pcmag.com— The iPhone may have started the touch-screen smartphone trend, but these days, there's no shortage of competition. Which handset is right for you?
Jan 2, 2009View in Crawl 4
It was not just "announced" earlier, RogerStrong. It was "Steve Jobs announced." ;-) Not to mention it was showed off in pretty much full capacity, and the hype engine exploded as a result. The features were constantly talked about, the GUI was widely publicized, and early-access reviews had the full hardware.The HTC Touch hardware was "announced" earlier as well, but only as the "HTC Elf" and even up until May it was just a new cell phone running Windows Mobile. It wasn't until June 5th that we saw the rebranding and why... because it's the launch of the device that we say TouchFLO in any form, and it very much resembled a minor schticky cube-rotational front-end leading to the regular WinMo apps with some finger-scrolling bootstrapped on. (And all of the controls except that GUI front screen were still decidedly stylus sized, and short of scrolling you were going to have a hard time doing anything without a stylus in their apps.) I'm not sure what they'd had in the works before then, but it was decidedly NOT a device built in the same way, and one can easily see it as a slapdash effort to try to steal some of the iPhone's thunder.The LG Prada is really the only one that can be mentioned alongside the iPhone, since it was both announced and lauched "effectively alongside," and the UI was in the hands of people for testing and review shortly after the iPhone's announcement. (IIRC the first LG Prada rumblings were in September of '06, but the UI didn't get shown off at all until at least December, but in February it was in wider hands.) It's obvious that nothing about the iPhone could have affected it's development (excepting perhaps pushing up their launch timeframe when it became obvious Apple wasn't going to slip), nor the reverse. Meanwhile, while the Prada's Flash interface would have been pretty slick otherwise, the world had already seen the iPhone's in full operation before the Prada got much buzz, and it became quickly apparent that it was simply a Flash interface to spiff-up regular feature phone capabilities, and nothing more. The controls were at least appropriately-sized for finger use, but it was built as if it were a Windows or web app, with arrows and sliders and back/forward buttons. Text entry still done by a number pad...? Slick graphics and presentation in some areas, but generally uninspired, and not providing what anyone customers expect from these kinds of phones.It's little wonder that attention went the iPhone's way and it's seen as the initial (and current) gold standard. The UI was simply worlds above.Meanwhile, are you KIDDING me about the "lifted from Creative Labs"?!! That patent was effectively about "multiple screens" having a "heirarchy," only in this case "oooh! It would be TOTALLY UNIQUE to have it on a MEDIA PLAYER!" My frickin' television from the 80's used their "patented method" to select settings. DVD players from the 90's could play music the same way, and only didn't violate said patent due to not being "portable." (I'm pretty sure MD players already 'violated' said patent, only Creative didn't choose to go after what remained of them.) Don't we usually complain about pointless tech patents and nuisance suits on places like this? It wasn't quite a "one-click purchase," but it's close. Company A filed their nuisance suit (shocker), Company B filed suits in return (to say "don't push your luck" to A) and then settled to get rid of said nuisance and go on with life. We've seen it many a time before.Also, just to be technically correct, one of the things that separated the iPod from the Zen was it's use of FireWire instead of USB, making music transfers less of a headache. (Though admittedly less supported. But at the time the iPod was only usable on Macs, so FireWire was plentiful. Doesn't matter much anyway, since the Jukebox 2 had USB 2.0 before MP3 players started selling in any sizable volume. But that was not a "first" distinction for it. In fact, since the Jukebox 3 and original Jukebox Zen moved to FireWire in 2002, that could be seen as a "more worthwhile" response to the iPod, even though they'd already had USB 2.0 on... Well, it's just kind of a mess, and I don't really understand it: <a class="user" href="http://review.zdnet.com/compare/mp3-players/creative-nomad-jukebox-3-20gb?productid=9625806">http://review.zdnet.com/compare/mp3-players/creati ...</a> ) As well, with the first models we're only talking 6GB versus 5GB drives here, with both moving to 10GB pretty quickly. (And capacity parity after that.) Nor did the original NOMAD Jukebox have an FM tuner or an in-line mic. When they started moving to the Zen branding at the end of 2002 it did, but only through an optional wired remote. (And if you're talking "optional extras"...) Again, not a "first." (Nor obviously something Apple has cared about at all, since they've never included on-board FM tuners nor in-line mics for voice recording in iPods. iPhones get it only as a matter of consequence.) And finally... what do you mean by "working natively with MP3s?" Since when did any iPod not work natively with MP3s? o_O
Ahh, thanks.My spacebar is just starting to get flaky. After 3 years, not bad. Most of my friends..nay, ALL of my friends have had at least 5 cellphones this year. They use a hammer to dial or something I suppose.
Dollar for dollar, the Omnia still has the best compatibility with important software programs such as real GPS (Tom Tom, iNav), music (Slide2Play, Kinoma), internet (new IE browser, opera mobile) Microsoft Office mobile, and the best set of hardware (5MP camera, video capture, full bluetooth operability, tactile touch screen, etc.) Online communities keep making the Omnia better through custom firmware, and there are rumors Android will be ported over soon:<a class="user" href="http://tinyurl.com/3ko4w6">http://tinyurl.com/3ko4w6</a><a class="user" href="http://tinyurl.com/8w9tc6">http://tinyurl.com/8w9tc6</a>
Same here! I've had the Qtek 9090, Qtek 9100 (HTC Wizard), Cingular 8125 (HTC Hermes/TyTN), and am now on the HTC TyTN II (HTC Kaiser). I've had touch-screen, keyboard enabled phones for years now, and to say that the iPhone "started" the touch-screen trend is utter non-sense. I love how the authors of these articles don't really do their due diligence and look up information before writing something. And to add to it, the phones I've had have nearly everything that the iPhone has had before the iPhone was released plus some (and they had the audacity to say that the iPhone was innovative!). I've blogged about this quite a few times (all linked in this post: <a class="user" href="http://www.seanpayne.name/2008/07/revisited-again-iphone-3g-argument.html">http://www.seanpayne.name/2008/07/revisited-again- ...</a> ). They must've been paid off.
badqatJan 2, 2009Submitter
You running Android or just plain ol' linux on that thing?
cthellisJan 3, 2009
It was not just "announced" earlier, RogerStrong. It was "Steve Jobs announced." ;-) Not to mention it was showed off in pretty much full capacity, and the hype engine exploded as a result. The features were constantly talked about, the GUI was widely publicized, and early-access reviews had the full hardware.The HTC Touch hardware was "announced" earlier as well, but only as the "HTC Elf" and even up until May it was just a new cell phone running Windows Mobile. It wasn't until June 5th that we saw the rebranding and why... because it's the launch of the device that we say TouchFLO in any form, and it very much resembled a minor schticky cube-rotational front-end leading to the regular WinMo apps with some finger-scrolling bootstrapped on. (And all of the controls except that GUI front screen were still decidedly stylus sized, and short of scrolling you were going to have a hard time doing anything without a stylus in their apps.) I'm not sure what they'd had in the works before then, but it was decidedly NOT a device built in the same way, and one can easily see it as a slapdash effort to try to steal some of the iPhone's thunder.The LG Prada is really the only one that can be mentioned alongside the iPhone, since it was both announced and lauched "effectively alongside," and the UI was in the hands of people for testing and review shortly after the iPhone's announcement. (IIRC the first LG Prada rumblings were in September of '06, but the UI didn't get shown off at all until at least December, but in February it was in wider hands.) It's obvious that nothing about the iPhone could have affected it's development (excepting perhaps pushing up their launch timeframe when it became obvious Apple wasn't going to slip), nor the reverse. Meanwhile, while the Prada's Flash interface would have been pretty slick otherwise, the world had already seen the iPhone's in full operation before the Prada got much buzz, and it became quickly apparent that it was simply a Flash interface to spiff-up regular feature phone capabilities, and nothing more. The controls were at least appropriately-sized for finger use, but it was built as if it were a Windows or web app, with arrows and sliders and back/forward buttons. Text entry still done by a number pad...? Slick graphics and presentation in some areas, but generally uninspired, and not providing what anyone customers expect from these kinds of phones.It's little wonder that attention went the iPhone's way and it's seen as the initial (and current) gold standard. The UI was simply worlds above.Meanwhile, are you KIDDING me about the "lifted from Creative Labs"?!! That patent was effectively about "multiple screens" having a "heirarchy," only in this case "oooh! It would be TOTALLY UNIQUE to have it on a MEDIA PLAYER!" My frickin' television from the 80's used their "patented method" to select settings. DVD players from the 90's could play music the same way, and only didn't violate said patent due to not being "portable." (I'm pretty sure MD players already 'violated' said patent, only Creative didn't choose to go after what remained of them.) Don't we usually complain about pointless tech patents and nuisance suits on places like this? It wasn't quite a "one-click purchase," but it's close. Company A filed their nuisance suit (shocker), Company B filed suits in return (to say "don't push your luck" to A) and then settled to get rid of said nuisance and go on with life. We've seen it many a time before.Also, just to be technically correct, one of the things that separated the iPod from the Zen was it's use of FireWire instead of USB, making music transfers less of a headache. (Though admittedly less supported. But at the time the iPod was only usable on Macs, so FireWire was plentiful. Doesn't matter much anyway, since the Jukebox 2 had USB 2.0 before MP3 players started selling in any sizable volume. But that was not a "first" distinction for it. In fact, since the Jukebox 3 and original Jukebox Zen moved to FireWire in 2002, that could be seen as a "more worthwhile" response to the iPod, even though they'd already had USB 2.0 on... Well, it's just kind of a mess, and I don't really understand it: <a class="user" href="http://review.zdnet.com/compare/mp3-players/creative-nomad-jukebox-3-20gb?productid=9625806">http://review.zdnet.com/compare/mp3-players/creati ...</a> ) As well, with the first models we're only talking 6GB versus 5GB drives here, with both moving to 10GB pretty quickly. (And capacity parity after that.) Nor did the original NOMAD Jukebox have an FM tuner or an in-line mic. When they started moving to the Zen branding at the end of 2002 it did, but only through an optional wired remote. (And if you're talking "optional extras"...) Again, not a "first." (Nor obviously something Apple has cared about at all, since they've never included on-board FM tuners nor in-line mics for voice recording in iPods. iPhones get it only as a matter of consequence.) And finally... what do you mean by "working natively with MP3s?" Since when did any iPod not work natively with MP3s? o_O
testiculeseJan 3, 2009
Ahh, thanks.My spacebar is just starting to get flaky. After 3 years, not bad. Most of my friends..nay, ALL of my friends have had at least 5 cellphones this year. They use a hammer to dial or something I suppose.
soondotJan 3, 2009
Dollar for dollar, the Omnia still has the best compatibility with important software programs such as real GPS (Tom Tom, iNav), music (Slide2Play, Kinoma), internet (new IE browser, opera mobile) Microsoft Office mobile, and the best set of hardware (5MP camera, video capture, full bluetooth operability, tactile touch screen, etc.) Online communities keep making the Omnia better through custom firmware, and there are rumors Android will be ported over soon:<a class="user" href="http://tinyurl.com/3ko4w6">http://tinyurl.com/3ko4w6</a><a class="user" href="http://tinyurl.com/8w9tc6">http://tinyurl.com/8w9tc6</a>
zgambitJan 5, 2009
Question Does the Storm have Wifi =/
jbeardslJan 7, 2009
Nope, but I really don't find that to be a problem.
zerodivide1Jan 8, 2009
Same here! I've had the Qtek 9090, Qtek 9100 (HTC Wizard), Cingular 8125 (HTC Hermes/TyTN), and am now on the HTC TyTN II (HTC Kaiser). I've had touch-screen, keyboard enabled phones for years now, and to say that the iPhone "started" the touch-screen trend is utter non-sense. I love how the authors of these articles don't really do their due diligence and look up information before writing something. And to add to it, the phones I've had have nearly everything that the iPhone has had before the iPhone was released plus some (and they had the audacity to say that the iPhone was innovative!). I've blogged about this quite a few times (all linked in this post: <a class="user" href="http://www.seanpayne.name/2008/07/revisited-again-iphone-3g-argument.html">http://www.seanpayne.name/2008/07/revisited-again- ...</a> ). They must've been paid off.