Talk:Feature phone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Feature phone & dumb phone

Isn't dumb phone the same as feature phone? Can you really rely on the naming on that one sites POOL? That isn't even a reliable source. Besides, in article, it says that 83% of phone sales are "Feature phones", but inside the sources source http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/mobile-device-popularity-surges-12020/comscore-smartphone-penetration-marketshare-feb-2010jpg/ , the rest 17% is smartphones, so where are the dumb phones? I think it should say that Feature phones are also called "dumb phones", because that's what they really are called ever since smartphones appeared.bladez (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I removed the term "dumb phone" from the lede.--Lester 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed "dumb phone" from the lead again. If it needs to go back, first change Dumb phone to redirect somewhere else besides here. ~KvnG 18:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Infers a disability in the English UK language. The context of using the word "dumb" here suggests inferiority or that smartphones can speak.

Unlike the use of the word "blind" for example in poker. The context of the use of the word "blind" here directly refers to "not being able to see" and, hence the word is used correctly. "Dumb" being used here couls cause offence.

Irrelevant or not?

Irrelevant or not?Andries (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That level of detail belongs in Series 40 or S60 (software platform). ~KvnG 17:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Low end & Feature phones

Reading the introduction, one might get the impression, that phones that are not smartphones are low-end. Do you really consider all feature-phones low-end, and all smartphones high-end? How about high-end feature-phones?

I suggest any connections between a phone being a smart- or feature-phone and the price ranges be removed in terms of contemporary times (leave it for the old "once was" meanings), as both smartphones and feature phones can be high end (and low end, for that matter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicoast (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. There is a world of difference between high end feature phones and dumb phones (low end feature phones), but I dunno whether there are reputable sources for that. Andries (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there any reputable sources for the current statements in the article anyway? Magicoast (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem comes down to there not being any clear difference at all. Once upon a time, a smartphone meant a phone that was like a computer, could run apps, Internet, video calling and so on - but then feature phones adopted all these features too. These days, low end phones even have touchscreens, keyboards, GPS and Wifi. There's confusion in that a lot of the media seem to talk as if only smartphones have these capabilities - yet the various statistics reported on smartphones tend to only include a few arbitrary platforms. One could ask, why does the original IPhone count as a smartphone, but not many feature phones? Some feature phones run OSs like S40, which are sometimes referred to as smartphones, yet often not included in market statistics.

A distinction based on cost or being low end doesn't work - as you say, you can have low end smartphones and high end feature phones (e.g., low cost Symbian and Android phones).

I'll try to rewrite this to make it clearer that there isn't any clear definition (and no, I don't think one single phonescoop article can be taken as definitive for such a complex issue). Mdwh (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. Just to add - I think that the distinctions will become even less clear in future. Nokia have plans to significantly improve S40, perhaps making it support native apps via Qt; Samsung are working on Bada (operating system) which will run on low end to high end phones, making the distinction between feature and smartphones meaningless (or at least, not a distinction one can make based on which operating system is run). Mdwh (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but this stuff is still under construction (the new S40 and cheap Bada phones). Let's not think about tomorrow before it comes and just unequivocally write about the present day. There is a clear distinction today - for a phone to be a smartphone it must be running Android, iOS, Windows, Blackberry OS, Bada, or S60 (at least I'm not aware of anything else widespread and technologically similar to the aforementioned). That simple. And phone categorization (smartphone/feature phone) must not rely on either the set of (hardware) features or price. Magicoast (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think [1] has well written definition. --Kmk75s (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Being new to this market, I see a clear distinction: --the price of the service plan. For example:

Phone costs $39, Virgin Mobile Prepaid LG Rumor2 Cell Phone with Keyboard, Bluetooth, and Camera at Walmart, ...with "mobile web,"... service plan $20 and up for three months.

Seven bucks a month for a low use or "emergency" phone. High enders seem to start around $30 - $40. In any case, what I think this article needs is to explore the definition of "mobile web," (Vs. full web browsing?). What is that? Googling that term seems to open a whole other complex world with articles like "Browsing Web on your Mobile Phone," "Cell Phone Web Surfing Made Easy" and "5 Mini Browsers For Mobile Phones." But I don't know what that means. I presume those are quasi work-arounds for cheaper feature phones without true (?) web browsing?? What does that web-world look like,--can I occasionally google, etc? (Then I would upgrade my sexy, very old dumb phone.)
--67.125.106.195 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Where's the definition?

This article gets as far as saying that the difference between a Smartphone and a Feature phone is "the operating system", but then doesn't specify what is meant by that. Does this mean one has an OS and the other doesn't? Or does it mean some mobile OSs are "Smart" and some are "Feature"? If it's the later, can you specify which are which?

65.198.62.229 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition is a bit woolly - like life itself, it's hard to define what it is but you know it when you see it. The problem stems from the fact that feature phones is a term that has evolved to describe something that isn't as good as a smartphone. The smartphone article has a pretty good definition of that term, so I think we can build off that - I'll have a bash and see what everyone thinks. ChrisUK (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "feature phone" before. I think it would be more correct the call them feature-less phones, basic phones, dumb phones. Many phones fall in between smart and dumb. They may be able to connect to the internet, play music, download games, and other features but aren't considered smart phones. Flight Risk (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the BS security section

The source said for instance "On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device." This was somehow interpreted as feature phones being less secure than smartphones. Complete BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.104.57.242 (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs Work

This article is in really bad shape. I made some changes already but a lot more needs to be done here. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that the some of the editors have about the difference between a smartphone and a feature phone. I think most would agree that anything running Windows Phone or Android is not a feature phone. The previous editors seemed to think that entry-level Windows Phones and Androids were considered feature phones but this is certainly not true. I have changed much of the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ropo153 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The most consistent definition of feature phone is that of a mid-priced device in a carrier's lineup, rather that what OS they were runnning. It also noted that today's feature phones have surpassed smartphones from a few years ago. For instance, the LG Shine's product positioning back in 2007 is comparable to the HTC One V today, both were roughly $300 outright or free on 2-3 year voice contract. Even though the HTC One V runs Android, it lacks the capabilities of its big brother HTC One X due to significantly reduced hardware specs, while the One X competes with the latest iPhone. As Apple, no carriers have inexpensive iPhones in the $300 price-range, all of them have to be bought outright for $500+ or come as part of a 2-3 year data contract. Limefrost Spiral (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I would contest that price is not the only criteria, and one of the cited sources in the intro supports this idea. The PCMag article defines a feature phone as:

"A cellphone that contains a fixed set of functions beyond voice calling and text messaging, but is not as extensive as a smartphone. For example, feature phones may offer Web browsing and e-mail, but they generally cannot download apps from an online marketplace. See Smartphone and cellphone."

I admit that there can be a fine line between smartphones and feature phones, but Nokia's Lumia phones are generally not considered feature phones as they run a fully capable smartphone OS which can download apps and be upgraded.

Regarding price, you can get an iPhone 4 for free with a 2 year contract on AT&T in the US, and I don't think anyone would call the iPhone a feature phone. It seems that price of smartphones has decreased and have cannibalized the sales of many feature phones.

On a side note, thank you for your reply. I would much rather collaborate with you than get involved in an edit war. Let me know what you think. Ropo153 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping you would engage me in a discussion before going ahead and changing things again...I think I'm going to look for a third opinion on this since you don't seem to want to work this out. Ropo153 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the neutrality tags that you put up, at least this allows for some debate over the disputed content.

As for the definition of feature phone, basically the old definition of proprietary OS such as S60 is obsolete, at least in North America and Western Europe. While one can make an argument that all handsets running Windows Phone are smartphones, the low-end Lumia 610 and 620 are competing in the same space occupied by the LG Shine a few years ago. In addition, it has been noted that feature phones today have more capabilities that previous high-end smartphones a few years ago. Would today's feature phone be equivalent to a low-end smartphone or mid-level device, or is the term "feature phone" no longer used, at least from a North American standpoint (Rogers uses "Smartphone Lite" for such devices)? Limefrost Spiral (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

By the definition at [[Smartphone}], an Android phone is a smartphone. I don't see how you can make an argument that a particular Android-based phone is a feature phone unless you believe there are smartphones that are also feature phones. If the definition of feature phone is disputed in sources, we need to document the dispute with citations. We don't try to resolve the dispute here or make up our own definition. ~KvnG 17:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge with smartphone

In my opinion both the term "feature Phone" and the term "smartphone" are little more than marketing terms. There is no more a distinction between a feature phone and a smartphone than between an old and a new car. There is continuous incremental improvement in any commodity. For instance reading here about Nokia's S40 os I learn that it was used for their feature phones whereas Symbian is/was used for their smartphones. However the Nokia Asha line, eg the Nokia Asha 311, uses the S40 os but is labelled a smartphone. The difference between a feature phone and a smart phone is only a matter of degree not type. This article should be merged with that on Smartphones as there is a distinction between these and "dumb" phones/mobile phones in that smartphones have web/internet connectivity. That's about it as far as I can see. LookingGlass (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Whether it is a marketing term or not, this is considered a separate class of phone by phone manufacturers, carriers and internet companies. See http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57594868-94/facebooks-feature-phone-push-nets-100-million-monthly-users/ for instance. ~KvnG 17:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per user KvnG's statement. -Mardus (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"for religious reasons"

the section on advantages for consumers includes:

Less complexity: be it to offer simple functionality for people who are averse to better technologies, or for religious reasons.

I have no doubt that there are people who prefer simple technologies, but i'm far less convinced by the second bit. Is there any evidence of any significant group avoiding smartphones - but happily buying feature phones - for religious reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.169.37.118 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Demarcation-Problem

I suggest that we focus only on phones which one carries on one's person (pocket, beltclip, et cetera) and are G2 (2nd Generation using digital signaling (set aside the PaleoMobilePhones for another article)) and a 3-track system:

DumbPhones: No keyboard other than the physical numeric keypad and a NonTouchScreen.

Intermediate: A physical alphanumeric keyboard with a NonTouchScreen.

SmartPhones: The UI is a TouchScreen.

As always, it is still fuzzy around the edges (a phone with a TouchScreen and a physical numeric keypad), but in most cases, we can tell which category a phone belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:C120:A158:C586:85A4:ACDF (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

How I classify phones

Unlike the IP editor above, the way I classify phones is not because of its hardware, but its software capabilities, specifically the ability to execute (run) applications (or apps). Here's how:

• a feature phone is incapable of running applications other than those preloaded on it. In other words, it cannot download any new apps from the Internet, and the "feature" in the term "feature phone" refers to those features that are already on the phone - it can only use those features.
• a smartphone is capable of downloading new apps from the Internet, and the "smart" in "smartphone" refers to the intelligence of the software that enables this to be happen. To that end, I can further classify smartphones based on the software platform:
  • a semi-smartphone uses a proprietary application programming interface, such as Nokia's Symbian and Asha platforms. These apps have to be specifically designed to run on the individual devices and are rarely cross-platform, or run across different devices.
  • a full smartphone uses a common application programming interface, such as iOS (App Store) or Android (Google Play). This makes cross platform compatibility straightforward to implement, and I believe this has led to the shift in the mobile device trend as it happened.

That's how I sort things out. Everyone's opinions will differ, of course, but this is just my take. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The featurephone-smartphone paradigm has evolved over the years, so what could have been considered a smartphone ten years ago (able to run apps and stuff), is now a featurephone, simply because the capabilities of smartphones have come very far ahead. Symbian phones very certainly are smartphones, but most people didn't recognise them as such. Of Nokia's later fare, their Asha series in particular is interesting, because it contains many smartphone capabilities, but is not exactly a smartphone; I could classify it as a smart featurephone; specifically for the touchscreen, extensive functionality, and the series' ability to run discrete apps. What separates Nokia's Symbian-based phones and the Asha series from iPhones and Androids, is that Nokia devices were never developed to be overwhelmingly complex, IMO, despite thir very extensive functionality. -Mardus /talk 01:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)