Choosing a New PDA Cell Phone?

[tuitionsource]

Hi guys. I am going to need a more advanced cell phone than my archaic flip phone. I want to be able to send and receive emails(synchronized with laptop), text, phone calls, still camera, daily planner w/ reminders, and occasional internet.

Not concerned with video, music vids, or watching TV. I am real bad about not recharging the battery. I am a PC guy but open to the Iphone if it will coordinate with my PC.

My provider will be ATT and I am open to suggestions. Anyone want to share the pros/cons of their PDA's?

[SteveC]

My advice is to go for the iphone... it's a great piece of kit and certainly fulfills all of my requirements...

[vangogh]

I'd go with an iPhone too, though looking at the cell phones at AT&T there are other options. The Blackberry Curve will probably do what you want as well and I think a few of the other phones will too.

Why not go into an AT&T store and pick up the phones and play with them a little to see which you like the best.

[Steve B]

I have a Blackberry that does all those things. I am told the Blackberry excels at the e-mails while other phones are better at other things. Mine is very slow when I try to go to the internet, but I really don't use that much anyway.

[Patrysha]

Such a timely topic. I was looking at the BlackBerry Curve earlier this week. The Bell Store is having a grand opening sale and they're on sale...but I don't know if it's worth it to be spending $75 a month.

Thinking maybe an air-card for the mini-laptop might be the wiser move for me if I am going to be stuck with a monthly payment.

My current phone is a pay as you go cell...but incoming calls are up and I've been having to get the fill-ups more often lately...making it less economical than it was.

[KristineS]

Not to hijack the thread, but Patrysha, what pay as you go program do you use? I've been thinking about doing something like that, since I don't often talk on the phone in general, and I don't need a really expensive cell phone, just something I can use when necessary.

[Patrysha]

Well I think most of the phone companies have them...but I go through Telus - mostly because that's what the place that was selling them had and I wasn't going to run around town to compare.

I bought the phone for about $80 or so and it came with $25 or $50 included (I forget which).

When the time runs out I just go and pick up more time at the convenience store (there are tons of places I could choose for refills including Walmart and the phone shops). They come in denominations of $10/$25/$50. The more you buy the less the per minute charge, but I generally just by $10 at a time because you have to use them with 30 days for the $10 card and 60 for the larger denominations. Until this month, I've run out of minutes just as the card was about to expire.

I use a few tricks for saving minutes, like checking my voicemail through a landline instead of using the phone to do so.

I can switch to a plan, but I will shop around for that. Especially seeing as I can keep my number no matter which carrier I go with...just haven't decided if I'll go that route yet. I think I'll wait and see if the call volume remains high over the next few weeks.

[tuitionsource]

Thanks for all your suggestions. I'll be looking at them over the next few days.

[Paper Shredder Clay]

Since you already have AT&T, go with the iPhone. I simply love the iPhone, I bought one last year and have upgraded to the latest one. There are so many great apps out there that are truly worth more than they are charging for it.




Hi guys. I am going to need a more advanced cell phone than my archaic flip phone. I want to be able to send and receive emails(synchronized with laptop), text, phone calls, still camera, daily planner w/ reminders, and occasional internet.

Not concerned with video, music vids, or watching TV. I am real bad about not recharging the battery. I am a PC guy but open to the Iphone if it will coordinate with my PC.

My provider will be ATT and I am open to suggestions. Anyone want to share the pros/cons of their PDA's?

[Evan]

I am still biased for Windows Mobile phones, and use a Sprint Touch Diamond. It's small, and I can check and send e-mails, and all the other fun jazz with any other phone.

Don't discount many of the Windows Mobile phones. I also did hear about the Palm Pre being a good alternative to the iPhone.

[Romulus]

I use a blackberry curve for all my needs, like you I dont need all the flashy stuff on a phone just call and check my emails and im good. Im on tmobile though so I cant get an iphone, but I hear that they are great as well, I think at this point for business owners its a personal choice more than anything, cause all the phones can check email and little things.

[vangogh]

I'm on Sprint at the moment, but can't say I'm all that happy with them. My contract just expired and I'll be looking into switching to AT&T for the iPhone. My brother has one and he'll be visiting me in a couple of months. When he does I want to see what kind of reception he gets out here and if it's good I'm buying an iPhone.

[Harold Mansfield]

I vote for the iPhone as well. Unfortunately I too am with Sprint (no iPhone), and when I need customer service, I can't stand them.

Everyone I know with an iPhone is tickled pink with them. While I don't have one, I do have an iPod touch, which basically does everything and runs 90% of the apps that the iphone does, (except of course make calls), and I use it all the time to check my emails (I currently have 6 email accounts on it) , Twitter, Check Facebook, and Browse the web and all the other cool little apps and it works very well, so I can only imagine how nice it must be to actually be able to use it for calls too.

Also, there are a ton of free apps, hundreds even, for the iPhone/iPod Touch that are both cool, and functional for business, not to mention the peripherals that you can add like docking stations to listen to music, and USB hook ups to your home theater system, remote control (if you have Apple TV), car stereo adapters...as far as an all-in-one for business and entertainment....it is far superior.

[vangogh]

It's the web browsing and the apps that are making me want an iPhone. Obviously it needs to work as a phone, but it's the stuff beyond the basic phone that's driving me to want one.

[KristineS]

Apparently I'm a Luddite or something. I barely even talk on the phone at all, and can't imagine using a cell phone to do all the other stuff. Is it really that much more convenient, and is it really necessary? I guess if you're on the road a lot being able to access e-mails and stuff would be handy, but I just don't get some of the apps that are available for these phones.

[Evan]

I forget in what magazine, but I had read an article on Blackberry versus the iPhone, and some of the features that the BB did that iP didn't baffled me. I would never consider an iP because of it lacking what seems like obvious features.

I'll stick with my Windows Mobile phone which doesn't need special plans that the price is jacked up in order to operate. It does everything I need it to, and there are minimal problems.

I have also rarely had problems with Sprint. Customer service can be hit-or-miss, but I've managed to get good representatives. Every blue moon I do get a phone call from them just checking in to make sure everything is going well and if there is anything I need. It does seems annoying, but I appreciate the contact.

[vangogh]

Kristine I like having some basic web functionality when I'm not at my computer. Obviously first and foremost a cell phone has to function well as a phone, but it is nice being able to check email and do some quick web surfing. The iPhone has plenty of apps to help manage much more too.

Evan I'm not sure what features were missing. Was it a business related thing? I think the iPhone was missing some of the email features Blackberries are known for, though I think the latest model has added some of those requested features. I know copy/paste was missing, but is now included in the 3GS.

My problem with Sprint was one of those check up phone calls. The call in question was offering me free things I didn't need or want. My bad, but I wasn't doing well getting the person off the phone and I didn't want to hang up on them. I told them I would accept the freebie as long as it didn't cost me a penny more than what I was paying. Of course it did. I started noticing an extra $15 on my bill, which took me 4 months to get the charges off completely. Naturally there was also an additional year of a contract which they would no longer remove since it had been 4 months. Apparently had it been 3 months I still could have had the contract removed. The only reason we had reached 4 months though was because they kept screwing up on their end. I decided right then that as soon as my contract was done I was going to look for another company.

Until that time I was very happy with Sprint, but the one incident over the course of several months changed that in a hurry. Not that I expect the next company to be any better.

[Harold Mansfield]

Apparently I'm a Luddite or something. I barely even talk on the phone at all, and can't imagine using a cell phone to do all the other stuff. Is it really that much more convenient, and is it really necessary?

Of course it's not necessary, but it is cool. What good is working for yourself if you can't buy cool stuff every now and then ?

But seriously, it is pretty functional. The cool factor is a plus, but it really does do important stuff a lot quicker than dragging out a laptop, or waiting to get back to the office.

[Evan]

My problem with Sprint was one of those check up phone calls. The call in question was offering me free things I didn't need or want. My bad, but I wasn't doing well getting the person off the phone and I didn't want to hang up on them. I told them I would accept the freebie as long as it didn't cost me a penny more than what I was paying. Of course it did. I started noticing an extra $15 on my bill, which took me 4 months to get the charges off completely.

If you threatened enough to cancel your account, the accounts representatives there would have done whatever they could to maintain your relationship.

My contract ends in November, but it is the best plan out there for what I need -- and it's cheap! If they won't extend my contract, I can always spend more elsewhere.

Sprint really can't afford to keep losing clients. I'd probably have also written a letter to Dan Hesse. He is trying to change Sprint. The problem is it's hard for the efforts from up top to trickle down to the bottom.

[vangogh]

I did threaten to cancel my account many times. I called them over and over again and in the end all I could get was the charges removed. By then I was too tired to worry about it. I guess it really only extended my contract an extra 10 months. This was a couple years ago now before Sprint was losing customers left and right and before Dan Hesse's latest efforts.

I think their current loss in customers comes from people having had similar experiences to mine. Sure they kept me under contract for another year, but I was happy at the time and planning on staying anyway. Now because of the way they suckered me into that extra year they've lost me.

Of course I do want an iPhone. I've become an Apple convert since buying a Mac and have seen the iPhone in action. It really does what I want a mobile device to do. It's quite likely Sprint would have lost me anyway, however they wouldn't have lost me forever, where they probably have now. Ok I won't really say forever since anything can change between now and the end of time. Let's just say they'll have to work a lot harder to get me back then they might have.

[nighthawk]

My flatmate has both the iPhone and the Blackberry, and much prefers the blackberry.

I am currently an original iPhone user, but my contract is up towards the end of the year so I plan to shop around for a new phone, I do really like my iPhone, but will be taking a look at all the other options. The blackberry does look good, as does the new Nokia. I'm not terribly convinced by windows mobile based phones, they cant make a desktop work, so I don't trust them with a phone!

[Evan]

I'm not terribly convinced by windows mobile based phones, they cant make a desktop work, so I don't trust them with a phone!

Yet most people continue to use and prefer Windows. Their OS's are reliable, but due to everyone using them, it has made it susceptible to attacks.

[vangogh]

Yet most people continue to use and prefer Windows.

I don't think that's a preference. Most people buy a computer and use whatever OS happens to come with it. Over time they've gotten used to Windows and choose it because it's the OS they know. Also because many others are using it, it becomes easier to transfer files and use the same programs, etc.

I'm not saying that no one prefers Windows. Many people do. But it's used by the majority for the simple reason that it came with the first computer they own. Had that first computer run Sun Solaris, most people would be using Sun Solaris today. For example my dad wouldn't know that he runs the Windows operating system. He just knows he bought a computer and he knows how to open his email on that computer. It wasn't a preference for him.

[Evan]

Most people will chose products with Windows products because they are much cheaper. Mac's are not inexpensive, and I don't even think they're that good quality. Plus there are an abundance of compatibility issues that will keep Windows users on the same platform.

If a Mac and a PC were put on the shelf at a store, I guarantee that the operating system would be an issue of those contemplating a Mac. Of course you'll have the few that will choose strictly PC or Mac's because they like them. But those who were price-conscious, and assuming the prices were the same -- they'd have to weigh compatibility issues as part of their purchase.

And of course, you get a bunch of people who don't even know what they're doing on a computer. Some people probably don't know what that little thing with two buttons and a ball (or more recently, an optical light) is.

[vangogh]

Those people would be choosing on price though and not preference for an operating system. You and I might have preferences, but I think the majority don't other than maybe they've worked with one OS long enough that they'll always reach for it.

I think any of the major OSs work well. Each might have its strengths and weakness, but you can pretty much do most anything on all of them.

When you look at Windows specifically it's the operating system most every person older than a certain age grew up with. That was less by choice than because it was going to be on the computer you bought. Having learned to use Windows, most of those people will continue to use Windows and have probably never tried anything else. I think to have a preference for one OS over another you need to have used both. If you buy Windows because it's the only OS you've ever used, that's not really a preference in my mind.

I think the biggest reason people buy Windows as an OS is simply that it's the operating system they know. There are certain people beyond that group who do prefer Windows for any of a number of reasons or who prefer software that runs on Windows. I don't want to imply that no one prefers Windows. Clearly some people do. However I think the majority use it because it's the OS they know and for no other reason. Had early PCs been shipped with a different OS that's the OS most people would be using.

[Evan]

My example was assuming both the PC and Mac were equal pricing, and sitting next to each other. I'd be interested in knowing more information on this, but I don't do research on that sort of stuff. But I do know that Mac's make up a small % of the market.

I digress!

[vangogh]

I think it's an interesting discussion. I do think all 3 major and a few minor operating systems work well. I'm currently on a Mac, but through most of my computer life I used Windows. Both have their hiccups, but for the most part each did what it was supposed to. I always thought it kind of silly to see people arguing about which is better. Both work well and both have their occasional problems. Sometimes if you're on a buggy machine it's for a reason that has nothing to do with the OS or for whatever reason you happened to get the one bad on in the bunch.

There was an interesting article I read a few days ago. I can't find it now, but if I do I'll post a link to it. The gist was that despite the recent I'm a PC commercial, people still see Macs as being the better brand on the high end. What they said was that of all the over $1,000 laptops purchased something in the 90+% range were Macs. The I'm a PC commercials seem to be an attempt for Windows to gain a part of that market.

Apple has always focused on the higher end customer and they do seem to own that market. As someone who usually buys high end computers the price of a Mac never bothered me. My last PC cost over $3,400. The Mac I'm using now cost about $2,500 (3 1/2 years later). At the high end Macs aren't expensive at all.

None of the above is to say that Macs are better. They're just different and for me the choice was a preference. For most I think the preference is either price or familiarity with Windows.

[billbenson]

I use linux because its free and far more reliable than windows. You don't need to look any further than Vista to find that Windows OS's are bloated and have problems. On Windows I typically have to reboot my system every three days or the system either slows down or freezes. On linux, I can go weeks without a reboot. I have talked to engineers who have gone a year without a reboot.

With Windows, they are currently forcing you to repurchase your old software. I had a program I wanted to use but it required vista. To stay with Windows would have cost me several thousand dollars in software and a new machine to support the additional ram requirements for Vista, particularly when you concurrently run other resource intensive programs along with Vista.

The reason Windows is so popular is it has come preinstalled on so many PC's for years. It's also pretty much a one click install. Most people just use very basic capabilites of a PC as well. You still need throw in the cost of MS Office on any MS PC. People are used to it and its a pain to change.

That, not to mention MS is in the business of selling software. They need you to upgrade every year or to in order to stay in business. Apple is more diversified and Linux makes their money on the enterprise installations. About 80% of the web servers out there are Linux.

So, Windows is adequate for the average user, comes preinstalled on most machinge, and Grandpa knows how to use it.

[vangogh]

We're dangerously close (if we're not already there yet) of crossing the line into taking this thread to the OS wars.

An OS is ultimately just a bridge between hardware and software. All modern operating systems seem to do that pretty well. They each add their own bells and whistles or allow more control over the low level details. People who spend all day on the computer and have used more than one OS likely have preferences. The majority though, use what happened to come with their computer or what they are now familiar with.

Think of the current situation with smart phones. There are several different operating systems running phones. Most people are not choosing a phone because of the operating system. They'll use whatever comes with their phone. Right now phones can only do so much when compared with a computer and the OS is unlikely to be the major choice in which phone to buy.

[nighthawk]

Think of the current situation with smart phones. There are several different operating systems running phones. Most people are not choosing a phone because of the operating system. They'll use whatever comes with their phone. Right now phones can only do so much when compared with a computer and the OS is unlikely to be the major choice in which phone to buy.

I disagree, I think the OS is one of the key selling points of phones nowadays. If you compare the features of current smart phones, they will all be very similar, the only difference will be the OS. Windows Mobile phones heavily market the fact they are Windows based, and for many thats the selling point. Android phones, again use the OS as the selling point.

Many people will stick to whatever they are familiar with, whether its Nokia or Sony Ericsson, because they are used to the way they work. All that is due to the operating system and its interface, so they are indirectly choosing a phone based on its OS.

With apps stores really starting to take off, I think more and more people will pick a particular OS and stick with it through various phone upgrades.

[billbenson]

A slight twist on the original question. I have no need for a cell other than to make phone calls. My business is selling stuff on the web. I'm worried that I am falling behind the times, not understanding what is going on with the mobil devices, which certainly seem to be a market of the future.

What should I buy to keep up with the market. Since what I do is sell products online, a phone that is going to be most suitable for that? I don't care about the os, I just want to understand the market and their needs.

[vangogh]

Gavin I guess I was thinking someone might choose a phone because of the apps, but it wasn't so much the operating system itself. Pretend that Apple switched to using Android, but the app store was the same and all the apps were still there. Do you think people would now buy a different phone because the OS was no long Apple's?

I think it's the features people are buying more so than the operating system. You and I would know which OS is running on which phone. I bet a lot of people wouldn't. They just know they bought phone X and it does Y things.

Maybe that's just semantics. I think most people walk into a store and want a phone that does x, y, and z. I don't think they walk in and say let me see the Android phones. Some certainly will, but I suspect most don't.

Of course I could be wrong. It's happened before and it will happen again.

@Bill - I don't know if you're necessarily falling behind. Many people still have phones that function as phones only or maybe phones with a few simple things. With your question are you asking about phones you should get to keep up or are you thinking about your customers potentially using phones or other mobile devices to visit your site.

I like smart phones. Part of the reason is simply that I like gadgets that can do a lot of things. Even if I don't use all the features I still like knowing I can. Smart phones aren't all that expensive so it's not a factor to me.

However I do tend to use the extra features. In my case I want to know that I can check email while away from my computer. I'm also someone who generally carries books around with me, just in case I find myself somewhere waiting on someone or something. With a phone that can surf the web well I can do my reading without having to carry around the book.

Ideally I'd like to be able to do most everything I can with my computer on my phone. Maybe not as well or as quickly, but it's good to know if I'm out for the day and a site goes down I can make a quick fix to get it back online. With all the apps you can get for the iPhone you can really do a lot. As phones with Google's Android become more prevalent you'll be able to get a lot of apps on those phones as well.

You can check out some of the apps you can get for the iPhone here (http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/)

If your question is more about others visiting your site then it comes down to developing it in a way so it displays well on a mobile device. On WordPress there are plugins that will display your site with a different theme when the visitor is on a mobile device. In general if you develop to the standards and give a little thought to your design your site should display pretty well on a phone.

[billbenson]

If your question is more about others visiting your site then it comes down to developing it in a way so it displays well on a mobile device. On WordPress there are plugins that will display your site with a different theme when the visitor is on a mobile device. In general if you develop to the standards and give a little thought to your design your site should display pretty well on a phone.

This is what I'm asking. Are my customers surfing my site on a phone. Also, will my html emails display on the phone (I send quotes in tables for example). Do any of the stats packages show if your site is being viewed by a PDA? Are there any sites out there that can show you how your page looks on a PDA? If I find that a site is commonly viewed by a pda, what standards do I need to design to.

I doubt this is an issue for me right now, but it may be down the road.

[vangogh]

What stats package do you use? It probably shows the OS people are using. In Google Analytics if you look under visitors and then browser capabilities you can see what browsers people are using to visit as well as what OS. You can also see the combination of both.

Checking my site now and I have visitors using an iPhone, and iPod, Playstation, and Playstation portable. The numbers are small. The iPhone represents only 0.20% of visitors for the month, but that has been growing and that iPhone is still number 4 behind Windows, Mac, and Linux.

If I check under browsers the iPhone traffic is mixed in with Safari, but Opera mini does make an appearance on the list.

What's also going to come into play is that screen resolutions will get smaller as more people use mobile devices. If you can create a fluid design and think about what will happen to it as the resolution gets smaller you have a better chance of your site looking good on phones.

One thing I did with my site was move the sidebar to the right. Part of my thinking was that on smaller resolutions the sidebar would drop below the content, which I think makes more sense on a mobile device. Better to have the content on top than an endless list of categories. I know I still need to do a better job and I'll definitely be putting more time into thinking about mobile devices with my next redesign.

The best way to test is to test on the actual devices. You can walk into any Apple store, pick up an iPhone and type in your URL. Borrow phones from people and do the same. That will only take you so far though. Search for "mobile browser emulators" or similar. There are quite a few out there. Testing on the actual device will still be best.

[Harold Mansfield]

This is what I'm asking. Are my customers surfing my site on a phone. Also, will my html emails display on the phone (I send quotes in tables for example). Do any of the stats packages show if your site is being viewed by a PDA? Are there any sites out there that can show you how your page looks on a PDA? If I find that a site is commonly viewed by a pda, what standards do I need to design to.

I doubt this is an issue for me right now, but it may be down the road.

I frequently see people accessing my sites from an iPhone, and I haven't done anything special. The mobile browsers now are starting to display sites as is. I have tested this out on my own iPod touch and all of my sites look just like they do on any other computer.

Emails are the same. Plain text is always better for communication to insure that people can read them on any device.

I am still using a Motorola Razr (phone), the web capabilities are slow and the display is not the same, but technology has surpassed the unit I am still using so you do not need to go backwards.
Also, companies like Sprint and Clear and rolling out 4G networks, or WIMAX for even better performance and more and more people are using some form of a PDA with better browsing capabilities anyway.

[vangogh]

I'd be careful drawing conclusions from an iPhone or Touch since they both use Safari for browsing. They're going to be the best of breed viewing the web, though in time other phones will catch up.

I have an older Palm Treo, though planning on an iPhone very soon. In the Treo sites do look off, though any that have been coded to standards end up looking pretty good.