The thing is that Android smartphones are getting really cheap. In Kenya, the Huawei Ideos is about $80 and is getting huge traction because of it. It's a bit more here in Rwanda but not much. The ZTE Blade is also pretty affordable.
I would bet we'll start seeing $50 Android phones (unlocked prices here of course) within the next year or two.
Is Android designed for such cheap phones, tho'? Is there a minimum hardware spec that's capable of keeping the phone responsive?
I just wonder if there's much difference between Android and Symbian once you get down to the $50 point. It's not like you're going to have any amazing hardware features at that point, so it more comes down to software, and how well that software is tailored for the device.
I carried an Ideos for a few months, it was perfectly useable. Not my Galaxy Nexus by a long shot, but the important stuff of email, texting, Facebook all worked just fine.
Most of these low-end phones end up running an older version of Android (2.2), two major phone releases behind now that 4.0 has been released (not including 3.0, as that was tablets only). From what I have seen, one of the problems with running newer versions is ram and memory sizes; low-end phones simply don't have enough to run the newer versions of Android.
I've got a Nexus S, one of the more powerful phones before the dual-core generation started. If you compare its specifications to the galaxy ace, one of the current generation low-end phones, they are actually quite similar. When you consider the Nexus S can even run 4.0 (officially too), something might be changing. Although, the galaxy ace probably lacks in the gpu area.
What you say is more than likely true but I think people underestimate just how many really do like Nokia and Symbian.
The 6300 series was always popular, especially in Africa, because they were pretty rugged. This is still a problem with touchscreen phones.
While many people have a problem with the hideousness of the Symbian UI, there are a lot who don't have this problem. They've learned how to use it and are comfortable with it. The iPhone, Android and WP7 don't necessarily improve their experience and there are also new things to learn.
I am not sure if you heard of another cheap mobile maker called Micromax, Manufactured mainly in Chaina and marketed in India,Brazil, and many more countries under the brand name Micromax. Its just matter of time before they reach nearest store.
I'm sure I belong to a minority here, but I do not want smart phone features. All I want is 1) voice, 2) text, 3) email (text only), 4) Long battery life, 5) reliability.
I don't want web on my phone. I don't want a camera on my phone. I don't want an MP3 player on my phone. I don't want a GPS or a tip calculator or a thousand other pointless (to me) apps on my phone. I don't even want to play angry birds on my phone. * gasp *
I had an iPhone. I got rid of it. I now own a Nokia, and other than coming with a useless camera, it fits my requirements perfectly and it's way cheaper and the battery lasts forever.
Dumbphones are underrated. Last year, when deciding whether or not to jump on the smartphone bandwagon, I did extensive research and ultimately came to the conclusion that it was just not worth it. Yet. If or when telecomms ever stop trying to handcuff customers with contracts, it might be.
Because, ultimately, it's never been about the phone; it's all about the contract that Verizon / TMobile / AT&T wants to handcuff us to.
Net neutrality "lite" means that the telecoms have extreme incentives to keep us chained to contracts for as long as possible, no matter what advances in technology might make voice and data usage cheaper / bandwidth more efficient, or whatever.
Anyway, I ended up keeping my contractless dumb phone for voice only, and got an Android tablet for anything that would have otherwise persuaded me to want a smart phone. Unfortunately, I ended up needing to buy a data plan for it, which means I'm handcuffed to a contract anyway. But at least the tablet is optimized for "reading" which is what I'd want to do most of, had I a smart phone.
I guess that's where Verizon wins, spending my hard-earned money on lobbying for laws that decrease my power of choice, as a consumer.
I mean lack of laws. Net neutrality lite protects consumers only in the realm of hard-wired ISP service, not mobile broadband.
The regulations ban content blocking and require transparency from ISPs. They also require network management and packet discrimination to be "reasonable," but they exempt wireless broadband from all but the transparency and blocking rules.
But your problem is not with net neutrality, it's much earlier, before you even connect -- you didn't want the contract ("handcuffs"). Or am I reading that incorrectly?
I think that's a false dichotomy. I've never had a contract for any of my smart phones; pre-pay, all the way. For all my data usage out and about, 8 GBP (O2 web) is more than sufficient. But my phone is usually on wifi, around the house or on location at work. It almost completely displaces tablet usage; it's a rare task that makes it worthwhile holding a heavy iPad compared with my Galaxy Nexus.
>it's a rare task that makes it worthwhile holding a heavy iPad compared with my Galaxy Nexus.
I think this may end up being the future for most. That is many will couple a cheap smartphone or dumbphone with a tablet that offers PAYG (pay as you go) web access. It is simply too expensive to have monthly two data fees to pay for or a possible $9.99/month to add an extra device for shared data usage.
I think it's the opposite; have a phone with cheap PAYG data, and a wifi-only tablet. It's simply too inconvenient to lug around a tablet, so you seldom need mobile data access on it.
Fair enough, but I almost always carried a large screen with me whether it was in the form of a laptop or tablet. If the situation required tethering I would be losing significant battery life on my main communications device.
Prepaid phones in the U.S. (at least through T-Mobile, Verizon, and Virgin Mobile, which resells Sprint) do not roam. If you are not within range of a tower owned by your carrier, you do not get service (except 911).
Look at coverage maps for the major carriers... even Verizon's map for prepaid is swiss cheese.
Probably fine if you stay in the city but if you travel (or live in the suburbs of a city like Milwaukee) this is a dealbreaker.
Yes, you can. But, it usually doesn't make sense, for one or more of several reasons:
1) Different technologies need different phones. For example, an iPhone won't get HSPA+ on T-Mobile because T-Mobile uses AWS. Similarly, you can't use a GSM phone on a CDMA network, and vice versa
2) Except for T-Mobile, you pay the same both off and on contract. This is probably the biggest reason that it doesn't make sense. Even T-Mobile only gives you a discounted price after you've been on the contract. If you are lucky enough to be in such a state, and like T-Mobile's phones (or don't mind living with EDGE data), then it's great! Else, it doesn't make much financial sense.
The last time I looked AT&T prepaid was several hundred dollars cheaper over 2 years for comparable service. The margin is smaller for expensive devices like the iPhone, though. The real problem is that you have to buy the phone up front.
People hate paying $600 for an iPhone when they can just put it on credit and never do the math.
I'm not sure anything in your post actually answers his question.
To answer his question: Yes, there are many "SIM-only" (commonly called "prepaid" in the US) options. AT&T has the GoPhone thing, and T-Mobile has a couple of different prepaid options.
You can get smartphone data with both AT&T and T-Mobile's prepaid. A contract-free iPhone (3GS/4/4S) on AT&T GoPhone is a pretty good deal right now. Using an iPhone on GoPhone doesn't require that it be unlocked, as it uses standard AT&T (micro-)SIMS.
The various CDMA carriers and the MVNOs operating off of it has similar deals, though they're not as cost-effective and there's a choice of no or expensive data options.
Well, I did say "yes, you can" so technically I did answer his question.
However, the implication is that by buying a SIM (which can also be postpaid. It is not strictly prepaid only) and a phone, you get the choice of phone and service. This may be true in Europe. It is certainly true in India, where people routinely swap SIM's.
It is not true in the U.S. There is largely no benefit to buying service and a SIM separately. Yes, prepaid is cheaper, and I forgot about that. But if you look at an apples to apples comparison of plans, there is absolutely no reason to buy postpaid off-contract when you pay the same amount regardless.
You know, T-Mobile charges you less per month if you don't have a contract. Over the course of 2 years, its big enough to pay for a smartphone bought contract free.
In the UK the opposite is true; if you have a contract you get better per-month costs, and over the course of 2 years it's often enough to pay for a smartphone bought contract-free.
I have just done this myself with a 24-month contract saving 6 GBP a month (making it 4 GBP a month, including 500Mb/month of data) which paid for a Milestone 2...
I think they meant "cheaper without a subsidized phone bundled" not "cheaper without a contract" it's just that the two are almost synonymous in the US.
For the past year I've been using an LG Optimus V on Virgin Mobile. The phone cost $150 and was bought contract free. The service for me is $25 a month. That includes 300 minutes of talk time and unlimited data (which has really been unlimited for me. They did recently institute a 2.5 gigabyte limit beyond which you get throttled down to 256Kbps, but for the price I'm paying that seems more than fair). The unlimited data is effectively unlimited talk time since I have my phone set up to use my Google Voice number via SIP to handle inbound and outbound calls and I'm not that big on talking on the phone all the time in any case.
The Optimus V is hardly the top of the line when it comes to Android phones but it gives me everything I want out of an Android smartphone -- the full Google Nav turn by turn GPS functionality (killer feature #1 for a smartphone for me, and the reason I wouldn't trade Android for an iPhone even if the prices were identical -- and I used to be an iPhone user, I used the iPhone 3G for 2 years), tethering of my laptop and/or ASUS Transformer tablet/netbook (killer feature #2) and Google Voice (killer feature #3).
Everything else the phone does is gravy after that.
YMMV and your prices may vary since the $25 rate is grandfathered in (even though, as I mentioned, I wasn't under any contract -- which is pretty cool), I think the rate for new users is $35. But I've been very happy with Virgin Mobile and the Optimus V.
I now carry around a £5 dumbphone in my bag for when my smartphone inevitably dies on a night out (and yes, I do have a second charger at work). When I use the dumbphone as my main device, the battery lasts around two weeks.
Also small size, durability, light weight, and cool-running.
Additionally, they are replaceable- my dumbphone (which I left smartphones for) was $20 without a contract. If I get pushed into a pool or drop it off a cliff, I won't be especially put out.
After my smartphone was stolen, I switched back to a dumbphone and realized it was exactly what I needed, for the reasons mentioned above. I don't think I'll buy a smartphone ever again.
I do this too. A cheapie little dumbphone, durable and hard-wearing (been dropped, kicked scuffed about) and has a staggering battery life. Love it. It has never let me down.
I question the validity of owning a so-called smartphone and I'm seriously considering either selling it or giving it away, because I know I'd really not miss it.
I second that. I have a Nexus One. I never turn it on. Several days ago I turned it off after charging it. I went to turn it on, 0 battery. I give up. I'm looking at getting one of these: http://www.spareonephone.com/
It's only "all about the contract" if you sign one. I, for one, am perfectly happy to pay $649 for an iPod, a GPS, a portable video game console, a PDA, and a phone, but wouldn't pay a $5 premium for what passes for "unlimited high-speed data service" in the US unless it includes Wi-Fi tethering.
Similarly, the ability to "browse the Web" on a low-resolution screen with a "ten-key" keyboard is, to me at least, worse than useless, but too many so-called "dumb phones" are truly dumb: the last one I had accepted Bluetooth contacts, iff phone numbers had no punctuation, and the one before that blocked "international calls" to all numbers of the form "+1 nnn-nnn-nnnn" from the US, and reliably _powered off_ when connected to a charger overnight (support actually claimed this to be a "feature designed to extend battery life").
The phone book issues, at least, weren't anything that 10 minutes with Python couldn't fix, but still, it's annoying that "dumb phone" vendors still, in 2011, saw software as an afterthought.
Apple should really consider making a $150 contract-free, high-quality, 4GB "iPod smart dumb phone" with iCloud and Siri but no user-installed apps, for people with iPads who really just want an iPod and a decent phone.
If you want a form factor other than candybar, or candybar with slideout keyboard, you don't have many smartphone choices - the only one I'm aware of is this blackberry, but I'm sure there are others: http://us.blackberry.com/smartphones/blackberrystyle/
I know a lot of people who, out of preference for the form factor, overall size, or protection for the keyboard/display, only buy flip phones.
Personally, what I'm starting to converge on is a smartphone plus a Macbook Air / Ultrabook / Chromebook, with the smartphone providing the tethering capability, and where I'm always carrying the smartphone, and carrying the light weight MBA / Ultrabook / Chromebook air with me 80% of the time. What I need out of the lightweight notebook is a keyboard, larger screen, fast browser (which one of the tablets or smartphones provide today) and minimal off-line capabilities (i.e., off-line GMail, Google Docs, and eBook reading). Anything else is a bonus. Today I'm doing this with a MBA, but I can easily see a next-gen Ultrabook or Chromebook meeting my needs.
Ultimately, the problem with a tablet is that its weight / capability just isn't favorable enough. Anything I can do with a tablet, I can do with a smartphone (although perhaps with a bit more scrolling), and a tablet's browser rendering speed and lack of keyboard makes it reach for a lightweight notebook every single time (and the MBA / Ultrabook / Chromebook isn't that much heavier than a tablet).
I think this is actually a hint towards the future of computing. I imagine that your smartphone will be your sole computer and then everywhere else (home, work, library, friend's house, etc) there will be something like dumb terminals that will associate with your phone to give you access to a bigger screen and keyboard and even extend the processing, memory, and graphics capabilities of your phone.
I would agree that the client's will get thinner (dumb terminals like chrome books), however I still think your own portable dumb terminal will be far more popular than a community / shared dumb terminal.
I use a MPB, but I'm envious of the MBAs and will no doubt eventually spring for one. I have absolutely no interest in a shared dumb terminal with a different feeling inputs / outputs (keyboard, mice / touch, screen).
Maybe if we're all using touch screens eventually, but I'm not convinced the keyboard will go away anytime soon, and I prefer my own setup. If anything laptops have become a very personal item, sometimes even a fashion statement (not my thing but it's there).
I was assuming we'd still have laptops and every other form factor we have now, just that you'd need your smartphone in your pocket to actually use your laptop. It is the hub, it has all your files, it is automatically backed up over the net, etc. Same thing with tablets. You could interface with an e-ink display for reading and an iPad-like device for entertainment and consumption. Your smartphone would store your save games and character data for various video game consoles, etc.
I think that's the direction, too. But they need to be "docked" wirelessly. Doing it with wires, or by actually docking them in another device is way too cumbersome and people won't do it. If they do it wirelessly (maybe with Wi-Fi Display technology?), and make it connect with everything, it will probably get a lot more used this way.
This is why I've been hoping that Google would just make Android have 3 UI add-ons, that get activated based on what type of device they are in. If it's the phone, then it shows the phone UI, if it's a larger screen, like a PC screen, the tablet version gets activated for it, and if it's a TV, the "Google TV" version gets activated there. Of course, they should try to make them as similar as possible, but you shouldn't underestimate that they are ultimately different form factors and they need their own optimized UI.
Also once that UI is activated, it should probably be activated on the phone as well. For example, I think it would be best if you could control the TV UI directly from your phone by touching it and interacting directly with it rather than "tabbing" through the TV UI with a remote, which is slower, and reminds me of how a dumbphone's UI was controlled before touchscreens. Pressing the UI element directly is a much faster approach.
It's interesting that you tend to have your smartphone and notebook together, because I am the opposite. I found that after I got my smartphone I tended to use my laptop less because many of the things I used to do with my laptop I could now do with the smartphone (I do not have tethering needs which obviously makes a big difference). I firmly believe that my smartphone is increasing the life of my laptop by severely reducing my need to haul its parts all over the place to check email and browse the Internet and that sort of thing.
I've never had a smart phone. My 5 year old dumb phone has kept me reasonably happy. I'm typically either in the office at a computer, or at home with a computer nearby. My phone does have a simple WAP browser that I can use to check email in a pinch.
My dumbphone is a 3 year old nokia s40 device. I wouldn't trade it for a smartphone - there is just no point. Battery life is good - at least 2 weeks on the original battery. It still works when i drop it which i do regularly. I've got an ssh client. I've got offline gmail if i want. I've made 6000 hours of calls and sent 45000 text messages. To replace it costs about 60GBP. The best thing is I'm posting from it now using Opera mini. Why would you need anything more?
This is pretty interesting sentence: "Series 40 even supports tethering". Before this wave of smartphones for everybody started by iPhone, ability to use cell phone as an modem was so standard that nobody even cared to make up fancy marketing names ("tethering", seriously?) for that.
One of the best things about dumbphone data usage is that it is a lot easier to control.
On Android an inconsiderate app can decide that it really needs to update 250MB of resources. There goes your data plan for that month...
I regret switching to a standard data plan as it was 'unlimited'. With the good old trusty dumbphone, a Nokia N95, I was able to connect by BT and then tunnel with SSH to VNC and RDP to my hearts content by laptop or Nokia tablet. An odd quirk was that the SSH data usage never even showed up on my plan.
A few weeks ago some bloggers posted photos of the phone they had in 2007, when the iPhone was introduced. The message seemed to be something like "look at the kind of shit we used before Apple reinvented the mobile".
I have no idea what model it is, but I've paid 9 € for my current Nokia in 2005 as part of a contract prolongation. Its original battery lasts one week and a half and I can't count how many times it fell to the ground. It works just as well as it did 7 years ago.
I don't know if "The dumbphone strikes back". Hell, I didn't even noticed it was ever defeated.
The article only really talks about demand for dumbphones by way of their relatively low prices, but there's a huge demographic factor as well. I've heard so many people from pre-cellular generations say they "just want a phone that makes phone calls" over the last few years that I'm not at all surprised to see articles like this. With the coming demographic shifts in the United States, I expect a very healthy market for dumbphones for a long time.
I own N950 - I wouldn't die if I hadn't it. I use it up to full power, I love it, but I can replace any part* in it with something else either by delegating that to dumbphone or laptop.
* - problem with Nokia Maps for car navigation while from other side I love to be lost a little bit.
67 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadI would bet we'll start seeing $50 Android phones (unlocked prices here of course) within the next year or two.
I just wonder if there's much difference between Android and Symbian once you get down to the $50 point. It's not like you're going to have any amazing hardware features at that point, so it more comes down to software, and how well that software is tailored for the device.
I've got a Nexus S, one of the more powerful phones before the dual-core generation started. If you compare its specifications to the galaxy ace, one of the current generation low-end phones, they are actually quite similar. When you consider the Nexus S can even run 4.0 (officially too), something might be changing. Although, the galaxy ace probably lacks in the gpu area.
The 6300 series was always popular, especially in Africa, because they were pretty rugged. This is still a problem with touchscreen phones.
While many people have a problem with the hideousness of the Symbian UI, there are a lot who don't have this problem. They've learned how to use it and are comfortable with it. The iPhone, Android and WP7 don't necessarily improve their experience and there are also new things to learn.
* Angry Birds released for the Apple's iOS in December 2009 (two year ago)
* iPhone itself is 4.5 years old.
I can completely see $50 Android after two years but Nokia is not sleeping either.
I don't want web on my phone. I don't want a camera on my phone. I don't want an MP3 player on my phone. I don't want a GPS or a tip calculator or a thousand other pointless (to me) apps on my phone. I don't even want to play angry birds on my phone. * gasp *
I had an iPhone. I got rid of it. I now own a Nokia, and other than coming with a useless camera, it fits my requirements perfectly and it's way cheaper and the battery lasts forever.
Because, ultimately, it's never been about the phone; it's all about the contract that Verizon / TMobile / AT&T wants to handcuff us to.
Net neutrality "lite" means that the telecoms have extreme incentives to keep us chained to contracts for as long as possible, no matter what advances in technology might make voice and data usage cheaper / bandwidth more efficient, or whatever.
Anyway, I ended up keeping my contractless dumb phone for voice only, and got an Android tablet for anything that would have otherwise persuaded me to want a smart phone. Unfortunately, I ended up needing to buy a data plan for it, which means I'm handcuffed to a contract anyway. But at least the tablet is optimized for "reading" which is what I'd want to do most of, had I a smart phone.
I guess that's where Verizon wins, spending my hard-earned money on lobbying for laws that decrease my power of choice, as a consumer.
The regulations ban content blocking and require transparency from ISPs. They also require network management and packet discrimination to be "reasonable," but they exempt wireless broadband from all but the transparency and blocking rules.
source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/its-here-fcc...
But your problem is not with net neutrality, it's much earlier, before you even connect -- you didn't want the contract ("handcuffs"). Or am I reading that incorrectly?
I think this may end up being the future for most. That is many will couple a cheap smartphone or dumbphone with a tablet that offers PAYG (pay as you go) web access. It is simply too expensive to have monthly two data fees to pay for or a possible $9.99/month to add an extra device for shared data usage.
Look at coverage maps for the major carriers... even Verizon's map for prepaid is swiss cheese.
Probably fine if you stay in the city but if you travel (or live in the suburbs of a city like Milwaukee) this is a dealbreaker.
1) Different technologies need different phones. For example, an iPhone won't get HSPA+ on T-Mobile because T-Mobile uses AWS. Similarly, you can't use a GSM phone on a CDMA network, and vice versa
2) Except for T-Mobile, you pay the same both off and on contract. This is probably the biggest reason that it doesn't make sense. Even T-Mobile only gives you a discounted price after you've been on the contract. If you are lucky enough to be in such a state, and like T-Mobile's phones (or don't mind living with EDGE data), then it's great! Else, it doesn't make much financial sense.
People hate paying $600 for an iPhone when they can just put it on credit and never do the math.
To answer his question: Yes, there are many "SIM-only" (commonly called "prepaid" in the US) options. AT&T has the GoPhone thing, and T-Mobile has a couple of different prepaid options.
You can get smartphone data with both AT&T and T-Mobile's prepaid. A contract-free iPhone (3GS/4/4S) on AT&T GoPhone is a pretty good deal right now. Using an iPhone on GoPhone doesn't require that it be unlocked, as it uses standard AT&T (micro-)SIMS.
The various CDMA carriers and the MVNOs operating off of it has similar deals, though they're not as cost-effective and there's a choice of no or expensive data options.
However, the implication is that by buying a SIM (which can also be postpaid. It is not strictly prepaid only) and a phone, you get the choice of phone and service. This may be true in Europe. It is certainly true in India, where people routinely swap SIM's.
It is not true in the U.S. There is largely no benefit to buying service and a SIM separately. Yes, prepaid is cheaper, and I forgot about that. But if you look at an apples to apples comparison of plans, there is absolutely no reason to buy postpaid off-contract when you pay the same amount regardless.
This article is mostly talking about the developing markets, where pre-paid is the defacto standard. No contracts.
Most people with data enabled phones in Rwanda pay less than $30 a month for their service. (pre-paid we pay 5c a megabyte)
I have just done this myself with a 24-month contract saving 6 GBP a month (making it 4 GBP a month, including 500Mb/month of data) which paid for a Milestone 2...
I know that's the case in the US.
The Optimus V is hardly the top of the line when it comes to Android phones but it gives me everything I want out of an Android smartphone -- the full Google Nav turn by turn GPS functionality (killer feature #1 for a smartphone for me, and the reason I wouldn't trade Android for an iPhone even if the prices were identical -- and I used to be an iPhone user, I used the iPhone 3G for 2 years), tethering of my laptop and/or ASUS Transformer tablet/netbook (killer feature #2) and Google Voice (killer feature #3).
Everything else the phone does is gravy after that.
YMMV and your prices may vary since the $25 rate is grandfathered in (even though, as I mentioned, I wasn't under any contract -- which is pretty cool), I think the rate for new users is $35. But I've been very happy with Virgin Mobile and the Optimus V.
I now carry around a £5 dumbphone in my bag for when my smartphone inevitably dies on a night out (and yes, I do have a second charger at work). When I use the dumbphone as my main device, the battery lasts around two weeks.
Additionally, they are replaceable- my dumbphone (which I left smartphones for) was $20 without a contract. If I get pushed into a pool or drop it off a cliff, I won't be especially put out.
I question the validity of owning a so-called smartphone and I'm seriously considering either selling it or giving it away, because I know I'd really not miss it.
Similarly, the ability to "browse the Web" on a low-resolution screen with a "ten-key" keyboard is, to me at least, worse than useless, but too many so-called "dumb phones" are truly dumb: the last one I had accepted Bluetooth contacts, iff phone numbers had no punctuation, and the one before that blocked "international calls" to all numbers of the form "+1 nnn-nnn-nnnn" from the US, and reliably _powered off_ when connected to a charger overnight (support actually claimed this to be a "feature designed to extend battery life").
The phone book issues, at least, weren't anything that 10 minutes with Python couldn't fix, but still, it's annoying that "dumb phone" vendors still, in 2011, saw software as an afterthought.
Apple should really consider making a $150 contract-free, high-quality, 4GB "iPod smart dumb phone" with iCloud and Siri but no user-installed apps, for people with iPads who really just want an iPod and a decent phone.
I know a lot of people who, out of preference for the form factor, overall size, or protection for the keyboard/display, only buy flip phones.
Ultimately, the problem with a tablet is that its weight / capability just isn't favorable enough. Anything I can do with a tablet, I can do with a smartphone (although perhaps with a bit more scrolling), and a tablet's browser rendering speed and lack of keyboard makes it reach for a lightweight notebook every single time (and the MBA / Ultrabook / Chromebook isn't that much heavier than a tablet).
I use a MPB, but I'm envious of the MBAs and will no doubt eventually spring for one. I have absolutely no interest in a shared dumb terminal with a different feeling inputs / outputs (keyboard, mice / touch, screen).
Maybe if we're all using touch screens eventually, but I'm not convinced the keyboard will go away anytime soon, and I prefer my own setup. If anything laptops have become a very personal item, sometimes even a fashion statement (not my thing but it's there).
http://event.asus.com/mobile/padfone/
http://www.asus.com/Eee/Eee_Pad/Eee_Pad_Transformer_Prime_TF...
This is why I've been hoping that Google would just make Android have 3 UI add-ons, that get activated based on what type of device they are in. If it's the phone, then it shows the phone UI, if it's a larger screen, like a PC screen, the tablet version gets activated for it, and if it's a TV, the "Google TV" version gets activated there. Of course, they should try to make them as similar as possible, but you shouldn't underestimate that they are ultimately different form factors and they need their own optimized UI.
Also once that UI is activated, it should probably be activated on the phone as well. For example, I think it would be best if you could control the TV UI directly from your phone by touching it and interacting directly with it rather than "tabbing" through the TV UI with a remote, which is slower, and reminds me of how a dumbphone's UI was controlled before touchscreens. Pressing the UI element directly is a much faster approach.
Actual phone: http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_6303_classic-2658.php
On Android an inconsiderate app can decide that it really needs to update 250MB of resources. There goes your data plan for that month...
I regret switching to a standard data plan as it was 'unlimited'. With the good old trusty dumbphone, a Nokia N95, I was able to connect by BT and then tunnel with SSH to VNC and RDP to my hearts content by laptop or Nokia tablet. An odd quirk was that the SSH data usage never even showed up on my plan.
I have no idea what model it is, but I've paid 9 € for my current Nokia in 2005 as part of a contract prolongation. Its original battery lasts one week and a half and I can't count how many times it fell to the ground. It works just as well as it did 7 years ago.
I don't know if "The dumbphone strikes back". Hell, I didn't even noticed it was ever defeated.
* - problem with Nokia Maps for car navigation while from other side I love to be lost a little bit.