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!

What's Happened In Mobile Over the Past 10 Years

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the oh-nothing-much dept.

Cellphones 149

andylim writes "recombu.com has an article examining what's happened in mobile over the past ten years, including BlackBerry launching its first smart phone in 2002, Motorola launching the Razr in 2004 and Apple launching the iPhone in 2007. As a commenter points out, the first camera phone (Sharp J-SH04), which was released in 2000, featured a 110,000-pixel (0.11MP) CMOS image sensor, and a 256-colour (8 bit) display."

cancel ×

149 comments

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

In other news... (3, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566262)

What's happened is that countries without legacy copper and overbearing telcos have leapfrogged the US in terms of, well....pretty much everything mobile.

Re:In other news... (1, Interesting)

2stein (871221) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566306)

What's happened is that countries without legacy copper and overbearing telcos have leapfrogged the US in terms of, well....pretty much everything mobile.

Indeed they may have. And it made a decent communication infrastructure available to them at a fraction of the cost. So it's also a decade of giving millions of people access to a phone. TFA does not mention this, but this might actually be more disruptive than packing a bazillion-pixel-camera into a feature-packed phone-crossbreed.

Re:In other news... (5, Funny)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566382)

Oddly enough, the "bazillion-pixel camera" still takes crappy, "cell phone"-quality pictures.

Re:In other news... (5, Informative)

segin (883667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566650)

Well, what can you expect with a camera with a single fixed aperture and speed? Almost every cell phone camera out there is f/2.8, although if you are (un)lucky, you might get one with f/5.6. Whatever the aperture is, however, is what you are stuck with, for the most part (unless you are a super-wiz hardware hacker and can replace most of the camera...).

The second factor in determining image quality is shutter speed, but since in this day and age, there is no physical shutter, "shutter speed" refers to how long the image sensor senses for image data; 1/400 shutter speed on a cell phone means that, actually, the sensor is only "looking" at the world for 1/400 of a second. While this is quite similar to a real camera, the fact that the sensor is "always exposed" means that it is always at odds with the world, in terms of lighting (being left camera-side up on a sunny day is not good for the phone's camera at all)

So yes, megapixels don't mean shit. A decent camera with an adjustable aperture and shutter speed (possibly even a real shutter) makes for a better picture.

Re:In other news... (3, Informative)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566776)

Well, what can you expect with a camera with a single fixed aperture and speed? Almost every cell phone camera out there is f/2.8, although if you are (un)lucky, you might get one with f/5.6.

But whatever their so called aperture, the physical aperture is still a pinhole lens that is a couple millimetre across. My proper f./2.8 lens have a diameter of 77mm (and can close to f./22). Which actually lets some light in.

There's probably a physical limit under which you cannot go and still have a reasonably decent lens (not super studio high-end flawless quality, just decent). At a guess from the various compacts I've seen, I'd say it's around 1.5cm. Maybe a wee bit less.

Re:In other news... (1)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568270)

f./22

That's "f/.22" thank you very much ;)

The cool thing about phone cameras... (4, Insightful)

DG (989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566918)

...is not quality, but immediacy.

I don't always have my camera on me, but I ALWAYS have my phone. The ability to grab a quick snapshot or video clip when something unexpected happens is priceless.

And the further ability to get that shot out on the network, before it can be censored... I've never had to rely on that, but it has done great things for other people.

And while it will never compete with a SLR bodied, pro camera, I've been pleasantly surprised by just how good a RAZR V9 can be. "Cell phone quality" need not mean "horrific".

And it works through the daysight on a TLAV 1m turret. That has proven useful.

DG

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30567442)

A lens cap wouldn't seem too expensive either.

Re:In other news... (2, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566736)

Megapixels won't make up for crappy optics. And by "crappy" I mean the best the manufacturers can manage in such a tiny space. Under good conditions, modern phones actually make decent pictures.

There's a bit more choice these days as well, with a few companies (at least SonyEricsson...) offering phones with better optics, making the device thicker but resulting in picture quality that comes pretty close to that of compact happysnap cameras... good for people who like to always have a decent camera on them.

Re:In other news... (1)

gullevek (174152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567428)

Well, depends. Actually my phones takes surprisingly good photos. And the next generation has even an almost proper flash built in. Of course they all have auto focus, macro, etc settings.

Re:In other news... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30566324)

What's happened is that countries without legacy copper and overbearing telcos have leapfrogged the US in terms of, well....pretty much everything mobile.

It is fucking ridiculous that the internet and most telecommunications technologies were invented here in the USA, yet we have some of the world's worst connectivity measured in bang-for-buck. In my opinion, our mobile phone companies are colluding and need to be smacked down HARD by the government, why else is there not one of them who doesn't gouge for text messages? What is it, something like a thousand text messages equal the bandwidth consumed by one minute of voice? Fucking nuts. Where's my fiber to the door? Why do I have such a low connection speed compared to Japan and most places in Europe with similar population densities? Yet we tolerate this.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30566770)

tip: those telecommunication technologies were developed by the monopoly formerly known as AT&T which puts the current mobile phone oligopoly to shame.

Re:In other news... (1)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568276)

To be fair, the reasons we are lagging behind now *did* give us connectivity half a century before most of the rest of the world.

We didn't spend bajillions of dollars through the 1900s to set up a nation wide telco infrastructure just so we could avoid setting up a 12G cell network in the early 2000s.

Relax.

The U.S. is slightly behind the rest of the world, because we were so far ahead for so long that now that they are investing in infrastructure, they're getting new *all* and shiny, because they had nothing prior. We need to be content with piecemeal upgrades because we've got a LOT to replace and it's not feasible to do so quickly and economically.

This doesn't address the pricing concerns you cite, of course.

Re:In other news... (3, Informative)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566540)

Well, the nice thing about mobile technologies is that they've got a relatively low infrastructure cost compared to wired technologies. The spiderweb of cable needed is significantly less dense, and it can piggy-back on existing data telcom lines.

Cellular tech also benefited in much of the world because they didn't have the initial 'heavy' cellular infrastructure to contend with - the legacy analog cellular crap. They also had fiber optics at their disposal, making the line cost significantly lower if anything did need to be laid.

And most countries, particularly much of the European ones, have the advantage of having higher population density and smaller area. Even in countries like Albania (which I doubt has much for any connectivity) getting the whole country covered with modern data cellular would be much easier.

Even still, it's possible to get a cellular connection of one sort or another pretty much anywhere in the US. I'm in one of the least sparsely covered parts of the US (from all carriers), which also happens to be one of the least populated. I can be tens of miles from the nearest person (forgive the hyperbole, but 1+ miles) or 30+ miles from the nearest town over 500 people and still get an SMS (or maybe a phone call) out. That's impressive.

Re:In other news... (4, Informative)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566866)

And most countries, particularly much of the European ones, have the advantage of having higher population density and smaller area. Even in countries like Albania (which I doubt has much for any connectivity) getting the whole country covered with modern data cellular would be much easier.

Worth mentioning is that the countries in Europe furthest ahead in cellular technology, the Scandinavian countries, have very low population density even when compared to the US. And still they have coverage in pretty much all of the country. (Including many remote mountainous regions)

Re:In other news... (2, Informative)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567368)

And also worth mentioning that their population is highly concentrated in a few areas. Like Alaska - very low density (very few people for a massive place), but 95% of the population is concentrated in Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau. Much easier to roll out a technology.

.
For example, Finland. Just over 5 million people in that very large country, but 25% of them live in Helsinki urban area. Or Sweden, with 9.2 million people in that massive land area, but 30% of them in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmo urban areas.

Looking at just strict density over the entire country isn't very applicable; you need to look at the percentage of population that lives in the large cities. You'll find that in Europe the effective density is much higher than in the US; a large percentage of the total population of most European countries live in a relatively small area and in the cases of the Scandinavian nations large areas of their country are essentially uninhabited.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30567874)

Density of US Cities [wikipedia.org]

Helsinki Stats [wikipedia.org]

I picked on Helsinki and the data is a bit old, but any similar city with more current stats should do to get the point across. Helsinki has +7k/ sq mi of density. There are 125 cities in the US with a fraction of the land and +10k/sq mi of density! Just hitting a few cities and their suburbs (Philly, New York, NJ state, Boston, Chicago, LA, San Fran, and Miami) will cover the majority on that list.

BUT, I am sure that the phone service in Helsinki is far better and costs less than it does in ANY of those cities. These cities shouldn't even be on celluar! They should have 2-3 WiMax towers and the cells should provide unlimited minutes to 60 countries via those for like $30 a month (Vonage)!

The real reason we are basically dead last in the telecom arena is because our telcos are bloated, bureaucratic, lazy, and too risk averse to even spell innovation. The only innovating our telcos do is in ads, and lobbying.

Re:In other news... (2, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568370)

Here in Australia, I have relatives on a sheep station half a days drive away from the nearest town and they can get a stable HSPA data connection through Telstra NextG (with an external antenna) and if they stand in the right place, they can even get a call out with a NextG handset.

If Telstra can get service to somewhere with so little population density, there is NO excuse for the poor state of cellular service in the US.

Don't underestimate the difficulty involved (0)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566602)

The holdbacks you mention are definitely true. But many of the comparisons made with other countries fail to point out just how huge a country america is. Covering that much area is quite a difficult task and involves greater expense. And it isn't just covering blank areas of the map between urban centers. Our cities also have tons of urban sprawl to make the job harder. Don't get me wrong, it's a task that can be accomplished if the telecoms stop their massive massive fail/theft. But the problem to overcome in the states is harder than europe/south korea/japan ect...

Re:Don't underestimate the difficulty involved (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566724)

I lost the links, but not too long ago I found information showing that the US had only marginally more towers than Germany did back in 2006.

Re:Don't underestimate the difficulty involved (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567892)

I think the main problem is the fact that there is nearly no real competition among the big cell phone providers. Look at AT&T, yeah, they are willing to do smear ad campaigns against Verizon and Verizon is willing to do the same to AT&T yet both seem more hell-bent to screw their customers more than actually change anything. Verizon seems to insist on castrating their phones, yeah, things have gotten better, yeah, they got the Droid which is perhaps one of the best phones of the year and one of the most open phones, but at the same time they screw their BlackBerry customers by trying to integrate Bing in there rather than whatever search provider the customer wants ( see http://jkontherun.com/2009/12/17/verizon-bing-make-google-go-boom-on-blackberry/ [jkontherun.com] )

If a single telecom could get A) Amazing coverage B) Fast networks C) Good phones D) Openness it would be great. But instead we get AT&T the overpriced carrier with good coverage, a fast 3G network and decent phones. Verizon, another overpriced network with good coverage, a -huge- 3G network, and phones that are castrated. T-Mobile which has good support (look at how they supported unlocked iPhones http://www.ismashphone.com/2009/05/tmobile-tech-support-hearts-unlocked-iphones.html [ismashphone.com] ), open phones, but has a tiny 3G network and generally spotty coverage. And Sprint which is nice and cheap and has unlimited plans, has decent phones, but coverage just isn't quite there yet.

Re:In other news... (2, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566712)

What's happened is that countries without legacy copper and overbearing telcos have leapfrogged the US in terms of, well....pretty much everything mobile.

But it's difficult to keep up with the mobile market, it's such a moving target !

Re:In other news... (3, Informative)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567138)

Not quite true: I leave in France, where, when Al Gore invented the Internets, we where in a rather worse situation, telecoms-wise: single, nationally-owned carrier, high prices, quite good service, though.

What they did, as in much of the EU I think, is force deregulation by
- selling 3 nationwide GSM licenses, so there was competition right from the start
- forcing standardization and interoperability by enforcing the GSM standard for all carriers, which helped with coverage and provider switching
- Carriers also had to commit to cover an increasing percentage of the population, which is admittedly easier to do than in the US (France is a bit smaller than Texas, but has more than twice the population).
- later, forcing number portability (you can switch provider and keep the same number)
- above all, agreeing that the caller pays for calls, with mobile numbers set apart by a different prefix (06 = mobile, 01 = Paris, 04 = south east...). You used to be able to figure out which carrier someone was using by looking at the second couple of digits, but with number portability that is no longer 100% true.

The one remaining issue, apart from Texts pricing, is pricing legibility: telcos are free to set up there tariffs as they wish, so it's very hard to come up with an apples-to-apples comparison.

Re:In other news... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567898)

The one thing that is very, very different between Europe and the US is the total area covered by each company. Densities, as have been pointed out, are quite low in parts of Scandinavia that nonetheless have service (cue all the posts about remote mountains in Norway having 4 bars), and major-city coverage is apparently much better in Europe than in the US. But there is no Europe-wide operator that will sell you an unlimited voice, data, and text plan that works from Moscow to Lisbon with no roaming charges, while T-Mobile will sell you that plan for $80/mo, Sprint will do it for $100/mo, and AT&T and Verizon will do it for $150/mo.

It's worth noting that smaller operators like US Cellular, Cricket, MetroPCS, Cellular South, Cincinnati Bell, and the like provide lower prices and fewer restrictions than the majors, but also have smaller coverage areas.

featured a 110,000-pixel (0.11MP) CMOS image senso (3, Interesting)

homey of my owney (975234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566276)

Which is still more than I need

Smartphones and Flip Format (2, Insightful)

DG (989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566286)

Hey, mobile phone hardware designer types:

The flip format is by far the superior design for a phone, as it allows the phone to halve it's length when not in use and simultaneously protects the screen and user controls.

As much as I'd like to buy a cool phone like an iPhone or Blackberry, the "brick" format makes it a non-starter.

Until then, I'm sticking with my RAZR V9.

(Yes, the Blackberry Pearl is a flip - my wife has one - and that's not a bad phone at all. I *might* just jump at the next gen version of that)

The other big selling point for me is battery life. Notwithstanding the decent media features on my V9, I never use it as a music player because that chews pretty heavily into the battery, and a phone's primary purpose is communications first. Maybe make a phone that has two batteries, and separates the "phone" functions from the "media" functions...

DG

Re:Smartphones and Flip Format (5, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566384)

hey designers the flip phone is so last century. The brick format is far superior, allowing larger screen size, larger batteries, and larger buttons. not to mention the abaility to push a button to accept a call, not to have to use both hands too open the damned thing.

flip phone suffer from breakage, and weak points in their overall designs(hinges can break) As much as I like retro old school toys please stop making them.

Not everyone likes the same things. I have owned several of each style and i always seem to fall back to brick phones.

I prefer slider phones (1)

IYagami (136831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566670)

They are smaller than brick phones and the screen can be bigger.

Besides, you can answer a call just by sliding the screen.

Re:I prefer slider phones (2, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566704)

sliders are 30% thicker, and you complexty in the form of the slide mechaism while stronger than flips is still a weak point.

there is a reason why it is called a brick.

Re:Smartphones and Flip Format (3, Insightful)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566720)

Not everyone likes the same things.

Which is why they should stop making flip phones?

Re:Smartphones and Flip Format (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30567084)

woooooosh!!!

Both hands? (1)

DG (989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566820)

Both hands to open? Seriously?

All you do to open a V9 is kinda slip your thumb in-between the halves and snap it open, like an old-school Trek communicator. Easily done one-handed, and is an automatic muscle-memory for me now.

And hinge mechanisms can easily be engineered to last; it just takes making hinge robustness a design priority. In fact, all the mil-spec rugged phones I was looking at recently were all flips.

If you want a brick, hey, more power to you. But I want all those smartphone features in a flip.

DG

Re:Smartphones and Flip Format (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566876)

I like both designs. The candy bar style phone is great with a touch screen, large display, and many features. It makes a great work phone.

However, I don't like being in "work mode" 24/7 unless I am doing a project or I'm on call. I like a basic featured flip phone because it is small, unobtrusive, and fits nicely in a pocket. If the flip phone gets dropped, splashed in water, accidently microwaved, or otherwise trashed, I'm down $15 to $40, the cost of a bubble pack generic GSM "pay as you go" phone. If I'm really unlucky, I'm out a $20 SIM card. That's far better than the $400 my main phone would cost if that got ruined. Plus, unless I'm on call off hours, having no Exchange support or pushed E-mail is just fine with me. I'm still reachable in a bona fide emergency, it just takes the effort of making a call or a text message.

Re:Smartphones and Flip Format (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567246)

There are cheap soap-bar phones too, including some dust and splash resistant ones.

There's even a really small and cheap one, the one review I saw of it was quite positive:
http://www.gadgetfolder.com/simvalley-pico-rx-80-phone-credit-card-size-and-only-25.html [gadgetfolder.com]

Re:Smartphones and Flip Format (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30567434)

not to have to use both hands too open the damned thing.

Captain Kirk never had this problem.

Re:Smartphones and Flip Format (2, Informative)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566406)

Flip phones == more fragile moving parts for hinges and flip sensors or extra LCD on outer clamshell == break in two if dropped while open. Kind of a hassle when you open your phone and it dosen't even know it's open. Meanwhile my ugly slab has a cracked screen but is otherwise fully serviceable and will stay that way for the forseeable future.

Agree with you 100% on the battery life issue, though.

You should NEVER hold the phone up to your head (1)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568298)

Cell phones are microwave ovens cooking your head. Hold next to any body part, especially your head, at your own risk. Always use the earbuds/microphone or at least a bluetooth device.

Fuck the RAZR (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30566300)

Everyone and their mother had to have one of those, and it wasn't even that good.

Re:Fuck the RAZR (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30566360)

Your mom's got a razor? If she shaves her pussy, I'll fuck it.

Re:Fuck the RAZR (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30566460)

Don't lie. This is slashdot; we all see right through you. You couldn't fuck it if you tried harder than you ever have before.

Hmm (5, Informative)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566316)

An article? Hah. More like "ten bulletpoints that will take you a good 20-30 seconds to skim, but get us several ad impressions", including "insights" such as:

2003 The Windows Mobile brand is launched with Windows Mobile 2003. Windows Mobile is widely used by businesses to do work on the move.

Wow. Or:

2005 Sony Ericsson launches a superb new camera phone called the K750i and a great music phone called the W800i. These two handsets establish Sony Ericsson as a serious consumer player.

Awesome. Just awesome. If you think there's more depth than this, there's not. That is the sum total of the analysis of those two years.

Re:Hmm (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30566462)

Its like a few random factoids up to 2007 and then its *OMG THE IPHONE, THE IPHONE 3GS, ANDROID!!* colourful playthings and disposable gimmicks galore! Omg, soldered in batteries enforcing planned obsolescense! who came up with this wonderful idea?

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30568312)

The iPhone has a fixed battery, but every Android device I've come across has a removable battery. If the battery dies on my Android device, I order another and drop it in.

Re:Hmm (2, Funny)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566480)

I own a K750i you insensitive clod!

Re:Hmm (3, Insightful)

andyjb (1625561) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566554)

yes, petty poor in terms of insight. also a bit US centric really. I'm pretty sure Nokia released a product before 2006, and that they've been more than just an entry level phone manufacturer before and since (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nokia_products). Of course this was before they seemed to stop bothering, or got stuck chasing apples tail depending on your point of view. IMO windows has never released a noteworthy phone either.

Re:Hmm (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566754)

technically windows, or rather microsoft, have never released a phone on its own. Instead its all third party, including companies like samsung and HTC (especially the latter).

There is! (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568602)

There *is* more depth, take a look at the final item:

2010 There are rumours that Apple is going to launch a larger iPhone/tablet device. Palm will hopefully announce a new phone at CES and everyone hopes that Nokia will unveil something amazing.

Capiche ?

Notable hardware (4, Informative)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566414)

This deserves a mention, the legendary Nokia 6310i still has a thriving refurb market to this day. That thing is probably the highest quality mainstream phone ever made. http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/12/20/nokia_breakthrough_phone/ [reghardware.co.uk]

3G (UMTS) turned out to be a bit of a disappointment with the required cell density there are only a few 3G-only networks in densely populated places like South Korea, 2G GSM is likely to stay around well into the LTE era.

Satellite phone networks have also come a long way since the initial bankruptcies and unreliable services. There are now at least 4 Geosynchronous orbit satellite phone networks with handheld phones and the two LEO networks that went bankrupt both recovered and are planning to launch new satellites. The phones themselves also not half the size they used to be.

Re:Notable hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30566690)

I've never used the 6310i, but personally I loved the 3210 (which was the first phone I owned). It is easily the most comfortable phone I've ever used and the keypad was just out of this world compared to any other phone I've used since.

Re:Notable hardware (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566786)

it kinda helps that one can do, on theory at least, handover from UMTS to GSM. And with EDGE, data transmissions over GSM at least is acceptable unless one tries to do real time streaming or similar (and i understand there is a update in the works that will bump the speed even more).

all in all, GSM, ones it got GPRS, have shown itself remarkably adaptable. I have recently learned that i can even pull of something similar to UMTS's data and voice at the same time, by diving its time between the data and voice traffic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Packet_Radio_Service#Hardware [wikipedia.org]

UMTS and larger cells (1)

NeuralAbyss (12335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566870)

There's also predominantly 3G networks in Australia - one of the national mobile carriers has bigger coverage on UMTS/HSPA than on GSM. For a rural example, the 300km stretch from Mildura to Broken Hill has absolutely no GSM or 3G coverage after leaving Mildura, but UMTS works for 2/3 of the way.

Cell density is required to be high in densely-populated areas with the current public appetite for data, but it doesn't mean that UMTS won't service large cells. People simply don't put the same demands on GSM cells because data throughput is awfully slow.

Only Mobile? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30566446)

What about Montgomery, Birmingham, or Huntsville?

I'll tell you what happened. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30566516)

It's the same thing that happened with the cable (isp) company.

Nokia N9000. (5, Insightful)

Luarvic (302768) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566578)

They missed the most important event of the year: launch of Nokia N900.

Nokia N900, I mean. (2)

Luarvic (302768) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566586)

Sorry, the wrong subject. I mean, Nokia N900.

Re:Nokia N900, I mean. (1)

blackpig (1112913) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568208)

And how sweet it is!

Re:Nokia N9000. (4, Insightful)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567006)

Interesting isn't it. I have been a fone geek since my my first in the trunk 3 watt analog radio shack branded Car phone. I have had at least one of every important cell phone as technology advanced. I never (before the N900) had one that would truly free me from a laptop.

The N900 IS the most advanced (mobile computer that also has cell and viop phone functions) of the decade.

I really do not understand why I am not seeing more about it.

The reviews I do see are done by iPhone fanbois that can't get past the capacitive screen multi-touch which is not all that great for everything.

I have chatted with many N900 users that after a month or so, are still finding new things.

And, the N900 has one thing you can't find any where else. Real freedom. /rant off

Re:Nokia N9000. (1)

geekd (14774) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567206)

No carrier subsidy = $571 (Amazon.com). THAT's why no one has it.

Re:Nokia N9000. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30567552)

But a cheaper monthly rate than many, so if you plan to keep it 2 years, ultimately cheaper than the iphone.

Linux latop with SIP and cell radio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30568352)

Carrier subsidies are a festering boil on the rear end of US cellar. Locked in, overpriced (do the math on a 2 year) neutered hardware (many functions are there, intentionally disabled/unsupported/no 3rd party) that people consider "disposable" because its hidden behind a monthly fee.

If you learn to budget and save for things you want, good things happen. E.g. you can buy a superior phone for a cheaper net price and not be locked into one carrier. Sadly only one US carrier truly has an unsubsidized plan with an actual discount, for all the others you're often better off bringing your own phone, using their discount on the best deal and selling that handset to some other sucker. Though you still get locked in, so its lose lose.

Re:Linux latop with SIP and cell radio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30568884)

T-mobile has a good balance to this. You have the usual two ways of buying a phone (2 year contract, subsidized phone), or no contract and pay the full cost. T-Mobile also charges about $10 less a month on a month to month contract (which is only fair because month to month users are not paying for a phone over time.)

The third option is that they will finance a chunk of the phone for you, so you pay what don't finance at the beginning, then you pay over 11 months the rest of the phone. Even though you are paying for the phone, you are not on a contract, and can kill that at any time (although the cost of the phone the buyer is still responsible for.)

Why must quality cost extra? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30568696)

Nokia was my first and last *good* cheap cell phone, back in 2002. It even came with a few free games and was indestructable. I get the basic phones because I don't want added features, music, etc. I started getting LG when i switched to verizon, and each time I get a new phone (often since I am apt to lose it), it has less customizable options, the camera seems to get worse, etc. After a few of these phones, I've concluded it must be a tactic to get me to spend money for a designer-brand phone. With Verizon, you sacrifice quality for coverage.

Re:Nokia N9000. (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568780)

I have been a fone geek since my my first in the trunk 3 watt analog radio shack branded Car phone.

Was that the one the was essentially a two-way radio that only connected you to a phone operator? You do go back!

I never (before the N900) had one that would truly free me from a laptop.

That's a pretty subjective criterion. No palm-size device will every free most of us from a laptop. On the other hand, I've known people who claimed their Palm Vs did just that. OK, no networking. But upgrade to a Palm with a MMC slot (the V+ was the last Palm not to have one) and stick a bluetooth card in it...

The N900 IS the most advanced (mobile computer that also has cell and viop phone functions) of the decade.

If you want a truly hackable phone, yea, it's pretty important. Most consumers will give it a big yawn. And calling it a "computer" is pure marketspeak — I must own a dozen cheap gadgets that would qualify as a "computer" if you looked at them the right way.

Which is not to trash the N900. It's pretty damn sexy. I'd run out right now and buy one if $400 wasn't such a nasty dent in my budget.

I really do not understand why I am not seeing more about it.

Shouldn't be hard to understand. Most people equate "smart phone" with "iPhone". (This is the product that took "app" from programmer slang to household word.) If you're a serious geek you're maybe into Android (mainly because Google is perceived as less fascist to developers and users than Apple). WebOS trails behind, and the older platforms (Windows Mobile, PalmOS, Symbian) still have some following.

Even to the smallest of these, Maemo is tiny upstart. So far it's only been the basis for 3 devices, only one of which is a phone. Nokia's going to have to push this platform very hard if it's going to gain any traction. And from what I can see, Maemo is the poor stepbrother to Symbian in Nokia's product strategy.

That's how established businesses kill new technologies, even when it's clear that those new technologies are what the company needs to adapt and grow. Folks loyal to the old technologies starve the new guys of resources (marketing, R&D, sales priorities) because they're in control. I speak from experience here, having worked in the x64 server branch of Sun.

I have chatted with many N900 users that after a month or so, are still finding new things.

Which is why I want one. But I'm not going to plunk down that much cash until I know this platform has a future. So far, I've seen little to convince me it does.

Then again, the Great Recession might end next month and I'll go back to having too much disposable cash....

Re:Nokia N9000. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30568126)

The N900 may be important this year but over the decade I think the most important was the first phone with WiFi. This isn't mentioned in the article and tbh I'm not sure which phone it is. I know HTC had WiFi phones around 2005 (Tornado and Universal) but I'm not sure if they were the first to include both GSM and WiFi in the same device. These were the start of the proper smartphone market and you mightn't have a N900 or iPhone without these type of phones.

The inevitable Slashdot response... (4, Interesting)

jregel (39009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566648)

Whenever mobile phones are mentioned on Slashdot, something akin to the following comment will inevitably appear:

'All I want is a phone that makes calls.'

I've never quite got my head around a tech site like Slashdot, where the demographic is almost certainly interested in new technology having such a negative response to technological advances in what our phones can do. You rarely [never?] hear this with other technology on this site:

'I wish Windows 7 had less features. All I want is the ability to write a letter'
'This 4Ghz Core 2 Due Hyperfighting Special Edition is too fast for me. I want a 68030 at 25Mhz'... instead we get 'Imagine a Beowulf cluster of...'

Is it because the non-techie crowd have embraced mobile tech, in some instances more than us (given that some teenagers seem to text more than they speak) and we've been out done? Are the non-techies better at mobile tech than us?

(Yes, I know that Slashdot doesn't speak with one voice, but I bet the comment appears somewhere in this article).

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (2, Interesting)

oberondarksoul (723118) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566738)

'I wish Windows 7 had less features. All I want is the ability to write a letter'

I actually do feel like this at times. When I need to get down to work, to write something without distraction, the modern desktop can actually be an overawing place. A stark white screen with black text focuses the mind wonderfully.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (2, Interesting)

rantingkitten (938138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567776)

A stark white screen with black text focuses the mind wonderfully.

Almost. But it's also like staring into a light bulb.

I kind of miss those ancient word processors with white or green text on a black background that ran on old DOS machines. Great for just writing something with a bit of formatting thrown in, and fools the world over had no way to crap up their documents with fifty different font sizes, colors, and faces.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

loshwomp (468955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566784)

I've never quite got my head around a tech site like Slashdot, where the demographic is almost certainly interested in new technology having such a negative response to technological advances in what our phones can do.

It's not that. New features are fine when added to a solid core feature set, but when bells and whistles come at *the expense* of basics like durability, call quality, ergonomics, and a whole host of human factors, then that's shitty.

The transition from land lines to mobiles marked a significant regression in both call reliability and call quality. Similarly, the "race to the bottom" for cheap mobile phones packed with bells and whistles has left quality behind. It's become acceptable to have telephones that lock up and reset periodically. My Western Electric model 2500 telephone was designed to last a lifetime (or several lifetimes), and to be *serviceable* in the unlikely event something broke. Almost all modern mobile phones are designed to take up space in the landfill two years after purchase.

Well, you heard it now. (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566804)

I wish Windows 7 had less features. All I want is the ability to write a letter

I wish Windows 7 had fewer features. All I want is an OS, not an entertainment center loaded with DRM so that people who want to watch movies on their PC can do it without buying the "entertainment center" version. I don't want Aero Glass and the Sidebar and System Restore and all the other memory- and laptop-battery-wasting CRAP that Windows has accumulated over the years. When I use Windows, I use Windows 2000 or XP.

I want a phone that just does "phone stuff", so the power that goes to the faster CPU can go to giving me longer standby time, so the space taken up by the large screen and camera and flip-out keyboard can go to a larger battery instead. Because my first cellphone was a dumb bar phone, just a phone, with a battery pack that could go three days without a recharge... and for my current phone I have a charger at home, a charger in my office, and a charger in my car just in case. Text, sure, but leave out the MP3 player and camera and web browser and all the rest of the glitz until battery technology is up to the job.

Being interested in technology doesn't make one automatically in favor of stupid ideas just because they're shiny.

Re:Well, you heard it now. (1)

awyeah (70462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567096)

I won't argue with you on the DRM and bloat - although I will say, with all that crap turned on and set to reasonable defaults - long gone are my days of trying to tweak every setting, I just don't have the time and patience for that anymore - my laptop on Windows 7 seems to get better battery life than it did on XP...

Re:Well, you heard it now. (2, Interesting)

Pederson (1431413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567546)

Really? You consider an mp3, camera and browser useless? I don't know about you, but I don't feel like carrying around 4 different pocket sized devices everywhere I go. If I have to charge my battery every night before bed instead of having to charge 4 devices every two or three days while having to carry them around plus their chargers, I'll make that sacrifice. Slashdot is full of old guys whom just won't get with the times because they simply believe 'they're right'. Whatever, you'll be dead soon and we can get on with progress, thanks.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566810)

For me it's the opposite. I make frequent use of many of my phone's features: the browser, navigation, calendar/todo/notebook features, email, and so on... but I actually don't make calls all that often. Can they make me a cell phone without the phone (but with mobile data)?

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566990)

Try the n810.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

awyeah (70462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567124)

RIM (the people who make BlackBerry) already had that covered. BlackBerrys were connected PDAs without phones at first. See the RIM 957 [mumoh.com] .

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (4, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566812)

On my part, I used to be of the "All I want is a phone that makes calls" kind, but since then dropped that attitude.

Years back, a phone could have a web browser, and a camera, but it was very likely that both things were going to be very half assed. So you'd get an expensive phone with bad battery life that'd be a pain to do web browsing on, and which would make really horrible photos. Also they were quite closed, and often the only option you had is to use the included crappy software or nothing at all.

These days though, phones are shifting towards being a mini computer that just happens to make calls, such as the N900 for instance. And that is cool, and I'm looking forward to getting one. The ability of being whatever I want to do with it, including using skype is a huge advantage, and couldn't be had at any price just a few years back.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566896)

These days though, phones are shifting towards being a mini computer that just happens to make calls, such as the N900 for instance.

That remark would be worth mod points if I had any left to spend. And for a very long time, that is something that a few companies, most notably Nokia, just didn't get when they designed their line of smartphones. It was as if they started with a mobile phone and added PDA-like features to it. The better smart phones started with a PDA and added phone functionality to that (which, if you already have a PDA, isn't all that much). Even Windows Mobile phones did far better in that respect than Nokia, for a good while.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566894)

could be that the commenter is neck deep in sysadmin tasks, and dreads a phone with the complexity of a desktop computer, and as such will need the same level of care and maintenance.

then there is the case that a phone have become something of a lifeline. It allows the summoning of all kinds of services. As such, one may not want some random feature to drain the battery while the phone is on standby in one pocket or bag, while on a extended outing away from a power grid socket, or some other source.

personally, i do not buy the "just a phone" request, tho i would love to see android, maemo or some other platform show up on cheaper phones that i would not worry about having the funds to replace if broken. Until then i go for a two device strategy, one phone and one other that can do the web and similar on a somewhat larger but still portable screen. But then i live in a nation where the operators no longer care about separating tethering from on device data access. To them, data is data, and i can use any random phone to tether a second device, as long as they can interface somehow.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566982)

Whenever mobile phones are mentioned on Slashdot, something akin to the following comment will inevitably appear:

'All I want is a phone that makes calls.'

I've never quite got my head around a tech site like Slashdot, where the demographic is almost certainly interested in new technology having such a negative response to technological advances in what our phones can do. You rarely [never?] hear this with other technology on this site:

Before the iPhone, I used to echo this luddite-sounding sentiment as well. It wasn't because I was scared of new features, but because the new features often compromised the primary function of the phone itself. Giving them keyboards often made the number keys beyond tiny making it hard to dial in a number, the browsers and internet capability were micky mouse and often sucked battery life, it had a camera but besides poor pictures, it was hard to share them (often more work than it was worth), etcetera.

And there are still people that just want a phone. Perhaps their workplace doesn't allow phones with cameras. Maybe they want to be reachable but without all the temptation and distractions. There are legitimate reasons to want less in a device besides battery life but it's probably borne out of frustration that so few manufacturers are willing to provide something very basic that works well rather than actual bitching about the specific device itself.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

Penguin Programmer (241752) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567204)

The slashdot crowd sits in front of a computer. All day. Every day. Why have a phone that does stuff other than making calls when you have a computer in front of you all the time?

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567238)

"Proper" smart phones aren't a problem, it's the phones that try to offer the features of smartphones and end up with the worst of both worlds. You get crappy internet access (WAP) a crappy email substitute (MMS) a crappy camera, a crappy media player and to top it all off you get shitty battery life because of all these "features".

If I want a smartphone I'll buy a smartphone, but if I don't buy a smartphone then I just want something that makes calls, handles text messages, has an alarm clock and has a decent battery life. My old Nokia 8910 would last almost a week between charges, my Samsung D900 lasts about 3 days if I don't make too many calls, most phones these days *aim* to survive one working day between charges and it's really not good enough (for my uses, at least).

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567332)

The problem is that without phones that just make calls, if you already have your all-in-one entertainment and productivity center (eg. a netbook) and don't need a duplicate you would still have to spend $500 on all those features.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (0, Troll)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567470)

'All I want is a phone that makes calls.'

Its a phone.. what more does it need to do? ? ?

My favorite and would still be in use if the CMDA version was more widely released, the Original Motoroal 8000UH Brick phone. Thats what all phones should be made like, to this day.

If I need to send an email I will use the device for that,a COMPUTER. A computer equipped with a wireless data card of some sort.

The correct device for the activity at hand, so a phone for a phone, a computer for a computer task.

The more you add to a "phone" the more you get away from its core operation and need and its inability to keep up with that task.

How I use a cell phone.

1) As a phone. GASP! The horror, and "oh the humanity of it!"
2) As a alpha pager. SMS has pretty much run most of the paging carriers out of business except in some of the rural regions I go to where a POCSAG pager on 152.480 is all that will cut it, as even a cell phone is useless.

Any thing else I will pull out the correct device

1) Laptop with wireless data card for web, email, etc..
2) 2 Way radio for the various radio networks from analog conventional simplex to digital encrypted trunked.
3) 9mm Sig
4) 12 gauge S&W

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (0)

Pederson (1431413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567644)

You have absolutely no idea what you're saying. "If I need to do something, I'd prefer to do it the most ineffective way I can. For no reason at all but because I'm stuck in non-progressive ways and stubborn for no reason."

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567476)

We may be geeks with PC's and gadgets but the issues with smartphones are excess physical size, weight, cost and so on.
I bet most people saying they don't want a camera on their phone have a 'proper' camera - hence the comments.
For many many years I didn't want a damn camera on my phone, they weren't worth a crap. Then I got an iphone 3G - still kinda crap, upgraded to a 3GS and now I finally have a camera which is at least 'acceptable' and doesn't protrude from the rear, making it .5 -> 2mm thicker, unlike many other phones.

Some /.'ers probably have a good mp3 player too and don't need mp3 playback - they just want a good, reliable, high quality phone with good signal strength and long battery life. Frankly I don't know where to turn anymore if I wanted such a thing, I don't know if it exists anymore.

I mean I am happy with my iphone but I went from a 7 year old Sony Ericsson T-630 to an iphone, I skipped many many phones to do this, there was a lot of crap inbetween, that's likely what they are referring to.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567502)

'All I want is a phone that makes calls.'

That kind of mirrors the Unix philosophy: do one thing and do it well. Are you surprised to hear that sentiment on Slashdot? Like others have mentioned, until recently, multi-function cell phones pretty well sucked at everything. Even if I never get an iPhone, I'm glad that they elevated the public's expectation of how a cell phone should work. Contrast with my old RAZR where the browser was a complete freakin' joke and all the extra half-assed features only served to clutter up the menus so that it was harder to get to the stuff I actually wanted to use.

Even today, a top-of-the-line phone is much worse than a decent netbook for many things. If I already have my music and pictures on the netbook in my bag, why duplicate so much of the functionality (poorly) on my phone?

I'm not a Luddite, and the iPhone and Droid are looking pretty attractive. I can definitely understand the "just a phone" sentiment, though, and it has nothing to do with a fear of technology.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568490)

Whenever mobile phones are mentioned on Slashdot, something akin to the following comment will inevitably appear:

'All I want is a phone that makes calls.'

I've never quite got my head around a tech site like Slashdot, where the demographic is almost certainly interested in new technology having such a negative response to technological advances in what our phones can do. You rarely [never?] hear this with other technology on this site:

'I wish Windows 7 had less features. All I want is the ability to write a letter'
'This 4Ghz Core 2 Due Hyperfighting Special Edition is too fast for me. I want a 68030 at 25Mhz'... instead we get 'Imagine a Beowulf cluster of...'

Is it because the non-techie crowd have embraced mobile tech, in some instances more than us (given that some teenagers seem to text more than they speak) and we've been out done? Are the non-techies better at mobile tech than us?

(Yes, I know that Slashdot doesn't speak with one voice, but I bet the comment appears somewhere in this article).

Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping? I don't need a whole damned OS like EMACS. Dammit, all I want is a text editor that lets me edit text.

Who the hell thought all this useless visual bling was a good idea? You shouldn't need a video card with pixel shader support just to boot a bloody OS without missing out on the standard display mode. Installing Vista was a mistake, I just want an OS that I can use to run my apps.

Reliance on Flash harms the web. You can't index it properly, you can't use it with text to speech easily. I just want a web page that lets me read some text.

Many people on slashdot do love shiny new things at any cost. Many others see enormous inherent value in something simple, sensible and reliable which embraces the UNIX Way of doing one thing well. Personally, I edit in vi, my newest Windows box runs XP, and... Oh, I just got my shiny new Nokia n900 a few days ago.

But, until I got the n900, I used an ancient little phone that worked great, had a black and white screen, and let me make phone calls. At least my phone does run vi.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30568512)

Why not have the best of both worlds? This is a problem that is easily solved with a GSM based network, and two phone lines. You have your usual phone that can do everything on one line. Then on the other line, you have a dirt cheap phone. I picked up a Nokia 1661 for $15 which is a phone that can do four things: Use a LED on the top as a flashlight, play a FM radio on attached earphones with a 2.5mm connector, do calls, and do text messages. The phone is very well built for a cheapie, and it does all I need when I don't feel like taking my Android phone (say when outdoors or taking a weekend sabbatical.) The only thing notable about the 1661 is that nobody has been able to crack its unlock algorithm yet, so you won't be finding unlocked versions of these.

Low end phones are well made. Other than incremental UI improvements, there isn't much that can be done with them, improvement wise.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568562)

I've never quite got my head around a tech site like Slashdot, where the demographic is almost certainly interested in new technology having such a negative response to technological advances in what our phones can do. You rarely [never?] hear this with other technology on this site:

The moderation system is largely responsible for this sort of noise. Lots of people raise popular-beat-to-death issues or post contrarian views just to get that +5 Insightful next to their name.

I know this because I'm guilty of it.

Re:The inevitable Slashdot response... (1)

thePsychologist (1062886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568646)

Before the very recent N900 and some other fringe phones, mobile phones were like Windows, only worse: locked and you really can't do anything with them, and half the features cost an arm and a leg when they should be free. Hence, most people don't want them. Imagine if all phones were unlocked, texts, caller ID, and other features which don't cost the phone company any money were free. I think phones would have more positive rep then.

Still haven't sold me (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566686)

They still haven't sold me on needing one. I have a work phone, and if I lost use of it tomorrow, I doubt I would replace it. Possibly with the cheapest prepaid phone service I could find if it was guaranteed to work.

Pet peeve (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30566844)

The quality of a camera isn't measured in megapixels. It depends on the quality of the optics and the sensor. A 10MP camera in a cell phone is only going to give you huge, noisy images.

Re:Pet peeve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30567692)

A 10MP camera in a cell phone is only going to give you huge, noisy images.

My pet peeve, people who think it's all in the lens. The best lens in the world isn't going to make a poor sensor look good.

What has happened in Mobile... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567026)

If you really want to know, there are several newspapers in Mobile that probably offer online archives going back that far that would tell you everything you wanted to know about the events of the past decade.

The Mobile Press Register is probably a good place to start..

What's happened? (1)

CxDoo (918501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567118)

10 years and the summary reads Blackberry, Motorola, Apple?
Well, keep wondering...

Wow, that's a big decade in Mobile... (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567734)

That's an amazing amount of developments for a small city in Alabama.

But I thought Blackberries were Canadian...

Re:Wow, that's a big decade in Mobile... (0, Troll)

Pederson (1431413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567876)

How do you 'think' BlackBerries are Canadian? Are you not connected to the internet posting this? Do you not have access to Google? Wikipedia? Bing..?

They missed an important on: Nokia 1100 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30567746)

Nokia 1100 is not only a remarkable mobile phone, but also a best-seller:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_1100

Shipbuilding comeback (1)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 4 years ago | (#30567850)

That has been the big thing [wikipedia.org] in Mobile if you go by Wikipedia.

An mp3 player in my cellphone? (1)

NoDude! (944514) | more than 4 years ago | (#30568850)

What, no mention of the Motorola F3 [newegg.ca] ? It made the biggest positive change for a mobile devices in the past 10 years. Namely, it dropped features - all of them, except for making calls. Give me a phone with a decent battery life and slim-enough to fit in a shirt pocket, I can bring my own damn camera. I can even bring a netbook if I feel withdraw symptoms from lack of youtube videos, I'm a man after all, I was made to haul stuff around. Get off my lawn!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>