smartphones, but individual devices should only be listed under the sub categories of the respective Operating systems. Because using Lester's definition. the question whether a phone is smartphone only depends on the question what the operating system is. E.g. Nokia_N97 should not be directly in the category:smartphones, but only in the Category:S60_(software_platform). Andries (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Category:QWERTY_smartphones.Andries (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my proposed categorization, taking the N97 for the S60 platform operating system as an example.

Andries (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lester's definition is supported by the reputable source c't magazine in Dutch Jan. Feb. 2010. article "mobiele troeven: smartphone besturingssystemen" by Achim Barczok and Rudolf Opitz. It is a bit difficult to use as a reputable source because tedious to translate. Andries (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs/Statistics out of date

I just looked at this article to conduct some research for school, however I noticed the graph was from 2010. I did some research, and found out that the google android OS recently beat out the Iphone OS. Mainly due to the varied amount of new phones that support the OS, and the affordable prices, and deals on google android phones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.162.51 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Android is only ahead of iPhone in the US, and the figures given here are worldwide.
In due time there will be 2010 figures available (if there aren't already) which will show Android with a higher marketshare - if you can find a source with newer figures by all means post it here and the article can be updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History section needs a whole lot of work

"In 2007, Apple Inc. introduced their first iPhone."

Hahaha, that's all it says. I mean I realize the section's in a bit of a disarray but, well, maybe I just wanted to point that out. Btw I don't particularly like the iPhone but I don't think any reasonable person can deny the huge effect it's had on the smartphone market. Even Android, whose philosophy I like a lot more, took the particular shape it did because of the design the iPhone popularized. The iPhone and its influence should be one of the biggest things mentioned in the "History" section, as should the BlackBerry before it and Android after it.

Or are we too busy arguing about whether the iPhone is a smartphone?

Qwerty0 (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit more on the AppStore, but agreed, the section isn't neutral as it stands. There is almost as much coverage of the N900 which is a me-too device that there is on the iPhone and AppStore which were far more significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blackberry has essentially only been evailable on the North American market, and I'm not sure the first Blackberry models can be considered smartphones.
Let's take it in historical order. Nokia Communicator called their product Smartphone, and supported email and web browsing in early models, so it is good that the article presents them as first in some sense.
I don't understand the text that Ericsson (from my own country) "invented" the Smartphone, and the cited source of this claim does not support it and looks rather commercial. Let's remove that sencence. Mange01 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs stats

What percentage of all web traffic is comprised of smartphones?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smartphone&oldid=370347633"