[desertrat_blog]

Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry

I must have missed that. Who said that? :?:

Hmm, no smiley so I'll assume this is a serious question. Here's your answer:

Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry

Doesn't it also depend on how you define what a smartphone is? I'd say some Symbian powered models are little more than feature phones.

[desertrat_blog]

Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry

I must have missed that. Who said that? :?:

Hmm, no smiley so I'll assume this is a serious question. Here's your answer:

Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry

Doesn't it also depend on how you define what a smartphone is? I'd say some Symbian powered models are little more than feature phones.

[Ed Hansberry]

Originally Posted by desertrat_blog

Hmm, no smiley so I'll assume this is a serious question. Here's your answer:

I thought that might be what you were referring to and that lack of an application of critical reading skills may be the culprit. Thanks for confirming that for me.

[desertrat_blog]

Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry

I thought that might be what you were referring to and that lack of an application of critical reading skills may be the culprit. Thanks for confirming that for me.

My contention is that all Symbian powered phones are smartphones. So perhaps I should've said:

"I was using the pendantic and uninformed comment that someone made earlier saying that some Symbian phones are merely feature phones and not smartphones (whatever definitions anyone may attach to the two)."

Better?

Anyway, Symbian have been used in smartphones well before MS jumped onto the bandwagon and came up with "Windows Mobile for Smartphones" (actually they tried many times to jump onto the bandwagon but they missed - and fell flat on their face). And knowing MS they'll probably want to turn the generic term smartphone into their trademark - like they did with windows.

[sofene]

This guy never quits!