From Techno Phone To Smart Phone

A common question in the light hearted, celebrity sort of interview is of the "What was the first record you bought/car you owned? Given  the ubiquity of the mobile phone these days (94% of adults in the UK own one), I am surprised not yet to have heard an interviewer asks a guest, "What was the first mobile phone you owned?" Certainly the answer to the question would tell you a good deal about the person; their age group (assuming you weren't otherwise aware), perhaps their social status, whether or not they are an early adopter of technology, maybe their propensity to follow fashion or be a trendsetter.

What would the first mobile phone that I owned tell you about me? It was a Techno Phone purchased from the Mobile Phone Centre in Romford for the princely sum of £1 but obviously attached to a contract that, if memory serves me correctly, cost me £15 a month. And this was in 1994; when you look at mobile phone contracts today it shows you that £15 was quite a substantial sum then, especially when you consider that all that covered was calls as the phone did not have texting capability. Mind you even if my phone had been capable there would have been no point in me sending a text message to the only other person I knew who owned a mobile phone, Val, as her phone did not even have a screen! Had I wanted to send a text, or make a call for that matter, the chances are the battery would have been dead For all the fact that it weighed about the same as a house brick, the battery life was about eleven hours and inevitably every time I took the phone out and wanted to use it the battery would either be flat or about to expire. The size and weight of the Techno Phone meant that carrying it in one's pocket was a non-starter, so I had it strapped to my belt, where its weight caused me to walk with a pronounced list to the right.

The brick like Techno Phone...

 

...Val's Sony had a flip-down microphone but no screen.

Things improved when I upgraded to the Ericsson GA 628. For starters it weighed just 160g (by comparison, the Apple iPhone 4 weighs 155g) and had an advertised battery stand-by time of 83 hours, although in my experience the advertised stand-by time and the reality are normally poles apart. Although the Ericsson had the capability to send and receive texts, it was not until I upgraded again that I actually sent one. This was when Virgin Mobile changed the face of mobile phone ownership in the UK; instead of an expensive monthly contract you could opt to pay just for your calls. OK, the phone (I bought a Siemens S25) cost £79, but instead of £15 per month I was paying £2 or less and since I kept the phone for a number of years, it ended up saving me money. This was in the days when phone manufacturers were gradually introducing more technology and the Siemens S25 had an infra-red port, an Organizer, selectable ringtones, three games and colour graphics!

The Ericcson GA628: Small and light but not much functionality.

The Siemens S25.

When the Siemens gave up the ghost I bought a Nokia 6100 that I liked a lot; it had the most easily navigable menu tree of any phone I have owned prior to the smartphone era, the battery lasted for days, it was light and it was small. Eventually it wore out and I replaced it with a BenQ-Siemens E61, the first phone that I owned that had a camera and an MP3 player. I never quite got to grips with this phone and moved on to the BlackBerry Curve. Now the BlackBerry has recently fallen away in popularity  in the private smartphone market, but remain very highly regarded in the business community and there is no doubt that their email client is peerless; it was because I had a BlackBerry for work that I bought one for my private use. It was to be the last Virgin Mobile phone that I owned as it became apparent that as smartphone technology improved, as the functionality increased, Virgin lagged behind in their range of phones. Although now they do supply the iPhone, at the time my contract came up for renewal they did not and increasingly it became apparent that the phone I really wanted was an iPhone. Although I feigned indifference, I looked at the all singing, all dancing, touch screen superstar that Apple were producing and realised that actually I would quite like one. So I jumped ship, went over to 3 and got myself an iPhone 4.

 

The Nokia 6100: A really great little phone.

The BenQ Siemens E61

Now I have to say that I was more than happy with the iPhone. I know that Apple have their detractors; I know that some people are fans of other smartphones and believe that the iPhone is over-rated, but I really cannot fault them. If I had any quibbles they would be that with the 8gb iPhone the memory soon gets clogged up (to the extent that when Apple introduced iOS7 I had insufficient memory on my phone to update the operating system) and it may be that by comparison with newer phones coming on the market the screen size is a bit on the skimpy side, but overall I am a fan. When it was upgrade time, however I decided I was due a change (for novelty's sake more than anything) and went for the Samsung Galaxy S4.  At present I am undecided as to whether that was a good move or not. The Samsung is sufficiently similar to the iPhone that there isn't a culture shock in changing and I suppose it is really just perception, but the look and feel of the Galaxy is partly superior and partly inferior to the iPhone. I also think that the S4 is a bit of an odd size; it doesn't sit as comfortably in the palm of one's hand as the iPhone does although there are bigger handsets out there, the HTC One Max for one.

But if I have one real problem with my new phone it has to be the battery. Yes, I had become used to charging my iPhone every other day, but the Galaxy seems to have a mind of its own when it comes to how long the battery will last. One evening I charged it to 100%, went to bed and in the morning it was down to 17%; another day I used it moderately and discharged only 50% of the battery power in twelve hours. Generally I now have to charge my phone daily, something I have not been used to doing since 1994 when I owned the power hungry Techno Phone and this despite the advertised 370 hours stand-by time. Where do the manufacturers get these stand-by times from? Does anyone ever get the number of hours they claim?

Over the years as phones became smaller, battery life increased but as the functionality and size have increased, battery life has reduced again (despite the maker's optimistic claims). It is almost worth investing in a cheap, basic, pay as you go phone with a seven day battery life to make and receive calls and keep the smartphone for surfing the 'net, playing games and listening to music, so if you will excuse me I think I will go and hunt out that old Alcatel phone that is in a drawer somewhere, I think it might just come in handy.