The Feature Phone Is Dead: Long Live the 'Basic Smartphone' 243
zarmanto writes: "The numbers have been telling us for a while now that (formerly expensive) feature phones have been slowly displaced by more feature-rich, high-end smartphones. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the other end of the market is also receiving active encroachment by low-end smartphones. Now, ARM is suggesting that it's actually quite conceivable for OEMs to produce a 'smartphone' for as little as $20 — as long as you compromise a bit on those things which actually make it a smartphone in the first place. So, is this just more graying of the line between smartphones and feature phones? Or is this an indication that the feature phone (as we used to know it) is finally well-and-truly dead?"
WTF Is A "Feature Phone"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is this an indication that the feature phone (as we used to know it) is finally well-and-truly dead?"
Assuming we've heard of this term "feature phone" in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF Is "Dead"? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently "Dead" means "still close to half the phones being sold", aka "doesn't want to go in the cart!" Sure, they aren't gettin' better, but they're not dead yet.
"Feature Phone" [wikipedia.org] is a standard industry term - it means phones that do more than basic calling, and often have installable applications, but aren't based on the iPhone/Android touchscreen designs that have taken over the market and usually don't run general-purpose operating systems (except maybe Symbian.) Most of them either don't have web browsing, or have some crippled-HTML-substitute like WAP. They're usually smaller (remember when being the smallest phone you could get meant it was the fanciest and most expensive?), often have clamshell designs, sometimes keyboards, and actually fit in your pocket.
Re:WTF Is "Dead"? (Score:5, Funny)
it means phones that do more than basic calling, and often have installable applications, but aren't based on the iPhone/Android touchscreen designs
Ah! So Blackberrys then.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're a munchkin, sure. My 3GS (no case) fits neatly into the fob pocket of my Levis.
Re: (Score:3)
Symbian was one of the original "smart" phones, really. As it had installable native apps and such. It's not as fancy, but it was pretty much the definition back then.
The nokia feature phones ran S40 or similar, which could only run java apps, and were much more simplified in general. (all the integral apps had much less features, etc).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The term "feature phone" is not new... it's existed for almost as long as such phones have existed. It was invented to differentiate from just "cell phones", which are only capable of making or receiving calls and possibly text messages (although most phones with the latter capability are also feature phones). The feature phone is thus distinguished from the cell by having more "features".
The distinguishing characteristic of a feature phone in my experience is that you can run applications on it that
Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"? (Score:5, Informative)
They're much more popular in areas where computers are not much of an option like Africa. When I was there, you could stop at little wooden booths on the street and buy Feature phones and calling cards for a few dollars right along with various junk food and mystery meat on a stick. Due to the US cellular market being such a disaster no-one from the US's phone would work there unless you were an AT&T international plan. As a result everyone from the US would get off the plane and immediately buy one of these for $5 and enough minutes to call home.
Are they dead in the US? They were never a "thing" here to begin with. In Africa and other very rural areas with poor infrastructure, they are basically the only computer you can get and are hugely successful. People run full blown businesses off the things. So no, they aren't dead. Most people in these areas have a hard time coming up with the $5 for the phone. The average wage where I was at was $7/month. So the difference between $5 and a fancy $20 smart phone is 3 months salary. Don't get me wrong, these people had wealth (land, livestock, clothes, etc...) . It just wasn't easily transferable to US currency. They bartered a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Technically, a feature phone is a class of cell phone half-way between conventional smart phones and cellphones that only allowed dialing.
It's also a back-dated definition.
As for programming software for one - don't bother. There's so many variants that it's easier to aim for an Android or iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
As for programming software for one - don't bother. There's so many variants that it's easier to aim for an Android or iOS.
Also, there's no money there. The people that own feature phones have them because they either can't afford a smartphone, or they don't want to learn how to use one. Neither market segment is particularly prone to purchasing apps, and they're not as valuable to advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
i think you left off a third demographic "people who reject the need for being CONSTANTLY connected/tracked"
I make enough money for a smartphone, i know full well how to use one .. i just don't want to be constantly within nagging range of email or texts. And i definitely want nothing to do with social media, or stalking/snooping apps.
If there was a compelling reason for a smart phone and/or app (other than social media nonsense, or the aforementioned email/texts) i'd buy a smart phone. but right now, it'
Re: (Score:2)
did you really just suggest that?
by disabling those features i'd have a dumb phone -- with the addition of a browser, I suppose. An overpriced dumb phone.
Maybe my eyes are going bad, but browsing the web on a ~3 inch screen at a snails pace isn't worth much to me.
So, no thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for programming software for one - don't bother. There's so many variants that it's easier to aim for an Android or iOS.
That and the fact that the way one installed apps on a lot of them was locked down like the game consoles. BREW was tuned for established companies rather than amateurs or startups, the developer certificates were more expensive than the $99 per year iOS certificate, and if I remember correctly, one had to negotiate to get the app in each carrier's catalog, not a central "BREW catalog" or even a particular manufacturer's catalog.
Re: WTF Is A "Feature Phone"? (Score:4, Informative)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
"A feature phone is a mobile phone which is priced at the mid-range in a wireless provider's hardware lineup.[dubious – discuss] The term "feature phone" is a retronym. It is intended for customers who want a moderately priced and multipurpose phone without the expense of a high-end smartphone."
In my mind there's 3 general categories to mobile phones:
1. basic phone - Can make and receive phone calls. Example: Jitterbug phone
2. feature phone - Supports limited browsing of web, changing ringtones, very basic games or applications and makes/receives phone calls. Example: Nokia 6020.
3. smart phone - Runs an OS like Android or iOS with an application pool of thousands of applications to do similar functions as a PC along with making and receiving phone calls. Example: Samsung Galaxy S5
Re: (Score:2)
A "feature phone" is a phone that does more than just let you make calls, but is less not as powerful as a smartphone. I'd say that the key difference is that a smartphone lets you install apps, while on a featurephone, the only "apps" you get are the ones that came pre-loaded. You get what came with the phone and nothing else.
Also, everyone expects a "smartphone" to have a multitouch screen these days. In the early days of smartphones, some phones didn't have this (e.g. the classic Blackberry had no tou
CDMA2000 and BREW (Score:2)
Most feature phones let you install j2me apps.
Unless your feature phone was for a carrier that used Qualcomm's CDMA2000 stack, in which case you were usually limited to BREW apps in your carrier's store. Adding other apps required becoming a registered developer, which cost money.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, I didn't know about this. Now I wish I could edit my original post.
I just did a few Google searches. Results:
J2ME:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Micro_Edition [wikipedia.org]
Feature phone apps are big business in India (article from 2011):
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/feature-phone-apps-the-buzz-grew-louder-this-year/article2749955.ece [thehindubusinessline.com]
Facebook just spent $16 billion for a company that produced J2ME apps:
http://www.ictworks.org/2014/02/21/a-16-billion-dollar-future-in [ictworks.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That was my question too. I'm glad I'm not the only one. More pretentious bullsh*t from Gartner masquerading as useful information. Do you care? Does anyone care? Perhaps the manufacturers care, but surely they are well aware of their sales numbers and are capable of populating a simple spreadsheet as well as Gartner can.
Gartner: experts at telling you what you already know -- with charts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When I swear off a technology, it usually means it's about to take over and nobody is going to even be given the choice of not using it any more. You heard me right: everything from Windows to Blu-ray is my fault. At some point I'll figure out how to use this power for good.
Okay. We need you to embrace Windows 8, and Apple, and ditch open source. Oh, and for the love of Sanity Itself, please never abandon Slashdot Beta.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, we had phones. You dial the number and (if a cellphone), hit send. That was it.
Then, they started adding features. Some quite useful like speed dial and an address book. Then a todo list, alarm clock, and calendar. These features made it a feature phone. Then they added a mostly useless limited web browsing ability (mostly useless because you had a 1.5x1.5 inch screen and only a phone keypad to enter text). Then text messaging. In other words, what people who aren't in marketing call a dum
A feature phone doesn't need a data plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Slashdot's home country, and I've defined a feature phone as a phone that won't cause you to have to buy a data plan. The major U.S. CDMA2000 carriers (Verizon, Sprint, and Sprint-owned Boost and Virgin) refuse to on talk-and-text-only plans, and the U.S. GSM carrier with the best coverage (AT&T) will automatically add a data plan [slashdot.org] to a talk-and-text-only SIM if you insert it in a smartphone.
Good point. That's the reason I have an iPod Touch and a separate dumbphone (for which I pay ~$50/year).
Re: (Score:2)
i.e. old motorola four letter phones running p2k os
Re: (Score:2)
What makes a 3D TV "proper"?
Re: (Score:2)
Not using anaglyph glasses, maybe?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"? (Score:5, Funny)
What makes a 3D TV "proper"?
It only gets wholesome channels. It'll show Little House on the Prairie, but you'll get a blank screen if you try to watch Game of Thrones.
The only features ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... I require of my phone is that it make calls and sends/receive texts. My Tracfone costs me about $120 bucks a year. I'm not paying that much per MONTH for a smartphone for the added benefit of playing Candy Crush and watching cat videos on YouTube.
Re: (Score:3)
you don't want to waste gobs of money in order to join the facebook zombie army? sad.
Re:The only features ... (Score:5, Informative)
Many pre-paid providers don't even require you to have a data plan with a smartphone. You can live on voice/SMS alone, and get your data needs via WiFi.
Basically, it's entirely possible these days to enjoy both cheap service AND a smartphone. Though I won't begrudge anyone who truly does want a simple, voice-and-text-only phone. Have at 'em. But people who might like a smartphone but not the expensive service plan should not need to hold out anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Many pre-paid providers don't even require you to have a data plan with a smartphone.
Last time I checked, Virgin Mobile still required a data plan in order to activate an Android phone. To which U.S. prepaid carrier should I try switching? Ting?
Re: (Score:3)
> The only features I require of my phone is that
> it make calls and sends/receive texts.
Well la-di-da and good for you. You can go hang out with this guy [theonion.com] in the corner. I am more than willing to pay for all the things a modern smartphone does for me -- chief among them, maps with live traffic info, access to pretty much ANYTHING on the entire WWW at any time from any location, email, a bunch of USEFUL apps, and a very good camera. (Camera snobs please STFU; the camera is totally suitable for what I a
Re: (Score:3)
I can live without the voice calls.
I routinely engage in 5 minute phone calls that would take hours to resolve via text messaging.
I like email and text as much as anyone, but the speed and efficiency of two-way information transfer over either is far lower than a voice call -- even if the voice call does force both parties to engage simultaneously in realtime.
I prefer to do as much as I can via email etc myself, because i prefer the written record, and the asynchronous nature -- but to suggest a voice call
Re: (Score:2)
People calling my phone is an asynchronous interrupt which doesn't fit with my life and work style.
My phone needs to, in order of decreasing importance
1) Play Ingress.
I can live without the voice calls.
From the sound of it, its a safe bet you don't have any friends who would call you, you seem to be pretty antisocial.
Re:The only features ... (Score:5, Insightful)
>I would leave off the call feature - big waste of time for me.
Yup. I tend to avoid the whole call thing. People calling my phone is an asynchronous interrupt which doesn't fit with my life and work style.
The most ironic part of it is, it's the one piece they just can't seem to get right. Phone calls on a cell phone suck. Period. They're awful. I was at someone's house the other day and talked to someone on an old AT&T Bakelite phone over POTS and I was shocked at how beautiful the sound was. I have never, ever - not even once - had a cell phone call that came anywhere close to that. Cell phone call quality is the audio equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting: anyone who claims they can understand a damn thing is just lying.
Re: (Score:3)
It's been getting gradually worse, too.
Back when cell phones were analog, the call quality was generally better. Partially, it was because considerably larger bandwidth was allotted to each voice channel (at the cost of being able to handle fewer phones). Mostly, though, it was because in the analog system the call degraded by having increasing static, which is fairly easy to hear through to a point, and calls degrade now by entirely losing audio or adding chirps and skips.
Re: (Score:2)
Why even bother having a phone.
What other device can you carry around in your pocket that can do everything he lists?
For me, pretty much the same - texts, messaging, web browsing, and I'd also add playing audiobooks, music, and podcasts.
The voice calls aren't a feature I use often.
Phablet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, even if you're only interested in making/receiving calls with your phone, you have to admit that *in general*, it's much easier to manage contacts, call logs, sens SMS, etc when using a smartphone than with a dumb phone or a feature phone.
But is it worth paying hundreds of USD per year extra for the convenience? On a random U.S. prepaid carrier, dumbphone service starts at $7 per month, while smartphone service starts at $35 per month even if you leave cellular data turned off.
Not the phone (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the real desire has nothing to do with the phone itself. The telcos just want to move everyone they possibly can from merely-slightly-expensive voice plans to very-expensive data plans.
(Then call that "broadband internet access" for regulatory purposes.)
Re:Not the phone (Score:4, Informative)
When I think about it, I really don't need a data plan anymore. 95% of my data is coming over WiFi networks anyway. My phone is already set up for data at home, work, the coffee shop, several restaurants, and my kid's school. The only time I really need data is if I'm lost and I need a map.
On the other hand, I'm probably not all that typical. All I'm using for data is mostly email and weather. I don't play games on the phone and I'm not an app junkie. But even if I was, I think I could get by without an actual data plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
T-Mobile has a special plan (only available online or at Wal-Mart) that costs $30/month for unlimited data (5GB of 4G) but only 100 voice minutes. It's the closest thing I've found to a cheap data-only plan (at least a 4G one... 3G data-only plans can be even cheaper).
Re: (Score:2)
Get a Moto X or Moto G on Republic and use the $10/month unlimited voice/text plan and an offline map package (Google maps can easily save an entire metro area for offline use, if you want more than that there are paid apps with full continent maps and POI databases). If you find you want to use data at some point you can switch twice a month so turn on data and get it at a prorated $25/month for just as long as you use it.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I think you are like most people. You're usage profile matches my own and most people i know.
Re: (Score:2)
Republic uses the Sprint network which is absolutely awful in most of the country. Unfortunately for me if I want decent coverage I need AT&T and Verizon networks which are pretty much awful expensive. The reason my family doesn't use a smartphone is I refuse to pay the extortionist fees they bill. I worked in cost management for Alltel and Verizon Wireless and I'm painfully aware of how cheap it is for them to provide data service to us.
Re: (Score:3)
At least in my area, Sprint is great. They've also been doing a massive buildout over the last year, so you may want to check again. Republic Wireless also offers free roaming onto Verizon and local carriers. So you get coverage if you have WiFi, Sprint, or Verizon. Many people are even using the phones overseas - any place you have WiFi, you're connected. Unlike VoIP apps, you use the same incoming/outgoing number no matter how you're connected.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, Android phones on Tracfone are on Verizon and you can bring your own phone. You can get the ones they sell on Amazon for $50. Unfortunately the only not running ICS is heartbleed vulnerable (4.1.1).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have have a cell plan (non prepaid) with four phones. Three are feature phones along with one older non touch screen smart phone working as a feature phone (of sorts)
All four phones together are less than $60 per month (talk, text and some data). That is $15 per month per phone. Hard to beat. $180 per year per phone. I know people who pay more than that in a single month with ~one~ smart phone...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm currently on Republic Wireless $10/month plan (unlimited voice and text/MMS, WiFi data only). I always have WiFi available; our cable company has even lined all the major highways with access points. All major retailers (and even some minor retailers) have free WiFi (via AT&T). The nice thing is that Republic Wireless lets you switch the plan from the phone with immediate activation twice a month. So if I need data, I can turn it on, and it's prorated on a daily basis.
So if you have four smartphones
Re:Not the phone (Score:4, Insightful)
"Data plans are no longer expensive"
Compared to voice they are. In *your very own example*, voice and text are unlimited while data is throttled.
Re: (Score:2)
What's so hard about 5GB at full bandwidth and whatever else at reduced bandwidth? A limit implies that they will cut you off; they don't. It's unlimited.
Unmetered != unlimited (Score:3)
I understood what was meant: "A subscriber on this carrier is entitled to 5 GB of fast data and unmetered slow data in each month."
But I think BitZtream might be playing word games as a way to remind you that nothing is truly "unlimited". No computer is Turing complete because memory is bounded; at best they're linear bounded automata. There is no way to physically transfer "unlimited" information to a computer, even with a 10 Gbps Ethernet drop. And cutting a subscriber's speed to, say, 64 kbps is a sub
Re: (Score:2)
I understood what was meant: "A subscriber on this carrier is entitled to 5 GB of fast data and unmetered slow data in each month."
But I think BitZtream might be playing word games as a way to remind you that nothing is truly "unlimited". No computer is Turing complete because memory is bounded; at best they're linear bounded automata. There is no way to physically transfer "unlimited" information to a computer, even with a 10 Gbps Ethernet drop. And cutting a subscriber's speed to, say, 64 kbps is a substantial limit on how much the subscriber can transfer during a month. Assume 10 payload bits per byte to account for TCP/IP overhead, then 64×86400×30÷10÷1000000 = 16.5 GB if the subscriber leaves the phone running 24/7 after the fast data expires.
I assume that people that have this issue have never had a smartphone, or home internet connection, or perhaps they're a bit special. The term 'unlimited' in the context of cell data and internet means 'unlimited usage' not 'a trillion quadrillion bits per second'. You can have unlimited dial-up internet at 52Kb/s or unlimited internet over fiber at 10Gb/s. The data rate is not a factor in the terminology.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll do you one better. My dumbphone costs me $100 US a year for voice and messages (I turn text messages off, though -- the phone's too small to type on with my fat thumbs), and any money I don't spend on calls gets rolled over to the next year. The phone doesn't use data, and I don't need it to. Email and Internet's what my laptop is for. Why would I want to spend $35 each month when what I've got now is more than I need? Oh, and that $35 is just the starting point. After you add state and federal fees, i
Re: (Score:2)
I'll do you one better. My dumbphone costs me $100 US a year for voice and messages (I turn text messages off, though -- the phone's too small to type on with my fat thumbs), and any money I don't spend on calls gets rolled over to the next year. The phone doesn't use data, and I don't need it to. Email and Internet's what my laptop is for. Why would I want to spend $35 each month when what I've got now is more than I need? Oh, and that $35 is just the starting point. After you add state and federal fees, it's more like $50 a month.
It's $25/month (voice/text/data on 3G and WiFi), and the taxes and fees are about $3, depending on the state and locality. If you're replacing a landline, they have a $5/month plan that's WiFi only. The advantage of course is that you can take it with you anywhere you have WiFi, and from the phone you can switch to the $10, $25 or $40 plan instantly on a daily prorated basis. So that's about the same annual cost after taxes and fees, but you get a smartphone and all the functionality that comes with that.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how they list "unlimited wifi" as a feature of all their plans. XD
Too bad they only seem to support two phones, and both are Moto and running late-model android versions. :P
Re: (Score:2)
I like how they list "unlimited wifi" as a feature of all their plans. XD
Too bad they only seem to support two phones, and both are Moto and running late-model android versions. :P
They "only" offer two current generation, less than 6-month old, Motorola phones: the Moto G and Moto X, both highly rated. "Late-model android versions" means the current version, which is Kitkat (Android 4.4.2). Who's running a new version?
Re: (Score:2)
I like how they list "unlimited wifi" as a feature of all their plans. XD
Usually that refers to the carriers fixed hotspots around town that one can pay by the hour or whatnot for access. If you have a cell package with them, use of the hotspots does not cost extra nor on a timer.
Personally I don't spend much time in McDonalds and the like, let alone spending time there on the Internet, but for people who are this feature is aimed at them.
Of course any access point that is open or you have access to is always available.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Moto X basically never drops a call, they made the default to be very aggressive towards preferring CDMA if they detect any potential disruption on WiFi (unless you're in an area where you know you have poor Sprint coverage, then you can set that AP to never auto handoff). It's basically been completely invisible to my wife that she's using WiFi for voice calls.
Synching calendars and contacts well (Score:2)
That's all I ask. Even on the crap Android 2.2 phone that was my original smartphone, being able to easily manage my calendars and contacts was HUGE. It was such a step up over the feature phones I'd previously had...
I know the world is all about apps - but I could live with a basic smartphone that just did those two things (on top of the phone things - calling and SMS/MMS of course). Especially since I find my iPad Mini to be the perfect size for most other mobile tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>Hey, you know what 'feature phone' means! Care to share?
Ringtones. For a fee.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a phone that does more than just calls+texts, but isn't quite an all-up smartphone. The category is fairly ill defined. Most of Nokia's S40 devices (pre-Asha anyway) would be considered feature phones today.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a feature phone with more capability than the first gen iphone, what would you add to it to make it a smart phone?
Re: (Score:2)
and my dog!
Re: (Score:2)
RAAWWRRR...
I don't need my dog...
Incomplete Analysis (Score:2, Insightful)
The analysis is ignoring everyone who can't use a smartphone because of environmental factors (feature phones are much more resilient to dust, sand, impacts/falls, moisure, etc.) or techophobia (it's difficult to teach people a new UI, especially a non-tactile one, beyond a certain age).
Feature phones will continue to be with us for a long time to come.
No standard meaning of smartphone (Score:2)
How is this news? (Score:2)
I have a year and half old LG that I paid 45$ for that does most of the things I want and has a real keyboard. I bought a new battery for it on it's anniversary but I haven't had the urge to spend any more on a phone.
It's All About The Data Plan (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking as someone the rest of you might consider a Luddite because I have a feature phone (it's a Samsung with a touchscreen, I don't know the model), the devil's in the details of what the carriers require of you to connect the phone to their network.
Verizon requires you to have a data plan to even use (e.g.) an iPhone. Even if you never use the data service. If Verizon considers your phone a "Smart Phone", they require you to have and pay for a data plan to use it. My understanding is that the other carriers have the same policy. The people that are buying these phones are paying these monthly fees.
If you knew me, you'd know I'm not really a Luddite. For example, when I play my guitar, I don't play with a tube amp, but use a device that models a tube amp that is then plugged directly into a P.A. I pay for said device (a Line 6 HD 500) with the money I save by not paying for a data plan. I prefer to say I'm frugal.
Also, what others have noted: It's Gartner. Seriously?
Re: (Score:3)
Its fairly easy to have them mail you a simcard and take you off the data plan. Tell them you lost your phone and have some simple phone that doesn't use data, check their website for models they have. Call them up, have them mail it to you, put it in yourself, no smart phone pricing and you can still use whatever android or iOS device you want.
but use a device that models a tube amp that is then plugged directly into a P.A
That just makes you a wanna-be. You're trying to pretend you understand why a tube amp is used ... and then not using it and trying to synthesis it. You've been
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Verizon requires you to have a data plan to even use (e.g.) an iPhone. Even if you never use the data service. If Verizon considers your phone a "Smart Phone", they require you to have and pay for a data plan to use it. My understanding is that the other carriers have the same policy. The people that are buying these phones are paying these monthly fees.
The environment is more complicated since the last time you looked into cell phone plans. I don't blame you, because you have better things to do, but you might be able to save money with a smartphone, now.
There's decent activity in Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO), [howardforums.com] companies that rent capacity on the carriers' networks. Most of them have conventional plans that work with any phone from that carrier. If your usage falls into particular patterns, those plans can be cheaper than the carriers' own plans
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
We've stuck with Verizon because they still have a signal in places nobody else does. But, just as you noted about the data plans, even this is beginning to change as people start putting up cells out in the country. So, as our contract end gets near, I will take your advice and look elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Ting (ting.com, a CDMA MVNO) is $6 per month per phone. If you use no minutes, no text, no data, then $6 is all you pay.
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually been looking at going that way for awhile. I currently have a smartphone and frankly, it's just one big distraction. Go out to eat? Everyone's on their phones. Go to the movies? Fuck me if everyone else in the theater can't seem to actually watch the movie rather than check and text on their phones. Driving cars? Oh, let's fucking respond to emails while driving.
And I'm just as guilty of it as everyone else (except for the driving part, I decided against car ownership in Los Angeles).
La
Re: (Score:2)
We actually still have a land line - mostly because the math worked us towards DSL and it's really cheap with truly unlimited minutes.
I am impressed with no car in L.A. - I've only heard that the options there aren't great. I certainly see people texting. OTOH, I lived in NJ for many years and used to see people reading the newspaper, shaving, or putting on makeup while flying down the Garden State Parkway at 75 mph...
Even with our dumb phones, we forbade texting at the dinner table with two teenagers. With
Welll..... (Score:2)
And no, the store doesn't get to decide what to carry. Corporate does; which is why you get insane things like stores in the Washing D.C metro area carrying all phones with cameras when 50% of the working population (a fluke of the W.D.C area) isn't allowed to have a camera (let alone a camera phone) at their desk at work.
So Corporate has decided
Battery life (Score:3)
.
The smartphone's biggest detriment to me is all the data that resides on it, and how much the apps track your every move.
Re: (Score:2)
And battery life suffers. (Score:3)
The two problems remain (Score:3)
The second issue is more serious: $40 per month soaking for the 'data plan', for a phone that will mostly remain off during working hours per policy.
Re: (Score:2)
I have human-sized shirt pockets, and my Galaxy S4 fits perfectly, as would any of the iPhones.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. I was just looking at phones the other day. SIII mini is pretty damned small, and relatively inexpensive, too.
Best smart phone ... (Score:2)
Can already buy smart phones for cheap (Score:2)
Most phone sellers will sell a few candy bar phones bel
Terminology (Score:2)
Rich(er) than you ludite here (Score:2)
I have old Nokia cellphone (it only calls and texts), Galaxy Note WiFi tablet and old 3G USB cell modem. If I need portable data I use cell modem with my laptop, I then have an option to use laptop as a WiFi hotspot and connect to it. Free WiFi is everywhere, so I rarely have to use modem.
Re: (Score:2)
Not cheap enough to me. (Score:2)
Since I rarely use the mobile phones (don't even own one) and rarely go out (always use Internet indoor), it would be nice to have a backup Internet connection for my computers. I just don't want to pay a lot for something I would use rarely (a few times per year) and do want fast speeds and very high caps (unlimited preferred). Hence why I still use dial-up for $9.95 per month that has e-mails, usenet (binaries too), plenty of POPs, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
This story will now be flooded by the "I am so retro-cool because I own a Nokia 1100 with a 1-incg monochrome LCD and it does all I ever need it to do" crowd.
Puh-LEEZ.
You're not cool unless you own a bag phone like this one. [wikipedia.org]
... Which I do, thankyouverymuch. [insert cocky, derisive hipster laugh]
Re: (Score:3)
This story will now be flooded by the "I am so retro-cool because I own a Nokia 1100 with a 1-incg monochrome LCD and it does all I ever need it to do" crowd.
Nah .. I'm so retro that I own a Razr .. and that my typical yearly bill is about $200 max.
Given that I sit in front of multiple computers for most of the day I see no need to carry the internet in my pocket.