Skip to main content

How Much Phone Do You Use On Your Smartphone?

The new iPod Touch asks some interesting questions about the concept of a smartphone. At its heart it is an iPhone 6 squeezed into a 4" screen and body. To buy it outright costs an eye-watering $350 less than the equivalent iPhone 5S.
That's an awful lot to pay for a GSM/LTE radio and associated antennae.
Many years ago, when Bluetooth was in its infancy I talked about how the technology offered the opportunity to decouple the different elements of our technology, whilst keeping the experience intact. At the time I was comparing the capabilities of the Sony Ericsson P800 all-in-one (I hesitate to call it a smartphone) and the Palm Tungsten T/Sony Ericsson T39 combo.
The iPod Touch looks like it could form the basis of a modern day equivalent. Add in a small, light and cheap LTE phone and you have all the functionality of an iPhone at less than half the price.
Except you'll be missing one critical piece of the puzzle: voice. You'll still be able to make and receive voice calls, but unless Apple allows the iPod to serve as a Bluetooth headset you'll have to make them through your handset.
Apple could easily add this capability, but why would it when the iPhone represents two-thirds of its business? You could dump traditional voice calling completely, switch to Skype, for example, which gives you a real telephone number for your IP calling. You'd need to bump up your data plan, but then the initial purchase price savings, the savings on voice minutes and texts; plus the reduced replacement cost when its time to upgrade; would all ensure that you end up well ahead financially.
This isn't a thing that Apple could countenance. Which makes the decision to make the iPod Touch such an attractive device compared to the lower-end iPhones seem a bit strange.
Seems like a strong indication that Apple will be revamping those iPhone 5 based models sooner rather than later.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…