Readers assess the ultimate handheld device
Summary
Topics
Not everyone thought I was on the right track with my list. Steve Jordan wrote to me saying,"Your list isn't incomplete. It's just too damn big." Jordan goes onto say, "For phones, give me more ringer options, a wireless earbud/microphone, and you're done. Leave the PDA stuff to the PDAs."
Other e-mails echoed this sentiment, citing the fact that if you have wireless connectivity by virtue of Bluetooth, then why converge at all? In fact, why not go the other direction and come up with smaller, simpler, single-function devices that together, on a Bluetooth Personal Area Network (PAN), form a virtual converged device?
Jeff Honda exemplified this approach, suggesting a collection of Bluetooth modules. "If you have Bluetooth, use it--have the self-contained device on a belt clip, have a display and navigation module in your shirt pocket or even on a watch, and a wireless earbud comfortable enough to wear all the time (if one exists). People will think you're talking to yourself, and you'll radiate yourself to death, but what else is new?"
The letters certainly have me wondering whether the convergence utopia I described is even possible. Many readers simply wrote something along the lines of, "Nice list, Dave, but will such a thing ever exist?" Good question. In terms of what I've published and seen, I haven't found the perfect PDA yet, but some devices come close.
I've commented on how the industrial design of Nokia's 9290 Communicator has the right idea, and Nokia has since sent me a unit to test (stay tuned for my response). But many readers who've handled the 9290 say it's too big. Sue Styles writes, "The Nokia 9290 is 6 1/4 inches long, and while it does have a full keyboard, I am not willing to carry a device of its large size just to always have a keyboard available." Looking at the unit, it is hard to imagine one fitting in a pocket or hanging from a belt, where a lot of cell phones and PDAs are found these days.
Short of an improvement on Nokia's industrial design, which may be possible, perhaps Jeff Honda's Bluetooth module approach is the way to go. I, and readers who share my quest for the perfect converged device, may not be thinking "out of the box" enough.
Even if we were, a reader that's proven to be a visionary before--Bob Frankston--warns against buying into the Bluetooth dream. Frankston, the co-inventor of spreadsheet software, favors 802.11 for wireless connectivity.
He believes that Bluetooth isn't much more than a repeat of Infrared (IR), which served a purpose, but is not a wireless technology with a bright future. "The reason IR failed," says Frankston, "is not that it is IR. It failed because it was over-engineered for a purpose as opposed to IP (Internet Protocol), which allows me to decide the purpose. Bluetooth is about the old Kings of Europe [the vendors] knowing what is best instead of letting us decide."
Pondering the possibilities if we just bypassed Bluetooth and moved to something more readily equipped for IP like 802.11, Frankston says, "I have been using my Kyocera 6035 for a year and it was a major improvement over the previous generation, when I had to carry big phones and PDAs and stuff. But the new phones are so small that one big device is now worse than being able to innocuously distribute devices and create your own connections using IP. As a matter of fact, I could just mount a tiny phone next to my ear (if I didn't get cancer from my high school cyclotron, I'm not going to worry about this idea), and finesse the whole headset thing. Hmm, connect it to my glasses (patent that one!) and be done with it. It's much smaller than a Bluetooth headset."
Compared to Bluetooth, however, 802.11 has some pitfalls, too. Mainly, it scores low for power consumption (never to be taken lightly with mobile devices) and cost. So, if as Frankston implies, Bluetooth is the work of the devil and 802.11 is impractical, where does that leave us? Back with the massively converged device and my list of criteria?
Ultimately, based on the testimony I've received from my readers, I'll stand by my Bluetooth recommendation for now. Too many people I know are happy with what it does. But I also agree with Frankston. An IP-based solution has so much more potential. Like IR, Bluetooth could be temporary.
Perhaps my quest for the perfect converged device is doomed to failure. But if I can't have or achieve perfection, I will settle for excellence in such a product. I am still waiting.
Meanwhile, to converge or not to converge? That is the question. What's your pleasure? Write to me at david.berlind@cnet.com or Talkback below.
The discussion hasn’t started yet. Why don’t you begin it?
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
