Can't be one perfect smartphone for everybody

I am touched by the number of comments, Twitter Retweets, and various Forum discussions that the US vs World posting about smartphones generated. As a tangent (not on the same topic of comparing US and world) at All About Symbian, Justin Berkovi wrote a good analytical (and partly historical) posting under the heading of The Perfect Mobile - Impossibility or are we close? A very good analysis and I agree with most that Steve writes about the currnet crop of phones.

But there is an underlying assumption - is it even humanly possible to produce a single device that would be considered perfect by the vast majority? I say no. Its like in cars. Some like a slick, sexy fast car. Someone else wants a big safe car. Someone else wants all luxury and no hassle while yet another wants an eco-friendly small car.

Same with phones. You can have a 12 megapixel camera on your phone (LG and Samsung already sell them in Europe, have had them for 2 years in South Korea). You can have a big 3.5 inch screen like the iPhone. You can have in-built digital TV tuner (DVB-H or DMB or MediaFlo) like for example in the Nokia N96. You can have a slider keyboard like in the Pre. You can have a "real flash" ie Xenon (not LED) flash like so many in the SonyEricsson Cybershot series. But in almost every case, it is a compromise. You have to decide, do you really want a large screen or good camera or in-built keyboard or flash or digital TV tuner or what. Exactly like in a car, yes there are very expensive "hybrid" prodcuts like a BMW branded SUV, but its not really a sportscar, and its not really a full-sized SUV either, won't match the Jaguar on the road and won't match the Range Rover off-road.

We are humans. We have differing needs. Personally, I absolutely love that extra-wide 800 x 320 (letterbox movie wide) screen inside my E90 Communicator. I like everything about that phone, but I love the fabulous screen. I have all sorts of short clips and music videos that are in letterbox and I just love how crisp and sharp and WIDE they are on that pocketable smartphone. The picture is wider, but not as tall, as the same movie on say an iPhone. I am a vidiot, I love my video content whether its the two killers scene from Pulp Fiction or the "We found a witch, may we burn her" scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail, or any modern pop music video thats shot in wide screen.

For me that ultra-wide (and 800 pixel, ie SVGA wide) screen is the ultimate treat on that super-expensive phone. But its not for everyone. Its a big, bulky and many say ugly phone. Certainly its heavy. And while it has a 3.2 megapixel camara, I never use that camera, because in my other pocket I have my other cameraphone with the 5 megapixel camera and its Xenon flash. (plus I get to split my content with the two devices: pictures in the right pocket, videos in the left pocket).

Now, is the E90 Communicator as good a music player as the iPhone? Of course not, nobody is as good as Apple in music. But even though I used to be a DJ and am passionate about music (rap music, ha-ha) - that is not the deciding factor for me. but it will be for many. For others it will be gaming and they may prefer an N-Gage enabled N-Series or the iPhone with so many gaming titles now available. For others it will be SMS text messaging and theyd' probably go for the Blackberry (and again, the full QWERTY keyboard in my E90 makes it a killer SMS phone). We can't have one phone be everything for everyone. Just like we can't have one car be the perfect car for everyone.

And the more your "all-in-one" perfect-phone-wannabe tries to be best at all, it will add to cost, size and weight; and it will drain batter, CPU and memory. The digital device in our pocket is a compromise and the further we move along, the more what one person will love, to someone else will be a medicre phone.

It is only better for the industry to have lots of makers, with lots of innovation, to help expand our options. Its not eough to have only the big five of Nokia, Samsung, LG, SonyEricsson and Motorola. We need RIM and Apple and Kyocera and HTC and Panasonic and Palm and Sharp and ZTE and Sendo and all the myriad of smaller makers.

We will have phones that are optimized for one or two abilities, and are acceptable at the others. While they've be in and out of profits and have trouble maintaining market share, I do think SonyEricsson's Cybershot/Walkman strategy (perhaps one day also PSP?) is smart. Where Ford sold any car as long as it was black, GM grew to be far bigger selling a luxury Cadillac and sporty Pontiac and family Oldsmobile and cheap Chevrolet, etc. Yes, now that strategy failed them the past few years, but it kept them the biggest maker of cars in the world for more than 70 years. They had segmented lines of products. Eventually Ford followed GM with Mercury and Lincoln brands (and almost released Thunderbird into its own branded line). Similarly now Nokia divides its premium phones as media devices (N-Series) and enterprise devices (E-Series). I do think we'll get more of these sub-brands than less, in the coming years, as smartphone makers get more "real" about marketing.. 

The trick is to try to figure out what are the major "categories" of the needs we have, like cars, teh convertible, the van, the SUV, the sedan, the sportscar, etc. Some sell lots, some sell less. Figure out which are the best opportunities. Is it musicphone (Walkman?) or gaming phone (Nokia N-Gage) or texting phones (Blackberry) or cameraphone (Cybershot) etc. Not one perfect phone for everybody, but rather understand the customer, find a good segment and make a perfect phone for that type of customer. Obviously this is also a moving target..  But yes, I am reminded of Grace Jones and her hit dance song from 1986: "I'm not perfect, but I'm perfect for you."

Comments

[MM]

Here's an idea that struck me a while back with regards to the quest for the "perfect smartphone". Why not have the cell phone evolve into a modular platform like the PC? I.e. people can choose from basic form factors and then decide what they need from their. Care about watching video content? Get a nice high resolution screen but at the cost of battery life. Don't care about photography? Get a lower resolution camera or even skip it altogether. Need to send email and text? Pick a dual T9/QWERTY form factor and so on.

Obviously, the concept is much easier to imagine than to execute it. I can already imagine the issues (lack of a unified modular hardware platform, different OSes, durability/build issues). But considering that there's already a limited form of "customization" already available with regards to face plates, covers, and protective shields, I'm curious about why this approach hasn't been talked about in more depth. Is there something I've overlooked in the brief list I mentioned that makes this idea a nonstarter? There many things that are unique to a mobile that doesn't apply to other mediums, sure, but I don't see what prevents the modularity of the PC from being replicated on the mobile side.

[Steve]

No, no, no, Tomi! I didn't write the post you referred to - that was one of our new writers, Justin Berkovi! Can you edit your post, please?

Thanks
Steve Litchfield

[ARJWright]

@MM: The reason why you won't see that concept with mobiles for sometime yet is because mobile tech is more than just tech, there's also a heap of politics behind releasing and selling them that none of the incumbents want to let go of.

Nevertheless, mobiles are like autos in this respect, and us as analysts would do well to remmeber this when comparing and contrasting varrying models, cultures, and usage scenairos within mobile.

[Tomi Ahonen]

Hi MM, Steve and ARJ Wright

Thank you for the comments. I'll respond to each individually

MM - good point. Yes, there seems to be an opportunity for a modular phone "kit" that you could assemble from compatible parts, a bit like a Lego kit, and upgrade your phone in parts, and even potentially swap parts for a given need say for the weekend, or going out to a holiday trip.

I have occasionally bumped into this type of discussion. I haven't really thought it through as to why one doesn't exist today, but my gut feeling says it would be a very niche product, appealing to a very small subsegment of the total population.

There would be considerable challenges (but by no means insurmountable) ie if you open up a modern mid or high end mobile phone, you'll see the guts are incredibly tightly packed electronics. Every nook and cranny of space is utilized. If we now add "modular bays" to accommodate say different power CPUs, removable screens, alternate keyboards/pads, etc - then there is the "shelf" or connecting "housing" for that given component. Similar to the PCMCIA slot on the side of laptops, or say the battery on the phone today. The device would need to be built with several such modular "expansion bays".

These would add to size (need to be reasonably robust to allow swapping of parts by consumers) and would need their own micro-connectivity (tiny slots like the USB port or the memory card slot etc).

All this would add to size (and weight and cost). Not prohbitively, but noticeably. So your modular phone would automatically be more "clumsy" or have more size and weight, than the non-modular one.

Then we have the inter-relatedness of the parts. If you open up a desktop PC from 10 or 20 years ago, even though many of the modern parts have technically a slot or part where they could connect, the design has evolved so much and internal abilities - that the newer part won't fit the older device. On practical matters, take a modern USB device. It tends to be a USB 2.0 device. But if you have an old laptop or desktop, with USB 1.0 only, then your new USB device cannot connect to it.

This is typical of all IT development, due to Moore's Law. So the "platform" of the modular phone would need to be assumed to be of limited life span. It might well not be of appeal to many consumers to find that the platform can't support the newest high-def screen or camera; and then the whole kit needs to be replaced.

I do find the concept appealing personally. I've always loved modular technology (and did play with Lego sets as a kid ha-ha, must originate from there..) So if you find a partner to set it up, will be happy to be one of your guinea-pigs for the first devices ha-ha..

Steve - thanks. I fixed it. Sorry about that. Justin is now correctly credited. Thank you for spotting it.

ARJ - True, the politics also behind that modular idea. And yes, totally agree with you that the handset business has a lot of similarity with cars (not unlike the mobile industry ie operator/carrier business, having a lot of similarity with the airlines industry)

Thank you all for writing

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomas - University Place, WA]

In thinking about a "modular" handset, I view it a little differently than most, I suppose.

For a true worldwide, all carrier handset, I would love to see a large selection of different devices, some with large screens, some with tiny, some with qwerty keyboards (or the local equivalent), other with basic phone keypads, etc.

The one thing they would ALL have is an "RF Bay" to simply plug in an RF section that will work on whatever system your carrier-of-the-moment uses.

(This might also get some good competition going between various manufacturers as some of them have noticeably superior RF performance compared to others.)

Standardized power bays taking (for example) two different standardized sizes of battery - normal and extended - that could be used simply by using a different cover over the power bay that would allow space for the extended battery.

With those two bays standardized, and allowing for any basic "chassis" to be used on any carrier's system, there might even be enough economy of scale to get some very interesting handsets out there.

It's an idea (especially the interchangable RF sections) that is interesting but also that I never expect to see.

Tom
Old Telco Engineer

[Tomi Ahonen]

Hi Tom

Good point. I think we're getting a more "high tech" solution for that, in Software Defined Radio (SDR) so the radio interface (within some reasonable parameters) can be adjusted by software. In some ways, that would be the "easiest" part ha-ha..

Tomi Ahonen :-)