i kinda like having pocket space, so id like to replace my palm pilot, ipod, and phone with one device... i just havent quite found one that does it all well enough...

Smokey its called a book bag.

If someone would design a phone the size of my thumb with a long battery life that only made calls, I would buy it.

to be honest, if more people like Rune Larsen were hired to design "phone and only a phone" handsets, i'd buy them, because if it skimps on features to add to simplicity, i want it to compensate in design, and the "easy as pi" and the "elcipse' are both beautiful concept designs that would make kickass free phones., MOTOFONE F3 be damned.

...on a side note, can it play doom?

and as for the space saving argument, gadgets are getting so thin these days that i can easily fit a phone and a camera, separate from each other, in my pockets, and PDA and multimedia functions, for me at least, are becoming less day-to-day(i used to carry around a PDA with a built in camera/music player/widescreen/cure for all known diseases, now i have an A900 and only use it for calling and music, no internet, very little text if any, and i have a standalone camera that's less than .8 of an inch thick and can survive a 5 foot drop onto solid concrete)

...so i would definetly have use for something this simple, if it looks this elegant.

I use a nokia 8800, and that is pretty much just a phone as all the other features on it are useless! I will admit however that cameras on phones are always a fun and useful thing to have :)

If you work somewhere like 30 Rock, and you have regular access to the studios you are forbidden to bring a camera capable phone. So if I could find a sweet phone with no camera, I would be one happy puppy, until then it's the Moto V60 and the old school crackberry for me.

I have a Sanyo VI2300 that I use exclusively for making calls. I used to carry a PDA around, but since I no longer need it for work, it's gathering dust on my desk. There is a large market for people who just want a phone, without all the fancy gadgets crammed in, and to be honest, even the best MP3 phone can't beat an iPod or similar player for quality and ease of use, nor take pictures as well as a smallish digital camera.

Rune's designs are much more interesting and thoughtful than the generic and feature crammed pieces of junk on the market now. I'd much rather have a better designed yet featureless phone.

i have a Q and i don't want it. the only phone that "has it all" that i would like is the N95 but other than that i would love to have a 8800 and other phones that don't have much to it but some style.

I lust after phones that are small enough to fit in my pocket. I know some people think they get too small, but I like most of them.

My answer to the poll would be a mix of both. Ideally I would like to have all the features currently possible, but only if they are so elegantly implemented and easy to use, that when I want to use a phone as a phone, it just works.

And as I stated above it's got to be small.

I want a cell phone for the sole purpose of talking upon (well, a bit of txting too i suppose). As intriguing as i find smartphones to be, i spend a lot of time on the phone (and when i do, i'm usually also lying on the phone, pressed between my head and my pillow). clamshell phones feel (both from experience and from how the design seems) the most comfortable for extended talking. Oh yeah, and media playback? More useless than surfing the web on a 2.5" screen.
If only somebody would remake one of those old dinosaur phones, except a bit sleeker, pocket friendly, and most importantly, face friendly. Battery life is nice too.
A bottom-of-the-line cellphone for talking and txting should not be ludicrously expensive without a fresh plan. Its nearly impossible to find a new phone that doesn't have a camera or some other waste-of-space/waste-of-battery life feature.

Ok, I get the concept, but MUST it look like a cheap Taiwanese-made calculator from a pharmaceutical supply trade show?

And, Oh yeah, loaded to the gills with features, for the win!

Just calls. Tiny screens annoy me for anything except seeing a callers name and some numbers, I can't see how people use them for intertube access by choice. As small as possible with few features. Particularly, no camera. They add so much bulk.

i prefer my to use my phone for communication, thanks. if manufacturers figured out that taking half their time making a useable phonebook instead of adding another useless megapixel, i would buy it. sometimes interfaces are so bad i wouldn't be surprised to find the volume controls buried somewhere in the games category or something.

some features i would like to see, of course. i would like texting/caller ID displays, as those actually pertain to communication. speakerphone function? sure. a well-designed phonebook? yes please. (i still haven't seen one)

nobody offers videophone services so no use for a camera when i'm phoning people.

I voted "just calling", which isn't exactly true. I'd love a capable device in my pocket, but I'd much rather these guys get voice calls working well first.

It seems for each feature phone makers add to their phones the interface gets twice as crappy. At least on American phones.

And honestly I'd rather carry several small devices that do one thing perfectly. I carry my 8 gig Nano for music, my Exilim s600 for a camera, both of which are great at what they do. If I could get a small (thin) phone to make only voice calls, I'd be happy.

this blog post sums it up pretty well:
http://wisiwug.blogspot.com/2004/09/recipriversexclusion.h...

and i think i know why. manufacturers *think* they've already reached the epitome of phone-numbered voice transmission technology. the reality is that they're far from it, but just doing nothing to improve it... so they just divert attention away.

what a gorgous looking phone , thing is i never realised i needed a camera phone till I got one and now I wouldnt be without it.

I would buy that phone if it were reasonably priced. As long as it can do basic stuff, ie. calculator, alarm clock, basic messaging, and a calender, thats all I need.

if someone bought me a YP-T9 or sansa e280 for music, then i'd officially not use my phone for any features other than calling....sell the eclipse design, or the Easy As Pi design, to someone who mass-produces CDMA handsets, and the second sprint has it retail, i'm there. screw calendar, screw camera, screw internet, screw a color screen, text messaging was an annoyance to begin with, alarm clock and calculator are reasonable because they require mainly software, not hardware, that a phone wouldn't normally have, and only put music if you can fit a t-flash slot into the design, if not i'll get an mp3 player standalone.

i like design aesthetics and i like features. why does it have to be one or the other? make something look gorgeous, and still provide all the features so that you only need to carry one device around...phone, pda, satnav, camera.

on the other hand, as long as my girlfriend's phone has a vibrate feature, she's happy.

You call yourselves gadget fans? I read BBC News daily on my phone, I control my TV with it when I lose the remote, I recently logged in with it to ConsumerReports.com in-store to check out a coffee maker, I sync my schedule and contacts with it, and I update and refer to lists of videos to rent, things to buy, etc. All on a Samsung sph-i500 Palm flip phone that's years old. I would love to add the GPS, picture-taking, music listening, and 2GB flash memory from current multimedia phones (if only Treo made a flip phone...). This phone is small but it, keys, and mah money fill my pockets; you people with pocket space to spare must be fat-assed impoverished dorks in baggy cargo pants.

A flip phone with a touch screen has at least five surfaces available over which you can optimize the UI. There's no reason (besides general cellphone manufacturer and provider obsession with releasing new phones instead of polishing existing ones) why a unified device can't get close to perfection on all tasks. It sounds like the Nokia N93i comes close, and we can all dream about Apple's phonePod.

The problem with loaded features is that they tend to do things badly. Phone cameras suck, cell-PDAs don't match their stand-alone cousins and don't get me started on the N-Gage.

If I could find one gadget, the holy grail of gadgets, that dide everything well and fit in my pocket, then I'd be sold. As it is, I'd much rather have a good camera, a solid PDA and my DS along with my cellphone and carry each when needed.

I didn't vote because it really depends on Apple. I have gone through Nokia and Sony Ericsson phones in the desperate hopes of finding an mp3 player, phone, camera, and email device that would be the only thing I carry. Unfortunately, neither company makes a good enough product, so I wind up taking a phone and an iPod (I've given up on mobile email, but this is carriers' fault for being overpriced). With the new Shuffle, this isn't much of a problem, so I'm satisfied, but it would be nice to have a good looking phone that would be my only portable device. No company has yet proven their ability to deliver such a product, and Apple has proven their apathy to the desperate public hunger for an iPhone, so, well, I'm screwed.

Skierpage, just because we're gadget fans doesn't mean we all jump on the next, new, crappy bandwagon when it comes along. Even you can't claim that, since you use a phone that's several years old. Obviously, the newest do-it-all phones don't suit your needs either.

Re-read the comments. Most of us have tried MP3/camera/PDA phones and found them lacking, prompting us to go back to using seperate units again.

Besides, who's the bigger fan- the cellphone fanboy who tries to use it for everything, or the smart guy who finds the items that do what he/she wants best, and works them into their lives? Remember, he who dies with the most toys wins.........

Too many compromises to get anything real done on a tiny screen.
I like a gadgety phone, but just to play with.

It's a form factor thing. As long as the phones with phone-only functionality are (more-or-less) as bulky as the phone-and-everything-else phones, I'll have the latter.

However, as soon as the phone-only phones get as small and easy to use as these concepts, I'll go for them.

I really dont care for these convergence devices. I'd rather carry three things that do what they are supposed to do well rather than one cel phone that really does nothing well and run out of power quickly because you are doing everything BUT using it as a phone.

In my pockets...

Dell Axim x51v
iPOD Video 60g
Motorola KRZR

SeV Fleece 2.0 for the win.

Keep the bluetooth, ditch the rest.

Poorly constructed survey... I like more than just a phone, but not so much more that it becomes a brick in my pocket.

I also agree with papaguru - if it was just a phone the size of a chapstick, I'd like it to be just phone - if it's going to be a "chocolate bar", I'll take a few more features (camera, sd card expansion, customized ring tones, etc.).

The main outcry at all the features in phones is that they do everything half-assedly. Limited MP3 capacities, shitty sound quality, crappy cameras, webpages on a 1 inch screen....everything is just a gimmick, NO phone ANYWHERE does any of those things as well as separate devices.

In the end, we'll never get a cell phone that is simply a great (and well-designed) phone without all the features. All these add-ons are nothing more than to increase revenue for cell phone carriers, to charge you airtime for internet usage, charge for emailing photos, buying music($2.50/song AND minutes are used on Sprint). The carriers ONLY support these features because they can charge for services involved.

The main thing for me is a good phone with an easy to use and comprehensive address book. A close second to that is my calendar management and being able to sync the above with Outlook on my computer.

Web browsing on a screen that small with a connection that slow just isn't gonna happen for me. Camera is not needed - when I want pics, I want something at least of the quality of point-and-shoot digital camera.

From talking with various Aunts and Uncles over the holidays, I think there is an enormous untapped market out there for "Just A Phone". A lot of the members of my parent's generation (The Boomers) do not want or need anything on a phone beyond the ability to send and receive telephone calls. Sure, there are exceptions, those that embrace technology, but by and large, the over 60 crowd would love a phone that acts just like the one at home. They're not "scared" of the technology, they just have neither the desire nor the need for it.

Oh, and they also want big, easily-readable-without-glasses buttons on it. ;-)

I've never been a fan of surveys with only two options. You never really get a good idea of how the population really feels. For example, in this survey I would have liked an option like "Just calls and texting." Watching TV on our phone seems really pointless, as I rarely find myself in the kind of situation where that would be a good idea -- the only circumstances I can think of offhand being during a public- transportation commute or waiting in a doctor's office -- but I can't live without my precious texting.

The best solution for everyone concerned would be different phones for different times. Sometimes, I'd just like a phone. Other times, I want lots of features. Different features at different times.

Carriers and manufacturers are too stuck in the single perfect phone rut.

I own multiple pairs of glasses, different cars, three bicycles, etc.

I recently tried the blackberry pearl and cingular blackjack, and ended up returning the blackjack and am in love with the pearl.

The blackjack fit the description that most write about above - it does everything, but it does everything really poorly. I couldn't take it and returned it.

The pearl also does everything, but it does a really good job at a few things. It's a great email device/pda, and internet browsing is solid. The camera and mp3 player are lacking though. I expected this to replace my ipod, but with very poor sound quality and a terrible UI, it doesn't come close.

One problem that REALLY pisses me off about both phones: how can you possibly market them as mp3 phones and not provide a standard headphone jack or adapter?!?!? Samsung said that I am only able to use their crappy headphones with the blackjack. There are adapters for the pearl (it's a 2.5 mm output, but with 3 prongs - stereo and mic), so I bought a 3rd party adapter and it sounds like crap, especially through shure headphones.

Overall, it shouldn't be THAT hard to build a solid mp3 player into a phone; I don't understand how everyone failed so far.

I'd like to see the ability to customize the phone's menus and applications more (such as hiding the feautres you don't need/use.)

People keep saying there's this huge untapped market for the "Phone-only" phone, I disagree. There is a market for cheap cell phones, but I think a lot of the supposed "Phone-only" market falls under this category. People just don't want to look like jerks for having the cheapest cell phone around.

There are simple phones out there. What's wrong with ignoring the things you don't need? just like ignoring commercials for products you don't need when you're watching tv.
Ex. Samsung t509
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/Detail.aspx?device=630...
Ex. Moto Razr
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/Detail.aspx?device=b91...

Just for the record, I use a T-Mobile Sidekick 3, had the Blackberry 8700g for about a month before that (hated the scrollwheel), and the Sidekick 2 for the two years before that.

What I want to know is where the heck the Razr with QWERTY keyboard is? and hopefully an OS made by someone other than Moto.

OK, Wow Some comments are really surprising me, WHY DOES ANYONE LIKE THE RAZR!?!?!!!!

THE RAZR IS ONE OF THE WORST PHONE IVE EVER HANDLED IN MY ENTIRE DAMN LIFE,
THE KRZR IS EVEN WORSE!! They want you to spend 500$ ON SOMETHING THAT TAKES 3 SECONDS TO RESPOND TO ANY KEY YOU PRESS?!

(motorola rant over)

Seriously its all about form and function not either of them seperated, ALL of the rzrs suck as far as function, even the god forbidden 2 megapixel one. The best phones ive used so far have been these

For only dialing and basic function
Sanyo 8400 (nice phone, very fast response, decent camera, Great phone for basic use but the more intricate features need some work)

For Multi use (camera w/ auto focus, 2mp, 1gb internal memory, bluetooth 2.0 a2dp, camcorder with send or store resolutions, Adaptive voice dial, etc)
Is the sanyo m1, These are both sprint.

For cingular id say the best phone they have ic the LG cu5000, Next gen data, 1.3 camera, microsd, Great phone very responsive.

For T mobile ive heard great things about the blackberry pearl and the Dash, Both mroe expensive phones and Tmobiles DATA SUCKS!! so dont even bother with them if you want to browse the web alot.

For Verizon, DONT GET THE Q, if you really must get a motorola and sacrifice so much function for so much form, then wait for the Q pro.

If your looking for a good phone that doesnt look so amazing but is really functional the Casio Gzone V type is supposed to be really great, (waterproof 2.0 megapixel underwater cam, etc etc)
Also the chocolate clamshell and the samsung a990 are good choices

FIGHT THE NORM! RZRS SUCK!!! KRZRS BLOW!! DOWN WITH DRM!! REBEL REBEL! WRITE YOUR SENATOR.... ok maybe that was a little to far..

i want a nokia 770 with GSM. the nokia 770 is the greatest device I've ever had, if only it had GSM

YES! Finally! I have longed for so, uh... long for a phone that's just small and simple. Sure it's fun to have games and cameras and all kinds of crap on a cell phone, but after I take it home I never really use any of that junk. None of it works that well anyways. I'd much rather have a smaller phone that I can shove in my jeans pocket and not look like I'm trying to impress the ladies. People keep saying how small the RAZR is... have they seen that thing? It's the spruce goose of cell phones! It'd be nice to keep the caller ID feature but do I really even need that?? I still answer the phone with "hello?" as if I didn't read the name that popped up on the front of the phone before I answered it. Just give me a stick with some buttons on it, like the size of a stubby pencil. So yeah, my vote is totally for this style.