infoSync Reviews the Motorola MPx200

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/n/4533.html' target='_blank'>http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/n/4533.html</a><br /><br /></div>"Motorola's MPX200 has become wildly popular despite its basic specifications; Anthony Newman finds out if it has what it takes to stand up to the competition. The MPx200 is the first Microsoft Smartphone from Motorola, the first widely-available clamshell Smartphone and was the first Smartphone to be released in the important US market. The design therefore has a lot riding on it. We discovered that although it doesn't disappoint, there is something missing."<br /><br />A pretty dismal review, only 5.6 out of 10 points. :? Anthony has seen more Smartphones in person than I have, so I can only speak from my own experience, but I found the display on the MPx200 to be stunning. Rich, deep contrast, and very vibrant. He also lists the CPU as being a negative, but the MPx200 feels much faster than the Orange SPV that I have, and also faster than the SPVx (Tanager). I haven't had any "play time" with an e200 yet, so perhaps I haven't seen the best that the Windows Mobile Smartphone world has to offer, but I still take issue with much of this infoSync review. What do you think about the review?

[dboling]

I have an mpx200 and was also a little surprised at the low score. I think he dinged it pretty heavily for not having bluetooth or a camera. As for me, I'd love it if it wasn't for ATT's @#$%#$ bad coverage.

[palmsolo]

I was quite surprised with the Infosync review and happened to get mine posted a day after that contrast his. You can find it here (http://www.geek.com/hwswrev/pda/mpx200/index.htm) if you are interested in checking it out.

I think for us diehard PDA and Smartphone users the MPx200 may not be up to our standards, but for the average consumer I think it is outstanding. I highly doubt my wife would have a clue how to use Bluetooth or care to use a Bluetooth headset. A camera would be nice, but I really don't even use the one on my Nokia 3650 much after the first month or two of playing around with it. The MPx200 has been very stable for me and I am impressed with the hardware and the operating system.[/url]

[aristoBrat]

I smell WSJ's Mossberg. :D

[possmann]

I don't see the rational for the heavy ding - nothing popped out at me that would say it really sucks - no mention of poor speaker quality, form factor, feeling cheap, navigation.... So he dings it because it has no bluetooth, no camera and running the 2002 OS - all that will be resolved with the next mpxmodel so I wonder what he will give that model then? A 6.0?

[Macguy59]

The Samsung i600 has a superior display and I would hardly call it rich, vibrant or having good contrast. I think people are expecting the same quality displays being seen on PPC's. A better display with higher contrast would be a welcomed improvement.

[davidbaldauff]

While I myself am a huge Windows Mobile and Microsoft fan, MS Smartphones are not the only smartphones on the planet. There are other platforms out there including Symbian, Palm OS and Linux. I think he prefers other Smartphone platforms at this time. This, in my mind, is legitimate. Given the best Windows Mobile Smartphone today, there are other more functional smartphone devices based on the other platforms.

So, while it is a great MS Smartphone, is it really the best smartphone?

BTW, I have seen a number of sites be critical om this device's reception. Add that on top of the crappy ATT network, and you get unhappy customers.

[Eciton]

I think as author I can chip in :D

The low score came not from the handset doing anything wrong, per se, but for not doing anything different. A score of 5 is average, remember, and the MPx200 does absolutely nothing outstanding compared to its competitors.

I praised the build-quality and design of the MPx200, noted its excellent speaker and so on, but when it comes down to specifications it's lacking compared to the SPV E200, its current rival, in everything but battery life - and the MPx200 is not great in that, either.

You'll also find that I didn't even give the E200 a great score, as there are still a number of areas in which it can really improve. This is all set against my current handheld of the moment (admittedly not a smartphone), the Treo 600, which manages awesome design, great battery life and great phone functionality. Sure, it's missing Bluetooth too, but it does have a lot of other stand-out features, such as its thumb-board. Symbian handhelds feature Bluetooth, great cameras etc.

Which brings me back to the MPx200, which although competent doesn't actually offer anything that we didn't see over a year ago in the original SPV, besides its clamshell design, which I do praise.

Oh, and regarding the screen: I evaluated it in direct comparison to my SPV e100, which remained viewable for longer and had, IMHO, better quality all-round.

I hope that clears some stuff up.

Anthony

PS: I resent the comparison with Mossberg, aside from us both liking the Treo ;)

Just a couple of edits in response to earlier posts that I missed:

-The OS: one poster above said he liked it. Fair enough, but 2003 is faster, more stable and more powerful.

-Designed for consumers: another stated that his wife wouldn't know what to do with Bluetooth. Well, the Smartphone platform as a whole isn't as simple as some other phones, and someone who doesn't know how to use a Bluetooth headset is, I think, unlikely to be exploiting the full power of the platform in other areas. Besides, it can't hurt to have for the future, can it?

-possman asserts that the next version of the MPx will correct the omission of certain features. Great, that's good. However, future products should not affect a current review, and nor do they help those who bought the first product version. I reckon if the MPx210 arrived with Bluetooth, a camera, SP2003 and better battery life, I'd give it at least a 7, possibly 8 depending on the Bluetooth implementation, the camera quality and the extent of battery life.

How could it get a 10, you ask? It would have to be the size of my Panasonic X70, have the Bluetooth of a SonyEricsson, the battery life of a Nokia 6310, the screen of my SPV E200, the reception of a Nokia 6310, the speed of a Nokia 8210, the build-quality of the Treo 600... remember, 10 is a *perfect* device. And I don't think that even in its 2003 incarnation that Smartphone is a perfect OS - far from it. That alone would bring it down to a 9 :P

[baslanides]

It seems to me that when you are reviewing a phone, you are trying to express to the potential buyers the features that are on the phone and how the phone handles them. If your review then pounds the phone about that, the so be it. But..

I didn't want a camera phone, didn't expect a camera phone and don't understand what all the hubub about camera phones is about. So I didn't think any worse of the phone because it didn't have it. It would be great if our phones could double as radar detectors, video cameras and air filters but I won't penalize phones that don't .

As far as the screen is concerned, let's remember that it is a phone , not an HDTV. The screen is vibrant and telling people in a review that it is subpar is really stretching it. Everyone that has seen my phone can't believe the screen.

Anyway, that's my rant. I do agree with much of the review though. I would love for the battery and caller ID issues to be eliminated. But I love the functionality of having Outlook in my hands all the time.

Bill

[randalllewis]

Hear! Hear! Baslanides,

I am in full agreement and seriously question any review of a product that dings said product for not including "features" of limited usefullness.

The MPx200 could certainly use better battery life, a better ATT system, the 2003 OS and Bluetooth. It certainly does not NEED a camera.

I previously owned the Nokia 3650. The camera was heavily used for the first few months, and then hardly ever. At least for me, that proved this feature was more gimmick than need. I am sure there are people who need a camera in the their phone and I have even seen practical uses for them, but it still seems like a niche market to me.

By the logic of the reviewer in question here, the MPx200 should be criticised for also not including a TV remote.

[aristoBrat]

The low score came not from the handset doing anything wrong, per se, but for not doing anything different.
Here in the US, we're on our first release of WM Smartphones, so it's hard to understand a review that says that the MPx200 doesn't do anything differently. There is no other GSM/GPRS WM Smartphone released here for it to compete with.

However, folks on the "other side of the pond" are on their third release of WM Smartphones -- the SPV, the SPV e100, and now the SPV e200 with BT, camera, and 2003. In this case, I can see the MPx200 coming up a little short.

I guess it's all in perception.

[Eciton]

Each of the last two respondees has missed a point:

"The MPx200 could certainly use better battery life, a better ATT system, the 2003 OS and Bluetooth. It certainly does not NEED a camera. "

OK, so you say it could certainly use Bluetooth - an earlier poster couldn't care less. Different people have different needs / desires. My responsibility when writing a review is to 'ding' a product when one of its competitors, in the same market, for the same general price, running the same OS, has those features. And,

"It would be great if our phones could double as radar detectors, video cameras and air filters but I won't penalize phones that don't"

Ah, but if a considerable number of phones could do these things (Bluetooth, camera), then it's a different matter. And when Microsoft markets the Smartphone OS as a media-led platform, then a camera becomes part of that; after all, the SPV stands for Sound, Pictures, Video. When non-Smartphones have Bluetooth, that's also an omission worth mentioning. It's not like these are uncommon features, or ones that no-one cares about - even if you personally don't want a camera, or need Bluetooth. By all means factor that into the equation and get the phone anyway.

Reviews are not just about how well a phone does what it does, although that it certainly part of it. It's also how good value it is compared to other phones around (which is in a feature / design comparison) and consequently how good value it is at its price point. Reviews are useless if they just go 'wow, this phone can do loads!' when in comparison with the rest of the market that's not true.

"The screen is vibrant and telling people in a review that it is subpar is really stretching it. Everyone that has seen my phone can't believe the screen."

That's exactly a case in point. Yes, it's a good screen. Compared to the 256-colour and 4096-colour screens we were seeing up until recently, it's magnificent. But, compared to other Smartphone screens I don't think it's quite as good. And I've used every Smartphone ever released with the exception of the Samsung.

In more detail, with the Smartphone market, here's what I mean:

Original SPV: first product to market, therefore revolutionary.
SPV E100: brought a nicer form-factor and a vastly improved screen to the mix, although with little else.
SPV E200: added a camera, Bluetooth and new OS - three major additions.
Voq: QWERTY keyboard in a normal phone size
MPx200: it's a clamshell. That's it.

So, as good as the unit may be *in use*, any review has to compare that to how good rival handsets are *in use* and say it would have been great released alongside the original SPV, but it is exactly the same in features as the E100 and behind compared to the E200.

It should also be remembered that I'm writing from a European perspective, where mobile phones have until very recently been vastly ahead of the US, thanks to the standardisation on GSM. Consequently, without trying to sound condescending (I'm not), we're not quite so wowed by the MPx200.

Oh, and one final comment I've just spotted:

"By the logic of the reviewer in question here, the MPx200 should be criticised for also not including a TV remote."

Interesting point, actually: a number of recent high-end Pocket PCs have included Consumer IR and software to control it, and so when very high-end Pocket PCs are released without this functionality, we do notice it. Obviously, no Smartphone has yet contained this functionality, but if one were to be released we'd bear that in mind when future devices came out, while obviously also considering that it's not 'core functionality' for a GSM handset in the way that cameras (picture messaging) and Bluetooth (dialup, sync) are.

So, just to sum up for those who've skipped my post: reviews aim to place a device in context. In the current Smartphone scene, the MPx200 is not that impressive, although still a good device.

[Eciton]

The low score came not from the handset doing anything wrong, per se, but for not doing anything different.
Here in the US, we're on our first release of WM Smartphones, so it's hard to understand a review that says that the MPx200 doesn't do anything differently. There is no other GSM/GPRS WM Smartphone released here for it to compete with.

However, folks on the "other side of the pond" are on their third release of WM Smartphones -- the SPV, the SPV e100, and now the SPV e200 with BT, camera, and 2003. In this case, I can see the MPx200 coming up a little short.

I guess it's all in perception.

And this wins the most perceptive post award so far :D. As I said, it's all about context.

[aristoBrat]

Well, since I made the Mossberg comment previously, I figured it was only fair. ;)

[Eciton]

Hehehe touche'!

So, to widen the discussion out a bit, what does everyone feel *should* be included in future Smartphone devices, or what should be made a priority?

My main call would be for battery life - to be treated like a phone, a device should be able to last three days without a charge, under normal use.

After that, size, then we can start thinking about other things like A-GPS, biometrics etc. Of course, Bluetooth and cameras go without saying ;)

[randalllewis]

Sorry, I must continue to disagree. Cameras are not a required feature of a Smartphone. Regardless of whether the OS allows for it or not, this feature is one of niche or "cool gadget" value.

To argue a phone needs a camera mirrors the discussion we used to have over on Pocket PC Thoughts a while back about PDA's with phone capability. As I recall the conclusion there was that phone capability on a PDA was nice but not necessary and that these PDAs weren't great phones. Most PDAs still have no phone capability.

Cameras on phones strikes me as an identical argument.

I wouldn't judge a PDA poorly because it didn't have a phone. And it isn't fair to judge a phone poorly because it lacks a camera.

[aristoBrat]

Unlike the fact that not all PDAs come with phones, all of the recently released Smartphones do come with cameras. Compared to those phones, the MPx200 is at a disadvantage.

[TANKERx]

Surely if you have two phones within the same price range and one device does A, B & C while another does A, B, C & D..... And especially if the latter has been doing A, B, C & D for longer than the former has even been around, it would be unfair to give them the little upstart an equal mark?