Most over hyped features according to Phone Scoop.

[ultimatebob]

I still think that would be pretty stupid to buy a 3G phone now when they're already in the process of expanding the new 4G networks into my area. Why buy a phone that you know is going to be obsolescent six months from now, when you can get something that will be "future proof" for at least the next two years?

 

[DivideBYZero]

I still think that would be pretty stupid to buy a 3G phone now when they're already in the process of expanding the new 4G networks into my area. Why buy a phone that you know is going to be obsolescent six months from now, when you can get something that will be "future proof" for at least the next two years?

This is not the way to look at it. 3G is "future proof" (I hate that phrase, it essentially means nothing), in so much as two years from now you can bet 100% it will be absolutely ubiquitous. "4G" on the other hand is or isn't "4G" dependent upon who you speak to or what the ITU is being paid to say by carriers. Then you have to think about selecting the right type of "4G"; WiMAX, LTE, HSPA+? Which one will last the distance? Who knows, but I know 3G will still be around. Next up, having a greater theoretical transfer between the handset and the tower doesn't magically improve the network's ability to move data from the tower to wherever you need it. Then you have to actually be in an area that actually has the "4G" variant you chose to actually feel the "future" in your hand.

But yeah, 3G will be obsolete in six months.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Video chat is the biggest one for me. I've used it exactly three times, and two of those times I was in the same room with the other person.

I hate video chat anyway. From a computer too, not just over cell networks. It always looks bad, there's usually lag even on a fast connection... the other thing I've noticed is it doesn't even come close to recreating a face-to-face conversation because the camera is never close enough to the part of the screen that displays the other person's face. Direct two-way eye contact is impossible.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

dual core is quite overrated.

today's iphone 3gs still does everything just fine. even the iphone 4's 800mhz is more than sufficient to run its games and do whatever it needs to do. and i don't think my ipod touch with only half the ram is even struggling much compared to the iP4.

Now on the other hand we have Android which is just chugging along. There's a lot of hiccups left and right even at 1.2ghz. Thus, dual core stands a lot to benefit here.

We can complain all we want, but at times I don't feel like I'm getting more out of my Milestone than say my friend's Omnia HD i8910 which runs 600mhz Cortex A8. Symbian is a very CPu friendly OS and even the Nokia N8 manages to run just fine on a 680mhz ARM11 processor. You can laugh all you want at phones like the N97, but even though Nokia was terrible at implementing a touch OS, the fundamental OS isn't struggling like Android is. And at least it boasts 2-3 days of battery while pushing email 24/7. Let's not even talk about how Android does in terms of battery life when pushing data 24/7.

So yeah, dual core may be nice, but is it really necessary? If Android was delivering a smoothass experience, we wouldn't be crying for dual core all the time.

 

[zerocool84]

dual core is quite overrated.

today's iphone 3gs still does everything just fine. even the iphone 4's 800mhz is more than sufficient to run its games and do whatever it needs to do. and i don't think my ipod touch with only half the ram is even struggling much compared to the iP4.

Now on the other hand we have Android which is just chugging along. There's a lot of hiccups left and right even at 1.2ghz. Thus, dual core stands a lot to benefit here.

We can complain all we want, but at times I don't feel like I'm getting more out of my Milestone than say my friend's Omnia HD i8910 which runs 600mhz Cortex A8. Symbian is a very CPu friendly OS and even the Nokia N8 manages to run just fine on a 680mhz ARM11 processor. You can laugh all you want at phones like the N97, but even though Nokia was terrible at implementing a touch OS, the fundamental OS isn't struggling like Android is. And at least it boasts 2-3 days of battery while pushing email 24/7. Let's not even talk about how Android does in terms of battery life when pushing data 24/7.

So yeah, dual core may be nice, but is it really necessary? If Android was delivering a smoothass experience, we wouldn't be crying for dual core all the time.

lol, you cannot compare Symbian to any other modern OS.

 

[DivideBYZero]

lol, you cannot compare Symbian to any other modern OS.

Why not? Just because it doesn't have the graphical bells and whistles of iOS or Android? People need to wake up and understand that there is more to an OS, any OS, than what you see.

 

[ultimatebob]

This is not the way to look at it. 3G is "future proof" (I hate that phrase, it essentially means nothing), in so much as two years from now you can bet 100% it will be absolutely ubiquitous. "4G" on the other hand is or isn't "4G" dependent upon who you speak to or what the ITU is being paid to say by carriers. Then you have to think about selecting the right type of "4G"; WiMAX, LTE, HSPA+? Which one will last the distance? Who knows, but I know 3G will still be around. Next up, having a greater theoretical transfer between the handset and the tower doesn't magically improve the network's ability to move data from the tower to wherever you need it. Then you have to actually be in an area that actually has the "4G" variant you chose to actually feel the "future" in your hand.

But yeah, 3G will be obsolete in six months.

I don't really think that there will be a 4G "winner", and there will continue to be several competitors. My hunch is that it will eventually be WiMax vs. LTE, just like it's GSM vs CDMA for 3G in the US now.

But yeah... A year from now almost all new phones will be 4G capable, and even the fanciest 3G phones like the iPhone 4 will feel like a dinosaur in comparison.

 

[zerocool84]

Why not? Just because it doesn't have the graphical bells and whistles of iOS or Android? People need to wake up and understand that there is more to an OS, any OS, than what you see.

It's like comparing Windows Mobile to Android and iOS. Symbian is so old it's in a different league.

 

[MrX8503]

dual core is quite overrated.

today's iphone 3gs still does everything just fine. even the iphone 4's 800mhz is more than sufficient to run its games and do whatever it needs to do. and i don't think my ipod touch with only half the ram is even struggling much compared to the iP4.

Now on the other hand we have Android which is just chugging along. There's a lot of hiccups left and right even at 1.2ghz. Thus, dual core stands a lot to benefit here.

We can complain all we want, but at times I don't feel like I'm getting more out of my Milestone than say my friend's Omnia HD i8910 which runs 600mhz Cortex A8. Symbian is a very CPu friendly OS and even the Nokia N8 manages to run just fine on a 680mhz ARM11 processor. You can laugh all you want at phones like the N97, but even though Nokia was terrible at implementing a touch OS, the fundamental OS isn't struggling like Android is. And at least it boasts 2-3 days of battery while pushing email 24/7. Let's not even talk about how Android does in terms of battery life when pushing data 24/7.

So yeah, dual core may be nice, but is it really necessary? If Android was delivering a smoothass experience, we wouldn't be crying for dual core all the time.

Symbian is old, the hardware is old, and the OS doesn't require much horsepower, thus you get better battery life.

The iPhone4 is pretty powerful but its battery life is still impressive. I think smartphones will have that kind of battery life mainstream eventually. We need to go for more powerful hardware that is more efficient.

 

[Phokus]

NFC is overhyped now, but in the future it should be more useful. The real question is how quickly NFC is adopted by restaurants/retailers/etc.

 

[olds]

I like my 4G on Wireless Tether.

 

[deustroop]

Recall

http://www.bgr.com/2011/01/14/rims-2011-blackberry-lineup/

"we have been told RIM is planning to use NFC for pairing and streaming control with accessories, in addition to peer-to-peer information exchange. What does that mean? Well, you’d hold up one BlackBerry to another BlackBerry to add that person on BlackBerry Messenger, transfer your vCard information, or even share files. Future NFC uses headed to BlackBerry devices, we’re told, include things as crazy as building access control (no more key cards!), ticketing, and of course, payments."

I like the com between two BB's. Great thing that--On the street, at the office, won't need a PIN . Not a frequent user but occassionaly could be useful.
I wonder if the transfer is like bluetooth and bypasses the network ?
Think about that for a sec--assuming a managable raduis , two or more BBs together exchanging com outside the network--nah--carriers would never allow it. But if implemented properly, ???

Doing a little lookup on the topic, I found this ( dampens my enthusiasm some)

"The maximum data transfer rate of NFC (424 kbit/s) is slower than that of Bluetooth V2.1 (2.1 Mbit/s). With a maximum working distance of less than 20 cm, NFC has a shorter range, which reduces the likelihood of unwanted interception. That makes NFC particularly suitable for crowded areas where correlating a signal with its transmitting physical device (and by extension, its user) becomes difficult."