Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unmaking Motorola's Q

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the under-the-hood dept.

144

conq writes "BusinessWeek has a breakdown of Motorola's Q Phone, looking at the cost of each of its components. From the article: 'It costs Motorola about $158 to build the phone. That includes components and assembly but excludes other expenses such as marketing, distribution, and licensing fees to Microsoft, which makes the phone's Windows Mobile operating system.' By comparaison, the BlackBerry 8700, only costs $123 according to the article. The difference between the two, the BlackBerry 'doesn't play video or music, and unlike the Q, it doesn't have a camera.'"

cancel ×

144 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Differences (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754408)

The BlackBerry also doesn't crash, unlike the Q. Beware basing anything on Windows.

D D (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754414)

If might makes right Israel, then you won't mind when Iran nukes you?

Re:D D (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754494)

If that happens I hope those Muslim fucks don't mind when we turn their entire holy land into a wasteland. Fuck Allah!

Re:D D (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754515)

Whose Holy Land? Isn't that the central question that lies at the root of these conflicts? I guess you answered it? Of course, the logical consequence of your answer is not quite what you had in mind.

Re:D D (-1, Offtopic)

edward.virtually@pob (6854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754604)

The whole problem is that the same land is Holy to both Muslims and Jews. And to the disgrace of both their religions they have been unable to share it for centuries. It's also Holy to Christians. No matter what the theological truth is, I am sure that if God exists they are very disappointed. Humanity is on the brink of greatness, but we're risking it all because we still haven't learned to share.

Re:D D (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754728)

I guess in that case you won't mind sharing your wife/girlfriend right? Cause come on the ills of the world is of course the lack of sharing.

Re:D D (-1, Offtopic)

edward.virtually@pob (6854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754573)

The fact behind M.A.D. remains valid, even if the policy is ignored. If anyone uses nukes there, everyone will use them there and WW3 begins everywhere. The Israel vs. Jew dicotomy (choice) of who is to blame is false and unproductive. There have been crimes committed by both sides. But the majority of the citizens of both sides are not in favor of the continued hostilities and just want to live their lives in peace. Unfortunately, those majorities are not in power. Kind of like here.

158$ to make a cell phone? (2, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754419)

My god....mon dieu!! etc... 158$ must turn into what? 500$ retail? Have fun losing that phone.

Of course it'd be nice if cell companies both offered this monstrocity of a money pit and the el-cheapo phones that companies like Moto make as well. You know, that whole "free market" thingy...

Tom

Re:158$ to make a cell phone? (1)

wadetemp (217315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754467)

$150-250 on 2-year contract with no activation and $175 early termination... so $225-350. I think $419 or something when you lose it.

Re:158$ to make a cell phone? (1)

wadetemp (217315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754482)

I wish I could add. $325-$425.

Re:158$ to make a cell phone? (4, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754488)

You know, that whole "free market" thingy...

It is a free market. But the customers are the carriers, not the consumers that end up using the phones. If the US had a mobile phone market where you could use the same handset with any provider perhaps you would start seeing phones offered to please the end-user. As it is, what they're selling and you're buying is a provider phone plan; the phone is just the necessary piece of gear to use the plan.

With open standards you do have choices. (2, Insightful)

Art Popp (29075) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754607)

Granted, the customers are the carriers, but the carriers put in a considerable effort to please the customers with their phone choices.

The problems that limit choice are the combinatorial effect of:
        Most users not being geeks.
        Each power-user handset having a considerable cost in training Customer Care folk.
        Many geeks want their toys for the cost of the parts, never for the MSRP (the cheapskate factor).

So the carriers pick limited set of power-phones and the rest "as cool as they can get their hands on." What outsells the marvelous powerful sophisticated Treo650 by an enormous margin? The Razr.

This will be hard for the /. crowd to believe but the carriers push their phone offerings toward the geeky side of the curve and away from the center of mass for their customers' level of tech savvy. Really they do. For the noble, pure and altruistic purpose of marketing more expensive techy services like MMS and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS etc.

If you pick from among carriers that use open standards you do have choices. My favorite carrier doesn't sell the SonyEricsson 910, the Nokia 6680 or the Treo650, but I was able to slip my SIM into each of them and give them a good college try. This, because GSM is an open standard. Fighting my own cheapskate daemons, I went out to PalmOne and purchased the Unlocked (unsubsidized) Treo650 and haven't ever regretted it.

Re:With open standards you do have choices. (1)

BlogPope (886961) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754878)

Granted, the customers are the carriers, but the carriers put in a considerable effort to please the customers with their phone choices.

Verizon paid Motorola a considerable amount of money for exclusive access to their lastest phones, a deal they stole from Cingular. Why? Because consumers want those those phones, and being the exclusive provider means they might switch carriers to get them.

What outsells the marvelous powerful sophisticated Treo650 by an enormous margin? The Razr

Because the Razor is a great phone, whereas the Treo is a huge and unweildy PDA that also happens to be a phone. The Razr got it right, big screen, big buttons, load speakerphone, stylish, durable, etc. While the Treo is great at what it does, are you really surprised its not outselling the Razr? You couldn't pay me to carry the Treo as a cell phone, its a brick. Well, maybe you could pay me :)

Re:With open standards you do have choices. (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15755447)

Three people in my office purchased the Razr and hate them. They said that sure it looks pretty but it handles like it is stuck in molasses i.e button presses are slow to respond. These were the first bunch that came out through Rogers cellular service.

Re:With open standards you do have choices. (2, Informative)

the grace of R'hllor (530051) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754899)

In the Netherlands, any phone you buy with a plan may be sim-locked, but after a year the provider is obligated to remove the lock. And hell, my MDA Vario was unlocked about 3 hours after I got it, and this was because I got it at work.

This idea of mobile carriers providing tech-support for phones is just nutzoid, as is the idea of carrier-monopoly on a phone type. Carriers focus on services, and other stores can focus on selling phones (with or without subscription).

Re:With open standards you do have choices. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15755050)

Most users not being geeks.

Oh, and that constitues a problem? Since when not being a dumb loser who thinks himself "smart" because he can run Linux (kid's play) or write programs (any shoeshiner in India can do that) is a "problem"?

The whiz-kid myth has been long debunked, nerd-faces. Deal with it. Oh, and yes I'd like fries with that.

Re:With open standards you do have choices. (1)

dave1791 (315728) | more than 8 years ago | (#15755391)

I own a Razr and chose it over the Treo (and would have chosen it over the Q had it been available). Why? Like the other poster, I don't like its ergonomics. It feels like a PDA that can do phone calls. I am under no illusions that my phone is a phone that can play music, surf the net, send email, etc in a half assed manner...

BUT...

It's good enough. My five year old Nikon coolpix (an 800, a prehistoric 2 MP version, but good enough optics to not really miss the newer ccds) takes better pictures. Even my el-cheapo mp3 is better as a music player (at least more convenient and less annoying). My PC is where I maintain my calendar and write 99.999999% of my emails. I just don't go in for using a PDA for the write part. I'm too cheap for the per-kb data charges and a large TFT monitor sure as hell beats it for reading /. Etc.

It's the still/video camera that I find I have "on me" when something comes up and I did not come prepared. Someday I'll actually find a need to google something up from a mountaintop I guess. If I need t check my calendar anytime, any place, I can do it. I don't need to carry yet another gadget to listen to a song. Etc.

It's "GOOD ENOUGH" and its small enough to forget I have it on me. Yes, it has an annoying UI. Yes it does everything badly. Personally, I'll take half assed and conveniently small enough to always have without noticing over a little less half assed, but huge alternative.

Re:With open standards you do have choices. (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15755463)

I am very much the type of person who would rather have one thing that does one thing well than lots of things mediocrely (sp?). I have a decent digital camera for photos, my ipod for music and I used to have a cell and a PDA but that was sacrificed when I bought my Treo 600.

For me, I got the treo because I go fed up carrying my PDA AND a phone on my belt. I went from an Audiovox 6800 which is a really small phone compared to the Treo and after about a day I got used to the size. It's big but not that big and was relatively easy to get used to.
My only gripe with it is the ring isn't as loud nor the vibrate strong enough so there are times (i.e on a bus) when I may not feel/hear it.

Re:158$ to make a cell phone? (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754810)

If the US had a mobile phone market where you could use the same handset with any provider perhaps you would start seeing phones offered to please the end-user.

Well, for any carrier using GSM this is pretty trivial. Switching providers can be as easy as swapping SIM cards. To do so though your phone needs to be 'unlocked', which typically means you aren't buying it directly from carrier as they tend to lock the phones they sell so they can only be used on their network (though it's possible to get these unlocked). This is a little unfair, imho, but most phones you buy from carriers are heavily discounted off of MSRP, so it's a pretty straightforward tradeoff. Either buy a phone from the carrier and use it with them, or buy a phone from a third party and use it with whichever provider you want.

The last two phones I bought (GSM) were both unlocked and I had no issues moving from Fido to Rogers (in Canada). I also chose each of those phones because I didn't like any of the offerings of the carriers. I don't think it's as easy to switch with CDMA (could be wrong) and I don't know which US carriers use GSM (T-Mobile at least, I believe) but what you're describing is _far_ from impossible.

Re:158$ to make a cell phone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754500)

Try $199 or less with new service and $279 without.

Re:158$ to make a cell phone? (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754777)

Of course it'd be nice if cell companies both offered this monstrocity of a money pit and the el-cheapo phones that companies like Moto make as well. You know, that whole "free market" thingy...

Hunh? What are you talking about - have you ever looked into buying a cell phone? The vast majority of phones offered by the phone companies are 'el-cheapo' phones. By simply going to the Verizon wireless website I'm bombarded with an offer for a phone that's only $9.99 (with contract). How much cheaper do you want?

The Q, hmmm... (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754421)

The Motorola Q is quite apptly named for such a distinguished race of beins as "The Q". The Q need a communicator that is very agile and capable to match their omnipotentance, and of course the Blackberry won't cut it without its video and camera. Humph.

Re:The Q, hmmm... (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754453)

I was thinking of James Bond's Q- overly complicated and doesn't work.

Re:The Q, hmmm... (2, Insightful)

SchwarzeReiter (894411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754968)

I was thinking of James Bond's Q- overly complicated and doesn't work.

Ever seen a James Bond movie?

A little help? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754422)

I'm looking for a sultry woman of latin descent who loves men that love her feet.

Serious replies only.

Microsoft License (0)

macaulay805 (823467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754430)

Is there an option not to buy a Windows License?!

Screw the Q, give me an A1200 running linux! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754431)

The Moto A1200 MING [gsmarena.com] is Motorola's real bad ass. When does that come to Amerika (a.k.a. backwater of mobile phone technology)?

Re:Screw the Q, give me an A1200 running linux! (1)

anakin876 (612770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754450)

it's never coming to verizon wireless - they only do cdma. They can't "no GSM" fast enough these days. Why would they want to be compatible with the rest of the world? This way they can sell you their expensive world phone service - which includes them mailing or messengering a separate phone to you when you the the US.

Re:Screw the Q, give me an A1200 running linux! (1)

jt2377 (933506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754517)

the target customers are probably Windows users, why does every devices have to come with Linux?

Re:Screw the Q, give me an A1200 running linux! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754561)

why does every devices have to come with Linux?

You must be new here... What is Freedom, Alex?

Re:Screw the Q, give me an A1200 running linux! (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754455)

2008 probably, were always 3 years and a gen and a half behind asia. About half that for europe too, but decades behind Europes service.

Re:Screw the Q, give me an A1200 running linux! (1)

Fengpost (907072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754768)

I am sorry to inform you that Ming may never come to US. It is specifically made for the Chinese/Asian market with superior handwriting recognition technology according to Motorola. Which means I should start buying it in Taiwan and selling it on eBay!!!!

Re:Screw the Q, give me an A1200 running linux! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15755257)

I am sorry to inform you that Ming may never come to US.

Good for him. Last time Ming tried to come to the US, Flash Gordon kicked his ass.

Flawed Analysis? (5, Insightful)

1zenerdiode (777004) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754446)

I'm always a little shocked when I see things like this.

It's quite difficult to gauge the true cost of a consumer device when you don't know:
- Component purchase volumes and associated discounts
- Overhead (R&D, administrative costs)
- IP licensing - both for the finished good and associated components (patent fees, etc.)
- Who manufactured certain key components (the LCD is mentioned)
- Locus of manufacture (which country?)
- Test and rework costs (what defect rates are expected of raw components and finished assemblies, what quality standard?)

Re:Flawed Analysis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754528)

I'm always a little shocked when I see things like this.

It's quite difficult to gauge the true cost of a consumer device when you don't know:
- Component purchase volumes and associated discounts
- Overhead (R&D, administrative costs)
- IP licensing - both for the finished good and associated components (patent fees, etc.)
- Who manufactured certain key components (the LCD is mentioned)
- Locus of manufacture (which country?)
- Test and rework costs (what defect rates are expected of raw components and finished assemblies, what quality standard?)


What makes you think this information is not known or cannot be accurately estimated?

Re:Flawed Analysis? (2, Insightful)

1zenerdiode (777004) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754662)

The rub is the range of variation in the output (cost per unit) that can occur with relatively minimal changes in inputs (extra $1 per baseband processor, for instance) can severely hinder the analysis. I'm also suspicious because the estimate is reported to such a high degree of precision (down to the dollar) without any discussion of uncertainty. It implies a degree of accuracy that is not possible without proprietary information. I would have expected, even with a very good estimate, to see a range "Q could reasonably be expected to be produced in the range of $140-160 using scale assumptions corresponding to other cellular devices" or something along those lines. I checked out the website of the company in question, and they list an impressive number of large electronics mfr's - I'm left wondering if the mfr's participate in cost estimation efforts in the same manner as salary surveys where they are allowing their data to be aggregated anonymously to improve the accuracy of the estimates?

couldn't have said it better myself... (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754957)

They sure make a lot of assumptions. Some a pretty obviously wrong, some a obviously right, most of them you just can't tell. You can't make broad assumptions because you can be sure that Moto pays a lot less for a battery than Palm does for example, but how much?

Features or Cost? (3, Insightful)

foxylad (950520) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754448)

Am I alone in not being attracted by all these bells and whistles phones have these days? I want a phone to be a phone - I already have a digital camera to take pictures, and a music player to play music. Why try to cram all these features into a mobile phone, which just complicates the user interface and adds cost?

And don't get me started on email on phones - several of our managers have Blackberries, and despite their bigger keypads, it is still painfully obvious a message was created on one. Plus they tend to be sent at 10:30pm...

We have a new joke going around the office - have you heard about the new crime wave of Blackberry muggings? Crazed people accost you, force their Blackberry on you, and scarper.

Re:Features or Cost? (2, Informative)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754520)

While we're at it, let's also stop trying to force all these PCs to do so much. All I really need my PC for is word processing, the user interface for getting into the word processor is terrible, the UI cluttered with all these extra programs and settings. Don't even get me started on how much all of these features drive up the hardware costs. What I want is a machine that just puts words onto paper! When will they get this through their heads?
[/sarcasm]

Am I the only one who hates carrying 5 computers in my pocket because each one refuses to share its processor cycles with another application?

Is it expensive now? Yes.
Will it come down in price? Yes.
Can an interface be both flexible and efficient? Yes.
Can the current designs be greatly improved? Yes.

Re:Features or Cost? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754535)

Am I alone in not being attracted by all these bells and whistles phones have these days?

No, you're not. I had the opportunity to play with the Q phone at the new Motorola store in downtown Chicago. (Which is not odd at all when you consider that the Q is ALL they sell. Who came up with THAT marketing idea?) My initial reaction was this: It's a piece of technological junk that does very little over top of existing handsets, has a confusing interface (in the finest tradition of Motorola), and is really more of a status symbol than anything else.

It might have had a fighting chance of competing with the Treo had Motorola thought to include a stylus or a thumbstick, or SOMETHING. Instead, what I saw was the standard phone controls, very similar to the ring on the Razr. The salesperson hyped it up as some sort of super-interface, but I just wasn't seeing it. The only advantage it had was the keypad. Also, the salespeople couldn't give any satisfactory answers to how the device would communicate with a corporate exchange server other than "you can sync it with your desktop or download mail from Hotmail and Yahoo." Well, that's just a killer feature, isn't it?

If you're in Chicago, feel free to stop by downtown and see for yourself. Otherwise, my opinion is that you're better with a late-model Razr or Slvr.

Re:Features or Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15755359)

has a confusing interface (in the finest tradition of Motorola)

So it's not just me then... I had to look up the manual just to figure out how to make a phone call to someone not in my address book. I swear, my phone (a slightly old Motorola) is the most unintuitive piece of junk I've ever laid eyes on.

(and before someone replies to say it's just because I'm used to another phone interface... Wrong. I managed to hold off getting a phone until early this year, so I'd never seen anything else until long after I started using my phone. So in this case, for once, I am the 'average user'.)

Re:Features or Cost? (5, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754537)

Am I alone in not being attracted by all these bells and whistles phones have these days? I want a phone to be a phone - I already have a digital camera to take pictures, and a music player to play music. Why try to cram all these features into a mobile phone, which just complicates the user interface and adds cost?

Perhaps you are. Ultimately, why bitch about it? They make plain old cell phones for people like you. It's not like these gadgets are being thrust on you. As for the rest; somehow I feel OK having a phone that has internet access, a camera and music playing abilities. It makes it so that if I need these things they're all right here in a simple small package without having to carry at least three other devices. Maybe you feel good about carrying this crap around or you think it makes you look "geek" in some fashion but I'd rather not have to deal with leaving hundreds of dollars worth of hardware (actually thousands if you count my laptop for internet access, and I still need the cell in that case!) in my car or worse taking this stuff around in a mall or store where it can be lost or I can have security bothering me over why I feel the need to carry a 300 dollar camera around randomly.

We have a new joke going around the office - have you heard about the new crime wave of Blackberry muggings? Crazed people accost you, force their Blackberry on you, and scarper.

Wow, that's uh... yeah... funny... i guess. Actually it marks a problem with how people think in relation to technology. OK, so you don't want the latest and greatest, you don't want the camera, the email, the text messages. Fine, don't buy into it. Too many people I know bitch and moan about being able to be contacted on their cell phones. Turn them the fuck off or don't buy one in the first place. That's my solution. Blackberry is normally an evil tool of the office but I see more and more people using them for personal reasons. This doesn't mean that you need to own one nor should you feel compelled to. Don't act like technology is forcing itself into your home, if that's the way you feel about the technology that you own perhaps you should seek professional help.

Re:Features or Cost? (1)

foxylad (950520) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754626)

I should have qualified that the joke is not amusing to the Blackberry users - they grimace while the rest of us smirk.

And you're right that my preference should not stop you getting a phone with a cappucino maker built in, if you want one. But that isn't what I'm suggesting - I posed the question to see if anyone else felt the same way, and if maybe the phone companies were missing a market.

Re:Features or Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15755316)

I feel the same way, and East coast is missing the point here -- it's not that I hate having two cameras, two gazillion-color screens, a qwerty keyboard and the mentioned cappucino machine in my phone. The point is that I hate the price, the weight, and the battery life those things bring with them. From my view point all the new phones seem to be in te all-in-one-mobile-computer market, and no-one is catering to the phone+modem market.

Example: I've got a Nokia 770 for my 'mobile computing' needs, I just needed a phone that has decent data capabilities (3G) in it -- I'd imagine many laptop owners being in the same position. I would have preferred a Nokia, but they offered me nothing: all the phones were really big (a lot bigger than my several generations old phone) and very expensive. I eventually ended up with Samsung Z500, which is expensive and has a short battery life, but at least it's small.

Re:Features or Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15755088)

Here's a tip, try lighten up a bit.

"Actually it marks a problem with how people think in relation to technology".

Give me a break.

Re:Features or Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15755344)

Too many people I know bitch and moan about being able to be contacted on their cell phones. Turn them the fuck off or don't buy one in the first place. That's my solution.

Unfortunately, that solution doesn't work. People seem to expect that because I own a mobile phone, I should be able to be contacted at all times, and if I don't have a damn good excuse for turning off my phone, they have a tendency to get mighty pissed off. Turning off the phone doesn't solve the problem, it only creates more problems.

Re:Features or Cost? (2, Informative)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754568)

Am I alone in not being attracted by all these bells and whistles phones have these days? I want a phone to be a phone - I already have a digital camera to take pictures, and a music player to play music. Why try to cram all these features into a mobile phone, which just complicates the user interface and adds cost?

No, you're not alone but you're relativly marginal in low margin segment.

Compare with computers or cars that only really basic features, like a computer with no frills at all or low end asian econo-box cars. They don't sell that well since they don't cost THAT much less. With a low-end product you need to sell a lot to recoupe your investment since per item return is low along with the fact that it's easier for other companies to jump on the bandwagon should it start rolling. And then you would have every Tom, Dick and Harry eating at the table you set.

And them, of course cellphone operators only offer subsidizes phones that are likely to increase the use of their services. I guess the way to go for people like you is cash cards and buy your own basic phone. You're just not profitable as a group to, in the eyes of the operators, to justify a subsidizes phone.

Clearly, you've ONLY owned a phone (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754578)

Once you step into a Treo, you will find it hard to go back to a "regular phone."
I have internet access all the time, everywhere. I can buy from Woot, Ticketmaster, I can read my favorite blogs, and I get to see regular web pages... not just those wimply little itty-bitty text pages made for weenie cell phones.

I have a 1 Gig SD card, and a set of Shure e4c in-ear headphones. I have 900 meg of MP3's which is just perfect for an airplane flight. I store an additional 50 meg of files, and have 50 meg free.
I have instant corporate email (same as a blackberry), along with Outlook calendar and contacts. I can also open and use Excel, PowerPoint, and Word.

It's a business tool. I can plug it into my laptop, and use it for internet access for my laptop... 40K throughput is fairly easy to get.

Go ahead. Carry your iPod, your phone, your camera, and all the other junk you seem to want to carry. I'll just carry my Treo... thank you very much.

Re:Features or Cost? (1)

karlto (883425) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754585)

Am I alone in not being attracted by all these bells and whistles phones have these days? I want a phone to be a phone - I already have a digital camera to take pictures, and a music player to play music. Why try to cram all these features into a mobile phone, which just complicates the user interface and adds cost?

Personally I hate the bells and whistles too, in large part due to the fact that the extras are usually at the expense of the quality and reliability of the actual phone component! (And the inflated price of course.)

However there are a lot of people who do like the crap, and why deny them? I just wish there was still an option to get a 'normal' phone.

Normal Phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15755302)

I personally like having separate things for each activity; the sound quality on the "all in one" products is always atrocious to me, so I'd rather have an iPod or MiniDisc player in my jacket pocket. My Axim suffers from the same thing, and I'll carry it around for the net and office apps along with a phone because, frankly, I'd feel like an idiot holding it up to my head and yakking away. I still keep my Nokia blue P.O.S. (6010 I think?) around -- my mom had a RAZR and moved up to the SonyEricsson W600 swivel thing, and I hate the things. The pricing on the all in one phones would have to get pretty attractive and keep the quality around before I would consider one. About the only crossover I've had that I would consider wanting anything like this for is having MAME on the PSP and the Axim.
Now, a PSP phone... That's "where it's at".

Afterthought: Something I just thought of... This phone I have will probably NEVER break. Seems like the more features they cram in the less life the product has.
Maybe it's the facts that
A. I don't use this phone more than about 1-2 times a week, and
B. I don't particularly like IT, either.

Re:Features or Cost? (1)

coastwalker (307620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15755196)

I have ordered a RAZER because it has a large keypad for texting - but thats because I cant find a phone with a long battery life.

All I want is a mobile that does text messages and the occasional call - and most importantly lasts for as long as possible between recharges. I am sick of carrying different chargers around with me for all my gadgets, so now I buy things that take standard rechargeable cells - and you cant get a phone with standard rechargable cells.

You can get mobiles with just the phone and texting with longer battery life - but they are only widely available in the third world and have terrible cheap keyboards.

The mobile market reminds me of the pc business about five years ago, there was one choice on offer, it had to have the fastest processor, most expensive graphics card, biggest hard disk, most memmory available - whereas it is quite acceptable now to buy something like the Mac Mini which is built to perform a function and not to cram in the latest list of expensive and irrelevant specifications. Mobile phones are the same, you have to have a camera and a large multicolour display and a rubbish keyboard and a mp3 player and a bluetooth module and and and and - loads of stuff I dont want.

Re:Features or Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15755238)

What's the problem about sending emails at 10:30pm as long as it doesnt expect a reply within 5 minutes ? I love my BlackBerry, makes life a lot easier to organise. Waiting for a meeting to start ? Read/reply your email. Commuting to work (leaving early) one can sort the unreplied emails of the day. Meeting got cancelled while you are on your way to the meeting-room; BlackBerry will tell me instantly.
You don't want to be disturbed; just turn it off!

And about the writing emails on a BlackBerry keyboard; after some weeks of practice and heavy use I could write emails and txt messages even without actually watching at the screen all the time. In the end one couldn't even tell if I would have send an email from my desktop, my laptop or my BlackBerry (ofcourse the headers would ruin it).

Shame the BlackBerry is purely business; i would love it to be able to play MP3's or take photo's.

US Phone Market is so irrelevent (3, Informative)

ElitistWhiner (79961) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754449)

RIM Blackberry is the only phone available in the US that offers a fraction of the communications functionality Europeans take for granted. Even then, Blackberry is just a promise given the Reseller Plan's which throttle what little useful functionality is in the device to add-on services.

Camera, MP3, video objectify the space into lust-have consumerism which drives a cultish demand producing absolutely no redeeming downpayment on the future.

Re:US Phone Market is so irrelevent (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754555)

What's in the Euro phones that are missing in the US phones? What's wrong with having a camera or an MP3 player in the phone? People find that useful. Putting personalized crystals on your phone, yeah perhaps that is what you would call lust have consumerism. But an MP3 player is quite useful even for professionals. You can review notes on a client if you desire. If you are a real estate professional you can take a quick pic and send it off to a client.

Re:US Phone Market is so irrelevent (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754579)

DVB-H [nseries.com] , for one ...

Re:US Phone Market is so irrelevent (1)

SaDan (81097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754634)

I fail to see what that phone can do that I cannot do with just about any EVDO enabled phone/PDA in the US. Different specs on stuff like camera resolution and whatnot, sure, but all the functionality is there and adequate.

I guess I'm just spoiled with my Verizon EVDO PC card and laptop.

Re:US Phone Market is so irrelevent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754796)

DVB-H means that it can recieve and play terrestrial TV I think.

Re:US Phone Market is so irrelevent (5, Interesting)

digitac (24581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754591)

Actually the driving force behind Blackberry features has traditionally been the government's need for security. The government has put strict requirements on the device to be sure it's secure. That's something I can appriciate.
There are server-side policies for EVERYTHING. A rep once told a group of us that if we could find any way to get data off a Blackberry that couldn't be stopped/restricted by a policy on the server he'd buy us lunch and get it fixed. In an enterprise environment the admin can restrict everything.
We can (and do) set password policies. Length, age, complexity, number of attempts can all be configured. There's even a distress feature so the device notifies an admin if the user is forced to unlock it (you change your password by one character). The admin could then send a wipe command to the device which completely wipes all data.
It even has AES encrypted storage. If you turn that on, even if you unsolder the memory chip you can't read the data (though you could theoretically proceed to brute-force it).
The lack of cameras on all Blackberries (is a God-send!) is due to the restrictions placed on cameras in senstive areas. If one Blackberry had a camera they may all be banned from those locations (rumor has it there may be one coming though, I hope not).
No MP3s because it's a business first device. I personally don't agree with this one. I wish it would play WAV file voicemail (promised, never delivered). It doesn't have removable storage or even enough for more than a couple songs, but this relates back to the security issue. They can't be used to copy documents from a computer and it's near impossible to remove sensitive data from the device.
It's not perfect, but at least it has a reason.

Digitac

Re:US Phone Market is so irrelevent (1)

PianoComp81 (589011) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754804)

The lack of cameras on all Blackberries (is a God-send!) is due to the restrictions placed on cameras in senstive areas. If one Blackberry had a camera they may all be banned from those locations (rumor has it there may be one coming though, I hope not).
Thank you! Now if only the companies making PDA + phone devices (or even just phones) would listen. Where I work, no cameras are allowed inside, period. It's company policy. I wouldn't be surprised if many companies have the same policy. This policy prevents me from buying something like the Treo 700p to replace my PalmOS device and cell phone - the place I'm going to want that PDA much of the time is at work.

One of these days, the device makers will wake up and realize that not everyone wants a camera.

Re:US Phone Market is so irrelevent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754784)

"Camera, MP3, video objectify the space into lust-have consumerism which drives a cultish demand producing absolutely no redeeming downpayment on the future."

Stack overflow.
Abort.

Re:US Phone Market is so irrelevent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754799)

Congratulations! You win the most suitable name competition!

Would be more interesting if... (1, Offtopic)

Darundal (891860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754456)

It didn't use the neutered smart-phone version of Windows Mobile. If it used the regular version of windows mobile (like that on PPC's) then I would be interested...

Re:Would be more interesting if... (1)

wadetemp (217315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754492)

This is a bit religious, but I think it'd be garbage with the stylus-oriented PocketPC OS. As is, it's an "a-phone-first" which never requires more than one hand unless you want to "type" (which is faster than stylus input anyway.)

Availablity of a stylus turns Windows Mobile into Brain Age.

Re:Would be more interesting if... (1)

edward.virtually@pob (6854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754545)

Yeah, just a bit religious. :-) I would say I can probably type faster with a stylus than you can with a thumbboard. Which would mean more if the virtual keyboard driver in Mobile 2003 SE did not drop (annoying) or mutate (worse) characters at higher input speeds.

Re:Would be more interesting if... (1)

digitac (24581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754600)

You obviously haven't used one. I don't care so much about the stylus, but Smartphone is NOT designed for QWERTY keyboards. If you read my other post, you'll see that it's my opinion that the Smartphone interface is one of the major shortcomings of the device.

Digitac

Re:Would be more interesting if... (1)

wadetemp (217315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754617)

On the contrary, I have a Q, and have used it plenty. I have not used a PocketPC-based phone, but have used a PocketPC-based PDA. I simply don't want to use a stylus when using a phone.

Re:Would be more interesting if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754955)

Agreed. Its a smartPHONE. I use both PPC and smartphone and both do their job perfectly. With a few tweeks smartphone can do everything PPC can.
You want to be able to take your smartphone out of your pocket, press a few keys with one hand and do its job... as a phone. Not fumble about with a stylus, leave that for the big PDA :)

Re:Would be more interesting if... (1)

mlk (18543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15755385)

I have a HTC Wizard. Due to its sucky stylus holder I don't have a stylus. For phone features this is fine, press the green "phone" hardware button. Bash the screen as the number buttons are a fair size. Press the green "phone" hardware button again.

Re:Would be more interesting if... (1)

edward.virtually@pob (6854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754624)

Eh? From what I have read, I thought Windows Mobile for smart phones was an enhanced version, not a reduced one?

Licensing _fees_ to Microsoft? (0)

gearmonger (672422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754457)

I think you actually mean licensing "subsidies".

don't forget the Nokia E61 (1, Offtopic)

m874t232 (973431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754509)

The Nokia E61 [nokia.com] has a nicer operating system than the Q, Blackberry, or Treo, it's small, mature, and high quality. (Despite the European web site, you can order it in the US from on-line dealers.)

Q = Queer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754521)

Worst handheld ever.

Terrible attempt at mimicking the blackberry clickwheel design. No thank you Motowhorola, I'll stick with my Blackberry. Atleast I don't have to reboot it twice an hour, and recharge every hour as well. And it actually integrates all its functions intuitively!

The main difference between them... (5, Informative)

digitac (24581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754526)

...is that the Blackberry WORKS! Those Q's are nice to look at but terrible to use. We bought 6 at work when they first came out, 4 have been returned in favor of the Blackberry. The Blackberry does less, but it's reliable. Here's the mini-review I give to everyone at work who asks about them:

The Good:
-The screen is nice, bright, easy to read indoors, and a nice size in general.
-The general form factor. I like thin devices and the Q is that, it doesn't seem to have unneeded bulk.
-The network. Some like it, some hate it, but few will argue that Verizon's EVDO network is fast where you can get it. Allows for streaming a Slingbox nicely.

The Bad:
-Most of the problems can in some way be related back to Windows Mobile SMARTPHONE Edition. Had they gone with the full PocketPC software (and required touchscreen) the interface would be less awkward to move around in and you could do simple things like, oh I don't know, switch back to that task in the background?
-The keyboard...sucks. Most similar devices (mostly referring to Blackberries, Palm Treo's, and a couple others) have standardized portions of the key layout. For instance the backspace key is next to the L key so it's easy to get to since you typo a lot on small keyboards. On the Q it's a flat button, unlike the letters, up near the D-Pad and easy to miss (actually had someone ask me where it was after they had been using it for a week). The Enter key is where the backspace key should be (you can imagine what problems THAT causes), the only shift key is on the right side of the keyboard near the bottom (unlike the others). And in general the keyboard just doesn't have a good "feel" to it.
-The scroll-wheel, they should have left it off completely. The Smartphone interface wasn't designed for it. I believe they only put it on their to lure the Blackberry users, which is fine if it actually behaved like the Blackberry's, but it doesn't. You can't use it as the primary navigation tool like the Blackberry (you can only scroll vertically), and it is slow to respond to any input. Even the little bump they put around it to supposedly protect it from accidental activation hinders its usefulness.
-Stability, or lack there-of, may relate back to the Windows Smartphone OS, but we have other Smartphones that are MUCH, MUCH more stable. The Q will get hung up on the simplest tasks. If it's not freezing completely, it has dropped the network and won't reconnect until you reboot.
-No push-mail. They didn't ship the Q with the AKU2 service pack so it can't use Exchange Mobility push mail. That would be fine, because we have a Goodlink server, but Goodlink doesn't run well on the device due to the Smartphone interface. For one thing, we require a password, but on Smartphones Goodlink limits passwords to just numbers which require the use of the ALT key on the Q.
-It just seems slow. Nothing on the device seems to launch, run or close fast. In fact I often find myself setting it down while waiting for it to do something.
-Battery life...painful. My Blackberry will usually last about 4 days if only used for e-mail, 2-3 if using the cell phone. Motorola Q: 13 hours, which is coincidentally the exact amount of time one user's relationship with the device lasted.
-Charging. It has a mini-USB plug so you should be able to charge it anywhere, right? Wrong. If you want to charge it from a computer you have to have the POS ActiveSync software installed. If you want to charge it from the wall, you'd better have brought your Motorola USB charger because 70% of the mini-USB chargers I have tried won't work. Some will power the device but not charge the battery and some won't even register. It's not the amount of power either. I have one that provides up to 1100mA while the Motorola one provides 800mA, but it won't work. I haven't figured out why yet.
Cheap build quality. While we haven't damaged any, they just don't feel very durable. I've dropped, tossed, kicked and stepped on my Blackberry. I dare not set the Q down on a table hard, it feels like something would crack, something expensive.

I'm sure there is more I could dig up from the user feedback we've gotten at work, but I hope this will give you an accurate impression of our experiences. This is why we have 2500 Blackberries, 400 Treos, Smartphones and PocketPCs, 6 Motorola Q's and it's going to stay that way.

Digitac

Re:The main difference between them... (4, Interesting)

brogdon (65526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754597)

Just to play Devil's Advocate, I have a Q and love it. It plays my episodes of Futurama without skipping and all of my various formats of music with the Core Pocket Media Player. It gets my email for me, streams internet radio stations, and has a very capable web browser (though I hope the minimo people get a compatible build out for the Q soon). I got a mini-SD card for it that holds 2GB of stuff for about $50.

I, personally, have no issue with battery life other than when I play movies and so forth all day. However, I expect that to drain the battery much faster than normal phone usage drains the average cell phone anyway.

I also don't know why you said the Q doesn't have push Email services. Mine pushes my gmail out to me just fine, and you can also set pocket outlook to poll your email accounts automatically every few minutes if you'd rather do it that way.

Also, I don't have a problem with my unit locking up at all. I often have pocket IE, Outlook, and the media player all going at once, and they seem to get along just fine.

As far as I'm concerned, I got phone with a 400kb internet connection, push email, web browsing, internet streaming, video and music playback, plus whatever other little software I want to install for the cost of a $200 handset and a $50 card. So far it's working out to be a prety good deal.

BTW, check out Qusers.com [qusers.com] for more people with Q's. They can tell you the good (and bad) of their experience.

Re:The main difference between them... (2, Interesting)

digitac (24581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754704)

I'm glad you like your Q, I really am. I'd just like to make a couple of observations about your comments.

You won't get any argument from me that the Q does more, much more, than the Blackberry. Movies and audio playback are missing from the Blackberry; games and web browsing are better on the Q. Our users have reported complaints about most of those though. One user said it would play several MP3s then stop, another said the web browser was "hit or miss" (sorry, no specifics). From your remark about minimo, I'll assume "very capable web browser" means "leaves much to be desired". I find it to be better than the Blackberry's, bigger than other [smart]phones, but much harder to use than it's PocketPC counterpart.

Removable storage is very nice (even necessary) for audio and video files. I don't remember the exact on-board storage, but it's not enough to do anything useful with alone.

Battery life is no doubt affected by usage scenarios. In our environment the primary function of any handheld is push e-mail. This does have a detrimental effect on battery life, but it is still a fair comparison to Blackberries and Treos on which we also run push e-mail.

I am curious as to what you are using to get e-mail pushed from GMail. To my knowledge, GMail does not support, nor does any 3rd party service implement, push e-mail in any form (from GMail). I suspect it is pull e-mail on a regular, even if frequent, schedule. For some that is perfectly acceptable, but our users demand the instant push e-mail (yes, 60 seconds is too long for some of them). Pocket Outlook supports, as you mention, pull e-mail or SMS-notification e-mail from Exchange (a sudo push system). The push feature I was referring to is the recently released AKU2 update for Windows Mobile 5 devices that supports true push e-mail from Microsoft Exchange 2003 servers.

I would honestly like to know how you switch between Pocket IE, Outlook and the Media Player when all are running. I would love to hear that there is a hidden keystroke somewhere that I'm missing, but to my knowledge the only way to get to a running app is to run it again from the Start menu. Not all programs behave well this way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are using this in a purely personal environment, not an enterprise environment, right? In this way, I believe it is best compared to the Sidekick, instead of the Blackberry. I cannot comment on it's overall usefulness as a consumer device as we evaluated them for an enterprise environment. As the "Blackberry-killer" that Verizon has been desperately trying to convince us it is, it falls short. Very short.

Digitac

How to switch to other apps (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15755155)

This is actually easy. Pick a home screen layout that has the most-recently-used applications displayed across the top. So to switch from IE to media player, I hit HOME, right on D-pad (more than once if it wasn't the last app used), then the action button.

In most apps this isn't necessary, as the BACK button brigns you to the last app you were using before the current one. But Pocket IE has fucked that up and it tries to load the previous web page instead.

So, I find this EASIER than PocketPC. There you have to hit START, then scroll down to the MRU which is in the middle of the menu. Or you can use a third party app to do so.

BTW I do use coporate email (we have Exchange at work) and I have it set to pull every 10 minutes. I agree that not having AKU2 sucks - how can Motorola sell a brand new messaging device (suypposedly a Blackberry killer) without it? Someone messed up badly. Although I find a lot of your review to be nitpicky (I prefer the Smartphone controls a LOT to the PocketPC controls, since I hate using a stupid stylus - IT'S A PHONE) but of course that's probably due to you being familiar with Blackberry and PocketPC. I switched from PocketPC to Smartphone a year ago (Audiovox SMT5600) and I don't regret it (which surprised me).

That said, I don't think you'll be really happy until the push email solution is out and you've gotten both yourself and your users more used to the Smartphone. I also think it's garbage that I can't read doc attachments, or powerpoints which I get all the time.

It's definitely fine for me the way it is, but it took me a while to learn the way it works - there are LOTs of little tricks about how you can use the Back button, Home key, # and * keys, even the power button differently if you hold them down that make the device a real pleasure to use. For example, hit the green call button when you turn the phone on - BAM I'm looking at the last few calls I made and who called me, just one more click to return the call or to see what time they called. Or I can press right on the D-pad to switch to their home number/txt/email to contact them in a different place. Puts the Call History on every phone I've ever used to shame.

Plus the phone is a sexy beast :) Of course i'm in love with it.

Ditto... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754650)

We tried the Q at my office and discovered many of the same things. We tried running the MNotes client on it and the UI was terrible to use for that. Luckily, our Verizon rep let us trade it back in on a Treo 700w, which is much, much nicer to use, although it is much more expensive.

Re:The main difference between them... (4, Interesting)

wadetemp (217315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754658)

- The Enter key is where an Enter key is on a computer, and the "Backspace" button (a frequently used button) and the "Back" button. Seems sane to me. "Backspace" is an "accident" button, and it's in prime position to hit with the edge of your thumb when you make a mistake. The "Enter" key is one you know you're going to hit before you get to the end of the paragraph, and not that frequently used, so its location is also appropriate. I've tried a Treo 650 and found that to be OK, but I was accustomed to my Q already.

- Yeah, I don't like the scrollwheel. I can't get my hand in position to use it and find the D-pad and menu-letter shortcuts to be much faster and 1-hand-friendly.

- I've run it for 4 weeks. No stability issues or crashes. I sync with Exchange and POP frequently, use web search, calendar, make phone calls, etc... fairly normal usage.

- No AKU2, no problem. Every 15-minutes is plenty for me. There is an SMS-based solution to this anyway, supposedly, although I'm not what that requires on the server. It certainly requires free text messages.

- My battery lasts for 2-3 days with ~1 hour of talk time and 15-minute email syncing. I've heard MSN Messenger can run-away when you don't have a data connection... maybe that was it?

- Regarding charging off a computer... why?... you still need to pack a cable anyway. I simply don't use ActiveSync, because I can sync over the air, so I'm not plugging in for that either.

- Regarding build quality, I sort of agree, but it's mainly the battery cover that's at fault. I've read putting some sticky padding between it and the battery will solidify it.

- You never really mention how "most of these problems relate back to Smartphone edition." I switch to tasks in the background by hitting Home and clicking right once (for the most recent app) and clicking the "do it" button. That seems reasonable. I can probably do that faster than the time it takes to whip out the stylus. What do these other problems have to do with Smartphone vs. PocketPC?

Re:The main difference between them... (1)

digitac (24581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754733)

I addressed some of these comments in a reply to another poster, so I'll save the space and refer you to that post for replies to most of your comments. A few I will address here though.

The keyboard. I must take issue with you on this. If you type a lot on any small device, you're going to use the backspace key a lot. It's position on the Q does not lend itself to being touch-typed like the other keys, and as I mentioned breaks from the convention established by it's predecessors. I'll grant you the position of the Enter key is only problematic for those who expect the backspace key to be there. If they were targeting existing Blackberry or Treo users, they should have adopted the keyboard layout that those users have already accustomed themselves to. A poor reason, maybe, but the same reason they chose QWERTY over Dvorak layout.

I can't explain your stability or our lack of it, but it has been a consistent problem here with every Q we have.

As mentioned in the prior response, push e-mail is a requirement for us, and yes, that probably accounts for a majority of the difference in battery time. Also our users tend to be heavy e-mail users, often reading hundreds of e-mails, and writing 10-20 per day on their mobile device.

Charging off a computer or other charger because the mini-usb plug is ubiquitous and users always forget their chargers (also because of the short battery life we experience).

The issues related to the Smartphone interface I did not enumerate in detail and mostly relate to general usability issues as reported by our users. I have found your suggested method of task switching problematic at best (such as when a error message has popped up on a background app), but perhaps that's due to the apps we run.

Digitac

Re:The main difference between them... (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754825)

...is that the Blackberry WORKS!

We have about a dozen blackberries in my office, most a little over a year old. At this point, only about half of them are able to actually receive calls (thought most still receive email fine). I'm not trying to say that the Q is better (I've never used one) but it's pretty bad in my mind when the Blackberry can be used as a benchmark for reliability. Perhaps there is an inverse relatioship between feature set and longevity? I can't wait for the PC-quivalent cell phone that has to be replaced every month (nor can Motorola, I imagine).

Image? (3, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754529)

I think it's interesting with all of the power of the web that some news sites, generally seems to be the sites of more traditional media, neglect to furnish a basic image of the device or subject in question. I'm interested in a photo just because I've never heard of or seen this thing.

Google Image Link [google.com]

Video (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754851)

For some video footage of the phone, see this [google.com] on Google video.

huh? (2, Funny)

zoloback (785676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754538)

So A phone that sends email... my cable company gives me phone service, my phone company gives me TV and Internet, My Email portal sends sms alerts to my phone, which can take pictures, my digital camera records videos and my video camera takes pictures...
Makes me wonder what does my wife do when I'm not home...

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754838)

Makes me wonder what does my wife do when I'm not home...

It involves me, your cat and a whole lot of tinfoil. I'd say more, but you probably don't want to know.


Best regards,

The Mailman

Ugh... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754560)

Who do I have to kill to get a wifi-enabled smartphone capable of running some SIP software? As far as I can tell the only thing that matches that description is the HP Ipaq and apparently they sucked hard enough that all the cell providers who were selling them pulled them from the market. I want to connect to my asterisk box when I'm at home and the cell network when I'm not. It really shouldn't be that hard. It's like trying to find a flat-rate VOIP provider that's compatable with asterisk. Near as I can tell it can't be done.

Bleh. Wake me up in 6 or 7 years when they've got all this BS sorted out...

Re:Ugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754645)

Not that I've tried it yet... but the MDA (T-Mobile) has a good hacker community and they've setup Skype and others for it. And, now that I've had my MDA for a couple months, I've found the worries (aquired from reading some reviews) were baseless. I've only had to reboot it twice, because it doesn't like my old blue-tooth head set. All els is very good.

Re:Ugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754680)

I can't vouch for how well it works since I haven't used the feature but the Nokia e61 supposedly supports SIP calls so you should be able to make it do what you want. I have been pretty impressed with e61 so far and I haven't even used half of the features it has.

Re:Ugh... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754790)

Huh, that's a spiffy little device. I'll have to investigate further. And I've got an inquiriy out with telasip.com to see if they can do everything I need in a VOIP provider. And here I was beginning to think I was going to have to set up a vast network of DUNDi peers or something. Might still need to do that though...

Re:Ugh... (1)

UngodAus (198713) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754827)

*chuckles* grab anything with the new qtopia 4 [trolltech.com] when it comes out on devices. I know for a fact we have SIP in the base phone-package. (Not qtopia core tho, so dodge them if you want SIP).

Re:Ugh... (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754958)

After looking at this video [google.com] of the Nokia E61 that someone above mentioned it would appear that it is capable of doing what you ask. Found it online for about $500-550 (Canadian dollars).

No comparison... (2, Informative)

puppetman (131489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754757)

I had (lost it at the dump) audiovox smart phone with Windows Mobile. I also carry a Blackberry on a rotating basis for support at work.

My Audiovox phone had a about 2 days before it needed a recharge, doing pretty much nothing (the screen was in sleep-mode). The Blackberry goes a week (and it's constantly downloading email from our Nagios server, and replying to acknowledge issues, etc), all with the screen on.

The Blackberry did everything with a scroll-wheel that was also a button. The windows-mobile needed a stylus to scroll, etc.

For me, the Blackberry won hands down: the screen was nice, the performance was great, and the keyboard is very usable with a bit of practice. And this is a 2 year old model, that has been dropped in the toilet (and survived) and is dropped probably once a week.

Rim had done an amazing job.

Re:No comparison... (1)

clonmult (586283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15755126)

Totally agree with that - I also used a BB (7230) on a rotating basis for support at work, it would easily last from the time I picked it up (monday morning) to the following monday.

Not so sure that the later models battery life is quite as good though.

This is one crutial aspect of mobile usage that seems to escape a lot of manufacturers nowadays. What is "smart" in a phone that only lasts a day or two on a charge? My current personal phone (SE W550) does a good 4+ days on a charge, and that is generally about as good as you'll get with a mobile phone nowadays. I'd love for the manufacturers to start working towards improving battery life rather than improving camera/other features. (I'm aware that one of the Panasonic VS range does have a very, very long battery life).

BlackBerry doesn't have those "features"? Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754779)

...' By comparaison, the BlackBerry 8700, only costs $123 according to the article. The difference between the two, the BlackBerry 'doesn't play video or music, and unlike the Q, it doesn't have a camera.'"
The BlackBerry is obviously closer to what a phone should be. As Jeremy Clarkson puts it, "I just want my mobile phone to be full of mobile phone technology. I don't want to be able to video my genitals and show them on Italian Internet".

Indeed.

i bought a sierra voq profession phone for $80 (1)

shrewmy (37432) | more than 8 years ago | (#15754856)

I got it off of ebay, brand new in the box. It runs windows mobile 2003, it's an older phone...
It'll check email at scheduled intervals (mine's set for every 5 minutes), I run AgileMessenger (free) to keep in touch with people on AOL Instant Messenger, viewers for Word/Excel/Powerpoint, has a nice calendar program, a Secure Digital slot, etc etc. Only thing it lacks is bluetooth, which to me isn't really that important anyway.

It's a rather large phone, but it FEELS like a phone, which I love. I've used Treo's before and they just weren't comfortable to hold when having a long conversation.

Oh yeah, and it has a fairly easy to use QWERTY keyboard that folds out from behind the regular phone buttons..

pic: http://images.tigerdirect.com/itemDetails/S/S266/S 266-1000/S266-1000-callout-2.jpg [tigerdirect.com]

I thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15754924)

I thought it was this Q [wikipedia.org] .

Reminds me of a web site .. (1)

torpor (458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15755248)

.. I saw, about a year ago, which has the sole purpose of dissecting modern hardware into component costs and listing them for all and sundry to see .. anyone know that site I'm talking about? I've tried to find it again, but I can't for the life of me wrangle Google into the corner ..

Unmaking? (1)

bl00d6789 (714958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15755374)

Or unmasking? 'Unmaking' doesn't unmake any sense to me.

Slick, but no Treo (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15755461)

I compared the Q to the Treo 700P. I must admit, for such a low-cost device, the screen is fantastic! It also seems suitably snappy. Even the form-factor is quite sexy (amazingly thin and yet such a large screen). But the user interface is absolutely horrible. Even after using the Q for an HOUR, it was still extremely difficult to use. The keyboard is not well designed but the lack of a touch screen is what REALLY kills it. Trying to type something? The backspace is, well, a joke. Trying to navigate the menus? Good luck, it is a bear.

So, while is has a lot of impressive technology, you better try actually USING it for a while before thinking of purchasing it. When you are done with the test, the more expensive Treo will start looking more attractive all the time.

Now, if we could merge/meld the Treo 700P and the Q and the Nokia 770, and have an open OS like Linux running pocket Opera on it... Well, we can dream...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?