basically, i would say that looking at it that way is like driving into the future with the eyes fixed on the rear-view mirror.

there are people that have used the N800 as a phone while abroad, thanks to skype, rather then pay for roaming or get a local sim card.

and with services like google voice, that can handle anything from sms to voice mail, and even transcribe the voice mail and send it as email, things get really interesting.

end question really becomes if one have a phone to reach out, or to be reached, any where, any time. If its the latter, then yes, the N800 will not replace the phone, thanks to wifi being hit or miss.

but really, the N800 is fading, the N900 has a 3G radio in it, and yet nokia is all about “oh and it can do phone to” about it, rather then “its a phone that can do net”.

hell, archos is planing a “phone” version of their recently released archos 5 internet tablet, a first for them.

and again, the focus on the next gen mobile “phone” networks are data first, voice as a optional extra. Hell, its only recently that big players got together to hammer out a common way to do voice over LTE, rather then it being part of the spec from day one.

basically, the iphone, pre and droid are a collection of transition device, maybe one can call them feathered dinosaurs, that right now are phone with net on top. Tho depending on usage they can just as well be pocket computers with phone as just one of many features.

just watch how both pre and another motorola phone, cliq, acts as social networking devices, by linking all your various profiles and contacts into a single whole.

hell, i am not sure, but i am willing to bet that one can, either now or soon, make video calls from a android phone using google talk, to someone logged into their gmail account from a laptop or similar, using either wifi or 3G interchangeably.

A totally new term like comphone (computer phone) or computicator (computer communicator, but I think that was an actual HP device about 10 years ago) would be better since it doesn’t mean anything today.

note what i said about 4G basically turning voice features into voip, thanks to it first and foremost being a data carrier, vs 2G and 3G having a dedicated voice channel with a “bolted” on (especially in the case of 2G/GSM where voice and data cant be used at the same time) data channel.

hell, had there not been issues with spirnts wimax efforts, resulting in nokia pulling the N810w, one could probably have used that as a (voip)phone already.

and thats where we are heading, just observe the N900, and how it puts skype, IM and email right next to voice and sms.

The model now is that we want a phone that can use the internet, more and more integration with internet services, and in the process the acquisition of functions that used to be tied to a hardwire networked terminal or computer (or recently to a notebook), like email, IM, etc. A smartphone is a more useful utilization of those functions in many cases, because it’s always on and always networked. The main disadvantages come in because of limited screen real estate and user interaction.

I don’t like “app phone” either because many of my older phones allowed me to develop and purchase apps. There might not have been a vendor-provided “app store” but there were/are certainly places to purchase many different kinds of apps. The fact that Verizon, Apple, et al. finally realized that they should organize (and profit from) the developer community surrounding their products, says nothing at all about the product itself, so “app phone” isn’t a useful name.

“Pocket computer” isn’t a good name because that could mean my Nokia N800 which is certainly a computer, but not a phone.

I would just stick with smart phone, partly because it’s already out there and most people understand it immediately to be something more advanced than an a basic telephone. But mostly because this market is changing really fast so any new name will probably sound quaint in a year or two.