Touch Screens on Smart PhonesbluedeerJune 27 2007, 23:40:28 UTC
I think a lot of people underestimate the usefulness of a touch screen on a phone. I've owned a Treo, I've owned a PPC6600 and I've owned a regular Cellphone. Navigating a Cellphone's basic menu with a D-Pad is very simple, not too complex and pretty straightforward. But when you begin adding features like the ability to add a ton of programs, especially those that may need a keyboard, a touch screen is a MUST. I think the Motorola Q is an incredibly useless device. Over half of the unit is taken up by keyboard, and it has the /SAME/ OS as a Treo 700, and NO touch screen. I use my Treo a lot, and the touch screen is indispensible.
Compare that to my PPC6600, which was /all/ touch screen and had a slide-out keyboard, and you had an outstanding device. It had a huge screen, all of which could be taken up by the phone app, you could easily select your programs, and it wasn't taken up by an always-out keyboard. The only downside to the 6600 was that it used a version of Windows Mobile that they didn't want to upgrade even though it could, its hardware could use 3g even though they didn't want to upgrade it, but it could be expanded by cheap and easily available SD cards. You can get 8GB SD cards now, and a lot of phones have a dedicated MP3 player function as a part of them (Most Windows Mobile phones can run a gamut of MP3 apps if it doesn't have them built-in already and they do just fine) plus, it's removable so you don't have to juggle around your music, videos and photos.
I think a touch screen is really an incredibly indispensible option, as well as removable storage media. The industry seems to have this unusual idea of what people need or want, and in my opinion, certain features of a phone are rock-solid necessary. The ability to easily dial out a number or contacts. The ability to easily access your phone's features, and the best sound and connectivity you can get. Everything else is an afterthought regardless, but the more afterthoughts you add, the more afterthoughts you need in order to properly support them.
Add the ability to add your own software to your device, and you need an improved method of accessing it. Include a large screen, and a touch screen is nearly a no-brainer. Add the ability to text, type, or compose emails, and a keyboard becomes an easier solution which is unfortunately usually horribly implemented. Compare the iPhone to the PPC6600, 6700, and the new 6800 (Which I think is probably the best smartphone out there, with a slide-out keyboard, a very large screen, and the ability to add expanded media cards as well) and it comes up short, especially considering that IIRC, you can't add your own tailored software to the iPhone yet. Will I get an iPhone? No. I will be spending my $500 on a PPC6800 from Sprint.
Re: Touch Screens on Smart PhonestugrikJune 28 2007, 00:04:30 UTC
When it comes to WM, keep in mind that the PPD and Smartphone editions have two different core UI design targets. If you're used to one you'll most likely hate the other.
I find the Q easier to use than the PPC full-screeners because I want the bias of my smartphone to be "phone" more than "PDA". When it comes to dialing, answering, quick-contact-lookup and call management and one-handed use (like a cell), it rules. Faster, more optimized.
But if you want actual WM apps or more involved bits and pieces? Yup, it blows. That's what the PPC editions are for, which is why the split the codebase's front end like that.
My biggest issue with potentially moving to the iPhone is that I'm a Smartphone-edition WM user. It makes me worry about the touchscreen issues when using the phone more like a phone. However, I believe Apple's doing things the right way. The accel-sensor lock when you hold it up to your head is a big thing. So is the "finger, not stylus" design requirement that hovers touched-info *atop* your finger's size, as well as makes predictive use of touch-area sizing. It might actually get a touchscreen-avoidant person like me (or most Crackberry users) to stop hating touchscreens.
Re: Touch Screens on Smart PhoneschipotleJune 28 2007, 00:25:07 UTC
Tugrik beat me to more or less the same observation I'd have made -- I think while the iPhone and the PPC6800 are both in the "smart phone" category, the iPhone is placing more of an emphasis on the phone part and the PPC6800 is placing more of an emphasis on the "Windows computer in your pocket" aspect.
I think Apple's whole approach really hinges on whether people will look at the iPhone as being a great video iPod with some really well-designed smart phone capabilities, or as a snazzy smart phone that happens to be an audio/video player. The first approach (possibly) justifies the high price if customers look at it as "the amount I'd have spent on the iPod plus the amount I'd have spent on a separate phone"; judged solely on its merits as a PDA, though, the iPhone gets lapped by several competitors. (I hadn't seen the 6800, but I'm pretty sure I've seen one of its earlier relatives, and liked it.)
Compare that to my PPC6600, which was /all/ touch screen and had a slide-out keyboard, and you had an outstanding device. It had a huge screen, all of which could be taken up by the phone app, you could easily select your programs, and it wasn't taken up by an always-out keyboard. The only downside to the 6600 was that it used a version of Windows Mobile that they didn't want to upgrade even though it could, its hardware could use 3g even though they didn't want to upgrade it, but it could be expanded by cheap and easily available SD cards. You can get 8GB SD cards now, and a lot of phones have a dedicated MP3 player function as a part of them (Most Windows Mobile phones can run a gamut of MP3 apps if it doesn't have them built-in already and they do just fine) plus, it's removable so you don't have to juggle around your music, videos and photos.
I think a touch screen is really an incredibly indispensible option, as well as removable storage media. The industry seems to have this unusual idea of what people need or want, and in my opinion, certain features of a phone are rock-solid necessary. The ability to easily dial out a number or contacts. The ability to easily access your phone's features, and the best sound and connectivity you can get. Everything else is an afterthought regardless, but the more afterthoughts you add, the more afterthoughts you need in order to properly support them.
Add the ability to add your own software to your device, and you need an improved method of accessing it. Include a large screen, and a touch screen is nearly a no-brainer. Add the ability to text, type, or compose emails, and a keyboard becomes an easier solution which is unfortunately usually horribly implemented. Compare the iPhone to the PPC6600, 6700, and the new 6800 (Which I think is probably the best smartphone out there, with a slide-out keyboard, a very large screen, and the ability to add expanded media cards as well) and it comes up short, especially considering that IIRC, you can't add your own tailored software to the iPhone yet. Will I get an iPhone? No. I will be spending my $500 on a PPC6800 from Sprint.
Reply
I find the Q easier to use than the PPC full-screeners because I want the bias of my smartphone to be "phone" more than "PDA". When it comes to dialing, answering, quick-contact-lookup and call management and one-handed use (like a cell), it rules. Faster, more optimized.
But if you want actual WM apps or more involved bits and pieces? Yup, it blows. That's what the PPC editions are for, which is why the split the codebase's front end like that.
My biggest issue with potentially moving to the iPhone is that I'm a Smartphone-edition WM user. It makes me worry about the touchscreen issues when using the phone more like a phone. However, I believe Apple's doing things the right way. The accel-sensor lock when you hold it up to your head is a big thing. So is the "finger, not stylus" design requirement that hovers touched-info *atop* your finger's size, as well as makes predictive use of touch-area sizing. It might actually get a touchscreen-avoidant person like me (or most Crackberry users) to stop hating touchscreens.
Death to the stylus!
Reply
I think Apple's whole approach really hinges on whether people will look at the iPhone as being a great video iPod with some really well-designed smart phone capabilities, or as a snazzy smart phone that happens to be an audio/video player. The first approach (possibly) justifies the high price if customers look at it as "the amount I'd have spent on the iPod plus the amount I'd have spent on a separate phone"; judged solely on its merits as a PDA, though, the iPhone gets lapped by several competitors. (I hadn't seen the 6800, but I'm pretty sure I've seen one of its earlier relatives, and liked it.)
Reply
Leave a comment