World Smart Mobile Device Market Grows 55%

I think Verizon mandates all "smartphone" devices maintain a voice & a data plan but I don't think the GSM carriers or Sprint adhere to this rule.

Voice is right...I'd bet a good number of Treos et al out there are being used as a neutered PDA that happens to have a voice phone grafted on to the same device.

SO...are customers even looking for a converged wireless data/voice device (with the subsequent high monthly charges) OR merely the functionality of a T|E2 + a barely passable cell phone in a single unit?

I'd wager that the older the Treo/smartphone (especially lacking EVDO/UMTS), the less likely it is to carry a data plan...

Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P

From over a decade of observation of the PDA and cellphone businesses. Remove non-smartphone "smartphones" from the ledger and you'll be shocked at how unimpressive smartphone sales figures REALLY are.

Everyone I know who has a smartphone (me, my wife, my brother, three of my partners, our computer service technicians, even the girl next to me on the bus yesterday) uses it as a combination pda/phone (calls, calendar/todo list, email, web browsing).

Unfortunately, your sample size is not representative. Devices with screen sizes as small as the typical smartphone are useful primarily for data DISPLAY (not data entry). This data can be synced from desktops/laptops or pushed wirelessly to a featurephone just as easily as it can be to a smartphone. The main selling point of smartphones is their library of user-installable applications. Unfortunately, most people never install/use (m)any third party apps; new featurephones will be arriving loaded with fairly complete suites of apps, negating this advantage; most third party apps are crap.

This is not convenient with any phone I know (yes, you can handle email on many phones with a dataplan, but typing on them is impossible).

You obviously haven't seen people using SMS. People adapt to whatever data entry method is available fairly quickly.

Now, granted, this evidence is anecdotal and not usable as a basis for wide-ranging conclusions, but is your evidence different?

Yes. When you do an honest analysis of how people REALLY use their smartphones, you quickly see that for MOST smartphone users a well-designed featurephone would work just as well.

What I see from my narrow vantage point are two kinds of users: those who want just a phone, and those who want a phone with pda capabilities. Those who want just a phone buy just a phone.

I see 3 basic classes of cellphone buyers:

1) Fashionistas - buy the lastest/smallest/flashiest for image reasons. Most people buying Motorola RAZRs fit this profile. Treos briefly were also a fashion statement, but their bulkiness and geeky design limited the Treo's potential for broader appeal.

2) Practical consumers - those looking for either "free" basic phones or solid phone-centric devices. This comprises the bulk of the market.

3) Data-centric consumers - use cellphone primarily as a PDA/data device; phone functionality is less important. A VERY small segment and currently being cannibalized by slick featurephones.

Why spend all that extra money for features you won't use? Most people don't, I think. Philippe Radley

Actually, features are quickly becoming commoditized (camera, MP3 player, video camera, email, TV, etc) by economies of scale. You actually won't be paying much to get a TON of features. Look at the lineup of models to be released in 2006 - 07 by Nokia and Sony Ericsson and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I've been about as hardcore a PDA/smartphone user as you can get, pushing the envelope to use the devices as a desktop/laptop replacement, so you don't have to try and convince me as to the potential of these devices. The problem is that most consumers will NOT be willing to get creative in order to get the maximum out of their smartphones. Smartphones simply do not work effectively enough to rationalize the MULTIPLE compromises they demand from users.

TVoR

Interestingly, at this stage of the game it's no state of emergency that most people who buy smartphones don't download third party applications or use the built-in applications very much. Most people who buy Porsches never drive them any faster than they would a Toyota Camry. Like the Porsche owner, though, smartphone users get a better experience doing the things they *do* want to do. Even if it's just having a usable phonebook application or a superior messaging experience. Meanwhile, the operating system required to provide that high quality (but minimal scope) mobile experience is also what is needed for the relatively small group of power users to do real mobile computing. In a sense, power users are subsidized by the many users who just want a better experience using the limited features they care about. This state of affairs will never allow smartphones to become mainstream, but it's enough for them to be a moderately profitable niche, just like the one that Porsche perennially occupies in its market.

For real mobile computing to become mainstream there's a lot of old baggage that mobile software platforms need to throw off: assumptions that are carried over from the PC that make these geek-only devices. One example is the woefully uninspired usage of touchscreens on Palm OS and WM that reduce the stylus to a dumbed down mouse (http://www.pikesoft.com/blog/index.php?itemid=98). Another is the failure to deal with the issue of software discovery in an integrated manner. Relying on users to go out and set up accounts on PalmGear or Handango is ridiculous: the iPod would never have taken off with this attitude and even iTunes is a weak and uncompelling discovery tool compared to what smartphones need and current technology makes possible.

In their defense, I suspect that the real reason that smartphones can't get out of their power-user/geek rut isn't a lack of creativity among hardware or platform vendors. It's the infuriatingly conservative network control freaks who call all the shots about what a smartphone must deliver. Until that excessive control by today's wireless operators can be broken or seriously weakened by competing channels, smartphone innovation will continue to be mainly refinements of existing capabilities and these devices will fail to penetrate much into the mainstream.

David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog

Beersy, the Motorola UI is probably the worst in the cellphone industry. Good choice. Maybe you should try one of the newer Sony Ericsson or Nokia phones instead.

Interestingly, at this stage of the game it's no state of emergency that most people who buy smartphones don't download third party applications or use the built-in applications very much. Most people who buy Porsches never drive them any faster than they would a Toyota Camry.

Hmmmm... then why bother buying a "smartphone if you're not using its features. Wouldn't a well-designed featurephone make more sense?

Like the Porsche owner, though, smartphone users get a better experience doing the things they *do* want to do.

Hmmmm... so if I live in the city and need a grocery getter I should buy a $90,000 Porsche instead of a $14,000 Honda because the Porsche can POTENTIALLY go from 0 to 60 five seconds faster than the Honda. Yeah. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Even if it's just having a usable phonebook application or a superior messaging experience.

Bull. Do you REALLY believe that featurephones can't/don't have good phonbook applications? Or messaging experiences? Wow. You're reaching here Beersy. Is that the sound of ice cracking under your feet. Be careful, Bubba. Wouldn't want to see you go under.

Meanwhile, the operating system required to provide that high quality (but minimal scope) mobile experience is also what is needed for the relatively small group of power users to do real mobile computing. In a sense, power users are subsidized by the many users who just want a better experience using the limited features they care about. This state of affairs will never allow smartphones to become mainstream, but it's enough for them to be a moderately profitable niche, just like the one that Porsche perennially occupies in its market.

But why "subsidize" a complex OS if most people don't need (or even want) it? Porsche survives primarily because its vehicles are status symbols. Should Palm base its future on a similar niche. Palm needed to get PalmOS into the Honda/Toyota/Chevy/Ford/Chrysler region of the market. It failed to do so. When the luxury end of the market that Palm currently serves disappears, what will Palm do? I believe the T-rex knows the answer to that question.

For real mobile computing to become mainstream there's a lot of old baggage that mobile software platforms need to throw off: assumptions that are carried over from the PC that make these geek-only devices. One example is the woefully uninspired usage of touchscreens on Palm OS and WM that reduce the stylus to a dumbed down mouse.

Ummmm... Beersy have you never used a Treo 600/650/700p? The D-pad and the one-handed navigation permitted by Handspring's brilliant OS hacks is fantastic. W T F are you talking about?

Another is the failure to deal with the issue of software discovery in an integrated manner. Relying on users to go out and set up accounts on PalmGear or Handango is ridiculous: the iPod would never have taken off with this attitude and even iTunes is a weak and uncompelling discovery tool compared to what smartphones need and current technology makes possible.

As I posted here and on Michael Mace's blog sit, Palm needs to include an easily-browsable software library (with demo versions of 1000 or so top PalmOS apps) on EVERY device they sell. A 256 MB NAND flash chip or a "free" SD card could accomplish this easily.

In their defense, I suspect that the real reason that smartphones can't get out of their power-user/geek rut isn't a lack of creativity among hardware or platform vendors. It's the infuriatingly conservative network control freaks who call all the shots about what a smartphone must deliver. Until that excessive control by today's wireless operators can be broken or seriously weakened by competing channels, smartphone innovation will continue to be mainly refinements of existing capabilities and these devices will fail to penetrate much into the mainstream.

The real reason is that the MARKET does not need or want smartphones. No one is buying PalmOS apps. Featurephones now come with all the messaging, photo, and TV applications the carriers need to try to encourage customers to use their data services. Face it: smartphones don't do much that featurephones can't do. Furthermore smartphones are expensive to subsidize and expensive to support. Smartphones simply don't make much sense for either carriers or average users. IIf you want to blame someone, blame the smartphone OS and hardware makers wo failed to come up with a "killer" feature that would make smartphones catch on with the public the way MP3 players and cameraphones have.

Next time think before you post, Beersy.

TVoR