Endeavour Partners - Blog

A long while ago, just about at the point at which most everyone was proclaiming the ascendancy of the PND, I challenged conventional wisdom and predicted its imminent decline and demise. iSuppli caught up recently.

Now, as David Pogue notes in the NY Times, Android 2.0 may have helped nail the lid on the coffin:

In addition to great speed, great audio and great cell signal, the Droid offers Android 2.0’s new navigation software. It’s as close to a suction-cup GPS unit as you can get on a cellphone, with spoken street names, color coding to indicate traffic, map icons (for parking, gas and so on), satellite view and even street photos of any address. Buy the $30 windshield bracket, which fires up the GPS automatically when you insert the Droid, and nobody will know you’re not running some $500 GPS unit.

The real mind blower/game changer? This software is free. All of it. I’m guessing there wasn’t much cheer at Garmin’s Halloween party this year.

Overall, the Droid, notwithstanding its lack of WiFi, seems to be a worthy contender:

the Droid wins on phone network, customizability, GPS navigation, speaker, physical keyboard, removable battery and openness (free operating system, mostly uncensored app store)

the iPhone wins on simplicity, refinement, thinness, design, Web browsing, music/video synching with your computer, accessory ecosystem and quality/quantity of the app store

Seems like Walt likes the Droid as well, albeit with some reservations:

I’ve been testing the Droid, and while it has some significant drawbacks, I regard it as a success overall. It’s the best super-smart phone Verizon offers, the best Motorola (MOT) phone I’ve tested and the best hardware so far to run Android.

The Droid is potentially a big win for Verizon, Motorola and Google

[Although] Android still isn’t as slick or fluid as the iPhone’s OS

[The Droid] is only a tad longer and thicker than the Apple product. But it’s 25% heavier, which makes it less comfortable to carry around in a pocket.

Unfortunately for lovers of physical keyboards, I found the one on the Droid to be pretty awful.

And it does have a cool new ad:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9fXYQjwR0w&hl=en&fs=1&]

David Pogue has a review today of Motorola’s Droid which includes some discussion à propos how to categorize and name devices of this type.

Motorola Droid

He promotes the noun ‘app phone‘ for them, attributing it to @mentalworkout.

[Cool app, BTW, for those who have fear of flying. I took the Virgin Atlantic flight to London earlier this week; if you're lucky enough to fly in Upper Class, it's such an extraordinarily soothing experience that you probably don't need the app.]

I really like ‘app phone‘ , and suggest that we all adopt it for this class of devices:

• Apple’s iPhone
• all current Android ‘phones
• most modern BlackBerrys – post Curve
• Palm’s Pre
• Nokia’s N97 and N97 Mini running the latest version of Symbian

This post re-surfaced for me, however, one of the key topics that we have found ourselves debating frequently over the last many months; what is a ’smart phone’, and what should we call it?

This is a common challenge in high-tech; how do you think about new phenomena? How do you build robust mental models? We believe that having the specialist expertise to do this, and the relevant experience of having done this, is one of the key things that differentiates Endeavour Partners.

First, what are the key criteria:

• downloadable applications – in which case do BREW and Java devices qualify?
• user interface, such as (responsive) touch screen or QWERTY+touch pad/trackball interface to allow easy navigation for the web and similar applications
• running multiple applications – which disqualifies the iPhone?
• great at browsing – typically with a full WebKit browser
• third party applications have to be available, affordable and accessible
• what about size – is there some constraint here, because otherwise a laptop could qualify?

And what about the additional capabilities that are now part of the competitive benchmark:

• fast graphics – for video, browsing and gaming
• accelerometers
• GPS – for location services
• WiFi

There are several specific devices or types of devices that illustrate this challenge, and the grey areas involved:

• older BlackBerrys with thumbwheels but without trackballs – great at e-mail web but suck at browsing
• the Nokia E71, a great (particularly when it launched) device handicapped by its click-pad for navigation (which on one occasion proved enormously frustrating as the cursor moved in clicks that circumnavigated a small target without ever being able to actually click on it, on a site that should have been designed with mobile devices in mind – Handango)

Nokia E71

• many of Nokia’s myriad Symbian S60 devices that have 12-key keypads, lacking either a touch screen or a viable navigation method for browsing
• and what of the forthcoming Nokia N900 – is this a smartphone, or not?
• and given how unresponsive the touch screen on the N97 and N97 mini can be, and some of the usability challenges that remain with Symbian, do the N97 and N97 Mini qualify?
• almost all Windows Mobile devices, that lack a touch pad, requiring a stylus or arrow keys for what is enormously painful navigation (Sony Ericsson’s Experia X1 is one of the few devices that overcomes this challenge)

On purely pragmatic grounds, and notwithstanding flame wars from some purists and Verizon’s new advertising campaign, clearly any definition that excludes the iPhone on the technically focused grounds that it does not run multiple applications at once, except for some built-in apps such as Mail and Phone, does not make much sense. Although this may be an important consideration, it clearly does not deter users, and the ease of switching amongst applications mitigates this significantly.

The related question was what to call these things? We tried the term ‘smart device‘, to emphasize the that the capabilities went way beyond making a call. Unfortunately that promotes confusion as it embraces some very devices that do not have ‘phone capability at all.

So, let’s endorse the term ‘app phone‘ for these high end devices, and use the term ’smart phone’ for the broader group of which these are a subset.

There’s a review today in the New York Times by David Pogue of the iPod Nano. He gets why the incremental functionality will make it hard for the Flip:

The sound is crisp but mono; the video is only standard definition. The Nano does not shoot still photos; Apple says that kind of sensor wouldn’t fit in a case this small.

I want to whine about these things, I really do. But you know what? You’ve got video in a machine that can hide between two fingers, for Pete’s sake. There’s something to be said about having a video recorder in a gadget that’s so small, you always have it with you. What good is hi-def if you didn’t have the camcorder when the moment arose?