As an industry, we have debated about SmartPhones for quite some time. What really constitutes a SmartPhone. What makes it a dumb phone? If you go way back to basic devices and just started getting into Blackberry, Windows Mobile and Palm.. those made sense. They were head and shoulders above the majority of the basic class of devices. It was easier to define SmartPhone back around 2001/2002. RIM had released their second big version of the Blackberry, taking it beyond a pager style device.. and Windows Mobile was getting out of it’s first rev of the OS to release Windows Mobile 2002. Seems like forever ago.

If you look at what devices are out on the market today, compare them to the differences in the past.  Things are starting to blend.  Before you could say a device with a keyboard and PIM (Personal Information Manger) applications was smart.  Then it started to move into the OS discussion, could you run additional applications on them?  What about the device power?  Did it have a Strongarm processor that could be used in more powerful office type applications and extend desktop capabilities beyond the desktop?  It started to get muddy real quick.

If you look now at the devices in the market, MOST devices are considered SMART in their own right.  They are far more capable as a whole than we’d ever thought possible back 10 years ago.  Heck, even on Google trends the idea of SmartPhone is not that exciting.  It has been trending downward since Christmas 2004.  At that point, devices could support portrait and landscape modes, higher resolutions, they had keyboards and even WiFi.

While search volumes have consistently risen, the general interest compared to other searching activities is weakening.  The public is immune to the marketing hype of the “SmartPhone”.  It is not selling devices.  It is not understood.  It is not a relevant term.

If you look even at major media companies (I’ll make the leap that CNET is still regarded as knowledgeable here).  If you look at what CNET calls SmartPhones, the list is varied beyond comprehension.  There appears to be no standard they are applying at all.

The Blackberry Bold is a Smartphone in their list.  Sure, I get that.  Makes sense.  The Garmin NuviPhone is in the list despite the fact that it lacks ANY real Email or Calendaring functionality.  It is VERY smart with regards to GPS applications though. Maybe that made it smart. It also has a touch screen.. but no real keyboard. How about the Nokia 5130?  Standard looking “dumb phone” style, but very good with music.  It is more of a hybrid portable music device and phone secondary.  It does not do well with email, no calendaring functionality to speak of, no keyboard, low-res screen and small screen compared to others.  Hmm.. how does this make sense?

I am trying to work through in my head what I think the right terminology is.  I know some co-workers and I have had this debate many times.  Nobody has a clear answer, yet we all agree that SmartPhone is wrong.  So.. I am just going to lay it out there while we think about it.

What is the new mobile device segmentation we care about?

Phone vs. Netbook?
Proprietary OS vs. Open Development Platforms?  (i.e. LG vs. RIM, Apple and Android)
Device Capabilities such as Screen Size, touch screen, keyboard (physical or virtual)
Memory/Storage?
Extensibility?
App Stores Availability?
Browser Capabilities?
Cost?

How about the network?  3G vs. 4G?  as Wi-Max and LTE come on board more mainstream, what does this do for us?  Bring mobile computing into the realm of REAL possibility for rapid growth?

I will continue to ponder this.. but would love to hear input on what your thoughts are.