The display also allowed some flexibility with the design. It's basically "a sticker applied to a circuit board," Colorado says, which made it possible to limit the phone's thickness to nine millimeters. That helped it achieve the same "slim and sleek" factor that has made its Razr line so successful, Reith says. And the display can be cut to shape, allowing designers to produce a distinctive curve at the top edge of the screen. Although E Ink technology can be used to make high-resolution megapixel displays, Motorola opted for a less expensive version using simple electronics that produce segmented numbers and fixed-shape icons like those on a wristwatch. This makes for a simple display--perhaps too simple for places such as the United States, where consumers are used to color screens, Reith says. But the screen is not buried beneath a pane of glass or limited to a clunky rectilinear shape. Not using glass also makes the phone more durable. Motorola has incorporated several other features designed to make the phone simple to use. The characters on the screen are large and easy to see. To make it usable for those who cannot read, the phone has no text-based menus--just icons, along with voice prompts in the customer's native language. The phone also features two separate antennas, which improves call quality in two ways: it ensures that at least one antenna isn't blocked by the user's hand, and it helps the phone pick up signals that are weak or scattered by buildings. The company is already designing a successor; it could have features such a built-in LED flashlight, which would be useful in areas with unreliable electricity. But for these markets, don't look for cameras, Internet access, or video-download capability in the near future. Though the phone offers a sleek design, it will still face stiff competition from Nokia, which continues to offer new, inexpensive phones. And will it appear in the United States? For that to happen, Reith says, Motorola will have to find a willing service provider or agree to sell its product alongside no-name brands at drugstores. |
E-mail
Audio »
Print
Favorite
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Rethinking the Cell Phone
02/14/2008
Download
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
2.These phones will also compete with grey market imports and second hand phones sourced abroad as well as locally which will be significantly cheaper than anything motorola can sell this phone for and have more features at the same time.
3.A phone without a backlight and no LED flashlight makes no sense in a country like India, where the mobile phone LCD backlight is frequently used as a flashlight. Nokia were the first to realise the potential of this when they incorporated one into the Nokia 1100.
4.Are slim phones that popular? More of my friends have fat chunky Nokias (6600 etc.) than slim samsungs and motorolas. Also these phones will have to undertake extremely rough handling and climates, a situation where more material is better.
5.I personally think that "budget" phones and "budget" computers are more likely to find a market amongst geeks with a thing for such stuff.
6.What motorola should really be doing is refurbishing old motorola phones and reselling them. This won't cost them much as motorola phones in India have pathetic resale value. I had a motorola C115 on which I lost 80% of the cash in 10 months. Just 2 months later my mother exchanged her 5 year old Nokia 3300 for more.
potaman
10/26/2006
Posts:1
v_pradeep4u
10/27/2006
Posts:1
the_dukeman
10/30/2006
Posts:1
kellyhair
10/31/2006
Posts:1
what happens to this wonderful e-ink display in these situations?
what 99% of the world population need (after safe water) is a cell phone that you can use to talk, to listen, and a battery that longs a month, for US$ 50. That's the future, not embedded cameras, voice recognition, games, calculators and other useless gadgets, IMHO
shikida
10/31/2006
Posts:1
gsblodgett
10/31/2006
Posts:1
PeterBradsha...
10/31/2006
Posts:1
hughshinn
07/20/2007
Posts:1
If someone has the resources and facility to pay their bill, they will not be scratching up cash for a phone. There are plenty of cheap basic phones around with good standby and talk time.
In a 12 month period, people spend way more on phone bills than they do on a handset. It's insulting to say that poor people do not want all the features of a modern handset - they want it as much as the next guy.
sunmaster14
10/31/2006
Posts:2
You talk about stereotypes, but then you put up one of your own: you assume that if someone is rich enough to have a cell phone that they are rich enough not to work/commute outside in the open air. I am affraid your assumption is wrong. Sometimes the farmers are actually wealthier than the urbanites. Many times whether urban or rural, outside weather is part of everyday life.
Please be more considerate before jumping to assumptions that are not supported by facts.
By the way, even here in the USA, I would love to have a simple, waterproof phone that has long battery life and no gizmos, why wouldn't someone overseas want the same thing?
kwfinken
11/17/2006
Posts:1
I'm not in the USA - so, whatever seems likely to you is wrong, first cab off the rank. I live in Australia. Contrary to popular belief, as well as drought, we also have rain here in Australia - and it forms puddles a plenty.
We also ride bikes - I ride a bike to work - yes, even in the rain. Like any sensible person, when it's raining I put my phone in my pocket, so it doesn't get wet - I don't hold it aloft waiting for a lightning strike. Water ingress voids the warranty on any mobile phone - you know that.
"... you assume that if someone is rich enough to have a cell phone that they are rich enough not to work/commute outside in the open air."
Where the devil did you gleen that? I honestly think you went looking for an arguement.
What I said was, if people can afford to pay their mobile phone bill, they will not be scratching to put money together for a reasonable handset - so why dumb-down the handset with the expectation that poor people will not want the cool features? What they want is cheaper calls. That's what I said.
Apart from a pensioner or very low user, who stretches $20 out over vodafone's 365 day prepaid plan we all spend more on calls than we do on a handset in a 12 month period.
"By the way, even here in the USA, I would love to have a simple, waterproof phone that has long battery life and no gizmos, why wouldn't someone overseas want the same thing?"
That's like saying "here in the USA I'd like to live in a straw hut out in my backyard - so why wouldn't someone in an underdeveloped country want to do the same?"
Get it? Got it? Good!
sunmaster14
12/23/2006
Posts:2
cool_gaurav1...
11/01/2006
Posts:1
The mobile phone subscriber could earn discounted/free talk time, content, etc. for using such a phone, and the service provider could earn advertising revenue. This will also allow the sale of better equipped phones.
I have filed a patent for such a phone
India Patent Application No. 5203/DELNP/2006
For a quick look at a couple of the embodiments, visit www.getmomobile.com.
-A.J.
A.J.
11/10/2006
Posts:1