All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
26 Jan 2007
Industry experts have warned that Apple's iPhone is "no smartphone" and is not as technologically advanced as many reports would suggest.
Senior ABI Research analysts Stuart Carlaw, wireless research director, and Philip Solis, principal mobile broadband analyst, pointed out that, while the iPhone is "undoubtedly clever and capable, it is not actually a smartphone".
"Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cellphone just to have superior music," said Carlaw.
"Apple must get the phone engineering part of the equation right, and it is difficult to see how it will accomplish this with no track record in the industry.
"Even though it is working with some prominent suppliers, the task of putting all the building blocks together cannot be underestimated."
ABI Research defines a smartphone as a cellular handset using an open, commercial operating system that supports third-party applications.
Apple's iPhone runs the Mac OS X operating system, so at first glance it would seem to fall into the smartphone category which might help to justify its $500+ price tag.
But Solis pointed out that the device will be closed to third-party applications. "Therefore we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smartphone: it is a very high-end feature phone," he said.
Solis went on to explain that feature phone functionality is dictated by the software which controls the hardware.
Such devices are closed and controlled by an operator or device manufacturer, whereas smartphones are supported by a third-party ecosystem in which independent software vendors compete to create commercially successful apps.
"Feature phones have third-party applications too, but these are relatively weak and limited applications that work with the middleware such as Java and Brew," explained Solis.
"Applications designed for smartphones can be written to access core functionality from the operating system itself, and are therefore usually more powerful and efficient.
"The competition in an open environment also yields more cutting-edge, rich applications."
Latest stories from Communications
Related videos
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What will be the biggest change to corporate technology in the future?
TFL director of Games transport Mark Evers discusses how the public transport network is preparing for this summer's event
Connect with V3.co.uk
The wrong printers, for the wrong tasks on the wrong contracts
Who leads the BI pack and who should we be watching out for?
PHP developer - CSS, HTML, Javascript, MySQL, Linux...
Senior BPM Developer (Java, J2EE, Agile, Spring, Struts...
As a Business Analyst you will play a key role in understanding...
C#/ASP.NET Team - Gloucester - My client has an urgent...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
You've got ONE thing right: it's NOT a "smartphone"
Thank goodness the iPhone is ANYTHING BUT a so called "smartphone". I don't know about you guys, but I have never been too impressed with the capability of these devices. Fankly put: they suck! As for the rest of the article, hmmm, it seems that the author's weak argument is centered on mere symantics. Hope that "Vista" thing works out for you!
Posted by: jack ryan 29 Jan 2007
You'll eat those words
By the time Apple finishes redefining what a cell phone should be, your experts will want to crawl into a hole and cover it up. If history is any teacher, Apple has shown time and time again that they are quite capable of taking quantum leaps in areas of technology where "those who are in the know" think it is unlikely that they will ever succeed. Apple just knows how to make things easy to use. Besides, the definition of smart phone needs redefining. The current definition is a narrow as the imaginations of those experts you are referring to. Apple will help them come up with a new definition that they themselves will quickly adopt as their own. Watch and see it come to pass.
Posted by: Gary Morgan 29 Jan 2007
Im with Marc 'not a smartpone'?
saying functionality will be more limited because of a smaller development base doesnt consider apples track record of doing what the whole of the microsoft money minds could'nt, not to mention current phone companies who have had years head start on apple : ) They have already done overcome the biggest 'smartphone' hurdle which is ease of interface. Who cares what other phones can do if u cant work out how to use them.
Posted by: jayme capurso 28 Jan 2007
No smartphone?
Wow, what a waste of space this article is. So, it's not a smartphone because it currently doesn't support third party software? Are you kidding me? The phone isn't even released yet and you're already condemning it for a feature that might or not be available. The included software will be far better than most of the other smartphones out there and it will unquestionably sync better, especially if you're using a Mac.
Posted by: Nivram 28 Jan 2007
Not so fast, Abi
Regarding whether the iPhone is open, reliable sources are reporting that Apple has not made the final decision. It may well support a version of Java.
Posted by: Hank Hale 27 Jan 2007
Care to backup your logic?
If the key feature is being able to install 3rd party apps, then please tell your readers what is the 3rd party app for existing cell phones that is setting the world on fire? Oh, right, there are none... Current smartphone platforms are far more limiting than the iPhone and lack even one killer app. Could that be because the killer app is simply making calls? Something which the iPhone does very, very well.
Posted by: UniBoy 27 Jan 2007
Not sure what you mean...
Apparently the act of research is just that of superficial analysis and regurgitation of the negative speculation garnered from other websites. For example, this article doesn't explain why the phone isn't "smart," but condemns the lack of third-party applications. Given that, I will defend the phone's lack of third party applications. There is no mention of why the limitation is taking place, or rather why no such limitation has been in place until the iPhone. As an example, Symbian phones allow third party applications because on most phones the OS runs on a completely separate processor than the phone firmware. An application malfunction cannot cause a problem mid-call. The iPhone, though, is supposed to be single processor running a well-known OS. Third party applications could, intentionally or not, cause problems with the single-processor architecture. If your definition of a feature phone is a device that is "closed and controlled by an operator or device manufacturer, whereas smartphones are supported by a third-party ecosystem in which independent software vendors compete to create commercially successful apps," then I need to argue that most phones that could be smartphones simply never reach that vista of operation. Many single-function applications are written and, while bad, are never upgraded, updated, or even subjected to competition. Because of this, many commonly-acknowledged smartphones never actually meet your own definition of a smartphone. The iPhone could actually be an example of the opposite, where applications actually are subjected to scrutiny and a thriving ecosystem does evolve. The statement that "applications designed for smartphones can be written to access core functionality from the operating system itself, and are therefore usually more powerful and efficient" is technically correct, but note that "can be" doesn't mean "frequently are." Simply put, there's a lot of junk out there for Palm, Symbian, Java, and Windows Mobile, the worst offenders being some of the largest software vendors; some applications written for Palm and Symbian are not designed for the versions of those OSes that appear on mobile phones, so when the applications are installed, they break not only the PDA portion of the handheld but they render the device fractionally or fully inoperative. And finally, "ABI Research defines a smartphone as a cellular handset using an open, commercial operating system that supports third-party applications." Didn't Jobs say, after he stated that the phone was closed, that Apple wouldn't necessarily be writing the applications that would later be available? That sounds like third-party software to me. So the iPhone doesn't use an "open" OS, but neither is PalmOS, SymbianOS, or Windows Mobile, but those are accepted as smartphones. What I guess I really don't understand is the widespread fear and doubt about a phone that doesn't fully exist yet. There are months before this phone hits the market, and in those months the framework could be in place to allow Apple to bring third-party applications to the phone. Let's not cast so much negativity on something until we actually see what it cannot do.
Posted by: D 27 Jan 2007
Author has issues...
Sounds like Robert is a little threatened by Apple products. Saying a phone is of limited use because it doesn't support third party apps is quite a stretch. The thing that makes Apple computers so useful and intuitive is that third party add ons are not needed because nearly everything you need is built into the operating system. The only software that needs to be purchased for a Mac are the ones that are used to make a living everything else works without adding endless conflicting mini apps to merely run your computer or simply burn a CD. I am quite confident that the iPhone will be powerful enough to do everything one expects from a smart phone. The advantage of an intuitive operating system on a phone is a substantial breakthrough all in its self. Most importantly this is the first time Mac users will have access to a smart phone that works seamlessly with their computers and cuts no corners.
Posted by: Charles Newton 27 Jan 2007
Not a smartphone???
I think you r definition of a smartphone being open to other software is a bit limited. Dont forget that this is not the final feature set and to be honest if one can get email, read attachments (which I am sure you will be able to do in time), surf the web, watch video and listen to music as a basic feature set then what else does the average smartphone user require. As this is the first iteration of the device I would suggest that over time more and more functionality will be added as was the case with the first ipod. I personally would rather have a closed system smartphone that is not subject to bugs due to sub - standard 3rd party apps and have software that is well integrated. By the way I have a windows based smartphone that causes me endless problems at present and as for Blackberry.....
Posted by: Marc Rogoff 26 Jan 2007
FUD
Pretty transparent Fear Uncertainty Doubt. They need a better person writing copy. "Not a smartphone" my TUSH! "Hard to put the hardware together"-- the Koreans seem to manage-- the Koreans. Ever hear of their L&G brand cell phones? They think the world's premier computer company can't do at least as well on fab?
Posted by: Tom B 26 Jan 2007
Please...
Semantics, pure and simple. All this is just terminology. The iPhone is a smart phone because it can do MUCH more than a regular cell phone, but not quite what a PDA phone can do. Besides, by the time it is released, there could be third party apps out there. Don't be so jealous of Apple...
Posted by: Jeff 26 Jan 2007
Let the customers decide...
what a smartphone is. Perhaps, Apple's Mobile phone will invent a whole new category. What can we call it? SuperPhone? Nah, too corny. Computer Phone? Music Phone? PicturePhone? Fast Phone? Touch Phone? Maybe, its motto will be, "Does everything a smartphone does at a finger's touch." I think the "smart phone" people are just expressing sour grapes that an outsider beat them to the punch on so many things. It reminds me of the opinions expressed by the makers of MP-3 players when the iPod first came out. The makers were sure that the iPod would fail, but the customers decided differently.
Posted by: Louis Wheeler 26 Jan 2007
ABI "Research" Also claimed 60% of ipod would buy an Zune
These guys have either a hidden agenda or not so hidden - claiming three months ago that 58% of ipod users would buy a Zune ... BTW, here's wikipedia's take, "A smartphone is any electronic handheld device that integrates the functionality of a mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA) or other information appliance." Yea, sounds like a smartphone to me.
Posted by: jbelkin 26 Jan 2007