Sony Ericsson's P990 Smartphone Released

Dynamoo writes "After months of rumors, Sony Ericsson has finally announced their P990 Symbian smartphone. Packing both UMTS (3G) and WiFi in addition to a 2 megapixel digital camera and a host of other goodies, the P990 looks like it will be a shot in the arm for the Symbian camp. There's no indication of a US release for this handset, but the rest of the world can expect to see it early next year."

Comments

Immediate Recall

[Anonymous Coward]

Ericsson later recalled the product, observing "We were so keen to cram in so much shit you'll never, ever use, that we forgot to make it work as an actual phone."

Sony, still sticking it to the consumers

[yagu]

from the article: Internal memory is 80Mb, and this is expandable through Sony Memory Stick Pro Duo cards (64Mb is included, 2Gb maximum).

'Nuff said.

Enough with the proprietary memory stick technology already!

I hate company's that use a stick to sell their product.

A memory carrot would be more to my liking. (Can you say SD, or MMC?)

Re:Sony, still sticking it to the consumers

[emj]

Well SD would be fine and dandy if there was no license issues. You have to pay alot of money to the SD consortium for using the SD standard, among the members is Microsoft. Did you know that the spec is closed as well so you can't release drivers under opensource.

Proprietary formats sucks.

Re:Sony, still sticking it to the consumers

[cgenman]

A: When Sony released the Memory Stick, MMC cards were widely available (SD cards, basically, without the copyprotection).

B: Try going 100% Compact Flash sometime. Not only can you use devices from multiple manufacturers, but you have no upper limit on size. We have an old digital camera here that came out when 16MB CF cards were considered large. Now we have a 1GB card in it, and it chugs along happily. If I need a little extra space, I can jam one of the many old cards into my PDA. Up or down, you have complete compatibility.

I can't say the same for my Sony devices, where some take the original Memory Stick, some take Memory Stick Pro, some only take Memory Stick Duo... and none of which get large enough for serious use. I'm still shocked that a lot of Memory Stick devices can only take 128, 256, or 512BM MAXIMUM card sizes. The old devices are now far less useful, as data expands... a CF-based MP3 player from 1998 is as useful today as when it was bought, as the capacity can expand up to the size of an iPod Nano, but a Memory Stick based MP3 player would be stuck at 128 MB. Why create a standard that is incompatible with future upgrades?

C: SD cards are still smaller than Memory Stick Duo cards, have more capacity, are cheaper... Oh, and are a standard that multiple manufacturers support, not just one. You can buy a Palm Pilot, or a Kodak Camera, or an HP Pocket PC device that all support the same Memory Card. Want to buy a PDA that's compatible with your memory sticks? Sorry, Sony got out of that market.

And while SD cards aren't as upwardly compatible as CF cards (there is a maximum size each generation supports), they're a heck of a lot smaller than both CF or Memory Sticks.

D: Did I mention that even amongst Sony's line there are incompatibilities? It was nice of them to ship "adaptor sticks" with their new cameras, but I've never needed an adaptor for CF. If they keep changing it, it's not a "standard."

There is a reason why professional photographers will only shoot on CF. If you want high capacity and flexibility, you need CF. If you want small space and low power consumption, you want SD. There is really no reason for memory sticks to exist at all, as they don't do anything better than either of the two dominant standards.

Why all the Cameras?

[LexNaturalis]

Nearly all the news phones released lately have digital cameras in them. This poses a problem for me, because I'm unable to bring anything into my place of employment that has a camera on it. Some of these new phones are fantastic, but I won't be purchasing them because I'd be unable to bring them to work with me. I'm sure folks in my situation are in a minority, but it's frustrating sometimes to know that something neat like this it out of your grasp.

I want a DUMB phone

[Jherek Carnelian]

Can anyone recommend a high-quality DUMB phone?

These are features I'm looking for:

o) No camera
o) No games
o) No Java
o) No blue-tooth/wi-fi
o) Just a really big phonebook + clock
o) Really, really, small
o) Really, really tough (titanium alloy? liquid metal?)
o) Lots of stand-by time, lots of talk-time
o) Fast (and quiet) power on/off times
o) GSM (my current carrier is T-Mobile)

Re:I want a DUMB phone

[Wesley Felter]

How about the RAZR? You can just ignore the features you don't use. (You'll never find a phone that meets that whole list, because that market is too small.)

Re:I want a DUMB phone

[Dysproxia]

How about a Nokia 1100?

It does have one extra feature, a flashlight, but I'm sure you can put tape over it and pretend it's not there.
It also isn't really, really small, because like most phones it has buttons, a screen and a microphone + speaker combination.
It isn't made of liquid metal, but seems to have non-slippery sides.

Re:I want a DUMB phone

[shawb]

You could always go with this tiny monstrosity. The 7280 is VERY tiny. It does have a very small display, but it doesn't even have number keys. Granted, it's not meant to be your primary cell-phone, just one for a night out on the town (and that means it does have camera functionality.) From what I'd guess, you basically transfer numbers from another phone or your computer or something like that, then select which one to call.

I personally think it's really not $500, but looking at the pictures of the people using them I really don't get the feeling that I'm the target demographic here (even though I do have the tiny iPod shuffle, which is pretty much the same size. But then again I did carry an MP3 diskman around before a cellphone... maybe Apple will come out with an iPhone shuffle that just calls random people in your phone book?)

Re:I want a DUMB phone

[MoonBuggy]

I don't see why these comments always come up. There are plenty of "dumb" phones. Nokia 1100, as mentioned above, would be my preference to meet your criteria, although the 8910 (NOT the 8910i, that i makes alot of difference) does have your requested titanium alloy casing it's got bluetooth too, but you can always (gasp) switch it off. Alternatively buy any of the older models (3310, 3410, Ericsson T28, Siemens A50 etc.) from eBay with a new battery.

Basic phones don't get ./ stories because there's already plenty to choose from any (suprisingly enough) they don't compete on features like smartphones do. If you want one, buy one.

Re:I want a DUMB phone

[MacGod]

Re: I want a super-simple phone.

You know, I used to think the same thing. All I wanted was a small, light, no-ringtones, no-camera, black-and-white-screen phone. But I just moved to the UK and bought a Samsung E350 slider phone. It has an MP3/AAC player, a camera, a colour screen, Java games and all that.

But you know what? It's small, the battery life is as good as any other phone I've ever owned (including black-and-white bare basics phones). It weighs next to nothing, the call quality is good, and I just don't use the games or any other extraneous features.

And wouldn't you know it? Within a day of getting the USb cable for the phone, I set my ringtone to an MP3 of the Star Wars theme song (from the Rebellion's medal ceremony at the end of A New Hope). And I took a goofy self-portrait for my wallpaper. Why not? It's fun, a little silly, but entertaining.

I think the "I just want a simple phone!" is at times overstated. What I really want is a phone that doesn't make too many compromises for extra features. I don't need video recording capabilities, but if it can add them without sacrificing size or battery life, I'm not too worried. And besides, I do like gadgets (and I can't imagine I'm alone in that regard, especially not on Slashdot), so why wouldn't I want my phone to be gadgety?

I think we geeks are just more sensitive to tradeoffs. There are a lot of phones that are heavy on features, but sacrifice basic useability to get there. The Microsoft Word of phones, if you will. But there also exist phones that are good compromises. Just don't use the features you don't need.

Re:2 MP?

[baryon351]

> 2 MP? is it just me or are they getting better and better?

Maybe.

2MP is just how well the camera captures the image through the lens. if the lens is shit (and it's a very small nonfocusing lens, so for many people it's shit) all you're getting is a higher resolution version of the same washed out, blurred, chromatically-distorted fisheye photos that every other camera gives.

You can get very small lenses that aren't shit, but they cost more than this entire phone would.

Re:2megapixel is pretty impressive quality

[bedroll]

2 megapixel is impressive quantity. For quality you have to see the content of the pictures to judge their image's correctness.

Sure, it looks nice, but...

[Sheetrock]

It's getting harder and harder to justify a cellphone upgrade with every 'iteration' of technology. Indeed, as with other electronics, it's to the point where the only truly practical reason to pick up a new device is because the old device is broken.

With the increasing price of oil, I can't help wondering what the face of computing is going to look like five or ten years down the line. The average computer uses as much as 37 Conestoga wagons worth of coal to run on any given day. Much of this is spent on wasteful peripherals we could do without, such as fancy 3D graphics cards or optical mice, but even more is being spent on processing power well beyond the needs of the average user.

Inefficiencies in microcomponent fabrication mean that a great deal of the electricity that goes into your computer is given off as heat. Techniques such as reversible or quantum computing hold much promise in the future for putting more energy into computation but today it is up to the consumer to safeguard the environment.

In a way, the argument is the same as with vehicles -- most people don't need a SUV or a top-of-the-line system but many choose to get them to compensate for inadequacies or because of marketing -- but with computers at least it is impossible to argue you are "safer" for having a faster system. Indeed, you are more likely to run viruses or worms without realizing it because you don't notice the hit in operating performance. If anything this argument is stronger with a cellphone that can be reprogrammed by malware to call phone numbers that cost you a lot of money or hassle.

I've noticed that I've been holding on to computer equipment longer and longer these days. Oh sure, I have to fix a power supply here and a fan there, but besides slack engineering standards from software companies there is little reason to keep up with the hardware treadmill... and at least one compelling reason not to.

Re:Sure, it looks nice, but...

[Roguelazer]

Hmm. I may have to call you out on several elements of that argument. Firstly:

A Conestoga Wagon transported about 8 (short) tons of cargo (according to the wikipedia article). According to howstuffworks.com, coal produces approximately 2,460 kWh/ton. Now, your average computer/monitor combination draws between 150W and 200W, according to some basic research. That could also be written as .2kWh. So in 24 hours, this device draws, um, 4.8 kWh. Considering that a Conestoga Wagon's worth of coal would be about 19,680 kWh of power, I think we can safely assume that a computer uses about 1/12 of a Conestoga Wagon full of coal PER YEAR.

What else? Um. The thought that lots of power is spent on optical mice is kind of funny. I haven't been able to find any concrete information, but since an optical mouse can run solely off the power provided by a PS/2 port, I'm going to assume that there's virtually no power usage involved.

Strangely enough, though, I do agree with you. For basic tasks (word processing, web browsing, etc), I've never seen anybody who needed more than about a 1GHz machine. That's fast enough to handle the flashy graphics and jazz. I've always found it funny to see Intel advertising their latest 3.9GHz dual-core hyper-threading machine as good for web browsing. But, having played Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, I can tell you quite authoritatively that you can never have too much power in your graphics card. ;)

Re:Sure, it looks nice, but...

[thrillseeker]

there is a constant amount of energy in the world: we can't produce it or destroy it

Uh oh - when did the sun go out?

Thats what i get for not reading carefully.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, for a second I thought that the headline read SYBIAN smartphone, and that threw me off. Made me gaze in awe at how far technology has cum.

Horrible keyboard design

[vrv1]

I have a p910a (and had a p800 before that) and one of the things that really stand out is the keyboard on the back of the keyflip. The keyflip can increase the size of the screen and become a PDA or when not used can become a cell phone (which is the most important use of the device). By doing away with that, there really is no reason to buy the p990 instead of the Palm 700 (other than that you are a rabid anti-u$ fanatic). You can argue that the P910a's design might result in higher strain on the hinges. But I found the hinges to be pretty sturdy and I always use my index fingers to support the body of the phone while I use the thumb to do the typing.

This is a step back for the P series and i hope SonyEricsson will change it.

If it's at all like my P910a...

[snowballs]

* The screen is so big, that if you don't use Bluetooth or hands free, then the screen gets nasty pretty fast. It's a bitch to clean too.

* Battery life is acceptable if you don't use push services

* It's gotta be tough - the very first day I had my P910i, I dropped it from about 4ft. right onto the concrete and cringed knowing that I was about to be so very fired. I picked it up and the plastic on the side where the photo button had popped loose, but that's it. I used the stylus to pry it back in, and no problem except a bit of cosmetic damage. By and large, most of my Sony/Ericsson phones have been pretty tough. It's ironic that when Ericsson's phones stopped looking like little Volvos did they become less breakable for a klutz like myself.

* the browser hangs sometimes, giving the white screen of no return. Battery removed, power back on and viola.

* it's size is a bit clunky, but one option is to remove the flip entirely and TFM for this comes in the box. Even then, you almost have to use the holster that comes with it - it's just too damn big to put into your pocket.

Step away from that VoIP, sir.

[beeblebrox]

Putting (leaving?) my cynical hat on, it seems that Symbian was forced by the economics of the mobile phone business to screw the handset owners in order to keep the network operators happy:

Platform security is extended in Symbian OS v9, providing control over the capabilities of applications installed on the devices. This is done to ensure the integrity of the phones and the network, while still enabling an open environment for third party applications.

and:

installation of C++ executables, including authentication of software components using digital signatures to provide a measure of confidence that applications being installed onto a Symbian OS phone are from a known reputable vendor

Their spin seems to be that if these controls are not put into place, the sky will fall on the smartphone world as angry users who installed crapware/malware on their phones will annoy the crap out of the network operators' support lines, and other assorted Bad Things will happen. You know, like it happened with PCs.

Me, I just follow the money and I know what to expect: You wanna play? You pays your dues to enter Mr Telco's walled garden.

If you're a P990 (or other Symbian 9 device) owner, you don't get to decide what to install/run. Mr Telco does. For Your Own Good, of course.

Anyone want to take a bet which way it'll go?