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!

Dvorak Says gPhone is Doomed

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the that's-doom-ed dept.

Google 454

drewmoney writes "Speaking with his usual frustrated crankiness John Dvorak rants his way through an article explaining why the gPhone will never work. 'First of all, it wants to put Google search on a phone. It wants to do this because it is obvious to the folks at Google that people need to do Web searches from their phone, so they can, uh, get directions to the restaurant? Of course, they can simply use the phone itself to call the restaurant and ask! I've actually used various phones with Web capability. They never work right. They take forever to navigate. It's hard to read the screens ... I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort.' "

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

Really? (5, Funny)

cmdrpaddy (955593) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297277)

So it's a guaranteed success then?

Rly (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297415)

So it's a guaranteed success then?

So John says nobody is flocking to smart-phones, ergo Google is d00med to failure. Gosh. Maybe it's because the other smartphones didn't have something Google's will. I seem to recall many phones which played music and did a variety of other tasks not going anywhere until Apple launched the iPhone.

Re:Rly (5, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297915)

It's scary how much this:

"First of all, it wants to put Google search on a phone. It wants to do this because it is obvious to the folks at Google that people need to do Web searches from their phone, so they can, uh, get directions to the restaurant? Of course, they can simply use the phone itself to call the restaurant and ask!"

Sounds like the parody [slashdot.org] I did of Dvorak a while back:

"Starbucks needs drive-up windows because they are planning to bring that same environment to your vehicle! That's right, Starbucks wants to give you that same coffee-saturated, easy listening, comfortable seating feeling you get in their stores, but in your car. [...] Starbucks is going to make cars."

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

semiotec (948062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297637)

I don't bother to read Dvorak anymore, since I always feel dumber aftewards, so I have no idea how good are his predictions or if they are so bad they are guaranteed to be wrong (anti-prediction, in a sense).

but his gripe about not able to read web content on phones is really just a problem of people not generating format for phone use. He should spend a few weeks or months in Japan and use their system.

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

mcbain942 (806450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297769)

I have used pocket pc's and smartphones for 2-3 years now. I recently bought the tilt windows mobile 6. I do agree its hard to navigate I do agree its hard to see. But in the end, its more usefull then useless. You can navigate, and you can see. The only thing that would help, is either larger monitors built in the car, or even better, VR glasses i can put on to see a screen better, or those futurstic pull out screens i saw on the movie planet mars! But as for the gphone. i belive it or not do agree it will temporarily at least fail. I am suing skype mobile on my phone using the 3g network and my voice is delayed about 5 seconds, which is just about unbearable. Michael Evanchik

Re:Really? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297775)

given his previous prediction on a "similar article" linked above...

While there is no way that Vista will be a flop, since all new computers will come with Vista pre-installed,


You sir, have hit the nail on the head, I think.

Re:Really? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297811)

Pretty much. The guy isn't cranky so much as he's a complete idiot. Oh, I know will trumpet his Mac on x86 prediction, though there had been rumors for a long time (coming, I presume from insiders) about this, so he was more likely repeating rumors than predicting anything. Besides, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Re:Really? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297917)

His Mac x86 prediction came with a time limit -- IIRC, 2 years from date of prediction. He missed by quite a wide margin.

Re:Really? (1)

Mazin07 (999269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297905)

Netcraft confirms it!

Dvorak (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21297291)

Man, ever since he came out with that keyboard, he's a know it all.

Re:Dvorak (1, Informative)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297441)

That's a joke right? (Sorry, but there might actually be pople that think this is the same guy as the one who created the keyboard.

Though this is rich.

I've actually used various phones with Web capability. They never work right. They take forever to navigate.-

Google specifically addressed fixing those two issues in their goals.

It's hard to read the screens ...

This is, of course, completely dependant on the phone design. If you are talking about a phone like my little LG, yeah, web stuff would be a pain, but if you are using something with a screen as you would find on a PDA phone, it wouldn't be that bad.

I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort



Dvorak, iPhone. iPhone, Dvorak. Apparantly you two havn't met. Maybe not the hugest mass of the public, but there was certainly a flock, and I'm not sure how many other phones are as popular as that one.

As for directions, I'd probably take google maps over calling the restraunt. And you'd still need to find their phone number (ok, 411 covers that, but google maps is one step, and probably faster).

All that being said, I'm happy with my dumbphone. Except that it has a camera. Maybe next time I'll be able to find a no-camera phone. You know, the kind you make phone calls with, and don't do much else with.

Re:Dvorak (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297521)

Holy %$#@ did I screw up the blockquotes on that one. Please, mock me. I deserve it for not using preview.

and for anyone who wants a less painful read...

That's a joke right? (Sorry, but there might actually be pople that think this is the same guy as the one who created the keyboard.

Though this is rich.

I've actually used various phones with Web capability. They never work right. They take forever to navigate.-

Google specifically addressed fixing those two issues in their goals.

-It's hard to read the screens ...

This is, of course, completely dependant on the phone design. If you are talking about a phone like my little LG, yeah, web stuff would be a pain, but if you are using something with a screen as you would find on a PDA phone, it wouldn't be that bad.

I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort

Dvorak, iPhone. iPhone, Dvorak. Apparantly you two havn't met. Maybe not the hugest mass of the public, but there was certainly a flock, and I'm not sure how many other phones are as popular as that one.

As for directions, I'd probably take google maps over calling the restraunt. And you'd still need to find their phone number (ok, 411 covers that, but google maps is one step, and probably faster).

All that being said, I'm happy with my dumbphone. Except that it has a camera. Maybe next time I'll be able to find a no-camera phone. You know, the kind you make phone calls with, and don't do much else with.

Re:Dvorak (0)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297625)

I think he has a point- 14.1" laptop screens are cramped enough even with my thinkpad's 1400x1050 resolution.. I positively shudder to think what it would feel like to read slashdot on a 3 inch screen at a fifth of that resolution.

Re:Dvorak (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297723)

I think he has a point- 14.1" laptop screens are cramped enough even with my thinkpad's 1400x1050 resolution.. I positively shudder to think what it would feel like to read slashdot on a 3 inch screen at a fifth of that resolution.

Are you having "useability" as a yardstick? Silly you. It's all about having an electronic toy that convince

A) Geeks that they will now outrank other geeks.

B) Non-geeks that they are now cooler than other non-geeks.

C) Geeks that having an ubercool toy will get them sex with a non-geek.

Re:Dvorak (0)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297789)

C) Geeks that having an ubercool toy will get them sex with a non-geek.
Are they hoping that the touch screen will turn chicks on at parties?... Seriously, the "e-toy" market is ridiculous, including all shiny Apple products (yes, mod me into oblivion, but it's all the same marketing idea). Spending hundreds of dollars on a useless product to impress people doesn't impress me. Except for case mods, those impress me at parties. Lan parties.

Doomed for another reason... (2, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297293)

Google has possessed this 'aura' of innovation for a long time - one of the reasons its stock price is so high. I don't see this move as innovation at all: it's more capitulation.

Stop trying to rehash the old and make something new.

Re:Doomed for another reason... (5, Insightful)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297357)

Stop pissing all over someone else's attempt to build something, and go make something new yourself.
Damned armchair inventors, entrepreneurs, and capitalists.
hrumph.

Re:Doomed for another reason... (3, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297863)

Damned armchair inventors, entrepreneurs, and capitalists.
Why in the world would you lump "entrepeneurs [sic] and capitalists" with "armchair inventors"? Am I correct in assuming you view all 3 as evil or somehow undesirable? And you say this in defense of Google, who are the ultimate capitalists making untold billions on advertising? Let's be clear ... Google is not "innovating" here for the sake of "building something", they are looking for the next big advertising market and see cellphones as that opportunity. They are, in fact, behaving as entrepreneurs and capitalists.

Re:Doomed for another reason... (3, Funny)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297927)

capitulation
That word does not mean what you think it does.

Re:Doomed for another reason... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297931)

Don't confuse innovation with leading-edge. They are not always one in the same. The concept of the iPod was not leading-edge as others like Rio and Creative had products before Apple. But Apple's innovation was that if you refine the product and make it so that ordinary people can use it, it'll make billions. Maybe the gPhone will lead us into a new direction for cell phones like the iPhone might. I am taking a more cautious approach and am not writing them off yet.

Re:Doomed for another reason... (3, Interesting)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297955)

Are you one of the same people who laud Blizzard for how they finally made an MMO right in WOW. It wasn't anything NEW....just making something OLD better.....I believe that is what Google hopes to do....

Layne

gPhone != Itanium (5, Insightful)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297301)

His first arguement is that the gPhone is like Itanium, with wide industry support. Well, that depends on a few things:

1) will it arrive years late?
2) will it perform as promised or be lackluster?
3) will it shoot google's existing product lineup in the foot?

I don't think these three will occur.

Re:gPhone != Itanium (2, Interesting)

magarity (164372) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297729)

To be fair, Itanium arrived years late with lackluster performance due in large part to resistance to a new architecture and all the software incompatibility that entails. Itanium running native software runs circles around the fastest x86... Servers like HP's Superdome series that use Itanium 2 are amazing bang for the buck if your favorite vendor has an IA64 version of the software you need.
 
So, is the googlephone going to be held back by demands of compatibility with existing phone software? Probably not at the internals-of-the-phone level. Choice of providers will be the primary driver of a given user's experience.

Jeez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21297303)

It kills me that we are constantly subjected to the drivel of this mindless idiot. Why do you care Zonk? Why???

Dvorak is a retard (4, Insightful)

sag_ich_nicht (756868) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297305)

Internet navigation works perfectly fine on my Nokia N73ME, is easy and readability is good. I use it all the time for directions, because spoken instructions aren't the same as having a damn map on your screen. Before my Mobile Opera Trial run out, it was even easier.

Is it just me.. (1)

yamamushi (903955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297343)

or does every time Dvorak speak about something, it sounds like the ramblings of an old crazy homeless man...

Re:Is it just me.. (2, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297489)

It's kinda like the old philosophical 'tree falling in a forest' question...

If Dvorak posts in a news group, does anyone really care?

-Rick

Re:Is it just me.. (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297495)

or does every time Dvorak speak about something, it sounds like the ramblings of an old crazy homeless man...

Some people love attention and once they get it will rattle off whatever is on their minds. Other people (media) will actually record these ramblings and present them as news in the hopes others will read their content, then flip to the ads and give business to one of their advertisers.

Worst of all, onece it makes it to slashdot, someone will do this:

In Soviet Russia phone dooms YOU!

And hopefully that's were it all ends, but you never know, it may be picked up by 60 minutes or 20/20 and go on from there.

Re:Is it just me.. (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297887)

Dvorak's shtick is to look for someone's sacred cow and throw rocks at it; he's a professional critic. And while there's always a sacred cow to be found, sometimes it seems Dvorak has a hard time finding suitable ammunition to hurl at his target and has to reach pretty far to come up with criticisms.

I would rather read observations from someone who was a little more insightful. Not that Dvorak isn't amusing sometimes (I don't follow his writing enough to tell how often this is). But it becomes a problem is when you run in to people who take him seriously.

iPhone? (4, Interesting)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297347)

I'm not a fan of Apple and won't get an iPhone for myself, but people are buying those, right? So "public has not been flocking to smartphones" - yeah if you live under a rock somewhere that may be true...

Re:iPhone? (1)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297543)

Apple's iPhone does not allow you to install the software of your choice, so by definition, it is not a smartphone (yet... yeah yeah, I know about February).

Re:iPhone? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297831)

That's not the definition of a smart phone. There *is* no hard and fast definition, but generally it's accepted as being a phone that offers significantly more functionality than just making/receiving phone calls and text messages

Most phones support at the very least Java, meaning that they'll have loads of calculators, organisers, ebook readers, games, email clients, chat clients, browsers. Whether or not the hardware supports some of those apps (well) depends on the handset, but most people in the UK, to pick a market I know about, can do most if not all of those things. In addition to that, there's often a proprietary system (ie the OS) allowing people to target specific phones in languages such as C/C++/assembler with access to various APIs, in case Java's a bit crap for you. Oh, and most of those phones also have mp3 players, radios, cameras etc built in. Again, in the UK most people have more than one phone (if you look at the numbers, anyway - obviously not everyone has one but other people have more than one). Many people are surfing the net on their phone, so to say why not just phone the restaurant, for instance, is just ignorant nonsense. Phone which restaurant? Every one in London? Wouldn't it make more sense to narrow it down to the sort of restaurant, the part of London you're in, etc? What's his problem, anyway? Too stupid to use Opera on a phone? Fat piggy fingers making it too hard to press the buttons properly? To poor to be able to afford a data tariff? (Unlikely, given the falling rate of data on phone).

Perhaps he's just in the wrong job. One of those "all I want my phone to do is make phone calls" chumps - completely unrepresentative of more than about 4% of the mobile phone market in any event.

Counterpoint (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297855)

Apple's iPhone does not allow you to install the software of your choice

Since lots of people have third party apps loaded on iPhones today, the only conclusion it is possibly to reach is that you are an idiot. No, I take that back - a blithering idiot. Or should that be blathering, since your sort keeps talking about how you can't load apps in the face of clear evidence you can in every single story that mentions the iPhone, no matter how tangentially?

Either way, I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're wrong.

1.4 million bought (4, Informative)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297557)

I'm not a fan of Apple and won't get an iPhone for myself, but people are buying those, right?

At last count 1.4 million bought at $400 or $600. And that is just the US.

Re:iPhone? (4, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297603)

His rant is completely out of date and reflects usability issues with previous generation smartphones. I Google for addresses of restaurants and other stores on my iPhone several times a week. And if I'm in an unfamiliar neighborhood, pull up directions with Google Maps. I very rarely was able to do all of that on my old Treo, since web browsing was such an atrociously clunky experience, but Apple got that part right.

Fortunately for Google, Apple got a lot of other shit terribly wrong with the iPhone (lack of openness, lack of SDK, getting deeply in bed with carrier and offering no premium price unlocked phone, spending all of engineering's resources fighting unlockers rather than developing the features and applications people actually want for their phones). This is the only reason Google has such a big opportunity here.

But apple solves for that sooner than Google. (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297939)

Apple solves the lack of any official SDK in January and the earliest we can expect to see gPhone devices is the end of next year. You think Apple might also have a few other updates by that point? They've even said that lower power 3G chipsets will be around late next year (perhaps that's what Google is waiting for as well?). In the meantime if you are really interested, you can develop homebrew apps for the iPhone today if you like.

Remember that carrier portability simply does not matter to that many people in the US, and abroad Apple will offer it (at least in France). If people were more used to it here it might matter, but all that happens is it delays some people switching for a year or two as contracts expire.

Re:iPhone? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297839)

I'm not a fan of Apple and won't get an iPhone for myself, but people are buying those, right?

So what? People are buying Zunes too. You wouldn't say people are flocking to those, would you?

So "public has not been flocking to smartphones" - yeah if you live under a rock somewhere that may be true...

Maybe not under a rock, but on top of one like, say, Earth, then yes, its true. The smartphones are a tiny tiny fraction of the market.

The public *has* flocked to camera phones and text messaging, but smartphones? No. Not by a long shot.

The interest is there, but they find the UI clumsy (the iphone is great compared to other smartphones, but its still not as 'easy' as a regular phone), and they balk at the price.

Its still a niche market. Its a growing market to be sure, but it hasn't spilled over into mass appeal, at least not yet.

Re:iPhone? (1)

astrashe (7452) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297919)

Pretty much everyone in NYC has a blackberry nowadays, too.

ugh (4, Insightful)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297351)

The iphone's screen isn't hard to read. just because Google wants to make a phone doesn't mean it has to be the same crap we have right now. In fact, I'd say Google has the innovation potential to make a really great phone the likes we haven't seen yet.

Re:ugh (1)

Synic (14430) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297739)

FYI they aren't making phones at all. HTC is a partner for making the handsets, and Google has a lot of influence with their design/engineering choices I'm sure. Google is making the OS and application SDK stacks for any of the handset partners (codenamed Android).

I'm wondering if Firefox's upcoming mobile browser effort has had a chance to be invited to the party, given Google distributing Firefox in their windows software GooglePack.

On the subject of tags (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21297359)

I see that one of the tags for this story is "noob". And it occurs to me; we need a disparaging name for someone who is just no longer in the loop. noob doesn't do it because that implies that the person is just new to the game but may get there with time. Dvorak often seems like someone who was there but isn't with it anymore.

Re:On the subject of tags (5, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297485)

How about
'Dvork'
'Dveeb'
'Dvumb'
'Dvick'
  or just simply
Dvorak?

Re:On the subject of tags (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297491)

...we need a disparaging name for someone who is just no longer in the loop.

l00b?

Re:On the subject of tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21297559)

How about Dvorak?

Re:On the subject of tags (1)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297621)

I see that one of the tags for this story is "noob". And it occurs to me; we need a disparaging name for someone who is just no longer in the loop. noob doesn't do it because that implies that the person is just new to the game but may get there with time. Dvorak often seems like someone who was there but isn't with it anymore.

Has-been?

Re:On the subject of tags (1)

PFAK (524350) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297669)

I vote for "grc" or "Gibsoned" ;)

Re:On the subject of tags (2, Insightful)

TBedsaul (95979) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297715)

I suggest "goob".

It rhymes, sounds insulting and it can stand for "Grumpy, Obsolete Old Bastard".

Re:On the subject of tags (1)

GnarlyDoug (1109205) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297733)

I nominate the term 'dumbo'.

Re:On the subject of tags (1)

GnarlyDoug (1109205) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297759)

Or how about 'putz'. I think that works.

Re:On the subject of tags (1)

vyrus128 (747164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297787)

How about 'boob'? Although I agree with the earlier commenter that 'Dvorak' would be a good second choice.

Re:On the subject of tags (2, Informative)

Thornburg (264444) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297795)

I thought that's what "Get off my lawn!" was for...

Re:On the subject of tags (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297801)

luser

Re:On the subject of tags (1)

colfer (619105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297827)

foog

Re:On the subject of tags (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297983)

Yeah, lets call those people "dvooraks".

So Wrong (3, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297361)

I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort...

I don't know, but I think there's over a million iPhone owners who might disagree with you, Mr. Dvorak. That said, I suspect there's more than just iPhone owners who would also disagree with him but that's par for the course.

Re:So Wrong (2, Informative)

Jonboy X (319895) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297891)

Well, it's kind of a matter of semantics, but some people are of the opinion that the iPhone isn't really a "smartphone", because you can't add 3rd-party apps or it doesn't have a QWERTY keyboard or no "enterprise" email connectivity, etc:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/the-iphone-is-not-a-smartphone/ [engadget.com]
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/08/smartphones_q/ [publicradio.org]

However, Blackberries are pretty darn popular from what I can tell. I think Treos would be popular too if they weren't so crash-prone.

hmmm (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297373)

Isn't Dvorak the guy who talks down google, open source, and anything he can sensationalize?? I'm sure people would like the features of smartphones if they weren't 500$ and/or excessively crippled on a cheaper phone.

Crazy Old Man (2, Funny)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297379)

...Get off my lawn you damn kids!...

Success?!?! (2, Insightful)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297403)

Has Dvorak ever predicted that *anything* would be a success?

Re:Success?!?! (1)

duplicate-nickname (87112) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297523)

No, he is the perennial Debby Downer of the technology world. How many times has he predicted Apple would fail? I've lost count...

He makes no sense (3, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297407)

Ever since I got my Samsung i607 (Blackjack), I've used Google search through the internet maybe 2-3 times per day minimum. With 3G, or even EDGE, it's reasonably fast... and very helpful in a lot of various circumstances.

If Google can streamline the internet experience, as well as create a Linux-based platform where I could sync my PIM functions with Google services and Thunderbird/Evolution via the internet, with little difficulty, I'd jump on it in a second, and so would thousands of other people. Tens of thousands more would follow because they'd want the latest gadget.

Re:He makes no sense (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297561)

Tens of thousands more would follow because they'd want the latest gadget.

Those people will still be bitter (and enslaved to a contract) after getting screwed [macnn.com] by Steve Jobs.

Regular mobile web user (1)

j-stroy (640921) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297757)

I too use a samsung phone on the web daily. I use it for reverse phone number lookups, directory assistance, google maps, Calendar schedulizer, email checking, news reading. I have a $10/month unlimited web on Bell Canada pay as you go.

The PIM synching for phones sux! Not all are functions or phones are supported, with BitPIM or DataPilot. I did find a googlesync app [jakeludington.com] which does not resolve duplicate events, but seems to be the only hack that almost works. Bluetooth is an option, but usually you have to send contacts or appts one at a time. The manufacturers and carriers have shown almost criminal ineptness or intent when it comes to actually using the features of these devices.

An as far as iPhone and iPod, I was doing most of that with my Compaq/HP iPaq PDA 5 years ago. The problem was the lack of easily accessable apps for majority of non-techno users. Then the PDA market never really matured properly due to poor designs/marketing, and even todays PDA is only marginally better than the early devices.

The amount of "carrier" brand web content that gets pushed to users is enough to make anyone doubt the usefulness of it. It takes some downloading and hacking service codes to get proper filesystem access so that cool apps, etc can be easily installed.

Re:He makes no sense (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297783)

While my overall experience with my Blackjack isn't always that great. (Fring, for instance, works for two days after a complete reset, which is very annoying, I like fring). But as far as 3G goes, it was just turned on in my area and is very fast.

Another feature I've installed is google maps. Simply an amazing app for the Blackjack. I use it almost daily.

Can someone please... (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297421)

smack this guy in the head with a heavy blunt object and get it over with already. There is a good reason that people don't flock to smart phones in their droves. The north american cellular market is so manipulated that it really can't be called a market. When you can get a GSM smartphone that you can transfer from one carrier to the next as you see fit, it will be worth spending 300+ dollars on a PDA. So long as you can get a 0$ phone for the same contract (more or less) there is no perceived value in getting a smart phone. What a putz.

If the gPhone fails, it will be for the same reason that any phone fails, CARRIERS in North America SUCK. I personally use the SideKick, and for several years now have yet to see anyone say that it is a waste, and not cool. Many of my friends have smart phones and use the PDA functions regularly. When carriers start marketing them to the average joe (see the new sidekick) it will begin to be more common than it already is. There will always be people that buy cheap, utilitarian devices only. See the throw away cameras in the grocery store still? Why? That is how people spend money.

Yes, there is a reason for search other than getting directions... I can disply a MAP also. I have used it to look up exotic drink mixes when a bartender did not know the recipe (no comments on that one) as well as many other uses that don't even touch on the value of a qwerty keyboard when replying to an SMS or email.

Sorry to Dvorak fans, but this guy is a putz.

Its all in the name... (4, Funny)

rodney dill (631059) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297435)

Phoogle would be a big success.

Re:Its all in the name... (2, Interesting)

astaldaran (1040462) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297753)

The biggest problem with the cell phone industry today is that while you may physically own the phone your contract prevents you from actually utilizing the capabilities on the phone (Well you can always go against your contract and start hacking..it can get messy). This can be seen in nearly every phone. For example pick up a sprint razor..why can't you transfer files over bluetooth and use a bluetooth headset to listen to music...because sprint chooses not to support it that is why (and that is just the tip of the iceberg on how carriers limit phones capabilities). What will truly be the next revolution in phones is when phones become open mediums for open source. This will allow anyone to make content for it and make it easy for people to install.. No longer will people have to use a carrier services for music or video, etc. No instead people will be doing all sorts of neat things that we could talk about for hours. Carriers won't like this...they will lose money, so I'm not sure how Google is going to sell it but it seems whenever Google has their mind set on something..it works (well...except for Google answers but that might be partially because of sites like wikipedia).

that's the nice thing about being a pundit (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297437)

you can make what seem like authoritative, or insightful statements with absolutely zero information. By the time the gphone comes out (or flops) no-one will remember what this guy, or the hordes like him, have said. Even better, no-one will care except maybe his mother. Until then it's a slightly entertaining way to spend a minute or two - just don't take anything he says seriously, it's just another form of entertainment.

It's not about search.... (2, Funny)

The Slashdotted (665535) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297453)

It's about paying $2 for a ring-tone I don't even get to preview. It's about not paying 411 $2.50 to tell me a number each time I need it, because it's not in my redial history. It's about $.002/minute VoIP over WiFi/WiMax. It's about not viewing sites that are not "news" or "sports" but 1/2 sentence snippets you have to pay above your data plan. Do you really care about what "interface" the rapist uses?

Google is the Oracle (1)

AgentBif (1061974) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297473)

As far as I'm concerned, I would love this ability. Google in a nice mobile UI would be sweet. When on the move I often wish I had google plugged into my brain to help me find my way around, answer random questions that just pop in my head, or whatever. We are Borg. Or soon will be.

Just call the restaurant? (4, Insightful)

griffjon (14945) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297475)

...well, do *you* have the number? I don't. Oh man, I wish we could google it and then call them! [1]

oh, right.

Thanks Dvorak, you missed the point.

[1] If you haven't tried 1-800-GOOG-411 ; it's pretty awesome for getting said phone numbers, and automatically connecting you if you like. Tied in to a phone with Google Maps and GPS/e911? Beauty and ease. My only concern is how Google will monetize the cell phone space; even sponsored text ads would be seriously annoying being read to you by a machine voice, slowly, on Goog411, and would take up even more valuable screenestate on a phone.

Re:Just call the restaurant? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297711)

Not everything has to be monetized, if it keeps you in the flock. See IE/WMP/whatever. If you have search == google hardlinked in your mind, google will find enough ways to monetize that.

Stone age? (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297861)

Dvorak seems to be missing some pretty elemental things. A search engine is, among a number of other things, a repository of information made (get this..) searchable. I don't know how many times I've been out, running errands or otherwise away from my computer and wanted or needed a piece of information (is besan flour toasted chickpeas?). Maybe it's a generational thing, but I like having a question and being able to access the answer. My phone is a networked computer, to say that that makes it a 'clunky gizmo' shows he's completely missing the point.

Why are people still reading Dvorak? (3, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297481)

I mean, this is after all slashdot. Forget all the +5 interesting/informative/insightful mods. Just purely looking at flamebaits and trolls, I don't see any reason to read John Dvorak.

We can do better flamebaits and trolls than John. And we have a better handle on tech issues. I am sure even the most flamebait/troll modded asinine juvenile here has better grasp of tech issues than John. Given the pagerank of /. the flames here have wider readership than his articles. So why bother reading what he is blabbering about?

Dorkvorak at it again? (2, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297487)

From the blurb: "Speaking with his usual frustrated crankiness John Dvorak rants..."

Is "frustrated crankiness" the new corporate-speak for "stupid jackass ways"?

maybe phones need a dvorak keyboard (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297493)

i jest

In Soviet Russia .... (0, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297511)

I just can't help myself .....

In Soviet Russia, gPhone says Dvorak Doomed.

One can only hope anyway.

Thats funny... (3, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297545)

Thats funny, I've actually stopped into Apple stores to look up movies and restaurants on an iPhone.

Go figure.

th1s FP for GNAA. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21297565)

a way to spend COPY A 17 MEG FILE counterpaRt, AWESOME guests. Some people Mr. Raymond's FreeBSD showed

Text messaging (2, Insightful)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297575)

Text messaging [wikipedia.org] costs the average user $.10 per message, and generates $50 billion in revenue for the phone companies. This is for a service that takes virtually no network or system resources to support, and should be free.

If Google can create an open platform and include great services like GMail, the SMS scam will die. Google stands to become very successful, just from this.

hhmmmmmmmm (1)

fattmatt (1042156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297577)

Hi Dorkbot,
The public doesn't want smartphones? Well, then they want whatever you want to call the killer appless Iphone and the "doomed keyboard" or whatever you called it.

I didn't plan on getting an Iphone, but I got one for free and now I will never go back to those dumbphones! Actually, if I lose or break this thing I'll be paying for a new one, it works too damn good (gsm, wifi internerd, outlook sync and IMAP features) and is fun to hack! I won't pay for ATT service though... Tmbobile works a-o-k! And yes, i've used all the other major types of smartphones...

-fattmatt

Dvorak at his finest (2, Insightful)

npsimons (32752) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297581)

. . . and by "finest" I mean "stupidity as usual".

First of all, it wants to put Google search on a phone.

Duh. What did he think Google would put on it? Microsoft's search engine?

It wants to do this because it is obvious to the folks at Google that people need to do Web searches from their phone, so they can, uh, get directions to the restaurant? Of course, they can simply use the phone itself to call the restaurant and ask!

Ok smartass, what's the phone number of the restaurant? Oh, you mean you have to search [google.com] for it? Or better yet, just get directions yourself [google.com] .

I've actually used various phones with Web capability. They never work right.

Says you. My browser (Blazer on Treo) seems to work adequately. So does the browser on my friend's Symbian phone. If you believe some iPhone user's, Safari is the second coming.

They take forever to navigate. It's hard to read the screens

What smartphones have you actually used, mister I write about technology so I should probably try out a wide variety before writing about it.

... I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort.

Which is why of course we rarely see people with Blackberries, Treo's or any of a dozen other smartphones. The iPhone alone has made such a quick entrance into popular culture that I've already seen it on two TV shows (Mythbusters and The Colbert Report).


Did I read this right? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297595)

When all is said and done, Google is actually not a charismatic company that can make this new platform happen in a big way. Google hopes that people will code new applications for the phone. People have had eons to program for the Windows smartphones and nothing has come of it. What's so different now?

What? How does that compute? And why would he compare programming Windows smartphones to the Google phone? First off, the phone does not exist yet -- Google is just trying to create buzz and stir up interest. I think they already have a pretty good start on this, and won't roll it out until they've worked with a few other companies to stack the phone with features/functionality. As he does far too often, Dvorak is blowing smoke. He's not to be taken seriously as a technology predictor.

They never work. Unless they do. (1)

jackpot777 (1159971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297619)

Yeah. They can just call the restaurant and ask for directions. Because that's what they do all day in rastaurants: wait for people to ask for directions from any little street in a x-mile radius to their location. They're all just taxi drivers doing their second job.

And that's assuming you have their number en route. What if you don't? What if the restaurant doesn't have someone that can spend the time to turn-by-turn guide your drive for the next twenty minutes?

Know what would be good? Having some sort of Google or Google Maps function on your hand-held doo-hickey that lets you request all the restaurants in the area, or by type, or whatever. Then you could map out driving directions to the one you want. Maybe even get real-time traffic information to plan your journey better on the way.

Nobody would ever want that [apple.com] . Just like you said. Of course, Goldman Sachs says they expect 14 million of these things [ilounge.com] to be sold by the end of 2008. That's a lot of nobodies. And that's just for the iPhone.

Opinions [REDACTED], everyone has one.

T-Mobile MDA / Windows Mobile (1)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297633)

Gee, Microsoft has seen enough potential in the smartphone business that they've even been perfecting Windows Mobile. I've got a T-Mobile MDA and am pretty happy with it. Kind of sucks to have a phone without real buttons, but to have the portable internet is genius. I can surf the web while waiting in line or while sitting on the john, so there's no need to carry newspapers or magazines around if I know I'm going to be a while. Integration with Outlook works, and i can create word and xl files and (powerpoint if i *had* to). Never got the FileMaker Mobile product to work quite right but now Apple's nixed that product. Anyway I spent almost $500 on this so I'm not planning on swapping it for the Wing (running Windows Mobile 6) or the iphone for another couple of years.

Dvorak isn't just a crank, he's a hack and it's getting harder and harder to listen to any danged thing he says because he's been so wrong since, oh, 1990 or so.

Re:T-Mobile MDA / Windows Mobile (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297981)

I can surf the web while ... sitting on the john.

Progress as promised! I'm so glad I live in the 21st Century.

The gPhone is doomed because (1)

n6kuy (172098) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297635)

... people might actually use it as a telephone, instead of a web browser?

Sure, that makes sense.

I guess...

Right. Google on a phone is useless. (1)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297647)

Useless in the same way that the Google Maps application I installed on my Blackberry is useless. Can't remember a name, number or address of a person or business, but know general things? "Pizza Moston MA". "Oil change 54935". "Nose job 90210". Then look at the results, and click on them to dial.

Yup, totally useless. Doesn't save me money on 411 calls that might not work AT ALL.

He can't even put the keys on a keyboard right (2, Funny)

gambolt (1146363) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297653)

so what the hell does he know?

Has Dvorak even used Mobile Google maps? (2, Informative)

Pontiac (135778) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297665)

I don't think so.. Google maps rocks.. the mobile version is killer if you have a java enabled phone..
If you are on Verizon that means you are screwed since they Hacked out java.
Maybe all he's used is yahoo maps on his phone.. Thats about as painful as hacking your arm off with a dull butter knife.. it sucks!

I use my Windows Mobile phone all the time for doing web searches, looking up addresses and all kinda of other stuff.

If the Gphone has a good browser like Mini Mo,GPS, can sync Gmail it'll be good..

If it can't do active sync with exchange over the network it'll never catch on with big business..
Not a huge deal there.. the Iphone is doing quite well without them.

maps on a phone is useful (1)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297719)

call the restaurant and ask

and you get the number for the restaurant by googling for it -- more conveniently on your phone than at home, before you leave. Besides, even if I had a portable phone with numbers to my favourite restaurants, many of these don't speak English as a first language. Looking it up on a map is pretty easy and unambiguous.

Attention whore. (1)

GeekDork (194851) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297731)

Goddamn, he even said he is one himself. Why is that fucktard repeatedly featured here? It's not like he has any significance.

more powerful than the Ewing theory... (0, Redundant)

Blob Pet (86206) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297763)

Dvorak's Law: If John C. Dvorak makes a prediction, expect the complete opposite.

No way it will fail, now (0, Redundant)

brokenarmsgordon (903407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297815)

Dvorak has an atrocious, mind-boggling track record with regard to prediction. I wasn't sure about the gPhone platform, but now that I know Dvorak is against it I know it will meet some success.

He's wrong (1)

lib3rtarian (1050840) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297817)

1. I use gMaps for directions all the time, especially when lost, on my Treo650.
2. Black Black gum is seriously caffeinated!
3. ?????
4. Profit.

Dvorak says what? (1)

Phu5ion (838043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297823)

gPhone is doomed? I guess it's time to buy more Google stock.

dvorak's right - nobody's buying smartphones (1)

darkuncle (4925) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297865)

I certainly don't know anybody who's owned a visorphone, 3 treos, a blackberry, an HTC Hermes and an iPhone in the last 6 years. In fact, nobody's even heard of any of those devices, because nobody's buying them. Clearly, we're all still using whatever the free base model is that wireless providers were "giving away" (contract notwithstanding) back in 1997. And that million-units-sold-in-the-first-week iPhone is just a flash in the pan - a million units amounts to nothing compared to the 6.5 billion people on earth that haven't yet bought one!

(I can't believe anybody still publishes his drivel, much less pays him to write. I regularly read more enlightened discussion while skimming at -1 on slashdot ...)

TFA sounds like a Troll to me... (1)

tomzyk (158497) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297871)

Wow. Where to start?

Of course, they can simply use the phone itself to call the restaurant and ask!
Um... if you don't know WHERE the restaurant is, I doubt you'll know what the phone number is so that you can call and ask for directions.

I've actually used various phones with Web capability. They never work right. They take forever to navigate. It's hard to read the screens ...
I've actually used various phones with Web capability. And um... they always work right. Navigation has always been simple and straight-forward. If you can't read the screen, get a better perscription on your glasses dude.

I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort
Seriously? So there was never any rush of any kind to get an iPhone? More than 2/3rds of my family and friends' cellphones are actually figments of their imagination?

Probably the most successful power phone, though, is still the RIM BlackBerry...
Not sure about this statistic, but I actually know more people that have Treos than Blackberrys.

And let's not overlook both the power of the Mac mystique and the loyalty of BlackBerry users. Google has no such mavens.
Whoa, wha, huh?? Worship the Goog, my friend.

The best example of this lack of magnetism was Orkut, the social business network developed by the company to compete with both Friendster and LinkedIn. It never caught on in the U.S. It did become successful in Brazil and, apparently, only in Brazil. Nobody even noticed that it came and went.
Actually, I was on Orkut as soon as it became available and loved it... until the Brazilians overtook it. A few months later, once all of the boards became spammed with Brazilian Portugese (despite some baords even being listed as "English Only"), all the Americans left.

only CURRENT smartphones suck... (1)

Arathon (1002016) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297883)

Why do they suck? Because they're not open, they're not platform-independent, and their ability to perform normal webpage browsing is almost nonexistent.

It's called supply and demand. Despite what Dvorak may think, there's no supply of QUALITY smartphones that the public can actually appreciate and use. Address this, which is what the whole ANDROID thing is trying to do, and the demand for quality smartphones will suddenly become very, very apparent. It's a lot like what people used to say about notebooks: who would pay for a device with reduced functionality that costs more? Uh...everyone, if it at least has COMPARABLE functionality.

The last issue, as many others have pointed out, is the suckiness of the wireless carrier 'market' in the United States, which, if Google has its way with the 700Mhz spectrum, may very well be solved also.

This isn't just Google making a half-hearted expansion into the mobile market; no, it's end-to-end (with the possible exception of hardware), and it's well planned. I can only hope that Google will stick to their general philosophy of keeping things open and functional, and allowing the massive size of the userbase to fill out the bottom line.

Call the restaurant and ask? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297963)

"Hi. I can't find your restaurant. Where are you?"
"33 Washington Street"
"Okay. How do I get there"
"Well, where are you now"
"Uhmm.. On a street. There's some houses along there"
"What street"
"Dunno"
"Are there any landmarks"
"No"
"Any shops at all?"
"Oh, wait. There's a sign. It says I'm in 'Brigston'"
"I never even heard of that town!"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?