HTC SmartPhone 2002

[marlof]

<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/26308.html">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/26308.html</a><br /><br />The Register reports that Orange UK is currently testing a SmartPhone 2002 design created by HTC. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/canary_small.jpg" /><br /><br />You can also look at a <a href="http://207.34.121.16/images/canary_big.jpg">bigger picture</a> (pict: The Register). The product is apparantly called the "Canary reference design". It is based on the Texas Instruments OMAP 720 processor, weighs 95g and is a triband GSM/GPRS device. It will have a USB connection, and a MMC expansion slot. On the downside: there will be no Bluetooth and no MMS.<br /><br />Although many carriers would like to see MMS as a source of even more revenue, I couldn't care less if this device has MMS functionality or not. I would prefer a HTML e-mail client over MMS any day! But I would love to see Bluetooth in this phone, as I could use it as a GPRS modem with my Bluetooth enabled notebook. Now I'd have to fuzz with cables or IrDA, and who wants that in this wireless day and age?

[Marc Zimmermann]

On the downside: there will be no Bluetooth and no MMS.

Oh, I love it. I don't care about either...

[marlof]

Marc, read my edit (I was working on it before you post) and then please tell me if you still feel the same. :)

[Marc Zimmermann]

Marc, read my edit (I was working on it before you post) and then please tell me if you still feel the same. :)

I agree with your opinion on MMS wholeheartedly. As I am not a notebook user and I'm only looking to carry only one integrated device, I just happen to love Smartphone 2002 and Pocket PC 2002 Phone Edition. I don't need other devices to connect to these.

I understand that for some scenarios it might make sense. But I anticipate that the majority of users of the targeted market is also looking only for a single device that allows them to connect to email, view files and make calls. Using those phones as a gateway for notebooks might be a power user feature and not worth the additional cost driving up device prices for all users.

[Arne Hess]

I understand that for some scenarios it might make sense. But I anticipate that the majority of users of the targeted market is also looking only for a single device that allows them
But the target market is defined by the operators, not by Microsoft or any OEMs.
So it have to be included - it's state of the art! The competitors are Nokia's 7650 and Sony Ericsson's P800, both came with Bluetooth and MMS plus a camera and will be sold at least for the same price! So why the user should take a Stinger phone!? Because "Powered by Windows CE"? The user doesn't care, it's about the features!!!

[Marc Zimmermann]

So why the user should take a Stinger phone!? Because "Powered by Windows CE"? The user doesn't care, it's about the features!!!

Well, yes, because it is Windows Powered. Because it allows scaling corporate applications from Stinger via Pocket PC via Notebook to a workstation. The point of Stinger is not to compete head to head with other smartphones. It's about making Windows based solutions portable.

[xdev]

Orange UK is evaluating a reference design for a Stinker smartphone
Now, i wonder if they said "stinker" on purpose. :D

[marlof]

Orange UK is evaluating a reference design for a Stinker smartphone
Now, i wonder if they said "stinker" on purpose. :D

Think so. In the end of the article you can see that they know it's Stinger. Wordgames like this when it comes to Microsoft are not unknown to The Register. Somehow their spelling control seems to be broken when it comes to things that concern Microsoft. It always remembers me of my niece. She can't get enough of the same jokes over and over again. She's two years of age...

[Jason Dunn]

No Bluetooth? AUGH! :evil:

[JMountford]

OK I will not even get into my Standard "Where are teh CDMA handsets" rant. I do want to say that so far the MS Smartphone 2002 platform seems to suck as it is very problematic. The hardware designs seem to be feature lacking. The adopters of Smartphone 2002 seem to be very few and far between. I seriously doubt I will ever buy a MS Smartphone Device. Heck at this rate they are just vaporware anyway.

That said. This new "Canary" design does look nice. To me it looks like a cellular phone. It reminds me a bit of the Sanyo 4000 series or the old Nokia 6100 series. And hey about the Bluetooth guys... it does have some sort of SD or MMC slot. Mayne it is like SD I/O and the Socket SD Bluetooth card will work?

[marlof]

And hey about the Bluetooth guys... it does have some sort of SD or MMC slot. Mayne it is like SD I/O and the Socket SD Bluetooth card will work?

And lose the one expansion slot for memory you have? No thanks. Bluetooth should be built in, not available as an expansion module. Many might live happily without Bluetooth, but for me, it's a major downside.

[glebd]

Ugly design, no Bluetooth (other smartphones have it), no MMS (other smartphones and ordinary mobiles have it). The result is an inferior product to the current and upcoming smartphones. Not much fun developing for it, I guess. The only force capable of pushing such an inferior product to enterprises is, or course, Microsoft's money. Consumers won't buy it. As one MS mobile rep said, "we are not sure if the capabilities of Stinger will be sufficient for carriers" or something like that. Pardon me, but it means MS doesn't know what its potential customers want, and doesn't care! I wonder what the Stinger slogan will say: "This is where you want to go today, and please don't argue, because we know better"?

[draiken]

I'd rather go for the Nokia 7650, why? because it is a beatiful phone... and it has bluetooth... who designed this Canary uglynesss anyway???

Why is the technology out there... if the devices wont make use of it? :?:

I don't care if the Nokia has Symbian or WinCE, it has PDA functionality, and when I sync to my PC the changes will go to the Pocket PC, and maybe eventually the phone will replace the PocketPC...

Well, maybe not, until we see MAME for Nokia handsets, hehe

[Jason Dunn]

I wonder what the Stinger slogan will say: "This is where you want to go today, and please don't argue, because we know better"?

Considering that you are apparently a Symbian employee (IP address 194.200.144.243 traces back to lon-gw.symbian.com), I have to wonder how seriously I should take your post. A Symbian slogan might be "Symbian - we can create a cool-looking UI, too bad no developers can figure our OS out." :wink:

I don't mind you coming in here to comment, but come on - don't pretend you're unbiased. Please add your Symbian affiliation in your sig or your location so people know who you are and who you represent. This "trolling on company time" stuff is pretty lame. :roll:

[JonnoB]

I normally do not care about BT, but there is one aspect of BT that is very promising to me when it comes to mobile phones and this is the choices being made available for wireless headsets for hands-free operation. Not having BT for this feature alone takes serious bite out of its potential.

[glebd]

Considering that you are apparently a Symbian employee, I have to wonder how seriously I should take your post. A Symbian slogan might be "Symbian - we can create a cool-looking UI, too bad no developers can figure our OS out." :wink:

I don't mind you coming in here to comment, but come on - don't pretend you're unbiased. Please add your Symbian affiliation in your sig or your location so people know who you are and who you represent. This "trolling on company time" stuff is pretty lame. :roll:

I see, you cannot find any other arguments, and are trying to discredit me personally 8) No offence taken. I have an iPAQ at home, as well as a Psion 5mx, but I prefer a Newton MP2100. You see, for me this is all about functionality, not about brand. If MS ever makes a better smartphone, I will be glad to use it. Only right now MS has absolutely no clue how to make a good smartphone. Scaling down a desktop OS to first fit a palmtop, and now a phone is not the right way to go.

Regarding developers that can't figure out Symbian OS - pity for them, there are still plenty of those who can. Programming for Windows CE is no fun either, let me tell you.

Disclaimer: Yes, I work at Symbian, but my thoughts expressed here are my personal opinions and are not in any way associated with, nor are they endorsed by Symbian.

[marlof]

If MS ever makes a better smartphone, I will be glad to use it. Only right now MS has absolutely no clue how to make a good smartphone. Scaling down a desktop OS to first fit a palmtop, and now a phone is not the right way to go.

If you feel that the Smartphone 2002 platform exists of a scaled down desktop OS, that shows that you either don't have much sense of reality, or didn't see the Smartphone 2002 OS in person. It has very little to do with the Windows UI. First time I personally saw it, I was amazed at how the Microsoft developers "got" the mobile phone usage with the UI.

Regarding developers that can't figure out Symbian OS - pity for them, there are still plenty of those who can. Programming for Windows CE is no fun either, let me tell you.

In truth, I find all programming no fun. I'll leave it to WinCE programmers to respond to these remarks.

Disclaimer: Yes, I work at Symbian, but my thoughts expressed here are my personal opinions and are not in any way associated with, nor are they endorsed by Symbian.

Hey, calling a competing device that you didn't see in real life an "inferior product" that is worse than other smartphones recently released or announced (and which happen to use the Symbian OS) probably isn't frowned upon by symbian.com. ;) I don't think you got into too much trouble, but at least our readers now can see where you're coming from.

[PlayAgain?]

If you feel that the Smartphone 2002 platform exists of a scaled down desktop OS, that shows that you either don't have much sense of reality, or didn't see the Smartphone 2002 OS in person. It has very little to do with the Windows UI. First time I personally saw it, I was amazed at how the Microsoft developers "got" the mobile phone usage with the UI.

I agree - but you should tell those in Microsoft who seem to think that "The Windows Environment You Are Used To" is one of the nine big selling points for the Microsoft Windows Powered Smartphone 2002 (MSWPS2K2) - as you can see here (http://www.microsoft.com/mobile/phones/smartphone/familiar.asp) (though it doesn't look anything like Windows to me, but Microsoft says "If you have used Microsoft Windows before, then you will be very familiar with the new Smartphone 2002").

[Marc Zimmermann]

I agree - but you should tell those in Microsoft who seem to think that "The Windows Environment You Are Used To" is one of the nine big selling points for the Microsoft Windows Powered Smartphone 2002 [...]

It is for Pocket PC as well and I've been wondering about that as well. Palm-size PC was and Handheld PC still is resembling Windows on a PC, but Pocket PC certainly isn't. The "Windows Experience" must be some sort of a bigger picture, such as Word, Excel and Outlook... ;-)

[glebd]

If you feel that the Smartphone 2002 platform exists of a scaled down desktop OS, that shows that you either don't have much sense of reality, or didn't see the Smartphone 2002 OS in person. It has very little to do with the Windows UI. First time I personally saw it, I was amazed at how the Microsoft developers "got" the mobile phone usage with the UI.

Hey, calling a competing device that you didn't see in real life an "inferior product" that is worse than other smartphones recently released or announced (and which happen to use the Symbian OS) probably isn't frowned upon by symbian.com. ;) I don't think you got into too much trouble, but at least our readers now can see where you're coming from.

OK, they designed a new interface, but underneath it's still something like a subset of Win32, isn't it so? And that's my point exactly.

Regarding inferiority or superiority of some products: you simply astound me. As I said, for me it's all about functionality, not religion. The current phones (OK, some of them happen to run Symbian OS) have Bluetooth and MMS capability, the Stinger reference design does not. If that doesn't mean it's inferior (although it may allow you to view Word documents -- who cares?) then I don't know what does. I guess if MS said "sorry, our new phone cannot make calls, but you can read books on it", you would say, "OK with me, who needs to make calls anyway?" :lol:

[marlof]

I agree - but you should tell those in Microsoft who seem to think that "The Windows Environment You Are Used To" is one of the nine big selling points for the Microsoft Windows Powered Smartphone 2002 (MSWPS2K2) - as you can see here (http://www.microsoft.com/mobile/phones/smartphone/familiar.asp) (though it doesn't look anything like Windows to me, but Microsoft says "If you have used Microsoft Windows before, then you will be very familiar with the new Smartphone 2002").

Yup... happily I don't work for MS marketing. It is kinda scary 'though that we agree on something. It can only go downhill from here. ;)

[Marc Zimmermann]

OK, they designed a new interface, but underneath it's still something like a subset of Win32, isn't it so? And that's my point exactly.

It was a newly created operating system kernel that later got a Win32 compatible API put on top.

[marlof]

OK, they designed a new interface, but underneath it's still something like a subset of Win32, isn't it so? And that's my point exactly.

What's wrong with using a core that is similar to other products, if it doesn't limit your functionality for that specific device? Your previous statement was not that they used the wrong core, but that "as with the Palm Size devices" they tried to put the desktop OS on a mobile device. That's a wrong version of what's going on.

Regarding inferiority or superiority of some products: you simply astound me. As I said, for me it's all about functionality, not religion. The current phones (OK, some of them happen to run Symbian OS) have Bluetooth and MMS capability, the Stinger reference design does not. If that doesn't mean it's inferior (although it may allow you to view Word documents -- who cares?) then I don't know what does. I guess if MS said "sorry, our new phone cannot make calls, but you can read books on it", you would say, "OK with me, who needs to make calls anyway?" :lol:

Nope. As I said, I want Bluetooth in my phone. And I've voiced that loud and clear. As far as I could see, I could make phone calls with the Smartphone 2002 pretty well.

And you think that only Bluetooth and MMS make the difference between "inferiority" and "superiority"? To me, that would hint at a limited sense of the feature sets in such phones. I personally am curious about a lot of other things as well, like speed, RAM size for saving ringtones and stuff, ease of sync, and a lot of other factors as well. I don't write off the 7650 because of what I read, nor do I write off (or announce the victory of) the Smartphone 2002.

And opposed to what you said: this is not "the" reference design for the Smartphone 2002. This is "a" reference design for the Smartphone 2002, made by HTC. Other companies are free to offer their own designs, using the Smartphone 2002. Let's hope some come to their senses, and include Bluetooth. :)

[Kre]

Why dont these manufacturers ever include BT? I dont understand this. And MMC? Thats no good. If theyre going to include an expansion slot, axe the stupid MMC slot and go with SD. Geesh. I love Smartphone, but it needs to take advantage of these technologies and without add ons.

SMS and its variations have never interested me, and quite frankly Id much rather have a normal email client than dealing with SMS, EMS, MMS and all of that. Regular email is just so much more straight forward to me and more convenient. I dont care about including cute little sounds and all that nonsense that MMS allows. I just want to send text messages without character limits, and so on.

So, this phone is close, but no cigar IMO.

[Kre]

One other thing about this phone, although the shape and size is fine, and the screen is nice, I dont care for the looks of it. Theyve got four colors going on which is stupid. First off, I dont like how the color of the battery is a different shade of color than the rest of the black on the phone... who came up with that ugly idea? Im definitely not liking the half grey and black, half silver and blue idea. I like the silver color on the front, but not the blue. Simply put, all silver would look best IMO.

Bottom line is they need to get the geek patrol off of the design team and get some people in there that have an understanding about design and color. Because apart from the screen and the general shape and size, that is one ugly phone.

[JMountford]

1. This thread has quickly degraded into childishness.
2. Pocket PC Thoughts. Phones are irrelevant. Resistance is futile.
3. Microsoft has major power but still needs to pull their collective fingers out of their collective buts. If the resources at MS were truly vested in Pocket PC and Smartphone Platforms, well we would have a lot less to gripe about and Symbian and Palm would quickly lose Marketshare. Too bad No MS big Wigs read my posts. :D
4. I am baffled why it is that MS is stating to create their own BT peripoherals yet no push is made for their mobile device OEMs to have native BT Hardware and Software.
5. Why is it that Big Swedish Hanset makers are pretty much the only companies putting BT in their handsets. And yes I know Motorola has one or two handsets that can use adapters but nothing off the shelf.
6. It seems that Nokia "an actual BT partner" may not even provide firmware upgrades for the BT in their handsets! Hello?
7. PS why the heck are BT perepherals so exspensive? Yes new technology, but very cheap to make.

OK I'm done.

[marlof]

2. Pocket PC Thoughts. Phones are irrelevant. Resistance is futile.

I guess I just don't understand your remark, but if it was I think, you're underestimating us here. We'll see phones and PDAs merging (Treo, Smartphone 2002, Pocket PC 2002 Phone Edition), and connected devices will become more and more important. Phones are far from irrelevant, and I guess that's why we pay attention. I kinda agree with most of the other things you said, albeit that Nokia is Finnish, not Swedish. ;)