On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:34:06 -0700
Dave Bell > wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Eric Jorgensen wrote:
>
> > As for Nokia, I've had three of their phones, and each successively
> > newer phone had fewer useful features and was harder to use. They had
> > to take out the calculator feature to let me personalize the ring
> > tones, and somewhere along the line they necessitated another button
> > press and one more tier in the menu . . . . Still beats the crap out of
> > Qualcomm though, I'll give 'em that.
>
> When did the calculator disappear? I just migrated to Cingular, and
> bought a new Nokia (3120? I think...). It's not the best calculator, but
> it beats the heck out of the one in the LG camera phones the rest of the
> family got. What I'd *really* like would be a decent semi-scientific calc
> I could download in Java!


I've been buying obsolete TDMA phones. My 6160 had the calculator, the
5160 (and 5165 for that matter) and 3360 do not.

I miss being able to pull out the phone and do rudimentary calculations
- I'm a compulsive comparison shopper, but i use an advanced an incredibly
fuzzy and cumbersome theory of comparison shopping where i ignore ads and
spend too much time wandering around in stores.

I end up doing a lot of price-per-unit calculation in my head that i
used to do on the phone, this allows me to determine, for example, that the
jumbo size roll of paper towels costs about 2% more per sheet than the
normal size roll. I then groan and buy it anyway because i prefer buying
paper towels less often.

But the math that i do in my head is a lot fuzzier, so, i recently
purchased this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=4987316804

Some friends of mine have the phones that fold out into a full keyboard,
and can do just about anything on them.

My problem with the camera phones is the fact that the images are
typically of fairly poor quality and the fact that many carriers expect me
to pay them for the convenience of doing anything with them. I have a great
deal of contempt for the 'perceived value' pricing model that the telephone
service industry is based on. I've worked in the industry and know too well
what's on the other end of the perception.

Some providers disable the phone's ability to transfer images (and other
data, such as address books) over a data cable (or infrared, or bluetooth)
and then expect you to pay per image to have it transferred to you over
their network. I find this repugnant and refuse to play their game, so I'm
sticking with my $10 years-old phone and $15/mo service until i somehow
need more.

Not to say that i won't pay for quality when i see it. Getting excellent
shots out of my new Canon 5mpixel camera:

http://rubix.areb.org/gallery/20050425/img_0160

(of course, i did wait until Amazon briefly offered it for $30 less than
anyone else, and with free shipping too) (frugality is not for the
impatient or weak of heart)

Ironically, the only thing that's piqued my interest in high end phones
of late was an announcement from Samsung of all people that they are
planning to embed a 3 gigabyte hard drive in a feature-filled phone. If
they can cram a reasonably decent 3 megapixel or higher camera into that
as well . . . . . it will probably cost so much money that i still wouldn't
buy it.

There's a real mystique about the possibility of a device that can
replace my cell phone, digital camera, and palm pilot, but i don't predict
anyone doing it *well any time soon.