Apple's iPhone Outsells All Other Smartphones in July

[madmaxmedia]

but....
by definition a smartphone is one which can have applications added to it. The iPhone isnt a smartphone... most every phone these days has a web browser, email, etc... though it is terrible. The iphone is the best non smart phone out there, but it isnt a smartphone

I'm fine with that, if that's the general definition of a smartphone and everyone uses it. But this is actually the first time I've heard that.

Internet, multimedia, the ability to view email attachments, etc...those are more the things that come to mind for me.

I can buy crappy games and Java apps on my RAZR- does that mean it's a smartphone?

What if all these companies develop for mobile Safari services that are basically as fully-featured as regular installed app? Does that count?

Again, I'm fine with whatever is the industry standard (since it's all semantics anyways.) But I don't think there really is one. The other thing about using this as the definition, is that most people never buy 3rd party apps anyways. A common mantra regarding Palm PDA's is that 95% of the users only use the default apps. So making that the definition seems suspect to me (in addition to the question of whether my RAZR is then by 'definition' a smartphone.)

 

[aristobrat]

I would say it's a more fully-featured phone, but definitely not a smartphone by any means.

So it's missing one feature found on most other smartphones, so you completely take it out of the smartphone category and put it in the "more fully-featured phone" category, completely ignoring the smartphone features that it does have?

 

[rlreif]

A term like "smartphone" is quite far from a term like "triangle". Triangles are much simpler and more simply defined - and yet even their definition isn't always clear. In non-Euclidian geometry a triangle is quite a different thing, for instance.

In any case, here's Wikipedia's definition of a smartphone:

"A smartphone is a full-featured mobile phone with personal computer like functionality."

If being able to install applications is a necessary feature of "computer-like" devices for you, that's dandy. But don't think you're safe behind some wall of mathematical definition when it comes to such vague and subjective matters.

nice try, but no.
here is the wiki article you refer to, so everyone else can see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

look at the very next sentence after the one you quote, but just HAPPENED to leave out of your comment.... nice try though

 

[madmaxmedia]

Even Brighthand lists the iPhone in its sales rankings of smartphones:

http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=13308

I would tend to trust their arbitrary terminology more than anyone here. My impression has always been that the terms 'smartphone', 'feature phone', and regular dumb phones aren't so clear and overlap a bit, i.e. most people consider the iPhone to be a 'smartphone', so it is.

 

[cgavula]

but....
by definition a smartphone is one which can have applications added to it. The iPhone isnt a smartphone... most every phone these days has a web browser, email, etc... though it is terrible. The iphone is the best non smart phone out there, but it isnt a smartphone

but..

Native application installation is possible and HAS been done many times now. I'm running half a dozen 3rd party apps on my iphone. For those who don't want to use the available 3rd party application installation methods, the system CAN have apps added, but it's simply controlled by the vendor (who haven't released any new apps YET), mostly likely controlled via iTunes (just like apps/games for the ipod).

MS smartphones also require you to use a controlled conduit - Activesync - to facility the installation process (called directly or indirectly) so they try to control application installation as well (albeit with a LOT fewer restrictions). To be fair, you can bypass the Activesync approach using .CAB files, but that isn't the recommended/preferred approach from MS.

The iPhone is therefore NOT a closed system (by definition) and therefore CAN be called a smartphone. Application installation even happens over the air - a thing that MS has a lot of trouble accomplishing right now (although it can be accommodated via Handango and other service providers).

 

[madmaxmedia]

nice try, but no.
here is the wiki article you refer to, so everyone else can see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

look at the very next sentence after the one you quote, but just HAPPENED to leave out of your comment.... nice try though

Not that I place too much on any Wikipedia entry, but if you read the entire description-

A smartphone is a full-featured mobile phone with personal computer like functionality. Most smartphones are cellphones that support full featured email capabilities with the functionality of a complete personal organizer. An important feature of most smartphones is that applications for enhanced data processing and connectivity can be installed on the device,[1] in contrast to regular phones which support sandboxed applications.

Most smartphones are...
An important feature of most smartphones...

'Most' meaning obviously most, but not all. It's obvious that the wikipedia entry suggests the term 'smartphone' is not written in stone.

Finally, the wikipedia entry includes the iPhone in the list of popular smartphone models anyway. So why the insistence that 3rd-party apps is the defining feature of a smartphone? Where did you hear it? Do you have a link?

we can argue whether this is a good definition in our opinions all day, but that would be a waste of time

I agree its pointless to argue whether it's a good definition. We are questioning whether that actually is the 'industry-standard' definition, considering even industry-specific sites like Brighthand call the iPhone a smartphone. And again, is my RAZR considered by industry to be a smartphone? The answer is clearly no.

 

[aristobrat]

Isn't the next sentence "Most smartphones are cellphones that support full featured email capabilities with the functionality of a complete personal organizer"?

The sentence in the Wiki dealing with 3rd party applications starts with "Most smartphones", implying that not all Smartphones run 3rd party apps, no?

 

[rlreif]

I'm fine with that, if that's the general definition of a smartphone and everyone uses it. But this is actually the first time I've heard that.

Internet, multimedia, the ability to view email attachments, etc...those are more the things that come to mind for me.

I can buy crappy games and Java apps on my RAZR- does that mean it's a smartphone?

What if all these companies develop for mobile Safari services that are basically as fully-featured as regular installed app? Does that count?

Again, I'm fine with whatever is the industry standard (since it's all semantics anyways.) But I don't think there really is one. The other thing about using this as the definition, is that most people never buy 3rd party apps anyways. A common mantra regarding Palm PDA's is that 95% of the users only use the default apps. So making that the definition seems suspect to me (in addition to the question of whether my RAZR is then by 'definition' a smartphone.)

apple insinuates that because it has web and email it is a smartphone... i received email on my sony erricson t68i in 2002... the experience sucked, but it has been possible to use web and email on any ol phone forever... email and web is not what makes it a smartphone.. the industry standard litmus test for a smartphone is 3rd party apps... we can argue whether this is a good definition in our opinions all day, but that would be a waste of time

 

[rlreif]

Not that I place too much on any Wikipedia entry, but if you read the entire description-



Most smartphones are...
An important feature of most smartphones...

'Most' meaning obviously most, but not all. It's obvious that the wikipedia entry suggests the term 'smartphone' is not written in stone.

Finally, the wikipedia entry includes the iPhone in the list of popular smartphone models anyway. So why the insistence that 3rd-party apps is the defining feature of a smartphone? Where did you hear it? Do you have a link?

ok fine you win (sarcasm intended)
i have better things to do than argue semantics all day with zealots

 

[madmaxmedia]

ok fine you win (sarcasm intended)
i have better things to do than argue semantics all day with zealots

LOL, it's not about semantics. I was just curious if you knew something I didn't. I've browsed various mobile device web sites for a long time, and never came across that particular definition of a smartphone, that's all.

Sorry for not completely accepting your truth at face value.

 

[aristobrat]

ok fine you win (sarcasm intended)
i have better things to do than argue semantics all day with zealots

Zealots, the media, and most telecom analysts, huh?

Industry litmus test, huh? Are you kidding? There hasn't be a concise test of anything since the terms "PDAphone" and "smartphone" were combined years ago.

 

[skoorbevad]

Don't tell that to the analysts that are calling it that.

Yes, somebody should tell those analysts about the iPhone

 

[Rhosfelt]

Not sure. At the end of the day a person needs to decide if they want one device (that dials) or two that are more of a pain to carry.

Plus. I hope but we have not seen if the ipod will do Safari. It will be interesting if they only do wifi for music streaming....

24 more hours....

I am pretty sure that the iPod will not do Safari due to they want that to be bundled with the iPhone. I am pretty sure that the whole thing about the iPhone was it was three divices a phone, iPod, and a "breakthrough internet device."

 

[madmaxmedia]

I'm fine with that, and the definition of the iPhone as a high-class 'featurephone'. I was asking for links, as I didn't recall any stories specifically including or excluding the iPhone as a smartphone. The only link that was brought up was the Wikipedia one, which seemed to basically describe the iPhone as one.

What it is called by industry analysts is less than important than what it does do, and how well it sells for Apple. Obviously the term is used somewhat vaguely, but it's just semantics in the end.

Yes, somebody should tell those analysts about the iPhone

 

[notjustjay]

nice try, but no.
here is the wiki article you refer to, so everyone else can see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

look at the very next sentence after the one you quote, but just HAPPENED to leave out of your comment.... nice try though

OK, so let's assume for the moment that the Wikipedia definition for "smartphone" is authoritative. You're clearly referring to: An important feature of most smartphones is that applications for enhanced data processing and connectivity can be installed on the device.

Let's also ignore the word "most" for now and assume that this authoritative definition for smart phone must apply to the iPhone.

So, granted, support for third-party apps is a bit lacking (but NOT missing). "Can be installed" still technically applies, but I grant you that it is not officially supported in as much of a capacity as certain other, competing, smartphones.

So what about the "applications for enhanced data processing and connectivity" part?

Full-fledged email, on a keyboard (well, sort of)? A full-screen, color touch display? Full internet browsing? Google Maps? YouTube videos? Full iPod interface with graphical display? Full-screen photo album viewing and photo manipulation? Camera and image processing? Fully integrated contact database with all of these apps? You don't think all those count as "enhanced data processing and connectivity"?

If you're basing your entire assertion that the iPhone is not a smart phone on the three words "can be installed" from a definition written up by some dude on Wikipedia, then your argument is shaky, indeed.

But, as someone else said, this is all semantics. Whether you call it a "smart phone" or a "highly featured cell phone" or "personal internet communicator" or "the best iPod ever made" or whatever, is irrelevant. The iPhone is what it is. And what it is, according to the article, is outselling all (other) smart phones.

 

[50548]

I can only say one thing: it seems like people are finally seeing the light and becoming more intelligent in the IT arena...

Apple is rocking on ALL fronts, from computers to music players to high-end phones. It's gonna turn QUICKLY into THE biggest consumer electronics company in the world.

iPods = no contest
iPhone = no contest
Macs = no contest

Where are the naysayers and PCzoids now? Microsoft is DEAD.

 

[skoorbevad]

I'm not trying to hate on the iPhone, I rather like it and I think it's a pretty killer device. I just don't know that I like the definition of calling it what it's very reasonably not. The same way I get mildly annoyed when terminology of things gets muddy -- and before you know it, it means something totally different.

Microsoft is DEAD.

...oh boy.

 

[aristobrat]

Yes, somebody should tell those analysts about the iPhone

In your links there, you only managed to find two analysts, both of whom made their quotes six months before the iPhone launched.

 

[SPUY767]

good point, i'll be getting one for sure.

I also feel it will help sales of Macintosh computers, many anaylists and market people indicated iPods have this effect, but that's a whole new topic...

The iPhone will likely give users more of a taste of the "mac experience" than iPods. So I see the potential for an even bigger Halo effect.

 

[skoorbevad]

In your links there, you only managed to find two analysts, both of whom made their quotes six months before the iPhone launched.

Are you suggesting that the scope of the iPhone project drastically changed from January to the release date, such that these arguments would be invalid?

 

[twoodcc]

wow, great news! especially for a proud iPhone owner

 

[TurboSC]

i knew it! Now that we own the marketplace lets get those apps out huh apple wheres my ichat...

 

[bretm]

Quite possibly. I rather think the smart phone exists not because people asked for it, but because of phone manufacturers trying so hard to differentiate themselves.

Well, no, it started with companies adapting original palm pilots to fit into a casing allowing them to be used as a phone. Them palms with phone connectivity so they could be on the internet. Then phones with mail. Then MS devices (a little late as always), etc.

Are you saying you don't like the smartphone idea? Errrr... why? Is it too hard to operate?

 

[smiddlehurst]

This would be great if the iPhone were a smartphone.

Edit: to clarify, smartphones traditionally have the ability to install 3rd party software not included by the manufacturer for the purpose of adapting to its user's needs. While I guess "unofficial" steps are being made to do that on the iPhone device, an iPhone is an iPhone -- if you need functionality that's not there out of the box, you're out of luck. I would say it's a more fully-featured phone, but definitely not a smartphone by any means.

Actually, speaking as someone who had the very first Microsoft Smartphone (the SPV) this wasn't entirely accurate. Orange decided to implement a closed eco-system so only their approved apps (or apps that were put through the approval process) could be installed. Granted this lasted about as long as a chocolate teapot under a blowtorch but still...

I'd say the definition of a Smartphone is a device that enables specific data functionality targeted at the needs of the mobile user that would traditionally have required a PC. Not so long ago this would have included phones that bundled MP3 player software although that's obviously long since past. If you want a software definition it'd be something like:

E-mail
Web Browsing
Some form of application interface (either local install or a powerful enough web client to allow apps)
'Smart' contact management
Some form of data synchronisation with a host computer

Of course this software definition changes as hardware becomes cheaper and some formally advanced functionality becomes more common on lower end hardware and the Smartphones use the extra power available for their extra price tag to push the boundaries that little bit further.

The concept that a smartphone MUST allow local install of software and that this is the sole definition of whether a device is a smartphone or not is, frankly, outdated. Heck, this isn't even a requirement for PC's in a business environment now (for example, we're currently investigating getting VERY cheap Windows boxes which will run the OS and a web browser and that's it. The application is run via web interface, e-mail is web-based and the bulk of the users have no requirement for an office suite). Certainly such devices are more flexible (and occasionaly more powerful) but providing there is access to SOME form of application environment then this is more than enough. Indeed the concept that a Smartphone must be able to run applications other than those supplied by the manufacturer is also questionable providing that the manufacturer gets the software bundle right.

Now all this is not intended to pass judgment on whether or not the iPhone is a good Smartphone or not, that will of course depend on the requirements of the individual user. However to argue that it's not a smartphone at all strikes me as ridiculous.

 

[JGowan]

In a word...

boo-yaaa!