WSJ: "European Smart Phone Is Trim and Sharp, But Poor on E-Mail"

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040304.html' target='_blank'>http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040304.html</a><br /><br /></div>"In cellphones, as in so many other things, Europeans are different from Americans. I was reminded of this again last week in France, where I attended the world's biggest cellphone conference and exhibition, an event called the 3GSM World Congress. What I saw at the show was an impressive display of cellphone features and designs. Many of these advances are unavailable in the U.S., where we have crippled our wireless phone system by failing to adopt a single transmission standard and by handing too much power to slow-moving wireless carriers."<br /><br />Once Walt finishes his tongue-lashing of North American carriers (a well-deserved one too, I might add), he talks about the Sony Ericcson P900. He likes a few things about it, but Walt's a keyboard man, and if a device doesn't have a keyboard, well, Walt doesn't like that. It's a fair criticism, because if you're going to respond to email with anything more than one or two words, you want to have a keyboard. The P series has always blurred the line between PDA and smartphone - it has a touch screen, so I've always considered it closer to a PDA than a smartphone, but Sony Ericsson makes phones, so it has a phone's general design. I don't like the OS or UI all that much (I found it pretty confusing), but I'll say this much: Sony Ericsson knows how to design good-looking hardware.

[Don Sorcinelli]

Jason,

I think you summed it all up in your last comment -

"I don't like the OS or UI all that much (I found it pretty confusing), but I'll say this much: Sony Ericsson knows how to design good-looking hardware."

This is what frustrates me most today. SE knows how to make a phone; they understand the key points to success. This same strong point is (I believe) also their weakness when it comes to moving into the Smartphone arena.

I seems like the P800 and P900 are almost a result of a battle of engineers, with the two camps being "old guard" (very good at what they did) and "new blood" (more forward thinking). The result seems to be devices that just do not get the job done the way SE has done in the past. While the P800/900 are "OK" Smartphones, they are in no way the top of the line.

I believe that at least part of the problem is the OS selection; the other part is SE not really knowing (yet) what a Smartphone really should be.

It never ceases to sadden me when I think that SE has never even remotely considered the Windows Mobile platform. It's the same sadness I feel with Sony PDA hardware... :cry:

DonS

[Phoenix]

Jason,

I think you summed it all up in your last comment -

"I don't like the OS or UI all that much (I found it pretty confusing), but I'll say this much: Sony Ericsson knows how to design good-looking hardware."

This is what frustrates me most today. SE knows how to make a phone; they understand the key points to success. This same strong point is (I believe) also their weakness when it comes to moving into the Smartphone arena.

I seems like the P800 and P900 are almost a result of a battle of engineers, with the two camps being "old guard" (very good at what they did) and "new blood" (more forward thinking). The result seems to be devices that just do not get the job done the way SE has done in the past. While the P800/900 are "OK" Smartphones, they are in no way the top of the line.

I believe that at least part of the problem is the OS selection; the other part is SE not really knowing (yet) what a Smartphone really should be.

It never ceases to sadden me when I think that SE has never even remotely considered the Windows Mobile platform. It's the same sadness I feel with Sony PDA hardware... :cry:

DonS

I agree.

As soon as the Motorola MPx hits the shores, I'm replacing my P900 with one of those. I already have a pre-order in place through www.expansys-usa.com

SE makes nice cell phones, but they just don't get certain things right. The MPx will.

[ShivShanks]

"we have crippled our wireless phone system by failing to adopt a single transmission standard and by handing too much power to slow-moving wireless carriers."


I'll agree about the "handing too much power" bit, but crippled wireless phone system?! What the heck is he talking about? In fact CDMA is a much superior technology and I for one am very glad that there are options in the US which allows one to choose better technology. I can today get 144Kbps 1xRTT data speeds all over the US with CDMA (which is near 3G) and soon true 3G with EV-DO. And this was done (and will be done) without any expensive upgrades of the infrastructure for the CDMA carriers. By comparison GSM carriers are stuck with hefty expensive upgrades to 3GSM for which no one has enough money to make it anywhere near universally available soon. In fact as of right now the US has the best wireless system bar Korea and Japan. The only thing lacking in the US are some more consumer rights like cell phone equipment portability within carriers (one thing the GSM camp got right). Also competition in the US is intense with 5-6 national carriers and pretty good deals on voice rates and excellent data rates (like Sprint's $10 unlimited data at 144Kbps). Walt Mossberg may know something but he knows nothing about what the ground reality actually is with respect to cell phone technology in the US is. After all he is a business person what can you really expect him to know about the details of technology. He just looks at cool GSM phones and the SIM card (one thing I concede GSM was brilliant in thinking of) and thinks GSM is the best technology. It is not. Period.

[Ed Hansberry]

"we have crippled our wireless phone system by failing to adopt a single transmission standard and by handing too much power to slow-moving wireless carriers."


I'll agree about the "handing too much power" bit, but crippled wireless phone system?! What the heck is he talking about? In fact CDMA is a much superior technology and I for one am very glad that there are options in the US which allows one to choose better technology.
Crippled meaning in Europe, you can get coverage anywhere. In the US, you may get coverage, you may not. You may be in a CDMA area but if it isn't *your* CDMA carrier, you might drop to analog. GSM is spotty, CDMA providers have few bluetooth devices, etc.

The cell service here is an absolute joke, especially for people that travel.

[Janak Parekh]

The cell service here is an absolute joke, especially for people that travel.
It is indeed unfortunate, but this is only partially a result of our divergent standards. The real reasons are NIMBYs and the very disparate terrain -- the US is extremely hard to cover. That said, Verizon in the Northeast is extraordinarily good -- there's very few places I don't get coverage. And with the consolidation of the big mobile carriers to just 4 or so, you'll start to see better consolidated coverage before long. :) Not to mention superior data plans. You can't get anything remotely like unlimited GPRS for $20 in Europe.

The bigger problem with the lack of an established standard is that phones are not generally exchangeable between carriers, or readily available by 3rd-parties. In Europe, you know there's a 100% guarantee you can buy any phone from anywhere and plug the SIM in. Not so in the US, and phone manufacturers only develop phones here to the conservative tastes of mobile carriers.

--janak

[ShivShanks]

Crippled meaning in Europe, you can get coverage anywhere. In the US, you may get coverage, you may not. You may be in a CDMA area but if it isn't *your* CDMA carrier, you might drop to analog. GSM is spotty, CDMA providers have few bluetooth devices, etc.

The cell service here is an absolute joke, especially for people that travel.

You can get coverage "everywhere" in Europe? That defintion of Europe must probably only include the richer urbanized western part of Europe. And how much area is that compared to the area of the whole US? CDMA coverage is decent considering the huge area and at least you *can* drop to Analog with CDMA unlike GSM which gives you zilch, nada, nothing when you don't get a signal which is pretty often with GSM in the US. Want to check out what the coverage of Analog in the US is like? -
A Side http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-B.pdf
B Side http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-A.pdf
Now do you understand why you want a phone with Analog capability?!

With CDMA I get digital coverage over most of populated US and analog coverage over 98% of the US. And what makes you think being outside my CDMA carrier is a problem? There is something called digital roaming. So with CDMA you can atleast make an emergency call almost all over the US (made me feel so much more comfortable seeing the Analog signal driving in the vast Yosemite National Park) which isn't what can be said for GSM. I agree that the phone selection for BlueTooth isn't great. However that has *nothing* to do with the technology but business practices. Make the FCC force the carriers to allow phone portability and see what happens. Now the manufacturers can only make phones that the carriers approve and you can buy phones only from them. Change that and everything is different. So yes, barring marketplace issues, technology wise the US has the best cell phone network other than Japan/Korea. Anyone who tells you otherwise is pretty sadly mistaken and misinformed.