The Feature Phone Is Dead: Long Live the 'Basic Smartphone'

zarmanto writes: "The numbers have been telling us for a while now that (formerly expensive) feature phones have been slowly displaced by more feature-rich, high-end smartphones. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the other end of the market is also receiving active encroachment by low-end smartphones. Now, ARM is suggesting that it's actually quite conceivable for OEMs to produce a 'smartphone' for as little as $20 — as long as you compromise a bit on those things which actually make it a smartphone in the first place. So, is this just more graying of the line between smartphones and feature phones? Or is this an indication that the feature phone (as we used to know it) is finally well-and-truly dead?"

Comments

WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is this an indication that the feature phone (as we used to know it) is finally well-and-truly dead?"

Assuming we've heard of this term "feature phone" in the first place.

Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[Sigma 7]

Technically, a feature phone is a class of cell phone half-way between conventional smart phones and cellphones that only allowed dialing.

It's also a back-dated definition.

As for programming software for one - don't bother. There's so many variants that it's easier to aim for an Android or iOS.

Re: WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[Vairon]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
"A feature phone is a mobile phone which is priced at the mid-range in a wireless provider's hardware lineup.[dubious – discuss] The term "feature phone" is a retronym. It is intended for customers who want a moderately priced and multipurpose phone without the expense of a high-end smartphone."

In my mind there's 3 general categories to mobile phones:
1. basic phone - Can make and receive phone calls. Example: Jitterbug phone
2. feature phone - Supports limited browsing of web, changing ringtones, very basic games or applications and makes/receives phone calls. Example: Nokia 6020.
3. smart phone - Runs an OS like Android or iOS with an application pool of thousands of applications to do similar functions as a PC along with making and receiving phone calls. Example: Samsung Galaxy S5

Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[ichthus]

The best scene release 3D TV? The opposite of a "nuked" 3D TV?

Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[interkin3tic]

From wiki it sounds like the term is basically just "not a smartphone." Dumbphones evidently fall into that category. I'm guessing "feature phone" is simply a stupid marketing term that sounds better than "dumbphone."

Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[squiggleslash]

Back when Feature Phones were "the thing", we called them "Camera Phones". Then, for reasons that don't make sense, after the iEverything came out, we started calling them Feature Phones.

No, I don't understand either. If it's because both generally had cameras then (1) It's not as if every touchscreenappsphone needed to have a camera by definition, and (2) it's not as if touchscreenappsphones didin't have features.

I can vouch for the article, FWIW. I'm about to switch back to a feature phone, and use a small tablet for my Interwebs needs. When I swear off a technology, it usually means it's about to take over and nobody is going to even be given the choice of not using it any more. You heard me right: everything from Windows to Blu-ray is my fault. At some point I'll figure out how to use this power for good.

Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[Charliemopps]

They're much more popular in areas where computers are not much of an option like Africa. When I was there, you could stop at little wooden booths on the street and buy Feature phones and calling cards for a few dollars right along with various junk food and mystery meat on a stick. Due to the US cellular market being such a disaster no-one from the US's phone would work there unless you were an AT&T international plan. As a result everyone from the US would get off the plane and immediately buy one of these for $5 and enough minutes to call home.

Are they dead in the US? They were never a "thing" here to begin with. In Africa and other very rural areas with poor infrastructure, they are basically the only computer you can get and are hugely successful. People run full blown businesses off the things. So no, they aren't dead. Most people in these areas have a hard time coming up with the $5 for the phone. The average wage where I was at was $7/month. So the difference between $5 and a fancy $20 smart phone is 3 months salary. Don't get me wrong, these people had wealth (land, livestock, clothes, etc...) . It just wasn't easily transferable to US currency. They bartered a lot.

Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[mark-t]

The term "feature phone" is not new... it's existed for almost as long as such phones have existed. It was invented to differentiate from just "cell phones", which are only capable of making or receiving calls and possibly text messages (although most phones with the latter capability are also feature phones). The feature phone is thus distinguished from the cell by having more "features".

The distinguishing characteristic of a feature phone in my experience is that you can run applications on it that the manufacturer did not bundle with the purchase of the phone... whether these applications are run natively by the phone's CPU or whether they utilize a virtual environment such as J2ME may vary. Basically, if it comes out of the box able to everything that you can ever do with it, then it it's not a feature phone. It is theoretically possible, with a firmware update, to change a pre-feature phone into a feature phone, although I've never seen that happen, I can only acknowledge its theoretical possibility.

Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[camperdave]

What makes a 3D TV "proper"?

It only gets wholesome channels. It'll show Little House on the Prairie, but you'll get a blank screen if you try to watch Game of Thrones.

Re:WTF Is A "Feature Phone"?

[UncannyCleric]

If you're not frequently away from a wifi connection, a dumbphone is to me a better choice. I'd rather not pay for an unnecessary data package just so I can say I've got a smartphone when I have no actual need for one.

The only features ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I require of my phone is that it make calls and sends/receive texts. My Tracfone costs me about $120 bucks a year. I'm not paying that much per MONTH for a smartphone for the added benefit of playing Candy Crush and watching cat videos on YouTube.

Re:The only features ...

[vux984]

I can live without the voice calls.

I routinely engage in 5 minute phone calls that would take hours to resolve via text messaging.

I like email and text as much as anyone, but the speed and efficiency of two-way information transfer over either is far lower than a voice call -- even if the voice call does force both parties to engage simultaneously in realtime.

I prefer to do as much as I can via email etc myself, because i prefer the written record, and the asynchronous nature -- but to suggest a voice call is unnecessary completely, ever, is ridiculous to me.

Re:The only features ...

[rogoshen1]

you don't want to waste gobs of money in order to join the facebook zombie army? sad.

Re:The only features ...

[mopower70]

>I would leave off the call feature - big waste of time for me.

Yup. I tend to avoid the whole call thing. People calling my phone is an asynchronous interrupt which doesn't fit with my life and work style.

The most ironic part of it is, it's the one piece they just can't seem to get right. Phone calls on a cell phone suck. Period. They're awful. I was at someone's house the other day and talked to someone on an old AT&T Bakelite phone over POTS and I was shocked at how beautiful the sound was. I have never, ever - not even once - had a cell phone call that came anywhere close to that. Cell phone call quality is the audio equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting: anyone who claims they can understand a damn thing is just lying.

Re:The only features ...

[Mousit]

It's worth pointing out that having a smartphone no longer requires being forced into an expensive monthly post-paid service, a fact that is very much related to the posted article, if only tangentially. It certainly USED to be the case (in the U.S. especially), but these days there's quite a number of pre-paid services that are like Tracfone, that allow you to use a smartphone. StraightTalk comes to mind, since they offer Android and iPhones. Even AT&T's GoPhone (a service similarly priced to Tracfone, notably) lets smartphones on these days, though in the past I admit they used to outright reject them and tell you they could only be used on post-pay.

Many pre-paid providers don't even require you to have a data plan with a smartphone. You can live on voice/SMS alone, and get your data needs via WiFi.

Basically, it's entirely possible these days to enjoy both cheap service AND a smartphone. Though I won't begrudge anyone who truly does want a simple, voice-and-text-only phone. Have at 'em. But people who might like a smartphone but not the expensive service plan should not need to hold out anymore.

Re:The only features ...

[chihowa]

It's been getting gradually worse, too.

Back when cell phones were analog, the call quality was generally better. Partially, it was because considerably larger bandwidth was allotted to each voice channel (at the cost of being able to handle fewer phones). Mostly, though, it was because in the analog system the call degraded by having increasing static, which is fairly easy to hear through to a point, and calls degrade now by entirely losing audio or adding chirps and skips.

Re:The only features ...

[sootman]

> The only features I require of my phone is that
> it make calls and sends/receive texts.

Well la-di-da and good for you. You can go hang out with this guy in the corner. I am more than willing to pay for all the things a modern smartphone does for me -- chief among them, maps with live traffic info, access to pretty much ANYTHING on the entire WWW at any time from any location, email, a bunch of USEFUL apps, and a very good camera. (Camera snobs please STFU; the camera is totally suitable for what I ask of it and I'm not going to lug my DSLR around 24/7. The fact is it's better than all the point-n-shoots I bought, and was totally happy with at the time, over the years.)

And thanks to T-Mobile, I get a decent price on a good amount of data WITH TETHERING. (Suck it, AT&T.)

Re:The only features ...

[kackle]

I started in cellular in the late 1980s. The analog, one-frequency-per-call system was MUCH better than cellular phones of today. The analog cellular system we put customers on had 3 times the bandwidth as they allowed for the upcoming digital system calls. You could easily confirm this on an RF spectrum analyzer.

When we were told to give customers free digital phones for beta testing, many were angered by how poor the quality had become as they ran their businesses from them. They demanded their old phones be returned (reinstalled, since they were mostly car phones), but I was told by my boss to assure them the software upgrades would improve the service in the future (which I believed). From what I've seen, they never did.

I'd bet it's even worse now due to the sheer quantity of users and the multitude of different services bouncing between the air, antennas, and equipment. Think about it, if they need more bandwidth at a certain tower, it's probably not hard to dynamically take some bits away from the voice channels.

Not the phone

[dpilot]

I suspect the real desire has nothing to do with the phone itself. The telcos just want to move everyone they possibly can from merely-slightly-expensive voice plans to very-expensive data plans.

(Then call that "broadband internet access" for regulatory purposes.)

Re:Not the phone

[NewWorldDan]

When I think about it, I really don't need a data plan anymore. 95% of my data is coming over WiFi networks anyway. My phone is already set up for data at home, work, the coffee shop, several restaurants, and my kid's school. The only time I really need data is if I'm lost and I need a map.

On the other hand, I'm probably not all that typical. All I'm using for data is mostly email and weather. I don't play games on the phone and I'm not an app junkie. But even if I was, I think I could get by without an actual data plan.

Re:Not the phone

[macemoneta]

At least in my area, Sprint is great. They've also been doing a massive buildout over the last year, so you may want to check again. Republic Wireless also offers free roaming onto Verizon and local carriers. So you get coverage if you have WiFi, Sprint, or Verizon. Many people are even using the phones overseas - any place you have WiFi, you're connected. Unlike VoIP apps, you use the same incoming/outgoing number no matter how you're connected.

Re:Not the phone

[used2win32]

Have have a cell plan (non prepaid) with four phones. Three are feature phones along with one older non touch screen smart phone working as a feature phone (of sorts)

All four phones together are less than $60 per month (talk, text and some data). That is $15 per month per phone. Hard to beat. $180 per year per phone. I know people who pay more than that in a single month with ~one~ smart phone...

Re:Not the phone

[radarskiy]

"Data plans are no longer expensive"
Compared to voice they are. In *your very own example*, voice and text are unlimited while data is throttled.

Re:Not the phone

[macemoneta]

I'm currently on Republic Wireless $10/month plan (unlimited voice and text/MMS, WiFi data only). I always have WiFi available; our cable company has even lined all the major highways with access points. All major retailers (and even some minor retailers) have free WiFi (via AT&T). The nice thing is that Republic Wireless lets you switch the plan from the phone with immediate activation twice a month. So if I need data, I can turn it on, and it's prorated on a daily basis.

So if you have four smartphones and reasonable access to WiFi (who doesn't), all four will cost $40/month.

Re:Not the phone

[swv3752]

Actually, I think you are like most people. You're usage profile matches my own and most people i know.

Re:Not the phone

[mrchaotica]

I guess you could just get a data only plan

T-Mobile has a special plan (only available online or at Wal-Mart) that costs $30/month for unlimited data (5GB of 4G) but only 100 voice minutes. It's the closest thing I've found to a cheap data-only plan (at least a 4G one... 3G data-only plans can be even cheaper).

Incomplete Analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

The analysis is ignoring everyone who can't use a smartphone because of environmental factors (feature phones are much more resilient to dust, sand, impacts/falls, moisure, etc.) or techophobia (it's difficult to teach people a new UI, especially a non-tactile one, beyond a certain age).

Feature phones will continue to be with us for a long time to come.

Re:Synching calendars and contacts well

[TechyImmigrant]

>Hey, you know what 'feature phone' means! Care to share?

Ringtones. For a fee.

It's All About The Data Plan

[snookerdoodle]

Speaking as someone the rest of you might consider a Luddite because I have a feature phone (it's a Samsung with a touchscreen, I don't know the model), the devil's in the details of what the carriers require of you to connect the phone to their network.

Verizon requires you to have a data plan to even use (e.g.) an iPhone. Even if you never use the data service. If Verizon considers your phone a "Smart Phone", they require you to have and pay for a data plan to use it. My understanding is that the other carriers have the same policy. The people that are buying these phones are paying these monthly fees.

If you knew me, you'd know I'm not really a Luddite. For example, when I play my guitar, I don't play with a tube amp, but use a device that models a tube amp that is then plugged directly into a P.A. I pay for said device (a Line 6 HD 500) with the money I save by not paying for a data plan. I prefer to say I'm frugal.

Also, what others have noted: It's Gartner. Seriously?

Re:It's All About The Data Plan

[BitZtream]

Its fairly easy to have them mail you a simcard and take you off the data plan. Tell them you lost your phone and have some simple phone that doesn't use data, check their website for models they have. Call them up, have them mail it to you, put it in yourself, no smart phone pricing and you can still use whatever android or iOS device you want.

but use a device that models a tube amp that is then plugged directly into a P.A

That just makes you a wanna-be. You're trying to pretend you understand why a tube amp is used ... and then not using it and trying to synthesis it. You've been conned into buying something you don't understand for reasons you don't understand. Just use a normal solid state amp, I seriously doubt you can tell the difference.

Using a tube amp doesn't make you a luddite, and the word isn't capitalized, its not a name. You might want to actually lookup the definition of the word, it doesn't just mean you 'prefer older technolgoies'

Re:It's All About The Data Plan

[RR]

Verizon requires you to have a data plan to even use (e.g.) an iPhone. Even if you never use the data service. If Verizon considers your phone a "Smart Phone", they require you to have and pay for a data plan to use it. My understanding is that the other carriers have the same policy. The people that are buying these phones are paying these monthly fees.

The environment is more complicated since the last time you looked into cell phone plans. I don't blame you, because you have better things to do, but you might be able to save money with a smartphone, now.

There's decent activity in Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO), companies that rent capacity on the carriers' networks. Most of them have conventional plans that work with any phone from that carrier. If your usage falls into particular patterns, those plans can be cheaper than the carriers' own plans. But with a smartphone, a company can offer radically different plans:

Republic Wireless has plans starting at $10, or $5 if you have good WiFi and don't need to do calls away from your home/work/car hotspot, ever. Their cheapest phone is only $149, so it doesn't take long to start saving money compared to a typical carrier. Republic Wireless is what I use.

FreedomPop has plans starting at $0, as long as you don't use more than 200 minutes a month, or $10.99 for unlimited voice and texts. Their cheapest phone is $99. I'm not confident in their service quality, and I don't like their overage-based business model, but it doesn't get any cheaper than free.

Re:It's All About The Data Plan

[snookerdoodle]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

We've stuck with Verizon because they still have a signal in places nobody else does. But, just as you noted about the data plans, even this is beginning to change as people start putting up cells out in the country. So, as our contract end gets near, I will take your advice and look elsewhere.

Re:It's All About The Data Plan

[puto]

You are giing misinformation. 1. A large number of Verizons phones do not have sim cards due to them being CDMA in nature. 2. When a GSM, CDMA phone hits the network can request the IMEI and match the make and model on the phone automagically and most networks(especially where I work) will then place a data plan on device and then text the customer what has happened. I was recently using an unlocked HTC phone in Colombia, and it quit working and advised me to go by the local Claro office. I went in and they looked up my account and because the network had identified the phone as a model it did not support, it stopped all services. I put the sim card in an unlocked S2 and all was fine. At my employer when you call in, I can tell exactly what phone you are on, even though the one registered in the system is completely different.

Re:Cue the vintage-nazis

[OzPeter]

This story will now be flooded by the "I am so retro-cool because I own a Nokia 1100 with a 1-incg monochrome LCD and it does all I ever need it to do" crowd.

Nah .. I'm so retro that I own a Razr .. and that my typical yearly bill is about $200 max.

Given that I sit in front of multiple computers for most of the day I see no need to carry the internet in my pocket.

Battery life

[QuietLagoon]

The feature phone's biggest feature for me is the battery life. I charge my phone once every couple of weeks, if that much.
.

The smartphone's biggest detriment to me is all the data that resides on it, and how much the apps track your every move.

And battery life suffers.

[Dzimas]

My wife still carries a 4 year old Samsung feature phone with a slider keyboard. The reason? She doesn't like having to charge a handset every day or two. Her little phone will go for several weeks without charging, so she can just leave it in her shoulder bag most of the time. Her service is also dirt cheap because she doesn't have to worship at the altar of data -- she pays about $12/month. I really wish I could do the same and cut the strings; I'd probably save about $500 a year by going data-free.

The two problems remain

[ThatsNotPudding]

Smartphones = hugephones. I would be much more amenable to switch from my creaky Env2, if there was an actual Android phone that fit into human-sized shirt pockets.

The second issue is more serious: $40 per month soaking for the 'data plan', for a phone that will mostly remain off during working hours per policy.

Re:WTF Is "Dead"?

[billstewart]

Apparently "Dead" means "still close to half the phones being sold", aka "doesn't want to go in the cart!" Sure, they aren't gettin' better, but they're not dead yet.

"Feature Phone" is a standard industry term - it means phones that do more than basic calling, and often have installable applications, but aren't based on the iPhone/Android touchscreen designs that have taken over the market and usually don't run general-purpose operating systems (except maybe Symbian.) Most of them either don't have web browsing, or have some crippled-HTML-substitute like WAP. They're usually smaller (remember when being the smallest phone you could get meant it was the fanciest and most expensive?), often have clamshell designs, sometimes keyboards, and actually fit in your pocket.

Re:WTF Is "Dead"?

[camperdave]

it means phones that do more than basic calling, and often have installable applications, but aren't based on the iPhone/Android touchscreen designs

Ah! So Blackberrys then.

Unmetered != unlimited

[tepples]

I understood what was meant: "A subscriber on this carrier is entitled to 5 GB of fast data and unmetered slow data in each month."

But I think BitZtream might be playing word games as a way to remind you that nothing is truly "unlimited". No computer is Turing complete because memory is bounded; at best they're linear bounded automata. There is no way to physically transfer "unlimited" information to a computer, even with a 10 Gbps Ethernet drop. And cutting a subscriber's speed to, say, 64 kbps is a substantial limit on how much the subscriber can transfer during a month. Assume 10 payload bits per byte to account for TCP/IP overhead, then 64×86400×30÷10÷1000000 = 16.5 GB if the subscriber leaves the phone running 24/7 after the fast data expires.

Re:WTF Is "Dead"?

[Captain Splendid]

actually fit in your pocket

If you're a munchkin, sure. My 3GS (no case) fits neatly into the fob pocket of my Levis.

Re:WTF Is "Dead"?

[mirix]

Symbian was one of the original "smart" phones, really. As it had installable native apps and such. It's not as fancy, but it was pretty much the definition back then.

The nokia feature phones ran S40 or similar, which could only run java apps, and were much more simplified in general. (all the integral apps had much less features, etc).

Re:WTF Is "Dead"?

[puto]

revionist history, check phonescoop.com. that nokia has been smaller and lighter than all the iphones released.