IBJOpinion

ALTOM: Do I need a cell phone that's hardy or handy?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Tim Altom

It’s time to change my cell phone, and that’s causing me a big problem. I have conflicting needs, and like everybody else in the business world, I can’t seem to reconcile them.

The old phone isn’t anything special, just a standard Motorola flip phone that’s prob-ably five years old now. But I tend to get attached to cell phones to the point where it’s tough on me to change them. I’m not this way about cars. I can trade mine in without a thought when it gets too flaky.

But for some reason, cell phones are different. Maybe it’s because they share my life more than my car does. I carry my personal cell everywhere, fastened to my belt in a quick-disconnect holster. It goes with me more places than my wife does. And it’s endured a lot of unintentional punishment from me. Its face is gouged and grooved from where I’ve dropped it on asphalt, concrete, carpet and wood floors. I’m hard on phones, but this one has hung in there, never faltering.

Yet, everything reaches its end, and so it is with my little Motorola. The keys stick, so they don’t always make contact, and I end up dialing 112 instead of 1132. And it’s hard to use for texting, because it has only the standard phone-style keyboard. When I bought it, texting was the province of overcaffeinated, ambidextrous teen-agers. Now, even my middle-age friends and relatives text me rather than calling. Texting stops being fun when you have to press a sticky key three times to type an “F.”

I find myself today drawn to the smartphones I once ignored, with their expanded keyboards. Apple, Motorola, RIM and others have drastically improved their smartphones since I rejected one and bought my old, reliable workhorse years back. I still think of most of the smartphone attributes as toys with questionable business value, but this is my personal cell, and I think I should have a little fun with it.

But here lies my dilemma: Do I buy for fun or for durability? It seems I can’t have both. On the one hand, there is the sleek and powerful smartphone that now does everything personal data assistants (PDAs) once promised to do, and a dozen more things besides. My wife and I were out with a couple who have small children, and we needed to find a park for them to play in. Out came a smartphone, and within seconds we’d found a charming park with picnic tables and a play area. The world’s biggest online database is now accessible in a handheld device, and I find myself envious.

On the other hand, I know if I owned a smartphone, which has a larger and more fragile screen and a less rigid case than a traditional phone, I’d almost certainly have it in pieces within a few months. I’d drop it out of its holster or knock it off a table, and there I’d be buying a new one at the store, with my old phone’s guts dangling out onto the counter.

Motorola knows about people like me, and it has released the perfect answer to klutziness. It’s a line of cell phones that are like mine, only better: up-armored to military specifications and able to take considerable pounding.

Each wireless carrier seems to have a different version, but they all appear to conform to military requirements for ordinary wear, as well as for dust, solar radiation, high and low altitude, and high and low temperatures. They don’t take pretty pictures, their keyboard layout is no improvement on the one I have, and they don’t access the Web particularly well. But, boy, can they take a lot of slamming. They may not survive desert combat, but I’m pretty sure they’d stand up to falling out of my cell phone holster from time to time.

So I have conflicting needs. I can’t get what I want in a complete package, because there isn’t any such thing available to me. There are smartphones that are also military-grade, but my carrier doesn’t sell any of them, and I really doubt they’d be as rugged as I’d like.

Irreconcilable needs plague us all when we’re buying technology. If nothing else, price versus functionality is a constant tradeoff. When I’m advising others about this, I have them list their needs alongside their number-ranked priorities, and buy accordingly. I’ve done that, and it hasn’t helped. I’m caught squarely in the middle. Part of the problem is that I discount my need for texting until I need to text, so I downgrade that one on my list until I need it, whereupon it leaps to the top for a few minutes.

Perhaps I should observe the economist’s principle of indifference. If I’m truly in the middle, maybe overall I’m really indifferent about which phone I actually want. Maybe there’s unexpected wisdom in eeny-meeny-miney-moe. I’ll try that advanced analytical technique the next time I’m shopping in the phone store.•

__________

Altom is an independent local technology consultant. His column appears every other week. He can be reached at taltom@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • No holsters?
    Whatâ??s wrong with the holster?
    The truth is that if you need a bigger keypad you probably will need to demote the text features to a second place as per according to my experience the phones with the great full key boards like the blackberrys have pretty small keys.
    For me the challenge is not only press one key at the time but to also see the key Iâ??m pressing.
    Itâ??s funny, it seems I can never catch up to technology.
    My son got me a Samsung T301G that slides, so thereâ??s plenty of room for the keys, and they are a good size too, I think. The good part too is also the plan, as per I donâ??t have a contract with Tracfone, and I find that very convenient also, still itâ??s hard for me to text.
    Challenging times for people with big thumbs I guess.
  • Technology columnist uses a holster?
    I think the main question is why are you using a cell phone holster? ick.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT