Smartphones - smart?

Post by Hugo Roy
Hello,
TL;DR: we shouldn?t use the term smartphones but instead simply
refer to mobiles (or mobile devices).
You may have seen it on FSFE?s last newsletter (coming to
non-fellows soon) or on some other materials. Sometimes we use the
term ?smartphone? to indicate mobile computers that we carry
around us and that we can use to phone, text, email, get spied
on, play, etc.
I don?t know how you feel about the term, but we can agree that
it?s just a marketing invention. What?s wrong with you if you

Not quite - I think it serves to differentiate phones that can run apps
from those that only act as firmware

In other words, a smartphone is a basic phone + a PDA/pocket computer

Post by Hugo Roy
haven?t got a smartphone: maybe you?re just dumb, right?
I feel we should restrain from using this marketing term.
Especially, I think it?s misleading to say that the phone is smart
or for smart people. Moreover, the way these phones operating
systems are designed by contrast to classic operating systems,
they are actually less ?smart?: the interesting computation does
not happen on the device itself, but on the
Google/Apple/Amazon/etc. server.

This, too, is not universally true. Many good apps do run entirely
within the phone and they deserve more recognition.

Post by Hugo Roy
I also think that it?s not accurate to call these phones any more,
since they?re a lot more. So I suggest we just use the term
"mobiles" or "mobile devices".

Personally, I prefer to hear somebody say smartphone when they would
otherwise say something worse, like iPhone

I also look forward to the day when people say tablet instead of iPad.
Amongst other things, a growing number of people never take tablet
devices out of their bag at an airport if the sign only tells people to
remove iPads and laptops from their bags.

Regards,

Daniel

Hugo Roy

2014-07-04 13:42:00 UTC

Post by Hugo Roy
I don?t know how you feel about the term, but we can agree that
it?s just a marketing invention. What?s wrong with you if you

Not quite - I think it serves to differentiate phones that can run apps
from those that only act as firmware
In other words, a smartphone is a basic phone + a PDA/pocket computer

I think you?re missing the point of the discussion. I know what a
smartphone refers to the object you describes, but that?s not what
the term smartphone means in itself. Smartphone is a combination
of ?smart? and ?phone? and there?s no denying that this
combination is pure marketing. Another illustration of this is how
new objects are being sold with ?smart? in front of it: Smart Tv,
Smar fridge, smart fork and whatnot.

This, too, is not universally true. Many good apps do run entirely
within the phone and they deserve more recognition.

It does not invalidate the premise that the operating system is
not designed to run autonomously. We have to put a lot of efforts
into modifying it so that it?s true.

A good example is the recent development of Google Play Services
and the Google Cloud Messenging (sic?) layers that are proprietary
and connected and on which more and more Android Apps have to rely
on.

The object that?s marketed as the ?smartphone? is sold; not what
you are doing with it as a free software hacker ;-)

Post by Hugo Roy
I also think that it?s not accurate to call these phones any more,
since they?re a lot more. So I suggest we just use the term
"mobiles" or "mobile devices".

Personally, I prefer to hear somebody say smartphone when they would
otherwise say something worse, like iPhone

At least calling an iPhone an iPhone is accurate and noone?s
fooled that it?s a marketing brand.

Post by Daniel Pocock
I also look forward to the day when people say tablet instead of iPad.
Amongst other things, a growing number of people never take tablet
devices out of their bag at an airport if the sign only tells people to
remove iPads and laptops from their bags.

That?s not a huge problem.

In FSFE, we?re not going to refer to tablets as "iPad", we just
say "tablet" and people understand what that means. I?m just
suggesting that for the smaller-than-tablets devices, we use
accurate terms like "mobiles" instead of "smartphones".
--
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>

Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! <https://l.fsfe.org/nl>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140704/833d558c/attachment.pgp>

Daniel Pocock

2014-07-04 13:53:29 UTC

Post by Hugo Roy
I don?t know how you feel about the term, but we can agree that
it?s just a marketing invention. What?s wrong with you if you

Not quite - I think it serves to differentiate phones that can run apps
from those that only act as firmware
In other words, a smartphone is a basic phone + a PDA/pocket computer

Ok, so "smart" is convenient marketing but if we want to refer to such a
phone, as distinct from a legacy mobile, just using the word "mobile"
may not be sufficient

Is there any other terms that could be used?

This, too, is not universally true. Many good apps do run entirely
within the phone and they deserve more recognition.

It does not invalidate the premise that the operating system is
not designed to run autonomously. We have to put a lot of efforts
into modifying it so that it?s true.
A good example is the recent development of Google Play Services
and the Google Cloud Messenging (sic?) layers that are proprietary
and connected and on which more and more Android Apps have to rely
on.
The object that?s marketed as the ?smartphone? is sold; not what
you are doing with it as a free software hacker ;-)

I agree that is a disturbing trend and it is not something that anybody
should be comfortable with. I'm not trying to deny that at all.

Post by Hugo Roy
I also think that it?s not accurate to call these phones any more,
since they?re a lot more. So I suggest we just use the term
"mobiles" or "mobile devices".

Personally, I prefer to hear somebody say smartphone when they would
otherwise say something worse, like iPhone

At least calling an iPhone an iPhone is accurate and noone?s
fooled that it?s a marketing brand.

Not quite what I was getting at - many people are actually using the
term iPhone to refer to any type of smartphone and this appears to be
worse than using the term smartphone

Hugo Roy

2014-07-04 14:04:51 UTC

Post by Hugo Roy
I don?t know how you feel about the term, but we can agree that
it?s just a marketing invention. What?s wrong with you if you

Not quite - I think it serves to differentiate phones that can run apps
from those that only act as firmware
In other words, a smartphone is a basic phone + a PDA/pocket computer

Depending on the context, you might not need to differentiate
2010s phones from 2000s phones (that?s true most of the time). I
don?t use a special word to make a distinction between a laptop
from 2014 and a laptop from 1992.

However, in the past we would talk about ?mobile phones? or
?phones? -- which does not make much sense any more because these
objects have improved to a point that their primary use might not
be to make phone calls any more. Which is why sticking to
?*phones? is not accurate.

Mobile devices is, I think, clear enough. Or mobile computing
devices.

If however you need to specifically make a differentiation between
phones from 2000s and phones from 2010s, well, let?s get creative
-- but I don?t think we need to call them ?smartphones.?
--
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>

Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! <https://l.fsfe.org/nl>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140704/0ed2197a/attachment.pgp>

Paul Hänsch

2014-07-04 14:39:02 UTC

Post by Hugo Roy
Mobile devices is, I think, clear enough. Or mobile computing
devices.

(modern) handheld computers

Which is quite specific. I remember the term handheld computer from the
90s where it was used to describe PDAs. Today it would include tablets
as well.

Also the terms "portable" and "handheld" other than mobile make clear,
that the devices do neither move by themselves nor require equipment to
be moved (like i.e. a mobile home).

Post by Hugo Roy
If however you need to specifically make a differentiation between
phones from 2000s and phones from 2010s, well, let?s get creative
-- but I don?t think we need to call them ?smartphones.?

At different occasions I have heard the term dumbphone to refer to old
and contemporary phones with a comparatively simple firmware stack:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dumbphone
--
Paul H?nsch ?? Webmaster, System-Hacker
??????
Jabber: paul at jabber.fsfe.org ?? Free Software Foundation Europe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140704/e29f061a/attachment.pgp>

Simon Hornbachner

2014-07-04 14:41:37 UTC

Ahoy hoy *,

How about "touch-based cloud-enabled mobile computing devices"? ;)

But joking aside, in Austria I don't encounter this problem too often
since most people still call either phone simply "Handy" and only use
the term "smartphone" when they want to emphasize that it is? a
"touch-based cloud-enabled mobile computing device running Apps"

Maybe one could use mobile device for the TBCEMCDRA and ye goode olde
"cell phone" for the non-TB non-CE MD not RA. I've also heard them be
referred to as "dumbphones" (which only plays into the problem Hugo was
addressing) and "feature phones", which is OK I guess.

Regards,
Simon

Paul Hänsch

2014-07-04 14:57:46 UTC

Post by Simon Hornbachner
How about "touch-based cloud-enabled mobile computing devices"? ;)

I believe we should be very careful, not to take away the conclusion,
that the devices we are talking about, are by their very nature cloud
based or locked down.

After all we want to see a market for small computie talkie thingies,
which run a completely local Free Software stack independent of
proprietary services. We must make clear that this is technically
possible, despite claims to the contrary by some vendors.

Post by Simon Hornbachner
I've also heard them be
referred to as "dumbphones" (which only plays into the problem Hugo
was addressing) and "feature phones", which is OK I guess.

The word "feature phone" is increasingly often used to name dumbed down
smartphones, that are locked up to run only one application, most often
a Facebook interface in particular.
Fortunately we don't see many of those in Europe or the US.
Unfortunately there are a lot of those elsewhere, or so I hear.
--
Paul H?nsch ?? Webmaster, System-Hacker
??????
Jabber: paul at jabber.fsfe.org ?? Free Software Foundation Europe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140704/e00e0be6/attachment.pgp>

Stephane Ascoet

2014-07-04 13:48:43 UTC

Post by Hugo Roy
I think you?re missing the point of the discussion. I know what a
smartphone refers to the object you describes, but that?s not what
the term smartphone means in itself. Smartphone is a combination
of ?smart? and ?phone? and there?s no denying that this
combination is pure marketing.

Bonjour, that's why I call them "idiotphone". I could say "cretinphone". I've heard another idea, but not remembering it. Another
accurate word would be "pollutingphone".

--
Bien cordialement, Stephane Ascoet

Allan Irving

2014-07-04 15:03:04 UTC

Not really sure what you're achieving by calling it either a smartphone, or
mobile device in all honesty. Yes, it's a marketing ploy in many ways but
so are many things we take for granted. I also think for the average
consumer, the term smartphone helps them differentiate. I know many people
who don't want a smartphone, they want a basic phone so avoid anything
called a smartphone. It's simply a label to describe the handset, albeit
slightly misleading. In fairness, to the end user they are smarter than
they were twenty years ago. Siri is AI to some extent, people regard this
as smarter. Automation = smarter to some people.

I cannot see what is achieved, objectively, by calling it something else in
this scenario. Nobody owns a monopoly on the term smartphone as opposed to
some terms such as all vacuum cleaners being called 'Hoovers'.

*This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is
privileged, confidential, copyrighted and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution,
copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by return email and delete the message and any attachments. *

On 4 July 2014 14:48, Stephane Ascoet <Stephane.Ascoet at ac-orleans-tours.fr>

Post by Hugo Roy
I think you?re missing the point of the discussion. I know what a

Post by Hugo Roy
smartphone refers to the object you describes, but that?s not what
the term smartphone means in itself. Smartphone is a combination
of ?smart? and ?phone? and there?s no denying that this
combination is pure marketing.

Bonjour, that's why I call them "idiotphone". I could say "cretinphone".
I've heard another idea, but not remembering it. Another accurate word
would be "pollutingphone".
--
Bien cordialement, Stephane Ascoet
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140704/175d8fc6/attachment.html>

Alessandro Rubini

2014-07-04 19:42:02 UTC