The Death of the "Cell Phone"

PreacherTom writes "Once upon a time, the now-eponymous portable derived its name from the small sections (deemed "cells") into which a city was divided in order to keep voice calls smooth and uninterrupted. Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones, while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth. Both make the "cellular" moniker obsolete. Is it time for a new name, or is a rose by any other name still as sweet?"

really?

[geoffspear]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

"it almost seems" to whom? Stand by a busy road sometime, and count the % of people driving past using their cell phones to make voice calls. Come and and tell me it seems like voice calls are the least-used function of phones.

I suspect the submitter just has no friends who would actually want to talk to him on a phone, because he keeps saying stupid things to them that are contradicted by a huge body of empirical evidence.

source please

[shawn(at)fsu]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones
I would like to see the numbers for this assertion.

Can you back up the assumption....

[murph]

that voice is the least-used?

How vacuous

[postbigbang]

They still work by using cells. Americans and a few others call them cell phones, which is appropriate, even when they use them in WiFi or WiMax mode (which are cell-based, after all). The rest of the world calls them everything from mobiles to 'handys' (in Germany).

The name isn't as important as the functionality. And texting is what racks up revenue; there's no data that supports that texting minutes of use exceed voice use. I've been watching for that data for a long time, and so far, it's only texting revenue that's becoming higher in terms of minutes 'online' than voice.

A simple answer

[charlesbakerharris]

Say "cell phone" to someone, and they'll have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. The current name is sufficient - no need to change it. Language is intended to convey information, not to be perfectly consistent.

Overthinking FTL.

This is one of those cases

[zappepcs]

of a name being more than just a name, like Kleenex facial tissues. 'Give me a Kleenex' or in England, they 'Hoover' the carpets. Cell phone will be around in the English language for a very long time... that is just how language works. They tried to give two-way pagers names other than pager. It didn't work because people just didn't understand what it was till you called it a pager.

The cellular network configuration is still in use, so the name is still appropriate. When all that changes, maybe there will be another name, but the common usage of cell phone will stick around still.

Who cares what it's called?

[91degrees]

I still call a motion picture a "film", even if it's shot on digital. They still call programmes on the radio "shows" even though they show nothing. Aircraft speed is measured in knots even thugh nobdy measures it by throwing a log attached to a rope overboard. People will use a word that has meaning to the person they're talking to. If the meaning changes, it will change.

Appropriate icon

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of you have actually "dialed" a phone (and I don't mean pushing buttons)? Yet we still call it that...

Language works in strange ways.

Re:source please

[Red Flayer]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

I would like to see the numbers for this assertion.

You want numbers for the assertion? How about one person subjectively noted that something almost seems a certain way? Why ask for figures when the statement is obviously just meant to stimulate discussion?

I, for one, would like to see more prevalent use of critical reading skills.

Why?

[blamanj]

We still "dial", don't we?

New Marketing Name Wanted!

[lancejjj]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

In other words, despite the fact the cell phones are used mostly for voice calls, more money can be made by selling data services - data services that use the same technology that the voice calls use.

So it's a hard sell if you call it a "cell phone with high priced data transfer features".

So a new name is in order, with the exclusive purpose of charging more monthly and per-byte fees.

Perhaps "Super-Z i-DataMax" is an awesome name that'll help sales of these otherwise lame services? How else can we sell to this otherwise saturated market? Vote "yes" by texting to 50493, or vote no by texting to 50494! (fees apply!)

Re:Appropriate icon

[PFI_Optix]

It will be a sad day when the POTS stops accepting pulse dialing.

Re:But it's got Myspace Mobile!

[bladesjester]

I hate those ads. It makes me want to beat the person who came up with them senseless.

they're desperately screaming "oh, look at us. we're different!" but this makes sense from a company that has chosen to offer MySpace mobile right out of the box.

Re:really?

[blincoln]

I agree.

Slow down, Buck Rogers. There's still a lot of the US that aren't even using your space age wireless communication units yet, let alone something fancier built on the same technology.

Re:We already have one

[kypper]

Rogers here in Canada has been using only one term for the past 3 years: Wireless.

Re:How vacuous

[Aladrin]

Exactly. If the author had half a brain, he'd be pushing to change the 'phone' moniker, instead of 'cellular'... I seriously doubt anyone is willing to go for 'cellular multifunctional utility device'.

And despite what he thinks, most people DO still use their phones as phones. It's the vocal minority that use them as something else. You know, the ones who are dissatisfied with what their phone can do. Those who use them as simply phones don't have any complaints about them to complain about.

Re:the UK

[MythMoth]

I'd say it's almost becoming more common to refer to the "phone" and use the retronym of "landline" for a wired telephone.

Re:We already have one

[1u3hr]

One thing that the providers here seem to use often is "Wireless", which describes it just fine, except for the few people that somehow think of "Wireless" as only being "WiFi".

Except "wireless" is what my grandfather called his bakelite cased valve radio.

Re:I nominate:

[jeffy210]

That is a general problem with the way people view cell phones. I am sorry, but I am not there for the phone. It is there for me. If i choose to answer it i will. Otherwise, you can have a pleasant chat with my voice mail. Just because you are calling me, does not mean that I have to answer it.

Bullshit

[maggard]

Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones

Bullshit.

... while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth.

Double bullshit.

While cellphones/mobiles might have all sorts of ancillary functions they are still first and foremost telephones. That someone thinks otherwise indicates they need to stop reading Gizmodo [gizmodo.com] & Engadget [engadget.com] and get out in the real world for a few hours. As to WiMax [wikipedia.org] taking up ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth, sure, if up from .00000001 to .00000002 percent is worth blathering about.

Find me a few production-level WiMax deployments with significant amounts of traffic and well talk. without such this is just so much empty talk wasting more bandwidth then WiMax has yet to carry.

Oh, and what to call mobile phones? How about mobiles like the rest of the planet? That wasnt so hard, was it?

Re:We already have one

[Zhe Mappel]

That comment's going to get me through econ class today.

For your sake, friend, I hope it's being taught in Chinese.