>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
General
> Why are smartphones called smartphones?
Bookmark topic
On 2010-11-10 22:01:59, hihihans wrote:
Reading this makes me happy. I'm not the only one.
There is nothing smart about having to find an app for almost everything that a dumb-feature SE can out of the box.
So true. And the apps you do find to give you that functionality, is always on a much lower quality than the SE feature phone version. I remember looking for a simple stop-watch for my N82.
Anyway, I know there are many interesting apps for Android, because developers love Android development much more than J2ME and Symbian development. But must apps on Market are made by amateurs like myself, just like most J2ME apps on Getjar.com are.
Tsepz_GP: No, a SE feature phone can't do the stuff in such detail as you describe, but it can show widgets on the standby screen, and you can download more widgets too.
I said the biggest reason to get a smartphone is webbrowsing, not the only reason.
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:17:55
Edit :
Quote
Symbian S60v5 does leave much to be desired i must say, it got so annoying to deal with on my 5800.
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:19:36
Edit :
Quote
Yes,my brother tried a Nokia 5230 his first ever touch screen phone & wanted to throw it against the wall. That says alot about Symbian if it is not user friendly right out of the box then it will fail
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:21:39
Edit :
Quote
On 2010-11-10 22:19:36, Tsepz_GP wrote:
Symbian S60v5 does leave much to be desired i must say, it got so annoying to deal with on my 5800.
My kidbrother recently looked at Android for the first time. Then he called me and complained how stupid it was. He said Google hadn't made an Operating System. It was just a "Java System" he called it.
"Where the hell is the file-explorer?" he asked.
"I can't port anything to Android because they use Java".
I found Android very intriguing from the very first info I got on it, long time before the first device was ready. And I've followed development of the platform. But I can't deny that SE feature phones are just much more appealing to me.
Too many threads about poor battery on those smartphones, and missing features people had in the SE feature phone. What good is an amazing media player, when the battery is only good for a few hours of media-player time? I'd rather have a display like in Elm and good battery time, than a bright OLED screen with 1 days battery time.
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:26:59
Edit :
Quote
I have to agree that probably one of the biggest reason for getting a smartphone is web browsing. It is just a pain if I will try to browse the web in such a small screen as the Elm's.
I am still using a smart phone for that very purpose. There are also some smart phone functionality that my Elm cannot do. I read e-books a lot, and there is no MS Reader or other e-book reader available in the feature phones than can offer the functionality that exists in a smartphone like hyper linking of footnotes among others where I can see the reference in a touch of the the footnote in the text I am reading.
But I am using my feature phone as my main phone for calls and texts and my smartphone as my pda-phone for keeping track of my appointments, for occasional web browsing, e-book reading and others.
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:27:14
Edit :
Quote
So we can kick symbian out of the "smart" department?
J2me apps are most of the time crap indeed.
The question why they are named Smart remains. ps. That car is only smart in parking
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:27:19
Edit :
Quote
But the question still remains why can't Android or various versions of Android send files over BT?? It seems such a handicap that you have to use apps to make it work
Why was it like this in the first place?? I myself hardly ever use BT but still it seems daft
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:30:42
Edit :
Quote
On 2010-11-10 22:27:14, jojosiscar wrote:
There are also some smart phone functionality that my Elm cannot do. I read e-books a lot, and there is no MS Reader or other e-book reader available in the feature phones than can offer the functionality that exists in a smartphone like hyper linking of footnotes among others where I can see the reference in a touch of the the footnote in the text I am reading.
It's important to note here, that the Elm is very capable of doing what you describe there. But you may be right that no developer has developed such an app. But it doesn't require a smartphone to read eBooks.
On 2010-11-10 22:27:14, jojosiscar wrote:
But I am using my feature phone as my main phone for calls and texts and my smartphone as my pda-phone for keeping track of my appointments, for occasional web browsing, e-book reading and others.
Aah, so other people
do also walk around with 2 phones for the same reasons I do/did.
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:32:27
Edit :
Quote
On 2010-11-10 22:30:42, Bonovox wrote:
But the question still remains why can't Android or various versions of Android send files over BT?? It seems such a handicap that you have to use apps to make it work
Why was it like this in the first place?? I myself hardly ever use BT but still it seems daft
I use it a lot. Having various apps on my memory card I can just send to people via bluetooth, is so nice!
My Aino can even send jar files by MMS! Groovy! Perfect! Well done SE!
But my Vivaz Pro won't even let me send a MIDI file via bluetooth. For some reason the file is suddenly "protected". Wtf?! Smartphone you say? I'd say Stupidphone.
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:35:31
Edit :
Quote
On 2010-11-10 22:19:36, Tsepz_GP wrote:
Symbian S60v5 does leave much to be desired i must say, it got so annoying to deal with on my 5800.
My kidbrother recently looked at Android for the first time. Then he called me and complained how stupid it was. He said Google hadn't made an Operating System. It was just a "Java System" he called it.
"Where the hell is the file-explorer?" he asked.
"I can't port anything to Android because they use Java".
I found Android very intriguing from the very first info I got on it, long time before the first device was ready. And I've followed development of the platform. But I can't deny that SE feature phones are just much more appealing to me.
Too many threads about poor battery on those smartphones, and missing features people had in the SE feature phone. What good is an amazing media player, when the battery is only good for a few hours of media-player time? I'd rather have a display like in Elm and good battery time, than a bright OLED screen with 1 days battery time.
Stick to dumbphones then
. What makes smartphones smart is that they are like mini PCs, they are PDAs with a phone functionality.
--
Posted: 2010-11-10 22:39:02
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
