Owasys 22C Screenless Cellphone

[Michael Whapples]

Wil James writes:
I think you mis-understood some of what I was saying.
> Hi Michael
>  
> "There are alternatives to the Owasys which offer the same functionality
> (possibly more), such as a symbian phone and talks." 
> 
> If I remember correctly, you cannot text message with the LG4500 phones.
Is that one symbian, I can't find a mention of it on the symbian site, and 
talks site doesn't mention it.
> 
> "Maybe in your case the cost difference was greater, but for me buying a
> symbian phone and talks was only marginly more expensive than a Owasys (my
> feeling was the little extra was worth having a phone which has a large user
> base, should have very few bugs, and if any updates are needed can be done
> locally and not mean I will be without my phone for any significant time," 
> 
> Take into account, $199 for TALX for Cingular for a one year contract, and
> $99 for a two year contract.  Toss in the cost of the phone, which can go
> over $150.  yes, you go get credit for the Talx, but you have to shell out
> the money in advance.  You're talking at least $250 to $400 just to get set
> up with Talx.  MobileSpeak costs $399 itself.  The Owasys22C costs only
> $200.00, less than half what you would pay for the other solutions out
> there.
Different in the UK for me. RNIB has the Owasys for £299.00, where as 
searching the internet at the time I was buying, I could buy a sim-free 
symbian phone for around £160 + talks at £150 leading to a difference of 
£10 (only 1/30 increase over Owasys).
> Who says a SIM card can't be sent to your address of you want updates?
Can firmware updates be sent on a sim card? Never heard of that before.
> 
> "plenty of extras available if I wanted something for my phone (and not just
> nokia originals), and the specialist bit could be removed if there was any
> problem caused by that leaving me with a fully functional phone)."
> 
> What could you do with your phone if the specialist bit was removed?  Not
> nearly what you could with it loaded.
Admittedly usability would be reduced, but at least I could use a properly 
functioning phone, unlike the the problem that my aunt has with the Owasys 
which impacts on usability (see earlier posting about that).
> 
> "While all that seems very negative about it, I will accept for some an
> Owasys may be the correct choice (may be you fall in that category), but
> equally I feel that some choose it for the wrong reason (I am struggling to
> find quite the wording I want, reasons such as it is what they believe is
> accessible to them, because they think things with a screen has been
> visually designed so could never be accessible)."
> 
> Wrong in my case.  I have a computer, and I do use Windows.  It, too, has a
> monitor, but I don't shy away from it just because pictures are displayed on
> the monitor.  That's about the most vain thing I've heard.
Well you don't fall in that category, but I think there some out there. May 
be the wording was poor as well. An example of that screen thing is the ipod 
shuffle, why was that more accessible than something like my iRiver (before 
rockbox), did the ipod have more features accessible? May be it 
requires someone with a bit of confidence to use a device where there are 
menus that you could get lost in to just be sure that you are able to count 
cursor presses and get where you mean. 

> "I feel I now need to try and restrain myself as I am getting close to my
> strong feelings, and I don't really feel this is really sufficiently on
> topic for this list. We may just have to agree to differ on this if anyone
> disagrees with what I have said."
> 
> I do see your points, and they're good ones for debate.
> 
Alot of what I have said may not apply to some people, but as I have tried 
to stress, there are some who don't always choose things because of actual 
suitability, but on belief of suitability. May be here isn't the place to 
try and convince people that some of their beliefs are not always correct 
and they can do more.