Quite interesting news (I thought Palm was till #1, but with MS catching up!)...

IDC Western European Handheld Device Operating System Shares, 2003


Operating System 2003 % Share 2002 % Share Growth

Windows Mobile 1,422,765 55.6% 819,330 41.0% 73.6%
Palm OS 1,038,590 40.6% 1,086,415 54.4% -4.4%
Other 95,620 3.7% 91,815 4.6% 4.1%

Source: IDC, 2004

I took these numbers from this page (has much more statistics):
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jhtml?cont...4_01_23_172835


Best regards,

martin törnsten -- former Psion/EPOC and HP/WinCE (HPC) user

--
http://82.182.73.126/

Colas Nahaboo wrote:
But such sales are going to be hard to measure. Assuming my Siemens M55 is
EPOC32 based, does it it contribute to PDA sales of EPOC/Symbian OS ? It most
certaintly isn't a PDA eben though it has and agenda with calendar, phone book
and games.

Similarly, with fancy BMWs equipped with windows-ce computers (that cause
engine to stop on highways, or seats to start moving without reason, and
plenty of false alarms) considered PDAs ?

If you are going to define a PDA as having a keyboard, then you miss out on
palm and windows-ce are are left only with legacy products such as PSION and
former HP PDAs

So if you include keyboardless machines, how do you define what is and isn't a
PDA ?

Yep. That is one of the reasons given by PSION to exit the PDA market. But
there is still the industrial device market. (Granted, not "mass market").

The problem is that phones have been shrunk to fit the needs of teenage girls
and have become too small to be usable as PDAs by adult males. That is why
some PDas have added phones to themselves. (but those typically lack battery
autonomy to make themselves really useful).

Perhaps the definition of a PDA could be some device with an input device
other than just numeric keypad.

Captain's log. On StarDate 28 Jan 2004 08:12:44 GMT received comm from
cnahaboo@ilog.fr (Colas Nahaboo) on channel comp.os.ms-windows.ce:

: >IDC Western European Handheld Device Operating System Shares, 2003
:
: beware of these figures. They do not includes PDA+phones sales. Quite a

I'm well aware of that (and also thought it would be apparent to others).

I also agree with JF M that it's quite difficult to what a handheld/PDA is or
isn't, and I think you probably would have the same problem with the definition
of what a smartphone is or isn't.

Anyone with some more good ideas on those definitions?

: > martin törnsten -- former Psion/EPOC and HP/WinCE (HPC) user
:
: As a former Psion/EPOC owner who recently bought a Symbian (ex-EPOC)
: "phone" (SE P900), I can tell you that these new phones are really as
: powerful as a modern PDA.

Right now I'm personally without any handheld (!) as both my old Psion and old
HP is broken, and the next machine I will buy will be one to replace both my
phone and handheld with one single product to have less things to worry about
bringing with me.

I first thought about a handheld with a GSM phone build in, but I'm more and
more into getting a smartphone instead. As I mostly would use it as a phone it
makes sense to get a device mainly optimized for that, but with the ability to
both use it as my calendar and also download/develop software for it.

As it looks now I will most likely buy the HTC Voyager (O2 Xphone, Orange SPV
e200, Qtek 8080, etc) which I recently tested at Comdex Scandinavia. Besides
that it's mainly a phone (but a bit bigger) it's also probably a very good fit
for me as I'm currently learning C# and it's supposed to have a compact version
of the .NET framework.

But I agree that the P900 looks like a great smartphone as well (I wasn't that
impressed buy the older P800),and also the keyboard on the P900 seems to have
improved a lot.

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

Captain's log. On StarDate Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:37:14 -0500 received comm from JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> on channel comp.os.ms-windows.ce:

: Perhaps the definition of a PDA could be some device with an input device
: other than just numeric keypad.

I think that's a good suggestion.

Now to the problem what defines a smartphone or not?

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote:
Hell, they're too small to be used as *phones* by adult males.

Am I the only one who disbelieve that the average person has baby-sized
fingers and a 2.5" span between ear and mouth?

Regards,
--
*Art

Martin Törnsten <omartint@hotmail.com> wrote:
One that refuses to ring in a theatre.

Regards,
--
*Art

Quoth "Arthur Hagen" <art@broomstick.com>:
Heh!

Certainly not. I always try to get a phone I can hold in the crook of
my neck so I don't need a hands-free kit to talk while doing something
else.

As you say, though, large phones appear to be on the way out -- I got a
new Nokia 6610 recently, which isn't a lot larger than the old 8210.
The only reason I accepted it was because the buttons are actually quite
large, relatively. With practice, even clumsy sods like me can send
text messages with it.

Since smartphones need to be a bit bigger than normal phones to
accommodate the screen, they seem like the way forward for those who
want PDA functionality and cellular communication you can't put in your
eye.
--
__________________________________________________ __

~~ Paul Gilham ~~
__________________________________________________ __

"Martin Törnsten" <omartint@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fng10d67se8u4fn05cvl89pfscf8lejjc@4ax.com...
People are using voice-centric versus data-centric. If you can use it as a
phone, then it is voice-centric. Otherwise it is data-centric.

The Nokia 9200 Series Communicator is a bit hard to define, but it works for
most devices.

So what the reports are making clear is that a *lot* of people are buying
Series 60 devices from Nokia.

--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com

Captain's log. On StarDate Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:35:16 +0100 received comm from
"Sander van der Wal" <svdwal@xs4all.nl> on channel comp.sys.handhelds:

: > Anyone with some more good ideas on those definitions?
:
: People are using voice-centric versus data-centric. If you can use it as a
: phone, then it is voice-centric. Otherwise it is data-centric.

What about devices such as the Treo and Pocket PC Phone Edition?

: So what the reports are making clear is that a *lot* of people are buying
: Series 60 devices from Nokia.

I see Symbian becoming more and more synonymous with Nokia Series XX, and I
wouldn't be surprised if they would try to get an ever tighter control of
Symbian (perhaps buy up a majority of it in the future).

The problem (as a potential developer for smartphones) I see with Symbian OS
(and Linux for that matter) is that you have way too many versions and
distributions of it, and that's a problem Nokia solves buy setting a tighter
standard for it (and also license it to other hardware manufactures), with just
a couple of different packages of it (for different type of devices and form
factors).

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<401790C3.ABC65E22@istop.com>...
[snip]

Actually, the definition which may soon be difficult to handle is that
of a phone, wireless or otherwise. As more and more types of devices
use the two way communications ability of the "phone" network, it becomes
less and less clear when voice needs to be a part of the communication.
Other than friendly conversation, much of what I call about is often
basically a data exchange. So instead of "telling" someone something,
if I have a cell/pda whatever, I may merely respond to text messages.
For any outfit with which I have a regular relationship, I could
find myself merely dialing, and (much as now) hitting certian coded
keys (press one for information about flights) with I, or the other
party actually speaking to each other. At some point, voice communication
becomes a nice "side" feature. And to be clear, I don't necessarily mean
just the wireless devices. Computer/internet based telephone is
already a reality. The difference between a "phone number" and
an IP address is trivial. The whole concept of "dialing" and "answering"
may become as antiquated as cranking a phone and asking Alice
for a particular exchange. The difference between a bookmark and speed
dial is next to nil.

Cars already have the capacity to call and report trouble on their
own. What's to prevent your icebox from accessing the wireless network
in your home and contacting the manufacturer to report a problem.
It could tell you first, email you suggestions on things to trouble
shoot (the temperture is running high, is the fan blocked?). Wouldn't
we all like a central heating system we could access remotely and
adjust, or detect failures?

As more things obtain these capabilities, there will be a greater
desire to interact with them, potentially remotely. As such, that
device we carry with us may be less about being a phone for voice
communication, and more about being a control device for whatever
other devices we wish or need to interface with. "Calling" will
be a minor issue.

However, I am positive that in 20 years, some moron will email
my heat pump promising it a rock hard.....

me <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
Oh? I think that's a pretty simple definition:

1: It must facilitate live voice calls.
2: It must be able to reach or be reached through the regular phone
network.

If you connect your computer into a VoIP network, and can call any normal
phone number from it and talk through a mic, it's a phone.
If you have a device that looks like a phone but can only connect to similar
devices outside the phone network, it's not a phone.
If it doesn't allow real-time audible communication between humans, it's not
a phone. So your answering machine is not a phone, and neither are the spam
machines leaving voicemail.

It has to be. Else it may be "tele", but not "phone". The "phone" part
directly implies audible communication.

Don't confuse the media with the transport. You're simply using the
telephone network as a carrier for the text messages -- that you're using a
telephone here is no more relevant than whether your mail package is sent by
lorry or train, DHL or Fedex, as long as the transport company understands
your address and deliver it when expected. Indeed you can SMS without using
a telephone network at all.

No, it's not trivial. For one thing, the phone number system is based on
one-to-one communication, unlike IP. Concepts like multicasting, network
broadcasts and multiple routes are meaningless for a phone network, and it
can be busy, unlike an IP address. The phone number system also doesn't
have near-real-time name resolution -- dynamic phone numbers are quite a bit
into the future...

I sure hope not. One good reason is the ability to *NOT* answer.

Irrelevant. That's just functions of the particular *phone device*, and not
the phone SYSTEM. Whether you enter the number by selecting from a menu;
saying "call Zaphod"; tapping the mic wires with a coin; or by holding down
a key doesn't make any difference -- the phone system gets its expected DTMF
or pulse codes representing a phone number, and terminates the call
accordingly.

You're decades too late. There's already a lot of autonymous devices with
email addresses. There used to be email addresses like lightson@somewhe.re
and lightsoff@somewhe.re -- they were fun (and sometimes practical) back
before the unwashed and untrustworthy masses got network access, not to
mention spam. These days you have to add handshakes and encryption, taking
the simplicity and fun out of it.
That said, you can still email millions of printers around the world -- the
lp account here receives quite a bit of spam. :-)

Regards,
--
*Art

Arthur Hagen wrote:
Actually, it does have. 800 numbers (freecall) in north america resolve to
another number which is a standard number with area code. And with number
portability appearing, it also requires real-time name resolution sincc your
phone number can no longer be used as a route to your area, central office
and then actual twisted pair.

And while this does not apply to GSM phones, normal landline phone system also
support reverse lookups which is how you get caller identification to appear
on your phone after the first ring.

On the other hand, landline phones have missed the boat in terms of
capabilities such as SMS, games, ringtones etc.

"Martin Törnsten" <omartint@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dvhi109bqpmgp3q7t5fhgviphaloqkkovr@4ax.com...
A treo isn't that much different from a P800/P900. From what I have seen
from PocketPC phone edition, its more like a Series 60. All voice-centric,
IMHO.

Possibly. Whether that will make any impact on the popularity of the OS...
In that case you would have Nokia, PalmSource and Microsoft as the three
mayor phone OS vendors. Nobody cares.

Most of the code is completely portable between OS versions. UI's differ,
but even that can be negated to a large extent (watch my papers on the
subject).

I would not say that the situation is that much different for Palm OS or
Pocket PC. There are lots of differences between OS versions and licensee
versions to take care of with the Palm OS, and you must have a MBA in
economics to track the incarnations of Pocket PC. Programming these devices
have their pitfalls too.

--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com

Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:07:30 +0100 received comm from
"Sander van der Wal" <svdwal@xs4all.nl> on channel comp.sys.handhelds:

: A treo isn't that much different from a P800/P900. From what I have seen
: from PocketPC phone edition, its more like a Series 60. All voice-centric,
: IMHO.

I personally think it's a close call between a handheld (PDA) and a phone. I
wouldn't find it too wrong to call such devices as data centric with phone
capabilities.

: Possibly. Whether that will make any impact on the popularity of the OS...

I personally think it will become more popular with the tighter and clearer
Nokia control and complete packages, as it's good for the consumers to expect
the same GUI they already have learned (and as smart phones are much more rich
and complex compared to traditional phones, this becomes more important than it
used to be).

: In that case you would have Nokia, PalmSource and Microsoft as the three
: mayor phone OS vendors. Nobody cares.

I think you forget Linux and other OSS OS, even if they also (IMHO) suffer from
the same problem as the general Symbian OS (and general CE.NET for that matter)
when it comes to specific devices as smart phones.

I also think that both users, and even more so developers, will care if they get
a good standardized package (OS distribution + application set), and probably
not buy phones who doesn't give them their perceived value in that regard (odd
distros who hasn't any good market support is probably off less value to them).

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

"Martin Törnsten" <omartint@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ndin10t51t2he5j20j33bni1qjkm8bu5ah@4ax.com...
[knip]

Series 60 already has a unified UI. Icons are different, but using them is
identical across the different models (even for different vendors). Nokia
itself doesn't believe in a single UI, given the existsence of the Series
40, Series 60, Series 80 and Series 90 UI's. Which are all different.

The Series 60 UI is based on the list concept: everything is a list. Using
lists on a series 80 or series 90 device (and also on UIQ for that matter)
will look daft becasue there is so much more screen, which is also oriented
differently. You'll present the info differently. That in itself will
introduce multiple versions of the UI parts of a program even when there was
a completely unified UI API.

Think of it. You would not include the unneccessary code because it would
make your program bigger ==> more expensive to download over the air. Then
on devices with little memory to spare you would not include all functions,
as some functions cannot be used on a given device (consider touchscreen
devices versus non-touchscreendevices). etc.

No I didn't forget them. I don't think that these will become popular. The
licensing price of the OS isnt't the issue.


If a good standardized package was a good idea everybody would be driving
an Opel Astra or a Volkswagen Golf ;-)

--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com

Captain's log. On StarDate Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:12:06 +0100 received comm from
"Sander van der Wal" <svdwal@xs4all.nl> on channel comp.sys.handhelds:

: Series 60 already has a unified UI. Icons are different, but using them is

I know. That was what I was trying to say was a good thing.

: identical across the different models (even for different vendors). Nokia
: itself doesn't believe in a single UI, given the existsence of the Series
: 40, Series 60, Series 80 and Series 90 UI's. Which are all different.

This was also what I was thinking about when I wrote (here I quote myself):

End of previous quote by be concerning exactly this.

This also why I believe it's a good thing that Microsoft has different ready
made packages (as in different software and UI) of Windows CE for different type
of devices, like Smart Phones and Pocket PC.

My point was just that it's (IMHO) a good thing for Symbian OS if Nokia makes a
standard for it for different device types (Series XX), and not that every phone
manufactures in the world tries to reinvent the wheel by themselves by providing
different and incompatible versions of the Symbian OS.

: > : In that case you would have Nokia, PalmSource and Microsoft as the three
: > : mayor phone OS vendors. Nobody cares.
: >
: > I think you forget Linux and other OSS OS, even if they also (IMHO) suffer
: from
: > the same problem as the general Symbian OS (and general CE.NET for that
: matter)
: > when it comes to specific devices as smart phones.
:
: No I didn't forget them. I don't think that these will become popular. The
: licensing price of the OS isnt't the issue.

I agree it's likely not the main issue, but I think we still will see some Linux
based phones on the market (but for some other reasons than being gratis).

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

"Martin Törnsten" wrote:
I think that the differences related only to the UI which each manufacturer
has decied to customise. This is what still makes a Nokia phone have a better
user interface than say a Siemens.

And consider that there are different types of phones ranging from
conventional handsets to PDAs with phone functionlaity.

What EPOC32/Symbian provides is a common foundation with the basic services.
They share kernel development, various APIs, various stacks (such as GPRS,
SMS, MMS etc), and various base services such as image interpretors, probably
sound/midi engines etc.

So the different handset manufacturers do not have to re-invent the wheel for
all the stuff that is below the UI. But they get to decide how they phone will
look and feel, which retains competition between hansets.

What seems to be happening though is that some manufacturers produce a batch
of phones with one version of EPOC, while another manufacturer waits for the
next release of EPOC to base its software on. So you have, at the same time on
the market, phones that are based on different versions of Symbian/EPOC32.

While on the market you may see different implementations of EPOC at any one
time, there is still just one group developping the kernel and stacks. So
Symbian's owners do benefit from shared development costs. Some take advantage
of the latest release while others use a previous version.

You might see Linux PDAs with a phone attachement, but I doubt that the phone
itself would run under Linux.

Captain's log. On StarDate Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:22:14 -0500 received comm from JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> on channel comp.sys.handhelds:

: I think that the differences related only to the UI which each manufacturer
: has decied to customise. This is what still makes a Nokia phone have a better
: user interface than say a Siemens.

Why not let Nokia, if good at this, standardize the UI for all different types
of devices?

: And consider that there are different types of phones ranging from
: conventional handsets to PDAs with phone functionlaity.

I think Nokia (and also Microsoft) already have considered this. Smartphones
from MS have a very different UI from Pocket PC for example. The same goes for
Nokias different sets of packages.

: What EPOC32/Symbian provides is a common foundation with the basic services.
: They share kernel development, various APIs, various stacks (such as GPRS,
: SMS, MMS etc), and various base services such as image interpretors, probably
: sound/midi engines etc.

Sure, also Linux and CE.NET provides a common kernel and OS services, but what
I¨'m talking about here is 1) a standard UI for a typical device type and 2) a
standard set of applications for it.

I think that would be good for both end users and developers.

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

On 29 Jan 2004 08:30:50 GMT, cnahaboo@ilog.fr (Colas Nahaboo) wrote:

.. . .

Well not really. "Personal Digital Assistant" (PDA) was defined
by John Scully and Apple. Vague though that definition was, it
was specifically a device with a high degree of ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE. It was not simply a device to store and retrieve
data, but to ASSIST you in storing, retrieving and transfering
data by using that artificial intelligence capability. That is
why the word "assistant" is there. If it does not have that
AI component, then it is not a PDA. Most people writing in this
field either never knew this (they did not do their homework),
or have forgotten, or are simply being lazy.

There are no current PDAs on the market. The last PDA
made was perhaps the Apple Newton series, which, to a limited
ability to deal with data using "normal English". To a limited
extent, you could write something like "lunch with Karen Tuesday,
13:00" and it might actually create the appropriate appointment
in its datebook. Actually, I do not know if the above example
would have worked. I found that you had to use "magic formulae"
(ie fairly precise wording) to get it to do what you wanted.
It was generally worth it to ignore this theoretical capability
and simply going to the Datebook program and create your
appointment manually. But still, the ability was there, even
in the first version Newtons.

No current handhelds are even attempting this level of
AI capability. Therefore, there are *no* current PDAs. Any
writer who says otherwise is either being lazy (and yes, I
am that lazy too sometimes) or simply does not know better
because s/he has not done their research properly (and to
that extent is incompetent).

There are, however, a lot of really nice little handheld
devices out there. . . .

.. . .

Actually, you have almost got that right. Not a bad
guess! :-)

Otherwise, let me comment about the original posting. Do
not take that number at face value. There are a lot of ways
that companies have "played" with stats like that. For example,
a company as big as H-P can make a lot of devices and "pre-sell"
to wholesalers (who have not even paid for them) and it looks
really great in these periodic reports. Companies like IDC
do fall for that kind of manipulation. It may even take a
couple of years before that kind of thing becomes apparent --
if ever. Looking around me in the real world, I have not seen
confirmation of any breakthrough of WinCE devices in actual
units in use.

Incidentally, the newest device I have seen locally is
the LinuxDA device by "Empower".

--
The Moving Target: mobile information technology
http://www.pathcom.com/~jimomura/

<jimomuraNOSPAM@pathcom.com> wrote in message
news:bs7d20hnk4cijopd5gptppqguec76shlgd@4ax.com...
<snip>
Karen Tuesday,
13:00", it would interpret that as, for example "my hovercraft is full of
eels", or some such.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)