zlacker

>>jstanl+(OP)
I would argue that maps are the killer app for phones, this phone having a garbage map app is a death knell.

>>macrae+x7
Every app is the killer app for someone. I hardly ever use maps on my phone.

>>seba_d+K7
That may be, but I suspect most users expect a browser, a way to message friends (whatsapp or telegram in most western countries) and a maps app. Games are popular too. Being able to call and send SMS is secondary. I think not having a good maps is a big issue, hopefully they'll be able to patch that eventually. Until then, maybe google maps is not too bad on the mobile browser?

>>aflag+E8
While I do agree a maps app is very important indeed I find this statement completely bonkers:

> Being able to call and send SMS is secondary.

This is the basic definition of a mobile phone for me [1]. We can all have our opinions on what the "killer app" is. And some may rather want a pocket sized computer. The old grumpy man in me wants to shout "Get off my lawn" - please do not redefine what a "phone" is. How much we all may hate telcos they at least have ensured world wide communications. I accept the fact that many today are willing to trade that away to each their own favourite corporate garden be it Whatsapp, Telegram, Facetime et. al. However it does not a phone make. Sweet sweet E.164 [2].

It might be an unfair interpretation but as I read it calls should even be secondary to games!

So in my mind you argue the focus should be on a tablet [3].

You might be wishing for another device class which is fair. But this kind of redefinition I find troublesome.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.164

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer

>>clan+5e
Agreed, if calls are secondary to a phone it doesn't make sense to call it a phone granted these are just computers, but even then I would call communication/networking a primary function of a modern computer.