Dedicated GPS vs Smartphone GPS Debate

 

I know this topic has been discussed ad nausium and some great information has been put out, especially those incredibly informative articles by Gadgetguy.
I recently upgraded my phone to a Droid X by Motorola. I love the phone and was anxious to try the GPS apps that were available.
I own a Garmin 265wt and love it but felt that there might be something to the premise that smartphone GPS apps are always up-to-date as far as their map data and POIs are concerned.
Last weekend I tried an experiment. I ran both the Droid Navigation app on the smartphone and also ran my 265wt side by side. I live in Portland and had never visited the Mt. St. Helens visitor centers. I decided to do this field trip to see the interesting sites, but more, to see what the two GPS units would do.
I was, at first, pleasantly surprised by the accuracy of the Droid app. It presented a very intuitive display and I enjoyed the audible directions more than those given on the Garmin.
Everything was great with both units until I began to get to the edge of cell coverage. Then, things went downhill fast with the phone.
The route display became blurry when there was no cell coverage, as if to say, "we're doing our best but are sort of lost". There were no audible directions given during this time. The only audible alerts were telling me that service had been lost.
The Garmin, however, just kept chugging along, giving directions and audible ques and got me to the various points of interest along the route.
So, the jury, in my mind, is still out on this question. I'd like to hear if anyone else has had a similar experience.

--
John Feraud Sr. Elk Grove, California, USA
<<Page 3

RE: I can teach but i can't make them understand

diesel wrote:
ORnonprophet wrote:

Wow. All I can really say is: wow. <>
NP

And those that are even in a smaller minority that are denigrating dedicated GPS units or advocating their preference seem to be going to even greater lengths to do so.

The current smartphone market is only a couple of years old. For most, this market started with the release of the original iPhone. Smartphones had been around for several years before the iPhone, it's just that this is the device that brought a whole new level to the consumer. The original smartphones were those that integrated email with the ability to send SMS. These further evolved into a "2nd" generation when Internet and Java (Brew) were added. Symbian, Android and the Apple OS were what Windows and the Mac OS were to the personal computer market.

Any comparison between an Android, AOS or other operating system device is essentially the same argument between those that use a PC vice an Apple. Different strokes for different folks.

I believe the current crop of smartphone navigators rely on a connection to the cloud and without a connection they are incapable of operating. They may be able to find a point, provided they have a map, but I don't think they could calculate a route between 2 points.

My experience is the phone does little to no processing to calculate a route but relies on sending a request through the cloud to a server farm where the route is plotted and sent back to the device. In support of this observation we are seeing reports from smartphone users of their particular package being unable to handle detours which is a fairly common item included in dedicated units.

Most smartphone applications also do not provide the ability to handle the level of customization found in the dedicated devices. Those that do allow customization are still primitive in comparison to an equivalent (price wise) dedicated unit. However, smartphones do bring much to the table as long as they have access to the cloud.

Now, I've used smartphones for over 8 years and I've seen them evolve and their capabilities expand much faster than the dedicated devices. I still prefer a dedicated device, but I can, and do appreciate the sophistication found in many of the converged devices.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

.

Box Car wrote:

The current smartphone market is only a couple of years old. For most, this market started with the release of the original iPhone. Smartphones had been around for several years before the iPhone, it's just that this is the device that brought a whole new level to the consumer. The original smartphones were those that integrated email with the ability to send SMS. These further evolved into a "2nd" generation when Internet and Java (Brew) were added. Symbian, Android and the Apple OS were what Windows and the Mac OS were to the personal computer market.

Any comparison between an Android, AOS or other operating system device is essentially the same argument between those that use a PC vice an Apple. Different strokes for different folks.

I believe the current crop of smartphone navigators rely on a connection to the cloud and without a connection they are incapable of operating. They may be able to find a point, provided they have a map, but I don't think they could calculate a route between 2 points.

My experience is the phone does little to no processing to calculate a route but relies on sending a request through the cloud to a server farm where the route is plotted and sent back to the device. In support of this observation we are seeing reports from smartphone users of their particular package being unable to handle detours which is a fairly common item included in dedicated units.

Most smartphone applications also do not provide the ability to handle the level of customization found in the dedicated devices. Those that do allow customization are still primitive in comparison to an equivalent (price wise) dedicated unit. However, smartphones do bring much to the table as long as they have access to the cloud.

Now, I've used smartphones for over 8 years and I've seen them evolve and their capabilities expand much faster than the dedicated devices. I still prefer a dedicated device, but I can, and do appreciate the sophistication found in many of the converged devices.

Box Car - thank you for finally proving your ignorance about current smartphones. You anti-smartphone folks really are funny.

.

Box Car wrote:

The original smartphones were those that integrated email with the ability to send SMS. These further evolved into a "2nd" generation when Internet and Java (Brew) were added.

What you are describing are feature phones. Not smartphones.

Box Car wrote:

I believe the current crop of smartphone navigators rely on a connection to the cloud and without a connection they are incapable of operating. They may be able to find a point, provided they have a map, but I don't think they could calculate a route between 2 points.

Wrong. If you have a current smartphone and a nav app with built in maps then you can most definitely navigate without a cloud connection. And such apps can calculates routes between points.

Do you honestly think someone would create a nav app which couldn't calculate a route between 2 points!!!! I wonder if you are just being silly.

Box Car wrote:

My experience is the phone does little to no processing to calculate a route but relies on sending a request through the cloud to a server farm where the route is plotted and sent back to the device.

If you are using a cloud based app then of course the app will send the route request to the cloud! The answer to this problem is to use an app with built in maps. There are a number of apps currently available. Heck, we even have a detailed thread on this site if you wanted to spend the five minutes reading it.

Box Car wrote:

Most smartphone applications also do not provide the ability to handle the level of customization found in the dedicated devices. Those that do allow customization are still primitive in comparison to an equivalent (price wise) dedicated unit. However, smartphones do bring much to the table as long as they have access to the cloud.

These type of statements really do make you look silly. Have you even tested ONE current smartphone application? Its pretty apparent you haven't.

The $5 CoPilot app allows MORE customization than any Nuvi on the market. Test it for yourself if you don't believe me.

What really shocks me Box Car is that you've made comments in numerous smartphone threads but you've obviously never even read the threads!!! If you HAD read the threads you would have already known the truth behind many of your false statements.

*DING DING DING*

diesel wrote:
ORnonprophet wrote:

Wow. All I can really say is: wow.

The lengths to which a vocal minority here will go to denigrate smartphone navigation is just plain amazing...

And those that are even in a smaller minority that are denigrating dedicated GPS units or advocating their preference seem to be going to even greater lengths to do so.

We have a winner!

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Only A Sith...

GadgetGuy2008 wrote:

You anti-smartphone folks really are funny.

...deals in absolutes.

Box Car might be confusing feature phones and smartphones, as many people commonly do. But your statement is flawed in that it deals with absolutes. I believe the quote goes something like this?

"If you are not with us, then you are against us."

Only the narrow-minded deal in absolutes.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Wrong, wrong, wrong.....

Box Car wrote:

I believe the current crop of smartphone navigators rely on a connection to the cloud and without a connection they are incapable of operating. They may be able to find a point, provided they have a map, but I don't think they could calculate a route between 2 points.

Why do folks insist upon repeating the same incorrect information over and over and over....?

Smartphones DO NOT need the "cloud" or a cell tower to navigate!!!

NP

--
In times of profound change, the learners will inherit the earth while the "learned" find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists...

A few minor constructive corrections

Box Car wrote:

The current smartphone market is only a couple of years old. For most, this market started with the release of the original iPhone. Smartphones had been around for several years before the iPhone, it's just that this is the device that brought a whole new level to the consumer. The original smartphones were those that integrated email with the ability to send SMS. These further evolved into a "2nd" generation when Internet and Java (Brew) were added. Symbian, Android and the Apple OS were what Windows and the Mac OS were to the personal computer market.

Actually, I'd argue there's been a sort of "parallel evolution" in that the first handhelds "pocket computer" devices with GPS capability were the later Palm Pilots (often with external GPS), then Blackberry and Windows Mobile (which started the "smartphone" trend in the US some ten to twelve years ago) which had phone and GPS capability built-in.

iPhone broke it out to the masses in the US, but there's a lot of folks who've been using smartphones for business for far longer grin

(I specify US, as an aside, because smartphone evolution went VERY differently in the rest of the world. In Europe, until recently Nokia was THE dominant player, and only recently has been passed by Android (and Nokia's Maemo OS is still a major player); in Japan, Qualcomm BREW OS phones were and are still huge in the smartphone market. Both regions are also typically 2-5 years ahead of the US in technological developments, smartphone-wise.)

Quote:

Any comparison between an Android, AOS or other operating system device is essentially the same argument between those that use a PC vice an Apple. Different strokes for different folks.

Now this, I'll agree with you, and people do get into similar religious wars--folks use what folks like. I like easily moddable and customisable phones without being locked into a specific market, so I use Android (and avoid AT&T like the black plague as they DO lock their Android phones to the official market); I've a good friend who was a former Android user but went iPhone because it worked better for how THEY usually use their phone.

I'm not a fundamentalist over it, and I know different folks will have different prefs. (My local circle of friends tends to be a dual culture of iPhone and T-Mobile G2 (Android) users--it works for us--others may use different stuff.)

Quote:

I believe the current crop of smartphone navigators rely on a connection to the cloud and without a connection they are incapable of operating. They may be able to find a point, provided they have a map, but I don't think they could calculate a route between 2 points.

And in this, you'd be incorrect:

a) At least five GPS programs exist for road navigation for Android that require no cloud connection whatsoever and are effectively ports of preexisting "standalone GPS" programs to Android (Garmin's program for GarminPhone, an OEM port of iGO 8 for European Android devices, CoPilot Live, Sygic, and Navigon). For the iPhone there is a sixth (the port of the TomTom software for iPhone).

For that matter, standalone GPS programs for smartphones have a pretty long history--iGO 8 has been around for a good long while for Windows Mobile smartphones (at least since Windows Mobile 2005, released back in 2004ish).

All of these programs will turn a GPS-enabled smartphone into a standalone GPS. (In fact, CoPilot Live in particular ALSO has a "standalone GPS" port--to certain Magellan Roadmate devices--and I'd think it wouldn't work so well if it didn't have the maps and POIs built in! grin)

Of note, I've deliberately NOT included stuff using Open Street Maps format--if we do, the list of "standalone GPS" tools for Android and iPhone expand considerably.

b) If we expand to non-road GPS navigation, the options expand further (pretty much almost all OSM tools, OruxMaps, Gaia GPS (which can use the cloud or can use pre-cached and pre-saved maps specifically for when you aren't in a cloud-enabled hiking spot), various backcountry hiking apps that can store topo maps exactly in the manner that CoPilot or Navigon or iGO 8 can).

3) Both cloud-dependent and cloud-independent smartphone GPS programs can in fact calculate a route between two points. (Google Navigator--which is admittedly cloud-dependent--can do it using various travel methods; iGO 8, which is *not* dependent on the cloud, can do the same, as can practically all GPS tools.)

Almost all of these tools, in fact, will also save routes, and more than a few are capable of importing and exporting calculated routes (and also recorded tracks) in the open GPX or KML formats.

Quote:

My experience is the phone does little to no processing to calculate a route but relies on sending a request through the cloud to a server farm where the route is plotted and sent back to the device. In support of this observation we are seeing reports from smartphone users of their particular package being unable to handle detours which is a fairly common item included in dedicated units.

This is, again, not entirely accurate--cloud-dependent tools will grab maps and traffic info from servers, but don't have the cloud server itself do the processing--it instead does the processing itself, at least with Android and iPhone tools.

Also, your statement is pretty much inaccurate with cloud-independent "standalone" GPS tools for smartphones, which are often direct ports of GPS programs for "standalone" GPS devices and have the same capabilities.

(As a minor aside--every "standalone GPSr" sold in the US is a kissing-cousin to at least Windows Mobile smartphones, and most use customised versions of WinMo or WinCE making porting VERY easy to similar architectures. Also, there are reports of newer GPSr devices that use a stripped version of Android, also making ports VERY easy to Android smartphones.)

The ability to handle detours is more of a function of how often maps are enabled and, in newer GPSr devices, whether they can get traffic info from specific services on broadcast radio subcarriers (TMS, usually done by Clear Channel stations in the US). Yes, that's right--even the newer standalone GPSr gets info "from the cloud", though via broadcast radio subcarriers. (And yes, smartphones can do this too, if they have integral FM receivers. grin)

Most of this "detour rerouting" usually comes from an additional subscription service which--surprise, surprise--CoPilot Live *also* offers, and in a way that is not cloud-dependent other than downloading the traffic updates.)

Quote:

Most smartphone applications also do not provide the ability to handle the level of customization found in the dedicated devices. Those that do allow customization are still primitive in comparison to an equivalent (price wise) dedicated unit. However, smartphones do bring much to the table as long as they have access to the cloud.

I am going to presume that your primary experience has been with Blackberry GPS tools (which are, comparatively, primitive) or possibly the abominable "provider OEM" tools like Verizon Navigator (which really should be consigned to use only in downtown Hades with the developers sentenced to use this and ONLY this as a navigation tool as their eternal punishment)--Android and iPhone (and even recent Windows Mobile) GPS tools are generally direct ports, with Android and WinMo GPS tools having the same functionalities as the tools in standalone GPSrs.

Compared to the versions of CoPilot Live that exist for standalone GPSrs, the functionality of CoPilot Live on my smartphone is identical. Same with iGO 8 on my (long retired) WinMo phone and on a standalone GPSr.

Literally the only things different from me running CoPilot and you running a TomTom are that I don't have custom POI voice alerts (and this is a limitation of CoPilot *across all platforms*, it's not an Android limitation) and I can't change the icon for the car pointer. This is not crippling to me; otherwise, it acts *exactly* like a standalone GPS, and I can happily turn everything off BUT the GPS (no phone, no wifi, no way to get on the cloud at ALL) on the road and still have it happily work. grin

This even goes to the point of loading POIs. For CoPilot Live on a laptop or a GPSr, you download TomTom POIs from this site, place them in a folder, and start up CoPilot Live to install them. The same method works on my Android--in fact, I can cheat by hitting POI Factory directly via Dolphin Browser (a VERY good browser for Android that I highly recommend) and downloading, or I can hook up my Android to the computer as essentially a USB hard-drive and copy them over, or I can fire up File Expert (a VERY nice and highly recommended and free file manager and backup tool for Android), connect to my internal Windows network, copy them from the POI directory on my computer to the necessary directory... smile

To quote the old Virginia Slims adverts: GPS for smartphones has come a long way, baby. wink VZ Navigator (spit) is no longer the standard, and Google Maps honestly shouldn't be considered the standard by which smartphone apps live or die (CoPilot Live or Navigon, on the other hand...yeah).

Quote:

Now, I've used smartphones for over 8 years and I've seen them evolve and their capabilities expand much faster than the dedicated devices. I still prefer a dedicated device, but I can, and do appreciate the sophistication found in many of the converged devices.

Different strokes for different folks. grin Just keep in mind that (at least for WinMo, Android, and iPhone--the three dominant smartphone platforms in the US) there ARE non-cloud-dependent GPS tools that are increasingly the equal of standalone GPSr tools (largely because in many case they are *direct ports* of the very same programs you use in standalone GPSr devices!).

I'm also a devotee of using "whatever works". I usually use cloud-dependent GPS tools (like Google Maps) in cities, and NON-cloud-dependent GPS tools (like CoPilot Live) for road travel. I can add my own POIs to both, but different tools have different functionality and the non-cloud-dependent stuff is more handy to use on the road--at least to me. Other folks' mileage may vary.

Different strokes

GadgetGuy2008 wrote:
Box Car wrote:

The original smartphones were those that integrated email with the ability to send SMS. These further evolved into a "2nd" generation when Internet and Java (Brew) were added.

What you are describing are feature phones. Not smartphones.

Now, Wikipedia has this comment regarding "Smartphone."
"The first smartphone was the IBM Simon; it was designed in 1992 and shown as a concept product[9] that year at COMDEX, the computer industry trade show held in Las Vegas, Nevada. It was released to the public in 1993 and sold by BellSouth. Besides being a mobile phone, it also contained a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, note pad, e-mail, send and receive fax, and games. It had no physical buttons to dial with. Instead customers used a touchscreen to select telephone numbers with a finger or create facsimiles and memos with an optional stylus. Text was entered with a unique on-screen "predictive" keyboard. By today's standards, the Simon would be a fairly low-end product, lacking for example the camera now considered usual. However, its feature set at the time was highly advanced." "In 1997 the term 'smartphone' was used for the first time when Ericsson unveiled the concept phone GS88,[10][11] the first device labelled as 'smartphone'.[12]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

Box Car wrote:

I believe the current crop of smartphone navigators rely on a connection to the cloud and without a connection they are incapable of operating. They may be able to find a point, provided they have a map, but I don't think they could calculate a route between 2 points.

GadgetGuy2008 wrote:

Wrong. If you have a current smartphone and a nav app with built in maps then you can most definitely navigate without a cloud connection. And such apps can calculates routes between points.

Do you honestly think someone would create a nav app which couldn't calculate a route between 2 points!!!! I wonder if you are just being silly.

There are apps and then there are apps. Co-pilot is an exception as it is one of the few to store maps on the unit and have the algorithms built into the program. However, you do pay the price of loosing other capabilities as it does eat up to 2 gigs of memory leaving limited space for other items. Yes, it is possible to add memory to many smartphones, but not all will allow adding memory. So what is gain in one area is loss in another.

Box Car wrote:

My experience is the phone does little to no processing to calculate a route but relies on sending a request through the cloud to a server farm where the route is plotted and sent back to the device.

GadgetGuy2008 wrote:

If you are using a cloud based app then of course the app will send the route request to the cloud! The answer to this problem is to use an app with built in maps. There are a number of apps currently available. Heck, we even have a detailed thread on this site if you wanted to spend the five minutes reading it.

Box Car wrote:

Most smartphone applications also do not provide the ability to handle the level of customization found in the dedicated devices. Those that do allow customization are still primitive in comparison to an equivalent (price wise) dedicated unit. However, smartphones do bring much to the table as long as they have access to the cloud.

GadgetGuy2008 wrote:

These type of statements really do make you look silly. Have you even tested ONE current smartphone application? Its pretty apparent you haven't.

The $5 CoPilot app allows MORE customization than any Nuvi on the market. Test it for yourself if you don't believe me.

Again, we are arguing opinions. Customization or personalization is standard on all dedicated units where it has limited availability in the smartphone applications. Of all the smartphone nav apps, how many allow customization to at least the level of a basic dedicated device allowing you to specify fastest or shortest route, use of toll roads, unpaved roads, seasonal closures or avoid U-turns?

BoxCar wrote:

Now, I've used smartphones for over 8 years and I've seen them evolve and their capabilities expand much faster than the dedicated devices. I still prefer a dedicated device, but I can, and do appreciate the sophistication found in many of the converged devices.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

LOL! why so serious? :)

I can't believe how loud you guys are arguing about to emphasize using only one or another GPS system smile

As some brilliant people mentioned, how about having both?

I carry my cell at all times with me, so even if I left Garmin in another car or forgot to take it from home (after map updates), then I can still use droid Navigation and it really works too... maybe it's not super precise as some high frequency fancy GPS receivers or whatever installed in PND, it's still very good ... and always has updated maps in it wink

--
Garmin nuvi 2595LMT; Android 5.0 (Samsung GS3)

While I dearly love Google

While I dearly love Google navigation on my Android phone, I still use my Nuvi although not as much as I used to. The advantage of the nuvi is I can program in my destination, toss it on the seat, and just listen to the directions. The phone is harder to hear and I find the onscreen display is more time consuming and harder to use than my trusty 350. OTOH, the battery is dead in my 350 so I'll have to break down and replace it. That being said, with the lifetime maps it's money well spent. And it supports custom POI sets, which if Google supports it I can't find. The main draw of Google maps/nav is the display of traffic conditions. If the nuvi ever finally dies, it won't be replaced but it's already paid for and it doesn't need a data plan. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses, but they complement each other well and fill the gaps the other ones has.

A data point on modern smartphone apps

BoxCar wrote:

Again, we are arguing opinions. Customization or personalization is standard on all dedicated units where it has limited availability in the smartphone applications. Of all the smartphone nav apps, how many allow customization to at least the level of a basic dedicated device allowing you to specify fastest or shortest route, use of toll roads, unpaved roads, seasonal closures or avoid U-turns?

CoPilot Live, Navigon, and iGO 8 (all of which are cross-platform, at least for the three most modern smartphone OS's of Android, iOS, and Windows Mobile respectively) will all do this happily; I've had personal experience with this with CoPilot Live and with iGO 8 on Android and WinMo respectively.

CoPilot's routing preferences are actually pretty advanced, in fact. You can route on the following and actually set up multiple dedicated routing profiles (and switch between them) based on the following:

a) Average speed on multiple types of highways
b) Vehicle type (everything from RVs to your own two feet; yes, you can do RV-specific routing to avoid things like tunnels and low clearances)
c) Specific preferences for certain types of highways (yes, you can set different profiles preferring freeways or preferring 2-lane road routing for scenic drives)
d) Toll preference (including routing to avoid tolls)
e) Avoidance of propane-restricted tunnels and ferries (useful specifically for RV travel and large rigs)
f) Scenic route preferences (yes, you can select an actual option for "Use scenic routes")
g) Flag whether international borders are open for routing (convenient if you want to cross into Canada--or don't; this may be restricted to the North American version or pan-European version of CoPilot Live)
h) Quickest/shortest/expressways-avoidance/economy routing in general

Very easy to do (you set up profiles via Settings/Routing Profiles--I actually have two, one for speedy routing, one for scenic byways), and actually *more* options to do custom routing than, say, Microsoft Streets and Trips or Delorme Street Atlas for the PC. grin

Most of the standalone GPS apps for modern smartphones (in this case, the modern "Big Three"; Blackberry is still hanging on, as is Maemo, but are more "second gen" smartphones compared to what's out there now) will allow similarly complex routing preferences, actually. (Of note, apparently no less than Garmin thinks Navigon's software is good enough for iPhones, Androids, and WinMo devices that there's serious discussion of Garmin buying them outright in what might well be a strategic takeover. grin)

Even Google Navigation, which is a relatively primitive (in comparison) routing tool, allows route configurations that avoid highways or tolls (though again, for non-city driving I'd still use CoPilot or Navigon or something similarly cloud-independent).

If much of your experience has been with BREW OS devices...well, yes, those are smartphones in the technical sense, but limited, and arguably deliberately crippled (Qualcomm pretty much went with a proprietary, binary-only fork of Java for BREW OS--have some familiarity with this out of (of all things) a fan community for a rather obscure Japanese game series with a number of "side story" games only available for BREW OS and only in Japan).

The same goes for things like the LG Fusic, etc.; I'd argue that smartphones didn't really start to "come into their own" (at least in the US) until the Blackberry came out (which was probably the first *widely* available smartphone that was designed from the ground up as being a phone/handheld-PC type device) and until smartphones based on *existing* handheld-PC operating systems started coming out (thinking here of Windows Mobile phones and the last Palm OS devices that had phone capability) because older "working towards being smart" phones simply didn't have the horsepower or the operating systems yet to do GPS as well as a GPSr of the period or modern smartphones.

(Warning: the below is about to be a discussion of the history of various smartphone operating systems. Cliff's Notes version: Decent standalone GPS tools for road routing had to wait until practically all smartphones were running derivatives of Windows 95, BSD, or Linux adapted for embedded devices...some of which are literally cousins to the operating system that standalone GPSrs run. grin)

Of note--all of the major smartphone operating systems in existence today, with the sole exception of the Blackberry OS, are based on OS families for modern computers. iOS is a MacOS X derivative (heavily optimised for embedded applications, and MacOS X is in turn a BSD/Mach derivative making it a member of one of the two oldest Unix branches); Windows Mobile (up to at least WinMo 6.5) is actually a Windows 95(!) descendant (it is derived from the embedded OS Windows CE 4.0, which in turn was developed originally as a form of embedded Win95); Maemo (the OS for many of the newest Nokia devices) is an embedded fork of Debian Linux; Android OS is also a Linux fork (optimised for embedded systems and heavily dependent on Java). Even WebOS (the replacement for Palm OS) is in fact a Linux derivative; even the extremely obscure Samsung Bada OS is, at its heart, a BSD derivative (using code from multiple forks of the BSD tree, rather like MacOS X).

Of special note here, almost all modern "standalone car GPSr" devices are in fact kissing cousins of Windows Mobile phones--almost all use Windows CE (usually 3.0 and above) as the underlying OS, its whole purpose being to start up the app to run your GPSr program. (This is especially apparent in some Magellan Roadmate devices, which can run either the usual GPS software it came with or CoPilot Trucking Edition on an SD card; this fact has also made a lot of custom mods for TomTom devices possible as well.)

WinMo7 has an even stranger origin: It's the first not directly derived from Windows code proper, but its ancestral code was--I am not making this up--from the failed Zune and the even-shorter-lived Windows Kin. (Yes, you're reading this right: Windows Mobile 7 is ultimately derived from embedded operating systems for *portable media players*.) Even more interestingly, the Zune OS is *itself* a Windows CE derivative (based on a fork of Windows CE 6.0)--so the main difference with WinMo 7 is its ancestor is from a different fork of the very, very large Windows CE family tree.

The sole smartphone operating systems (Qualcomm BREW OS isn't all that common in the US) that are in common use in the US that WEREN'T derived from a "computer big brother" OS are the Blackberry OS and Nokia's Symbian OS--and THOSE have interesting histories.

Blackberries didn't start out as smartphones, interestingly enough; they started out essentially as smart-*pagers* back in the late 90s and were primarily marketed in Germany (they were only "back-engineered" as smartphones proper in 2003, and much of their design up until very recently shows their origin as "pagers with a brain").

It is probably the sole OS in this list that was designed from the ground up for telephony applications (in this case, originally, paging, later as a full featured embedded OS)...and is also, at this date, now officially abandonware similarly to Windows Mobile pre-WinMo-7; the latest Blackberry tablet doesn't use the old Blackberry OS, but (just like everyone else nowadays) a *nix derivative fork (in this case, QNX--a well-known commercial embedded *nix) and has officially announced that Blackberry OS 8 is going to be QNX based.

Nokia's Symbian OS (at one time the most widely used smartphone OS until this year, when Android surpassed it worldwide) came about in almost the same way that Windows Mobile made it to smartphones--it is derived from an embedded OS (EPOC) meant for pocket organisers (including the famous Psion 5 pocket organiser/handheld PC).

Symbian nowadays is best described as having been "Mozilla'd". Nokia has effectively abandoned it in favour of Maemo and (ironically) Windows Mobile 7 for new smartphones; the other partner (Psion) pulled out of Symbian and essentially became patent trolls suing over the use of the term "netbook" before essentially passing out of existence; Nokia (being the final owner after buying out the shell-company that owned the Symbian code and licenses) spun off a nonprofit corporation (the Symbian Foundation), transferred the code and licenses, and Symbian has now passed into the realm of formerly-proprietary now-open-source (just like the formerly proprietary Netscape was open-sourced, hence spawning Mozilla Firefox and the Seamonkey fork of Firefox and an "even more open source than thou" derivative known as IceApe and so on).

Of note, Windows Mobile (out of all these) was probably the first to get decent GPS tools. grin

traffic

I love the traffic info I get from Google maps. I heard they get there traffic info from crowd sourcing. peoples cell phone speed data gets sent back to Google.

http://bub.blicio.us/google-maps-crowdsourcing-data-gets-no-...

@nrbovee: A couple of quick

@nrbovee:

A couple of quick points.

1. I agree the phone is harder to hear and the navigation interface needs work.

2. Google maps can put in custom POIs, but it's a pain in the a**, requiring use of your home PC and Google's custom maps function. Search this forum and you'll find a how-to. The how-to doesn't mention however that each custom map is limited to about a thousand items.

3. You can buy a replacement battery for your 350 if you don't want to replace it.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Another reason not to rely on the smartphone for navigation

(or maybe a reason to have both)

Today, my wife (she doesn't have a smartphone and doesn't want one) needed to borrow my GPS for an errand in a distant city that she wasn't familiar with. Had I only had a smartphone GPS, then she would have had my phone and I wouldn't have it with me. Now, I don't have a data plan and without free wifi, my smartphone is a highly capable PDA. On my way home from work I needed to stop a store and when I got there, the store was no longer there. They had moved quite a while back, long enough that the whole building was gone. If I had my GPS I could have been directed to where they moved to, but instead I had to call my wife and have her look it up on my GPS and relay the location and nearby landmarks for me to understand where the store was.

I guess I'll be investing in a larger memory card so that I can download some maps into my smartphone and use it as a backup navigator. No way will it replace the dedicated GPS (smartphone screen is way smaller than my GPS), but it is better than nothing. Maybe I need an Andriod tablet for a GPS.

Wrong back!

Not so fast...

ORnonprophet wrote:

Why do folks insist upon repeating the same incorrect information over and over and over....?

Smartphones DO NOT need the "cloud" or a cell tower to navigate!!!

NP

FYI, some phones (the Droid X for example) mostly from Motorola aren't able to initiate the lock on satellites unless they also get a CDMA signal. It's a bug but it's still true and create a major problem when out in a non-service area.

Wishing I could Switch

I own the Nuvi 600 and the Android Incredible. On the Incredible, I use Google Navigation. I have done several tests and so far have been disappointed with the Android's navigation.

My first test was to start in one city and add a destination from another city in both the Nuvi and the Incredible. Though both routes would get me to the destination, the Incredible added several miles to the route when it calculated it. I assume this is due to the logic of calculating routes in both the Nuvi and the Incredible? I know that the Nuvi has different types of routing such as "Quickest time" or "Shortest route" which I could not find in the Google Navigation. Could this be the reason?

My second test was to navigate to several businesses within my city. The Nuvi found these businesses every time. The Incredible always got me close but about 20% of the time did not take me right to the business. At one point, I was a block away. HOWEVER, this error could of been my fault. With the Nuvi, I entered in the exact address (very laborsome). With the Incredible, I just stated the name of the business I wanted to navigate to.

I really want to switch completely to using my Incredible instead of my Nuvi, but I am not sure it is quite there yet. I even bought a beanbag mount for my Incredible.

The reason I want to switch is:
1) Convenience - Phone, PDA, Shopping list, emailer, and GPS all in one
2) Much easier to state destination. No longer having to know the address. Now you just state the business or describe the business such as "Navigate to Museum with King Tut display". Very cool way to navigate.
3) Phone is always with me.

I am not claiming that one is better than the other, though I really, REALLY want my phone to be just as good. I am just saying that with my tests, the Nuvi will still be used on long trips while the phone will be used when the Nuvi is not available.

--
Garmin Nuvi 2699 with 2017.30 Maps

7 years old

It's not cutting edge, does it have a gps?

http://www.gsmarena.com/siemens_sx66-992.php

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Quote:Throw Away that GPS

Quote:

Throw Away that GPS Device

You’ll also be able to ditch that GPS unit in your car. Your cell phone will be able to act as a GPS (Global Positioning System) unit. Since 2002 all cell phones have, by law, contained a GPS chip so callers could be located by emergency responders. But only recently has the technology become available to use your phone as a GPS device. In Europe, Siemens has released a phone (the SXG75) equipped with a GPS module and navigation software, and the Tomtom Mobile 5 Navigation System and Wayfinder Mobile Navigation System, both with Bluetooth wireless (according to its website, Wayfinder will also work with some phones in the US), will work in your car on your mobile. In the U.S., Sprint Nextel works with both Televigation’s Telenav and Motorola’sViaMoto."

Source: http://www5.samsclub.com/Electronics/Electronics-MobileSolut...

So yes, actually that phone you link to has a GPS chip in it. But it's not user accessible like the smartphones of today. This is why GSM Arena marks "no" when it comes to GPS.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams
<<Page 3