The mobile Internet

[Ed Hansberry]

Guys and gals, the 'm' in mobile is lowercase for a reason. "Mobile Internet" is not a proper noun. "Mobile" is an adjective that describes how you access the internet, not part of the name serving as a adjective describing what type of internet you are accessing. Phone carriers need to get this through their thick skulls as they continue to try to force us to use their “walled garden” for internet access – think AOL here. It seems the competition does as well.<br /><br />I visited the Palm booth at CeBIT. I went to their connectivity section and saw their "Mobile Internet" kit. YAWN! "Internet access with your Palm handheld" it shouted. Email, SMS, WAP and Web Clipping. Folks, I know the web isn't the Internet, but it sure as heck is 80% of the Internet - probably more if you compared the number of bytes transferred daily vs. the amount that goes through email, SMS, IM and Usenet.<br /><br />This PQA web clipping garbage isn't Internet access anymore than AvantGo is. And WAP is about as fun and interesting as Gopher used to be. So, from this information, it seems Palm doesn't have an Internet solution, and of course, true to form, you don't need one. You can get Internet access "quickly and efficiently over a wireless connection without being slowed down by cumbersome graphics or unwanted information." Of course, that neglects to tell you that full blown browsers, like those in the Nokia Communicator, Pocket PC's, Smartphone 2002 and Symbian devices can turn the graphics off, and then selectively download that "unwanted information" which just happens to be a weather map, stock chart or just a Dilbert cartoon if you want.<br /><br />We've heard it before Palm. We don't need it until you have it. Blahbedy blah blah blah. And it is interesting that even though I couldn’t find it in your booth nor in your “Mobile Internet” pamphlet, you now have a full blown browser that will be available in April – for $20 no less. It seems Palm fans, of which there are many, will finally be able to experience the web on their devices, provided it is one of the $200 or higher devices less than a year old. Why this wouldn’t run on the bazillions of Vx’s out there is beyond me. So what happened to not needing all of that other stuff, “cumbersome images” and the like? Oh, you have it now. :-|<br /><br />I guess that is the thing that ticks me off most. If the hardware, software, or the infrastructure in the case of the carriers, cannot support it, then just say so, and tell us when it will support it. But incessantly telling us what we do and don't need based on what you can and cannot provide is insane. And the market place is speaking. The carriers that open up their data connection to the full Internet for use on smartphones, PDA's and PC's will be the winners. Not the ones that try the original AOL walled garden approach. Even AOL saw the error of their ways and opened the floodgates and were rewarded richly for it. And the manufacturers of mobile devices that support those data connections to their fullest, be it Pocket PC, Smartphone, Symbian, Nokia's Communicator, etc., will also be richly rewarded.

[Chubbergott]

:wink: Calm down! You sound like I feel when I wake up in the morning (or early afternoon) only to find that the cat had to 'let go' in the bread-bin overnight!

[dave]

Ed-

very interesting post. i must say that i concur with most of your views, especially the arrogance with which palm constructs its marketing message. it is ridiculous for any organization to attempt to tell its customers and prospects what they do and don't need. giving them something that they need before they know they need it is one thing, but ignoring stated needs is simply suicidal.

having said that, i would like to solicit some thoughts from anyone who might be reading about a somewhat-on-topic dilemma that i am facing. a little background here:

my first pda was the palm III which i bought right around launch time. i thought that thing was great. it started to flake out on me after 18 months or so, so i started looking at the palm V. about this time the first PocketPCs were being released, so i bought a Casio E-105 (i think) and a replacement plan from best buy. through said replacement plan i have also owned an ipaq 3635 and ipaq 3765. i sold the 3765 on ebay because i wanted an XScale device when they start shipping, and i feared that the release of the XScale devices would cut the value of my 3765 in half.

being the gadget nut that i am, i made it about three days before i had to have another device. i bought a Toshiba e570 which i have since returned because the battery life really does stink on those things (fully charged battery went dead two weekends in a row while the device was sitting idle in the case with no reminders going off). now i am once again sans-PDA trying to figure out if i can make it two months until the Pocket LOOX or new toshiba or any other XScale device is released.

i have been spending some of this time trying to ascertain what my true needs are, and how they would be best met. i loved my pocketpc's, and i think the platform has lapped palm several times over. there is no comparison between the two platforms on the 'wow factor' dimension. and while i always find myself installing apps and buying peripherals to experience the wow factor personally, the wow has generally been short-lived and i find myself using my device for the following:

- reading and replying to email
- using word or excel to view attachments (i never create or even edit)
- managing my schedule
- contact management
- avantgo / mazingo
- media player, exclusively for audio and almost always at the gym
- pocket bible

when i think about what i would like to be able to do that my prior pocketpc's did not enable me to do, there is only one thing that really jumps out at me, and that is wireless email. i have a RIM 952 pager that somewhat meets this need in my professional life, but personal email is a whole different story (which is probably cause for a whole separate discussion on the stepchild treatment microsoft's own hotmail gets on the pocketpc -- shouldn't it be easier than it is to have your hotmail delivered through activesync?).

so.... getting to the point, here is where i am at. let's say i wait a couple of months and buy an XScale pocketpc with integrated bluetooth. there goes $600 and i still don't have wireless email. i know i can sit the device next to my nokia 8290 and savor the rapid fire 9600bps connection, but i prefer root canals. i also i know i could shell out another four bills for a t68 and bluetooth my way to a GPRS connection, but has anyone checked the prices on that service? i know prices will go down, but when and by how much?

so at the risk of being branded a heretic, i am seriously contemplating the palm i705. i know it's greyscale. it know it utilizes 'web-clipping'. i know it doesn't play mp3's but hey, mp3 players are cheap. what it does offer, or at least appears to, is a wireless email solution that appears to be unmatched on any platform including the RIM.

i guess what i am asking for is for someone to politely point out ways that a pocketpc solution can do what i'm looking to do more cost-effectively than the i705 can. any thoughts?

my apologies in advance for the overly verbose post. i just wanted to set proper context to avert an all-out palm-bashing melee. the pocketpc kicks ass, but i am trying (and believe me this is difficult) to make this purchase based on my needs rather than on emotion.

thanks,
dave

[Scott R]

Ed, surely you know that full web browsers have been out for some time for the Palm OS. The browser that you speak of is a Palm, Inc. browser, that's all. The fact is that web clipping is better for accessing useful information than full browsing (when an appropriate web clipping app exists). I believe that you, like many people, confuse web clipping with text web browsing. That isn't it. A web clipping app can incorporate graphics, and is more along the lines of a client/server application. The interface and other static aspects of the application are stored locally (on the Palm device) and the dynamic aspects are transmitted to and from the web server. The end result is that using a web clipping application, I can grab movie show times, yellow page directories, etc. quicker than is possible via a Pocket PC using a full web browser set to "hide" images.

Until 800 pixel wide PDA screens (or at least 400 pixels wide with some very smart scaling) and high bandwidth becomes the norm I'll take web clipping when I have the choice. Even with higher res screens and high bandwidth, it's important to note that web-based applications don't necessarily translate well to a PDA due to the smaller size and different input mechanisms.

Once again, this is the old argument about designing the interface specific to the advantages and limitations of the device. The original Palm device was designed with this sort of thinking. The original MS Palm-sized PC interface was not.

Scott

[ojlittle]

- reading and replying to email
- using word or excel to view attachments (i never create or even edit)
- managing my schedule
- contact management
- avantgo / mazingo
- media player, exclusively for audio and almost always at the gym
- pocket bible

Dave,

If you go to Palm, it looks like your needs will be met minus the MP3 playback & mazingo. It can do all of the other things. Have you thought about one of the new Smartphones that will be coming out? From what I understand they will offer MS Word/Excel support, email, contact/schedule management, & MP3's. However, I don't know if you'll be able to use pocket bible or avantgo/mazingo. There's also the option of the new wirless PPC's, PDA/phone hybrid. You can do all of your PPC applications & use it for email & a phone. That's all I can think of.........

[Chubbergott]

Have you thought about one of the new Smartphones that will be coming out? From what I understand they will offer MS Word/Excel support, email, contact/schedule management, & MP3's.

I can confirm that the 9290, when it comes out, will do just that (as does the 9210 right now). While it does lack quality in the MP3 department, the Communicator does Word, Excel, Email, FAX, SMS, HTML (normal) Internet, WAP Internet, viewing of many document formats (incuding WordPerfect, Powerpoint etc), excellent Contact Management, awesome scheduling, JAVA and MIDP and I use Mobi Reader for the Bible.

It plays video (NIM and Real), but if I'm honest, that area is not as good as it is with the PPC. I always use an MP3 player (or MiniDisc) in the gym because I have a terrible memory and I'd rather lose a relatively cheap music player than a relatively expensive mobile office - but I may change my mind when the 7650 come out!

If your needs are that easy, why not go for a bog standard PPC (really cheap these days) until what you really want comes out?

Just my tuppence.

[Ed Hansberry]

I believe that you, like many people, confuse web clipping with text web browsing. That isn't it. A web clipping app can incorporate graphics, and is more along the lines of a client/server application. The interface and other static aspects of the application are stored locally (on the Palm device) and the dynamic aspects are transmitted to and from the web server.

No, I am confusing nothing. You cannot PQA anywhere you want. If someone emails you a URL on your PPC and you tap it, you go to the web page. If they email you a URL on your Palm, you can't do that without a browser to go to the site, unless it is one of the .00000000001% of web sites PQA enabled.

[Ed Hansberry]

Once again, this is the old argument about designing the interface specific to the advantages and limitations of the device. The original Palm device was designed with this sort of thinking. The original MS Palm-sized PC interface was not.

This is what I was talking about - the same old line. "You don't need spreadsheets on your device. It isn't designed for that. You don't need color. You don't need sound. You don't need voice recording. You don't need {insert feature here}."

All of the sudden - ALL of that is now available. What changed? The hardware of course. Except Palm ignored hardware advances for at least 3 years which is what got them into trouble.

As you said, the PsPC wasn't well designed as far as the UI goes, but people ignored, to their own detriment, what the concept was. When the iPAQ hardware and Pocket PC UI came out, it was like "{forehead smack} so that was what MS was trying to do! WOW!" And Palm has been scrambling ever since to do feature catch up in OS5/OS6, and lose 20% marketshare to PPC and other devices in the meantime.

Why do you keep up with this tired old line Scott? Palm has abandoned it for the most part.

[Scott R]

No, I am confusing nothing. You cannot PQA anywhere you want. If someone emails you a URL on your PPC and you tap it, you go to the web page. If they email you a URL on your Palm, you can't do that without a browser to go to the site, unless it is one of the .00000000001% of web sites PQA enabled.

Yes, you are confused. There is no such thing as "going to a web site that is PQA-enabled". A PQA is an applet that resides on the Palm OS device. Yes, it interacts with a web site. But that site address would exist strictly for the purpose of communicating with that applet. Try thinking about it more like a scaled down version of creating an application in Visual Basic which has internet hooks which uses that to communicate with a web site which exists strictly for communicating with that Visual Basic application. If I was to point my browser to that web page, I'd get some sort of error. Again, this is task oriented. It is not "surfing".

What you're talking about is "surfing". Is the PPC better for "surfing"? Sure. But it still stinks. I even tried using nyditot with my iPaq (and PCMCIA sleeve and wireless LAN card communicating with my cable modem) in landscape mode and found the experience extremely frustrating. I still found myself having to scroll sideways. Even with my "high speed" connection, things were very slow.

Scott

[Hans the Hedgehog]

Okay, Ed, breathe and repeat after me... "Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean..." :D


This is what I was talking about - the same old line...Why do you keep up with this tired old line Scott? Palm has abandoned it for the most part.


Ed, why do you keep up with the same old line... Palm can't do this, Palm can't do that, blah blah blah. Most of us already know that Palm can't do this and that, and when they try it fails often.

Instead of writing such a tired rant about Palm, why don't you do what you do best, bring us news and thoughts on the advantages of PPC and its future?

I love this site and the work you guys put into it... when it's PPC oriented. Sure, I love the ribbing and bashing... but this rant was over the top, even for a PPC site.

Just my whine and cheese,
Hans

[Chubbergott]

All of the sudden - ALL of that is now available. What changed? The hardware of course. Except Palm ignored hardware advances for at least 3 years which is what got them into trouble.


As I've said many times, I've never used a Palm (the RAM always worried me), but I have admired it from a distance. It seems to me that it is a device with strict goals.

The Palm was not called 'The Palm' for no reason. The designers wanted something that could fit into a shirt pocket without making it look lob-sided. They gave it the functionality that people wanted (and clearly they did - judging by the sales).

So, as you ask, what changed?

I think, watching from the side lines, that one important thing has changed;

Technology
The technology is now available for Palm to put the wizz-bang features of a PocketPC into its small form factor. They couldn't have squeezed all that into the small devices a few years ago - if they could, wouldn't Compaq have found a way also? Palm didn't want to sell bricks (that's fine coming from a 9210 owner, but I don't mind carrying a brick).

While Micro$oft's philosophy would seem to be "cram as many features into the device, no matter the cost [in terms of size and weight]", Palm could be "keep the form factor small and light, no matter the cost [in terms of lack of multimedia and RAM]'.

I say "different philosophies". Nobody can say that one is wrong and the other right. But everyone can say that the difference has provided choice for the consumer.

You can't point the finger at Palm for not moving very fast, it's not fair. If all of Micro$oft's money came from what it makes from the PocketPC, I suppose we'd still be asking for Pocket Word and Pocket Excel to be included in the Palm Size Computers.

What percentage of Micro$oft's resources go into PocketPC compared to Palm's into their devices?

PS
As for the web and this clipping business. I say that it is very much a case of Horses for Courses. I love to have all the graphiics turned on when I browse on my 9210 (and I noticed you did not slag off Symbian - thank you). But I know that when I had a WAP phone, I used it and it was useful - I know that's hard to believe. As long as I get what I'm looking for, I don't care how it looks - even if I prefer it to look nice.

[JonathanWardRogers]

Ed, surely you know that full web browsers have been out for some time for the Palm OS. The browser that you speak of is a Palm, Inc. browser, that's all. The fact is that web clipping is better for accessing useful information than full browsing (when an appropriate web clipping app exists). I believe that you, like many people, confuse web clipping with text web browsing. That isn't it. A web clipping app can incorporate graphics, and is more along the lines of a client/server application. The interface and other static aspects of the application are stored locally (on the Palm device) and the dynamic aspects are transmitted to and from the web server. The end result is that using a web clipping application, I can grab movie show times, yellow page directories, etc. quicker than is possible via a Pocket PC using a full web browser set to "hide" images.

Scott R, surely you know that comparing PDA formatted HTML pages with non-PDA formatted Web pages is a bit like saying apples are better than oranges because they make better apple pie. It is a deceptive advertising technique, nothing else. Many online web sites are also formatted (dynamically, not statically, I might add) for PDA browsing. Using a sub-300USD Cassiopeia EM-500 (actually, I have an E-200 now), and a 30USD cable, I use my cell phone to connect and surf the actual web at 14kbps. Plus, I use my existing dial up service, which costs me only 22USD a month and my existing cell phone, which costs me 33USD a month for unlimited incoming and outgoing day, night, weekday, and weekend minutes, so I don't have to pay anything extra. Many sites (Google, WindowsMedia, Hotmail, etc., etc., etc...) are formatted for PDAs and wireless access. Lets hear how much better "web clipping" is than streaming audio from the WindowsMedia mobile version of their site, reading my Hotmail and replying at the same time, or finding truely useful information via Google's mobile search page. Can you tell me that you really think that web clipping is better for accessing useful information than that?

But Palm wouldn't have a very good advertisement if they compared mobile web browsing with "web clipping". I'm not sure why consumers think that a device which can read offline HTML pages only is better than a device that can do that, in addition to surfing wireless/PDA formatted Web pages and, in a pinch, surfing practically ALL web sites if necessary.

I make the distinction between HTML documents ("web clipping") and web browsing because they are not even remotely the same thing. The World Wide Web is so named because you can move from interconnected page to interconnected page freely and on a scale so vast as to earn the extra qualifiers "World Wide". "Web clipping" is merely HTML documents, nothing more. It's somewhat like equating the ability to view Word documents with the ability to collaborate, change and comment on Word documents in real time. Just because it is HTML doesn't mean it is the Web.

Until 800 pixel wide PDA screens (or at least 400 pixels wide with some very smart scaling) and high bandwidth becomes the norm I'll take web clipping when I have the choice. Even with higher res screens and high bandwidth, it's important to note that web-based applications don't necessarily translate well to a PDA due to the smaller size and different input mechanisms.

They do if they are written for a PDA, which is the case with "web clipping". Of course they don't work well if they are not written for the platform. Just like HTML pages written for the desktop wouldn't work well as "web clippings". Don't ignore the extra effort involved with making it look good on a PDA using "web clipping".

Once again, this is the old argument about designing the interface specific to the advantages and limitations of the device. The original Palm device was designed with this sort of thinking. The original MS Palm-sized PC interface was not.

Scott


And once again, it is the age old argument about telling consumers they want what you have, as opposed to asking consumers what they want and providing it to them.

I commend you, Ed, for hitting this deceptive advertising tactic right on the head.

Jon

[jeffmckean]

My subject line is what says it all. While Palm cannot "scale up" terribly well to handle the real web; it's pretty easy to "scale down" the Pocket PC to take advantage of low-bandwidth optimized content.
Pocket PC or Palm, each may limit me in some way, but Palm limits me more. So I use a Pocket PC.

[Scott R]

"Web clipping" is merely HTML documents, nothing more. It's somewhat like equating the ability to view Word documents with the ability to collaborate, change and comment on Word documents in real time. Just because it is HTML doesn't mean it is the Web.

Ignorance is bliss. I'd suggest that before any of you talk about what web clipping is and is not, that you actually decide to read up on the subject. As with Ed, you've demonstrated that you simply don't understand the technology. Web clipping is not offline web browsing formatted for a PDA (a la AvantGo). Find out what web clipping really is, then make some informed arguments against it and I'll continue this discussion. Here's a good starting point:
http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/docs/webclipping/WCAIntroduction.html#939315

Scott

[Ed Hansberry]

"Web clipping" is merely HTML documents, nothing more. It's somewhat like equating the ability to view Word documents with the ability to collaborate, change and comment on Word documents in real time. Just because it is HTML doesn't mean it is the Web.

Ignorance is bliss. I'd suggest that before any of you talk about what web clipping is and is not, that you actually decide to read up on the subject. As with Ed, you've demonstrated that you simply don't understand the technology. Web clipping is not offline web browsing formatted for a PDA (a la AvantGo). Find out what web clipping really is, then make some informed arguments against it and I'll continue this discussion. Here's a good starting point:
http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/docs/webclipping/WCAIntroduction.html#939315


Looks like HTML to me. http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/docs/webclipping/WCAHTML.html#942080 Looks like the site should have web clipping enabled meta-tags (PQA enabled) that the PQA app on the device can use to suck info down to the device.

And regardless of the technology, it is closed, it is of limited use, is of no interest to most people, and has no future. Open web and internet access is what people want, which was the point of my "thought." Not to get into a tap counting contest with you Scott.

[Jason Dunn]

Guys and gals, the 'm' in mobile is lowercase for a reason. "Mobile Internet" is not a proper noun.


Andy! How dare you log in as Ed to make your posts! :wink: :wink:

[4AMFriday]

You guys should have a look at this article written by Steve over at BirghtHand. For those who seem to be confused over the differences between Web Clipping and Browsing, I think this may help to clear things up a bit.

http://www.brighthand.com/newsite/ppc/views/clip_or_browse.html

"While PIE leverages existing web pages, it is typically one major step behind Internet Explorer and the latest HTML standard. Therefore, it cannot display some aspects of web pages that utilize the latest web technologies. Also, it's intrinsically slow, since it must render the entire page, which was likely developed for a faster connection. You can turn off the downloading of images to reduce the download time but that just proves the point that full web browsing from a handheld is sketchy, at best.

Palm, on the other hand, has been a proponent of its Web Clipping technology, which requires that website owners develop special Palm Query Applications, or PQAs, that contain snippets of only the most important information, tailored to fit in a 160 pixels by 160 pixels screen. Opponents to Web Clipping claim that it simply doesn't offer the rich experience found in desktop web access." - Steven G. Bush

Click on the link above for the full article.

[Andy Sjostrom]

Andy! How dare you log in as Ed to make your posts!

Very funny! :lol:
Not so, though. Ed is right on target with this excellent post!

... but you all knew I'd feel that way, didn't you! :wink:

[Scott R]

Lets hear how much better "web clipping" is than streaming audio from the WindowsMedia mobile version of their site...

Honest question: Can you do this with acceptable quality and without waiting forever while connected via a cellphone or is this really just workable when connected via a wireless LAN? That actually does sound pretty neat.

Scott

[Chubbergott]

Bart, yes we're biased. I think in the end we're all biased. Thing is: we're biased because we like something.


Unfortunately, the tone of this particular topic makes the above statement a dream that hasn't yet come true..

Note
I know that the person who wote the above hasn't posted in this topic, but he does say we. The author may be able to speak for himself (no reason to doubt that), but he clearly isn't speaking for all.

[JohnnyFlash]

I visited the Palm booth at CeBIT.
...
This PQA web clipping garbage isn't internet access


I was in Palm's stand at CeBIT too:

http://www.wirelesssoftware.info/archives/2002.3.23_135123/palmblue1.jpg

And while I agree that web clipping is not web browsing, then we have to admit that: a. they have Bluetooth SD card NOW, while we, owners of PocketPC can only dream about it. b. they will offer full browser soon.

I coudn't spot Palm OS 5 yet however, so actually they (Palm camp) has no choice but to get most out of this old, crappy, lacking file system, PalmOS 4.x ...

Still SD Bluetooth is my dream, but so is something like XDA:

http://www.wirelesssoftware.info/archives/2002.3.23_13378/xda1.jpg

[Ed Hansberry]

And while I agree that web clipping is not web browsing, then we have to admit that: a. they have Bluetooth SD card NOW, while we, owners of PocketPC can only dream about it. b. they will offer full browser soon.


I don't think you can get the SD BT card just yet. Still a couple of more weeks. Still, I have bluetooth NOW (and it's been available since December) in my iPAQ without using up my SD slot. And BlueTooth CF cards have been out for a while now. Finally, that isn't Palm's SD card. Toshiba makes it so it won't be long before they are selling it to PPC users.

[4AMFriday]

I don't think you can get the SD BT card just yet. Still a couple of more weeks. Still, I have bluetooth NOW (and it's been available since December) in my iPAQ without using up my SD slot. And BlueTooth CF cards have been out for a while now. Finally, that isn't Palm's SD card. Toshiba makes it so it won't be long before they are selling it to PPC users.


Correct, it shouldn't be long before Toshiba releases a SD BlueTooth radio for "SDIO" compliant Pocket PC's. However, and I could be wrong here, The Toshiba and Audiovox Pocket PC's are the only "Big Player" Pocket PC's that actually support SDIO.

Those with the new Compaq 3835/3850 or Casio E200 will not be able to take advantage of such a small BlueTooth expansion. The HP battery pack/MMC card expansion only supports MMC and SD memory cards. Does it not seem odd that a $300.00 USD Palm device does indeed support SDIO, and yet $600.00 USD Compaq and Casio Pocket PC devices do not?

Those with a Compaq 3870 are lucky enough to have BlueTooth built-in. However, what happens when other SDIO cards like 802.11b and digital camera expansions become available. If you don't have a Audiovox or Toshiba device you're pretty much SOL? Did Compaq just make our decision for us by not providing the full SD spec with their devices under the assumption that a bulky expansion sled should cut it?

I understand that future Pocket PC devices will most likely all adopt the full SD spec in due time, but it seems as if Palm has beet the majority of them to the finish line with this technology. The idea of shelling out another $600.00 USD to get Compaq's next PPC device (Which may very well still not support SDIO) in hopes that this technology will be included just makes me sick to my stomach.

I own both Pocket PC and Palm devices, and I am not bias towards either of the two. But, I find it funny that my "Red Headed Stepchild" Palm device supports a technology that a Pocket PC 2002 device with SD expansion should have no excuse not to... But I will have to deal with this, considering Compaq figured I didn't need it.

[Ed Hansberry]

Correct, it shouldn't be long before Toshiba releases a SD BlueTooth radio for "SDIO" compliant Pocket PC's. However, and I could be wrong here, The Toshiba and Audiovox Pocket PC's are the only "Big Player" Pocket PC's that actually support SDIO.

AFAIK, no Pocket PC includes the SD/IO spec, including Toshiba/Audiovox devices. I am 99% sure about that.

[Dave Conger]

AFAIK, no Pocket PC includes the SD/IO spec, including Toshiba/Audiovox devices. I am 99% sure about that.


Yeah, I don't think the SD/IO spec had been finalized when the last round of Pocket PC's where released.

[4AMFriday]

AFAIK, no Pocket PC includes the SD/IO spec, including Toshiba/Audiovox devices. I am 99% sure about that.


Ok then.. If none of the current Pocket PC devices support the SD/IO spec, what's the point with the "Toshiba makes it so it won't be long before they are selling it to PPC users" comment. There are already Palm devices on the market that support this technology, and no Pocket PC's. Interesting... Is it not?

[JohnnyFlash]

Correct, it shouldn't be long before Toshiba releases a SD BlueTooth radio for "SDIO" compliant Pocket PC's. However, and I could be wrong here, The Toshiba and Audiovox Pocket PC's are the only "Big Player" Pocket PC's that actually support SDIO.

Those with the new Compaq 3835/3850 or Casio E200 will not be able to take advantage of such a small BlueTooth expansion.


If it is true that 38xx does not support input/output cards in its SD slot then I will be very very angry. So 4-5 times cheaper Palm devices have SD slot with i/o but my expensive iPAQ 38xx does not????

I really am starting to think that change the vendor: to some vendor that produces PocketPC device with i/o capable SD slot so that I could use this Bluetooth baby:

http://www.wirelesssoftware.info/archives/2002.3.23_135134/palmblue2.jpg

PS. I don't want to have built-in bluetooth in my PDA: when I fly by airplanes I don't want to be afraid whether it is on or not (by some software bug).

[Ed Hansberry]

Ok then.. If none of the current Pocket PC devices support the SD/IO spec, what's the point with the "Toshiba makes it so it won't be long before they are selling it to PPC users" comment. There are already Palm devices on the market that support this technology, and no Pocket PC's. Interesting... Is it not?

SDIO does not equiate to SD support. By not supporting SDIO, it basically ignores the SD features of an SD card, essentially treating it as an MMC card. This would only apply to storage memory. I cannot imagine why there would be SD features in a bluetooth or any other modem. Those transmissions are (or can be) encrypted now, having nothing to do with what type of card they are on - SD, CF, PCMCIA, etc.

Just curious, does anyone know of the Palm SD slots support SDIO or if they are just MMC slots too?

[JohnnyFlash]

Just curious, does anyone know of the Palm SD slots support SDIO or if they are just MMC slots too?


They support SDIO. Bluetooth card from Toshiba is SDIO standard (see photo above).

[Ed Hansberry]

PS. I don't want to have built-in bluetooth in my PDA: when I fly by airplanes I don't want to be afraid whether it is on or not (by some software bug).

ROTFL!!! :lol:

THat is a huge joke, you know? I know several pilots, commercial and private, and they say there is absolutely no way transmissions from cell phones, 802.11b cards, etc. could possibly have any effect on airplane controls. They use their cell phones in the cockpit all of the time. I know the cell phone ban is partially financially motivated. They want you to use their $4/m "airphones." As for the "no electronics in use during takeoff/landing" crap, who knows. Probably to lend credibility to their cell phone crap.

I see people with their headphones on during take off and landing all of the time, many using portable CD players, which actually have moving parts and generate a small (really small) magnetic field. Why in the world people think a CD player could cause harm to the avionics, when you have two-four big jet engines rotating at 10's of thousands of RPM's burning fuel and generating electricity for the aircraft and those don't do any "harm", is beyond me.

[Ed Hansberry]

They support SDIO. Bluetooth card from Toshiba is SDIO standard (see photo above).


Uhm... the 128MB SD card in my iPAQ happens to be a Toshiba and it is using the SDIO standard and still works in my iPAQ. The card has nothing to do with it. It is the hardware and software on the device.

If the SDIO standard wasn't done until after PPC 2002 devices shipped, then we know M505, M500 and M125's don't support it. So, I think it is doubtful the M515 and M130 do either. Does anyone know for sure? It has nothing to do with the card, it is the device.

[JohnnyFlash]

THat is a huge joke, you know? I know several pilots, commercial and private, and they say there is absolutely no way transmissions from cell phones, 802.11b cards, etc. could possibly have any effect on airplane controls. They use their cell phones in the cockpit all of the time.

apparently we have here in Europe different airplanes than you in USA: apart from MacDonnelDouglas and Boeing we have here Airbus and Saab. Maybe European airplanes are susceptible to radiation from mobile devices, otherwise why we hear here quite often in the airplanes "switch off your cell phones pleaZe!"...?

[JonathanWardRogers]

Honest question: Can you do this with acceptable quality and without waiting forever while connected via a cellphone or is this really just workable when connected via a wireless LAN? That actually does sound pretty neat.

Scott


Depending on where I am (how good my signal is), it works great. I wish I had a WiFi card though!

I assume that the content is encoded for 9600 baud, because it works great on my 14,400 connection.

Jon

[Chubbergott]

We've heard it before Palm. We don't need it until you have it. Blahbedy blah blah blah. And it is interesting that even though I couldn?t find it in your booth nor in your ?Mobile Internet? pamphlet, you now have a full blown browser that will be available in April ? for $20 no less.


I don't agree with all this and I don't think that this should stop people buying Palms.

Why?

People just don't understand the politics behind making such decisions and users should stop complaining because if they don't, it proves they're ignorant.

Palm just doesn't have the resources to develop a free web browser.
You shouldn't have a go at Palm because some people might know someone who works there and you shouldn't criticise anybody who is known by someone else.

:lol:

[Ed Hansberry]

We've heard it before Palm. We don't need it until you have it. Blahbedy blah blah blah. And it is interesting that even though I couldn?t find it in your booth nor in your ?Mobile Internet? pamphlet, you now have a full blown browser that will be available in April ? for $20 no less.


I don't agree with all this and I don't think that this should stop people buying Palms.

Why?

People just don't understand the politics behind making such decisions and users should stop complaining because if they don't, it proves they're ignorant.

Palm just doesn't have the resources to develop a free web browser.
You shouldn't have a go at Palm because some people might know someone who works there and you shouldn't criticise anybody who is known by someone else.

I'd be ever so greatful if you could translate this into English. :)