The case for a wifi-only device
 

With free WIFI becoming so ubiquitous (McDonald's chains, Starbucks chains, free WIFI at hotels, public WIFI's, at home, etc.), I'm just not seeing the case for embedding so many devices with power-sucking, surreptitiously running and space-hogging cellular radios in devices that were never intended to be cell phones.

The Nokia 770, N800, N810 and (arguably) the N810WE were all GREAT with just WIFI for connectivity. I'd argue that the N800 had an INCREDIBLY powerful WIFI radio, especially. Considering how well that's worked out, and the move of Apple to provide non-cellular versions of devices (iPhone->iPod Touch, iPad G3->iPad Wifi). Google has changed the specs for Android so that it would run and make sense on non-cellular devices, recognizing that people might prefer a good embedded OS on a non-cellular device. Even Barnes and Nobles has decided to release a wifi-only version of their Nook eBook reader, very recently.

With the sneaky use of the N900's phone-home registration as an example, and the unnecessarily short battery life and added heft and smaller screen (comparing all these elements to earlier Internet Tablets), do we really want cellular connectivity in all our devices? At the very least, shouldn't there be an OPTION of getting a current generation device with WIFI only?

Long-time readers already know I'm biased toward WIFI-only with bluetooth/USB tethering to a cell-phone. I want my cell phones tiny and my computers JUST pocket-sized (even if it's a cargo pocket).

I, for one, prefer the demarcation of devices and the security of knowing that if I run out the battery playing games or video, I STILL have a teeny tiny cell phone on my hip with a charged battery and I can get out an emergency call for an ambulance if I get my arm stuck in a furnace.

Opinions? :)

Re: The case for a wifi-only device
 

Well, finding and connecting Wifi can be tricky, and usually fails when I would most need it. Also, there's no roaming, you cannot just walk around and have the data flowing while the device jumps from one network to another (at least without some serious VPN hackery).

I actually had a N810, and found it not so useful just for the reason it didn't have a cell radio. While Wifi is more practical than a wire, it still has wire-like restrictions on one's mobility.

I admit that a Wifi-only N900 might be attractive to some if that meant it was a lot cheaper. Just not for me.

Re: The case for a wifi-only device
 

It would certainly be attractive to me. The N770 price point was around $350 when it debut. The N900 set the bar at $600! For my purposes (traveling device), the N900 was priced just too high. (Losing/stolen $600 hurts a lot more than $350.)

I hope the rumors of the Nokia MeeGo tablet are true and there will be a wi-fi only version for around $350-$400, to undercut the iPad, and hit that price sweet spot for me.

Re: The case for a wifi-only device
 

Interesting.

I own the N800, N810 and a N900.

Wifi coverage isn't that great here. A lot of people I know carry an "aircard" for network connectivity. If I am in a populated area wifi is generally available though.

For me both personally and professionally the N900 is the only thing on the market that can do what I need a device to do. Maybe not the best but certainly the only.

The phone-home thing is network independent. Unfortunately people don't seem to care much. As someone who watches the packets on my networks it is pretty common. Don't get me started on THAT subject.

I have always carried spare batteries (and AC / DC chargers) for my devices since the Diamondtel bag phone days. Considering my laptop battery life I don't have much of a complaint here, though maybe I should.

I am somewhat aware of your opinions on these devices;)

BUT, I have looked at the pad devices, net books etc. and found nothing that interests me at the moment. I will agree with you in that I would like to see a continuation of the tablet style devices. I also want it to fit easily in my pants or jacket pocket.
If someone offered a N810 style device (Wifi, BT, USB) with a faster processor, 4.3 - 4.5 inch LCD ,more RAM and resistive touchscreen I would probably buy it. The company would give me an Droid if I needed a phone. (yeah our IT guys support it)

I figured the demarcation of devices went out when I started seeing people carrying cheap cameras that had a cell phone built-in:D

FWIW, I still use my N800 everyday as it has been tweaked for my purposes. I have 32GB onboard and a BT keyboard among other BT accessories. It used to be tethered to my Moto phone. My N810 even with the better LCD etc. only has a few apps on it, mainly Carman:) And the laptop is a company computer that I carry but use less all the time.

Conclusion: Regardless of the type of phone I use I would still have a (preferably open) pocket computer.

Sorry for rambling, but I tried to touch on all of the points you brought up.

Heres to your tread NOT going up in "flames":D
Take care.

Re: The case for a wifi-only device
 

Wouldn't have bought the N900 if it didn't have a cellular radio. Even if you forget voice calls, chances are that when you just "absolutely have to" check something from the internet there isn't a working/free WLAN available.

Also if it wasn't a cell phone too then I certainly wouldn't have it with me all the time - and that is what makes the device so practical; It's there when you need it with a network connection that works anywhere.

Re: The case for a wifi-only device
 

if you want the n900 to be wifi only, take the sim card out

Re: The case for a wifi-only device
 

Which misses the point of not including the cellular base band completely (cheaper device, decreased power usage, etc.) I suspect that either the iPad mode of selection will become common, or someone will get the bright idea to make it an end-user installable option (and provide for audio suport and not -just- data.)

Because it's not ubiquitous. Each time you want access you have to stop at one of those places. I quite like being able to browse while walking around and not lose my connection (or worse yet, find myself somewhere that wants $10 for 24 hours of connectivity, of which I'll use 2.)

Power management is king. Done properly 3/3.5G shouldn't consume more than WiFi, and done wrong WiFi can eat a battery lightning quick (which is the problem I have with my router at home, since it hates the power-save routines the N900 uses.)

Arguably, for -some- people. I explicitly ignored most PDAs and didn't really pay all that much mind to the N8x0 series due to being wifi only. Had there been a cellular module or something I'd probably have upgraded years ago instead of using the same phone for 5 years :)

It would always run on non-cellular devices, though I don't think Google has pursued that actively. And tossing out options for people to choose what they want never hurts, it's all about use cases.

Totally the fault of Nokia being irresponsible, there's nothing preventing such surreptitious transmission of data via wifi (especially since we can't install a functional, community-vetted version!)

Price to be paid for 100% connectivity. IMO, a device without access is useless. The trick is making sure that when access is desired it is made available, not constantly active and burning battery.

Bigger screen = added heft and reduced battery life (or you go the Apple route and jam huge batteries in the case...) A cellular base band doesn't add that much.

Re: The case for a wifi-only device
 

The delta on the hardware can't be that much for GSM/3G. The nook being a great example. With 3G/Wifi vs just Wifi the delta is only $50. And that includes a "free" limited data-only-to-BN.com 3G plan for the life of the device. Assuming they're eating that on the assumption of book sales over the connection, at most the hardware delta is $50. So the N900 would have been $550 vs $600? I'll take the option to go 3G, thanks. :)

Re: The case for a wifi-only device
 

And the difference in price between the iPhone and the iPod Touch? A lot more than $50, and the Touch is just an iPhone without the camera or phone. Plus, although they have the same size screen, the Touch is also a lot smaller than the iPhone.

I've been in the Dan Ramos camp on this all along. I think it's great that people that want a converged device have it in the N900; the fact that some of that subgroup would not want a wi-fi-only device doesn't mean there shouldn't be both.

I might as well add: Like DanRamos, I also want the thing to be pocketable -- a 7" or 9" tablet doesn't fit the bill. (Heck the N800/N810 barely fit the bill; I want the same size screen, but a smaller package; and if that were Nokia's design goal, they could easily do it.)

Re: The case for a wifi-only device
 

Technically WiFi can never be as ubiquitous as GSM/CDMA due to many reasons (mainly stems from technical limitation). So there'll be quite a lot of areas where the device is not connected to the hive mind (mainly when you're moving about: cars, buses, metros, etc).

Considering how much apps and services that work so much better when you're connected, I'd much prefer if we address the concerns and shortcomings of the more ubiquitous connectivity option... (cost, privacy, connectivity option, etc)

:)