Mihai Mobile

I’m about to buy a new phone.
I wanted a phone that can take acceptable pictures, so that I’ll be able to finally get rid of the digital camera (because I never have the camera with me when I need it). Acceptable pictures, I guess, means 2M or 3M resolution, with good image quality. Good image quality rules out the focus-free cameras (you need auto-focus to get acceptable quality). Also a flash for the camera would be handy of course.
I also wanted the phone to be able to play audio (music and audio-books). Radio would be good too.
In order to be able to store the pictures and audio tracks, storage space of at least 1GB is required. This can be built-in, but the most usual solution is for the phone to support removable memory cards. In the case of memory cards, I’m for the standard solution (mini-SD or micro-SD) and I’m against the proprietary formats that I can’t find in the stores (Sony memory stick).
I wanted to be able to run software applications on the phone, and to browse the internet, so a big screen with big resolution is good.
Concerning the connectivity, I want Bluetooth (because I want to experiment with it) and miniUSB (in order to be able to use a standard USB cable). Also I consider good battery life of paramount importance, because continously worring about re-charging the phone, and having to carry the charger with me everywhere is unconfortable.

These were my criteria:

- big screen, 240×320 resolution, 24bit or 18bit color.
- camera, at least 2Mpixel, with autofocus and flash.
- support 1G micro-SD or mini-SD removable flash card.
- bluetooth and mini-USB.
- good battery life.
- price: under 300 euro.

Implied: music player, JavaME MIDP-2.0/CLDC-1.1.

And guess what: I could find no such phone!

Candidates:
Nokia 6233, 6131, 5300:
The Nokia phones in this price range (under 300e) all have poor cameras; either 1.3Mpixel or 2Mpixel, no autofocus, no flash. I would rather have a phone with no camera at all rather then one with a useless camera. Arguably no-camera may reduce the price a bit, reduce the size/weight of the phone, and reduce the UI complexity, so it’s better to have no-camera rather then have a poor camera. Were I a manufacturer, I would offer two categories of devices: phones with good quality cameras, which can take the role of a stand-alone digital camera, and phones without camera.
Another minus is that the Nokia phones have rather poor battery-life.

Sony-Ericsson W800i, K810i, K800i:
the SE phones have good cameras, with auto-focus and flash. Also they have good music-players. But they’re too expensive (close to 400e), and they only offer the proprietary (Sony) and hard to find memory-stick as a memory card.

I also didn’t find any Samsung or Motorola model fulfilling the criteria.
I avoided Siemens (because they recently declared bankrupcy), and Sagem, Alcatel because they’re small brands and I don’t think they make good phones.

In conclusion, the fact that the device-convergence didn’t happen yet shouldn’t come as a surprise, as there are no convergent devices (at acceptable prices) yet. The mobile phone has the potential to take over huge parts of the digital-camera and music-player markets; this didn’t happen yet not because of consumer resistance, or some other socio-psiho-fashion factors, but simply because the phone manufacturers (hardware + software) aren’t doing their job well enough. The focus is too much on ‘gullible consumers’ who buy on impulse, guided exclusively by the look of the device, easily duped into thinking they can really take pictures with a 0.3Mpix VGA camera, etc. I would prefer less spending on advertising, and more investment into making better phones at accessible prices. And more care on the usability and software side, as too often good hardware is crippled by poor software.

Honorable mention: I really liked the little Samsung C130 at 45euro, even if it’s none of the power phone I described above.