In article <0omd101ehem81v95vulud2htlde0ghjeo0@4ax.com>,
Martin Törnsten writes:
>Quite interesting news (I thought Palm was till #1, but with MS catching
>up!)...
>
>IDC Western European Handheld Device Operating System Shares, 2003

beware of these figures. They do not includes PDA+phones sales. Quite a
number of people say that "the PDA is dead", (to be replaced by
super-smartphones), see for instance:
http://www.pocketthings.com/index.php?ID=1283
So windows mobile may be becoming the king of a shrinking kingdom (albeit
still very profitable).

> martin törnsten -- former Psion/EPOC and HP/WinCE (HPC) user

As a former Psion/EPOC owner who recently bought a Symbian (ex-EPOC)
"phone" (SE P900), I can tell you that these new phones are really as
powerful as a modern PDA.

--
Colas Nahaboo, http://colas.nahaboo.net

Colas Nahaboo wrote:
> beware of these figures. They do not includes PDA+phones sales.

But such sales are going to be hard to measure. Assuming my Siemens M55 is
EPOC32 based, does it it contribute to PDA sales of EPOC/Symbian OS ? It most
certaintly isn't a PDA eben though it has and agenda with calendar, phone book
and games.

Similarly, with fancy BMWs equipped with windows-ce computers (that cause
engine to stop on highways, or seats to start moving without reason, and
plenty of false alarms) considered PDAs ?

If you are going to define a PDA as having a keyboard, then you miss out on
palm and windows-ce are are left only with legacy products such as PSION and
former HP PDAs

So if you include keyboardless machines, how do you define what is and isn't a
PDA ?

> Quite a
> number of people say that "the PDA is dead", (to be replaced by
> super-smartphones),

Yep. That is one of the reasons given by PSION to exit the PDA market. But
there is still the industrial device market. (Granted, not "mass market").

The problem is that phones have been shrunk to fit the needs of teenage girls
and have become too small to be usable as PDAs by adult males. That is why
some PDas have added phones to themselves. (but those typically lack battery
autonomy to make themselves really useful).

Perhaps the definition of a PDA could be some device with an input device
other than just numeric keypad.

In article , cnahaboo@ilog.fr says...

> So windows mobile may be becoming the king of a shrinking kingdom (albeit
> still very profitable).

out of curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion: 'albeit still very
profitable' ? profitable in which way? and why? based on what figures?
where to find?

--
rgds,
J.Klug

Captain's log. On StarDate 28 Jan 2004 08:12:44 GMT received comm from
cnahaboo@ilog.fr (Colas Nahaboo) on channel comp.os.ms-windows.ce:

: >IDC Western European Handheld Device Operating System Shares, 2003
:
: beware of these figures. They do not includes PDA+phones sales. Quite a

I'm well aware of that (and also thought it would be apparent to others).

I also agree with JF M that it's quite difficult to what a handheld/PDA is or
isn't, and I think you probably would have the same problem with the definition
of what a smartphone is or isn't.

Anyone with some more good ideas on those definitions?

: > martin törnsten -- former Psion/EPOC and HP/WinCE (HPC) user
:
: As a former Psion/EPOC owner who recently bought a Symbian (ex-EPOC)
: "phone" (SE P900), I can tell you that these new phones are really as
: powerful as a modern PDA.

Right now I'm personally without any handheld (!) as both my old Psion and old
HP is broken, and the next machine I will buy will be one to replace both my
phone and handheld with one single product to have less things to worry about
bringing with me.

I first thought about a handheld with a GSM phone build in, but I'm more and
more into getting a smartphone instead. As I mostly would use it as a phone it
makes sense to get a device mainly optimized for that, but with the ability to
both use it as my calendar and also download/develop software for it.

As it looks now I will most likely buy the HTC Voyager (O2 Xphone, Orange SPV
e200, Qtek 8080, etc) which I recently tested at Comdex Scandinavia. Besides
that it's mainly a phone (but a bit bigger) it's also probably a very good fit
for me as I'm currently learning C# and it's supposed to have a compact version
of the .NET framework.

But I agree that the P900 looks like a great smartphone as well (I wasn't that
impressed buy the older P800),and also the keyboard on the P900 seems to have
improved a lot.

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

Captain's log. On StarDate Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:37:14 -0500 received comm from JF
Mezei on channel comp.os.ms-windows.ce:

: Perhaps the definition of a PDA could be some device with an input device
: other than just numeric keypad.

I think that's a good suggestion.

Now to the problem what defines a smartphone or not?

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

JF Mezei wrote:
> The problem is that phones have been shrunk to fit the needs of
> teenage girls and have become too small to be usable as PDAs by adult
> males.

Hell, they're too small to be used as *phones* by adult males.

Am I the only one who disbelieve that the average person has baby-sized
fingers and a 2.5" span between ear and mouth?

Regards,
--
*Art

Martin Törnsten wrote:
> Captain's log. On StarDate Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:37:14 -0500 received
> comm from JF Mezei on channel
> comp.os.ms-windows.ce:
>
>> Perhaps the definition of a PDA could be some device with an input
>> device other than just numeric keypad.
>
> I think that's a good suggestion.
>
> Now to the problem what defines a smartphone or not?

One that refuses to ring in a theatre.

Regards,
--
*Art

In article ,
J.Klug writes:
>out of curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion: 'albeit still very
>profitable' ? profitable in which way? and why? based on what figures?
>where to find?

Oops, that was not a definitive conclusion. It was just a point to
mitigate my above statement that the "PDA was dead" was not meaning that
the market was dead: most PocketPC I see seem to be high end, with a
confortable profit for makers, so the market may still be profitable even
if the number of machines sold decrease.

But it is just a guess

--
Colas Nahaboo, http://colas.nahaboo.net

In article <3fng10d67se8u4fn05cvl89pfscf8lejjc@4ax.com>,
Martin Törnsten writes:
>I also agree with JF M that it's quite difficult to what a handheld/PDA is or
>isn't, and I think you probably would have the same problem with the
>definition
>of what a smartphone is or isn't.

For me, a PDA is something that you can use as a brain extension, so
mainly to store (must have confortable input) & retrieve (smart
applications), and manage in many ways (ability to install 3rd-party
apps) your information.

So, for me, a PDA is something with:
* confortable input (handwritten for some people, keyboard for me)
* good text processor
* ability to install apps (flashable firmware is desirable, too),
with plenty of storage (memory card support)

So for me a Siemens M55 is definitely in no way a PDA (no stylus, no
"word", no memory card).

>Right now I'm personally without any handheld (!) as both my old Psion and old
>HP is broken, and the next machine I will buy will be one to replace both my
>phone and handheld with one single product to have less things to worry about
>bringing with me.

Exactly my case. (psionist since the first series 3) I could not see
myself using something without a good keyboard, but wanted something I
could have always with me - although I only need the keyboard for
meetings, not always with me), so I decided on the P900 as soon as I saw
the firm commitment of Think Outside to come up with a really good
bluetooth keyboard for the P900 (and the fact that already the Infrared
version works:
http://rallypilot.sourceforge.net/sy...d-symbian.html )

I would never buy (again) a PocketPC (bought one of the first ipaq, but
the system is too closed for me: no way to remap the keys of external
keyboards for instance, and they are basically badly designed in lots of
small ways, and I do not use outlook). The Palm could be a good choice
(simple OS = simple development, already some (~ 5) "wiki" apps that I
feel is the ultimate app to manage information on a PDA, nice keyboard
support), but

I did not choose them now as there are some issues:
* too many OS/machine variants (PalmOS4, palmOS5) for a
on ROM-flashable device...
* Did not like the treo design (I would rather have no keyboard + a
good external one rather than a toy one)
* non-removable battery (you cannot have spare ones just in case)
This may not be a real issue, but a psion habit :-)
But The palm tungsten W, the treo 600, and the future palm machines that
will surely happen will be very well worth considering.

So I choose the P900 to try it out. I am not sure I have made the
good choice (I seem to have stumbled on some firmware bugs, and there are
yet not many apps, and no wiki), but time will tell. If the bugs are
still there and the apps and the development envs do not come, I will
switch to something else, but I must tell you that having something that
you barely feel in your pocket is a feeling you do not want to loose, I
will not go back to a bigger form factor.

--
Colas Nahaboo, http://colas.nahaboo.net

Quoth "Arthur Hagen" :
>Hell, they're too small to be used as *phones* by adult males.

Heh!

>Am I the only one who disbelieve that the average person has baby-sized
>fingers and a 2.5" span between ear and mouth?

Certainly not. I always try to get a phone I can hold in the crook of
my neck so I don't need a hands-free kit to talk while doing something
else.

As you say, though, large phones appear to be on the way out -- I got a
new Nokia 6610 recently, which isn't a lot larger than the old 8210.
The only reason I accepted it was because the buttons are actually quite
large, relatively. With practice, even clumsy sods like me can send
text messages with it.

Since smartphones need to be a bit bigger than normal phones to
accommodate the screen, they seem like the way forward for those who
want PDA functionality and cellular communication you can't put in your
eye.
--
__________________________________________________ __

~~ Paul Gilham ~~
__________________________________________________ __

"Martin Törnsten" wrote in message
news:3fng10d67se8u4fn05cvl89pfscf8lejjc@4ax.com...
> Captain's log. On StarDate 28 Jan 2004 08:12:44 GMT received comm from
> cnahaboo@ilog.fr (Colas Nahaboo) on channel comp.os.ms-windows.ce:
>
> : >IDC Western European Handheld Device Operating System Shares, 2003
> :
> : beware of these figures. They do not includes PDA+phones sales. Quite a
>
> I'm well aware of that (and also thought it would be apparent to others).
>
> I also agree with JF M that it's quite difficult to what a handheld/PDA is
or
> isn't, and I think you probably would have the same problem with the
definition
> of what a smartphone is or isn't.
>
> Anyone with some more good ideas on those definitions?

People are using voice-centric versus data-centric. If you can use it as a
phone, then it is voice-centric. Otherwise it is data-centric.

The Nokia 9200 Series Communicator is a bit hard to define, but it works for
most devices.

So what the reports are making clear is that a *lot* of people are buying
Series 60 devices from Nokia.

--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com

Captain's log. On StarDate Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:35:16 +0100 received comm from
"Sander van der Wal" on channel comp.sys.handhelds:

: > Anyone with some more good ideas on those definitions?
:
: People are using voice-centric versus data-centric. If you can use it as a
: phone, then it is voice-centric. Otherwise it is data-centric.

What about devices such as the Treo and Pocket PC Phone Edition?

: So what the reports are making clear is that a *lot* of people are buying
: Series 60 devices from Nokia.

I see Symbian becoming more and more synonymous with Nokia Series XX, and I
wouldn't be surprised if they would try to get an ever tighter control of
Symbian (perhaps buy up a majority of it in the future).

The problem (as a potential developer for smartphones) I see with Symbian OS
(and Linux for that matter) is that you have way too many versions and
distributions of it, and that's a problem Nokia solves buy setting a tighter
standard for it (and also license it to other hardware manufactures), with just
a couple of different packages of it (for different type of devices and form
factors).

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

JF Mezei wrote in message news:<401790C3.ABC65E22@istop.com>...
[snip]
> If you are going to define a PDA as having a keyboard, then you miss out on
> palm and windows-ce are are left only with legacy products such as PSION and
> former HP PDAs
>
> So if you include keyboardless machines, how do you define what is and isn't a
> PDA ?
>
> > Quite a
> > number of people say that "the PDA is dead", (to be replaced by
> > super-smartphones),
>
> Yep. That is one of the reasons given by PSION to exit the PDA market. But
> there is still the industrial device market. (Granted, not "mass market").
>
> The problem is that phones have been shrunk to fit the needs of teenage girls
> and have become too small to be usable as PDAs by adult males. That is why
> some PDas have added phones to themselves. (but those typically lack battery
> autonomy to make themselves really useful).
>
> Perhaps the definition of a PDA could be some device with an input device
> other than just numeric keypad.


Actually, the definition which may soon be difficult to handle is that
of a phone, wireless or otherwise. As more and more types of devices
use the two way communications ability of the "phone" network, it becomes
less and less clear when voice needs to be a part of the communication.
Other than friendly conversation, much of what I call about is often
basically a data exchange. So instead of "telling" someone something,
if I have a cell/pda whatever, I may merely respond to text messages.
For any outfit with which I have a regular relationship, I could
find myself merely dialing, and (much as now) hitting certian coded
keys (press one for information about flights) with I, or the other
party actually speaking to each other. At some point, voice communication
becomes a nice "side" feature. And to be clear, I don't necessarily mean
just the wireless devices. Computer/internet based telephone is
already a reality. The difference between a "phone number" and
an IP address is trivial. The whole concept of "dialing" and "answering"
may become as antiquated as cranking a phone and asking Alice
for a particular exchange. The difference between a bookmark and speed
dial is next to nil.

Cars already have the capacity to call and report trouble on their
own. What's to prevent your icebox from accessing the wireless network
in your home and contacting the manufacturer to report a problem.
It could tell you first, email you suggestions on things to trouble
shoot (the temperture is running high, is the fan blocked?). Wouldn't
we all like a central heating system we could access remotely and
adjust, or detect failures?

As more things obtain these capabilities, there will be a greater
desire to interact with them, potentially remotely. As such, that
device we carry with us may be less about being a phone for voice
communication, and more about being a control device for whatever
other devices we wish or need to interface with. "Calling" will
be a minor issue.

However, I am positive that in 20 years, some moron will email
my heat pump promising it a rock hard.....

me wrote:
> Actually, the definition which may soon be difficult to handle is
> that
> of a phone, wireless or otherwise.

Oh? I think that's a pretty simple definition:

1: It must facilitate live voice calls.
2: It must be able to reach or be reached through the regular phone
network.

If you connect your computer into a VoIP network, and can call any normal
phone number from it and talk through a mic, it's a phone.
If you have a device that looks like a phone but can only connect to similar
devices outside the phone network, it's not a phone.
If it doesn't allow real-time audible communication between humans, it's not
a phone. So your answering machine is not a phone, and neither are the spam
machines leaving voicemail.

> As more and more types of devices
> use the two way communications ability of the "phone" network, it
> becomes
> less and less clear when voice needs to be a part of the
> communication.

It has to be. Else it may be "tele", but not "phone". The "phone" part
directly implies audible communication.

> Other than friendly conversation, much of what I call about is often
> basically a data exchange. So instead of "telling" someone something,
> if I have a cell/pda whatever, I may merely respond to text messages.

Don't confuse the media with the transport. You're simply using the
telephone network as a carrier for the text messages -- that you're using a
telephone here is no more relevant than whether your mail package is sent by
lorry or train, DHL or Fedex, as long as the transport company understands
your address and deliver it when expected. Indeed you can SMS without using
a telephone network at all.

> just the wireless devices. Computer/internet based telephone is
> already a reality. The difference between a "phone number" and
> an IP address is trivial.

No, it's not trivial. For one thing, the phone number system is based on
one-to-one communication, unlike IP. Concepts like multicasting, network
broadcasts and multiple routes are meaningless for a phone network, and it
can be busy, unlike an IP address. The phone number system also doesn't
have near-real-time name resolution -- dynamic phone numbers are quite a bit
into the future...

> The whole concept of "dialing" and
> "answering"
> may become as antiquated as cranking a phone and asking Alice
> for a particular exchange.

I sure hope not. One good reason is the ability to *NOT* answer.

> The difference between a bookmark and
> speed dial is next to nil.

Irrelevant. That's just functions of the particular *phone device*, and not
the phone SYSTEM. Whether you enter the number by selecting from a menu;
saying "call Zaphod"; tapping the mic wires with a coin; or by holding down
a key doesn't make any difference -- the phone system gets its expected DTMF
or pulse codes representing a phone number, and terminates the call
accordingly.

> However, I am positive that in 20 years, some moron will email
> my heat pump promising it a rock hard.....

You're decades too late. There's already a lot of autonymous devices with
email addresses. There used to be email addresses like lightson@somewhe.re
and lightsoff@somewhe.re -- they were fun (and sometimes practical) back
before the unwashed and untrustworthy masses got network access, not to
mention spam. These days you have to add handshakes and encryption, taking
the simplicity and fun out of it.
That said, you can still email millions of printers around the world -- the
lp account here receives quite a bit of spam. :-)

Regards,
--
*Art

In article , cnahaboo@ilog.fr says...
> most PocketPC I see seem to be high end, with a confortable profit
> for makers, so the market may still be profitable even
> if the number of machines sold decrease.

Thank you for the answer.


--
Rgds,
J.Klug

Arthur Hagen wrote:
> can be busy, unlike an IP address. The phone number system also doesn't
> have near-real-time name resolution -- dynamic phone numbers are quite a bit
> into the future...

Actually, it does have. 800 numbers (freecall) in north america resolve to
another number which is a standard number with area code. And with number
portability appearing, it also requires real-time name resolution sincc your
phone number can no longer be used as a route to your area, central office
and then actual twisted pair.

And while this does not apply to GSM phones, normal landline phone system also
support reverse lookups which is how you get caller identification to appear
on your phone after the first ring.

On the other hand, landline phones have missed the boat in terms of
capabilities such as SMS, games, ringtones etc.

"Martin Törnsten" wrote in message
news:dvhi109bqpmgp3q7t5fhgviphaloqkkovr@4ax.com...
> Captain's log. On StarDate Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:35:16 +0100 received comm
from
> "Sander van der Wal" on channel comp.sys.handhelds:
>
> : > Anyone with some more good ideas on those definitions?
> :
> : People are using voice-centric versus data-centric. If you can use it as
a
> : phone, then it is voice-centric. Otherwise it is data-centric.
>
> What about devices such as the Treo and Pocket PC Phone Edition?

A treo isn't that much different from a P800/P900. From what I have seen
from PocketPC phone edition, its more like a Series 60. All voice-centric,
IMHO.

> : So what the reports are making clear is that a *lot* of people are
buying
> : Series 60 devices from Nokia.
>
> I see Symbian becoming more and more synonymous with Nokia Series XX, and
I
> wouldn't be surprised if they would try to get an ever tighter control of
> Symbian (perhaps buy up a majority of it in the future).

Possibly. Whether that will make any impact on the popularity of the OS...
In that case you would have Nokia, PalmSource and Microsoft as the three
mayor phone OS vendors. Nobody cares.

> The problem (as a potential developer for smartphones) I see with Symbian
OS
> (and Linux for that matter) is that you have way too many versions and
> distributions of it, and that's a problem Nokia solves buy setting a
tighter
> standard for it (and also license it to other hardware manufactures), with
just
> a couple of different packages of it (for different type of devices and
form
> factors).

Most of the code is completely portable between OS versions. UI's differ,
but even that can be negated to a large extent (watch my papers on the
subject).

I would not say that the situation is that much different for Palm OS or
Pocket PC. There are lots of differences between OS versions and licensee
versions to take care of with the Palm OS, and you must have a MBA in
economics to track the incarnations of Pocket PC. Programming these devices
have their pitfalls too.

--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com

Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:07:30 +0100 received comm from
"Sander van der Wal" on channel comp.sys.handhelds:

: A treo isn't that much different from a P800/P900. From what I have seen
: from PocketPC phone edition, its more like a Series 60. All voice-centric,
: IMHO.

I personally think it's a close call between a handheld (PDA) and a phone. I
wouldn't find it too wrong to call such devices as data centric with phone
capabilities.

: Possibly. Whether that will make any impact on the popularity of the OS...

I personally think it will become more popular with the tighter and clearer
Nokia control and complete packages, as it's good for the consumers to expect
the same GUI they already have learned (and as smart phones are much more rich
and complex compared to traditional phones, this becomes more important than it
used to be).

: In that case you would have Nokia, PalmSource and Microsoft as the three
: mayor phone OS vendors. Nobody cares.

I think you forget Linux and other OSS OS, even if they also (IMHO) suffer from
the same problem as the general Symbian OS (and general CE.NET for that matter)
when it comes to specific devices as smart phones.

I also think that both users, and even more so developers, will care if they get
a good standardized package (OS distribution + application set), and probably
not buy phones who doesn't give them their perceived value in that regard (odd
distros who hasn't any good market support is probably off less value to them).

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

"Martin Törnsten" wrote in message
news:ndin10t51t2he5j20j33bni1qjkm8bu5ah@4ax.com...
> Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:07:30 +0100 received comm
from
> "Sander van der Wal" on channel comp.sys.handhelds:

[knip]

> : Possibly. Whether that will make any impact on the popularity of the
OS...
>
> I personally think it will become more popular with the tighter and
clearer
> Nokia control and complete packages, as it's good for the consumers to
expect
> the same GUI they already have learned (and as smart phones are much more
rich
> and complex compared to traditional phones, this becomes more important
than it
> used to be).

Series 60 already has a unified UI. Icons are different, but using them is
identical across the different models (even for different vendors). Nokia
itself doesn't believe in a single UI, given the existsence of the Series
40, Series 60, Series 80 and Series 90 UI's. Which are all different.

The Series 60 UI is based on the list concept: everything is a list. Using
lists on a series 80 or series 90 device (and also on UIQ for that matter)
will look daft becasue there is so much more screen, which is also oriented
differently. You'll present the info differently. That in itself will
introduce multiple versions of the UI parts of a program even when there was
a completely unified UI API.

Think of it. You would not include the unneccessary code because it would
make your program bigger ==> more expensive to download over the air. Then
on devices with little memory to spare you would not include all functions,
as some functions cannot be used on a given device (consider touchscreen
devices versus non-touchscreendevices). etc.

> : In that case you would have Nokia, PalmSource and Microsoft as the three
> : mayor phone OS vendors. Nobody cares.
>
> I think you forget Linux and other OSS OS, even if they also (IMHO) suffer
from
> the same problem as the general Symbian OS (and general CE.NET for that
matter)
> when it comes to specific devices as smart phones.

No I didn't forget them. I don't think that these will become popular. The
licensing price of the OS isnt't the issue.

> I also think that both users, and even more so developers, will care if
they get
> a good standardized package (OS distribution + application set), and
probably
> not buy phones who doesn't give them their perceived value in that regard
(odd
> distros who hasn't any good market support is probably off less value to
them).

If a good standardized package was a good idea everybody would be driving
an Opel Astra or a Volkswagen Golf ;-)

--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com