Talk:Smartphone/Archive 3

Flash support
This seems to be the list of phones that support flash lite, from Nokia: " Please note that you need a device with Flash Lite 1.1 or Flash Lite 2 - such as any device with S60 3rd Edition (Nokia N92, Nokia N71, Nokia N80, Nokia E60, Nokia E61, Nokia E70, Nokia N91 Nokia 3250). " http://www.s60.com/business/productinfo/applicationsandtechnologies/flashlite?pbId=256 Mathiastck (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Smart Phone Discussion Forums
I am looking for a forum/chat/blog community with members intimately familiar with current models and features available in Smart Phones or PDA Phones. I'm having no luck in discovering which phones/pdas contain the features I am looking for, or which have the means to develop such features via software addons. A list of discussion community sites or newsgroups or IRC channels would be useful for the article's external links. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that would be against Wikipedia policy. See WP:EL.  Wikipedia is not Google. -- KelleyCook (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:EL says nothing against linking to community discussion sites. So link away. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New reference
I haven't digested these Q4 2007 figures yet, but they look worth incorporating. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

HTC Tytn II/Kaiser/AT&T Tilt and HSUPA
Having Googled for


 * "tytn ii" HSUPA

I found a bunch of pages asking "so where's the HSUPA?" (one of which notes that the Qualcomm chipset supports it but the firmware apparently doesn't), some pages that says it might have HSUPA based on Orange "hint[ing]" that it might (although Orange's French Web site says nothing about the TyTN II having HSUPA), some pages that just list HSUPA as a feature without any references (even though an HTC press release about the TyTN II and the TyTN II manual on HTC's Web site mention HSDPA but not HSUPA), and one page that said


 * For Internet connectivity the device offers tri-band (850/1900/2100 Mhz) UMTS/HSDPA which enables high data transfer speeds. A strange thing about the TyTN II is related to HSUPA connectivity. The Qualcomm MSM7200 chip at the heart of the device is known to support HSUPA which provides top speeds of 7.2 Mbps for download and 5.76 Mbps for upload. But the official specifications of the TyTN II only mention HSDPA, with a maximum download speed of 3.6 Mbp and upload speed of 384 kbps. While the data transfer rates provided by HSDPA are quite good, one couldn't help wondering what the reasons behind these limitations are. In the tests which were performed the HSDPA connection managed to attain download speeds of 759 Kbps and upload speeds of 296 kbps and 277 kbps download speed and 312 kbps upload speed for 3G.

Are there any pages from HTC that say it has HSUPA (Googling for


 * "TyTN II" HSUPA site:htc.com

found nothing), or any pages that say it has HSUPA and back that up by actually doing tests that show HSUPA-speed uploads? Guy Harris (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparison Table
Should some of the contents of the "Other" column perhaps be split up into Yes/No columns, either in the same table or an "additional features" table, like Comparison of file archivers and a lot of the others in Category:Software comparisons? There could be separate yes/no columns for bands, Wifi, GPS, IrDA, USB, and textual columns for things like memory card format, charger type, etc. Starofwonder (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficulty with definitions
Is Blackberry really smartphone?

Basic thing for smartphones is operating system, accessible for users, developers, programmers.

Blackberry in fact has no real operating system. It's only java machina an can run only software written in Java. Let's compare blackberry to - for instance - Nokia Series40 phones. Nobody recognize series40 as smartphones.

But there is operating system in Series40 (hidden behind GUI) and user can run JAVA software. And it's still not smartphone.

Same functions can be found in Blackberry devices - factory build-in functionality and ability to run Java applets (in some case even applets designed for Nokia phones) If Nokia Series40 phone is not a smartphone, Blackberry is not smartphone either.

86.6.139.89 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

desktop computer
could we not mention the possibility of turning a smartphone into a desktop computer, by using a remote display and a keyboard and mouse ? 81.196.248.217 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison table
I propose adding columns for RAM and ROM because these are significant features for smartphones. Furthermore, I propose listing the total amount of RAM and ROM and not that available to the user. The amount of available RAM and ROM can vary depending on the firmware and how many programs that the carrier has loaded and this could lead to pointless edit wars. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose the addition of a column to indicate whether the phone is CDMA or GSM, as well as the addition of a separate colum for WiFi. I support the split proposal. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've split it off into comparison of smartphones, the proposal has been unopposed since it was proposed nearly two months ago. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Operating Systems
BREW is not an Operating System. It is a MExE (Mobile Execution Environment), like J2ME (Java 2 MicroEdition). BREW runs over an underlaying operating system, that is closed. BREW should not be listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.128.16 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Android
Android could hardly be considered common? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.252.86 (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Android now also runs on Neo Freerunner. This port is still under heavy development (just as every other Distribution for Neo Freerunner save QtExtended), but there seems to be a running version: So one may consider rewriting the part about Android, especially about the devices on which it runs. Toscho (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Operating Systems discrepancy
This part of the article has some discrepancies in the statistics provided in that section.

''Operating systems that can be found on mobile devices include Symbian OS (45% of market[13]), RIM's BlackBerry (17% [14]), Windows Mobile (12%[15]), Familiar Linux (7.3%[16]), Palm OS (2%[17]), The Ångström Distribution, and the Darwin (iPhone OS) (0.3%[18]). The Open Handset Alliance's Android is a recent smart phone addition touted by Google and T-Mobile (which launched the G1 phone on October 22, 2008). The OHA hopes Android will gain 4% market share by year's end.[19]''

conflicts with the 2008 Q3 Statistics. I believe it would be better to simply remove the first set of statistics for the first paragraph in this sections ("operating systems that can be found ...)

Halloween.mac (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition
Added details in definition related to radio feature, specialist from the OECD, Paris

Daniel.finnan (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition
I feel that the choice of illustrations have more to do with advertisement than with encyclopedic content. One should change them, by using as an example an historical evolution of models, with each chosen model having a clear innovation over the former ones, that justifies its presence in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinPerros (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

History section - copied or maybe uncited
The "History" section sounds very similar, almost identical, to this site: http://www.mobigear.net/smartphone-history.aspx. Especially the part about the Simon. Could the wiki contain stuff copied-and-pasted from that link, or maybe that site was an uncited reference for this wiki article? (of course I may have this backwards, and the linked site was info copied from wikipedia.) Someone should look into that. - 97.102.154.152 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

BREW
Since when is BREW considered a smartphone platform? ANDROS1337  02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

sleep of death?
The disambiguation page for "SOD" contains an entry "sleep of death" which supposedly pertains to smartphones. What is it? 72.83.202.61 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has since been removed, it seems that it was unsourced. That could describe any situation in which an electronic device does not "wake up" from being turned off or put to sleep. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows XP
Seems like there are some smartphones with Windows XP comming which use the Intel Atom --78.52.128.45 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As it is running a desktop operating system, these are closer in concept to Mobile internet devices or UMPCs. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Update tag
I added the update tag as this information seems to be old or maybe it's global.. The data from Admob, a firm that tracks ad requests from more than 6,000 published sites in 160 foreign countries, shows that Apple is the leader:

"The Admob data confirms that the Apple iPhone (17 percent share) and iPod touch (12 percent share) are together the number one device for mobile internet useage, making 51% of all ad requests. This has to be good news for Apple, who is riding the recession along with the rest of the tech sector. Other highlights from the report indicate that Blackberrys have a 19 percent share while the G1 (HTC Touch) is the number 18 device in the U.S. with 0.9% share in December. The Google Android phone has a 3% OS share in the US, a good number for a product so new to the scene."

Apple 51% RIM 19% HTC 10% Palm 9% Samsung 2%

Gardner and IDC also released new data that contradicts what is currently in the article. 198.4.104.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

About the market share sales of the operating systems
I find the Gartner website ,in 1Q and 2Q,it has no update of the operating systems ,only update of the vendor.Why don't we delete the market share sales of the operating systems. Lkt1126 (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though Gartner has stopped tracking it, the Canalys group continues to research smartphone OS marketshare, so I think it's still highly relevant and worth keeping.-- Lester  23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Defininition needs updating
I think it's time to update the definition of a smartphone, and to make it more modern. The intro of this article talks about a phone that has capability of email, as well as a keyboard, or a USB connection for a keyboard. This is old hat and irrelevant. These days, most standard low-end phones have email capability, plus Java-based mini web-browser, and they are definitely not smart phones. And the keyboard is not a criteria, as the smartphones that are gaining marketshare quickest are precisely the ones without a keyboard (eg iPhone). USB? Just about every telephone (smart or not) has Bluetooth capability. Who needs USB? I think the definition and intro needs updating to reflect where the smartphone market is today.-- Lester  00:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's just one definition - and yes, by that definition, all but the cheapest phones are now smartphones, but I don't see what's wrong with that definition. The other definition is simply a phone that's more "advanced" (i.e., high end) in the market - but that definition can't be updated, it's one that's dependent on the time of release. What would you propose? As you note, even things like having a keyboard aren't a hard requirement (note that the lead only lists it as an "or"), so since all the other things are now available on most phones, I'm not sure what feature list could draw a distinction between a few "smart" phones, and many other cheaper phones? Mdwh (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

US-centric?
This article appears to be US-centric (or at least West-centric). Perhaps a section should be added discussing what the concept means (or if it exists) in other countries with very different markets, such as Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.181.83 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Off you go then....217.33.199.76 (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

App store
Apple didn't invent the app store. Other phone makers have had app stores for the better part of the past decade. The Download Catalog for Danger hiptop/Tmobile Sidekicks comes to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.134.61 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? Apple's store is notable as it has had 3 billion applications downloaded from it - also all the other smartphone manufacturers have opened AppStore's to compete. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Smartphone Definition 2.0
A marketing term used to add a few hundred bucks to the price tags of otherwise common devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.82.117 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

--- or ---

Availibility of a Naitive SDK(ruling out regular J2ME) so systems on Symbian,UIQ, Windows Mobile etc are included (and mayb apple when the SDK for iPhone is released in 2008) or my favoutite determination method -- is there an SSH client or office suite availible for the device —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.136.247 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about sticking in the linked term "electronic visual display", hmm ? Because i suppose they all got one, unlike a dumb land line telephone. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying Nokia N70 is a good phone
Saying "Nokia N70 is a good phone" is unsubstantiated POV see the general gist of WP:NPOV and WP:V. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Added new models to the list
I added a bunch of new models to the list, and it took me more than three hours to manage that - and it's still not complete! There's still many models missing from eg. Verizon, Samsung and Asus. It would have been nice if someone had the time to add at least 5-10 more models to those three brands. it might be OK to add these
 * This section appears to have been removed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows Mobile
Simple fix: I'm changing Microsoft OS to Windows Mobile.
 * This appears to have been done ages ago. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows CE
I think someone should mention that Windows Mobile/Pocket PC/Smartphone are all Windows CE based OSes. Windows Mobile is not "formerly" Windows CE. It still IS Windows CE. Windows CE is the underlying Operating system, while Windows Mobile, etc are simply shells/user interfaces and application suites that run on top of the core Windows CE OS.
 * This appears to have been done ages ago. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Graph
I like the graph at the top, but the information is almost a year old (latest figures I've seen reflect Q3 and some already have Q4). Things have changed a bit in the last year. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ to full year 2009 figures. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

IPhone is Not a smartphone
Iphone cannot be called a Smartphone due to the absense of true multitasking abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.253.59 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by AniRaptor2001 (talk • contribs)


 * You make a good point - it doesn't have any of the features that were usually associated with "smartphones", such as having a keyboard, having a branded off-the-shelf OS, or being able to run multiple applications, or applications installed from anywhere.


 * As noted above and in the article, the definition of smartphone varies. So the Iphone could be considered as smartphone in the sense that it can run applications and access the Internet, in the same sense that most phones (often called "feature phones") these days do. But there is a problem in the Wikipedia articles, in that we refer to the Iphone as a smartphone, but other phones with Internet and the ability to run applications (e.g., the RAZR) are not. So I would propose some consistency, in that we either use smartphones for all such phones, or we simply refer to the Iphone as a mobile phone, which is a more accurate and well-defined term than the problems of "smartphone". Mdwh (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The term 'Smartphone' is a widely used marketing term, which over the next 5 or so years will disappear, as every phone gains internet ability. It's difficult to define, as every manufacturer defines it according to features they have, which the opposition doesn't have. Microsoft defines it in terms of multitasking, knowing that both Android and iPhone currently don't have it. Others define it in terms of multi-touch, knowing that others don't have it. I think it would be silly to exclude any of the new Android, iPhone, Windows Mobile or WebOS phones from being 'Smartphones'. They all are smartphones.-- Lester  07:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can jailbreak an iPhone and install an application that will allow multitasking, though I find it hard to accept the definition of smartphone can hinge on such a small detail.24.18.130.239 (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The iPhone (like the others Lester mentions) is clearly a smartphone by any reasonable definition. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but these "other phones" aren't just Android, Windows Mobile and WebOS - we should be including just about every feature phone out there, that's been released since around 2005. But typically when you read articles about the marketshare of "smartphones", they're not doing this (otherwise, e.g., Apple's share would be far lower). Mdwh (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, although actually we're already here - as of 2005, all but the cheapest phones gained the ability to access the Internet, including web and email, and run 3rd party apps. Strangely, it seems that the "smartphone" category hasn't gone away. It now seems to be used for simply "high end expensive phones", rather than "phone that can run applications".


 * Talking of definitions, we give a pic of market share, but what's the definition of smartphone being used? E.g., why is the original Iphone a smartphone, but not other phones, I wonder? The source doesn't give its definition, which is problematic. Mdwh (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The original iPhone (before software v2) was really a nice Feature-phone. Now it is a Smartphone as you can install third-party Applications on it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. The operating system on the iPhone does multitask (you can run built-in functionality simultaneously without issue) but Apple designed the user interface to stop third party applications from running in the background due to concerns about background apps running down battery charge. So the truth is that the iPhone does multitask but does not allow third-party apps to run simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.169.1 (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My goodness...
What has happened to this article?! It was in pretty good shape last time I contributed, now it is all over the place:

- No chronological ordering in the history section

- Treo stuff is written twice

- Lack of references for the definition of smartphone

- General lack of flow

I'll try to get time to rewrite the history section in the coming days, but if anyone else would like to have a crack, please feel free... Hypnotist uk (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added some more info for you to work on ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed these problems as well, plus I would add the following critiques:

- over-representation of Android overall. (I mean, seriously, it gets mentioned far more than other platforms on this article. This isn't a marketing site.)

- The history section jumps from 2005 to 2008. Why?

I realize there is a fanboy battle going on between Android users and iPhone users, but completely omitting the years where Apple released the iPhone, arguably one of the biggest moments in smartphone history, seems a little suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.169.1 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs a new, simple definition
The introduction to this article is out of control, trying to list too many features to define what a smartphone is. The problem is that every manufacturer wants to define hardware features that their phone has as being the definition of smartphone, while excluding those features that competitors lack. At the moment, the article is listing all kind of features, such as touchscreen type, keyboard type, Wi-Fi, etc etc. The answer is to get rid of these ambiguous hardware features, and boil the definition down to what is in common with smartphones. The answer is in the phone's computing ability. Here is my suggestion of a smartphone definition:

Is that a core definition? Features beyond that are optional.-- Lester  00:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Greater computing ability than a feature phone (that's just a given, isn't it?)
 * While a basic feature phone may be able to run apps based on a generic managed platform such as Java ME or BREW, a smartphone runs apps specific to a particular phone operating system.


 * OK, I rewrote the lede, defining it based on software, rather than hardware features.-- Lester  01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it needs either a software or hardware full keyboard and not just number buttons. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Google is working on perfecting voice control, keyboardless input. Smart? Dumb? There are also predictions that glass multi-touch panels will soon be cheaper to manufacture than numeric keypads + a standard screen.-- Lester  11:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose I could clarify my point as "not just number buttons" then :p, and I guess that would be in addition to your requirements. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, a smartphone is programmable. It doesn't just have the software provided by the manufacturer. Actual speed is not that relevant, as smart is not the same as quick - and all phones currently available will seem slow in future. In short, it is a qualitative feature, not a quantitative one, which distinguishes between inflexible phones which can only do what the manufacturer decided, and flexible phones which can run third party apps beyond the scope of the original manufacturer's imagination. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with user:Lester new simple definition, but the category:smartphones should be consistent with this. I also think that if we continue with user:Lester's definition then individual devices should not be in the main category:smartphones, but individual devices should only be listed under the sub categories of the respective Operating systems. Because using Lester's definition. the question whether a phone is smartphone only depends on the question what the operating system is. E.g. Nokia_N97 should not be directly in the category:smartphones, but only in the Category:S60_(software_platform). Andries (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15.Andries (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is my proposed categorization, taking the N97 for the S60 platform operating system as an example. Andries (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * category:smartphones
 * category:S60 (software platform)
 * category:S60 devices
 * category:S60 1st edition devices
 * category:S60 2nd edition devices
 * category:S60 3rd edition devices
 * category:S60 5th edition devices
 * Nokia N97

User:Lester's definition is supported by the reputable source c't magazine in Dutch Jan. Feb. 2010. article "mobiele troeven: smartphone besturingssystemen" by Achim Barczok and Rudolf Opitz. It is a bit difficult to use as a reputable source because tedious to translate. Andries (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added "contemporary" to the definition in the opening paragraph. The IBM Simon didn't stop being a smartphone when newer feature phones surpass it in computing power. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Smart Phones and Web traffic
What percentage of all web traffic is comprised of smartphones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 02:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I did some browsing and found 2 websites that may be of some relevance to what you are looking for--Powermatassistant (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

http://metrics.admob.com/

http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/iphone-now-50-percent-of-smartphone-web-traffic-in-the-us/

Graphs/Statistics out of date
I just looked at this article to conduct some research for school, however I noticed the graph was from 2010. I did some research, and found out that the google android OS recently beat out the Iphone OS. Mainly due to the varied amount of new phones that support the OS, and the affordable prices, and deals on google android phones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.162.51 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Android is only ahead of iPhone in the US, and the figures given here are worldwide.


 * In due time there will be 2010 figures available (if there aren't already) which will show Android with a higher marketshare - if you can find a source with newer figures by all means post it here and the article can be updated. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wasn't sure if these figures where helpful but thought I'd post the link.The article was posted July 8th. READ --Powermatassistant (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Graph
I'm bit confused, why is sales data on 2010 Q2 on the page instead of the real marketshare?

Market share growth data != market share. If someone want to replace the graph data on the page to real market share, then please do so. Other wise, delete the graph as it is only misleads those who want to find out the actual market share rather than growth percentages.

This data looks more accurate on the actual market share.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mobile-OS-share-q2-2010.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.110.152 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not growth, its the number of phones sold with each OS in the last quarter. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Semantics. I'll delete the graph if there is no objections. 67.189.110.152 (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your graph is US market share. The graph in the article is global market share, hence the difference. This is not a US specific topic therefore the global graph makes more sense (ThingOnASpring 12/10/2010)

The graph as is explains what it is, and as such, there isn't anything wrong or misleading about it so there isn't really any reason to remove it. ThaWhistle (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And FWIW 2 hours isn't anywhere near enough to check that there are no objections. (And I object). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the graph listed "Smartphone share 2009 full"? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone_share_2009_full.png ) I would expect "Smartphone share 2010-Q2 full". samwaltz (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've made a move request to Smartphone share current. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The question no-one seems to be asking here is why the article on Smartphones is headed by a sales chart for smartphones in 2010, instead of, as you might reasonably expect, a picture of a typical smartphone. Also, the section on "Nokia's Resurgence" is speculative at best and reads almost like marketing copy from Nokia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.233.100 (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * so be WP:BOLD :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor change on "Operating systems"
Marco.difresco (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I just made a minor change on "Operating systems" by switching Linux and Unix links to match the Android (that is based on Linux) and iOS (that is based on Unix) reference few words earlier.

I hope it is ok. I am not familiar with Wikipedia changes.
 * Sounds fine. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

History section needs a whole lot of work
"In 2007, Apple Inc. introduced their first iPhone."

Hahaha, that's all it says. I mean I realize the section's in a bit of a disarray but, well, maybe I just wanted to point that out. Btw I don't particularly like the iPhone but I don't think any reasonable person can deny the huge effect it's had on the smartphone market. Even Android, whose philosophy I like a lot more, took the particular shape it did because of the design the iPhone popularized. The iPhone and its influence should be one of the biggest things mentioned in the "History" section, as should the BlackBerry before it and Android after it.

Or are we too busy arguing about whether the iPhone is a smartphone?

Qwerty0 (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a bit more on the AppStore, but agreed, the section isn't neutral as it stands. There is almost as much coverage of the N900 which is a me-too device that there is on the iPhone and AppStore which were far more significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Blackberry has essentially only been evailable on the North American market, and I'm not sure the first Blackberry models can be considered smartphones.
 * Let's take it in historical order. Nokia Communicator called their product Smartphone, and supported email and web browsing in early models, so it is good that the article presents them as first in some sense.


 * I don't understand the text that Ericsson (from my own country) "invented" the Smartphone, and the cited source of this claim does not support it and looks rather commercial. Let's remove that sencence. Mange01 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the iPhone history? Just a few words.. seriously? This is why Wiki is SO not a reliable source for information.

Iphone not a smart phone? Seriously.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.74.198 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone and deleted a bunch of content on less interesting devices and added some more content on the iPhone, please feel free to challenge anything you like with a (so I know what needs sourcing) and/or expand as you wish. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of companies (e.g., Nokia, RIM) have had a huge effect on the smartphone market, but we don't go on about that. This is a place for stating the facts, not opinion on how much Apple fans love their Iphones. And as for "Where is the iPhone history", try History of the iPhone. We already have more than enough coverage for Apple here, listing three out of four of their generations in the history (whilst far bigger smartphone sellers like Nokia seem to have more brief coverage).

Regarding whether the original Iphone counts as a smartphone or not, the problem is that there is no clear definition of a smartphone other than "it's a smartphone if the manufacturer says it's a smartphone". (Can you give me a technical definition that counts the original Iphone as a smartphone, but not most the "feature" phones out there?) Mdwh (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to remove the iPhone 4, as it isn't particularly revolutionary over other phones - probably its only unique feature is the high resolution screen.
 * However the first iPhone was the first phone with a usable web-browser and the first phone with a good touch screen interface and it was the first phone with a decent amount of memory included on it and the first with a decent music player. Additionally once it has got all the software updates available to it it clearly became a smartphone.
 * Similar things apply to the second generation iPhone - it was the first smartphone with the AppStore.
 * If these other phones bring similar new features to the table then they should be included. If they are just more of the same then I don't think they should be. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Claiming that it had the first "usable" web browser, or "good" touchscreen or "decent" amount of memory is simply POV. Plus the line is arbitrary - memory for example has increased in phones gradually over the years, why is the Iphone the magic point where it goes from non-decent to decent? None of these are facts that are relevant to a Wikipedia article.
 * Phones could download apps long before Apple came along; the distinction was more the restriction that you could only download from Apple. But anyhow, the Apple app store is mentioned extensively in the article already.
 * And sure, there might be some new things in some of the Iphone models. The same applies to phones from many other companies such as Nokia or Motorola. No one's saying that the Iphones haven't done anything - but rather, this ignores that the other companies have made great contributions also. But we need something more concrete, otherwise I'm going to add the Nokia 5800, because I think it's the first phone with a decent web browser at a reasonable price that includes basic features like 3G and multitasking. I'd prefer we keep the article to facts, rather than POV.
 * It's fine to mention the Iphone, just as we mention other platforms. What I dispute is the need to start listing every single release from Apple, in an article that is not meant to be about the history of the Iphone. Mdwh (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to the iPhone having the first "usable" web browser that is sourced and thus not POV. If you look at the mobile web traffic stats its pretty clear on the presence of the iPhone. Until this year (with Android) the iPhone has dominated mobile web browsing with only a small percentage of the smartphone market.
 * As only the first two generations of iPhone are even mentioned in the history section its not as if every generation is mentioned so I'm not sure what you want to change. The first generation was clearly revolutionary and the second is only mentioned because of the AppStore which was also clearly revolutionary.
 * Given the Nokia 5800 came out after the iPhone and it hasn't sold as well. I don't see how you can consider it worthy of mentioning here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the stats USA only? As you know Nokia was and is not popular in the USA. Besides, Nokia has offline navigation, in contrast to Android and Iphone, so that may in part explain the difference in data usage. I think the history section is quite okay. Thirdly Nokia phones used quite often Opera mini that compresses data. But was is really missing in this article is that historically different definitions were used for smartphones. Now Wikipedia treats only the definition that is currently dominant. Andries (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, they come from the Nokia 5800 article. It would be rather odd for the contributors to that article to take US stats rather than worldwide ones... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

More pictures
It would be nice to have a Blackberry/Symbian phone for that section and an Android picture either for the top (to be swapped with the iPhone picture) or for the rise of Android/iPhone section. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Windows does not deserve a 'rise of' section
I'm deleting the entire 'Rise of Windows Phone' section. It just looks like marketing from Microsoft. Windows' current smartphone market share does not warrant its own 'Rise Of' section. Maybe put some of that information in a section called 'Other competitors', but whoever wrote that needs to sort it out. I don't even know what "Unlike Android, Windows Phone is not designed to be an iPhone", is supposed to mean, given that the prior sentence says it's an iPhone competitor. Bombot (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The same frankly applies to the image. Android or iPhone or even Symbian sure. Windows mobile has no specific claim to notability. Though its new phones are very nice they aren't as important as the others. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will re-add this section once Windows Phone reaches 10% market share then. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I also think all the 'rise of' titles are against WP:NPV -- Chris Ssk talk 10:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the 'rise of' from the sections. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

13.13.16.2 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I will suggest that we move from the term smartphone, to converged device. While consumers and the media certainly bunch all higher level, usually browser based and up phones, under the title "smartphone", the introduction of Apple, Android, Samsung and others is a step of evolution above the old smartphone. If you look at Gartner, they have a definition of smartphone that is esentially the level of the iPhone and Android. It is not including the phones that are just browser based, with a few small apps on them. /jm4310@rit.edu; K. McPhail/

US detail in the lead
We shouldn't be going on and on about the US market in the lead. Its only one country with only a small percentage (maybe 10-15%, tops) of the worldwide phone market. Anything more is WP:UNDUE. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * US smartphone sales are about 25% of the world smartphone market as of Q3 2010 (20.9 million US vs 81 million worldwide ) so it is the largest single market for smartphones, and deserves some prominence I think. Dcxf (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point and I didn't remove all mention of the US from the lead, but it certainly doesn't need several sentences in the lead. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

13.13.16.2 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Agreed. The US is not viewed as a leader or as the growth market by the many vendors of mobile phones. We are viewed as a mature market that is moving within the mobile phone segments: feature phone, to smartphone, to converged device.

13.13.16.2 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC) /jm4310@rit.edu; K. McPhail/ And, the US is the exception worldwide in the use of specific O/Ss. Almost 50% of the world is Symbian based. The US is acting as an island by fixating on the proprietary Apple OS and Android Linux based OS. While they may gain in importance, it will be a long road to rival Nokia unless it somehow falls on it's face.

Merger proposal

 * given that there's no consensus for a merge, the tags have been removed: Gold Hat (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The opening line in this article states that "A smartphone is a mobile phone that offers more advanced computing ability and connectivity than a contemporary feature phone.". Not only is it a misnomer to state that a smartphone is a "mobile phone", but the very notion "smartphone" is a misnomer per se. It is misleading to state that the smartphone is a "mobile phone" with more advanced features simply due to the fact that a smartphone is a complete microcomputer with numerous advanced features that rival the phone functionality. The modern smart phone typically combines i.a. a PMP (Portable Media Player), digital camera, digital video camera, a MID (Mobile Internet Device), GPS, video games and the ability to run arbitrary programs as well as interface with external devices; the GSM functionality is one small feature of its functionality. There already is a term in the sadly deteriorating terminology of computer science for these devices, and that is Personal Digital Assistant. This term is much more general and and does not emphasize any single feature over any other feature. '''The feature(s) most used depends on the user, not the device when dealing with a device as general as this. Calling a PDA a smartphone is akin to calling a PC a "Word Processor", even though that is only one single feature of the device.'''

For the reasons stated above I hereby state that the entire smartphone article should be merged with the PDA article and the term smartphone should redirect to the PDA article -- these two articles describe the same type of device and should support each other by becoming merged into one single article. The article should describe the history of the PDA and the history of the mobile phone up to the point where every modern smartphone is a PDA and almost every PDA is a smartphone (yes, there are still PDAs without phone functionality).

Posix memalign (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Lots of text, zero sources and a fair amount of questionable assumptions. By what standards is it a misnomer to call a smartphone a mobile phone? One person can say "It is a mobile phone, just more advanced!", just as well another can say "No, it's a PDA, with GSM functionality!"
 * What I think merits "smartphone" as an article of its own, distinct from Personal Digital Assistant, is the technical evolution from simple cellular phone devices to the more advanced devices. It's mostly been the same companies, the same product teams, producing ever more advanced devices. You seem to make a very technically-oriented point (although valid per se, "smartphones" have indeed become more or less general purpose computers), but fail to account for the technological and product design evolution, that has lead to the current products and the name that defines and categorizes them.
 * You pretty much resolve your own point there. AFAIK first consumer-price PDAs hit the market around the same time as the first consumer-price GSM phones. Early (nor current) PDAs never really took off as well as the "bricks", and for long their market segments remained segregated. Nowadays the markets of the high-end mobile phones (smartphones) could be seen as fusing with the PDA market (or the smartphone killing the last bits of the PDA market; again a point of view thing), but this is a result of two decades long evolution, where PDA and current smartphone manufacturers (except Apple) followed two different paths to get there.
 * I object the merge, but think the idea raised here is worth treating in the article. --hydrox (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is wrong to call a PDA a "mobile phone" simply due to the fact that it does not properly describe the device at all. I explained this in my initial post. The term "mobile phone" was valid when the device was an embedded system with few (trivial) if any features beyond the GSM functionality. Would you agree that "Electronic typewriter" or "Word processor machine" is a misnomer for a full-fledged desktop PC? I have already explained in my initial post why the term smartphone is a misnomer and I do not have to justify it by references when the matter at hand is as trivial as this one any more than I have to justify by references pointing out invalid use of logic in general.
 * Allow me to explain this from a different angle, why do you think Wikipedia bothers to use correct terminology such as the proper binary prefix -- e.g. using MiB instead of MB where appropriate? Why do you think Wikipedia uses the proper term MT (Mega Transfers) instead of MHz? Why do you think the article "Optical disc drive" exists? Do you ever find the term "Optical disc drive" used by the majority of computer novices, do you find the term used in computer stores?
 * You claim that what merits a "smartphone" article in its own right distinct from the PDA is the technical evolution from the previous type of devices. Yet at the same time you also agree that smartphones are nowadays indeed a PDA -- although you use the term "general purpose computer". If you agree that they are in fact a PDA, then what you are referring to should be a more in-depth article regarding the history of the PDA.
 * What you have to explain is why the GSM functionality alone warrants the device to be called a "Smartphone" instead of a PDA. The history of the device is not enough, this could easily be part of the PDA article with an optional more in-depth article.
 * The most trivial and obvious of statements do not warrant a reference. On that note the article Smartphone itself does not even justify its own existence beyond references to articles which happen to use the same faulty term to describe this type of device. You will have no trouble finding other computer related articles on the Internet that use faulty terminology in some way. Posix memalign (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You generously validate my point by agreeing that it is indeed a point of view matter if the device should be called a phone or a PDA. Also, mobile phone is not same as smartphone, which I'm not implying. I never questioned the technical validity of your point, so please move on. Your point about bad terminology is valid, so why don't you take the time arguing on the talk page to editing your observations into the article?
 * The burden of proof is on you if you want to change the current consensus. I simply think we need an article both on "Smartphone" and "PDA" as the product categories have different history and legacy, as explained in my original response.
 * Please note, that if you think something is wrong (eg. people in certain field using incorrect terminology, in your mind), the solution is not to come to demonstrate your point on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research. --hydrox (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not validate your point that it is a point of view matter what it should be called. Let me make it perfectly clear: It is always wrong to say that a PDA is a "mobile phone", it is correct to say that you are using a PDA as a mobile phone, it is also correct to say that a PDA has mobile phone functionality; there is a huge difference between the former and the two latter.
 * The burden of proof is on me, and you have already stated that you agree on the technical validity of my point, so please move on? Why is that not enough? You agree to the technical argument, then why don't you agree we should rearrange these articles? If you want to include the history of the "smartphone" somewhere, then why not put it in the mobile phone article which explains how the embedded system mobile phone evolved over time into becoming a PDA? Posix memalign (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Yes, phones are taking over the PDA's market and the old name will become rare in merchandising in the next few years, but the result for Wikipedia should be the PDA article becomes a history article, with a brief mention in the smartphone article. "Smartphone" is the modern, commonplace term, and in the next few years will be replaced by "phone" as the other kinds, including wirephones, fade into history. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I find your oppose to be absurd. Your entire line of reasoning is nothing but an argumentum ad populum. It is irrelevant what the majority of people call it as well as what it is called in merchandising. Obviously it warrants to be mentioned in the very least that this term (Smartphone) is used. However, Wikipedia does not care what terminology is used by the majority of people nor merchandising when referring to the notion in its own articles. Take a look around and see how many places in merchandising that differentiates between decimal and binary prefix -- the commonplace term for MiB is MB, this is what you even see in the major operating systems. The commonplace term for MiB is MB, this is what you even see in the major operating systems. I cannot believe my point is not more obvious than it is. Why do you want to yield to faulty terminology simply because the majority of people and merchandising use it? Posix memalign (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the name that most people use for the article's subject is Wikipedia policy, see WP:COMMONNAME. Also the smartphone is really the convergence of the PDA and mobile phone, so the PDA article should be left as a seperate article. Oppose. Dcxf (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did say merge did I not? What stops from having a subsection on the PDA article for smartphone which the term "smartphone" redirects to? Which has as its opening line to explain why this term is faulty and why it is a misnomer, before moving on to discuss PDAs with a GSM radio in them? Posix memalign (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose they are different products. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How are they different? Smartphone and PDA are not brand names. The smartphone is a PDA with GSM added to it, why does this warrant it a different article that tries to distinguish itself from the PDA? Posix memalign (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because PDA's can't make phone calls or use mobile data outside of WiFi networks. Its a difference that allows Apple to charge twice as much for the iPhone as they charge for the iPod touch. A difference that allows a company to charge twice as much for otherwise very similar products is pretty significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose They are different. A smartphone is a PDA, a PDA is not necessarily a smartphone. Since smartphones are coming more and more popular, there is the need to seperate those two meanings so that people now starting to getting involved do not mix them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orestakosg (talk • contribs) 08:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this absurd. Mix them up? This is exactly why we don't need two separate terms for these type of devices, then there is nothing to mix up in the first place. The smartphone is a type of PDA, the only purpose the smartphone term has is to specify that this particular PDA happens to have a GSM capable radio in it. There is no need to have two separate articles, neither of which properly define the terms that they use, neither of which properly distinguish each other either -- how exactly is this more clear than to state in the PDA article that what the general public calls a "smartphone" is simply a PDA with GSM? Posix memalign (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I find the argument given relevant for debate in other forums, but not in regards to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The purpose here is presumebly to provide information about existance and as such the word "smartphone" does exist and is indeed in use every day. Whether it is the correct term is semantics and therefore a discussion best left to the linguists of the world. It is interesting to see that while the objection is directed at the term smartphone, it is the "phone" part that is in dispute. Is it not logical to conclude that the word "smart" was added to the term "phone" (or rather replaced the term "mobile"/"Cellular") precisely to emphasize the added capabilities of the smartphone as opposed to phones in general? And although i grant you that the PDA and smartphone have similarities, is not the defining difference that a PDA is not a phone? I agree that as laptops and tablet computers gain the integrated functionalities of phones, a new term is needed to more accurately convey the meaning of the concept it is describing. However, that does not change the fact that at this precise moment, "smartphone" is the most accurate term in use for the concept of a telephone with computer capabilities. Saying that it does not matter what term is in popular use is like proclaiming that something is ugly when most people feel otherwise. It is important to realize that language like all other cultural manifestations is alive, and not a static framework that is updated through formalized consensus. (allthough the publishers of dictionaries and 5th grade grammar teachers might feel otherwise) Sun☼ray 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoulfree (talk • contribs)
 * I will not bother to try dig up as many examples of incorrect use of computer terminology as I can, I can assure you there are plenty of them. I have already mentioned a few such as binary prefix and specifying transfers instead of frequency which is often misused. Wikipedia does not care that the majority of computer users frequently use these terms incorrectly.
 * The fact that marketing and people in general have happily adopted a faulty term to describe a PDA that happens to have GSM functionality does not entail it to have a separate article and pretend this is a completely different device than the PDA. As I've said it is just one more feature, akin to 802.11* or 802.15*. It is a small hand-held general purpose computer, there has already been a long established term for this -- the PDA. Now this term is rejected in favor of a new term that is a misnomer and fails to properly define itself and also fails to properly differentiate itself over the old term. Posix memalign (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardware versus software, (or platform)
I notice that the smartphones are referred to by operating system or platform in most of this article, except the iPhone, (which is a type of phone). Would it be better to articulate the difference between a software platform (iOS, Symbian, Android) and a smartphone (iPhone, Nokia N8, HTC Dream), refer people to the Mobile operating system article, and then start talking about smartphone models only?

The graphs about smartphone OS, are probably better off in the "mobile operating system" article, and the graphs and other information here should probably revolve around handset manufacturer (Apple, RIM, Nokia, HTC, etc). Garnercx (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this overview article should sumarize indepth articles such as mobile operating system. The most important graphs and info can be duplicated. Mange01 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This information is wrong: Smartphones are experiencing accelerating rates of adoption: 22% of consumers already have a smartphone, with this percentage rising to 31% amongst 24-35 year olds.
The Original Olswang report can be downloaded here:

http://www.olswang.com/convergence2011/

It states that 14% of the respondents currently own an iPhone and 22% own another Smartphone!

Hence the total number of consumers that already has a smartphone is 36%.

I guess Emma K Wells should get her analysis straight or at least Wikipedia should not quote her as a reliable source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.116.55 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Critical Historical Information Missing
After Phillips started producing a chips set for digital convergence of phones and the internet, two key plays are not mentioned here that played key roles and the first screen phones and a smartphone with installable Apps. I know because I drove one of the initiatives at Navitel Communications, a company founded by Randy Adams, and the hardware platform developed and driven by Bill Mackenzie, the same guy that developed the Palm Pilot. Infogear did the first integration of a screen phone and internet that I am aware of which was a key transition to the firstsmartphones by Navitel. We were working at Navitel Communications to take that screen phone concept and move it towards the first platform based smart phone for Windows that would support installable Apps. We licensed Pegasus form Microsoft, the precursor to Windows CE and its use in PDA's, and wrote a telephony layer and call manager. Bill Gates laughed at us and stated that "Nobody will ever add value to a phone". Famous last words. Microsoft licensed a year later our technology and absorbed the company and we worked with Microsoft to make that technology into what is now Windows Mobile. The interesting thing is that what people today think is so brilliant about the iPhone UI, is what we had for Windows CE, but Microsoft completely rejected it because it did not have a Start button and did not look like Windows. Their usability experts felt no one would adopt a simple what I called "fat-finger-friendly" UI, because everyone knew the Windows Desktop UI and how to use it. The principal UI designers behind it held true to the discipline that you had to accomplish any task in three touches of the screen with a fat-finger.

I will try to fill in the details when I get a chance, but these early prototypes were key and the early adopters in the development of the smartphone, yet I am surprised that nobody has a clue what really happened. If you dig in Google Books you can find some of the early reviews for these first true open platform smartphones with the first installable Apps, built and installable on Windows. I will have to dig up a lot of the old information I have on the phones. I still have a couple of them around the garage. I think they even work. Maybe I will donate them to the Tech.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bjoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA51-IA4&lpg=PA51-IA4&dq=Navitel+Screen+phone&source=bl&ots=RCpMNwcC-A&sig=X4YPQo-KqQRRyBzZNPzxw1qGgRY&hl=en&ei=cMxBTon8DPHUiAKxk5zDBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Navitel%20Screen%20phone&f=false

Tatchison (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC).
 * May be you can start to write that at Navitel Communications or at Randy Adams. However, I personally would prefer more reputable sources for that. The book seems okay as a source. Andries (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Name
is Smartphone the generally accepted name? most spellcheckers do not recognize this. for example when writing an article should one use smartphone, smart phone or smart-phone? --Infestor (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a neologism. An overwhelming number of the 179 references currently cited in the article use the term "smartphone," without a space or a dash between the "smart" and "phone" words. One can be fairly certain that the term, as a single word, is going to stick and be added to dictionaries and spelling checkers in due time. Lun Esex (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nokia's N900
Nokia's N900 and Maemo/Meego platform hasn't been mentioned in a smart phone article :O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.49.113 (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Not only that, we also miss info about Nokia 7650, the first MMS/Camera phone. Let's improve this. Yean3d (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

P800 is not the first camera smartphone
Hi, The article wrongly states that P800 is the first camera smartphone. Afaik, the Nokia 7650 was released before it, in Q4 2002. The P800 was delayed and only made it to retailers in Q1 2003. Unfortunately I have no sources about that, I just clearly remind having played with 7650 long before P800 comes out. For now I'm just removing the statement about the P800 being the first camera phone (this is not stated in the referenced link). Hope someone comes up later with some sources. Yean3d (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Smartphones (patents) wars
Hello, it seems there is now a "Smartphone war" ongoing, which should be documented, with Apple at the center, microsoft on the same side, and HTC, Samsung, Nokia, Motorola and.... Google on the other side. I added a timeline, but I think a whole article should be create and developed since we are talking about... a war. Yug (talk)  18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this litigation needs a separate article with a short summary here. Thanks for the work. How about the title smartphones and tablets patents litigation? Andries (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/technology/apple-wins-partial-victory-on-patent-claim-over-android-features.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

potential Popular Mechanics resource
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/tracking-software-caught-snooping-on-millions-of-smartphone-users-6606335 "Tracking Software Caught Snooping on Millions of Smartphones", "Security researcher Trevor Eckhart has discovered what appears to be a flagrant new intrusion into smartphone users’ privacy: Monitoring software by a company called Carrier IQ that comes automatically installed on Android, Blackberry, and other smartphones, records every interaction a user has with the device, and then beams that information off the phone." by Glenn Derene December 1, 2011 12:00 PM

Historical Market Share
This table is labeled "share" but the percentages don't add to 100%. If it wasn't meant to be share, the units are unknown. Cellmaker (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It says above "figures in millions", so it is millions of phones sold. I changed the title to "sales figures".Bhny (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Smartphone patent licensing and litigation
I just added the new article as suggested in this section. it was overly long and really belong in a new article rather than in the main one. I only did a wikilink in the section, which I kept. Hervegirod (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition does not match Apple products
Has anyone realized, that the iPhone cannot be seen as a smartphone regarding the definition (Flash support)? 130.83.139.168 (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Applications Store Table
I'm very worried about the table presented in the «Applications Store» section. If we check the source, it is an article written 18/02/2011, so it could hardly give 2012 figures. And it does not. It gives the 2009 and 2010 figures. The 2009 ones have been correctly copied into wikipedia, but the 2010 ones have been relabelled 2012 and the Apple App has been changed from 1,782 to 5,782(with the total modified accordingly) while the others have been kept. One should also ask the editor how these good faith mistakes could have been done. Frohfroh (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice Lede Section!
Normally I rag all over sloppy lede sections, —perhaps I'm guilt driven. Good job guys! Clean & elegant, everything I need. --67.125.106.195 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

History entry for Windows Phone 7
This article lacks any meaningful description of Windows Phone 7 - there is no entry for it under the "History" section. There are only a few references to the existence of the modern Windows Phone OS including just some information about certain device support and its application marketplace. This article needs to provide an entry for Windows Phone 7 in its History section. Gilly3 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Other way around, seems to me. Quite properly this article leaves details to the linked Windows Phone article.  However, the History section provides too many detail about other OSes.  Jim.henderson (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Smartphones in healthcare
An IP had a request for a new article or expansion to this one. Details are here:Editor_assistance/Requests. The request is probably in the wrong forum, they may not know that, so I put a link here. I still use two cans and a string, so I can't help edit this article, sorry. I made User:Canoe1967/Smartphones in healthcare as a sandbox in case it reaches article standards.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the IP contributor but happened to see the discussion. They asked if the site would be a suitable place for advice and information on smartphone use in healthcare or if alternatives could be suggested. Wikia and blog platforms were recommended. If someone else is interested in making an encyclopedia article on it (via AFC or otherwise) there does seem to be source material in places like Pubmed such as (someone at WP:LIBRARY may be able to provide the fulltext). I haven't the time & interest to work on it myself but those resources may help if somebody else wishes to. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Although the OP mentioned 'advice', they may have just used the wrong term. I can see a purpose for a central 'reference' section on it in WP though. This would combine all the valid info from all the blogs that may have wrong info. I myself gave up on cell phones years ago. I still have one I use for two purposes. It is handy as an alarm clock with battery back-up, as well as being able to dial 911 (still?) even though the account hasn't been active for years.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I agree it could make a decent article. The OP seems to more want an information repository (plus howto?) and perhaps discussion forum, than a broad overview article. They might well find an article useful as well though. You may have something there in giving up on cell phones! --92.6.211.228 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

10 million dollar prize for a really sweet one?
 * http://www.qualcommtricorderxprize.org --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Malware
"as of at least August 2011 there were no known malware or spyware apps in Apple's App Store"

The above suggests that there has never been malware in the App store- this is not true.

Charlie Miller's app was malicous in that it ran unsigned code without permission from the phone's owner.

"The only mobile platform other than Apple's iOS without reports of malware so far is HP's (formerly Palm's) webOS, but this may be explained by its relatively low adoption rate."

Todate there have been no reports of malware in the Windows Phone 7 Marketplace. Perhaps the above should have "Apple iOS" substituted with "Windows Phone 7". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.129.238 (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Superphone
Why did someone merge the Superphone article into Smartphone? I just attended a talk (on March 2) that spoke about the differences. -- kosboot (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What Makes a Smartphone a Superphone? -- kosboot (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Superphone vs smartphone: what's the difference? -- kosboot (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Superphone. The article has been deleted already back in January 2010 as a marketing neologism. You can WP:RECREATE the page, but I am sure it will be re-nominated in no time. But if you really feel that this term has become noteworthy of its own article, you can give it a shot. --hydrox (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Not really into phones, but the article was handy - just didn't expect it to disappear so soon.  Maybe in time it'll be recreated.  Thanks again. -- kosboot (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Though clearly not notable enough for an article, this distinctive term used by some marketers, along with "phablet" as applied by a few commentators, should get a sentence with refs. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Top photo
Could a better picture be found? From Commons:Category:Android devices or elsewhere? With the screen lit (no, not lit with the home page or clock or other proprietary screenshot)? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To show that we are unbiased, I suggest that the top photo should show at least two models with different OS. Mange01 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would personally use a iPhone gen 1 for the top photo, as it was the first "modern" smartphone as we know it today 74.198.150.91 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. Smartphone as a marketing term is way older than iPhone, try reading the article for starters. I've changed the image back to one showcasing Desire Z, as this phone displays more "smart" features than most images in Commons. --hydrox (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hydrox. And I wouldn't count the first IPhone as a smartphone at all. I don't see how one can categorise between "modern" and "not modern" - it's completely arbitrary to draw a line with the release of the first IPhone. I might as well claim the Nokia 5800 (which sold more than the IPhone IIRC) is the first "modern" smartphone - I can easily dismiss the first IPhone (which lacked features that the 5800 had); and any later IPhones more advanced than the 5800 came later, so don't count as the first. It's a common fallacy that Apple fans seem to fall into, but you can do this trick with any phone (or product). Mdwh (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What main features do the majority of current smartphones have in common? I'd say: Large touchscreens with direct finger interaction, desktop-class web browsers that don't require mobile-optimized websites to browse the web, onboard application stores that allow direct downloading of apps without a PC, and high capacity storage for music, video, and apps. These features were not common before the original iPhone came out as the first smartphone to encompass all of them, but they're practically universal, now. So in this sense the iPhone could be considered archetypical of "modern" smartphones. I don't think the first iPhone should be used as the top photo, though, because it's too old, and it wasn't until v2.0 of its OS when it got apps that it would be more appropriately called a smartphone. I think the current Nokia N8 is pretty good for now, as it's fairly a recent and advanced example of all the "modern" features I described. As time goes on I think it's reasonable for images of newer smartphones to replace the top image. Lun Esex (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As you say yourself, the first IPhone couldn't run apps (only the built-in ones), so no, it couldn't do something that modern smartphones have in common, and I would say a fundamentally important feature (in fact, even bog standard low end "feature" phones did third party apps as standard by about 2005), so it's therefore not "archetypical" of modern smartphones. It didn't even have 3G. It also didn't have the app store until later - and btw, the app store was only new in the sense of them being the first ones to do it as a platform owner. It was long earlier possible to download games and apps without going via a PC, even on low end feature phones (e.g., the Vodafone live! site). It's not clear to me that it was an Apple phone that first got all of these arbitrary features. There are already too many people who believe that Apple were first with all these things, along with a media that mainly propagates the myths too - Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to further that myth.
 * This sort of thing is going to be a moving target, as well as rather arbitrary - what is the magic amount of memory that qualifies as "large" storage - again, bearing in mind that using phones for music and video was long common by 2007? This kind of argument basically means whatever phone first introduced the latest feature you require qualifies - e.g., in your list, it would come down to Apple being first with their installed app-store, and the rest of the features you list are red herrings - but first with an installed app-store is hardly sufficient to qualify for being the first modern smartphone, and I can just decide to add my own more recent criterion as a requirement for a modern smartphone (e.g., video calling, satnav, multitasking, 4G, or even copy/paste).
 * As for "X wasn't common before the IPhone, but it is now" - it's a fallacy to conclude IPhone is responsible. As I say, I could make the same argument about many phones. All it is is that technology has been continuously improving, so it will always be true that things that once weren't common, now are. As for "desktop-class web browsers that don't require mobile-optimized websites to browse the web" - yet every other website has to offer a special custom app to view their website just for the IPhone ;) Mdwh (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The current top photo is now one from January 2010, well over a year and a half old! (And labeled "Modern smartphones." Ha!) It's nice that it's a photo with several phones in it, but they're all ancient, at this point. IMHO the ideal photo would show examples of several RECENT smartphones together, like an iPhone 4/4S, Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Nokia Lumia 800, and some BlackBerry 98x0/99x0 model. Lun Esex (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the paragraph next to the image lists several platforms as "modern smartphones" yet the image (poor quality as it is) shows only two of them. How about using something like http://i40.tinypic.com/fm3pnb.png ? Ltomuta (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For a brief period the image was indeed updated but then User:Marcus_Qwertyus reverted it back to the old one, without explaining the move. I don't want to start an edit war, so I will not revert his edit, at least not before he gets a chance to explain why he did it. The new image was not perfect, for example it also included a niche Android clone OS not mentioned anywhere else, but I'm sure that alone would not explain the edit. Ltomuta (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it used images lifted from several company websites. Marcus   Qwertyus   08:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the photo doesn't need a caption. Surely it doesn't need the word "modern". Jim.henderson (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

About 98 percent of total world population possess some sort of smartphone by May 2012, compared to 12 percent in 2010 and 8 percent in 2008.
This can't be right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.77.68 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out this bit of Vandalism. All repaired. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Even the corrected claim is dubious. 18% of the "world population"? Really? I note that the claim is uncited, and that in the more detailed discussion further down the page market penetration of smartphones is more usually expressed as a percentage of mobile consumers, or of consumers aged 18 and over. Bear in mind that the world population includes a large proportion of children who don't own a phone, and another large chunk of dependent adults who may have access to someone else's phone but don't possess one themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.48.43 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. I neglected to think of that question, because to me the claim is credible, but obviously my opinion on a matter of which I know little is not enough, and we need a citation.  I deleted the claim rather than merely flag it for citation, largely because it was in the lede which calls for extra caution.  Jim.henderson (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Smartphone not mobile
Telecom Corporation of New Zealand first filed to trademark the term 'smartphone' in 1990 - see link to NZ intellectual property office http://www.iponz.govt.nz/app/Extra/Case/Browse.aspx?sid=634819579177590604

My assumption (no fact base) is that they were referring to features on a PSTN land line such as call waiting, call minder, caller ID which at the time were probably considered 'smart'/clever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.217.115 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Smartphone Worldwide marketshare (Q2 2012)
Someone should add/update the article, Android is the #1 operating system regarding smartphone global marketshare with a 68%. iOS is waaaaaay behind with a little 23%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, here is an updated article with more information on mobile market share in 2012: http://bgr.com/2012/12/04/mobile-market-share-2012-android/ It states though, that Android has 68.3% and iOS 18.8%. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will make this update. If anyone wants to comment or contribute, please contact me on my talk page. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We should not categorize phones with many features into smartphones.
As we will have to rename the page when truly smartphones exist (maybe the smartphones will do this rename for us) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.132.196 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources: CNET

The first phone that I had was a Nokia 3210. As seen below, this phone had limited capabilities. It is nothing of course, compared to the old Verizon Bag Phone.

Phones today have certainly changed their ways. Now, it is more about how much music you can store, how good your camera is, what apps they have, and how Hi-Def the screen is. We do not look at the overall quality of the actual phone. My old Nokia 3210 had a battery that lasted for days, and I never dropped a call. This was the transition from old reliable big and bulky phones, to the flashy and thin smart phones of today.

When Apple came out with the iPhone, it took the smart phone world by storm. It became THE smartphone to have. It had a large amount of technology in the palm of the user unprecedented by any other phone in history. It had the ability to surf the web, navigation, email, and application support.

From there the smartphone market has grown. Today there are many different operating systems; iOS, Android, Windows Phone, and Blackberry to name a few. The race to create the thinnest, lightest, most powerful phones is moving at breakneck speed. Today smartphones keep people connected to the world at all times because of their mobility.

The top 3 smartphones out right now are the Apple iPhone 5, Samsung Galaxy 3, and the HTC Driod DNA. The Apple iPhone 5 is a touch screen based phone from Apple. The phone is a slimmer, lighter version of the iPhone 4S. It has a 4 inch screen as well a custom designed processor called the A6, which is an update to the Apple OS known as iOS 6. The Samsung Galaxy 3 is a muilt-touch phone. The Galaxy 3 has "intelligent personal assistant (S Voice), eye tracking ability, increased storage, and a wireless charging option. The phone has a 4.8 inch screen and can come with different processores and 4G LTE Support. The HTC Droid Dna has all the same specifications as the other 2, the main difference is that it has a 5inch screen and has Beat audio capabilities. Really the best smartphone will depend upon the user.  Some users like Android some like Apple, some like big screens some like small screens.

Source: ABC News

If you are one of those T-Mobile customers thats been waiting for a long time to be able to buy an iPhone from your carrier then you are finally in luck, The iphone launched in 2007 and 5 years later T-Mobile will finally start carrying it. T-Mobile says some customers wouldn't come to them or would decide to leave them because they did not carry the phone. T-Mobile CEO John Legere said, "We worked very, very hard for a deal that made sense for us." T-Mobile is the last of the major U.S. carriers to carry the iPhone.

Overall over the month there have been some pretty big announcements in the smartphone arena of the technology world. The fact that the iPhone is finally going to be available for T-Mobile is huge. I am interested if customers from other providers will jump ship due to cheaper monthly data plans. We can also see from these posts that the hardware and software on these phones are getting better rapidly. Smartphones have become important in the lives of people all over because of their ability to keep us connected all the time. Comments button

Majbrock (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

BlackBerry did not release the first "true" smartphone in 2002; edited page accordingly. The Ericsson R380 in 2000 had a similar set of features (including browser and touchscreen) in addition to being the first device marketed as a smartphone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.143 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Terrible grammar
Whomever is modifying the Palm and Bada sections, please stop and go back to school.

"It's weight distribution was at the top of the device making it hard to balance and hold in one hand or use one hand." reads as "IT IS/HAS weight distribution was at the top of the device making it hard to balance and hold in one hand or use one hand." There are numerous instances of this exact same mistake made throughout the Palm and Bada sections which leads me to believe that it wasn't simply a one off error, but an uneducated person modifying the content.

The contraction "it's" means "it is" or "it has". This is elementary level English grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.84.44 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problematic edits have now been reverted. Someone with proper command of the English language could write a short intro about the Palm OS with sources, but any major prose should go in the Palm OS and WebOS articles. --hydrox (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely claim about Nokia 9000
Under the heading "Early years":


 * In 1996, Nokia released the Nokia 9000, part of the Nokia Communicator line which became their best-selling phone of that time.

I very much doubt the latter claim, given that Nokia was a major player in the low-cost segment that usually represents the largest sales volume. Surely one of their simple phones must have sold better than this bulky and very expensive phone? There is no citation for the claim, of course, and I thought of adding a "citation needed" tag. But perhaps the claim should simply be removed instead - it does not seem very central to any point being made, and is very likely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.33.166 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Symbian should not be stated as Nokia's
Hi, I don't think Symbian should not be stated as "Nokia's". It was originally developed by Symbian Ltd. (which Nokia was a part of, but it was not just Nokia which developed it) and now it's maintained by Accenture. Just click the Symbian link to get this information. My suggestion is to just write "Symbian". /PatrikN (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I can see that section 2.1 is correct about this. What I mean is in the introduction, in the second paragraph where the most common platforms are mentioned. /PatrikN (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest.
I suggest to have the article Timeline of all smartphone debut(Timeline of debut of all smartphone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manzzzz (talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Software > iOS Section Image
The photo is currently of the new gold iPhone 5S but there's no iOS in the picture which is what the section is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.193.37 (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, where's 2005 - 2013?
The article currently does a nice stroll from the 70s up through 2004 (though I think more images of the different stages of "evolution") then stops. If anyone has relevant information on the missing time period -- like the rise of touchscreen phones, the first iPhone, etc. -- please add in at least a rough summary. (Relatedly, I'm relocating the latest iPhone sales figure from history into the iPhone/iOS area; we won't know for years whether it's an important milestone or just another increase.)—Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 05:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Environmental issues
From the article:


 * Obtaining the resources required to create smartphones involves the mining of minerals such as coltan, which are toxic to humans and wildlife.[65] Other raw *materials, such as oils, copper, plastics, and solvents, have the potential to contaminate both the soil and groundwater.

Why is this here at all? The same could be said about almost every industry product, and I seriously doubt, that smartphones rank high among the polluters, even with a milliard pieces around. They don't weigh that much after all. All in all, the environmental issues seem rather redundant, since you could say the same about almost everything. 85.220.22.139 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The same could be said about the Workers' Conditions section. Does every article about a product have to have a caveat about third world conditions? These issues are dealt with in other articles. Does an article about denim have to pontificate about child labour in China? 85.220.22.139 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)