News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > Sony Ericsson / Sony > General > Have Sony Ericsson finally taken the lead in global mobile phone solutions? Bookmark topic


@mib

Quote:

"to me at least, it is obvious that if a person is looking at K750 or a s60 or other high end product, they will be wanting something more than basic phone features."

That is the perfect example of an assumption. You are assuming that only a smartphone can provide those extras people want. I bought the k700i 6 months ago because I couldn't find a suitable smartphone (there still aren't any I'm going to rush out and buy). The Nokia s60 phones were just a little short of what I want in a smartphone.

The point is, I didn't buy a smartphone because SE provided a non-smartphone handset more suitable to my needs. And before you assume I use it for business, other than email and calls I use it for games (75 to choose from), listening to music (aac - 15 tracks) and radio, photography, family barbies. I also use it to test xhtml sites I'm creating, data transfer (used like a usb drive), web browsing (xhtml browsers can display html pages as well a many pda microbrowsers), the list goes on. The phone also functions as a remote control for my PC, so when lying in bed I can watch dvd's or listen to music without getting up! As I move form my home to my office, the phone (using fma) picks up each bt connection, and I can send sms, make calls etc from the pc, through the phone. When out and about with my lappie, the phone becomes my wirelss modem (okay dialup speeds only but I get coverage where-ever I can make calls).

I don't ever sit there going damn I wish I could install that sis file.

Now if you want to compare this with the K750, then add memory expansion, 2MP cam with auto focus, and the rca adapter audio lead, and it becomes almost the perfect phone (for my purpose).

I'm just as technically capable as anyone on this board so don't try and tell me you have some sort of authority about what constitutes a good phone technically. I've wanted a pda in my phone since the P800's, but regular handsets are way better value and I just won't buy a smartphone untill I don't have to sacrifice what my phone is used for. The biggest sacrifice is the size of the phone, which is a VERY BIG point in most people's decision. The only smartphones powerful enough and with the same features as K750 for example, are MASSIVE or don't have touch screens (MY definition of smartphone implicitly involves a touchscreen. If you cannot enter text on a qwerty keyboard, then there is no point in it even being called a smartphone)

I own my own network and computer repair business. I work on operating systems and hardware all day. I love digging down in to systems and making them do things no one else can. I love smartphones just as much as you claim you (and techies) do. But sorry I don't consider smartphones the only handsets capable of exciting the technically orientated. I'm shaking in my seat from excitement over the w800i, and it's no smartphone.

The group of people who are ardent techno junkies who have to have a smartphone more than any other phone feature are a small select group, whose size I don't expect would unduly influence the argument of mobile phone solutions that this thread is about.
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 00:39:12
Edit : Quote


Nokia rules! This message was posted from a Nokia 7650
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 01:52:23
Edit : Quote


@scotsboyuk

Quote:
I don't expect a wide-range of people to be buying a smartphone, that is precisely what I have been saying for goodness knows how many pages now!


I can't quite see why u keep harping on this point. I hv always been talking about high-end segment. Let me ask you what is the percentage of high-end to overall phone market (in volume). Would a ballpark figure of 20% be reasonable? Smartphone volume overall is 6-8%. This percentage share will increase in the years to come. I'll let you do the sum.

For the nth times, it doesnt matter whether people really use (or want ) smartphone features, the fact is that smartphone is sucking up volume in the high-end segment. So if u throw in a K750 to compete in this high-end, there may be a chance it get steam-rolled over.

At this moment I believe SE dont hv any phone to compete with the likes of thumb-based smartphone like s60, mpx220 or Xphone2. Well, maybe not entirely as SE has S700. But then again S700 is selling too little to be considered a serious challenger.

When K750 comes out, whether SE will target K750 to get a slice of this segment is left to be seen.


Quote:
The S700 was aimed at a particular market, a high spending one. The likes of the 6600 are increasingly aimed at a wide ranging market, thus prompting the question of whether people are buying such phones because they actually want their smartphone capabilities or whether they simply want their more base features.


I think everyone would agree that the design of 6600 is nothing to shout about. In fact, it is not too pleasing at all with its size, thickness and weight. These factors would put people off buying at the first instance if they were just, I quote "looking for basic features" unquote. And yet 6600 sold in the millions. Can you explain that? (pls don't use the rhetoric "..because it is a Nokia" )


Quote:
Customers have come to identify such features as being 'necessary', hence they buy mobiles, which have them. An S60 smartphone may have these 'necessary' features, but it also has smartphone features. However, the average customer, as with any purchase, adopts a form of blindness to such things. They simply do not bother to notice the more advanced features in a practical sense.


I think you should leave this hypothesis to the psychologists (unless of course u r a qualify one). I think most psychologist wont agree with you because u r going against human behaviour: 1) u r assuming people r not interested in finding out more of what they r buying and 2) u r assuming that people r not greedy (just go to buffet dinner and u will see how wrong u r)

Let's just stick to fact we know ==>i.e. smartphone sales is growing faster than the rest of market. So if SE dont hv a viable smartphone, then it is losing out in this HIGH END segment. As simple as that.

I just dont see why u want to continuosly dispute this fact.

[ This Message was edited by: mib1800 on 2005-03-23 07:23 ]
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 03:59:46
Edit : Quote


@max_wedge

I'm so glad to hear that u can exploit your K700 to the fullest. Person with your capability can take this one step further if u use a smartphone. Yes, K700 can do some nifty stuff but it is not expandable. If u want it to do more than what the stock K700 offered, then u r out of luck. With a smartphone u r not limited. If u dont like the built-in calendar u can buy (or "get") a new one. You can hv full-screen landscape movie or schedule programs to run in background.

You hv to widen your scope of what a smartphone is. Smartphone with a touchscreen and bulky are small proportion of overall. These are only for business people needing PC-powered devices. To define smartphone as only this type of devices is not correct. I can see that u most probably get this impression from the SE P*** series.

Many manufacturers realised this and hv been busy coming up with thumb-based small form-factor devices such as Series60 / WM / Linux.


--
Posted: 2005-03-23 04:44:15
Edit : Quote


@mib you are completely and utterly wrong. I know exactly what a smartphone is and it's capabilities. I own Pocket PC's, and have played with Nokia's and P800's extensively. I know exactly what the technology can do.

What I am trying to say is that YOU think that smartphone features (which really only amounts to the ability to install thirdparty software) are what defines a high end phone, what I am saying is that to not have a high end phone in the line-up doesn't mean squat regarding leading phones. I used my K700 examples to show you that I can still enjoy the techiness of my phone without resorting to smartphones, that are either too big or too clumsy to input efficiently.

My reasons for wanting a smartphone with touchscreen are just as valid, and more representative, of the average user: For example: typing in pocket word or spreadsheet apps etc, web site addresses, emails, texting.

You admitted yourself that smartphones will become predominant, that means that currently they are not. Come back with your argument when the new SE smartphone is released, or in two years time when 3G is endemic. The situation will be completely different.

For now, SE phones are as good as any, for the reasons we've been arguing. Now I understand scotsboyuk's frustration, you don't read our posts properly, just fire off your preconvieved ideas before reading it properly.

I've worked in the IT industry for 10 years. I can build linux or windows boxes, I can setup networks in my sleep. I am highly in demand because of my ability to get on top of problems that other techs haven't been able to fix. I'll make technology do things most techs give up on. I've been watching the smartphone development for years (and I mean years) and believe me they are not quite ready for me to combine with my phone.

I believe in mobile convergence (which is partly why I support SE - they have pioneered many things like bt and cams), and I will buy a smartphone as soon as the convergence is really there (like I keep saying, I don't think it is very far away).

But then to understand my hesitant in taking up smartphones, to me a computer is the real power house and that's what I want on my phone, and even the most powerfull PDA's are only poncy little machines so why would I buy a phone with one. Smartphones don't come anywhere near being as powerful as they need to be before I'll really make an effort to aquire and use one. Even my pda's are toys, as far as mobility goes I'd rather pair my SE with one of those tiny Viao computers, for the time being.

So people like you who insist smartphones are the best because you can install software on them, just generate laughs from people who really understand technology
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 06:40:53
Edit : Quote


and by the way, there is a software platform on all regular phones. It's called JAVA, and if developers supported it more, (since it is a true cross platform virtual machine), instead of writing software for niche market devices (different software for each flabour - windows, uiq, s60 etc -) then even the expandability of smartphones would no longer be a unique selling point.

I admit a full smartphone is more powerfull an environment for developers than JAVA, but JAVA is what everyone has.

You example, calanders, is in my opinion a pretty crap form of expandibility. (If the inbuilt calander doesn't work the way you want it so what.) VNC, Telnet, http browsers, email clients, picture albums, are some better examples of choice, and these can be had with Java.

--
Posted: 2005-03-23 07:20:08
Edit : Quote


@max_wedge

Quote: What I am trying to say is that YOU think that smartphone features (which really only amounts to the ability to install thirdparty software) are what defines a high end phone


Pls quote me on where I hv said this . Maybe u should be the one who should wear glasses and learn to read properly.

Quote:
You admitted yourself that smartphones will become predominant, that means that currently they are not. Come back with your argument when the new SE smartphone is released, or in two years time when 3G is endemic. The situation will be completely different.


Are we debating whether SE is leading the mobile solution NOW or in the FUTURE? Maybe this thread pre-mature by 2 years. :laugh:

edit: btw: forgot to ask. Are u implying in your statement that in the future smartphone will rule? if affirmative, then u r giving credence to my points and negate scotsboyuk's.

Quote:
I've worked in the IT industry for 10 years. I can build linux or windows boxes, I can setup networks in my sleep. I am highly in demand because of my ability to get on top of problems that other techs haven't been able to fix. I'll make technology do things most techs give up on. I've been watching the smartphone development for years (and I mean years) and believe me they are not quite ready for me to combine with my phone.

Maybe u hv too high expectation. Anyway this is your own preferences on what a smartphone should be. Is there any relevance here to this debate?

Quote:
So people like you who insist smartphones are the best because you can install software on them, just generate laughs from people who really understand technology


Did anyone say "smartphones are the best because you can install software..."? Anyone? Anyone?. Maybe u should be laughing at yourself because u r the only one who brought out this point.



[ This Message was edited by: mib1800 on 2005-03-23 07:43 ]
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 07:47:27
Edit : Quote


mib, you keep going on about the expandability of smartphones and how much more you can do with them compared to regular phones.

so I assumed this was your point. What is your point?

Regarding the two years, this shows your bias, and your inability to LISTEN to what I am saying. What I am saying is that untill two years have passed, you can't use the argument that all smartphones are high end and therefore SE are not leading the market.

THIS IS OUR WHOLE POINT my friend, that SE DON'T NEED SMARTPHONES (YET) TO CLAIM MARKET LEADERSHIP!!!!!!

IF in two years time, SE haven't made a serious commitment to broadband and smartphones, THEN and ONLY THEN do I believe anyone can say (I will say it myself) that SE are not a market leader in technology.

I am only putting the words in your mouth that your posts are inferring.

Quote: "Pls quote me on where I hv said this . Maybe u should be the one who should wear glasses and learn to read properly"

You quoted me:

Quote:
"What I am trying to say is that YOU think that smartphone features (which really only amounts to the ability to install thirdparty software) are what defines a high end phone "

Then you ask me this:

"Pls quote me on where I hv said this . Maybe u should be the one who should wear glasses and learn to read properly. "

I am now quoting you: "smartphone sales is growing faster than the rest of market. So if SE dont hv a viable smartphone, then it is losing out in this HIGH END segment."

Incidently I have 20:20 vision

It is growing faster, but is not yet bigger. In order for the above statement of yours to be true, you have to assume that 1. That phones have to be smartphone to be high-end, and 2. that the faster growing smartphone market is already big enough to preclude SE.

You tell me where are the stats/evidence/proof for the above claim of yours. What I am saying, a point of view I am perfectly entitled to, is that the situation is not that dire yet. In my view SE have 1-2 years before they need to get really serious about smartphones (one year would be better).

I am NOT arguing against smartphones, I am arguing that SE have taken a leadership in just about every step of the way since they the company was created (and Ericsson before that), and that that trend will continue, with GREAT smartphones in the future. Remember, I don't accept that high end phones have to be smartphones in the current market, so it is possible for me to believe that SE can have leadership in terms of handset technology even though they don't have too many smartphones. Yes this will change if they don't respond to the increasing smartphone market, but they have time to do this.

Quote me:
You admitted yourself that smartphones will become predominant, that means that currently they are not. Come back with your argument when the new SE smartphone is released, or in two years time when 3G is endemic. The situation will be completely different.

Quote you:
Are we debating whether SE is leading the mobile solution NOW or in the FUTURE? Maybe this thread pre-mature by 2 years. :laugh:

Read what I said, man, smartphones will become predominant. But they aren't yet so what the frig does it have to do with "are SE are leading mobile solutions" You are the one who keeps insisting that smartphones are SE's downfall. What we are saying is that it doesn't matter if they don't have a good range of smartphones, they are still providing leading handsets.

I'm sorry mib but just accept you have no more right to claim the truth over this than we do.

You think SE should be producing smartphones otherwise they can't be called a mobile solutions leader. This is implicitly implied in just about every post you have made. Why do you have so much trouble accepting that not everyone agrees with you?

You quote: "Maybe u hv too high expectation. Anyway this is your own preferences on what a smartphone should be. Is there any relevance here to this debate? "

Yes I do have a high expectation. And no there is no more relevance than your own claim that smartphones are leading technology just because you like smartphones. You have given no more evidence than I or anyone here, and yet you expect us to roll over and accept your assertion that high end = smartphone. If you don't think that why do you say this:

"For the nth times, it doesnt matter whether people really use (or want ) smartphone features, the fact is that smartphone is sucking up volume in the high-end segment. So if u throw in a K750 to compete in this high-end, there may be a chance it get steam-rolled over."

Why should it get steam rollered? If people don't care if a phone has smartphone features or not, then they are free to buy an SE handset

Many other factors that have nothing to do with market forces, but other agendas that the phone companies and manufacturers have, are responsible for the push to smartphones (for example content delivery). If those agendas turn out to be unjustified, then SE will be in the lead, if not then they will bring out more smartphones. You can be sure that SE are ready to swing either way, and they have always demonstrated an ability to bring phones to market very quickly when they have to.

You quote:
"If your assertion that people bought smartphone unknowingly is true, then we should see the growth of smartphone should be about the same as normal phone. Why is it not?"

Again you are supporting the idea that smartphones growth is about people wanting smartphones.

You quote:
"Like you say, smartphones is displacing normal phone. So this gradual displacement will continue because global smartphone growth is double that of non-smartphone. You said that SE is not into smartphone and it dont see smartphone as important. So based on this logic, is it not true to say that SE sales will slowly be displaced by smartphone? "

In response to scots you gave the above quote. Again this debate is about the current situation. Again you are claiming that phones have to be smartphone to claim leading edge. I don't agree with scots since I think SE are considering their move into the smartphone market very carefully, but they are doing it while watching the market, not like nokia whose strategy is to flood the market with smartphones.

SE will enter the fray with excellent smartphones, WHEN it is necessary.

Nokia are the only manufacturer who have embraced smartphones in a big way, all other manufacturers just bring out one or two models. Does this point alone make Nokia the "leading mobile solutions" manufacturer?

There is way more to this debate than smartphone versus regular phone.

--
Posted: 2005-03-23 09:19:37
Edit : Quote


Nokia release too many phones, which are all (mostly) rubbish. They do have some fantastic smartphones, but they arent that smart, no touchscreens etc.
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 10:26:27
Edit : Quote


@max_wedge



....but don't think you'll stop the MIB repeating himself again and again and again.

Remember, he's the first, last and only line of defence against the worst BS in the universe.



_________________
This message was posted in an envelope

[ This Message was edited by: dave_uk on 2005-03-23 09:42 ]
--
Posted: 2005-03-23 10:41:31
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index