Slashdot Mirror
Mobile Phone Users Struggle With Hardware Adoption
Ian Lamont writes "A Google executive speaking at the Emerging Technology conference has described a problem that mobile phone carriers and manufacturers have been struggling with over the last few years: Users aren't taking advantage of many phones' hardware-based features. Rich Miner, Google's group manager of mobile platforms, stated that 80% of mobile phones being sold today have cameras on them, yet the number of people who actually know how to use them or get the images off the phones ranges between 10% and 50%, depending on the model. Miner listed several reasons for this state of affairs, including bad UIs and small screens, but added that the participation of companies with software expertise — including Google — would help increase usage of such features."
It's obvious what we need: something that gives you the freedom you need, on an open platform, with full open hardware and free software, all the way down the stack, so that users can get the features they want, and innovative developers can create interfaces that let people take full advantage of them in the most intuitive and obvious way possible. The GNUPhone. Operated from the command line.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Seriously... if you want me to listen to music on your phone, GIVE ME THE STUPID JACK. A dongle to fit the USB port is not the same thing.
So many of these phone can connect to the inet, but give me a nice sd card and regular headphone jack anyday. That why I keep my palm over an iphone.
Or perhaps it might also involve the locking down of phones by carriers?
If you can't use bluetooth for file transfer because the carrier locked it out, it makes it harder to get pics off. If you can't use the phone as a usb mass storage device because the carrier is worried about you copying ringtones yourself, obviously getting the pics off will be hard.
That said, this "article" contains almost no useful information, so maybe Righ Miner had some better examples than the pictures...
Actually, I just want a phone. Not a friggin' handheld multimedia device.
I could get the pictures off of it without having to chew up my data plan limits! Damn rip-off!
Show me your data the blog talks about a range of 10-50 can't get images off camera phones. First off that is a very big range. How was the data for those figures collected? Was it by measuring how many people sent pics to others using their phones with mms? If so maybe cost has something to do with it. Any time I see statistics my eyes roll especially when the questions used to gather the data aren't included. Base on that one blog I call shenanigans.
-piss me off. You can't connect it up as a plain ol' USB device to get the photos onto it. Nope, you've gotta pay another $35 to use Motorola's software to put something on or take something off the phone. On top of that, the software is badly written. Geek that I am, I had trouble figuring out how to even use it. There's programs out there that work, but they're even more arcane.
Give me a phone I can plug in as a good ol' removable disk, and I'll bet more people would use the camera/mp3/whatever.
"In caelum, illuc est libertas."
How about the fact that cameras are added to phones as an afterthought, and they'll always suck because they cannot have useful lenses.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Carriers listen up! What this means is 50-90% of your paying customers don't care about this "free after 2 year contract" camera phonethat does everything from (mobile intarweb, SMS, MMS, musictones, and roadside assistance).
No, these are crap features that I will NEVER be used by 50-90% of your subscriber base because:
1. The general public that is over 31.4 years of age doesn't care about such frivolous crap.
2. You charge way too much for these services.
Just stop it and go back to being the phone company interested in selling me a phone call without all these additional "fees".
Thank you,
Grump
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
Because it takes crappy pictures. Just make me a phone that works well, and make it small. When I want a PDA, I'll shop for a PDA.
I want the phones they used in Minority Report. Yes, I realize it's essentially a bluetooth headset, but I'd like that to be the entire phone.
Some of us (most of us?) aren't using that crap because we don't know how... it's because we don't want to.
Just give me a phone that's a phone, preferably one that doesn't look and feel like it was made by Fisher Price. I have a camera, it works fine on it's own. I have an iPod, I don't need a phone that plays MP3s. I sit in front of a computer 12 hours a day, I don't need internet on my phone.
I don't use the camera for two reasons:
1. I have a 10 megapixel Nikon for photography.
2. The camera on the phone is really slow, and crappy.
My phone also has a lot of onboard memory, and I have a couple of 2 gig memory sticks that would fit... but I don't use the music or movie funtions either.... for the same reason I don't record audio with the phone. Specifically, my carrier (Alltel) has some screwball software that won't let me use images or audio I record or load into the phone for ringtones... unless I pay them some god-aweful amount of money to load it onto the phone using their web access.
Most of the reason people don't use features on their phones is that the features are either crappy to start with, or crippled by the carrier to gouge even more cash out of us.
And some of it is just dumb people.
"Google's Rich Miner has identified one of the biggest problems facing mobile phone carriers, manufacturers, and developers: The hardware on the current generation of phones is not being used by many customers."
Why is this a problem? Isn't this like fretting that 60% of Dodge Caravan owners don't use the rear-seat cup holders? Maybe people just don't want to take pictures with their phones.
Should be something like:
Cell phone companies struggle to market hardware that nobody wants.
The phone should be able to store the photos and transfer them directly (for example a USB port plugging into a home computer just like a regular camera does). Transferring them immediately should be an option, of course. But wise people would do that only when they need to (urgency of sending the photo, or they have filled up their flash memory and need more space back).
FYI, I've yet to take even one photo with my phone. I use a digital SLR for photos.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I am probably one of the majority.
If I want to look at the internet, I like a big screen.
If I want to take pictures, I want 10 megapixels.
If I want to send someone some words, I want a keyboard.
My phone is really good for me speaking to someone. That is what I use it for. I could use skype on my laptop but the phone has a better form factor.
At work I find multifunction devices a bad thing. Scanners scan good, faxes fax, printers print and so on. Those clever boxes that do all three, never seem to do any of them as well.
If my phone plays music as well as an mp3 player, that's good but there are few other things I have seen mobile phones do as well as the original devices.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
who did you say have been struggling?
if the carriers and manufacturers cared whether customers actually used all the features they jam into their phones they'd prioritize implementing them right. but they don't.
*their* principle concern is lengthening the list of features in marketing material and increasing price.
google isn't solving a problem for them.
The Samsung i730 non-camera PDA/smartphone is exactly what I need and want, but I need a replacement as it is showing the wear and tear. I want a smartphone just like this but WITHOUT A *&!*&@ CAMERA! I go in and out of courtrooms and secure facilities all the time. I want to keep my phone with me and I don't want to leave it out in the car where it could be stolen or - even worse - ring without me being there to answer it. Verizon refuses to sell me the phone I want claiming that Samsung and Motorola told them that such phones can't be made. I had an email exchange with Motorola about this issue: Me: I want a bluetooth-enabled smartphone/PDA without a camera. Verizon says that you are refusing to make one. Them: We don't sell cellphones. Talk to Verizon. Me: I did talk to Verizon. They say you won't produce the phone I want to buy. Them: We make cellphones very happy good. Me: I will give you money if you give me a cell phone that has the features I want. Them: ?Script_error
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
I admit that my situation is worse than many(el-cheapo-with-contract verizon phone); but I hardly get the impression that the carrier or the manufacturer are struggling to get me to use the phone's hardware features.
Verizon cripples bluetooth on all non smartphones they sell(headset only, no obex etc) in order to force you to buy media from their overpriced store and encourage you to use the phone camera to send MMSes. They don't package cables or software for connecting to computers with their basic phones(or even attempt to upsell you on such accessories). Going directly through the manufacturer and/or with third party utilities, it is possible to connect the phone to a computer, and with a bit of hacking I've heard tethering is even possible.
I don't mean to underestimate the stupidity and willful ignorance of users; but this is mostly the carriers problem. Their obsession with all-data-must-be-transferred-through-our-network-and-paid-for is particularly troublesome. If cell companies sold computers, you'd need a family plan and a SIM card for each of your peripherals. 10 bucks a month would cover your mouse's connection. Depending on how much you used it, you could pay for right clicks at 5 cents a piece, or 5.99 for unlimited right clicks.
The average consumer is not interested in learning how to user another device. They don't have the time or interest. I use my phone for all sorts of things: creating maps, navigation, photos, music player. A lot of the things I do with my phone are seen almost as science fiction by people like my parents.
The thing is though - if my parents were to spend the time to learn how to use all of their phone's features - it probably wouldn't improve their quality of life at all.
I can't see how more than 50% of the population would ever be bothered enough to learn how to use all of their phone's features even if they were dirt simple to use. It's just one of the facts of life that us geeks need to be willing to accept.
How about a mobile phone that is very good at just making and receiving calls (and a simple phone number directory) ?
There's just no use for a good source of entropy on a phone. What else would you use the noise generator for?
The manufacturers take a standard USB cable and change the shape of the connector so they can charge you 40 bucks for it. The service providers charge 5 bucks so I can get an app to access my email and make use of my 15/month data plan. They both just nickel and dime the crap out of customers and provide shit features at that.
I am all for an open platform and I will buy one of those phones in 2years.
Likewise for the address book, the text input (gag!), the audio (which is a spectacular pain to use anyway) sucks, the Internet access costs a body part per page and is unreadable anyway, and so on.
they suck bricks! Get me a touchscreen phone that's basically my Palm Titanium with GSM and GPS and you have a customer.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I thought that the point of the article is that they aren't? Anyway, I'm 21, and I really wish I could just get a plain old phone with cheap service. If I want to listen to MP3's I'd rather use something with without mediocre sound quality that's not tied irrevocably to some dubious music service. If I want to take a picture, I'd rather use a real camera than those useless toys they put on cellphones.
They don't care whether these are free and open source or not - all they care about is getting what they want, at a reasonable price.
Taking the camera example, many people don't want to use a crappy (as many phone cameras are) phone camera to take a picture and then download it via a USB cable into their computer, or screw around with SD cards etc. Give them an end-to-end solution where they snap their pic and it automagically ends up in Picassa/whatever. That would make them happy so long as the cost of doing so is a few cents per picture.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I had a StarTac on my Verizon Wireless plan -- a family share plan. It was grandfathered in and life was good.
When I wanted to give someone else a new phone with my New Every Two freebie, I'd move my StarTac to their line, activate my "new" phone on my line, then re-activate my StarTac on my line, and activate the new phone on theirs. I had high wattage output and a phone that I really liked. REALLY liked.
Then once after two years, I forgot. And the StarTac fell off. No amount of pleading with customer service let me reactivate that, even though it was off for literally two minutes.
Now I hate Verizon but unfortunately I hate the other carriers worse. Unless anyone knows of a carrier that will allow me to use my StarTac again...
I don't need Bells and Whistles. My wife wants an iPhone. I want two tin cans and a damp piece of string.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Hey all I need a phone to do is store numbers and call people. A simple calender and calculator are also nice. I do not want all the extra faldercarb.
The biggest reason I don't use the camera on my phone is because it's TERRIBLE! You could stand on the lighted side of Mercury and there still wouldn't be enough light for it, and it'd use a shutter speed of a second or two, with a lock time of two or three more seconds, and you'd still end up with blurry, out of focus, crap. Besides, I've got several thousand bucks worth of DSLR and lenses, and no need whatsoever for a bunch of "Facebook bullspit" photos.
I think the point is, and I speak for all miners everywhere, when did you ever hear of a Rich Miner? The man is a fraud! Sent from Google to steal our freedom!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
Blackberry 8800 - no camera.
In Liberty, Rene
Let's look at the problem with camera phones. I'm on my third, an iPhone 3G.
Lets face it, things like cameras are crammed on the phone as a bullet point and no thought is given to how it operates or how easy it is for someone to use.
My mom has never used the photo function on either of here two camera capable phones (the previous one she owned, and the current). She can't get the photos off (would need a special cable and software) except by sending them for $0.25 each (or whatever insane price Sprint charges).
Heck, that's what my parents (and most "normal" people I've run across) have learned about their phones. They do neat things, and each one comes with a horrendously expensive charge. Phone calls are one thing, but text messages are $0.10 each unless you pay monthly. Web browsing is useful, except you pay $0.25 per KB unless you pay monthly. Games are fun, but they cost at least $5 to buy and most must be bought on a subscription basis (every 30 days or 3 months it's another $5).
Lesson they learned? Don't use the phone for anything but as a phone, it's too expensive.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
If I'm going to use the camera on my phone there better dang well be a drunk midget on helium there singing the good ship lolipop!!
Actually that was the last major use of it.
Dude, let go.
Ebay is your friend.
-
The International market has superior,interchangeable-carrier phones, open plans, and phones that aren't locked down or restricted in any non-fair use way. And they have case law to keep things fair.
For some US customers, pressing a button can result in opening an Internet application that charges a terrible data rate or something else that's both costly and unintentional. So some US users opt to just not try to poke around much beyond phone functionality and camera use.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
That's where I got my i730, which by now is hopelessly out of date. I mean, seriously - it only supports 802.11b I'd LIKE something cutting edge, but for some reason the corporations of the world have declared that everybody wants/needs a camera.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
I'll check it out. Do you know if I can load my large library of eBooks onto it? I currently run mobipocket and have about 400Mb of documents, books, papers and whatnot on my xD card.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Wait for a Connexeus .. from Ex Machina... it's way better... and open source!!
Get a Jitterbug. It's just a no frills phone. Cheap. And is even easier to read the display and dial pad.
Disregarding the camera freaks' shrieking about a qvga resolution ccd with professional lenses giving better results than a 5 megapixel camera phone, I find the biggest drawback to the camera on my phone is that it only takes pictures 5 to 10 seconds after I am pointing it at the thing i want to photograph and pressing the button.
WTF is it doing, and why can't it start doing it as soon as i open the lens cover and start aiming?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
and hobbling the phones.
Mostly I don't care about these things. The few times I have, it's been a total pain to find out they want some money for this, disabled that, branded and broke this, and so on....
Funny, my kids ended up with a cheap ass Cricket phone plan. Mostly in city, moderate coverage, the usual discount deal. However, all the stuff on their phones just works and guess what? They use the hell out of it!
Most people would explore and play with their phones more, if they didn't fear some bullshit charge at the end of the month.
Blogging because I can...
"80% of mobile phones being sold today have cameras on them, yet the number of people who actually know how to use them or get the images off the phones ranges between 10% and 50%, depending on the model"
"80% of mobile phones being sold today have cameras on them, yet the number of people who actually know how to use them or get the images off the phones ranges between 10% and 50%, depending on the CARRIER"
There, fixed that for ya.
Verizon is legendary for crippling phones, forcing you to use their website stuff to work with photo files, and of course denying any way to copy ringtones to the phone - for the obvious and logical reason to increase their profits. I understand, but I've never owned a Verizon phone. Not even when they weren't Verizon.
ATT/Cingular less so, but they do seem to play games with wacko web tools, or require you to buy/download the special software, and sometimes it just doesn't work very well. My last Cingular phone was a T637, and fLOAT's tools were slicker than snot. I would never hesitate to have a Sony Ericsson phone, knowing that there are great tools out there to make these into more useful devices.
I dunno much about Sprint, except that people have told me that their tools vary from inscrutable to unusable. But the people I know think Sprint is pus anyways, so I discount their opinions a little. They're all NASCAR freaks anyways...
TMobile seems as simple as can be, but I have a BlackBerry, so it's not fair. But their web album thing is unnecessarily complicated. And Bluetooth transfers are not so easy with a 7105t.
Don't blame the player, blame the game. Using phones as camers leaves you prey to the carrier's revenue enhancement schemes. And some carriers play hard.
oh, and some phones are impossible to use. Yup.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
[no camera because I'm] in and out of courtrooms and secure facilities all the time
I've had the same problem, and there are many places that will remove the camera for you. I've also seen one with a penny epoxied on the lens.
google "security cell phone remove camera"
http://www.iresq.com/iphone/detail.php?prodID=P011036
I am a software engineer, just for the record, and I have to admit that most of my phones are HARD to use, they are painful, and they constantly have connection problems.
My last phone before my iphone (which I admit LACKS a lot of features) was a business edition $600 phone.
When I tried to connect it to my windows machine, I had to pirate bluetooth software, because the one that came with my various dongles (I have like 5 here) were .. umh.. CRAP. Then the supplied nokia software worked, then did not, then found my phone, then did not, then crashed, then .. you name it.
I know that according to many geeks and nerds an iphone is a toy, a shit, it lack function, and 3g and blabla .....
But I connect the thing, it downloads my pictures, syncs my calendar I can drag and drop music, and it just works.
Yes you guessed, I also switched to a mac, and do my office and freelancing work on a mac (mostly PHP, some ASP, some widget (yahoo, osx) programming and network/infrastructure/UNIX-Linux consulting) ....
Yeah you guessed, it is more for the UNIX for me than for anything else, but my iphone is my first phone I actually use to the limit, because it is not a PAIN IN THE ARSE to use...
Oh some people say it sucks as a phone. I am not sure, I make 2 calls tops a day, and keep them short, so not sure. It still rocks as a wireless device, and when a decent SIP client comes out on it and Fring, I stop carrying my nokia (which I use as a wifi phone at the office, as there is no reception whatsoever there (kinda like a basement in a hole under 4 stories of concrete. has big windows though :)))
Sounds like your problem is Verizon. Buy the unlocked version, or just take a soldering iron and some black resin to the camera lens. Remove it and or cover it in epoxy and presto, you don't have a camera phone.
http://www.mobipocket.com/en/DownloadSoft/application.asp?device=Blackberry
Might be worth looking into.
I got a phone with a decent camera, micro-SD port, and GPS. But when I asked what I needed to do for basic stuff like using the GPS or sending photos, I was told that I had to sign up for their entire internet and data package, which would have added more than 50% to my monthly bill before data charges.
To hell with that. I don't need expensive data services I will never use just so I can use my phone as a GPS. I can buy a separate GPS for less than the cost of 5 months of the packaged data and internet services, and I can always put the photos I take onto the microSD card and use the SD adapter to sneakernet them to my computer.
If the phone companies would let me pay for only the features I want instead of making me pay for a huge package I won't ever use, then I'd probably use the nifty features my phone has. But for the same reason I won't buy an iphone (I don't want to spend money on features I know in advance I won't use), I won't pay for the service packages just to be able to send my wife a photo or find my location. Specialized devices are still cheaper and don't require expensive service plans (or 3-year contracts with early termination fees).
90% of the people never have a NEED to take a picture with a cell phone. If all you had to do was point it and say 'Fido, take picture, send to Jane' it still wouldn't interest 50% of the population, they just plain don't need or want to take pictures. If they really DO want a picture, they want a good picture.
So basically there are 2 issues here, one being people aren't all that interested, and secondly the extra gewgaw features on phones really aren't all that great. The cameras are mostly marginal to almost useless, etc.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
I wonder if these manufacturers arent competing with each other rather than sitting down with consumers and asking, "What would you like to see in your next cell phone?" This creeping featuritis just makes stuff more complex.
My answer would be: Exclellent reception in as many areas as possible. Put some money into this. Make the antenna better. Make it absurdly easy to use, like an old Key 1A system. Let me store my numbers easily. Make the battery life as long as possible. Make it pass the drop test.
Do I want a camera? No, I'll use my Nikon if I want to take pictures. Do I want a calendar? No. Notepad? No. MP3? No. Games? No. Internet? No. GPS? No. Email? No. Text messaging? No. Look, I had a Treo. Two, in fact. They were great. I loved them. Now I don't need it any more because I'm, like, retired from all that crap. I gave the Treo away. Now....
I - just - want - a - God - damned - phone!!! OK?
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
stop whinging and start buying
If you are going to print 4 by 6, I doubt if you could
see the difference between a 2 MP & a 10 MP camera.
If you are going to print 5 by 7, there would be little
diff between a 3 or 4 MP & a 10 MP camera.
So what size are you printing that you need a 10 MP camera?
Are you printing something to cover the side of your house?
Did they ask the providers how many transfer media messages from their phones and use that to determine it?
Or did they take a survey?
all Verizon phones have to essentially have a geek owner to get pictures off the phone without paying a fee. Due to this, the survey would be more accurate.
Also, what age ranges did they check? Did they even check DESIRE to use them?
It's fairly hard to find a phone that doesn't have a camera on it at this point, especially during the contract promotions. I know my first camera phone was at least 4 times better than the cheapest store phone I could buy when I had to replace it due to an accident. And that 'cheap' phone ended up costing a good $100 MORE then the camera phone did since the camera phone was within the contract discount selection.
Defective Logic
More proof that checking the block feature sets are an outdated business model. I bought a phone to talk to friends and family, not to take horrible quality pictures.
Phone companies and other industries don't want you to know how to take your pictures off your phone. They don't want you to know that you can make any digital picture into a wallpaper. They don't want you to know that you can turn any mp3 into a ringtone. How would they charge you over a dollar each time you want to change your wallpaper? How would they make tons of money off of ringtones. I have a t309 from tmobile. the data cable they recommend for data transfers costs over EIGHTY DOLLARS at the tmobile store. i got a generic version on ebay for 15.
I don't trust a rent-a-cop to understand that an blackened or penny-coated lens renders the camera inoperable. Sorry, but I have too little faith in people to trust that I won't be hassled over that.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
That is exactly why I HATE Verizon. Cellphones could do so many things, but Verizon make almost everything impossible to do without paying them. For example, I just want to put my own ring tone on my phone, but they won't let me. I tried hacks like renaming an MP3 wile to whatever format they want it in (.q??) with the same name as an existing ringtone and copying it to my MicroSD card, but the phone refused to let me set the file as a ring tone, even though I could see it and play in in the list of recorded sounds. I'm not paying Verizon $2 for a ring tone when I already have the audio file. They won't let me install games without paying for them from their store; they won't let me access the built-in GPS without paying $10/month for the navigation app; they won't let me turn off the startup Verizon movie, etc. Also, there is a music player built-in, but it will only play WMA files that I load with Verizon's special software (which they make very difficult to find), even though the phone is perfectly capable of decoding MP3 files. (it also needs a USB to 2.5mm adapter and a 2.5-3.5mm adapter, but that's not Verizon's fault). I know I could switch to another carrier, but it seems like they all impose arbitrary restrictions to some extent, and unfortunately Verizon seems to have the best coverage, at least where I live.
Back on the subject of the article, I think the reason people are not using built-in cameras is that the quality is so horrible that it is almost not even worth taking a picture. I would almost rather not have a camera than have one like the ones that come built-into most phones.
There's no lack of variety in the cell phones on offer. But in my experience, the user interface is far clunkier than it needs to be, even for a modest feature set. I find myself counting the number of key presses required to do frequent or repetitive tasks. These operations could be twice as fast or more with a little more effort on UI design.
And where is the feature set documented? I haven't seen a cell phone in the last five years whose manual actually describes all the features. Since TFA talks about users having problems getting images off the phone, how about this for a suggestion: document how to do it. I bought a new phone last month. It has a camera but no hint anywhere about how to retrieve photos from it. I presume it happens over the mini USB connector, but so far I can't see the filesystem, so evidently it has to be manually enabled somehow.
I don't insist that a big printed manual accompany the phone. But at least give me a small slip of paper with a meaningful URL printed on it. How hard would that be, to have a manual on the net which actually describes available functionality? I can read. I went to school and everything.
And here's another hint. The manual will be a lot easier to write if the UI is clean and consistent in the first place. Come on, it's not rocket science.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
Why weren't 1960s telephones available with tiny Minox cameras built into them? BECAUSE NOBODY NEEDS A CAMERA IN A TELEPHONE, that's why.
What do I need? I need a cell phone that works everywhere and has as good voice quality as a landline phone. One that costs less than $10 a month to use. That's what I need.
A camera in a phone? Makes as much sense as a toaster in a car, a thermometer in a tennis racquet, or an mp3 player in a condom.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I have a moto fone. Bluetooth profiles are locked down so my phone book cannot appear on my car's screen. Getting a photo off requires the recipient to visit a website. Yes, I am stuck with Verizon. They have made damn sure i refuse to use the Get It Now service, buy photos for 25 cents each, or even think of putting music on the phone. Waste of an otherwise interesting computer. I find reading about what a GSM phone can do interesting, sort of like reading about driving on the Autobahn while I'm stuck in NYC traffic.
... or - even worse - ring without me being there to answer it.
Oh, the humanity!
the star tac was not digital, meaning your analog phone took up what to Verizon was a channel which digitally could carry eight conversations. You missed the cellular chop, and the simple fact is that the analog phones sounded better. I used to "force analog" when in a dense area like a city, because it increased the odds of a clear channel. I feel for you.
i'm from poor country and i see that you are right ! most here try to buy expensive and new versions of mobiles with camera but they only can use call + camera but don't now how to use the others features but i don't think that is bad .. at least they will sell much expensive mobiles and man " poor" as me can buy it cheaper " used" , just kidding
nice post & nice info
http://www.smasra.com/
If you can't use the phone as a usb mass storage device because the carrier is worried about you copying ringtones yourself, obviously getting the pics off will be hard.
The first time I bought a camera phone the salesperson recommended a $30 USB transfer cable, which was obviously a rip-off. I will transfer my pictures with an SD card, thank you.
After taking some pictures I plug in my card reader and my files show up... DSCF001.jpg, DSCF002.jpg, etc. Weird, the thumbnails aren't working. To make a long story short, the usb cable comes with [windows-only] software to decrypt your photos. You have no idea how pissed off I was.
My phone isn't anything terribly special - it was free with my plan. And yet it's got some really nice features. It will play MP3s, I can have ringtones, watch movies, text, browse the web, and a million other little things. I'll also pay through the nose if I so much as think about touching any of it. The only thing I've figured out how to do so far is copy my MP3s to the phone and play them. But I can't set them as ringtones or anything. And I can't set my background to a picture I copied either (though pictures I take with the camera seem to work).
Instead, I'm supposed to download all this crap to my phone, meaning I pay for the item and then I pay for the data transfer. It's insane - it'd cost me something like $50 to get a freakin' MP3 as my ringtone! My phone has a camera, but I'm inclined to believe that if I try to send a picture I take to someone else's phone I'll be charged for data, plus the flat service fee for sending a picture, which would be something like $5.20 all said and done. It's not worth that to me. So instead I've disabled all the data services on the phone to avoid accidentally accruing charges. Anytime it runs into an area where it would connect to the 'net, it now just fails with some error message. And I don't use hardly any of my phone's features.
Long story short: I don't use my phone features because cell plans prevent me from doing so.
"I do a grep for shit, bollocks, and tits before checking in code. I'm professional..." -RECURSIVE_META_JOKE, reddit.com
The way they make us get all these features on our phones is insane! What are they doing to America?
What sort of phone company is going to make me get a voice plan when they KNOW that all I am going to do is twitter anyway? THEY ARE SO OUT OF TOUCH.
If customers are only using their mobile phones to make phone calls, they would have little reason to upgrade. You might get a slimmer model or something, but it's probably not that high of a priority for people who only use their phone to make calls.* How many people buy a new home phone every year?
Then along comes something like the iPhone that actually makes you want to use your phone for different things. GPS maps, a "real" web browser, mail client, etc... and all pleasant to use. People get used to it, and when the next iPhone comes out, with more features most people aren't thinking of, people will want to upgrade. Which means sales, but also renewed contracts.
The analogy here is the personal computer. Back when computers were becoming more commonplace, manufacturers may have said, "We're building these great computers with superfast 28.8k modems, but all anyone uses their computers for is word processing!"
OK, yes, they could've sold computers as glorified typewriters, but if they get people using their computers for more than that, people will want more. There's a quote attributed to Henry Ford along these lines: "If I'd asked people what they'd wanted, they would've asked for a better horse."
* I realize people continue to buy new cellphones every year and do not use the features. These are essentially fashion statements, but I think eventually a lot of people will just settle for what they have. Additionally, the iPhone may have been set to monopolize the market in that it's both fashionable and functional.
I'm going to go on a limb and say that whatever you call a real camera is a useless toy.
Typical users don't care if Google or MS or ATT have monopolies, so long as they get what they want at a reasonable cost. Nor do they care if their phones or sneakers are made in a sweat shop or whether the workers have the vote and have medical benefit, so long as they get them at a reasonable cost. Nor do they care whether Starbucks or Budweiser open sources their recipes so long as they get a drink at a reasonable price. Same deal with cars, etc etc.
Very few people really value freedom unless they are being personally hampered by it. Heck only around 50% of eligible Americans vote and they supposedly value democracy!
Still, even these Open Source phones are still closed at some level. Try to get the design files for the chips and GSM module.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I can take a picture with the dodgy camera in my cell phone and pay my cell phone provider $.50-$2 to upload it to my computer so I can see if it's even worth using, or: I can use my digital camera, get a MUCH better quality picture, and download it to my computer for free. It's not that I don't know how to use the camera on my phone (sometimes it even goes into camera mode by accident)... Its that I don't want to use the camera on my phone. -- and until I can use it for free, I'm going to continue to not want to.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
..on this thread as well, the cameras on phones suck but it would be nice if they didn't suck. So here's a business plan for a niche gadget: a decent digital camera that has a built in simple cellphone. Put the emphasis where it is wanted.
and then there's always duct tape...
All I want is a standard way sync an address book with any phone. That's it. The standard exists. Bluetooth hardware is almost ubiquitous. Why the fuck has this not been done yet?
They donÂt Download to a computer but they do... share them via bluetooth or show them right in the phone.
paint over the lens on your camera with some white-out or something. Or for a more permanent solution, cut out a small bit of aluminum or opaque plastic or whatever and epoxy it on.
Doh! Users always have troubles. Right now so that the Sprint CEO is in an ad hawking their setup service.
...because two things haven't happened so far. I haven't spotted anybody stealing my car, and no ET spaceship has landed in front of me. Real cameras seem to work just peachy for everything else.
rj
I've been reading most of the comments and a lot of people are blaming the carriers for locking the phones down. I'm not an American and Australian carriers are forced to not lock the phones down quite so much, so I get to see what features people use when they actually CAN use them. Lets take my family as an example.
Me - I use almost of all of the features of my phone except the camera and MP3 player. I have a nice little 7MP happy snap digital camera that is actually smaller than my phone permanently in my backpack. I do however use the browser from time to time. I use the wifi and bluetooth (mostly to get my laptop online). I use its email sync.. Lets just say I use a lot of features and im happy with it.
Brother - My brother uses the phone to make calls and SMS only. Hes not to technical, but can work his way around the interface. I actual got an MMS message from him once to show off his new bike, so he can USE the features, he just doesn't.
Wife - She uses the phone to make calls and SMS as well. Pretty much the same usage pattern as my brother.
Father - My dad had to get the best phone he could. This is the 2nd phone in a row where I have gotten a call from him after 2 weeks complaining that the screen is too small and he cant read it and can I make the text bigger (which I cant). As a result he doesn't use ANY of the features and even has trouble making calls on the phone.
Mother - My mums phone is pretty basic because shes the least technical person I know. She cant even figure out the address book in the phone, but she gets by.
So there we go.. I would say my phone usage is abnormal based on that quick survey, and even I don't use the camera.
So why can't you switch carriers and get more options, like a non-camera Nokia or something?
What do you need in a smartphone, anyway, and would those needs not be met by either a PDA or an iPod Touch?
If 50-90% of people who buy phones with cameras don't know how to shoot a photo with them, that means:
* They didn't need a camera on their phone in the first place, or else they would have found out how it's done. Maybe they even prefer taking photos with a real camera.
* 40-45% of phones have a useless camera.
The real question is, why do phone manufacturers slap gadgets on them instead of making them easier to use?
The telcos limit the phones you can connect to their network.
They lock you into contracts you can't break.
They cripple features on the phones.
They charge ridiculous sums of money for things that should be free.
And then they wonder why people don't use all of the features?
Reality check!
Users don't want features. They want benefits.
They don't care whether these are free and open source or not - all they care about is getting what they want, at a reasonable price.
Taking the camera example, many people don't want to use a crappy (as many phone cameras are) phone camera to take a picture and then download it via a USB cable into their computer, or screw around with SD cards etc. Give them an end-to-end solution where they snap their pic and it automagically ends up in Picassa/whatever. That would make them happy so long as the cost of doing so is a few cents per picture.
Users don't want features. They want benefits.
They don't care whether these are free and open source or not - all they care about is getting what they want, at a reasonable price.
Taking the camera example, many people don't want to use a crappy (as many phone cameras are) phone camera to take a picture and then download it via a USB cable into their computer, or screw around with SD cards etc. Give them an end-to-end solution where they snap their pic and it automagically ends up in Picassa/whatever. That would make them happy so long as the cost of doing so is a few cents per picture.
On top of that, why om earth would they want more bandwidth charges. These users incur a ridiculous costs for these services. Why on earth would they want to be gouged any more than they already are? What they need is better rates,better coverage with better devices. In many countries like - say india there cost plans are so far ahead of ours it is not funny. I sure hope they don't move to north america because we would loose a ton of money.
Like the useless PTT (Push to Talk) button that AT&T put on my Tilt (HTC TyTn II).
Thankfully, a software hack let me remap the button to launch Google Maps instead.
-David
Buy a phone with a camera in it, mark over the lens with black ink, and then cover it with epoxy.
Consider AT&T. They're not a shining white knight, but OBEX works out of the box on every phone I tried, as does DUN. You can even get your phone (subsidized by them) unlocked - all you have to do is ask.
Most experience I had was with a Motorola Razr, which is good because I've been able to compare the same phone AT&T and Verizon. Verizon had the worst fucking interface I've ever seen, while the Moto interface isn't perfect, but it works wonderfully. It had a standard Mini-USB, so no proprietary crap. It had 3 USB options - PictBridge, modem, or mass-storage (let you get the Micro-SD card). And easy to hack (check out hackmyrazr.com and P2KCommander)
Unless you *need* to be on Verizon, I think that, as a fellow nerd, a GSM provider will work better for you. With GSM, the provider has less leverage.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Check out your sibling comment (mine...)
I highly recommend AT&T with a bare-bones plan and not the free phone, but the next one up. I had the RAZR v3xx (IMAP email, full bluetooth, HSDPA, rugged, easy tethering...) for around $50
GSM providers tend to be better, because they know that if they're too restrictive, you can always say 'fuck you' and buy your phone direct. If it's GSM-capable and works on the US frequencies, they can't not allow it. Verizon can refuse to 'activate' it if they don't like it, if you even can buy direct...
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
More people would use their phones features if they weren't scared of getting tons of hidden charges?
I know my phone provides a lot of cool features, but half of them have hidden fees. I don't bother experimenting if it's going to come out of my wallet.
dun dun dun d-dun jitterbug!
Users don't want features. They want benefits.
I agree with many of the comments on the usefulness of many phone 'features'. But think the issue here is design. I've had phones with cameras and never used them. Then my latest phone had a different design. Previously to take a photo it was click, navigate, click, select, etc. Now I just slide back the lens cover and push on the dedicated hardware button which is just where I'd expect it to be if holding the phone like a camera. Its still not a great phone (and response time is awful) but now I never think 'wish I had my camera here' because I can at least get a couple of snaps on the phone.
So if you make the features intuitive to find and easy to use they will get used a lot more.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
Sometimes it's the goddamn cellular provider. Take Sprint, for example. At one point I had a Sanyo Katana on a Sprint account. Using the camera in the thing is painless: getting the damned pictures off was more complicated since the bloodsucking cell provider wanted a $15-$30/month "data plan" so that I could email my own pictures to myself. Fortunately I discovered MobileAction.com and bought myself a USB cable, and was able to grab images from the phone into my PC. Of course, Sprint has the firmware crippled so you can't download anything into the thing (other than phone book entries and I think schedules) unless you use their paid service. Want to dump a ringtone into your phone? Maybe use the phone for data storage? Copy some pictures into the phone so you can display them later? Forget it ... Sprint wants more money. Not worth it.
... and greed.
If the phone providers actually let their customers use all cool features of the phones they sell, maybe this wouldn't be such an issue. I think a lot of people would use more of their phone's capabilities, they just don't want to pay their provider any more juice money.
It gets back to the three most basic human emotions: greed, fear
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I loved my StarTac. My wife and I both had one and kept them for years after we could have switch. I very happy with my RAZR. It beats a StarTac in a number of areas. The most important being battery life. It will last a full week on standby.
The problem is that where I live, there is one ATT tower in the town at the center of the valley, but I live at the edge of the valley, so call quality is terrible. I can barely understand what people with ATT phones are saying if they call from my neighborhood, and there is one stretch of road nearby (about 3 miles long, so not an isolated spot) where ATT phones always drop calls, even though the coverage map shows good signal strength there (maybe they added a new tower recently). T-mobile looks like it's about the same as ATT according to the coverage map. I have not had any call problems with Verizon, and after all, it is meant to be a phone, so that's the most important functionality.
I have a RAZR v3m, and it has some good features in theory, but Verizon ruined it with their software and restrictions. Verizon disabled almost all the hacks for it, and the only USB support is transferring music with Verizon's proprietary music manager program. I used to be able to use Bluetooth DUN (at 14.4k), but now they changed my plan, and it costs an insane $2/MB even though I have plenty of extra minutes and it does not use EVDO.
I have a RAZR now as well. There were extended batteries that I had -- have -- for the StarTac that rivalled the RAZR battery life, although I do have to say that the StarTac was never known for sipping electrons.
The OEM RAZR battery was a piece of shit. I now have the new one, forget the number; and I don't doubt that I can get a week on standby. Would that I could go a week without placing or receiving a call/message...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
In some lines of work it actually matters.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
"a problem that mobile phone carriers and manufacturers have been struggling with"? They're causing the problem!
For example, my phone has a camera. Why doesn't my phone have a standard USB connector. Why didn't Bell or the manual tell me I can download photos over USB? Why isn't the cable included? (It can't be expensive.) Why am I charged for uploading photos over the air, the same amount as if I sent photos to someone? Why did Bell tell me that uploading is free and then charge me? Why is the camera such a piece of crap in terms of optical quality, JPEG artifacts and user interface?
I have a Sprint PCS phone, made by Samsung, with a camera, GPS, voice dialing, and web browser. All those features suck.
The camera has a max resolution of 640x480, which is tolerable, but that's not the default resolution. The default is 120x80, and the phone resets to the default when powered off, and sometimes when connected to a charger. So taking a picture isn't a casual affair; I have to plow through menus to reset the resolution, or risk getting a dinky picture.
The GPS isn't enabled, because Sprint requires I buy a package with tons of stuff I don't want to enable it.
Voice dialing has very slow response. My previous Motorola phone was much faster, and that was five years ago.
The web browser blows up on many sites, and connecting to Sprint's network interface usually takes at least 30 seconds of "connecting".
So I just use it for voice calls, and take an occasional picture.
Let's see - crappy 1.3 megapixel camera with bad optics and a non-scratch resistant plastic lens. Slow software that can't take pictures anywhere but outside in ideal sunlight, crappy slow software to browse the pictures, and usually no way (or some very obscure way) to get the pictures off of your phone without paying to send them via some misguided and unbelievably expensive MMS message.
Yea I can't figure out why people aren't using the hardware "features" either.
or else!
Missing a call is worse than having your phone stolen?
Who are you waiting for a call from? Geeez.
or else!
1. Be blind to the many PDA/smartphones available without cameras.
2. Buy a phone with a camera
3. Drill hole through camera
4. Dry up those tears and live your life cameraless.
or else!
To be fair, the cell phones actually make really good use of the data plan for the GPS software, by downloading the maps et al live rather than storing it offline. There are offline options, but they really don't hold up against those which require an internet connection. The maps are going to be far more limited. And they're a pain to set up and use. And they use a sizable chunk of your microSD space even if you limit it to just, say, your state. And if you're going to limit to just locally, you probably shouldn't need fancy tech to tell you where you are.
Yes, the data plans can be expensive, but if you want a good experience with your GPS on your phone you'd need it. Telecoms can't compete with main-stream GPS navigation thingies head-to-head, but with the 'net access they've actually managed to - in many ways - get you a better product. If it's too expensive, then just get an main-stream GPS navigation thingie.
It may be possible to argue that whoever you got your cell from should have mentioned that you do have crappy offline options from third parties. Although I really don't think it's fair to expect such things. If you want to make a smart choice, do your research.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Have you thought about just taking a screwdriver to the camera on your phone and smashing it?
Once I was making a large order by credit card while on the road. In order to process the order (it was around $12,000 as I recall) they needed a copy of my license, front and rear. I was nowhere near a copier, so I took a photo of it with my phone and sent it to the salesman.
Worked a champ, but it's rare. When I take pictures, it's because I want to remember the special occasion, and the pictures taken by my camera are lousy, at best. So I stick to my $99 Samsumg 4 Mp 4x Optical zoom digital camera if I care about the photo.
I don't use its music player because it doesn't play MP3s, it plays some proprietary Windows-only WMP format. Worse, it cuts sharply into battery life, and requires a special adapter to plug the headphone in. This makes it rather cumbersome to use. So I stick with my $60 Creative Zen MP3 player, which plays MP3s, and also has radio, and records from radio or real life. (none of which the phone does)
It has a calendar feature that's just "clicky" enough to be annoying, and seems to "forget" appointments from time to time.
But it's a phone! And as a phone, it's a great phone! It's durable, reasonable battery life, (it charges on my USB port!) the screen is large enough and clear, it's very compact, performance is reasonably snappy, reception is good, and it fits very nicely in my pocket. It's number recall is good.
So why would I use poorly implemented features that suck? I'd guess these features were built to fill "checkboxes" of feature lists that might compel somebody to buy the phone. But what were the features that made me buy it?
1) Charges on a USB plug (which only works on a Linux computer, so this feature is undocumented, it won't charge on a Mac or Windows PC, but I'm a Linux user)
2) Small, flat form factor,
3) Decent (more than 48 hours) battery life.
4) Send & receive SMS/email messages, to integrate with my network monitor.
None of these features include the camera, the music player, the calendar, the audio recorder, etc. and one of the biggest features is one they tried to disable!
BTW: My phone is a Motorola Razr.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I have read numerous comments saying that people just do not want a lot of the features that most current phones have. I don't know how it was in the US, but at least in Germany cell phones were seen as expensive show-off toys by most people 10 years ago. Today, almost everybody has a cell phone here. I think this shows that it's not just about what people want. It does make sense to offer more than just what people expect.
I buy a mobile phone to make calls and send SMS.
If I want to take pictures I use a camera.
If I want to use a music player I will certainly not use an mp3 player but something with ogg or flac (Cowon is my favorite).
Cramming all functions into a mobile phone will just lead to poor quality cameras and poor quality music. And yes UI is also an issue.
To me it is just mobile phone companies trying to justify higher prices for their devices. It is almost impossible to buy a good mobile phone without all this extra overload that I will never use, even though I know perfectly well how to operate the thing.
I'm trying to imagine the average user exploiting even 1% of the capabilities of Excel. I don't see it. It's a platform, and it does stuff. What it is designed to do no longer seems relevant if it's Open because people will use it not for what it's designed to do but rather for what they want to do with it.
And isn't that the point?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Is this a problem?
Hardware manufacturers sell their fancy phones. They should be happy.
Telcos sell their expensive plans. They should be happy.
Users get their phones. If they don't use some of the features, they probably don't because it's not worth their trouble to learn how to use them. But if they wanted to, they could. And some users do. And some users decide they'd rather not pay for features they don't use and get cheaper phones and plans. In all cases, it's their own choice. They should be happy.
Tell me again what the problem is?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
But.... does it make phone calls?
You know, people who respond on /. sure like cliches. Last phone I got with a 1.3 megapixel camera was... 4 years ago? My Nokia 6500 slide comes with a 3.2 megapixel camera which takes pretty decent pics. I use it as my "happy snappy" camera to take photos of my kids (about an average of 5 per day ;) ). I also use it to take landscape shots that I turn into panoramas with Hugin.
I know the Nokia phone software has had quality problems in the past - I used to use it on Windows with my old 6230i. My current setup, however, let's me plug my phone into its USB cable (which came with the phone), select "Photo sharing" on the phone and have f-spot (on Ubuntu) pick up the phone as a MTP device and import the pictures (which I can then tag and export to a web album).... I can also browse the phone's store from Bluetooth if I want.
The result is an easy way to keep a personal photo album. Decent software and integration between contexts (phone, PC, web) is key to this. In this regard open source has an advantage since integration (between different sources / services) is something that open source projects tend to do well. There's nothing stopping Nokia, etc. from improving their PC-side software, though - and integrating it with Flickr, etc. They manage to make a decent UI for the phone itself, so they've got one part of the puzzle right.
Of course, this is in South Africa where our mobile providers seem less insane than the descriptions I'm hearing of the USA ones.
I put it to you that given the choice of two phones for the same price, one with all the multi-media options and one without, that you would go for the one with more options, even if subsequently you never really used them.
I was convinced for years that there was a huge gap in the market for well designed, easy to use devices that only provide basic functionality. This would cover everything from washing machines to DVD players, TVs, phones etc, even stretching to PCs, cars, home alarm systems etc etc. This would appeal to the 90% of the population who only use 10% (or less) of the functionality of their existing devices.
The manufacturer could forget about adding extra functionality and instead improve the usability and reliability of the functions that really matter. If done well, and a good feedback loop put in place to relay customer experience back into the design process, the devices would evolve over time to be almost perfect.
However this would never work. Why? The perception imposed on you by marketing that you're missing out on something. If the next guy has a phone bought for the same price that does a bunch of extra stuff, you're going to want that one every time, kidding yourself the whole time that "you never know when it will come in useful".
Sad really.
"Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket." George Orwell
Orlando...
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
Hi, I know NOKIA is not Samsung, but they have also quite good smartphone E51 that is made both with and w/o camera.
True. It's not PDA, but it might cut it for you.
no they are not useles toys. it just depends what you want them for. for me the camera is very useful as it allows me to take a photo of an a4 sheet of paper and read the text later if necessary. handy if you're give a sheet of paper on site with the configuration information and there is no photocopier handy to bring a copy back to the office. also screenshots with errors are handy to keep so instead of writing down a screen of gobbledegook i just take a picture knowing that i can reference back to it in the future.
i currently have a nokia e71 and use the 3mp camera for this purpose. the e61i and n70 i had before that with a 2mp camera did this as well. the 1mp camera in the palm zire 72 also achieved this aim. it just took a bit more care with lower resolution devices.
as for taking pictures outside work the devices mentioned above do fine for my needs. hell the vga res palm pix i used on my palm iiix took some good pictures but that seemed to have a pretty good lens.
it is better to have a simple camera always to hand than drag along another device and charger in my book. the e71 lives in a holster on my belt and is always ready to go. having to fetch or unpack a camera from my bag would have lost me some great photos of stuff that was happening around me. ymmv.
as for cheap service i'm in europe and use a prepay system. i average 10 a month for my phone. sometimes less some times more. when in hospital recently i used the e71 for web (99c for 50mb a day on prepay was sufficient for my needs using rss and lo bandwidth sites, cheaper than the newspapers others on my ward were buying to stave off boredom), email and etext reader as well as fm radio. i used an ipod for music and movies as the 160gb gave me a huge library to keep me amused with while the e71 was limited to 8gb. wow to think that i now see 8gb as a limitation. :-)
I'd like to, but there are too many family members who are also on verizon that get called all the time (unlimited in network calling) - between the three lines on my plan we'd burn through all of the minutes in about a week. I'm none too happy about it... the phone chooser on the VW webpage returns exactly two phones - both blackberries - when I enter the following criteria: bluetooth, non-camera, removable memory, qwerty keyboard, voice dialing, speakerphone.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
No 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation services. Video isn't needed, nor these cheap built in cameras, nor crippled web browsing. I want a phone to talk with, maybe text with. Anything else, is something extra I, and 90% of the population, doesn't want to pay for.
If someone came up with a standard with reduced bandwidth but with increased range (vs. 3G GSM's tradeoff of maintaining range but increasing bandwidth) -- then the cost of deploying said network would be much lower (less basestations). If this were coupled with cheap, simple, phones, then you could have a cheap service that catered to 90% of the population.
Of course, the cost of all of these gadget laden phones and networks would go up, but that's life.
It is just that the average person very seldom has a need to actually USE them. So, they have very little incentive to learn HOW to use them, and in many cases they'll know ahead of time they need a camera, so they'll use a real camera.
Same goes for all the other features. It just is not worth all the time and hassle to figure it all out. 90% of people are just not going to bother and they aren't going to miss what they never had a pressing need for in the 1st place.
My guess is that over the next 20 years the population in general will get a lot more sophisticated in its use of technology, and the technology will get a lot simpler to use and more reliable, and then yes, it probably will be used by a lot higher fraction of people. But there is likely to always be 30-50% of the people that can't really be bothered.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Part of the problem is that cell phone carriers view their own customers as little change machines. Everything is an extra cost unless you get a flat rate which is ridiculously expensive.
It seems that these problems are more a US problem than one for Europeans. It seems that the carriers in the US are all about locking the phones down so much that to get any 'proper' use out of them they've got to throw money after money after money to their service provided.
I'm in the UK and the phone I've got (a Sony Ericsson K850i) comes with absolutely nothing locked down (except perhaps the firmware, but that's trivial to bypass). I can bluetooth anything (pictures, video, mp3s, etc) to and from the device to any other device that'll support them. I can do the same with the supplied USB cable. I don't even need to install the Sony Ericsson software to do so as the device gets picked up as either a music player or a mass storage device - and I get to choose which one it identifies itself to the computer as. All of which costs me no (extra) money to do.
I think the US needs to be asking it's carriers why they are so far behind offering what we Europeans get - or to phrase it slightly differently - why they seem so intent on selling crippled phones just to take some more money out of the customer's pockets...
I want a smartphone just like this but WITHOUT A *&!*&@ CAMERA! I go in and out of courtrooms and secure facilities all the time.
Just a thought. If you're willing to forgo the warranty, buy the cheapest phone you can and visibly break the lens on the camera, and cover whats left with epoxy or cement. You should be able to demonstrate that there is no camera on the phone to security quite easily.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Like the crappy camera in the phone - my daughter' Crayola camera takes better pictures
Color screen - really what need to I have when the web browser doesn't support javascript or CSS
[besides I can't read it without the backlight on, which sucks down more battery]
Music/games - yea a buch of java demos - that suck, if i want music - I need a standard headphone jack, and well storage...
Just give mne a grayscale daylight readable screen, bluetooth, and a contact list and I'll be all set.
Really. I still miss my Qualcomm QCP-2750 - sounded better than anything since - battery lasted a week, good UI and scroll wheel.
AND I LIKED THAT IT WAS MORE THAN A mm THICK! Can't cradle most of the new phones on your shoulder!!!!
Life is but a Beta test...
You say that if your parents spend time on these phones, it wouldn't improve their quality of life at all.
This is I think missing an essential point.
They do NOT spend time on these features of their phone, BECAUSE they don't see how it would improve the quality of their lives.
Or to put it simpler, if people have no need of the camera on their mobile phone, they won't bother to learn to use it.
If I only use my VCR for straight recording and playback, I never need to set the clock.
If I only cook in my microwave, I never need to learn how to use the defrost settings.
The original article seems to claim, people don't use the camera features because they don't understand them.
You say, they could understand them if they spend time on it, but would it make things better?
I say, they KNOW it won't make things better, so they don't. It has NOTHING to do with simplicity, people learn complex things all the time IF THEY HAVE A NEED/DESIRE too.
Ages ago, I had an old aunt, when the microwave came out EVERYONE wanted her to get used to one. NOBODY understood that she just didn't WANT to. She had learned to cook perfectly well with the tools of her time and had no need or desire for a new one. BUT I only learned that from her as a secret, she used her supposed inability to use it as an excuse not to have to use it. It always seemed odd to me that a woman who once operated on punch card systems as a clerk would have trouble with a microwave. Everyone else just seemed to assume, older woman == idiot forgetting her job before she got married and had kids.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Why don't I use the camera? Maybe I don't want to have to MAIL the image to myself because verizon does not let me download the pictures using usb or bluetooth.
Fact of the Matter is there are LOTS of features I'm sure people would use IF the phone company did not play games and want to charge you to use a feature that the hardware manufacturer has made standard on the phone.
Take my phone for example, the Razr V3m. It's getting a bit old, but it has LOTS of features including teathering that I COULD use but verizon disables it.
I wish they would stop playing like a bunch of Ferrengi.
There are plenty of people out there that care about all these kind of issues.
Just because the only ones you know are geeks it does not mean only geeks care.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A camera in a mobile phone is not a high priority feature for me. What I would rather have work properly is a PIM that syncs with Google (or web service) for free. If I wanted to cable sync with my computer then I would go back to using a Palm Pilot. Also, I don't want to pay extra for an enterprise service to get my work calendar and I don't want to pay extra for MobileMe because Apple has not implemented ICS send/receive in the iPhone. I'm high tech, and I agree that PIM on a mobile phone is frustrating.
George (gk4)
Exactly, the only reason the carriers are concerned is because they want to charge money for using these features. What they need to realize is that it's a simple supply and demand problem. These features are not necessities, and there are plenty of substitutes. Therefore, the demand for them is relatively elastic. A shiny new user interface won't change a thing.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
80% of the features are useless (crap to anybody who doesn't need 'em) while 20% are marginally useful and will be used as long as they don't get COMPLICATED by features from the 80%.
The prime purpose of a phone is to CALL people. That's enough for a lot of people.
I'm not saying that its not handy to have a hundred bladed "Swiss Army Knife(TM)", but if all you want is to cut something, that's 99 blades too many, and it makes the knife into a "brick with a cutting edge".
Sometimes you need configurability in your configurability.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You confuse software and hardware, good sir, and at least 13 of those 34 features are exclusively software, while I'd imagine many of the remaining 21 can be faked with clever implementation. If you really want to make a point, at least make a consistent one, please.
get the nokia e62, it is a smartphone without a camera
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Right, imho you all don't know what you really want. You cannot go on and on about how the camera or the mp3 player or the webbrowser or whatever sucks on todays phones, that it's really unusable etc and at the same time demand that there are completely featureless phones. To me this implies that if only the camera or mp3 player or whatever was a tiny bit better, you'd be the first to buy it. Anyway, i got an iPhone and i think it's an OK product, it's far from perfect but its actually fun to use all it's features. I agree that older phones really sucked in most what they did...
Adding a low-resolution camera to a phone increases the cost to manufacture the phone, thus raises the cost of the phone to the consumer, thus raises profit margins.
The only phones without cameras these days are not worth the materials they are made of. Blame the tiny screens or bad UI's as much as you want, but please, please, PLEASE look at the UTILITY of the features y'all add.
How often do you say, "Gee. I wish I had camera."
My phone has a camera. Yes, the camers sucks, but in theory I could use it... if I was actually able of getting those pictures onto my computer. Does my phone come with IrDA? Nope. Does it come with Bluetooth? No, it's a low-end phone. Does it come with a data cable? No, Motorola wants extra money for that.
I'm left with a device that theoretically supports all kinds of things but actually can't do them because the manufacturer decided that being able to use them is so optional people should pay twenty bucks for a USB cable beforehand. Dicks.
My next phone will come with either Bluetooth, a MicroSD slot or a standard mini-USB jack. But then again I'll probably pay for my next phone - unlike the current one, which I got off a relative when their contract entitled them to an upgrade. Mobile phones aren't really important enough to pay real money for. Well, unless you need to compensate for somthing.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
These features that no one is using. Are these the features that the self proclaimed tech experts squeal about and claim that the iPhone absolutely without a doubt had to have or it wouldn't appeal to consumers? The consumers that aren't using the features they have now?
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
It has already been done before and it is on it second version! http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/646/80330048oy9.jpg http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Gentoo
One most people don't use the camera on their phone is because carriers make it nearly impossible to get the pictures off the phone without paying.
Customers want features and ease of use. Carriers want revenue streams.
Guess which one determines the phone's capabilities?
.. Most people just really don't give a fsck about crappy low res cameras on their phones?
Maybe, just maybe, most people, most of the time, just want to make phone calls.
Maybe.
Nah, that's rediculous.. who am I kidding? I love taking low res, badly focussed, washed out looking pictures and than being forced to PAY just to upload them to a clumsy unintuitive website so I can do something with them.
Or maybe people are tired of having to constantly upgrade or replace their phones and the novelty of these extra features just doesn't matter anymore when really they'd rather have a phone that just works and doesn't fall apart after a year.
nah. I must be smoking crack. Coolness and New Hotness is way more important than quality and usability. Who am I kidding. I must be an alien.
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
100% of my phone's camera system takes 100% worthless images.