Comments on: The Unconnected PDA's Days Are Numbered

But I just purchased a phone from Verizon, which will give me beeper and phone capability in one.
In two years, I will be in the market again and I will hope to find the whole ball of wax in one: with phone and PDA and a modest message beeper function. I would like to get my computer and PDA/phone/beeper to synchronize. I don't really want to surf the web on my phone. It cannot cope with that fancy new stuff and will always run behind the desktop PC. That's okay, who needs ALL of the WEB at ALL of the TIME?

I find the current offerings very expensive and I cannot have my choice of telecoms and hardware. It is a disappointment to see the PDA business drag its feet.

The big question is, who will successfully make this hybrid device? Will Palm make phones or Nokia make PDAs or will MS provide all the factories with the software for the Wdowz phone? By the way, I am a nearly happy Handspring Platinum user for two years this week. It cost $200 and my new phone after rebate will be $130. I cannot find a good combo phone PDA for $330. I can find a nearly good one for $500. My choice of PDA/phone was complicated by choosing the cell provider. I gave up on the choices and settled for two boxes and paying less money.

But there are times, and places, where you can't do both. A good example is on a plane. You can't turn on your phone. This is probably the stupidest rule ever, but in the meantime, how do go about using your PDA bits when they're yelling at you without comprehension?

Same thing in companies with privacy issues, and certain public places. That's why I don't want a camera on my phone or PDA, either. If you're carrying around something that may inhibit the use of the more useful item, then it's not worth having it attached.

Downtime/turnover factor: If my cell stuff craps out, or I get sick of the features, or they change the network, then I get a new phone. On the off chance that my PDA craps out *someday*, I'll get a new PDA. But to replace an entire unit, and have that type of disruption, I don't need the headache. Oh, and don't forget when they 'push upgrade' your phone info or wank your data, *because they can*. I see the combo as a security risk for my data.

Power: Do I want to be attached by umbilical cord to a power source? My phone charge lasts one day. I use my PDA so much, it lasts only a bit longer than a day. Put the two together, and it'll last until lunch. I use both a LOT. Too much for them to share a single source. Yet, anyway.

Configuration: I want the super-PDA. The 320x480, lots o'memory, fast, no external keyboard, clean/neat, bluetooth model (of my dreams). I don't see how they can shoehorn a viable phone into this with any kind of battery life and no numeric buttons. Okay, I can, but I don't see them trying to do it. I don't want to hold it up to my face; it'd be earbud-only, or BT headset. I want to be *using* it while I'm on the phone, duh!

So convergence to me is like underwear that crawls up your butt. It looks cute on the hanger, sure, it technically does the job, but it's not comfortable, and it annoys the crap out of you all day.

BT has such a high potential, just underdeveloped.

________________________________________
If you feel like you're under control, you're just not going fast enough.

I asked myself, do I want my phone to crash as often as
my computer? Even with an OS as stable as PalmOS, I
decided no. Would a non-PDA PalmOS phone be more stable?
Maybe, maybe not. I'll let others find out first. Keep
phones simple, I say.

- Tere

The camera in the phone is a cute novelty, but I had no choice in the matter. The quality is not good enough for much else.

This makes Palm's aquisition of Handspring a great move.

Right now I don't need a cell phone, but I'm thinking in a year or two my next device might be converged. I like the Idea of getting on the internet and AIM anywhere. With multitasking in OS6, it will make things even better. I just hope high-end features won't have to be sacraficed for the wireless.

Walk into any cell phone store and take a look at what's already on the market and ask yourself why Joe Average is going to carry a PDA brick in addition to his cellphone that already provides digital camera, schedule, address book, alarm clock etc. Many people stopped wearing watches once they were made redundant by tiny cellphones. Giving up a separate PDA will be an even more obvious decision.

Sony, Palm etc. don't care.

What geeks want/don't want is of little concern to manufacturers. It's a lot easier making money by catering to the wants of Walmart Willy than it is trying to appease the whims of techno geeks. (Bluetooth! 320 x 480! 16 bit color! SD! CF! Thin! Light! WiFi! Transreflective screen! Flip over! No flip cover! Virtual Graffiti! Sliding case! No sliding case! Keyboard! No keyboard!) You need to hope a fringe manufacturer can survive Sony's onslaught and be willing to build what you want in the years to come. Don't count on it.

Although, if you want to mince words, all Palm devices are "connected" since they are able to sync with the desktop, and any device that can't do this is worthless.

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."

Palm has sold more Zire m150's than any other model, making the Zire the best selling PDA in history, since the Palm V used to hold that title (I think... or it could have been the Palm III).

I think that means that while convergence devices might be on the upswing, there's still a huge demand for a simple elecronic organizer, too. Convergence devices still lack the right combination of form factor and UI to succeed, IMHO.

That would be a neat trick... GSM is merely a different protocol of communication. It still works over the same type of towers and antennas, and base stations connected back to a central switch facility. GSM though uses a different set of frequencies, and uses them differently. Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) versus, Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA).

"CDMA providers are concerned that, with the availability of Bluetooth phones, folks will begin to use them with laptops and PDAs for data access, which will put a strain on the existing network. This would force them to have to put up more towers, which costs money and the return on that investment isn't there for the providers."

Nope. They already offer data through the handsets, with connections via cable, and even rarely IR and Bluetooth. Data is in multiple flavors. Like GSM, Circuit switched data (CSD) is possible, though with GSM it's typically at 9600Kbps in North America, and CSD is offered at 14.4Kbps on NA CDMA networks. Also available on CDMA networks (IS-95), is Quick Net Connect (QNC). The data rate is still 14.4K, but you don't need a third party ISP, the cell provider handles the data call. There's no analog portion, or modem bank dialup, so the call setup is nearly immediate like with GPRS or 1xRTT connections. Lastly is the 1xRTT data service available on most NA CDMA providers networks now. It's on average marginally faster that the typical GSM/GPRS data rates offered, and you either use the service through a PCMCIA card like the Sierra Wireless Aircard 555, or through your 1xRTT capable CDMA handset, typically via a cable.
The thing is, that CDMA allows more callers per tower than TDMA based networks (GSM or IS-136). So it's actually *MUCH* easier and less costly for a CDMA network to provide data to large numbers of customers than it is on a GSM network. And the connection uses much less power on a CDMA network to accomplish the data call.

It's for this reason that even GSM networks will be migrating to a CDMA air interface on most of the 3G and beyond roadmaps you look at. It's still an evolved version of the GSM protocol (currently called either UMTS or IMT-2000), merely using a CDMA air interface, monikered Wideband CDMA (WCDMA).

There's really no good reason for there not to be more bluetooth enabled CDMA handsets. Except that 1xEVD0 (the next step after 1xRTT) is already in trials in the US and in use elsewhere and the data rates exceed that of Bluetooth. Hence it's time, at least for a cellular interface to move on and consider putting some flavor of 802.11 into the cellular handsets. Especially since the cost per chip, in volume for WiFi has already dropped below Bluetooth according to perusals of EETimes and DigiTimes. In fact this has already been announced as forthcoming by Qualcomm for CDMA chipsets that they produce.

For example, if you want a smartphone that is currently available (as in walk in the store this afternoon and buy one) your choices are frighteningly limited, especially if you want a moderately powerful Palm OS device (yes, yes, I know all about battery life compromises and the amount of time for testing/approval needed for a wireless device between conceptual stages and landing in retail).

All of the (current) Samsungs are unwildy and lack SD slots. The Treos, while a decent overall package, are nothing at all for the power user-and still having 160*160? please.....at best, it'll be a headache to get to work with OS5-native apps looking for 320*320, especially most games (I assume). The Kyocera smartphone(s) are ok but still are reminiscent of a flipphone circa 1997 in size-and have specs comparable to an m105/515 Palm of two years ago.

When someone comes out with a smartphone that has reasonably current specs, then I'll be all over it.
Otherwise, I'd be totally content with a T|T3 with oodles of ram and battery life--I have no need for Wi-Fi and even less need for BT. It'd be nice to see a high-powered Tungsten of some sort that omits wireless in favor of a reduced price tag and/or a mega high-capacity battery in a smaller body than the C's. When was the last time anyone around here went for day and days without charging their Palm? For me, it was when I got rid of my trusty Vx two years+ ago. Palm needs to try and recapture some of the charm of the long battery life-one of the things that made me buy an original Pilot years ago.

"They already offer data through the handsets, with connections via cable, and even rarely IR and Bluetooth."

You're right, CDMA data access has been around, and BT would only replace the data cable or IR link between the PDA/PC and the phone. I used to spend a lot of time online with my old Nokia via IR. I believe the speed was hampered by IR. Using BT over a GPRS phone seems much faster, but I'm not sure what the connection speed may be. I know I used to hate having to line up the IR...

"Verizon and Sprint are probably worried about customers pestering them (both in their retail stores and otherwise) and trying to get them to do troubleshooting that they'd rather pawn off on Palm etc."

It took the Cingular reps and tech support about 2 hours to get the internet connection working on a Sony-Ericsson T616. It took another 45 minues to get it working with my Palm, but I never had to go back after that. I will say that this was their very first one they had to setup, and they never made me feel like I was pestering them. Don't know if Sprint and Verizon would be as patient though.

"When was the last time anyone around here went for day and days without charging their Palm?"

That would have been with my M515, which could outlast all my other handhelds except the IIIe. That history includes the IIIe, IIIxe, IIIc, M505, M505, M505, M505, M505 (no, my keyboard is not stuck), M515, and the T|T.

Interestingly enough, I just did repairs a few days ago on an M505 and thought I'd load BatteryGraph and loop a movie till it died. Doing the same thing with my T|T, I put them both in the drawer and went to sleep. In the morning, I found that the M505 had run for 2:56 before the low battery warning popped up to halt the movie. The T|T ran for 3:42, so I guess battery life can be a relative thing depending on how you use it. Even though my IIIe and M515 were king of the hill (for me) regarding battery life, they did not spend much time rendering maps, tracing GPS routes, and playing MP3's at the same time!

is that the same excuse as PDA can't have big screen because it takes too much battery life, or how ARM CPU is overkill?

But I agree with him. I'd rather have a pda with a decent sized keyboard than a tiny phone. Buts thats jsut me, and not everyone. so you'll say " then dont buy one". I won't :D

/me pats his trusty ericsson mc218

I am looking forward to the day that my cell phone will have the Palm OS for me to mostly use the basic OS functions (e.g. address book, to do list, memos, etc) while I will also have a more traditional sized PDA for the above functions plus reading reference materials, accessing databases, etc.

AND, furthermore, I am especially looking forward to the day that I will also have a mini-notebook (like a bigger Sony UX50) or mini-tablet that I can use for full wireless web surfing, serious word processing/data entry, and powerpoint presentations.

Assuming I can synchronize the databases of all 3 separate palm devices easily, I can definitely appreciate how the Palm OS can make each device better and provide a much higher overall level of efficiency and function for my personal/business needs.

I can only dream...

These same geniuses have also predicted for a LONG time now that Palm OS was going to be CRUSHED in the "next year or two" by Pocket PC (or whatever its called that year).

Uh... Yeah. I'm not worried about the PDA market anytime soon. And anyone that is betting any short term dollars on converged devices is going to lose their shirts. Just take a look at the Tungsten W and driving-the-company-to-the-verge-of-bankruptcy Treo series, and you don't need to look any further.

10-20 yrs from now? Sure, I can maybe see it (when converged devices can be brought to market at a heck of a lot lower price point). But short term the PDA still has a huge market and the companies making them need to spend time improving on them rather than going after what they perceive to be "the future".