Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sony Drops PDA Business!

Last response: in Cell Phones & Smartphones
Share
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 10:33:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs
and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
William P.N. Smith wrote in
<r91n11h1o8dqckq668386169goqh99955l@4ax.com>:

> http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050222_123636.ht...

This would have been a huge surprise last year before they exited the
PDA business in North America and introduced the PSP. But now, it's
pretty much what most people expected.

--
Roberto Castillo
robertocastillo@ameritech.net
http://www.freewebs.com/robertocastillo/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 4:04:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

It is alleged that William P.N. Smith claimed:

; http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050222_123636.ht...

It was only a matter of time until they dropped completely out of the
Palm PDA market. Japan was their last market, they pulled out of the
rest of the world last Summer. Expect their next entry to be either a
Symbian or MS Smartphone due to their cellphone partnership with
Ericsson.

It was rumored last year that Sony had bid to purchase what became
PalmSource from Palm Inc. It is my opinion that failure to complete
that bid is what made them decide to drop the PalmOS specifically, not
the more general drop in sales after they flooded the market.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"The Superior Person's Book Of Words", by Peter Bowler:
CIRCUMFORANEOUS: Wandering from house to house. A Morman, a Jehovah's
Witness, an Avon Lady, a hungry cat, or a teenager.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:16:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <9p6o11ljki3mh70lool47kc2d18rg2sn5h@news20.forteinc.com>,
Jeffrey Kaplan <cspp@gordol.org> wrote:

> It is alleged that William P.N. Smith claimed:
>
> ; http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050222_123636.ht...
>
> It was only a matter of time until they dropped completely out of the
> Palm PDA market. Japan was their last market, they pulled out of the
> rest of the world last Summer. Expect their next entry to be either a
> Symbian or MS Smartphone due to their cellphone partnership with
> Ericsson.

I think they're still afraid of Microsoft. Once you sign on to be a
Microsoft licensee, MS begins to dictate your hardware design and it'll be
very hard for Sony to differentiate its offerings.

Plus, I don't see Sony running MS software on the PlayStation, when XBox
is a competitor.

Symbian's more likely, if it's still around. Nokia seems to have struck
some kind of deal with the Evil Empire whereby MS makes many of its phone
components available for free. At least, that's the impression I got from
the news headlines. Anyone know?

It's also possible that Sony will use the Palm smartphone platform and
even put the Palm OS in the PlayStations.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 7:43:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Makes good sense.

It seems to me that Sony will focus more on development on
entertainment and games devices such as the PSP for which they
are good at.

Best regards,

James Seah

"Guy Bannis" <guy@ether.net> wrote in message
news:guy-2202052216450001@192.168.1.103...
> In article <9p6o11ljki3mh70lool47kc2d18rg2sn5h@news20.forteinc.com>,
> Jeffrey Kaplan <cspp@gordol.org> wrote:
>
> > It is alleged that William P.N. Smith claimed:
> >
> > ; http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050222_123636.ht...
> >
> > It was only a matter of time until they dropped completely out of the
> > Palm PDA market. Japan was their last market, they pulled out of the
> > rest of the world last Summer. Expect their next entry to be either a
> > Symbian or MS Smartphone due to their cellphone partnership with
> > Ericsson.
>
> I think they're still afraid of Microsoft. Once you sign on to be a
> Microsoft licensee, MS begins to dictate your hardware design and it'll be
> very hard for Sony to differentiate its offerings.
>
> Plus, I don't see Sony running MS software on the PlayStation, when XBox
> is a competitor.
>
> Symbian's more likely, if it's still around. Nokia seems to have struck
> some kind of deal with the Evil Empire whereby MS makes many of its phone
> components available for free. At least, that's the impression I got from
> the news headlines. Anyone know?
>
> It's also possible that Sony will use the Palm smartphone platform and
> even put the Palm OS in the PlayStations.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:12:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:

> It is alleged that William P.N. Smith claimed:
>
> ; http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050222_123636.ht...
>
> It was only a matter of time until they dropped completely out of the
> Palm PDA market. Japan was their last market, they pulled out of the
> rest of the world last Summer. Expect their next entry to be either a
> Symbian or MS Smartphone due to their cellphone partnership with
> Ericsson.
>
> It was rumored last year that Sony had bid to purchase what became
> PalmSource from Palm Inc. It is my opinion that failure to complete
> that bid is what made them decide to drop the PalmOS specifically, not
> the more general drop in sales after they flooded the market.

Good take... I hope you don't mind me making it public...

http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/02/23/sony-...

I am among the sad Palm users that see the damaging effects of this.

Roy
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:12:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

It is alleged that Roy Schestowitz claimed:

; > It was rumored last year that Sony had bid to purchase what became
; > PalmSource from Palm Inc. It is my opinion that failure to complete
; > that bid is what made them decide to drop the PalmOS specifically, not
; > the more general drop in sales after they flooded the market.
;
; Good take... I hope you don't mind me making it public...

Well, this is a public forum. However, I did goof a bit. PalmSource
is older than one year, so the rumor of Sony trying to purchase it from
Palm Inc would have had to have been longer ago than that.

; I am among the sad Palm users that see the damaging effects of this.

Me, too. It was with regret that I switched from my last Clie (T615).
It was a great device. But I wanted to move to a SmartPhone more. So
I got a Kyocera 7135 and sold my Clie to my (older) brother.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public."
Scott Adams
March 3, 2005 10:59:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Well now, this is a sad state of affairs.
Are we now left with only Palm One to buy from if we have tons on money
invested in palm os software?
Since Handera, Handspring and now Sony do not offer hardware any more
is there anyone on the horizon that might give Palm some competition in
this arena?
I say this as a not-so-proud owner of a T/E and a backup T/E. The
graffitti area on the main one is suspect and the backup won't hotsync
any more. In the 9 months I've owned them I've switched back and forth
between them as to which was the main and which was the backup as more
and more hardware problems aroze.
Before I bought these I tried the Zire 71 and had to return it because
it was defective.
I was testing a Clie against the T/E and went with the T/E because of a
superior screen. Now, it seems that was a mistake.
Alas, what are we to do? You'd think there would be a market for some
competion.
I gotta say, the future doesn't look to bright.

Thanks.
Shawn
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:57:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Shawn@Thrillofthechase.biz wrote:

> Well now, this is a sad state of affairs.
> Are we now left with only Palm One to buy from if we have tons on money
> invested in palm os software?
> Since Handera, Handspring and now Sony do not offer hardware any more
> is there anyone on the horizon that might give Palm some competition in
> this arena?
> I say this as a not-so-proud owner of a T/E and a backup T/E. The
> graffitti area on the main one is suspect and the backup won't hotsync
> any more. In the 9 months I've owned them I've switched back and forth
> between them as to which was the main and which was the backup as more
> and more hardware problems aroze.
> Before I bought these I tried the Zire 71 and had to return it because
> it was defective.
> I was testing a Clie against the T/E and went with the T/E because of a
> superior screen. Now, it seems that was a mistake.
> Alas, what are we to do? You'd think there would be a market for some
> competion.
> I gotta say, the future doesn't look to bright.

I have ten words for you: Aceeca, Alphasmart, Fossil, Garmin, Symbol,
Topwave, GSPDA, Kyocera, Pitech, Samsung

> Thanks.
> Shawn

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 7:47:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Shawn@Thrillofthechase.biz wrote:

>Are we now left with only Palm One to buy from

For now. But if you keep up with business news, the Palm type PDA (all brands)
as we currently know it, is on the way out.

> if we have tons on money invested in palm os software?

I'll store mine with my DOS stuff... ;) 
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 7:47:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

AaronJ wrote:

> Shawn@Thrillofthechase.biz wrote:
>
>>Are we now left with only Palm One to buy from
>
> For now.

Maybe _you_ are only left with Palm One to buy from. Where are you located
that the many competing models are not available?

> But if you keep up with business news, the Palm type PDA (all
> brands) as we currently know it, is on the way out.

What "business news" is this?

>> if we have tons on money invested in palm os software?
>
> I'll store mine with my DOS stuff... ;) 

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:59:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

>AaronJ wrote:

>> But if you keep up with business news, the Palm type PDA (all
>> brands) as we currently know it, is on the way out.
>
>What "business news" is this?

http://palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=7650
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:59:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

AaronJ wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>AaronJ wrote:
>
>>> But if you keep up with business news, the Palm type PDA (all
>>> brands) as we currently know it, is on the way out.
>>
>>What "business news" is this?
>
> http://palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=7650

So we've got one outfit's gloom-and-doom predictions. So in this declining
market how is it that Palmsource's revenues are up 14%?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:24:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

>So we've got one outfit's

That was just one example of a general consensus and is verified by sales
figures of PDAs *as we currently know them*, that is made in the basic style of
the original Palm Pilot.

>gloom-and-doom predictions.

No gloom and doom for the industry as a whole though. Smart phones and like
devices will take over the duties of the soon to be dead or very diminished PDA.

>So in this declining market how is it that Palmsource's revenues are up 14%?

Are they? If so I'll bet that was before Sony bailed on them. If you really
believe in the future of the PDA, I would suggest that you load up on shares of
the Palm companies. They are very cheap right now. Oh, and I've got this
bridge... ;) 
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:24:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:24:45 GMT, AaronJ <noemail@noemail.com> wrote:

>No gloom and doom for the industry as a whole though. Smart phones and like
>devices will take over the duties of the soon to be dead or very diminished PDA.

A smart phone is not a PDA. The Personal Digital Assistant is not a
phone. Just because you use a PC to make a VoIP call doesn't make it a
phone. Because it has a webcam connected doesn't make it a VCR.

My need was filled very well by a PDA. I have no need for a portable
phone, I do have a need for an organizer. The Palm replaced my paper
organizer and it did it very well. I don't want to lose my PDA just
because it was combined with a phone. I won't leave my Nikon behind
because there's a camera in a cell phone.

>>So in this declining market how is it that Palmsource's revenues are up 14%?
>
>Are they? If so I'll bet that was before Sony bailed on them. If you really
>believe in the future of the PDA, I would suggest that you load up on shares of
>the Palm companies. They are very cheap right now. Oh, and I've got this
>bridge... ;) 

As much as I detest it, I think the life of a PDA has come and gone.
The market was Palm's to lose and they did. I still love the slider on
my T3, and I think that was the pinnacle of the Palm units. I'm not
sure what I'll do if it fails or I break it. I don't see anything
better in the pipeline and the T5 sure isn't going to be a hot seller.
The PDA was never going to be ubiquitous, but I think Palm lost it's
way when it lost the original intent of the device.


--
Erik
March 4, 2005 6:48:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:24:45 GMT, AaronJ wrote:

> No gloom and doom for the industry as a whole though.
> Smart phones and like devices will take over the duties of
> the soon to be dead or very diminished PDA.

The only problem is that for phones, most people prefer smaller
sizes for portability and convenience. Many people that use PDAs
prefer the ones having the largest possible screen, for reading
ebooks, viewing large spreadsheets, etc. I suppose the larger PDAs
could have smart phone capability built-in, but then they'd better
be able to work with multiple carriers.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:48:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:48:55 GMT, BillB wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:24:45 GMT, AaronJ wrote:
>
>> No gloom and doom for the industry as a whole though.
>> Smart phones and like devices will take over the duties of
>> the soon to be dead or very diminished PDA.
>
> The only problem is that for phones, most people prefer smaller
> sizes for portability and convenience. Many people that use PDAs
> prefer the ones having the largest possible screen, for reading
> ebooks, viewing large spreadsheets, etc. I suppose the larger PDAs
> could have smart phone capability built-in, but then they'd better
> be able to work with multiple carriers.

Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
clamshell cell phone and my m515.

--
Derek

Until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore, you will not
know the terror of being forever lost at sea.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:57:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

BillB <rainbose@earthlink.newt> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:24:45 GMT, AaronJ wrote:

>> No gloom and doom for the industry as a whole though.
>> Smart phones and like devices will take over the duties of
>> the soon to be dead or very diminished PDA.
>
> The only problem is that for phones, most people prefer smaller
>sizes for portability and convenience. Many people that use PDAs
>prefer the ones having the largest possible screen, for reading
>ebooks, viewing large spreadsheets, etc. I suppose the larger PDAs
>could have smart phone capability built-in, but then they'd better
>be able to work with multiple carriers.

Are people throwing their PDA's away and replacing them with smart
phones, or is it just that people who previously didn't use PDAs
are replacing their dumb phones with smart phones?

To put it another way, are PDA sales falling, or PDA sales *as a percentage
of* total sales of traditional PDAs and smart phones put together?
(Or neither?)

Adam
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:05:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
:I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
:clamshell cell phone and my m515.

Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something I am
looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such? /PaulN
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:05:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:

> Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
>:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
>:I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
>:clamshell cell phone and my m515.
>
> Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something I am
> looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such? /PaulN

I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of people
I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've rarely
seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the "traditional"
manner.

--
Derek

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." -- Sir
Winston Churchill
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:30:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Derek wrote:

> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
>
>> Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
>>:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
>>:I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
>>:clamshell cell phone and my m515.
>>
>> Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something I am
>> looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such? /PaulN
>
> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of people
> I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've rarely
> seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the "traditional"
> manner.

Or with the 650 a Bluetooth headset.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:34:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:24:45 GMT, AaronJ wrote:
>> No gloom and doom for the industry as a whole though.
>> Smart phones and like devices will take over the duties of
>> the soon to be dead or very diminished PDA.

I really don't understand why someone would like to put his most private and
personal data on a device which is most of the time connected to a phone line,
whose OS he cannot control in every aspect of connection and which cannot even
actually be switched off.
regards
arnd






--Please send your answer to
--arnd at the host named monochrome which has a com-Domain.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:34:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <r89h21lc8qff5mdu5ck5ls5vub0o4qtdci@4ax.com>,
"erikd@nospam.wanted.here" <e3news@spamex.com> wrote:

> As much as I detest it, I think the life of a PDA has come and gone.
> The market was Palm's to lose and they did. I still love the slider on
> my T3, and I think that was the pinnacle of the Palm units. I'm not
> sure what I'll do if it fails or I break it. I don't see anything
> better in the pipeline and the T5 sure isn't going to be a hot seller.
> The PDA was never going to be ubiquitous, but I think Palm lost it's
> way when it lost the original intent of the device.

Don't follow this reasoning. The Palm OS still dominates the PDA market.
It hasn't "lost" the market. The market has stagnated and is shrinking and
that has nothing to do with what PalmSource and PalmOne have done. That
same market is doing the same thing to HP and other makers of PocketPC
PDAs.

PalmSource and PalmOne have targeted the smartphone market, which is
booming. Just as the phone makers and MS have now done.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:48:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

BillB wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:24:45 GMT, AaronJ wrote:

>>No gloom and doom for the industry as a whole though.
>>Smart phones and like devices will take over the duties of
>>the soon to be dead or very diminished PDA.

> The only problem is that for phones, most people prefer smaller
> sizes for portability and convenience. Many people that use PDAs
> prefer the ones having the largest possible screen, for reading
> ebooks, viewing large spreadsheets, etc.

I think right now the Palm market is composed of several different
types of people:

1. People who bought a Palm because they needed some kind of
organizer, and they don't care much which one as long as
it works.
2. People who need a device that does a lot more than an
organizer (e-books, etc., like you mention) and think a
PDA fits the bill.
3. People who need a Palm device specifically because they need
to run software that runs on the Palm. Lots of doctors and
nurses go in this category, because the Palm is used a lot
in medicine.
4. People who have no real need for anything the Palm does but
they just bought it because they thought it was cool.

I think Palm is going to lose lots and lots of type 1 users to
smartphones because they don't want to carry two devices, and
smartphones are good enough.

Type 2 users will only consider a smartphone if it is truly as
good as a PDA for their purposes. Some smartphones might be,
but if you really commit to getting third-party software, one
of the problems with smartphones is there are a million different
brands, and when you replace your phone in 1 or 2 years (which
is average), it's quite possible you can't bring your software
with you. Smartphone platforms generally aren't stable in that
you can't even expect to buy a new device with the same OS in
a couple of years. If Palm can become the biggest or second
largest standard smartphone platform, I think it can win in that
area because software that works on Palm OS can be moved from
one device to another, which is appealing.

Type 3 users are pretty much going to stick with Palm. I have a
friend who's an oncologist, and I mentioned that the Palm market
is starting to decline because of smartphones, and he was totally
surprised that anyone would consider replacing a Palm with a phone.
He didn't feel like there was any comparison with screen size, etc.
But also important is that there are all kinds of medical programs
he uses. There are databases of prescription drugs, programs for
tracking the status of patients, etc. As far as I know, these
things don't exist for smartphones, so unless and until they do,
doctors and nurses aren't even considering switching.

Type 4 users will generally just buy whatever their fancy tells
them to buy, or whatever all their friends are buying right now.

Which sort of reminds me of an idea I've had: right now iPods
are super hot. People don't want to carry around both a Palm
and a cell phone, but they have no problem carrying around both
a cell phone and an iPod.

So, I think someone needs to make a Palm OS music player. Put
a really convenient interface on it like on the iPod, a reasonably
big screen, and by all means, at LEAST 5 GB of storage. I think
someone needs to shoot for making a device that does everything
the iPod does plus is a fully-fledged Palm OS device (except maybe
minus SD Card, since you hvae a giant hard drive already), and
make it only $50 or maybe $100 more than buying an iPod. If
they concentrate on making the iPod-like functionality of the
device so good that people would buy it just to play music and
might not care it has Palm OS on it, then it could be a great
product, because eventually people will start using the Palm OS
part and discover how useful it is.

- Logan
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:48:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:48:48 GMT, Logan Shaw wrote:

> I think right now the Palm market is composed of several different
> types of people:

I see two problems with your typology.

First, some Type 1 users might become Type 2 or 3 users. The reason
someone bought a Palm may not be the reason they're still a Palm user.
Change "bought" to "use", and you solve this problem. Actually, I know
a few people who started off at Type 2 and are now Type 1 because they
decided that they didn't like trying to use their handheld as a laptop
- but they think it's great as an organizer.

Second, there are those who bought a Palm because they wanted a
digital organizer to replace their paper day planner and disliked
Microsoft's offering. They chose Palm because of how the OS works, so
they do "care much which one". Call this group 1.5, if you want.

--
Derek

Quitters never win. Winners never quit.
But those who never win and never quit are idiots.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:17:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <k42Wd.35901$SQ4.13085@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Logan Shaw
<lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> Type 3 users are pretty much going to stick with Palm. I have a
> friend who's an oncologist, and I mentioned that the Palm market
> is starting to decline because of smartphones, and he was totally
> surprised that anyone would consider replacing a Palm with a phone.

At the hospital where my sister works, the doctors are using Treo 650s.
That's a smartphone running the Palm OS and Palm applications.

In other words, people can have both a Palm and a phone.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:18:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:

> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
>
> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
> >:I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
> >:clamshell cell phone and my m515.
> >
> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something I am
> > looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such? /PaulN
>
> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of people
> I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've rarely
> seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the "traditional"
> manner.

It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users are also
concerned about putting their oily skin next to their phone's screen.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:18:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net (Guy
Bannis) wrote:

>In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>
>> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
>>
>> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
>> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
>> >:I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
>> >:clamshell cell phone and my m515.
>> >
>> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something I am
>> > looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such? /PaulN
>>
>> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of people
>> I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've rarely
>> seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the "traditional"
>> manner.
>
>It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users are also
>concerned about putting their oily skin next to their phone's screen.

The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small fonts.

Both are common on PDAs.


--
'Tis far better to have snipped too much than to never have snipped at all.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:22:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Derek wrote:

>> The only problem is that for phones, most people prefer smaller
>> sizes for portability and convenience. Many people that use PDAs
>> prefer the ones having the largest possible screen, for reading
>> ebooks, viewing large spreadsheets, etc.

> Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
> I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
> clamshell cell phone and my m515.

Another good point might be, that you can scribble a note while on the
telephone and you could even answer the question for the zip code or
telephone number of a friend or on any other subject you store information
on on your pda..
That seems a bit of a problem with a so called smart phone.
And having information at hand when we need it, was the reason to buy a
pda for most of us.
regards
arnd

--Please send your answer to
--arnd at the host named monochrome which has a com-Domain.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:22:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 23:22:21 +0100, arnd@dierichtigeadressestehtunt.en
wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Derek wrote:
>
>>> The only problem is that for phones, most people prefer smaller
>>> sizes for portability and convenience. Many people that use PDAs
>>> prefer the ones having the largest possible screen, for reading
>>> ebooks, viewing large spreadsheets, etc.
>
>> Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
>> I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
>> clamshell cell phone and my m515.
>
> Another good point might be, that you can scribble a note while on the
> telephone and you could even answer the question for the zip code or
> telephone number of a friend or on any other subject you store information
> on on your pda..
> That seems a bit of a problem with a so called smart phone.
> And having information at hand when we need it, was the reason to buy a
> pda for most of us.
> regards
> arnd

Like I said in a different post, I rarely see people using their Treo
600s without an external earbud/microphone. That solves the problem of
being able to use your phone and your "PDA". But it still leaves you
with two things to carry around.

One can talk on a Treo 600/650 and use the PDA parts at the same time,
right? I've never actually attempted to do that, so I admit ignorance.

--
Derek

"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 3:08:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"erikd@nospam.wanted.here" <e3news@spamex.com> wrote:

>My need was filled very well by a PDA. I have no need for a portable
>phone, I do have a need for an organizer. The Palm replaced my paper
>organizer and it did it very well. I don't want to lose my PDA just
>because it was combined with a phone.

You seem to only need an "organizer". My *guess* is that there will always be
such a stand-alone type device available. Currently there are various brands of
organizers that have 8 Megs of memory and sell as low as $US29. And I wouldn't
be surprised if the inexpensive PalmOne Zire type models also could survive long
term.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 4:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"A Woodcraft" <usenet@bowey.me.uk> wrote in message
news:u7jknwghw.fsf@bowey.me.uk...
> BillB <rainbose@earthlink.newt> wrote:
SNIP

> Are people throwing their PDA's away and replacing them with smart
> phones, or is it just that people who previously didn't use PDAs
> are replacing their dumb phones with smart phones?
>
> To put it another way, are PDA sales falling, or PDA sales *as a
> percentage
> of* total sales of traditional PDAs and smart phones put together?
> (Or neither?)
>
> Adam

I do know several people who have moved from a cell phone and PDA combo to a
"smart" phone. The universal reason is not having to carry 2 devices. These
are not necessarily power users but every day average business people that
want to minimize the number of devices (and wall-wart battery chargers) they
have to deal with.

My personal preference would be a device slightly larger than today's PDAs
to accomodate a more "useable" screen. Think of a tablet PC device of about
the same size and thickness as a DVD case with wireless (WiFi and
Bluetooth), the ability to run desktop applications (Email/Calendar, Word
Processing, Web Browser) and that could be dropped into a docking station
for full-sized keyboard and I/O support. Add in GSM/GPRS phone capability
and you'd have my dream machine. I know most people prefer smaller devices
but as I get older I need a screen that is more easily readable and buttons
that aren't so small that my fat thumbs mash 4 or 5 at a time. Oh and while
I'm wishing it would last all day on a single battery charge.

Cheers
TC
March 5, 2005 6:48:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:48:48 GMT, Logan Shaw wrote:

> So, I think someone needs to make a Palm OS music player. Put
> a really convenient interface on it like on the iPod, a reasonably
> big screen, and by all means, at LEAST 5 GB of storage. I think
> someone needs to shoot for making a device that does everything
> the iPod does plus is a fully-fledged Palm OS device (except maybe
> minus SD Card, since you hvae a giant hard drive already), and
> make it only $50 or maybe $100 more than buying an iPod. If
> they concentrate on making the iPod-like functionality of the
> device so good that people would buy it just to play music and
> might not care it has Palm OS on it, then it could be a great
> product, because eventually people will start using the Palm OS
> part and discover how useful it is.

You could sell it for less than an iPod, really. Think of a basic
monochrome, low powered Palm that runs from 35 to 50 hours on a pair
of AAAs, with a pair of CF slots. (The Handera 330 had two slots,
one for CF and one for SD). Start out with relatively inexpensive
1GB cards and wait for the current 4GB cards to drop to a reasonable
price. The PDA music player could probably be sold for less than
$150, easily. And unlike the iPod it wouldn't need an expensive
Li-Ion battery replacement every year or two. As a point of
reference, Sony's small minidisc players can get up to 26 hours from
a single AA cell (more than that from an NiMH AA), and the PDA
wouldn't have to waste energy spinning an optical disc at up to 3000
rpm, as do minidisc players. Too bad they dropped their Clies.
They could have produced a really nice Palm OS music player. They
already have quite a bit of experience with mp3 files (even more
with their own Atrac format).
March 5, 2005 6:51:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On 04 Mar 2005 15:57:47 +0000, A Woodcraft wrote:

> To put it another way, are PDA sales falling, or PDA sales *as a percentage
> of* total sales of traditional PDAs and smart phones put together?
> (Or neither?)

Any speculation on my part would likely be quite inaccurate, so I
won't. :) 
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 12:18:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

BillB wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:48:48 GMT, Logan Shaw wrote:
>
>> So, I think someone needs to make a Palm OS music player. Put
>> a really convenient interface on it like on the iPod, a reasonably
>> big screen, and by all means, at LEAST 5 GB of storage. I think
>> someone needs to shoot for making a device that does everything
>> the iPod does plus is a fully-fledged Palm OS device (except maybe
>> minus SD Card, since you hvae a giant hard drive already), and
>> make it only $50 or maybe $100 more than buying an iPod. If
>> they concentrate on making the iPod-like functionality of the
>> device so good that people would buy it just to play music and
>> might not care it has Palm OS on it, then it could be a great
>> product, because eventually people will start using the Palm OS
>> part and discover how useful it is.
>
> You could sell it for less than an iPod, really. Think of a basic
> monochrome, low powered Palm that runs from 35 to 50 hours on a pair
> of AAAs, with a pair of CF slots. (The Handera 330 had two slots,
> one for CF and one for SD). Start out with relatively inexpensive
> 1GB cards and wait for the current 4GB cards to drop to a reasonable
> price. The PDA music player could probably be sold for less than
> $150, easily. And unlike the iPod it wouldn't need an expensive
> Li-Ion battery replacement every year or two. As a point of
> reference, Sony's small minidisc players can get up to 26 hours from
> a single AA cell (more than that from an NiMH AA), and the PDA
> wouldn't have to waste energy spinning an optical disc at up to 3000
> rpm, as do minidisc players. Too bad they dropped their Clies.
> They could have produced a really nice Palm OS music player. They
> already have quite a bit of experience with mp3 files (even more
> with their own Atrac format).

Uh, Earth to BillB, most of the Clies do exactly what you suggest. And Sony
is _not_ going to put CF slots in place of Memory Stick--even the Clies
that took CF had limited functionality with it--the third-party driver was
never really clean. A Clie with the MS Pro patch will take a 4 gig Memory
stick right now and play MP3s from it. In fact they sold the Clie not at a
"PDA" but as a "Personal Entertainment Organizer". Some will play video as
well.

If there was really a market for such things, then Sony couldn't make a
profit in it.



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 3:24:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article
news:<gT7Wd.1138$oO4.708@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tony
Clark wrote:
> I do know several people who have moved from a cell phone and
> PDA combo to a "smart" phone. The universal reason is not having
> to carry 2 devices.

Yup. My wife falls into exactly that category.

Personally I prefer a 2-box solution, so that I can talk on the phone
(without resorting to speaker/earpiece "hands-free" use) AND look at
the PDA at the same time ... but each to his (or her) own!

Cheers,
Daniel.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:03:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <pnhi219c0sq5n3dq5nhgbil15uca7ututd@localhost>, DevilsPGD
<ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net (Guy
> Bannis) wrote:
>
> >In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
> >>
> >> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
> >> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
> >> >:I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
> >> >:clamshell cell phone and my m515.
> >> >
> >> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something I am
> >> > looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such? /PaulN
> >>
> >> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of people
> >> I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've rarely
> >> seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the "traditional"
> >> manner.
> >
> >It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users are also
> >concerned about putting their oily skin next to their phone's screen.
>
> The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
> surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small fonts.
>
> Both are common on PDAs.

The Treo 6xx has a thumbboard.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 01:03:34 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <pnhi219c0sq5n3dq5nhgbil15uca7ututd@localhost>, DevilsPGD
> <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net (Guy
>> Bannis) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
>>>> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how much
>>>> >:I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a *small*
>>>> >:clamshell cell phone and my m515.
>>>> >
>>>> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something I am
>>>> > looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such? /PaulN
>>>>
>>>> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of people
>>>> I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've rarely
>>>> seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the "traditional"
>>>> manner.
>>>
>>>It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users are also
>>>concerned about putting their oily skin next to their phone's screen.
>>
>> The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
>> surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small fonts.
>>
>> Both are common on PDAs.
>
> The Treo 6xx has a thumbboard.

That would be yet another strike against it.

--
Derek

"Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do." -- Voltaire
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <pnhi219c0sq5n3dq5nhgbil15uca7ututd@localhost>, DevilsPGD
> <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net (Guy
>> Bannis) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
>> >> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how
>> >> >:much I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a
>> >> >:*small* clamshell cell phone and my m515.
>> >> >
>> >> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something I
>> >> > am looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such? /PaulN
>> >>
>> >> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of people
>> >> I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've rarely
>> >> seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the "traditional"
>> >> manner.
>> >
>> >It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users are
>> >also concerned about putting their oily skin next to their phone's
>> >screen.
>>
>> The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
>> surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small fonts.
>>
>> Both are common on PDAs.
>
> The Treo 6xx has a thumbboard.

Which does not mean that the screen is not a writing surface.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 8:45:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <d0dtip010is@news1.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

> Guy Bannis wrote:
>
> > In article <pnhi219c0sq5n3dq5nhgbil15uca7ututd@localhost>, DevilsPGD
> > <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net (Guy
> >> Bannis) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
> >> >> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how
> >> >> >:much I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a
> >> >> >:*small* clamshell cell phone and my m515.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something I
> >> >> > am looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such? /PaulN
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of people
> >> >> I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've rarely
> >> >> seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the "traditional"
> >> >> manner.
> >> >
> >> >It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users are
> >> >also concerned about putting their oily skin next to their phone's
> >> >screen.
> >>
> >> The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
> >> surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small fonts.
> >>
> >> Both are common on PDAs.
> >
> > The Treo 6xx has a thumbboard.
>
> Which does not mean that the screen is not a writing surface.

Or that one writes on it.

BTW, you can clean the oil, if any, off.
March 6, 2005 12:33:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:18:48 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> Uh, Earth to BillB, most of the Clies do exactly what you suggest.

Uh, Earth to Johnny boy, please name them all, if you can. Since
you said "exactly", I expect you'll be able to list "most" of the
Clie models ever produced, and that they'll be able to do *all* of
what I suggested, not just a few of the things I asked for.


> And Sony is _not_ going to put CF slots in place of Memory Stick--
>even the Clies that took CF had limited functionality with it--
>the third-party driver was never really clean.

Go back and read my message again. You *won't* see any request
for Sony to do *anything*, since my reference to them was that it
was "too bad" that they stopped making Clies, since they could have
made really nice Palm OS music players. I don't consider the ones
they did make were as nice as I'd have liked. They may satisfy
*you*, but I clearly stated my preferences, not yours.

You mentioned that Sony billed the Clie as a "Personal
Entertainment Organizer". That's not what I wanted. Poor video at
best and too high battery requirements with insufficient play time,
and a relatively high cost to keep it running for many years. If you
go back you'll see where I asked for just a "basic monochrome, low
powered Palm that runs from 35 to 50 hours on a pair of AAAs, with a
pair of CF slots." And of course Sony won't ever add CF slots to
their discontinued line of Clies. Come back to Earth, Johnnie.
You're evidently not used to the rarified air up there.


> If there was really a market for such things, then Sony couldn't
> make a profit in it.

That's one of the silliest statements I've ever read. I suspect
that a poor choice of words prevented you from getting across what
you really wanted to say, but I'd rather not guess what that might
have been. I really, really hope you weren't implying that if there
wasn't a market for such things, *then* Sony could make a profit. :) 
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 12:59:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <d0dtip010is@news1.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Guy Bannis wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pnhi219c0sq5n3dq5nhgbil15uca7ututd@localhost>, DevilsPGD
>> > <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net (Guy
>> >> Bannis) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
>> >> >> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how
>> >> >> >:much I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a
>> >> >> >:*small* clamshell cell phone and my m515.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something
>> >> >> > I am looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such?
>> >> >> > /PaulN
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of
>> >> >> people I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've
>> >> >> rarely seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the
>> >> >> "traditional" manner.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users are
>> >> >also concerned about putting their oily skin next to their phone's
>> >> >screen.
>> >>
>> >> The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
>> >> surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small fonts.
>> >>
>> >> Both are common on PDAs.
>> >
>> > The Treo 6xx has a thumbboard.
>>
>> Which does not mean that the screen is not a writing surface.
>
> Or that one writes on it.

Personally I find a thumbboard more cumbersome than Graffiti for most
purposed.

> BTW, you can clean the oil, if any, off.

The concern would not be that the oil has any effect on writing but that the
oil may do damage to the surface.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 1:09:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

BillB wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:18:48 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Uh, Earth to BillB, most of the Clies do exactly what you suggest.
>
> Uh, Earth to Johnny boy, please name them all, if you can. Since
> you said "exactly", I expect you'll be able to list "most" of the
> Clie models ever produced, and that they'll be able to do *all* of
> what I suggested, not just a few of the things I asked for.

Nope, if this really matters to you do your own homework. I've had two
Clies and when I was researching each there were few models in the line
that did not do what you said you wanted.

>> And Sony is _not_ going to put CF slots in place of Memory Stick--
>>even the Clies that took CF had limited functionality with it--
>>the third-party driver was never really clean.
>
> Go back and read my message again. You *won't* see any request
> for Sony to do *anything*, since my reference to them was that it
> was "too bad" that they stopped making Clies, since they could have
> made really nice Palm OS music players.

They would not have had CF slots regardless.

> I don't consider the ones
> they did make were as nice as I'd have liked. They may satisfy
> *you*, but I clearly stated my preferences, not yours.

The only "preference" you stated that the Clies do not meet is the use of CF
instead of Memory Stick.

> You mentioned that Sony billed the Clie as a "Personal
> Entertainment Organizer". That's not what I wanted.

You stated what you wanted. The Clies did everything you wanted and more.

> Poor video at
> best

Now let's see, the high-res color screen on a Clie is "poor video" but the
"basic monochrome" that you say you want is OK?

> and too high battery requirements with insufficient play time,
> and a relatively high cost to keep it running for many years.

"Relatively high cost"? The only "cost" in keeping a Clie running for many
years is the tiny amount of electricity it takes to charge the battery.

> If you
> go back you'll see where I asked for just a "basic monochrome, low
> powered Palm that runs from 35 to 50 hours on a pair of AAAs,

Until there is some kind of breakthrough in sound reproduction no device is
going to play 50 hours of audio on a pair of AAAs.

> with a
> pair of CF slots." And of course Sony won't ever add CF slots to
> their discontinued line of Clies. Come back to Earth, Johnnie.
> You're evidently not used to the rarified air up there.

I see. So you're railing at Sony for not making a device that Sony would
never, ever have made because it uses technology that competes with Sony's
own proprietary technology, and anyone who suggests that Sony did make
devices with equivalent functionality using Sony's proprietary technologies
needs to "come back to earth"?

>> If there was really a market for such things, then Sony couldn't
>> make a profit in it.
>
> That's one of the silliest statements I've ever read. I suspect
> that a poor choice of words prevented you from getting across what
> you really wanted to say, but I'd rather not guess what that might
> have been. I really, really hope you weren't implying that if there
> wasn't a market for such things, *then* Sony could make a profit. :) 

I see. You're not a native speaker of English, that explains much.

Sony could not make money selling the kind of device you claim to want.
They tried. They made such a device, or came as close as the available
technology allowed (and if you think you can do things that Sony's
engineers can't, by all means go for it), they marketed it using the same
marketing techniques that have made them the electronics giant that they
are, and they did not make a profit. Perhaps there is, as you believe, a
market for such a device. If there is, Sony, despite making a concerted
effort, did not make a profit in that market.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
March 6, 2005 9:49:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:09:50 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> Nope, if this really matters to you do your own homework. I've had two
> Clies and when I was researching each there were few models in the line
> that did not do what you said you wanted.

I take that to be confirmation that you can't name even one, after
stating that *most* met my requirements.


> The only "preference" you stated that the Clies do not meet is the
> use of CF instead of Memory Stick.

You really are obtuse. I mentioned a pair of CF slots mainly
because they tend to be the cheapest per GB, but any type would do.
CF, SD (which I also mentioned), xD, even Memory Stick. The greater
the potential capacity the better. There are 4 GB cards now. In a
few years I imagine 8 and 16 GB cards will be common. Do you
suppose that there are *any* Clies that use a pair of AAA batteries
that will accept these large multi-GB cards? Sony's MS memory tends
to be less backwards compatible than other types, but if some
manufacturer made a PDA per all of my other requirements, but it
used multi-GB Memory Sticks, I'd happily purchase one. Does NOT
have to be CF. I'd repeat this once more but if you haven't gotten
it by now you never will.


> Now let's see, the high-res color screen on a Clie is "poor video"
> but the "basic monochrome" that you say you want is OK?

No. I don't want video at all, because of the high power
requirements. But if a PDA was offered that played video without
consuming lots of power I wouldn't reject it. But with the a PDA's
screen size the video quality would be poor. I won't even get into
the need for a fast, responsive screen.


> "Relatively high cost"? The only "cost" in keeping a Clie running for
> many years is the tiny amount of electricity it takes to charge the battery.

Unless you're really dim, how could you say this after reading
where I said:

>> And unlike the iPod it wouldn't need an expensive
>> Li-Ion battery replacement every year or two.

How much does Sony charge for replacing its rechargeable
batteries? In fact, for more than one reason I wonder if the even
do that any more. It might be a do-it-yourself project.


>> If you go back you'll see where I asked for just a "basic monochrome,
>> low powered Palm that runs from 35 to 50 hours on a pair of AAAs,
>
> Until there is some kind of breakthrough in sound reproduction
> no device is going to play 50 hours of audio on a pair of AAAs.

I have a tiny Sony AM/FM digital radio that gets about 40 to 50
hours of play from a single AAA battery. Other non-digital radios
can easily double that playing time per battery, and they're
available from many manufacturers, not just Sony. The
"breakthrough" didn't require any new, high tech. parts. Just
careful design. The breakthrough, such as it was, occurred more
than 5 years ago.

I also mentioned Sony's MD players that get from 26 to 32 hours
from a single AA battery (which is equivalent to a pair of AAAs),
and left enough clues so that almost anyone (evidently not including
you) could figure out that an audio mp3 player would get more
playing time from the AAAs, since it wouldn't have to waste
mechanical energy spinning an optical disc. Yet another oversight
on your part.


>>> If there was really a market for such things, then Sony couldn't
>>> make a profit in it.
>>
>> That's one of the silliest statements I've ever read. I suspect
>> that a poor choice of words prevented you from getting across what
>> you really wanted to say, but I'd rather not guess what that might
>> have been. I really, really hope you weren't implying that if there
>> wasn't a market for such things, *then* Sony could make a profit. :) 
>
> I see. You're not a native speaker of English, that explains much.

No, you still don't see. I restored what you conveniently clipped
out of my reply. You're in need of a remedial class in English. A
tutor might be able to explain what has clearly gone over your head.


> Sony could not make money selling the kind of device you claim to want.
> They tried. They made such a device, or came as close as the available
> technology allowed

Rubbish. What I asked for is quite low tech. No video. No
Li-Ion rechargeable batteries. Sony *never* tried to make what I
described. Think of a Palm II or Palm III with a memory card slot
or two and an audio jack. Sort of like a TRG-Pro or Handera 330
with additional mp3 support (they both already support wav file-like
audio that previous Palms didn't). And I bought a TRG-Pro directly
from Handera for $99, so there's obviously no need for a
sophisticated device that can't be sold cheaply. I can't wait to
see how many of my points you ignore this time.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:49:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

BillB wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:09:50 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Nope, if this really matters to you do your own homework. I've had two
>> Clies and when I was researching each there were few models in the line
>> that did not do what you said you wanted.
>
> I take that to be confirmation that you can't name even one, after
> stating that *most* met my requirements.
>
>
>> The only "preference" you stated that the Clies do not meet is the
>> use of CF instead of Memory Stick.
>
> You really are obtuse. I mentioned a pair of CF slots mainly
> because they tend to be the cheapest per GB, but any type would do.
> CF, SD (which I also mentioned), xD, even Memory Stick. The greater
> the potential capacity the better. There are 4 GB cards now. In a
> few years I imagine 8 and 16 GB cards will be common. Do you
> suppose that there are *any* Clies that use a pair of AAA batteries
> that will accept these large multi-GB cards? Sony's MS memory tends
> to be less backwards compatible than other types, but if some
> manufacturer made a PDA per all of my other requirements, but it
> used multi-GB Memory Sticks, I'd happily purchase one. Does NOT
> have to be CF. I'd repeat this once more but if you haven't gotten
> it by now you never will.
>
>
>> Now let's see, the high-res color screen on a Clie is "poor video"
>> but the "basic monochrome" that you say you want is OK?
>
> No. I don't want video at all, because of the high power
> requirements. But if a PDA was offered that played video without
> consuming lots of power I wouldn't reject it. But with the a PDA's
> screen size the video quality would be poor. I won't even get into
> the need for a fast, responsive screen.
>
>
>> "Relatively high cost"? The only "cost" in keeping a Clie running for
>> many years is the tiny amount of electricity it takes to charge the
>> battery.
>
> Unless you're really dim, how could you say this after reading
> where I said:
>
>>> And unlike the iPod it wouldn't need an expensive
>>> Li-Ion battery replacement every year or two.
>
> How much does Sony charge for replacing its rechargeable
> batteries? In fact, for more than one reason I wonder if the even
> do that any more. It might be a do-it-yourself project.
>
>
>>> If you go back you'll see where I asked for just a "basic monochrome,
>>> low powered Palm that runs from 35 to 50 hours on a pair of AAAs,
>>
>> Until there is some kind of breakthrough in sound reproduction
>> no device is going to play 50 hours of audio on a pair of AAAs.
>
> I have a tiny Sony AM/FM digital radio that gets about 40 to 50
> hours of play from a single AAA battery. Other non-digital radios
> can easily double that playing time per battery, and they're
> available from many manufacturers, not just Sony. The
> "breakthrough" didn't require any new, high tech. parts. Just
> careful design. The breakthrough, such as it was, occurred more
> than 5 years ago.
>
> I also mentioned Sony's MD players that get from 26 to 32 hours
> from a single AA battery (which is equivalent to a pair of AAAs),
> and left enough clues so that almost anyone (evidently not including
> you) could figure out that an audio mp3 player would get more
> playing time from the AAAs, since it wouldn't have to waste
> mechanical energy spinning an optical disc. Yet another oversight
> on your part.
>
>
>>>> If there was really a market for such things, then Sony couldn't
>>>> make a profit in it.
>>>
>>> That's one of the silliest statements I've ever read. I suspect
>>> that a poor choice of words prevented you from getting across what
>>> you really wanted to say, but I'd rather not guess what that might
>>> have been. I really, really hope you weren't implying that if there
>>> wasn't a market for such things, *then* Sony could make a profit. :) 
>>
>> I see. You're not a native speaker of English, that explains much.
>
> No, you still don't see. I restored what you conveniently clipped
> out of my reply. You're in need of a remedial class in English. A
> tutor might be able to explain what has clearly gone over your head.
>
>
>> Sony could not make money selling the kind of device you claim to want.
>> They tried. They made such a device, or came as close as the available
>> technology allowed
>
> Rubbish. What I asked for is quite low tech. No video. No
> Li-Ion rechargeable batteries. Sony *never* tried to make what I
> described. Think of a Palm II or Palm III with a memory card slot
> or two and an audio jack. Sort of like a TRG-Pro or Handera 330
> with additional mp3 support (they both already support wav file-like
> audio that previous Palms didn't). And I bought a TRG-Pro directly
> from Handera for $99, so there's obviously no need for a
> sophisticated device that can't be sold cheaply. I can't wait to
> see how many of my points you ignore this time.

All of them because you're basically foaming at the mouth.



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:12:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <d0f60f12cvt@news4.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

> Guy Bannis wrote:
>
> > In article <d0dtip010is@news1.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
> > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Guy Bannis wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <pnhi219c0sq5n3dq5nhgbil15uca7ututd@localhost>, DevilsPGD
> >> > <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net (Guy
> >> >> Bannis) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
> >> >> >> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and how
> >> >> >> >:much I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still use a
> >> >> >> >:*small* clamshell cell phone and my m515.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not something
> >> >> >> > I am looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos and such?
> >> >> >> > /PaulN
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of
> >> >> >> people I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone. I've
> >> >> >> rarely seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in the
> >> >> >> "traditional" manner.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users are
> >> >> >also concerned about putting their oily skin next to their phone's
> >> >> >screen.
> >> >>
> >> >> The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
> >> >> surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small fonts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Both are common on PDAs.
> >> >
> >> > The Treo 6xx has a thumbboard.
> >>
> >> Which does not mean that the screen is not a writing surface.
> >
> > Or that one writes on it.
>
> Personally I find a thumbboard more cumbersome than Graffiti for most
> purposed.
>
> > BTW, you can clean the oil, if any, off.
>
> The concern would not be that the oil has any effect on writing but that the
> oil may do damage to the surface.

Can you stick to one topic? The concern about oil on the screen seems to
have been about damage to the surface. But there's no evidence that it
does damage the surface.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:12:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <d0f60f12cvt@news4.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Guy Bannis wrote:
>>
>> > In article <d0dtip010is@news1.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
>> > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Guy Bannis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <pnhi219c0sq5n3dq5nhgbil15uca7ututd@localhost>, DevilsPGD
>> >> > <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net (Guy
>> >> >> Bannis) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
>> >> >> >> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and
>> >> >> >> >:how much I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still
>> >> >> >> >:use a *small* clamshell cell phone and my m515.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not
>> >> >> >> > something I am looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos
>> >> >> >> > and such? /PaulN
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of
>> >> >> >> people I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone.
>> >> >> >> I've rarely seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in
>> >> >> >> the "traditional" manner.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users
>> >> >> >are also concerned about putting their oily skin next to their
>> >> >> >phone's screen.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
>> >> >> surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small
>> >> >> fonts.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Both are common on PDAs.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Treo 6xx has a thumbboard.
>> >>
>> >> Which does not mean that the screen is not a writing surface.
>> >
>> > Or that one writes on it.
>>
>> Personally I find a thumbboard more cumbersome than Graffiti for most
>> purposed.
>>
>> > BTW, you can clean the oil, if any, off.
>>
>> The concern would not be that the oil has any effect on writing but that
>> the oil may do damage to the surface.
>
> Can you stick to one topic? The concern about oil on the screen seems to
> have been about damage to the surface. But there's no evidence that it
> does damage the surface.

Thread drift is and has always been a fact of life on USENET. And sometimes
"one topic" involved a variety of subtopics.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
March 7, 2005 12:25:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:17:32 -0500, J. Clarke slunk away after
scribbling:

>> I can't wait to see how many of my points you ignore this time.
>
> All of them because you're basically foaming at the mouth.

I didn't think you'd have any valid rebuttals. Thanks for the
confirmation.

Earth to Johnnie: No need to return, space cowboy.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 4:12:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <d0g0ce024hg@news3.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

> Guy Bannis wrote:
>
> > In article <d0f60f12cvt@news4.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
> > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Guy Bannis wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <d0dtip010is@news1.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
> >> > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Guy Bannis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <pnhi219c0sq5n3dq5nhgbil15uca7ututd@localhost>, DevilsPGD
> >> >> > <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net (Guy
> >> >> >> Bannis) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us>
> >> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
> >> >> >> >> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am and
> >> >> >> >> >:how much I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I still
> >> >> >> >> >:use a *small* clamshell cell phone and my m515.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not
> >> >> >> >> > something I am looking for. Isn't this an issue with the Treos
> >> >> >> >> > and such? /PaulN
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority of
> >> >> >> >> people I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and microphone.
> >> >> >> >> I've rarely seen anyone actually holding it up to their ear in
> >> >> >> >> the "traditional" manner.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone users
> >> >> >> >are also concerned about putting their oily skin next to their
> >> >> >> >phone's screen.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
> >> >> >> surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small
> >> >> >> fonts.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Both are common on PDAs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The Treo 6xx has a thumbboard.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which does not mean that the screen is not a writing surface.
> >> >
> >> > Or that one writes on it.
> >>
> >> Personally I find a thumbboard more cumbersome than Graffiti for most
> >> purposed.
> >>
> >> > BTW, you can clean the oil, if any, off.
> >>
> >> The concern would not be that the oil has any effect on writing but that
> >> the oil may do damage to the surface.
> >
> > Can you stick to one topic? The concern about oil on the screen seems to
> > have been about damage to the surface. But there's no evidence that it
> > does damage the surface.
>
> Thread drift is and has always been a fact of life on USENET. And sometimes
> "one topic" involved a variety of subtopics.

That's one way of saying you never addressed the original topic.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 4:12:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <d0g0ce024hg@news3.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Guy Bannis wrote:
>>
>> > In article <d0f60f12cvt@news4.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
>> > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Guy Bannis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <d0dtip010is@news1.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
>> >> > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Guy Bannis wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article <pnhi219c0sq5n3dq5nhgbil15uca7ututd@localhost>,
>> >> >> > DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> In message <guy-0403051518480001@192.168.1.103> guy@ether.net
>> >> >> >> (Guy Bannis) wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >In article <n3hrvxaua0td.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us>
>> >> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On 4 Mar 2005 17:05:10 GMT, Paul Nevai wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Derek <news@gwinn.us> aszonygya:
>> >> >> >> >> >:Hence the reason that, no matter how much of a geek I am
>> >> >> >> >> >:and how much I think the Treo 650 is almost drool-worthy, I
>> >> >> >> >> >:still use a *small* clamshell cell phone and my m515.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Putting one's oily skin next to the PDA's screen is not
>> >> >> >> >> > something I am looking for. Isn't this an issue with the
>> >> >> >> >> > Treos and such? /PaulN
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I agree about oil-and-screen concern. But the vast majority
>> >> >> >> >> of people I've seen using a Treo have an ear-bud and
>> >> >> >> >> microphone. I've rarely seen anyone actually holding it up to
>> >> >> >> >> their ear in the "traditional" manner.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >It's not a concern at all, unless you think all cell phone
>> >> >> >> >users are also concerned about putting their oily skin next to
>> >> >> >> >their phone's screen.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The difference is that a cell phone screen is not also a writing
>> >> >> >> surface, nor would you typically spend much time reading small
>> >> >> >> fonts.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Both are common on PDAs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The Treo 6xx has a thumbboard.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which does not mean that the screen is not a writing surface.
>> >> >
>> >> > Or that one writes on it.
>> >>
>> >> Personally I find a thumbboard more cumbersome than Graffiti for most
>> >> purposed.
>> >>
>> >> > BTW, you can clean the oil, if any, off.
>> >>
>> >> The concern would not be that the oil has any effect on writing but
>> >> that the oil may do damage to the surface.
>> >
>> > Can you stick to one topic? The concern about oil on the screen seems
>> > to have been about damage to the surface. But there's no evidence that
>> > it does damage the surface.
>>
>> Thread drift is and has always been a fact of life on USENET. And
>> sometimes "one topic" involved a variety of subtopics.
>
> That's one way of saying you never addressed the original topic.

Jeez, another netcop wannabee. <plonk>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
!