Motorola's new "Scalpel" on the way?

We're a little vexed on the finer points of Moto's supposed intentions, but Crain's Chicago Business is reporting Ed ZNDR has plans to release a new, even thinner candybar called the "Scalpel" (SCLPL?), intended to sell for $40 in European, African, Middle Eastern, and Asian markets, and undermine Nokia's global reach. We'd say that's a pretty aggressive plan if that's the case, but we can't help but wonder why they'd undercut their smallest, thinnest phone—the SLVR—with something even smaller and less expensive; let alone how they'd even be able to manufacture an ultraslim device so inexpensively. All this from a supposedly informed Citigroup VP's mouth—not the horse's—so don't get your hopes up too much for that ¼th-inch thick phone just yet.

[Thanks, Dod]

[Vimal @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Wow.....thin is in!!

[Cullen @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

they could mfg it by not slapping shit like cameras i dont need, a windows os i dont need, a big fancy screen i dont need...wifi i dont need, ton of other shit i dont need. if this happens, im buying one. itd be perfect for my bike, always scared for my treo :p

[R @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Aimed at the healthcare market

[Trixie @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Why the hell are the prices so cheap, while here, but butt-rape expensive?

[Richard @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Why don't we all just start writing without vowels and all caps? Because isn't that the CL THNG T D?

[Pixelator @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

At that price (and size) there's no way it will have features such as a camera. It probably won't even have a color screen.

[Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Looks like a hoax to me. "Scalpel" ?? C'mon!

[KneedANufone @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

I agree with Cullen; I'd like to see something akin to the T68i again, but with better reception. I'd like bluetooth as the only frill.

[Mark @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

4:
RGR THT


Yeah, if they drop all the fancy stuff it'd be easy to make, but I wonder how our novelty market would recieve that. I mean it seems that half the time people buy huge phones purely for features they'll never need, even if a smaller, cheaper, and nicer solution is available. I would like it if this was really a simple phone, so long as I could drop a SIM card in it. Being able to have a phone with useful features is something I like, but having a phone that doesn't look like a leg tumor is equally appealing.

[xej @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

RAZR...SCAPL...Motorola could supply for Surgeons! ...
I would pick up the SCAPL for the same reason as Cullen...who needs a Windows OS? Who NEEDS A SCREEN? I don't. :)

[DZ @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

It's most definitely a mistake , It would be sold for 400$ not 40$ ... have you ever seen a 40$ celphone?
I have >>>
http://main.itac.ksu.edu/techclass/roomdoc/images/AK%20120/ak120phone.jpg

[Rich Brome @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

I'm also pretty skeptical of the $40 thing - perhaps someone forgot a zero in there...

But Zander did publicly promise a 6mm-thin SLVR for 2006 at their CTIA press conference in March. So except for the price, this is old news.

[Joe @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

I want it. I still use the Sanyo SCP-6000, it lacks all the features that the new ones have but most importantly it is small and fits in my pocket.

[Tom @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

"Vexed" Are you sure that's what you meant? Vexed means annoyed, not confused, which I assume you meant.

[km @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

I'd buy a cheap, thin stripper.(phone that is)

[blackf0rk @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

It's really cool that the technology being researched and released is leading to smaller electronics. When we were all kids, we would always say, "Wouldn't it be cooler, if this was smaller!?"

But now that these cell phones have gotten so tiny, it reminds me the movie "Zoolander" and his outrageously small phone - somehow making fun of the future. Heh, well...here it is.

Again, on one hand it's cool that it can be so small, but on the other - when will this stop (Thus the Zoolander reference)?

Instead of wasting time making them smaller and hard to use, why not start focusing attention on making them easier to use with more cool features, like the direction the Danger Inc company did with the sidekick?

[daevh @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

A phone that's JUST a phone is something i've been looking for for a while now.
I got a SE K750 recently and while it does a load of things it doesn't do them as well as individual items. My iPod sounds way better for mp3's and holds far more, my Canon 20D is infinitely better at taking pictures and if i want to browse the web i'll do it at home with a display big enough to see everything. It's nice having those features but if they don't get used then there's no point paying for them.

I know plenty of people who purely use their phones as phones, and that's it. Good idea in my opinion...

[Shaun @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

But it will still run Moto's moronic software on it. The Moto phones look nice .... until you have to use one.

I like features. I like having all the extra stuff in my phone. But everyone seems to get the basics - using your phone, addressbook, text messaging - wrong. Either extra button presses that aren't needed 99% of the time or completely unusable - anything Moto write.

I'm hoping Moto/Apple did more with the iTunes phone than just slap in iTunes. Replacing the rest of the UI would be a good start.

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

I can just see it:

"Sorry sir, no sclpl's or razr's allowed through the securty check point".

[Ryan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Actually #12, Engadget used "vexed" properly. Your definition is also correct.

vex
1. To annoy, as with petty importunities; bother.
2. To cause perplexity in; puzzle.

Who called in the grammar police and forgot to arm them with dictionaries?

[Tom @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

daevh, I have the same phone, and find the camera more than good enough to serve as my 'backup' camera for when I don't want to carry round my full, valuable camera. 2 megapixels is perfect for social/spontaneous photos.
But you're right about the mp3 playback... until there is a phone the same size (eliminating the upcoming Nokia N series) with a multi-gig capacity AND browsing by artists and albums, I'll still be carrying my iRiver...

[Satoru @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Well for those of you who want a REALLY simple phone look no further than a phone from Tuka in Japan

http://www.tu-ka.co.jp/line_up/tu-kas.html

The thing has number buttons, pick up, hang up and an on/off switch. That's it. No screen, no camera. Heck it doesn't even have redial or any memory.

Not suprisingly it is marketed to the 'senior' market for its simplicity. Of course without any memory function, how will you know what number to call when the Alzheimer's kicks in.

[Jorge @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Think that a basic phone with looks is a good point. Nokia is selling zillons of its 1100 (only sms, B&W display) in developing markets. This could target that lead in basic phones that Nokia has.

[daevh @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

RE: #19

Pixel count is one thing but optical quality is another. Fair point, i wouldn't want to carry my 'proper' camera around all the time because it's big. But the image quality can't even compete with it, $500+ cameras can't compete... But then it's not supposed to!

For a telephone it produces great pictures (and i can call my friends!) but for a camera it's not great, though i think it could compete with some $100-150 cameras OK.

[evan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

I don't really think this is that impressive, if it's going to be a barebones phone. Sanyo made a super-thin phone with no special features a few years ago. It was a good phone; my girlfriend still uses it, but she's getting tired of the Crab game.

[mark @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Another barebones option is the Panasonic a100. It's very, very small, and it can be had for about $70. Also, it's tri-band GSM (GSM 900/1800/1900), so it works pretty much everywhere you're likely to visit.

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=panasonic%20a100&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&sa=N&tab=if

[mark @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Another barebones option is the Panasonic a100. It's very, very small, and it can be had for about $70. Also, it's tri-band GSM (GSM 900/1800/1900), so it works pretty much everywhere you're likely to visit.

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=panasonic%20a100&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&sa=N&tab=if

[Shane @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

I'd like to know how they plan to make a 1/4 inch phone able to withstand any sort of punishment. If it's not made of some cool, really durable material than it better be cheap - cause everyone's gonna need replacements if they squeeze it too hard.

[wes @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

that slivr looks very good. i guess its time for a new phone :D

[VVV @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Anyways isn't a Razor thinner than a Scalpel??

[JBob250 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

I don't know dude, dont scalpels have a glass blade?

Anyway, any word on a real price yet? I see $40 on the engdget summary, but is that American even though N. America was not listed as a place it would be sold? I mean, the RAZR was what, $600? $700 when it was released?

And how would I go about buying one and using it in America, or is that not going to happen? Well I guess I've got a year or so to move to Europe then.

[ZSX @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

The form factor reminds me of the NEC N900 which has been out in China for a long time now.

http://www.nec.com.hk/english/prod_ser/product/product_mobile_detail.php?product_id=52&product_cat_id=9&product_sub_cat_id=5&discon=N

[Sant @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

so?

just give me good features ,stupid Motorola

[Hellmaster @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

CONVERGENCE IS DEAD!!!!

it was a stupid idea to begin with

The future is DIVERGENCE!!!

Small form factor devices that perform their task really well that integrate wirelessly with other divergent products.

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

I'd love to see them call it the WAFR.

"Oh, surely you can fit it in your pocket, it's only a WAFR thin!"

[Patrick @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

http://www.i4u.com/article3851.html
info on how moto might do it.
sorry to link to another blog;/

[misunderstood genius @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

about the tuka phone from japan mentioned earlier here; even that one could have been more user friendly. instead of pushing two different buttons resembling lifting and hanging up your desktop phone, you should have a clam shell model without those two buttons. think about it, you open the clamshell, dial a number, talk and close it again to hang up. as simple as it can get!

[NooM @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

Thin is too, that phone is..hmmm..

[rj @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

great, looks like another flimsy gadget to break in my pocket. i better get extra warranty coverage

[Pete Jenkins @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM]

#34, i used to agree with you until i got my i730. it's small enough to fit in my pocket comfortably, and i don't waste battery life bluetoothing between a pda and phone. i don't have enough pockets for mp3 player, phone, pda, camera. i can only depend on having 4 pockets, wallet goes in left rear, hankercheif and pen in right rear. that leaves one pocket for a device and another for a spare battery. i'd rather not look like batman with a utility belt most of the time. at work it's ok, but other times i want to travel light. i730 does phone, pda, music, tv remote, gaming, everything i need. if they would just come out with the camera version...

Pete