Oh, you mean like the Tungsten C?
No, I mean like the Treo, exactly as I wrote before. The screen was 320x320, it had a chiclet keyboard, and did not come with Graffiti.
So I looked it up, and the highest-resolution Tungsten device was at 320 x 480 and now median phones are 720p, the display was only TFT and now phones are starting to be OLED, and the screen was 3.7" while modern phones are 4-5". The specs of the best Tungsten phone were beaten by feature phones some years ago.
Yes. I didn't say it was high-resolution did I? But it has only been a relative few years that smartphones have had screens bigger than about 3.5". THAT'S MY POINT. Where's the argument?
We did, and no, Palm's 3.7 inch display with almost no dots and also very few colors by modern standards was not comparable to a modern smartphone display. Not even a cheap one.
No, we didn't. Not until a few years ago. Nothing you are saying (except that) has contradicted my point in any way. Size of the screen does matter, even if the resolution was not stellar.
I'll repeat my point since you don't seem to have gotten it: they shrunk the screen (compared to most Tungstens), added the Blackberry-style keyboard, and ditched the handwriting input. In other words, they were competing with THE OTHER CELL PHONE MAKERS of the day, rather than marketing the things that made Palm unique. They could have simply added a phone and left everything else alone.
I didn't try to claim the resolutions were the same as today. That would be ridiculous.