Originally Posted by PatNY
But Barclays' report doesn't cover everything. It excludes the vast majority of iOS and android devices in use today. And we can quibble all we want about what should be considered a "phablet" but the point is an analyst writing up a report like this needs to draw the line somewhere.
So let's say it's defined that way. How would you then characterize the next iPhone if it has a 4.5" screen? Still just a smartphone? And the Samsung Galaxy Note III is rumored to have a screen larger than 6 inches. Is that then not a phablet anymore?
The >6 inch device would be one of the fringe cases worth arguing over, unless it was so much over six that it was just a 7" tablet.
As for the report, I really could not, from my cursory reading, understand WHAT the point was.
They mention they exclude iPhone, but I am not clear on why.
And in one breath the say that screen size should not be the defining characteristic, and the term should include all crossover devices (which, in my mind would include every high end Android smartphone, and the iPhone) and in the next, they talk about the defining characteristic being screen size.
That's why I'm leaning on the side of "not so useful a report."
For myself, until we have folding screens, even the 5" Note seems ridiculously large to carry as the primary personal communicator that phones have become. Anything larger than that is a tablet in my mind, and the ability make a phone call on one is just an incidental feature. I think "phablets" serve a niche market of folks who will always carry such a large device, but won't also carry a second much smaller device. Certainly not a game changer, as the report seems to suggest.