All About Symbian - Symbian, Nokia and S60 unwrapped.
Defining the Smartphone - part 1
Published by Steve Litchfield at 12:05 UTC, July 16th 2010
Summary:
In leaps and bounds, the term 'smartphone' is being bandied about by manufacturers, analysts, journalists, developers and end users across the world. Which would normally be a good thing, except that there are many definitions, all totally different. What exactly defines a smartphone in 2010? What did it used to mean in 2007? Or 2003? With reports regularly quoting the word, it would be good to all agree what the word means, surely? Steve Litchfield addresses the issue, in part one of a two part feature.
Thinking about definitions now is all the more appropriate in light of comments like Rob Glaser's, in which he proposes the idea of a 'superphone'. Let's go back to the start of the smartphone era: 2000, the Millennium. Prior to this we'd had PDAs and palmtop computers, plus we'd had mobile phones, both of which could be easily linked by infrared, but the launch of the Nokia 9210 Communicator in 2001 ushered in a dramatic new world - everything in one box for the very first time - powerful handheld computing and connectivity to the world.
We'd had a one-box solution of sorts before, with the GeOS-powered 9110 Communicator a year or so before and the Ericsson R380, running an early form of Symbian OS, but neither of these could be extended in the way that the new 9210 could. Close on its heels we had the Handspring Treo 180, combining a Palm OS handheld and a phone, plus the Nokia 7650, taking the core Symbian OS and packaging it in a one-handed phone-like form factor. The key word here is 'extended', which leads to the very first definition of what constitutes a 'smartphone':
Definition 1: A smartphone can be extended through hundreds of add-on applications (that run on an equal footing with the core operating system)
Yes, yes, the concept of hundreds and thousands of 'apps' dates back into the Palm OS and Psion (EPOC) eras in the mid-1990s - apps aren't an invention of the Apple iPhone 3G, funnily enough... Here then, the 'smart' bit refers to the fact that you can increase the intelligence of your device by adding applications that cover other areas of functionality or which modify the behaviour of the interface to suit - everyone's 'smartphone' then becomes their own, to some extent, with customisation of the interface, of the applications and of their behaviour.
Definition 1 still applies today in many people's minds, including my own. And, importantly, it's the one used by the analysts who quote world sales figures. They may define smartphones as 'converged devices', but this doesn't really tell you anything - after all even the humblest feature phone can now play music, browse the web and take photos. Dig deeper and you'll find that it's this ability to extend operations with extra applications that's at the heart of what's considered a smartphone and what isn't.
There are two slight problems with definition 1. Firstly, it's so wide that it includes everything from the lowest S60 budget Symbian phone, at around £100 SIM-free in the UK, to the most expensive tablet Android devices or the iPhone 4G, up in the £600+ region. The width isn't a problem per se, but those who are fans of non-Symbian platforms automatically cry fowl when the official smartphone stats come out, since the higher sales of the £100 and £200 Symbian smartphones usually dominate sales of their top end high priced models. Secondly, even the humblest feature phones are extensible to a degree by adding Java (J2ME) applications and games - it's not quite the same as native apps and of course there's no multitasking, but end users won't necessarily understand this.
Definition 1b: A smartphone runs a proper (or 'open') operating system
Ostensibly linked to definition 1, in that add-on applications are only made possible by virtue of an extensible OS, this definition possibility falls down when networks or manufacturers use such an OS and then lock it down, usually for cost reasons (less things to go wrong for those pesky, fiddling users). Examples here are the top-end MOAP phones in Japan, running Symbian OS but un-expandable.
Some FOMA/MOAP 2010 phones from Japan, 2010. They run Symbian OS but are they 'smart'?
Definition 2: A smartphone is a mobile phone that offers more advanced computing ability and connectivity than a contemporary basic 'feature phone'.
That's Wikipedia's top level definition, at any rate, and it gels with a lot of popular perception. The idea is that smartphones are simply more advanced than traditional mobile phones, with higher specifications. The problem with this is that technology is always advancing and today's smartphone features, by this definition, will be tomorrow's feature phone err... features. As mentioned above, the simplest phones now play music, allow basic web browsing and email, include a decent camera, and so on. Those would have been the previous characteristics of a smartphone under definition 2.
I suppose you could always say that the top n% of phones, sorted by features, are smartphones and everything below them mustn't be 'smart', but this just feels weak and subjective.
The Nokia C3: unashamedly not a smartphone, yet with Wi-Fi, music playback, email, multi-megapixel camera, QWERTY keyboard (see below) and web browsing
Definition 3: A smartphone has a physical QWERTY keyboard. Addendum: or a virtual QWERTY equivalent
This definition was beloved of Americans, hooked on Blackberrys, right up to the point when Apple brought out the iPhone. At which point the addendum had to be invoked. There's a decent correlation, in that many of the 'smartest' mobile devices do have either a hardware QWERTY keyboard or a large enough screen that a virtual version becomes practical. And, after all, with a QWERTY input system, you're going to be doing some serious interaction with the device, matching up nicely to the perception that you're a top end user doing 'smartphone' things.
However, you can now get QWERTY-equipped hardware for £50 in the shops (the C3 shown above is only £80), running distinctly lower-tier, locked down operating systems. In addition, all the cheaper touchscreen phones have a virtual QWERTY keyboard of sorts, even if it's often fairly small and unusable. In addition, you have a huge number of powerful, highly specced Symbian-based devices with just an 'old fashioned' numeric keypad. Of all the definitions of 'smartphone', the QWERTY version has, ultimately, the least validity in 2010.
Nokia N86 8MP, one of the highest specced smartphones around yet small and with 'only' a numeric keypad for input
Definition 4: A smartphone has a touchscreen
Derived from the PDA days, carried on into the Windows Mobile 'XDA' era, and then revived with the iPhone, the idea is that touch unlocks extra functionality and interaction possibilities. While again most people would agree that there is a degree of correlation, it's plain that the number of budget touchscreen phones debunk this definition rather quickly.
Definition 4b: A smartphone has a large touchscreen. Where 'large' is defined as anything from 3.2" upwards
With the size caveat, this modified definition has a lot more validity and is, in effect, what a lot of the tech press really mean when they think of a smartphone. The vision is of a screen that's large enough to 'do' things, powerful things with. In terms of devices, there's the 3.5"-screened Apple iPhone range, a glut of Android-powered tablet phones with 3.7" to 4.3" screens, plus a lot of Symbian 'mid-tier' touchscreen devices (N97 mini, 5800, 5230, C6, X6, etc.) with 3.2" display.
While, in theory, a dumb feature phone could be made with a 3.2" or 3.5" screen, little has appeared so far - the screen is the single largest most expensive part in a phone and so a cheaper feature phone is thus crippled in terms of the hardware it can be specced with.
The biggest fly in the ointment here is the presence of the 'candybar QWERTY' form factor - the classic Blackberry and the Nokia E71/E72/E5, all of which are most definitely smartphones by anyone's standards (even Americans).
Nokia E72: no touchscreen, small 2.4" display - so not smart, then, according to definition 4?
Definition 5: A smartphone is always connected
This recent definition works pretty well. Although feature phones can go 'online', most of their functions will centre on apps built into the phone and on voice and texts. At most there might be a very basic Twitter or Facebook client. In contrast, a 'smartphone's default state is online, either over Wi-Fi (the presence of which almost makes for a definition in its own right) or over 3G or even 4G these days. Whether for social networking or push email or web browsing or news applications - or even online gaming - the presence of the Internet is ubiquitous.
Definition 5b: A smartphone is always connected and can browse the full Internet
Yet again we have a modified version of an existing definition that seems to be gaining more acceptance. In addition to other online functions, it seems to be a given now that when people talk about smartphones, they imply an ability to browse full web sites, which should appear just as they do in a desktop browser. It's a nice modification to the definition but doesn't really hold water. For example, the Apple iPhone (even the new version 4) doesn't 'do' Flash content, so many pages have a big Flash-sized hole in them, especially for non-YouTube videos. And complex Javascript in-page apps often struggle on phone browsers - the All About Symbian CMS uses heavy Javascript WYSIWYG editors and doesn't come close to working properly on any smartphone I've yet tried (or the Apple iPad, come to that). The Symbian browser has Flash Lite support, meaning that some Flash content is shown and videos often work as well - but then the whole browsing experience is limited by screen size and control mechanisms.
And that's leaving aside the thorny issue of whether the full, MB-per-page desktop browsing experience is even sensible on a phone, with data caps getting ever tighter as more and more people get online and want a share of the overall bandwidth. There's a lot to be said for smartphones being 'smart' about what version of a web site gets loaded and rendered. For example, pulling up a news story on the CNN or BBC web sites is far faster on the 'mobile' site (that gets served up automatically to many phones) than when forcing the phone to load the 'full' version.
_______________
So, we have five (or up to eight, if you count the amendments) major definitions of what constitutes a 'smartphone'. And they're all flawed to some degree. Is there a consensus in the industry for the term? No. Rafe's view is that the term itself is somewhat irrelevant, a conclusion I came to two years ago when I renamed The Smartphones Show to The Phones Show. The theory is that a phone is a 'phone' - at least that's what the man and woman in the High Street will call it.
However, having played with many low end phones over the last few months (from LG Cookies to Nokia Series 40 to Sony Ericsson Wseries devices), I've come to the conclusion that there's a still a wide gulf in terms of ability between these units and true 'smartphones'. The apps, the multitasking, the better browsers, the high specs, the larger screens - ALL of these factors make a smartphone smart. And so the term is still relevant, it's just singling out a definition that's the hard bit.
Here goes anyway, my tuppence worth from 2010:
A smartphone runs an open (to new apps) operating system and is permanently connected to the Internet.
I know a lot of American tech bloggers will cry foul - they'll say that it's preposterous for my little Nokia N86 to be considered in the same class as the HTC EVO 4G/Incredible/Droid X. But the Nokia fits the best definition I can come up with and, in truth, can do most of what its larger competition can. Going forward, calling these new 4"+ screened tablets should perhaps receive their own category - maybe 'superphone' wasn't a bad suggestion after all!
In part two of this feature, I'm going to take the aforementioned Nokia N86 and pitch it, in terms of recognised smartphone functionality, against one of the most popular and highest 'specced' Android phones being sold here in the UK, the HTC Desire. Will my definition hold water?
Steve Litchfield, All About Symbian, 18 July 2010
A selection of recent Symbian-powered smartphones...
Discussion
Just a thought.
You could write third party apps in C++ (there as a great Snake game, and I'm pretty sure an alternative fax/image viewer was available), you had PC connctivty, it was significantly ahead of ohter phones, the bundling of a "Terminal" lient and data connection was (and still is) one of the best mobile sysadmin solutions... GeOS was a multiplatform OS, it powered the Casio Zoomer (and the built in apps there were coded by the team who went on to write the Palm Computing Pilot OS).
For the time, the 9000 Communicator ticks every single box, Steve ;-)
I shall not attempt to define what a smartphone is, but I know one when I see one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
So only the N900 is now a smartphone?
In one sense, all are "phones". Clearly, high-end phones are more advanced and useful than low-end ones (duh!). However, as you have pointed out - what is now "high end" will be "low end" soon enough. (I think you'll find even the lowest-end, £20 phones have HW specs that will compare quite favourably with early "smartphones" like the Nokia 7650)
To be honest, I wonder whether we need these distinctions at all. I think they have always been a bit of a marketing gimmick to make high end phones seem more special. "This is no ordinary phone, this is a smart phone!". Back in the early days, the ability to install apps was a sufficiently big differentiator to justify separating those phones into a class of their own. However, with non-smartphones gaining the ability to run stuff like Java, Flash and HTML5 that distinction has long since vanished (and don't get me started on the "it's only smart if it's native apps" because BlackBerry only runs Java apps which traditionally don't count as native and yet everyone classes them as "smartphones". Even Android apps are mostly a variation on Java (though I believe they have now added some support for "native" apps too))
Looking at the definitions Steve lists, I think they have gotten increasingly weak and desperate sounding over time. "It has a QWERTY" or "It's screen is bigger than X" sounds like companies clutching at straws to find some stand-out feature that makes their phone "smart" and others not-so-smart. What are they afraid of? Probably the fact that if "smartphone" marketshare stats were no longer produced and only "phone" marketshare stats were made instead, all the operating systems and vendors would suddenly find themselves with a smaller % number than they enjoy today.
I for one would actually prefer such phone stats. How many all mobile phones (which I'd define as "a portable, battery-powered device capable of making cellular voice calls") run Symbian or Android or iOS would be far more interesting than how many of some more-or-less randomly defined sub-set of phones run those systems. :-)
OR there simply is no such thing as a precise definition for a smartphone any more - that the spectrum of phones is much like the light spectrum with one colour merging gradually into another.
I challenge anyone to come up with a different definition that always applies, and I will find you a case where it does not apply, and thus there is no strict definition.
Hardware features certainly are NO indicator whatsoever. And neither are software features. Or design....
Your challenge awaits... :)
This was a good history lesson, but at the end there really is only a few necessary abstractions about smartphones that sets it apart from the rest of the market:
- It has all the most advanced software features that can be offered at the time
- It has hardware that sets it at the very top of the market at the time
- the package had enough breathing room in terms of HW and storage to expand so far beyond the original form, that at the end it's nearly unrecognizable to it's original form
So for example:
- 2005, 6630 was a real hit because it contained a real mp3 player, a standard flash card slot, pop-port for my xenon flash (the best phone accessory ever made!!), fast CPU, bluetooth 1.0, UMTS, and a great 1.3MP camera
- 2007, n95-3 and n95 8gb was hit because it combined gps, 5MP camera, had loads of storage, upgraded cpu, upgraded screen resolution, a standard card slot, HSDPA, bluetooth 2.0
- 2010, many of the high end android phones, the iphone 4, and the n8 will stand far beyond the n95 because it will contain upgraded CPU, better camera sensors for HD recording, HSUPA, smarter online AND offline software models, upgraded screen resolution, and (hopefully in the N8 case) enough storage to expand well beyond it's original software
Basically I thought some of the items listed was so menial and terse, that even if the phone hits these definitions, it doesn't make it all that smart - e.g. an iPhone now just wouldn't compare to an iphone 4, because it just seems to hit the end of it's useful life for all intent purposes. On the other hand, I still manage to push my N95 to it's limits and not make it fall over, even though it has neither a touch screen nor a QWERTY. Does that make it not smart for the lack of your items on the list, or does it still make it borderline smart, because it's useful life is is well beyond my contract even though there are much stronger selections? And the N97 did hit all of your items, but it can be labeled as not a smartphone, or a failed attempt to be a smartphone because I've basically have already maxed it out with it's pitiful internal storage and cpu, even though it's still under warranty. Thus the existence of the C6 as a mid-range phone now, which looks vaguely familiar ;)
-Gene
Phone : Voice Calling
Phone plus : SMS added
SmartPhone : Web/Internet (Sound and Vision) added
SmarterPhone : Utilities like Camera , FM radio , Full Qwerty , Touch , Digital Compass , GPS , Accelerometer , USB OTG , or specific software like (Quick) Office , etc. added
SmartestPhone : A SmarterPhone , that runs multiple OS's
( The SmarterPhone category could be subdivided in : CameraPhone , FMPhone , QwertyPhone , NaviPhone , TouchPhone , etc. )
These categories avoid critics like my phone cost more . Otherwise there will be a surely failing division like :
Phone / Phone Plus : up to Euro 50.-
SmartPhone : up to Euro 200.-
SmarterPhone : up to Euro 500.-
SmartestPhone : more than Euro 500.-
:) Regards jApi NL
|
Originally Posted by ajck
It's either the definition of the first commenter above, Kazutoyo, in that a smartphone is one that can run 3rd party apps that directly address the OS,
OR there simply is no such thing as a precise definition for a smartphone any more - that the spectrum of phones is much like the light spectrum with one colour merging gradually into another. I challenge anyone to come up with a different definition that always applies, and I will find you a case where it does not apply, and thus there is no strict definition. Hardware features certainly are NO indicator whatsoever. And neither are software features. Or design.... Your challenge awaits... :) |
http://forum.brighthand.com/headline...martphone.html
But, I will agree that supeerphone is not a class of device, nor is it's definition around hardware features or social networking capabilities sufficient enough to validate it.
I will state that a mobile is only as smart as the person that's using it. And depending on the bias of the person, there might not be too many smart folks or their attending devices out there at all.
|
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Definition 5b: A smartphone is always connected and can browse the full Internet
So only the N900 is now a smartphone? |
One could also argue that "full Internet" browsing would also require the ability to download and update images, videos and other content/files. (Most phone browser allow this only in a very limited fashion.)
The minimum requirement is, IMO, the ability to access "full" HTML/CSS/JavaScript web sites without having to limit yourself to separate "mobile" versions.
However, that isn't often enough in practice as people want to download/upload stuff (files), view also Flash content, stream audio/video format that PCs support but not phones in general, etc.
Things would of course be better, if web site designers stuck with standards and didn't use proprietary technologies such as Flash (or ActiveX, or vendor/browser specific extensions), but that's never going to happen. There's always some new thing by some vendor, which someone wants to take advantage of for good or bad reasons.
http://www.integrontech.com/Nokia-N8...p/nok-n8-o.htm
2)plenty of RAM (let's say 512 Mb after boot:D) ;
2 b)plenty of storage space(64Gb should be enough on the go...for more,look at point 6) 4th idea);
3)high resolution large capacitive touchscreen..at least 4 inches in diagonal..which can work great in direct sunlight and indoors(SuperAMOLED)...great for browsing the internet , playing HD games, editing and reading mobile documents,ebooks,etc ;
4)fast,stable and multiple oriented UI (bussines,multimedia,leisure)...waiting for MeeGo OS :> ;
4 b)bussines , multimedia and leisure apps should already be installed in the device (eg:office,pdf reader,smart music player,HD games,etc) :
5)lots of apps in the application store (eg:Apple store) ;
6)Wi-Fi (g,n) , 4G , internet tethering ,conctivity with other divices(like N8) , Bluetooth 3.0 ;
7)8Mp camera with good lenses(Carl Zeiss) with xenon flash...12Mp is too much for a phone ;
8)thin,shock and scratch resistant aluminium (even magnesium) one piece casing;
8 b)a physical keyboard should be provided if the market requests it;
9)...lets not forget the power plant...a powerful battery which should be provided with an auxiliary solar pannel so you can charge your phone on your way to work for exemple...
What else?...IPhone 4G + Nokia N8 + HTC Desire + Samsung M110 S Galaxy S + future MeeGo device-->SuperSmartphone
What do you think?:-?
To me, you either a large screen or a qwerty to make up for the lack of it.
And smartphone should include more processing hardware which for sure the n86 don't fit.
I would almost lump n86 into those super featured phones.
Smartphone is a phone that fulfills at least three of the following criteria:
- Can run native applications
- Has large screen (> 3'')
- Has physical or virtual querty keyboard
- Is sutible for prolongued connection (always connected)
Apart from a well hidden x6 on the front page it took utill page 40 or so before a symbian/nokia device appeared.
nokia only seem to have 3 or 4 phones that are smartphones and even these are out of date!!!!
It seemed to have to be touchscreen running android/windows/or the "king of phones" i phone.
Surley it is in nokia's remit to define the smartphone.
They need to get agressive with the marketing.
I loved the comment above about smartphones only being as smart as their users. Very true! 8-)
As far as I can tell, one of the dominant internet protocols is Flash.
Flash runs well enough only on Windows. It's a bit of a nuisance on other desktops, and simply non-existent on phones. As a closed protocol, *all* of the smartphones have to wait for Adobe to take its thumb out of its lower orifice and deliver -- and Adobe hasn't found the wherewithal to create a single instance of Flash v. 10.x for a single one of them, anywhere. (A couple of phones have an unsupported, feature-incomplete "beta.") Now that Adobe has upgraded most of its user base to CS5, the meme that Steve Jobs was painting his firm into a corner has subsided and life goes on pretty much as it has since Adobe cut the Flash Lite teams from Macromedia, five years ago.
Likewise, other standards are evolving rapidly enough that sites frequently need to detect the browser and dumb down content for the device. As a consequence, many highly-compliant browsers are unable to view all content or perform all actions.
I think the two issues are related: Flash delivers where IE6, IE7 and IE8 do not.
In any case, it's hard to imagine that we will ever have both stable and also relevant standards. Any living system will have to deal with subsets and supersets.
What I can't understand the most is how many comments were hardware-centric - just think what Linux can make of a otherwise useless i80486. ;)
cheers, Swordfish
On the other hand, if you take a look on getjar.com, there are more than 1000 java app for feature phone, and it can make it smart. So, is it a smartphone?
