segmenting handheld devices

Tags: Business,  Carriers,  Devices
March 26, 2007 by Barbara

Whenever a potential client comes to me and refers to “smart phones”, I make a point of it to ask about their definition of smart phones. The answers are variable, and many people don’t really have a good answer.

That’s a reasonable state of affairs since the industry as a whole doesn’t have a good definition. I just saw a piece of research that referred to “smart phones” as “phones with QWERTY keyboards”. This rules out the Blackberry Pearl and the iPhone, but includes the Danger Sidekick and the Kyocera Strobe. Does this make sense?

Earlier definitions of “smart phone” have included “phone that can download applications”, “MS Windows phone”, “phone with a web browser”, and “phone with a calendar” (2006, 2003, 2000, and 1998 respectively). The industry doesn’t know what it means.

If tracking phone sales, be sure you understand the definition.

Equally silly is the distinction between a smart phone and a PDA. The PDA is a smart phone without voice connectivity. I wonder whether PDA sales will “spike” when we have VoIP phones with Wi-Fi only. A piece of software could turn a “PDA” into a “smart phone”.

And then there’s the term “feature phone”. Do smart phones not have features? I prefer the term “mass market phone”. Sure it’s more awkward, but it makes more sense.

From a business perspective, we care because smart phones are known to have better data revenues. Being able to correlate precise device features with data revenues would be extremely useful. Alas, I don’t work with a carrier or an expensive research institution so I’ll have to hypothesize instead.

I define a smart phone as a handheld communications device with a named operating system, with the understanding that communications includes voice and named operating systems are those that an end user would recognize and perhaps use in the purchase decision: Palm, Symbian, UIQ, Windows Mobile, and Linux.

Alternately, a smart phone could be a communications device with approximately 50% of the capabilities of a laptop computer.

These definitions are far more stable than the feature-based definitions above. They robustly allow the iPhone to be categorized correctly without shifting the definition.

From a user perspective, a smart phone offers a degree of hardware independence, an ecosystem of third party applications (iPhone won’t …), and an integrated user experience. The device is presumed to do everything, and users paying lots of money for a high end device get angry when it doesn’t.

In contrast, a mass market phone offers size and price advantages, hardware loyalty, and no presumption that the device does everything.


«« extending the BOM: improving the mobile web  |  The Carry Principle revisited »»

7 Comments »

  1. I agree with the general gist of your definition, however I think it can be generalised without losing the important specifics you’re looking for.

    My definition:

    “A smartphone is a phone that can have third party software added by the user with native access.”

    See http://smartdreaming.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-smartphone.html for more analysis.

    Comment by Malcolm — April 23, 2007 @ 6:28 pm

  2. Malcolm,

    I like that definition. The iPhone example breaks down a bit (can’t add new software), but I’m actually not certain whether the iPhone is a smart phone anyhow.

    Comment by Barbara — April 24, 2007 @ 6:42 am

  3. Barbara, I wrote a post about music phone that I think covers the very same topic. Speaking of music phones we ended up saying that are those mobile devices that have some specific and optimized functionality that is made for the playback of MP3’s and other wave-format music.

    You can read it here on my blog: http://blog.trasatti.it/2007/03/music-on-your-phone.html

    Comment by Andrea Trasatti — July 15, 2007 @ 4:21 pm

  4. i just still can’t picture paying $500 for that thing.

    Comment by jbrock — September 3, 2007 @ 9:25 pm

  5. I agree with jbrock. i have friends also spending money on smartphones. its like they “must” have the newest one when it comes to the market. They are too expensive. Ok, they are maybe attractive but i think only business ppl really need them.

    Comment by David — September 28, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

  6. i also dont spend much money on such electronic devices. as i really dont need it that much i just use the regular cellphone with some organizers included in the software.

    Comment by Toni — October 10, 2007 @ 12:05 am

  7. A few years back I was really into those. I’d buy all the new versions and spend $1000 or them,every 4-6 months. I grew out of them. I sat down and asked myself if I really need to have a $1000 phone. Do I really need to send a reply over wi-fi,while I am in a coffee shop,or should I wait 1 hour and do it from home…The answer was obvious. Now I have a regular phone. They are small don’t feel like a brick at your ear. Sound quality for some reason is much better too,on those regular phones

    Comment by dmitri — March 26, 2008 @ 12:34 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image