You are absolutely right Ms. Junko Yoshida, mobile phones are an ever developing device, and I think that mobile phones should be given more emphasis on saving the power and battery charge time. Most of the low profile phones are available with this feature and that is not a result of the giant players' research, Thanks to the small developers. But what I was wanted to depict here was the communication device should have all the latest communication means like browser, im clients, mail clients. Yup but at the same time one can say that this is a user specific usage practice/habit. But at the end I mean to say the power saving is a major aspect.
DMcCunney, I like your thinking. And I think many of us in the EE Times community are fully capable of making informed decisions -- in regards to what exactly we want to do with our mobile phone. It is a choice.
It might well make sense for Nokia to issue a low cost phone in the US, aimed at those who planned to simply buy the phone at retail, then get a plan from a carrier like T-Mobile who seems to be pushing precisely that unbundled approach.
Nokia and others could make phones aimed at the intelligent crowd who wants choice!
The Phone has become an essential entity in one's life. If you are not having a working phone with you, you might feel something lacking till you get the phone working. So a phone functionally is very essential in any of the phones or Smartphones.
Now the Smartphones when the companies try to integrate multiple features other than phone functionalities it becomes a very much burden on the processing and power capacity of the phone.
What I think is the other functionalities should be left for the tablets or other devices and phone should be kept as a phone only. The phone functionalities include GSM, CDMA, WiFi features. The phone should be made as much as lighter, smarter and long lasting in terms of battery power.
Getting hooked on SmartPhones requires an affordable introduction (sounds like drugs?). Feature phones are a necessary first step in emerging markets in order to persuade users that they'd rather have a SmartPhone. I never imagined that I'd ever pay the extraordinary cost of a SmartPhone. However, after a few years on my standard phone seeing what my colleagues could do with their SmartPhones, I paid up and moved up.
Please allow me to introduce just one more facet to this very interesting debate on the merits of feature phones vs smart phones (or have we decided they're not so smart?).
E-commerce is an enormous beast that is driving adoption of smartphones in western countries and most of Asia. In the US, consumer spending is two-thirds of the economy -- more than $10 trillion a year. When you add in financial services transactions, the number is mind-numbing.
There is a broad concensus in retail and banking that smartphones represent the future for both sectors. Ergo, consumers must have smartphones. (You may think you bought such a device, but the truth is you've been sold such a device.)
There is a substantial movement in emerging countries to develop banking and retail apps for feature phones. Afterall, banking for most people is simply a matter of withdrawals and deposits and payments. That would be a remarkably important advance in emerging countries, where the closest ATM might be 100 miles away. Retail isn't as important because there has long been a supply chain of essential commodities.
How many people already use smart phones for banking and retail? Do you think you could bank on a feature phone instead? Could you do without both now? In the future?