Another Prediction of the Demise of PNG's

Did he call us a "Dumb Ass?"

More or less yes he did. Especialy the ones that use just a flip phone to call.

There must be lots of folks that find the need for "multitasking" a reason for not getting rid of some of those items, including our PNS, and placing all our eggs in a single basket—the smartphone. I, for one, will keep my Garmin, and prefer to use it full time when on a trip. And I still use a MP3 player.

And I thought I was going to be the only one to continue using my GPSs' - I only have a dumb phone that I can talk & text on. (which I pay about $125-150/year for service & minutes)

Hmmmmmm - maybe it's not so dumb after all !

What this guy failed to take into consideration is that if you have all those features and activate them (especially an Internet connection) your phone batter is going to be drained within an incredibly short period of time. By the way, I'm one of those that just wants to be able to make a phone call (and text a bit), so I have no need for a "Smart" phone.

And I just want to make a phone call on occasion. No need to text or to use a smartphone.

Thank God I can get rid of my planer.
My phone can tell me when to get up, eat and go fishing. What a relief.

My son has an I phone and it is capable of being a GPS. It is kind of small and apparently doesn't give directions the way a GPS does. I imagine that if you're using the GPS feature and a text or call comes in that takes priority over the GPS. It can give you local info for resturants or whatever you're looking for through whatever app you have loaded. Most new GPSes have POIs and this site for the stuff they don't have.

I have a GPS and a phone that I can talk on and text. If I'm going somewhere I don't have to sacrifice one for the other. Funny thing is my car has a bluetooth device built in and someone always calls when something is on that I WANT to hear and I lose the station; seeing how my son is constantly picking up his phone all the time - the GPS function on his I phone wouldn't be working too often!

I find it interesting how many people on this site have never had a smartphone and claim they don't want one. I would be willing to bet if 10 of the deniers got a smartphone 9 would never go back to their old phone and the 10th would only do it to prove me wrong and wouldn't last a month before quietly getting the smartphone back.

This saying was created for Darwin deniers but applies better to tech than anything else "Those who do not believe in evolution are the ones most in need of it." Tech is moving fast and if you don't keep up you are in danger of being left behind.

The fellow seems to take great pleasure in putting down people who might not be as technologically advanced as he is. Considering that he is on CNET TV, his target audience is probably the techie set anyway.

I thought it was humourous that, now that he has a camera in his smartphone, he couldn't remember where his digital SLR camera was. Not too bright.

He said he couldn't remember where his point and shoot camera was not an SLR and I do remember where mine is gave it to my 4 yr old to play with.

I still have my old cell phone, nothing fansy, only use to make and receive phone call. Only pay for the usage of making phone call, no monthly or service contract. Cheap. Don't expect any body important calling me , just family members.

I depend on my gps to get me to where I am going.

Unfortunately, the cell phones GPS capabilities are all pretty much based on having a network connection and using bandwidth. I'm sure cell phones work just fine for GPS in urban and fairly suburban areas, but I often find myself using a GPS in areas with spotty cell phone reception.

Also the screen size of a pocket-friendly device is limiting as a GPS. The iPhone, for example, has fewer square inches than even the 3.5 inch Garmin Nuvis; both have 3.5 inch screens, but the iphone has a smaller screen in terms of area.

FCC rules for e911 compliance - the GPS chip in EVERY cell phone is autonomous. The problem you speak of is the APP - not the hardware. If your app needs the data to pull maps from the cloud, you will have issues if the data signal is spotty. If you have an app with maps on the phone, you can put the phone in "airplane mode" and the app will work fine. I've done it.

Please stop spreading misinformation. Of course if one uses a cloud based gps app then one will need a network connection. But there are many gps apps which store the maps on the phone and do NOT need a network connection to work. Heck, even Garmin now makes an app which stores the maps locally on the phone.

It's true for all units manufactured and sold after the effective date. There are many phones still in service that are older than the effective date of the FCC order.

The conversion to full digital cell phones rendered any phone that did not have autonomous GPS chips obsolete. There can not be any phone in service anymore that is not e911 compliant. FCC rules prohibit carriers from allowing non-compliant hardware to be activated.

I haven't used my stand-alone Garmin or TomTom units in a long time.

On my last two trips I used my Evo 3D / iPad 2 to get directions and navigate.

It's just so darn easy and convenient to search for the most up to date business listings, hours, reviews, and click on a button to get directions.

I am just waiting for a red-light camera / photo radar camera POI feature to be made easily available on my phones and then it'll be complete.

The conversion to digital phone service was never mandated by the FCC. It was an industry decision to discontinue analog service, which was approved by the FCC somewhere around 2008. The rules regarding GPS location service went into effect around the same time. I have a couple of fully digital cell phones sitting in the drawer which do not incorporate a GPS chip which are fully operational with the insertion of a SIM card. These phones are E-911 compliant but do not provide geolocation information. E-911 requirements are focused on the delivery of caller information, not location. To compound the issue, not all PSAPs are capable of receiving and processing the data which makes a particular call an enhanced call.

To further compound the issue, dual mode phones were manufactured for many years beginning in the late 80's and early 90's. The driving force in moving to an all digital network was capacity. Analog phones required the exclusive use of a radio channel to carry each side of the conversation. Digital modulation allowed several conversations to be carried simultaneous conversations. While two schemes are currently used by the majority of carriers, either GSM or CDMA, the advantage to the cellular carriers is the ability to carry up to 16 conversations per channel. The current buzzword for cell service is LTE but LTE does not currently carry conversations, only data.

Cellular carriers have done two technology shifts in their digital technologies. The first was Sprint with their Spectrum service which was deployed in just a few areas. This was GSM and was decommissioned when Sprint decided to support CDMA. The initial network became the basis for what is now T-Mobile's service on the East coast. The second digital technology shift was AT&T (before Cingular bought them) shifting from TDMA to GSM. The GSM standards at that time did not require a GPS receiver in the handset to the best of my knowledge. GSM phones did not support an analog mode, so the cost of delivering service was reduced as two sets of transmitters and receivers did not have to be supported at every cell site.

Add me to the list of dumbasses........

As an ex-employee of a major phone company that begins with a V I gets 22% off on any cell plan of my choosing I prefer a regular old cell phone, no DATA plan regardless how cheap I can get it for (not even text messaging.

Maybe I'm not smart enough for smartphone.

Oh forgot I do own a $28 point a shoot Kodak Mini, it can go 9' under water, try that with your smartphone.

I am a tech geek. I have a tablet which doubles as my phone. It has the obligatory data plan and wifi capability. It also has a GPS chip, as all such phones do. It has a camera.

The tabletphone has effectively replaced my digital camera for most purposes, unless I'm walking a hiking trail. The digital camera has proven itself to be very durable in that particular instance, especially when you drop it. More durable than a smartphone, even in an Otterbox Defender case.

My tabletphone has made my netbook unnecessary for basic tasks (email, web surfing). It's also replaced the day planner with its calendar app. When traveling, it's even replaced the travel alarm. In fact I use it quite a bit for phone calls.

It won't replace my GPS - yet. The technology is there. The software though hasn't caught up yet. A view I believe I have been consistent in relaying throughout the never-ending smartphone/GPS debates that pop up on this site on a irregular basis. The tipping point I think will be when Google starts offering downloads of an entire country or continent to smartphones at no charge. Then the smartphone will truly be ready to replace the GPS.

However, the standalone GPS does face an uncertain future. Not because of the smartphone, but because of the car manufacturers integrating GPS systems into their offerings. When every vehicle comes with one, where will the GPS market go?

I grab my Garmin(s) when I'm intending to use them, and keep my smartphone handy for when I'm out without one.

I still have a 35mm SLR for when I feel like working with film. I grab my digital camera when I intend to take pictures, and keep my smartphone handy when I don't have it.

I guess that's the theme -- my smartphone integrates many features, but it isn't as good at any of them as the dedicated devices I have, nor do I expect that to change in the future. It's a matter of convenience -- I always have it with me.

"but because of the car manufacturers integrating GPS systems into their offerings. When every vehicle comes with one, where will the GPS market go?"

Not being argumentative, but our 2011 Ford Edge Limited came with an integrated GPS (it was part of an option package and I wasn't aware of it until the dealer inserted the SD card) and it is definitely sub-par compared to my Nuvi 1350. Currently map upgrades cost at least $300 (and most other autos are that or more) so it is no bargain. It does have a nice display but that's it. It is address oriented so if you don't have an address (eg our cottage has only a lat/long) you have to get to your location and then save it. If you do a master reset (and you will as it has a Microsoft operating system) then all user entered/saved data is lost.
Our cottage neighbours recently bought a new (fancy) Dodge Ram that features a Garmin GPS and has a USB port to that device - now that might be interesting.
Granted, automotive will improve their product, but I for one would never purchase a gps system/device that I couldn't carry away in my pocket.

In CA, if you touch your phone while driving you get a ticket. I'd rather use my Garmin, thanks.

Besides, I have friends with NEW $40k cars with GPS and they also prefer the Garmin. I do wish there was an easy way to plug in my Garmin into the radio like the iPod.

I prefer the Garmin GPS, but there have been times I've used the sartphone when driving a borrowed or rented vehicle. And, I've used the smartphone for local walking tours, etc., for which the Garmin is too bulkly. But, for daily driving, I much prefer the Garmin -- it is much more functional and easier to read.

The thing I don't understand, though, is why the manufacturers such as Garmin keeps irritating their customer base. There is no excuse for manufacturing Garmin units that don't have enough memory to load the maps they are selling -- memory is the least expensive component these days! And, there is no reason to manufacture Garmin units with glass faces that crack and shatter when dropped. It is this sort of thing that will cause the demise of the standalone GPS units, not the availability of "newer" technology.

Had an iPhone 4 for a few month and liked the options it came with. It was a work phone, so I didn't spend any money on additional apps.
Wouldn't trade my Nuvi 660 GPS service for an iPhone App. It doesn't have all the options especially the 'recalculating' one.

liked the digital camera in it, but wouldn't throw away my DSLR for obvious reasons.

Liked the wake-up alarm option, but it doesn't play my favourite news or music first thing in the morning.

It is easier to use when compared to the BB Curve I got from my present employer. It was a great standby flashlight at night.
Didn't use the music storage option, and the compass was just a fun game to show off with. Rather have a real compass to navigate by. Didn't trust iTunes to keep my personal info safe, so never opened an account for music or Apps.

IMO,
Every tool has it's purpose and function. Those who try to combine All-in-One capabilities risk the overall quality of each individual function.
In case of breakdown (or discharged battery), how many functions will you be without?

cheers,

K

Most help I get from a GPS is audio and not visual for obvious reasons so TomTom on my iPhone works great for me.

And to kobywan. If you couldn't find an app that would wake you to your favourite music or news when you wake, you must not have tried very hard. I use one called simply Clock Radio.

What is the reasoning behind the FCC mandate that all phones have gps chips in them?
Is it the conspiracy theory that the gov't wants to track us?
Or possibly to locate you when you call 911?
but that can't be the case, because the supreme court has said the police have no duty to protect any individual.

There are about 10 cases to this point, here are 2:
Ref: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES

and:
The Court's Decision: Appellants Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro in No. 79-6, and appellant Wilfred Nichol in No. 79-394 sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services.

I carry a blackberry which is OK as a phone, not great, and my son carrys an early droid which is worse. My daughter has an iphone which seems to work well. Their phones take pictures, mine does not but that is OK by me. I have a compact digital camera and a larger one and I'm sure they are more capable than any phone. My son't droid will function as a GPS but I would hate to have to strap it to the dash and use it that way - the display is much too small. Probably my daughter's iphone will function as a GPS too, she hasn't mentioned it. My blackberry would for an additional 15/mth but I don't see the point. I prefer to just carry one of my Garmins.

I keep my grocery list in my smartphone and use the calendar for business and personal time management. I get my work emails on it. But I don't want to use it as a phone or a GPS - dedicated devices do it far better.

If you want to do many things but none of them real well, use a smartphone.

Call me a cheap ass. But I think anyone who pays out of their own pocket to use a smartphone is a dumb ass! Obviously if your employer pays or needed for business then then sure it makes sense. I know idiots who have unlimited data work plan and also buy the same unlimited plan for their own phone!

I'm enjoying my new $149 1350LMT with free maps and free traffic and my flip phone with data disabled to avoid the $2.99 data charge that pops up.

Mourton said in part..

Boy are YOU ever wrong! Everything you can do on your "Smart Phone" I also can do.

You want to access the internet, so can I.. on my computer. Send a e-mail.. my computer does that too. Take a photo.. my camera works real well for that job. Video games.. take your pick of many players on the market. Listen to music.. that's what my radios for. Watch videos.. they sure look good playing on my 42" Vizio! Etc., etc., etc.

If you were to give me the most advanced "Smart Phone" on the market today I would (in all truthfulness), give it away to one of my teenage Grandkids.

Why?

I have a "PanTech Breeze C520" cell phone. It has "regular messaging, instant messaging, e-mail, Internet access, graphics, games, apps, alarm, calendar, note pad, voice memo, calculator, etc., etc.".. ALL OF WHICH I DO NOT USE!", so why would I want a "Smart Phone"..!!..?

I want (and use) a cell phone for one thing and one thing only..... to phone/talk to people. As far as having a GPS/phone? That's why I have my Nuvi1300WT.

So as you can see.. a "Smart Phone" (in my case), is nothing more than badly spent money on something that's so absolutely useless!

Nuvi1300WTGPS

U.S. Law is based on old English Common Law, under which the Sheriff was a government employee whose MAIN job was the enforcement of government decisions such as collection of taxes, seizure of property, arrests of persons wanted by the authorities, etc.... while keeping order was a SECONDARY duty. English law prior to the American Revolution is still part of the law of the United States.... and provides the basis for many American legal traditions and policies, though it has no superseding jurisdiction.

Court Decisions

Our Courts Have Told Us.... What Then?

Most people don't realize both the U.S. Federal and State Courts have repeatedly reconfirmed that.... Police Agencies are NOT responsible for the SAFETY and PROTECTION of individual persons, but in fact are only responsible for upholding the law of the General Populace! Various lower Courts have also followed these same views and decisions.

In 1968 the Court of Appeals of New York declared that.... One has NO right to expect protection from the City of New York because, to create such a right would impose a crushing economic burden on the City. Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y.2d 897 [1968]

In 1975 the California Court of Appeals (under the California Tort Claims Act, Section 845), stated that.... Neither a public entity nor a public employee is LIABLE for failure to establish a Police Dept or otherwise provide Police protection services, or, if Police protection services is provided, for failure to provide sufficient Police protection services. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 [1975]

In 1981 the Superior Court of the District of Columbia held that.... A Government and its Agents are under NO general duty to provide public services [Police] to any INDIVIDUAL citizen because, the duty to provide public services [Police] is owed to the public at large.... and absent a special relationship between the Police and an individual NO LEGAL DUTY exists! In a accompanying memorandum the Court explained that the term "special relationship" did NOT mean.... A ORAL PROMISE TO RESPOND TO A CALL FOR HELP!! Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A2.d 1 [1981]

In 1982 the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, declared that.... There is NO Constitutional right to be protected by the State [Police] against criminals or their acts (and as such), does NOT violate the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.... nor any other provision of the Constitution. The Court also stated that.... The Constitution is in fact a charter of NEGATIVE liberties. Because of this, both the State and Federal Government are MANDATED by the Constitution to leave one alone.... even to the point of NOT providing such elementary services as maintaining law and order. Bowers v. DeVito U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 [1982] See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 471 F.Supp. 1262 [E.D.Pa. 1979]

In 1982 the New York State Court of Appeals handed down a decision in which it stated that.... The New York City Transit Authority (like any other municipality or Government Agency), had NO responsibility (and thus NO liability), to protect a individual person on its premises from assault by a third party.... nor did it have any obligation to provide increased Police PROTECTION for well documented HIGH CRIME areas within the subway system. Weiner v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 55 N.Y. 2.d 175, 448 N.Y.S.2.d 141 [1982]

Nuvi1300WTGPS

may I ask how much you pay a year for all of the benefits on the phone you have please?

I guess I just don't get it. It seems to me that the real question is a matter of choice, not technology. Sure, technology changes every few months, but does that mean that EVERYONE has to take advantage of it? And does it mean that one person is somehow "not as smart" if they choose NOT to use a smartphone? Yes, we might be able to have a "smartphone" that can do everything - but it usually is at a sacrifice of something. A device that can do "everything", doesn't do "everything" WELL. I can get a camera on my smartphone, but it won't do as good of a job as my DSLR. I know that for sure. If you are satisfied with a "satisfactory" picture, then use the smartphone. As for me, if I want a GOOD picture, I will use my DSLR. I could use a "does everything" smartphone for gps. It would do a "satisfactory" job of getting me where I want to go, mostly. But, if I want something better, than I will us my Nuvi. I personally would rather us it, because it just does the job better. But, if anyone else wants to use a smartphone for convenience, not caring how well it does what it is supposed to do, then more power to them. I am not going to call them "not smart" because they choose to use a "smartphone". So, to me it is a matter of choice. If someone wants to use a smartphone to do "everything" not as well, that is their choice. If others like me want to use dedicated, specialized device to do different jobs better, then let us. We are NOT "less smart" for not using a "smartphone". Just wanted to get my opinion in. Thanks.

triliby
May I ask how much you pay for your home phone,internet access plus the electricity to run your computer,monitor and modem and maybe a wireless router?

I pay $65.00 unlimited everything and tether to my laptop from from my smartphone to give it wireless access, when I wish, like right now.

I always have a phone,computer with internet access, and GPSr that's not cloud dependent with me and in my pocket and I don't have to search for free WIFI when on the road.

I remember the DOS days of 8088 computers. Then you had to issue command line instructions to get anything started. Then along came this thing called a mouse introduced to PC users with Windows 1.0 .

EEK why would anyone use a mouse, it's easier to use command line instructions, and that's only because it was foreign to me and I didn't know any better. What I was witness to was how life changing it was going to be to the computer industry and ease of use for me.

So people can buck technology kicking and screaming, however it will leave those that do behind. Or you can read and study the technology and be ready to make the jump, because if you don't you will be pushed from using DOS commands to a mouse.

If you have been in a cell phone store lately you will realize that if you want a new cell phone your options are getting very limited to the type you can buy. So the choice is going to be made for you very soon. Think Smart!

Not pushing an agenda, just looking at the near future of the naysayer's of technology that is about to overcome or obsolete them.

My 660 works fine, don't need any additional features. I don't own a cell phone, got rid of it 3 1/2 years ago. Don't miss it at all.people always called it and expected you to listen to messages and call them back.

I agree with you on everything that you wrote. My old cell phone had all the things, but, I deleted all that mess. When my phone rings I know who it is, either my wife or the kids, don't need to talk to every body, they can call me at home.

Does this all mean I have to give up using WordStar and SuperCalc...

Actually I still use Foxpro 2.0 which runs on the DOS stub in Windows XP.

As others have said quite well, it's a matter of choice and I for one, don't have to be constantly plugged in or look like I'm talking to myself while shopping or simply waiting in line. I have no intention of combining my Nuvi, Etrex and Canon digital for something that can perform those functions, but not as well.

For you folks that are putting down smart phone users for what ever reason, why aren't you still using paper maps, paper and a pencil and an abacus instead of the computer you are on now, and the GPS you must have or you wouldn't be posting on a forum dedicated to GPS users?

You are trying to make it sound like you're against high tech devices and poopooing those of us that like using all of those things available to us.

And a camera you may have left at home is not a very useful camera.

I'm happy with my phone just being a phone. Heck, I forget and leave it home most of the time anyway and even when it's in my pocket I just let calls go to voicemail and collect them later.

Then again, I don't have a Facebook account, I've never tweeted anyone (or anything that I'm aware of) and it works just fine for me. Guess I'm a hermit at heart

Cheers

The discussion (and disagreements) over smartphones and GPS is a difference in cultures between generations. It's not that we don't disparage those that want to use smartphones over other devices so much, it's that we don't necessarily appreciate the attitude taken by many of the proponents.

I have a smartphone and I use it for many different things Will it replace my GPS - on occasion. The smartphone GPS applications have a long way to go before they begin to meet the capabilities of my GPS. Will they get there? Probably at some point in the future. But people my age also know how to read and use printed maps with a great deal of proficiency. We also tend to take a slightly different view of how to use technology. Technology for some has become a means to an end while for others, myself included we see it as offering a wide range of tools that help perform many different tasks more easily.

I still use a Motorola V360 flip phone. I have an iPod Touch 4 and iPad 2 that I use with WiFi but I refuse to pay $40 or more a month for a capped data plan that I probably would not use much since I am almost always on WiFi. That money goes straight into my savings account.

I feel you seem to have missed something here. The beginning of this thread was a CNET video commentary that was a complete put-down upon those who chose dedicated devices to do specific functions that an "all in one" smartphone can do, going so far as name calling, some which was offensive. The smart phone users in the video from CNET began this thread by "poopooing" the dedicated device people. Somehow, it seems to me, you got things reversed. We are saying,"Smartphone users, we would appreciate it if you did not consider yourselves, like the person in the video, somehow better or more with it, than people who decide on their own volition to choose dedicated devices, which in our opinion, do things better". I personally am a "Techy", and appreciate anything high tech, especially when it comes to electronics and computers. Ask my family. (Ha!). But I CHOOSE to use dedicated devices for specific jobs. That is not "poopooing" smartphone users. As I said before in previous post, more power to them. But, I do ask the same courtesy in return. Thanks.

I agree with Boxcar and J-A-C, there are a number of great items to use in everyday life now from back when most of us were younger. I don't like or use a lot of them but have a few toys of my own. I belive that all is not good for everyone. Do you go buy a new care just cause your neighbor does. I buy what I feel works best for me but am happy for anyone that gets something new and it works for them. Good thing everyones doesn't like the same thing.

76 years old. And I love all the new tech. My wife calls me the old geek. And the point I thought I was making was that a GPS itself is a high tech device that at one time had distractors as well.

Though I still prefer standalone GPS, here's a criminal who agrees with Brian Cooley's viewpoint that standalone GPS is not worth much anymore:

"A burglar had smashed her rental car’s rear driver’s side window... The burglar took a flat screen monitor and two cameras. A GPS in plain view was not taken."

http://triblocal.com/deerfield/2011/09/15/burglar-smashes-ca...

Our Garmins are free after original cost and work just fine with "lifetime updates"

I read the rest of the article which makes it clear that this thief is very particular about what she takes. If she can't easily profit from an item, she leaves it.

She probably thought this was a smartphone and who is gonna buy an old smartphone when you still gotta sign up for an expensive 2 year contract to get any service, not to mention having to buy a whole lot of new apps.

(I don't know if it was a he or a she, so I am just trying to be politically correct.)

OK, OK - (/sarcasm)