🚀 go-pugleaf

On 3/22/2010 12:49 PM, Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote:
> I need the device for the following uses:
>
> 1. Phone 2. PDA (calendar, addressbook) 3. Ability to send and
> receive e-mail. 4. Occasional Web access, including access to Google
> or other such sources. 5. GPS would be nice but not necessary as I
> have a freestanding GPS for my car.
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>

I actually just took advantage of this deal a few minutes ago - Nokia 
N97 unlocked for $379. Limited to first 400 buyers.

http://www.deals2buy.com/show/33710080

In article <ho8mu1$rov$4@news.eternal-september.org>, David Kaye
<sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> For the benefit of the people you call, you might want to see if there's a
> way 
> of turning off the variable bit rate on whatever phone you buy.  VBR has 
> ruined cell communications so much that a lot of cell phones are just 
> unlistenable now.  

nonsense.

> That's why I still use a 5-year old flip phone.  It's extremely clear and 
> doesn't drop out.

i've used several new phones on multiple carriers, all of which are
crystal clear and none of which drop out.

In article <ho8pfg$sqn$1@news.eternal-september.org>, David Kaye
<sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well, my research tells me that all the new phones have variable bit rate, 
> which means the throughput goes WAY down if you pause between words, speak in 
> a low volume, or have a lower pitched voice.  It then jumps up when
> necessary, 

true.

> and it's the low resolution of the low bitrate along with the network or 
> phone's inability to handle the sudden jump up in bitrate that causes all 
> kinds of artifacts, some enough to make the audio unintelligible.

that would be a crappy implementation. that doesn't mean vbr sucks.

> I have several friends with iPhones, for instance.  I have asked them to text 
> me instead because it's nearly impossible to hear what they're saying on them. 

which can be due to any number of reasons.

lynxer@comcast.net wrote:

>My wife uses an iPhone (same account) and I am not happy with it for a
>number of reasons.  Thus, I am looking at alternatives to the iPhone,
>with the Blackberry being currently the "leader" on my list.

For the benefit of the people you call, you might want to see if there's a way 
of turning off the variable bit rate on whatever phone you buy.  VBR has 
ruined cell communications so much that a lot of cell phones are just 
unlistenable now.  

That's why I still use a 5-year old flip phone.  It's extremely clear and 
doesn't drop out.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>i've used several new phones on multiple carriers, all of which are
>crystal clear and none of which drop out.

Well, my research tells me that all the new phones have variable bit rate, 
which means the throughput goes WAY down if you pause between words, speak in 
a low volume, or have a lower pitched voice.  It then jumps up when necessary, 
and it's the low resolution of the low bitrate along with the network or 
phone's inability to handle the sudden jump up in bitrate that causes all 
kinds of artifacts, some enough to make the audio unintelligible.

I have several friends with iPhones, for instance.  I have asked them to text 
me instead because it's nearly impossible to hear what they're saying on them. 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:49:34 -0400, Robert A. Fink, M. D. <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:

> I am getting ready to replace my Motorola RAZR phone (I need to also
> replace my old Palm Tungsten C PDA and want a smartphone to handle
> both functions), and I am looking at the alternatives.  My carrier is
> AT&T GSM service and I also have their Laptop Connect 3G tethering
> service. I am happy with AT&T and wish to stay with them.
>
> My wife uses an iPhone (same account) and I am not happy with it for a
> number of reasons.  Thus, I am looking at alternatives to the iPhone,
> with the Blackberry being currently the "leader" on my list.
>
> I need the device for the following uses:
>
> 1. Phone
> 2. PDA (calendar, addressbook)
> 3. Ability to send and receive e-mail.
> 4. Occasional Web access, including access to Google or other such
> sources.
> 5. GPS would be nice but not necessary as I have a freestanding GPS
> for my car.
>
> Input regarding the benefits/disadvantages of the phones available
> would be appreciated.  Would a trip to an AT&T store be helpful?
>

Nokia 5230 "Nuron", perhaps? Quadband GSM, under $100 w/ 2-year T-Mo contract.
Or see what AT&T has that's competitive. Review at:

<http://ct.zdnet.com/clicks?t=531772718-952f6f9a3d7e07ae3c256914ce45a488-bf&brand=ZDNET&s=5> .

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

In message <220320101511062200%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:

>In article <ho8pfg$sqn$1@news.eternal-september.org>, David Kaye
><sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, my research tells me that all the new phones have variable bit rate, 
>> which means the throughput goes WAY down if you pause between words, speak in 
>> a low volume, or have a lower pitched voice.  It then jumps up when
>> necessary, 
>
>true.
>
>> and it's the low resolution of the low bitrate along with the network or 
>> phone's inability to handle the sudden jump up in bitrate that causes all 
>> kinds of artifacts, some enough to make the audio unintelligible.
>
>that would be a crappy implementation. that doesn't mean vbr sucks.

Not only that, but you'd probably rather use VBR (even with the
implementation problems on some devices) then get the same average
bandwidth VBR allows at all times.

In article <ddifq5t9ni2lt3s9bjgqom951nerroiqrr@4ax.com>,
 "Robert A. Fink, M. D." <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:

> My wife uses an iPhone (same account) and I am not happy with it for a
> number of reasons.  Thus, I am looking at alternatives to the iPhone,
> with the Blackberry being currently the "leader" on my list.
> 
> I need the device for the following uses:
> 
> 1. Phone
> 2. PDA (calendar, addressbook)
> 3. Ability to send and receive e-mail.
> 4. Occasional Web access, including access to Google or other such
> sources.
> 5. GPS would be nice but not necessary as I have a freestanding GPS
> for my car.

AT&T should have Android phones and probably will get the Windows phones 
too later this year.

For web use and software support, iPhone and Android are ahead of 
Blackberry, which is suppose to get a Webkit-based browser in the future.

There are also other uses of GPS than simply turn-by-turn driving 
instructions.  GPS in these smart phones have set off some innovation by 
application developers to use the GPS for things like local restaurant 
and services listings/reviews and other features which your PND won't 
offer.

poldy wrote:
> In article <ddifq5t9ni2lt3s9bjgqom951nerroiqrr@4ax.com>,
>  "Robert A. Fink, M. D." <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> My wife uses an iPhone (same account) and I am not happy with it for a
>> number of reasons.  Thus, I am looking at alternatives to the iPhone,
>> with the Blackberry being currently the "leader" on my list.
>>
>> I need the device for the following uses:
>>
>> 1. Phone
>> 2. PDA (calendar, addressbook)
>> 3. Ability to send and receive e-mail.
>> 4. Occasional Web access, including access to Google or other such
>> sources.
>> 5. GPS would be nice but not necessary as I have a freestanding GPS
>> for my car.
> 
> AT&T should have Android phones and probably will get the Windows phones 
> too later this year.
> 
> For web use and software support, iPhone and Android are ahead of 
> Blackberry, which is suppose to get a Webkit-based browser in the future.
> 
> There are also other uses of GPS than simply turn-by-turn driving 
> instructions.  GPS in these smart phones have set off some innovation by 
> application developers to use the GPS for things like local restaurant 
> and services listings/reviews and other features which your PND won't 
> offer.

I'm a big fan of Android and like the thinking behind it and of course 
it will do everything he wants (and more that he may like once he has 
it).  I think Android eventually will own smartphone the market mainly 
because it is open source so anybody can play.  The latter is not true 
of the platforms.  I even have some apps on the market.

Supposedly AT&T is to start offering Android phones sooner than later 
but perusing the site I don't see any yet.

And there is a rumor that Palm may go Android to save its ass.

Android is fairly new as it only started to open up once Sprint and 
Verizon added it to their lineup. It is a rapidly growing platform.

It is also poised for data only smartphones as the data plan ontop of 
voice is a showstopper for many adding usually $30 to their plan.  Just 
do VoIP on a data phone and it may be that Verizon is seeing that 
writing on the wall.  I had all of 33 minutes of voice last month and 
almost 1/2 GB of data. Just not a phone user.

Now if Verizon/HTC would just update my Eris to 2.1!

At 23 Mar 2010 12:30:10 -0700 Bhairitu wrote:


> I'm a big fan of Android and like the thinking behind it and of course
> it will do everything he wants (and more that he may like once he has
> it).  I think Android eventually will own smartphone the market mainly
> because it is open source so anybody can play.  The latter is not true
> of the platforms.  I even have some apps on the market.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see where "open source" is any sort of
advantage in the mobile market as it exists today.  I don't think most
phone users care, and the barrier to entry to develop for other platforms
is low enough.


> Android is fairly new as it only started to open up once Sprint and
> Verizon added it to their lineup. It is a rapidly growing platform.


This is true- it's doing well.


> Now if Verizon/HTC would just update my Eris to 2.1!

...and here's where the promise of "open source" falls apart- why should
Verizon or HTC need be involved at all?  We don't have to run to Dell to
slap a new Linux distro on a Dell PC.

As long as the OEM or mobile operator is in the loop, it's only as "open"
as they say it is!  ;)

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 23 Mar 2010 12:30:10 -0700 Bhairitu wrote:
> 
> 
>> I'm a big fan of Android and like the thinking behind it and of course
>> it will do everything he wants (and more that he may like once he has
>> it).  I think Android eventually will own smartphone the market mainly
>> because it is open source so anybody can play.  The latter is not true
>> of the platforms.  I even have some apps on the market.
> 
> Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see where "open source" is any sort of
> advantage in the mobile market as it exists today.  I don't think most
> phone users care, and the barrier to entry to develop for other platforms
> is low enough.

It's the manufacturers who would care about open source since they don't 
have to license anything. That's what I mean by "anyone can play."  No 
it isn't important to the user.

Have you developed for other platforms?

> 
> 
>> Android is fairly new as it only started to open up once Sprint and
>> Verizon added it to their lineup. It is a rapidly growing platform.
> 
> 
> This is true- it's doing well.
> 
> 
>> Now if Verizon/HTC would just update my Eris to 2.1!
> 
> ...and here's where the promise of "open source" falls apart- why should
> Verizon or HTC need be involved at all?  We don't have to run to Dell to
> slap a new Linux distro on a Dell PC.

Verizon wants to make sure the implementation is pretty much bug free 
before they send it out to users.  Testing delays the release.  And 
before that HTC has to make sure the implementation is solid too.  We're 
dealing with different hardware here. And there can be problems with 
Linux if Dell has a new piece of hardware on a machine that Linux 
doesn't have a driver for yet?  Ever try differently distros over last 
few years to see if wifi was supported?

At 23 Mar 2010 19:03:26 -0700 Bhairitu wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> > At 23 Mar 2010 12:30:10 -0700 Bhairitu wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> I'm a big fan of Android and like the thinking behind it and of
course
> >> it will do everything he wants (and more that he may like once he has
> >> it).  I think Android eventually will own smartphone the market
mainly
> >> because it is open source so anybody can play.  The latter is not
true
> >> of the platforms.  I even have some apps on the market.
> > 
> > Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see where "open source" is any sort of
> > advantage in the mobile market as it exists today.  I don't think most
> > phone users care, and the barrier to entry to develop for other
platforms
> > is low enough.
> 
> It's the manufacturers who would care about open source since they
> don't have to license anything. That's what I mean by "anyone can
> play."  No it isn't important to the user.

I guess, but WinMo and Symbian licences are only a few bucks per device,
and you get a pre-established ecosytem with millions of users and
thousands of apps.  (Though the quick rise of Android has been impressive
to watch!)  


> Have you developed for other platforms?


Only toyed with WinMo a bit- nothing much sportier than "Hello World"-
type stuff.  The SDK is free (though you need Visual Studio to use it),
and no restrictions to installing your apps on devices (unlike, say, the
iPhone and the upcoming WinPhone 7 that requires signed apps delivered by
a central app store.)  


> >> Now if Verizon/HTC would just update my Eris to 2.1!
> > 
> > ...and here's where the promise of "open source" falls apart- why
should
> > Verizon or HTC need be involved at all?  We don't have to run to Dell
to
> > slap a new Linux distro on a Dell PC.
> 
> Verizon wants to make sure the implementation is pretty much bug free
> before they send it out to users.  Testing delays the release.  And
> before that HTC has to make sure the implementation is solid too. 
> We're dealing with different hardware here. And there can be problems
> with Linux if Dell has a new piece of hardware on a machine that Linux
> doesn't have a driver for yet?  Ever try differently distros over last
> few years to see if wifi was supported?


My point was that the advantage of open-source to the end-user _should_
be the ability to update without the blessing of anyone, but already
Android's upgrade path is already as annoying and convoluted as WinMo's,
Blackberry's and Symbian's.  I expected Android to be the clear leader
here, but it's no different than the others.  Certainly not a disadvantage,
but just disappointing.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 23 Mar 2010 19:03:26 -0700 Bhairitu wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> At 23 Mar 2010 12:30:10 -0700 Bhairitu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm a big fan of Android and like the thinking behind it and of
> course
>>>> it will do everything he wants (and more that he may like once he has
>>>> it).  I think Android eventually will own smartphone the market
> mainly
>>>> because it is open source so anybody can play.  The latter is not
> true
>>>> of the platforms.  I even have some apps on the market.
>>> Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see where "open source" is any sort of
>>> advantage in the mobile market as it exists today.  I don't think most
>>> phone users care, and the barrier to entry to develop for other
> platforms
>>> is low enough.
>> It's the manufacturers who would care about open source since they
>> don't have to license anything. That's what I mean by "anyone can
>> play."  No it isn't important to the user.
> 
> I guess, but WinMo and Symbian licences are only a few bucks per device,
> and you get a pre-established ecosytem with millions of users and
> thousands of apps.  (Though the quick rise of Android has been impressive
> to watch!)  
> 
> 
>> Have you developed for other platforms?
> 
> 
> Only toyed with WinMo a bit- nothing much sportier than "Hello World"-
> type stuff.  The SDK is free (though you need Visual Studio to use it),
> and no restrictions to installing your apps on devices (unlike, say, the
> iPhone and the upcoming WinPhone 7 that requires signed apps delivered by
> a central app store.)  
> 

Okay, I have and have some apps on Windows Mobile (since 2003) and Palm 
as well (since 1998).  Originally Windows Mobile (Pocket PC) EVC++ was 
free, you could  download it or order from Microsoft at the cost of the 
CD.  Then they integrated it into Visual Studio.

Palms big mistake was not allowing legacy apps to run on their WebOS 
platform.  A third party has an application that allows them to run but 
that should not have been necessary.

What these companies ignore at the many apps made by single developers 
who fulfill the some needs for a niche market.  Some of the these apps 
are free others low cost and some expensive.  With the free development 
systems and open access developer will take a risk with their time.

I have customers who want iPhone versions of my apps but I don't own a 
Mac and not entirely sure it would be worth the effort especially 
learning a junk language such as Object C which I would only use for the 
iPhone.  Cost of developing for Android: my time and $25.  Of course I 
bought an Android phone too but that was months after I released my 
first Android app.

Bhairitu <noozguru@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:pdrqn.379$XI1.342
@newsfe20.iad:

> Palms big mistake was not allowing legacy apps to run on their WebOS 
> platform.  A third party has an application that allows them to run 
but 
> that should not have been necessary.
> 
> 

I wonder if Palm's inability to run Palm OS legacy software isn't 
related to the lawsuits it may generate from Palm OS' new owners Access 
Company who call Palm OS "Garnet" now.

Access gave us Nokia Linux tablet owners a great VM for running your 
software on our Linux tablets under their VM:
http://www.access-company.com/products/gvm/
As you can see, the interface is very familiar in portrait mode.  
Version 2 of the VM really enhanced its capability on the little 
tablets.  Not many Palm OS apps won't run on it.

Palm Desktop syncs it over wifi in seconds to its virtual storage 
resident on my internal 16GB SDHC memory card on the N800 tablet.

What software did you write?  I'd like to look at it under the VM.

Thanks.


-- 
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"

Larry

Robert A. Fink, M. D. says...

 > Input regarding the benefits/disadvantages of the phones
 > available would be appreciated.  Would a trip to an AT&T
 > store be helpful?

You might want to check out the Google Nexus phone, which I
think is about to be ported to AT&T.

In article <pdrqn.379$XI1.342@newsfe20.iad>,
 Bhairitu <noozguru@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I have customers who want iPhone versions of my apps but I don't own a 
> Mac and not entirely sure it would be worth the effort especially 
> learning a junk language such as Object C which I would only use for the 
> iPhone.  Cost of developing for Android: my time and $25.  Of course I 
> bought an Android phone too but that was months after I released my 
> first Android app.

Bigger market, greater sales?

There are of course a bunch of stories about developers working on an 
iPhone apps. in their spare time and hitting it big.  But now with 140k 
apps, that kind of success may be more elusive.

Gameloft said the iPhone versions of their games outsold Android 
versions by 40 to 1 a few months back.

poldy wrote:
> In article <pdrqn.379$XI1.342@newsfe20.iad>,
>  Bhairitu <noozguru@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> I have customers who want iPhone versions of my apps but I don't own a 
>> Mac and not entirely sure it would be worth the effort especially 
>> learning a junk language such as Object C which I would only use for the 
>> iPhone.  Cost of developing for Android: my time and $25.  Of course I 
>> bought an Android phone too but that was months after I released my 
>> first Android app.
> 
> Bigger market, greater sales?
> 
> There are of course a bunch of stories about developers working on an 
> iPhone apps. in their spare time and hitting it big.  But now with 140k 
> apps, that kind of success may be more elusive.
> 
> Gameloft said the iPhone versions of their games outsold Android 
> versions by 40 to 1 a few months back.

Up until a few months ago the only carrier in the US with Android was 
T-Mobile.  The Android market share is growing though I think the bad 
economy is having a dampening effect on smartphone adoption.  I think if 
the iPhone was introduced today and Android was not yet around it might 
have problems with adoption too.

This made me think:  last year a lot of people were using mms voice 
messages, and they came out crystal clear. Latency vbr overcomitment 
congestion causes synchronous voice to suck. Consider the cost of 
voice messaging.

In article <ddifq5t9ni2lt3s9bjgqom951nerroiqrr@4ax.com>,
Robert A. Fink, M. D. <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:
" I am getting ready to replace my Motorola RAZR phone (I need to also
" replace my old Palm Tungsten C PDA and want a smartphone to handle
" both functions), and I am looking at the alternatives.  My carrier
" is AT&T GSM service and I also have their Laptop Connect 3G
" tethering service. I am happy with AT&T and wish to stay with them.
" 
" My wife uses an iPhone (same account) and I am not happy with it for
" a number of reasons.  Thus, I am looking at alternatives to the
" iPhone, with the Blackberry being currently the "leader" on my list.
" 
" I need the device for the following uses:
" 
" 1. Phone
" 2. PDA (calendar, addressbook)
" 3. Ability to send and receive e-mail.
" 4. Occasional Web access, including access to Google or other such
" sources.
" 5. GPS would be nice but not necessary as I have a freestanding GPS
" for my car.
" 
" Input regarding the benefits/disadvantages of the phones available
" would be appreciated.  Would a trip to an AT&T store be helpful?

I'm always baffled why people choose AT&T.  Some do because of prior
bad experience with other carriers, which is almost always dumb
because they're all bad, but AT&T is the worst.  I've been stuck with
them for years because of the "family" that I am with, but I recently
jettisoned them.  AT&T's minions are sure getting hot and heavy about
that!

I-Phone was faster on T-Mobile with EDGE than with AT&T on 3G, except
for the narrowly tailored question of large downloads, which was rare.
BUT, the large downloads often didn't need to be restarted on T-Mobile
due to failures, when comparing T-Mobile to AT&T; failures happened
less often on T-Mobile, so in actuality, it took less time on T-Mobile
overall once all time was considered.

Now that I have a 3G T-Mobile account (someone stole my iPhone, and I
wasn't buying another locked product, and accidentally ordered
Google's phone, so have that ("Nexus One")), it is a bit spiffier, but
there's a big drop in performance when it is "forced into EDGE by
network quality" like in stores.  I'd expect Verizon to be better
inside stores.  (Where Verizon shines, of course, is NYC, or at least
did; I don't know if that's still the case.  Verizon left the other
carriers in the sewer in the NYC market, when I lived there.)

So, my first suggestion is to go to all the carrier's stores, going to
all the non-AT&T ones first.  All the carriers are:

  Verizon
  Sprint
  T-Mobile
  AT&T

I'd pretty much visit them in that order.  (Notice I omit MetroPCS,
which never intended to be a good cell phone company -- simply a
low-market one.)  Do coverage surveys of all of them.  I'd consider
buying a $25 prepaid phone for a few weeks for each carrier just to
test quality, but remember, the disposable $5 cell phones are very
high in call quality compared to the smart phones, so they may be very
misleading.

Now, once you've done that, your world opens up to all the
possibilities.  I just saw and used a Blackberry for the first time
two days ago, and I must say, I never knew there was any type of
device that allowed you to click on the screen, rather than just put
your finger there and mush and patter it around hoping it does
something closer to what you are trying to achieve, like on I-Phone
and Nexus One.

You'll get to look at:

* OS X (I-Phone):  the next model, supposedly available on Verizon,
  may be a good model, and I am recommending everyone to look at
  it if it indeed does show up elsewhere from AT&T.
* Microsoft (Sidekick, et al; they keep claiming they have phones
  on the market; who knows which ones other than Sidekick, but a lot
  of Sidekick users decided that Sidekick is dead once Microsoft
  got their grubby hands on it, because Microsoft erased everyone's
  contact data!!!!!!  Sidekick used to be a very popular device.)
* Linux (Android, and has a lot of phones on a lot of carriers)
* And, whatever else is out there.

The above all have "application markets", in case the carrier didn't
pre-load what you want.  Make sure that whatever you're getting has
such a feature, and test it to make sure it works before you buy it,
or make certain returning it for fast refund is very very easy and
that you have the time and ability to test it in the timeframe they
giveyou for such a return (that is not always easy!).

If you stick with one carrier, you simply won't have those choices.

" > Now if Verizon/HTC would just update my Eris to 2.1!
" 
" ...and here's where the promise of "open source" falls apart- why should
" Verizon or HTC need be involved at all?  We don't have to run to Dell to
" slap a new Linux distro on a Dell PC.
" 
" As long as the OEM or mobile operator is in the loop, it's only as "open"
" as they say it is!  ;)

Correct.

Brad Allen wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm always baffled why people choose AT&T.  Some do because of prior
> bad experience with other carriers, which is almost always dumb
> because they're all bad, but AT&T is the worst.  I've been stuck with
> them for years because of the "family" that I am with, but I recently
> jettisoned them.  AT&T's minions are sure getting hot and heavy about
> that!
> 

For many it was that AT&T chose them.  I bought my first cellphone back 
in the early 1990s and had Cellular One and a $20 a month calling plan. 
It think that was 60 minutes a month and at that I didn't use it that 
much as it was an "emergency phone."  Of course Cellular One became AT&T 
Wireless then Cingular and then again AT&T.  Since I develop apps for 
Android I waited until Verizon started selling them and switched 
carriers.  I could have bought a developer phone from Google but then 
they ran out and it wasn't supposed to work very well with AT&T.

qm@sonic.net (Brad Allen) wrote:

> I'm always baffled why people choose AT&T. 

as a general rule, at&t is a faster, better experience, but if you live 
on the margins of life, verizon may appear better. so it's not that 
complicated... so just examine how advanced your area is, then pick.

In article <apony-290F46.13212808042010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > I'm always baffled why people choose AT&T. 
> 
> as a general rule, at&t is a faster, better experience, 

on what planet is that?

> but if you live 
> on the margins of life, verizon may appear better. 

actually, most places.

"Brad Allen" <qm@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:4bbe1b1d$0$1674$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

> Robert A. Fink, M. D. <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:
> " I am getting ready to replace my Motorola RAZR phone (I need to also
> " replace my old Palm Tungsten C PDA and want a smartphone to handle
> " both functions), and I am looking at the alternatives.  My carrier
> " is AT&T GSM service and I also have their Laptop Connect 3G
> " tethering service. I am happy with AT&T and wish to stay with them.
> "
> " My wife uses an iPhone (same account) and I am not happy with it for
> " a number of reasons.  Thus, I am looking at alternatives to the
> " iPhone, with the Blackberry being currently the "leader" on my list.
> "
> " I need the device for the following uses:
> "
> " 1. Phone
> " 2. PDA (calendar, addressbook)
> " 3. Ability to send and receive e-mail.
> " 4. Occasional Web access, including access to Google or other such
> " sources.
> " 5. GPS would be nice but not necessary as I have a freestanding GPS
> " for my car.
> "
> " Input regarding the benefits/disadvantages of the phones available
> " would be appreciated.  Would a trip to an AT&T store be helpful?
>
> I'm always baffled why people choose AT&T.  Some do because of prior
> bad experience with other carriers, which is almost always dumb
> because they're all bad, but AT&T is the worst.  I've been stuck with
> them for years because of the "family" that I am with, but I recently
> jettisoned them.

You jettisoned your family in order to change wireless carriers? 
"Irreconcilable differences, Your Honor- she will only use AT&T, and I 
wanted to use Verizon..." ;)

Dr. Fink said in his post that his wife has an iPhone, so this may limit his 
options to staying with AT&T, or perhaps unlocking and moving to T-Mobile. 
I've found keeping my wife happy is an important part of the wireless 
carrier selection process.  My wife loves her iPhone, so leaving T-Mobile 
for anyone other than AT&T currently isn't an option for me.  Thankfully, 
I'm happy with T-Mobile, and have a great grandfathered plan I'm resistant 
to give up.

> So, my first suggestion is to go to all the carrier's stores, going to
> all the non-AT&T ones first.  All the carriers are:

In addition to his wife's iPhone, IIRC from prior posts, Dr. Fink travels 
internationally a fair bit, and occasionally takes advantage of AT&T's 
international data plan (not a fantastic deal, but better than what any one 
else offers at the moment.)  That might rule out Verizon and Sprint, who do 
offer a few "world phones" but a far more limited selection than AT&T or 
T-Mobile.  (This need I'm remembering may have changed, however, since the 
good Doctor didn't list "world compatibility" in his list.)

> If you stick with one carrier, you simply won't have those choices.

Most carriers offer a wide selection of various smartphones.  The iPhone is 
obviously an AT&T exclusive in the US right now, (although Dr. Fink already 
stated he doesn't want one for himself, but I inferred his wife was keeping 
hers.)  Certainly Blackberries, Android, and Windows Mobile devices are 
available from everyone, and AT&T also offers a few Nokia Symbian devices as 
well.  Sidekicks are a T-Mobile exclusive, not from any contractual deal I'm 
aware of, as much as no one over 25 uses one, which matches T-Mo's target 
demographic (young, cheap, and credit challenged!) quite well.

I'm a long-time WinMo user, so I'd suggest a Touch Pro 2 if Dr. Fink is 
committed to staying with AT&T, or an HD2 if he's willing to jump to 
T-Mobile, but that's because of MY desires in a mobile device, not 
neccessarily his.  IMO, Windows Mobile devices are the closest mobiles to 
offering a full computer in a small device, allowing me to leave the laptop 
at home when traveling, and offer excellent Exchange, Outlook, and Office 
compatibility and interoperability, but in return demand the sharpest 
learning curve of any smartphone.  Windows Mobile is probably the closest OS 
to the Palm OS he currently uses, allowing some modicum of familiarity when 
he switches.

My wife uses a Blackberry for work, and they are excellent devices for 
"core" smartphone functions as well- PIM sync, email, and light browsing 
(Google searches, etc.) but less versatile, IMO than WinMo or Android.

I think Dr. Fink hit the nail on the head, though- he does need to go to a 
store and try the various offerings.  Minor inconveniences to one person 
(e.g. button placement on a slideout keyboard, or availalbility of a 
particular feature or third-party application, etc.) could be a deal breaker 
to another.  For example, although I'm a big WinMo fan, I dislike the two 
new devices, TouchPro2 and HD2, because they don't have directional pads- 
they're too touchscreen-centric for my tastes.  Everyone I know with them 
love them, however.

Another option (that time is probably running out on) is the Palm Centro. 
Although AT&T no longer offers them online, some of the stores may still 
have this discontinued Palm, allowing him to use the same PDA OS he's 
comfortable with, and the apps he already has.  Amazon.com apparently still 
has them in stock for free with contract, $200 without:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BYW6C4

However, since this is the end of the line for PalmOS, now that Palm has 
switched to the newer WebOS, it might make some sense to cut the cord and 
choose a new platform now.

Robert A. Fink, M. D. <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:
> 1. Phone
> 2. PDA (calendar, addressbook)
> 3. Ability to send and receive e-mail.
> 4. Occasional Web access, including access to Google or other such
> sources.
> 5. GPS would be nice but not necessary as I have a freestanding GPS
> for my car.

Your list doesn't contain anything that is PDA or smartphone specific.
My old phone had all of the above, on a poor quality screen and
non-qwerty.
My Blackberry Bold has a qwerty keyboard and a better screen, but it also
adds a $30/month data plan, instead of the $10 plan on a non-smartphone.

If I were buying a new phone, I would go for qwerty and a good screen.
I don't think I'd get another smartphone, simply because of the recurring
cost of the data plan.

I like the GPS, but Google Mobile Apps without GPS would probably be okay.
On the AT&T site, it isn't obvious which phones have GPS.  

I thought I was going to use the Blackberry for connecting to my work
email, but that option never played out.  I use the built-in app for email
from my GMail account.  

The other thing that I am surprised isn't always available is a PC-sync
program for contacts and calendar.  You could get by with Google sync
options, but I like the native sync.  Blackberry is free, Nokia is free,
Motorola costs money, LG doesn't seem to be available.

I also like the WiFi connectivity.  I read almost all of my email on the
Bold, and do a lot of web surfing as well, and the WiFi is handy.  In a
good 3G area, the speed difference might not be substantial, but I'm in the
sticks.  WiFi also lets Google Maps get a pretty good location, better than
cellular, within 100 yards of internal GPS, usually.

-- 
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA  GPS: 38.8,-122.5

" > I'm always baffled why people choose AT&T.  Some do because of
" > prior bad experience with other carriers, which is almost always
" > dumb because they're all bad, but AT&T is the worst.  I've been
" > stuck with them for years because of the "family" that I am with,
" > but I recently jettisoned them.
"
" You jettisoned your family in order to change wireless carriers? 
" "Irreconcilable differences, Your Honor- she will only use AT&T, and I 
" wanted to use Verizon..." ;)

To be honest, I've never let those choices get in the way between us.
When I spoke the word "family", I meant it as the words of AT&T, not
of mine.  Jettisoning AT&T's "family" is a far more enjoyable
experience than jettisoning one's own real family.

" Dr. Fink said in his post that his wife has an iPhone, so this may
" limit his options to staying with AT&T, or perhaps unlocking and
" moving to T-Mobile. I've found keeping my wife happy is an important
" part of the wireless carrier selection process.  My wife loves her
" iPhone, so leaving T-Mobile for anyone other than AT&T currently
" isn't an option for me.  Thankfully, I'm happy with T-Mobile, and
" have a great grandfathered plan I'm resistant to give up.

Well decided.

" > So, my first suggestion is to go to all the carrier's stores, going to
" > all the non-AT&T ones first.  All the carriers are:
" 
" In addition to his wife's iPhone, IIRC from prior posts, Dr. Fink travels 
" internationally a fair bit, and occasionally takes advantage of AT&T's 
" international data plan (not a fantastic deal, but better than what any one 
" else offers at the moment.)  That might rule out Verizon and Sprint, who do 
" offer a few "world phones" but a far more limited selection than AT&T or 
" T-Mobile.  (This need I'm remembering may have changed, however, since the 
" good Doctor didn't list "world compatibility" in his list.)

Understood.  I also acknowledge I don't know what alternatives from other
carriers might be considered in the international arena.


The rest of what you say I can't add anything to.