gdgt

login
register |

gdgt podcasts

podcast

gdgt weekly 058

By ryan on Oct 08, 2009

We're back! And apparently not a moment too soon, as the gadget world has been non-stop this week between the Windows phone (i.e. Windows Mobile 6.5) launch and the many devices it's running on, like the HTC HD2 and Imagio. The Kindle 2 is also finally launching internationally, while the Qualcomm FLO TV Personal Television got real, Dell announced its seriously wireless Z600 and Google and Verizon finally hooked up to get more open. Palm opened up a little, too, with its new webOS app store policies, while AT&T announced that it'd be allowing VoIP over 3G. Finally, we've got hands on with the new HP Envy 13 and Archos A5S Android tablet.

Download: MP3 | AAC
Subscribe: iTunes | Zune | MP3 | AAC
Music: Mux Mool - Night Court | Michna - Triple Chrome Dipped

Much as we hate to say it, you need the dreaded Adobe Flash to listen to the embedded podcast player.

Permalink

Comments

32 replies

Usefulness
Date

Sort by:

ArmpitOfDeath 10 months ago

It looks like Verizon has a new category for us.

Smartphone no longer being enough, we now need Pocket Supergenius.

Now let the arguments drone on as to whether the iPhone is a Pocket Supergenius...

0 like this dislike this

flag this

RobertHunt 10 months ago

Regarding your comments about the Ultra Wide Band on the Dell notebook, I noticed that a 13 month old Dell 15 series notebook I was repairing this week had some empty expansion slots and 3 unused antennas for UWB and WWAN which I guess would be WiMAX. You can see it in this picture I took:

i73.photobucket.com/albums/i207/huntr2/d...

0 like this dislike this

flag this

banodyne 10 months ago

Re: PalmPre versus iTunes. Peter and Ryan, what do you think of the idea Palm switching tactics and syncing with the Zune marketplace. It would be a win-win for both companies. Palm's customers would have access to a deep, easy library where they could buy music. Zune would get some much needed marketshare.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

peter gdgt staff 10 months ago

I don't see it happening, I think what makes iTunes attractive to Palm is that so many people already use it to manage their media. Zune's installed base is considerably smaller.

I guess this is kind of a problem that Songbird was supposed to address. Sad that they never got anywhere.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

ArmpitOfDeath 10 months ago

As peter says, Zune is too far outside the general ovine mindshare.

I suppose they could do what Apple did before iTunes and bundle something else - Mediamonkey Gold for example, or maybe enter into a partnership with someone like doubletwist for a more focused sync client.

The other option is perhaps farming out some Pre developers for Songbird work, which as peter also says is still very much a work in progress. This way they'd get open source buzz which might have some of the more influential technorati taking note, and end up with a cross-platform sync client.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

ArmpitOfDeath 10 months ago

I just have a quick request for production.

From the popping and the transients, I have a feeling you guys are using fairly typical budget USB headsets to record the episodes - am I right?

The bass transients in particular give me major ear discomfort when using headphones unless I kick in the EQ.

Could you (Ryan especially) at the outset perhaps get hold of some additional foam to put over your mikes? Or perhaps move to better mics with a shield?

0 like this dislike this

flag this

DavidG 10 months ago

I second the vote for a Chicago event of any kind.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

brettdunnam gdgt staff 10 months ago

third on chicago, haha.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

gsd 10 months ago

gdgt needs to come to washington dc!

0 like this dislike this

flag this

TxD 10 months ago

HOOOORAY you guys are back. Awesome, ive waited so long XD thanks thanks thanks

0 like this dislike this

flag this

thusenth 10 months ago

Did you guys really just say that the Blackberry is not a smartphone??? The Blackberry was the first smartphone! gdgt.com/rim/blackberry/5810/

0 like this dislike this

flag this

peter gdgt staff 10 months ago

Actually, it's long been up for debate whether or not the BlackBerry is a "true" smartphone, has to do with a technical definition involving the ability to natively run apps.

What's actually happened is that the definition of "smartphone" has drifted and changed over time.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

ArmpitOfDeath 10 months ago

O_o

Eh?

0 like this dislike this

flag this

ArmpitOfDeath 10 months ago

I like O_o, as I spend a lot of time with that expression on my face on the web. But I ought to clarify.

I've been rolling out native apps I use OTA (e.g. Bloomberg Professional for Blackberry) to the BB since... before a certain handset that many tech journalists get over-excited about came out. Ditto with Windows Mobile, and *that's* been since ever.

The definition of smartphone has never changed. It's a phone that offers significantly extended functionality over the baseband phones of the day, typically in terms of professional and messaging applications.

I believe only some tech writers have reinterpreted the term to mean 'like the iPhone'.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

peter gdgt staff 10 months ago

Actually, that was not the original definition of a smartphone. Originally it only included devices that could natively run 3rd-party apps. Because BlackBerry could only run apps in a Java environment technically a BlackBerry did not qualify as a smartphone.

en.allexperts.com/e/s/sm/smartphone.htm

"A key feature of a smartphone is that additional native applications can be installed on the device."

I know it seems silly and somewhat arbitrary, but it's clear now that that highly technical definition has since given way to the broader one we all use today. Whether apps run natively in an OS or in a runtime environment isn't a meaningful distinction for most people.

Oh, and for the record plenty of people argued that the iPhone WASN'T a smartphone when it first came out. Why? Because it didn't natively run third-party apps.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

ArmpitOfDeath 10 months ago

Look, I'm not going to labour this too much but if Java is an offered native (not proprietary, note) application environment then it is, well, the native application environment.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

peter gdgt staff 10 months ago

Not really, because you can't hook into lower levels of the OS.

Ultimately it's just about splitting hairs, and this isn't a distinction that anyone draws anymore.

My point is that this USED to be a distinction people made when determining what was and was not a smartphone. That is all. You can't argue with the historical fact of that, I can find plenty of other analysts and tech writers who will back me up on this. This isn't to say people didn't disagree with it at the time and prefer today's broader definition better. I certainly think the way we think of smartphones today is more intuitive.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

ArmpitOfDeath 10 months ago

Well that's kind of misleading and arguably misinformed, determining 'native' as a function of API granularity.

Smartphone manufacturers pick and choose what lower-level API's they give you access to as a part of a managed service such as Blackberry or the iTunes App Store. There is lower-level access in Blackberry as well for some elements of device operation, but the communications parts for example are intentionally high-level, presumably to retain the integrity of the service.

Anyway, that's it from me on this matter. Jeez I'm a pedant to get involved with this in the first place.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

peter gdgt staff 10 months ago

I agree with you, which is why no one really makes this distinction anymore when trying to decide what is or is not a smartphone. That was my whole point.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

geewhipped 10 months ago

but, uh... YOU GUYS made the distinction when you said it was arguably not a smartphone OS and didn't include it in your smartphone comparison. That's what started this entire thread.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

peter gdgt staff 10 months ago

We were noting that some people don't consider them to be smartphones, which is true. we should have provided more context, but we assumed more listeners were familiar with this debate. Apparently this is not the case.

Regardless, I do think the discussion it has spawned has been useful.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

geewhipped 10 months ago

Thanks for engaging us in the debate, Peter.
FWIW, I'm not arguing because you noted the debate about BB OS... I don't always have to agree with what you guys say.
I'm arguing because you noted the debate, then chose to pick a side and leave BB OS out of the smartphone OS comparison you were making at the time. If that's the side of the debate you guys choose to fall on, that's fine.
I disagree, but it is fine :)
I certainly don't need to agree with everything you guys say, and I appreciate the ability to debate such things.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

peter gdgt staff 10 months ago

I think you're misunderstanding what I've written. I'd suggest you reread this thread.

What I've been trying to say is that we made a distinction without being clear about why, and one that was ultimately not even worth making outside of a highly technical discussion about this stuff. Certainly in a general sense a BlackBerry is a smartphone, and we should have said that.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

geewhipped 10 months ago

I would argue that you are misunderstanding MY point, as my last post had nothing to do with anything you had written but only with what was said during the podcast.
Everybody seems to be misunderstanding everybody else... but it is all moot because we essentially agree at the end.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

peter gdgt staff 10 months ago

And what I was doing was putting what we said on the podcast in context by further explaining things here.

And you're right, we do ultimately agree.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

geewhipped 10 months ago

Agreed, ArmpitOfDeath.
Technical definitions (especially outdated ones from 2005 that don't even mention the iPhone) aside, people on this site can hold a phone in their hand and tell you whether or not it is a "smartphone."
To stand on a crusty definition and claim the BB is not a smartphone in the face of popular opinion (and the "common" definition of a smartphone) is silly.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

thusenth 10 months ago

Throw up your modern interpretations of a smartphone up over here - discuss.gdgt.com/rim/general/What-consti...-/

0 like this dislike this

flag this

cddiede 10 months ago

The Blackberry 5810 was the first smartphone? Really?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communi...

I know that most Americans and Engadget/gdgt readers are biased to put their blinders on when confronted with technical innovations that don't come from RIM, Microsoft, Google, or Apple but your statement takes the cake.

Enjoy sticking your head in the sand.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

thusenth 10 months ago

I stand corrected sir. :)

0 like this dislike this

flag this

geewhipped 10 months ago

The article Peter posted en.allexperts.com/e/s/sm/smartphone.htm
would argue that a device from 1992 was the first smartphone, not this Nokia from 1996.

Gotta be careful when you wave that know-it-all-ism around so heavily.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

cddiede 10 months ago

I never said that the Nokia 9000 was the first smart phone. I was pointing out that even as far back as 1996 there were smart phones on the Market (of which the Nokia 9000 was by far the most impressive).

Gotta be careful when you wave that inclination to not read the posts you are replying to so heavily.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

geewhipped 10 months ago

Yes, that's clearly what your post was saying.

0 like this dislike this

flag this

Latest podcasts

Latest videos