(keitai-l) Re: Summarizing the "smart phone" discussion

From: Nick May <nick_at_kyushu.com>
Date: 12/08/05
Message-Id: <79B3388A-A8E5-495E-B686-7B2388BD57CF@kyushu.com>
On 8 Dec 2005, at 17:19, Gerhard Fasol wrote:

> The term "smart phone" is a pretty useless marketing term.

Nonsense!


> Technical experts have difficult to find a meaningful
> definition of this term.

That's because it isn't a technical term. Why should it be? Most of  
the words in a (natural) language aren't....

You are demanding an intensional definition. But there are lots of  
words one can't give an intensional definition for that does not  
admit of counter-example. "Porn"* for one. (I don't doubt it has got  
a dictionary definition - but so what? I am sure there are  
dictionaries with "smartphone" in.) "Car" for another.

You think people don't know what a smartphone is? I think they do -  
and YOU do.

An example. Think back to the first imode phones. There is 1st gen  
PHS phone on the table, a first gen imode phone and an elderly rotary  
phone. I say - "bring the smartphone Gerhard!"

Which one do you pick up?

The brightest, shiniest most capable phone. Which back then would  
have been the greenscale imode...

Move on a  few years. There is a 702NK on the table, that same 1st  
gen imode and a Panasonic 504i. I say "bring the smartphone Gerhard!"  
Which one do you bring?

The brightest, shiniest most capable phone. The 702NK.

Can you give an intensional definition of "smartphone"? Probably not.  
Does the "meaning" change over time? Sure - the smartest smartphone  
you can buy now is going to look rather dim in 5 years time. So? It  
does not mean it isn't a useful term NOW!

In a given context, would you know which phone I am referring to, and  
what capabilities it must have?

Yes - I bet you do. Let's look at the context you extracted my remark  
from to start this discussion...

One Knickerless May wrote...

> Another issue is that a smaller percentage of JP handsets are
> smartphones than is the case in the UK (I think - no figures),

... in a context that made it clear that what I was referring to was  
the ability to install and modern browser capable of rendering pages  
using certain technologies. (http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ 
archives/2005-12/0060.html) Is that a definition of a smartphone that  
will remain fixed over time? Certainly not - but - ah - so what?


So -

Is "smartphone" sometimes used as a marketing term?
	YES. So? Lots of words are. 'Fast', for example...

Can one give a cast iron intensional definition of smartphone?
	NO. So? You can't for lots of words. Doesn't mean we should banish  
them from the language.

Does the meaning change over time.
	SURE. But - so? It may not be useful to someone making graphs and  
reports of numbers shipped and so on -  but that just means you  
should throw in a definition "for that purpose". In the small print.

The fact is that now, here upon this very bank and shoal of time, 8  
out of 10 cats who express a preference will pick out the same  
handsets from a bunch of handsets if asked to pick out the  
smartphones.  And in five years will pick out a different bunch.

As for the claim that it is JUST a marketing term - they are very  
useful, marketing terms - they get people using new terms to cover  
new things. (E.g. "podcast" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/ 
4504256.stm. Or a Biro. ( a "bic" in Japan.) )

  What IS important is that they stay reasonably "consistent" within  
a time frame. The objection really isn't that a term is USED by  
marketing - more that marketing departments blur boundaries and tell  
porkies...

Your philosophy of language (and yes, you have one, implicit in what  
you have said to date) ties "meaning" too closely to intensional  
definition.

Nick

*of course this particular feature of the word "porn" has produced a  
whole industry for person anxious to  determine a complete  
EXTENSIONAL definition of the term...
Received on Thu Dec 8 14:54:59 2005