More News On HP's Mobile Messenger

[Stephen Beesley]

Originally Posted by yslee

Amazing huh. Displaying maps at 320 x 240 is ok (never heard anyone complain), but 240x240 is just too low a resolution, even if they technically have the same resolution.

Point taken - maybe resolution isn't so much the problem as the actual number of pixels on the screen. You are going to get less of a given map (at the same resolution) on a 240x240 screen than on a 320x240 screen - lots more scrolling involved which is particularly a problem when you are on the move.

[Stephen Beesley]

Originally Posted by yslee

Amazing huh. Displaying maps at 320 x 240 is ok (never heard anyone complain), but 240x240 is just too low a resolution, even if they technically have the same resolution.

Point taken - maybe resolution isn't so much the problem as the actual number of pixels on the screen. You are going to get less of a given map (at the same resolution) on a 240x240 screen than on a 320x240 screen - lots more scrolling involved which is particularly a problem when you are on the move.

[whydidnt]

Originally Posted by yslee

Amazing huh. Displaying maps at 320 x 240 is ok (never heard anyone complain), but 240x240 is just too low a resolution, even if they technically have the same resolution.

Technically they don't have the same resolution. 320 x 240 has a total of 76,800 pixels. 240 x 240 has a total of 57,600 pixels, which is 75% of the previous number. I doubt many people run their current device in GPS mode with the SIP open.

I've always felt the QVGA devices were barely displayed enough map information to be useful while driving. I don't think 240 x 240 will provide a great GPS experience.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Originally Posted by mv

Please please HP, give us 480 x 480, wi fi or GPS as a choice, and i´ll just love it!!!! :rock on dude!:

Agreed, it had better be 480x480......... :? What's the point of having anything less?

[yslee]

Originally Posted by Stephen Beesley

Point taken - maybe resolution isn't so much the problem as the actual number of pixels on the screen. You are going to get less of a given map (at the same resolution) on a 240x240 screen than on a 320x240 screen - lots more scrolling involved which is particularly a problem when you are on the move.

True, but unless you're driving (and you really shouldn't be doing that, I think) it's not so much a big deal if the software implementation is good. Something like stepless zooming for the map display. I remember using an early version of a local electronic map; the zoom levels were so disparate and useless that it didn't matter I was using it on an old notebook at 800x600!

[darrylb]

Originally Posted by Jonathon Watkins

Agreed, it had better be 480x480......... :? What's the point of having anything less?

It comes back to battery life and simplicity.

The good thing about this is size, keyboard and phone/wireless. HP is looking to win Treo customers - not PPC customers. Treo customers want a small simple device and the HP answer is a great one.

Even if HP only get 3/4 of the product right (as far as we are concerned) it is the 3/4 that counts in terms of their target market.

I say good on HP - the less excuses someone has to buy a palm the better

[Jonathon Watkins]

Originally Posted by darrylb

It comes back to battery life and simplicity.

OK, the battery life argument I can see (even though having a higher resolution screen should not make too much of a difference), but I don't buy the simplicity argument. A 2 inch 480x480 screen would be much more readable than a 2 inch 240x240 screen. The quality difference is immediately apparent

Originally Posted by darrylb

Even if HP only get 3/4 of the product right (as far as we are concerned) it is the 3/4 that counts in terms of their target market.

I say good on HP - the less excuses someone has to buy a palm the better

Agreed on the second point, but why can't HP finish a job? 3/4 of the way may be better than nothing, but still isn't good enough. :?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by bdegroodt

I *really* think HP is missing the '05 boat by not including WiFi in this device. First, I won't touch one without WiFi, but that's my personal preference. More importantly (and maybe this is planned obsolesence) but I believe this is the year of WiFi/Cell convergence. The battle for cellular future is going to be shaped in a large way by VOIP WiFi this year and any device that can't get this done isn't going to be a real "competitor" in the 2005/2006 PPC marketplace.

No WiFi is just absurd--even if you don't believe the convergence theory.

I agree. I think full GPS integrated into a handheld/convergence device is a great thing, but if I had to choose between this and WiFi, I'd go with WiFi everytime. I think most people would, just based on how popular WiFi is right now.

And I think we all know just how hot. GPS, not so much. And we know there are already BT-enabled GPS transceivers which provide very nice solutions for handling the navigation side of things.

Excluding WiFi will undoubtedly alienate a lot of consumers. Integrating WiFi, or both, would have been better choices.

But HP has made their decisions. It'll be interesting to see how it fares.

[whydidnt]

Originally Posted by darrylb

The good thing about this is size, keyboard and phone/wireless. HP is looking to win Treo customers - not PPC customers. Treo customers want a small simple device and the HP answer is a great one.

But the low resolution 160 x 160 screen was one of the biggest complaints Treo users had with the original 600. The Higher res 320 x 320 has been one of the big selling points of the the 650. HP is missing the boat if they chose to go with a lower resolution device than the competition they are aiming at.

If the GPS isn't important, what makes average joe purchase this instead of the 650? You and I both agree that WM2003 is superior to POS, but every mainstream reviewer out there falls all over themselves to praise the Treos as "simple" convergence devices. HP has to beat, not just compete with the Treo to win in this space.