HP's iPAQ 110 and 210 PDAs get shipment date, prices

We know that you're all on pins and needles right now waiting to find out when you can get your hands on those new HP PDAs, the iPAQ 110 and 210, and how much it will cost you when you do. Well, you're in luck, because the company has just added shipping dates and pricing to its website, thus making your Fall plans a little bit easier. If you'll recall, both WiFi equipped, Windows Mobile 6 devices feature color TFT touchscreens, Marvell PXA310 624 Mhz processors, and Bluetooth 2.0. The devices will be shipping on October 8th, with the 110 selling for $299, and the 210 for $399.

[Thanks, Speed]

Read -- HP iPAQ 110 Classic Handheld
Read -- HP iPAQ 210 Enterprise Handheld

[Peter @ Oct 6th 2007 6:40PM]

Other than the OS, how different are these from the Dell Axim x51v, which launched about 2 years ago and have already been phased out by Dell? Mine is perfectly good, but I wish I had a smartphone instead, like the new AT&T Tilt or something else along those lines. These are really not a big step forward in power in any way, though.

[Mindfield @ Oct 6th 2007 8:37PM]

From what I can tell, the main differences between this and the Axim X50v/X51v are:

- Video acceleration (iPaq doesn't have the Intel 2700g 3D accelerator -- or any other dedicated video chipset for that matter)
- OS (WM6, though you can get Football's WM6 for the X51v, or Maglite's WM6 for the X50v)
- Processor (PXA310 vs. the Dell's PXA270. Not sure what that means in practical terms, if anything.)
- Screen (4.0" on iPaq, 3.7" on Axim)
- Biometrics (optional on iPaq, not available on Axim)
- Battery (iPaq comes standard with a nice 2200mAh, while the Axim comes with an 1100mAh. You can get higher capacity batteries on the Dell, but that requires a new, fatter battery cover.)

Other than the nice battery and larger screen, the Axim still kicks its ass.

[Mindfield @ Oct 6th 2007 8:40PM]

OH, forgot: The iPaq has 128 megs of main memory, versus the DEll's 64 megs (which can be upgraded for a fairly hefty price plus shipping and a several week wait) which is another nice perk. The lack of the video accellerator kinda still ruins the iPaq for me, even if it does look like quite a nice machine otherwise.

[Legodude522 @ Oct 6th 2007 10:41PM]

The Marvell chips have more than decent graphics capabilities.

[m16 @ Oct 6th 2007 6:52PM]

why would someone want one of these PPC's? PPC+Cellular is the way to go, but if you remove the cellular function they are just a fancy paperweight.

[Nex @ Oct 6th 2007 7:03PM]

i used one of dell axim v51s over in afgahnistan during my last deployment, the cellular networks dont support phones from US. but we had wifi, coupled with skype i had a "mobile" phone anywhere on base. i also used it for briefing notes. and soldier data.. so there not just paperweights.. they have their uses..

[AndrewNeo @ Oct 6th 2007 7:08PM]

A fancy paperweight? I don't want a smartphone. The only reason I would is so I wouldn't have to keep seperate contacts between my phone and my PDA.. I can use bluetooth on it to tether with my phone, or wifi, to get online.

[huh @ Oct 6th 2007 9:17PM]

Nex, let me get this straight. You were on a military base, doing military business using Skype? That sounds very secure.

[freakmarket @ Oct 6th 2007 10:40PM]

Smartphones are bogged down by their tiny CPU power ... they can't play video for crap. Smartphones also have the tiny screens.

[m16 @ Oct 6th 2007 11:26PM]

thats a load of bullcrap, freakmarket.

My Samsung i730 has plenty of cpu, plays divx avi just fine, and has a 520mhz processor. Oh any my WM5 PPC PHONE is over 2 years old!!

[Nex @ Oct 12th 2007 6:07AM]

@huh
nope i used to to communicate with family stateside.. much cheaper then cell. for official communication we have encrypted cell, sat phone, and email. nothing official goes out on an un-encrypted line.. ..btw sorry it took so long to respond.. busy busy busy

[GregA @ Oct 6th 2007 6:55PM]

Why do these hold so little interest to me, yet the OLPC 1 for 2 deal seems like a great buy?

[McGinley @ Oct 6th 2007 6:57PM]

Ipaq...what an unfortunate name...

[Nytstryk @ Oct 6th 2007 8:37PM]

Why?

[Jonathan Keim @ Oct 6th 2007 9:18PM]

He's against apple

[wslcrew @ Oct 6th 2007 11:22PM]

Change P to R and it becomes iRAQ!

[jerry @ Oct 6th 2007 7:05PM]

how 1999... what a useless thing to invest their money in. i mean seriously, are they making so much money at hp that they have nothing else to do with it? I'd be suprised if they sold 10 of these, with the first and only 10 being gifts to their development team.

[SV @ Oct 7th 2007 6:19PM]

Wow, salespeople really don't like your comments.
But u are right, I got asleep reading all this...

I will tell you do not worry about HP, they do make money. Look, this PDA costs 20 bucks to produce in bill-of-materials while is sold for 400!

When I looked at HP spec on their website I've just completely lost my sleep! Take a look, together with this PDA they sell, for example, 128MB mini-SD flash card for 40 dollars! That's a definition of highway robbery. 320 bucks for GB! Cheapest is 1GB MiniSD for $99, this is still factor 15 to current street prices! Or several plastic styluses for $30. For 30 bucks I would get a truckload of it in China delivered tomorrow :-) Yes, the maker of expensive printer ink, plastic and reseller of flash cards HP do makes money...

But ... I would probably buy it somewhere in Asia in gray market for 30 bucks, just to play, it has nice VGA screen, G Wi-Fi, not super-duper, but also not as bad Marvel chip and nice battery. Bad that it does not have 16meg dedicated graphics memory like some older Axims...Of course you better not to expose this ancient piece in public here in California, in airplanes, parties etc where some may have 3-3.5G Wimax, EV-DO 2-megabit per second smartphones... Still some may really need such PDAs, may be one per 100K-people probably, since I've never seen anyone of our 10K organization ever used PDA lately

[Adama D. Brown @ Oct 7th 2007 10:19PM]

SV, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The raw component cost of the iPaq 210 is probably around $200, not including the costs of engineering, assembly, testing, programming, shipment, and retail. Please refrain from being an idiot in the future.

[SV @ Oct 9th 2007 8:46PM]

Sounds like we have "pro" here on components price, capable also to assess cost of engineering, assembly, testing and programming. And besides non-idiot!

I understand he can't estimate the drop in component prices over device lifetime, which defines BoM and profit, but hopefully he can add together 3-4 numbers. It is easy: the new most expensive components like processor and screen will fall by factor of 2 in a course of a year or so. So in 6-12month in quantities 10K-100K they will cost

$10 processor
$12 LCD touchscreen panel
$5 battery
$3 OS
$20 other components

Note, no fancy screen here, no GSM/EDGE, no 8GB NAND flash, no camera, other fanciest components like proximity sensor like in iPhone, the BoM of which in a year will be a half or less of current 200 bucks. It is already lower, in such quantities 8GB of flash to cost $70?!!

And cost of engineering etc for HP 110/210? For what, for such last century devices ?

[Adama D. Brown @ Oct 14th 2007 4:29PM]

If you seriously believe that a 4" VGA LCD with touchscreen can be gotten for $12, then you're resistant enough to reality that nothing I can say is going to help, other than to note that your estimate is probably 6-7 times too low, even in large bulk. Try actually pricing out the parts. Otherwise, I don't have time to waste playing with you.

[SV @ Oct 18th 2007 11:50AM]

Well, buddy, I was not right, you can't add the numbers, so sure, we are wasting time. Last question. What, to you, was the costs of last big thing iPhone multitouch LCD 4 months ago?

[Mark @ Oct 6th 2007 7:07PM]

No GPS? No cellular? No either?

Pass....

[Nytstryk @ Oct 6th 2007 7:52PM]

A little shortsighted don't you think @Mark? That is a really dumb comment. This is easily one of the best spec'd media devices out there or am I missing something? At work I don't need to use a 3g network so that is irrelevant to me. In an airport I can use a Wifi hostspot which are plentyful along with skype for phone usage. At work I cannot have a phone with a camera so that is no biggee to me. I also get a VGA 4" screen to watch media (movies)which is bigger that a new iPod Touch, more storage capacity than an iPod touch since use as many 16Gb CF cards as I want, unlike the iPod Touch, there is bluetooth unlike the iPod Touch and the OS (Windows Mobile 6) interfaces perfectly with my Exchange server environment at work and the personal exchange hosting service I use at home. The OS is open so I can use 3rd party apps unlike the iPod Touch. My work environment doesn't allow phones or cameras period anyway. I could go on but people need to realize that everyone doesn't need a phone or GPS enabled PDA. I have a GPS in both my RL and TL so I don't need GPS in my basic phone.

There are plenty of reasons for these devices and I am sure HP did their homework and created a complete Marketing plan to identify the major players in this market and with Dell leaving they saw and opportunity take the market back. Personally, I think it is a safe move since they are only marketing two new devices so they won't have much to risk if it were to flop which I doubt based on the examples I sighted above. Yes people with by them and they will sell more than 10.

[Carlos @ Oct 7th 2007 3:00PM]

@Nytstryk

ipaq is twice as heavy, twice as thick and battery life isnt even close to the iPod touch.

For $399 you get absalutlty no useful built in memory with the iPaq, with an iPod touch you get 16GBs

screen size is only .5 smaller on the iPod Touch but its high rez, and its meant for media playback so it will look better.

wireless on the ipaq is only 802.11'b' good luck with that ipod touch has much faster 802.11G

Going through a list of songs or video files in Windows Mobile is a nightmare compared to an iPod touch.

iPhone/iPod touch will eventualy get more apps and even 3rd party apps. iPod touch has been out for less than a month give it some time.

honestly if you need it to sync with your work exchange server then yes get the ipaq, that is the only reason devices like this still exists. If you're looking for a true portable media player without the fuss of manually managing media files and SD cards the go with the iPod touch. All devices are a compramise you have to choose whats more important to you, being tied to your work exchange server or having an easy to use media player.

[Adama D. Brown @ Oct 7th 2007 10:26PM]

Carlos, you're quite mistaken. The iPaq is only two ounces heavier than the iPod Touch. The iPaq does have 802.11g, and sports twice the battery capacity of the Touch for much longer life. Also, unlike the Touch, it supports removable and expandable memory, up to 32 GB right now and 64 GB soon; Bluetooth headphones; a larger and higher resolution screen; spare and extended batteries for even more runtime; third-party software; and superior audio and video format support.

In short, the only things the iPod Touch has on it is the Apple interface and the Touch's thickness. As for third-party apps on the Touch, Apple seems intent on breaking these.

[Thomas @ Oct 8th 2007 12:50AM]

Sorry Carlos, but Admiral Adama over here just took your foot and launched it square into your mouth. Do a little research next time.

[Ondra Soukup @ Oct 6th 2007 7:12PM]

Is there still a market for phone-less PDAs ?!!?

[Heman @ Oct 7th 2007 3:13AM]

Of couse there is, look at all those comments with lowest ranking. People who low rank them are the potential buyers. Just hope hp have enough of those buyers to cover the cost for this plain PDA.

[SV @ Oct 7th 2007 4:17AM]

Don't look at low rank. Here are a lot of salesfolks interested to fool customers with any new plastic

[ran6110 @ Oct 6th 2007 7:35PM]

Here's one of 2 main problems...
Memory 64 MB RAM & 256 MB ROM

The other is if you happen to forget to charge it and it goes flat everything is gone. It's like starting over right out of the box!

I would expect the file system to be flash memory!

[Nytstryk @ Oct 6th 2007 7:50PM]

The marketing information is incorrect you are quoting is incorrect. The device as 128mb of RAM for program installation and 256mb of RAM for storage. It also has an SDHC slot AND a compact flash slot. So theoretically, there are 32gb CF cards in production as we speak and 8 and 16gb SD cards in production. That would give you 48gb of storage space. I can get a 16GB compact flash card for $137 and I have the flexibility to get multiple cards for unlimited storage unlike the new iPod Touch. Sure, there are other media devices that have more "onboard" storage space but they don't interface with Microsoft Exchange which owns the mail server market. This device is a media device "plus" a touchscreen PDA. I get the best of both worlds viewed on a 4" screen and not on a cramped 2.5" 3G phone screen.

I verifed the memory specs with HP before I placed my order on Friday. If it does not I will return it. I don't think they would lie just to sell it. After all the shareholder legal troubles they have they don't need a bait and switch class action lawsuit on their hands.

[Meatstick @ Oct 6th 2007 8:14PM]

Nytstryk: "The marketing information is incorrect you are quoting is incorrect."

Actually, no. You are just confused. If you read the article _carefully_, you will notice that there are two devices being released.

iPaq 110 has 64/256 memory with 3.5" screen (presumably 240x320)
iPaq 210, which is likely the one you ordered, has 128/256 memory with 4" screen (480x640)

there are also differences in connectivity (IR for 110), battery (1200 mAh vs 2200 mAh), weight (210 is almost double), expansion (SDIO only for 110).

nevertheless, ran6110's comment about the power-related data-loss shows (s)he is pretty clueless about handheld device developments.

[Nytstryk @ Oct 6th 2007 8:37PM]

@Meatstick

No, I am not wrong. The device with a CF and SD slot is the 210 and not the 110. I never said anything about the non VGA 110. Everything I am referring to speaks of the 210. This is not too hard to figure out from the specs. I purchased the 210 and it has 128mb of RAM (program)/256mb of RAM (storage) as well, again, in the specs. Also, I referred to a "4" screen", which again is not the 110 but the 210 and in the specs. This is not to hard to infer.

I will be perfectly explicit in the future as to what I am referring to.

[ran6110 @ Oct 6th 2007 8:57PM]

nevertheless, ran6110's comment about the power-related data-loss shows (s)he is pretty clueless about handheld device developments.

Your telling me that you allow the unit to discharge and nothing is lost? The user installed applications and settings, registry data, user information etc.

Also, I took the system RAM directly from the link in the article.

[PeterF @ Oct 6th 2007 9:16PM]

@ran6110
That is true, you do NOT lose anything! And you haven't lost your daata using WM since WM5 came out.
the RAM for WM5 and WM6 is STRICTLY RAM, you dont get to store stuff in it.
It is not right to call the flash chip ROM anymore, since it is no longer read only memory. The "ROM" is basically a flash chip with 2 partitions. 1 Being the OS which is read only, and the other being storage, which stores your registry and files.

[Nittspick @ Oct 6th 2007 9:39PM]

Nytstryk: "Everything I am referring to speaks of the 210. This is not too hard to figure out from the specs."

Yep, you are wrong. Your statement "The marketing information is incorrect you are quoting is incorrect" is wrong, both factually and grammatically, since it is "not too hard to figure out from the specs" that ran6110 was talking about the 110 in his original post.

ran6110: "Your telling me that you allow the unit to discharge and nothing is lost? The user installed applications and settings, registry data, user information etc."

Yep, you are wrong too, as I said already.

[Carlos @ Oct 6th 2007 7:25PM]

wow - that UI looks incredibly dated - is that the newest Windows Mobile?

Jesus - reminds me of Windows 95 - cant believe that passes for a modern OS, even on a mobile device

[liame @ Oct 6th 2007 7:55PM]

those were my thoughts too, but it's even worse than that. Some of the options menu look like they were straight out of Windows 3.1, it's just horrific for something released in 2007.

[Nytstryk @ Oct 6th 2007 8:12PM]

Well, that Windows Mobile UI owns the PDA marketplace regardless of what you think. I administer Blackberry's and Windows Mobile devices daily at work and well businesses as well as individuals have no problems with the interface because it works. All of the fancy UI's on these devices die for a reason and that is why Microsoft took the lead from Blackberry and is increasing it. It looks like Windows so there is no learning curve. Makes sense to me. I would like to own such a dated UI and the revenue it generates. I'd be, well, Bill Gates. To each his own. Go buy an AT&T, locked down OS, iPod Touch if you don't like it. No biggee. I for one won't be told what I can and cannot install on a device I would have paid $599 for.
What is the point of a locked down PDA (no user installable applications) in the first place? Makes no sense to me. Feel free to name one PDA interface that has sold more PDA's...

[Carlos @ Oct 6th 2007 9:32PM]

umm the GUI is still dated regardless of any other factor - there is no reason why MS cant update their software to be a little friendlier on the eyes and easier to use. We have seen it elsewhere so why cant MS do the same, its not like it would take any functionality away. The symbol for memory is a graphic of an actual memory chip, how many non-tech people know what memory chip looks like?

Market dominance is no excuse for an ugly GUI, there are a whole slew of reasons why MS dominates this market, believe me GUI is not one of them. Its business falling back on whats familiar, its IT folks like you looking for something that easily works with the rest of the MS stuff at the office (and can use MS as a scapegoat when things go wrong).

Palm and RIM have equally ugly archaic GUIs, Apple has just come out with theirs less than 6-months ago, we'll see how that works out over the next year or so.

[JoeSmack @ Oct 6th 2007 7:29PM]

wow, you guys are ruthless...

[JoeSmack @ Oct 6th 2007 7:30PM]

...but i agree.

[Mark @ Oct 7th 2007 4:36AM]

@Nytstryk

Thanks for your opinion. I certainly won't call yours dumb.

For me, I need convergence. I currently have a device that is my pda and gps. I have a second device that has my cell and my music. And I have a third device that is my pocket camera (I'm a pro photographer by trade). Then there's my pro photo gear.

*I* need a reliable (read: good support and drivers, not some Chinese-backed, barely written in English documentation without ever seeing drivers released in N. America) device that converges at least two of the three things (not including my pro gear). A pda that combines either a decent snaps camera and gps, or a pda that combines gps and cell, or a pda that combines all of it. It's almost 2008, and this product is stuck in 2004 technology for what it offers. So, IMO, no it isn't one of the best spec'ed out media devices out there, and IMO, you are missing something: your likes and dislikes in a product aren't necessarily everyone else's.

[Daniel @ Oct 6th 2007 7:42PM]

ran6110:
The battery goes flat, you charge it. They haven't had that issue since PPC 2003. Get with the times.

Mind you, I like my x50v with 8gigs of memory (4SD, 4CF), thank you very much.

[Aaron @ Oct 6th 2007 8:06PM]

You're welcome.

[TDG01 @ Oct 6th 2007 8:03PM]

man...i get what everyone is saying...i'm sure there are really good applications for this....but, 2 devices are bad enough....the thought of carrying around 3 devices is painful...besides, for me personally, i need this functionality with me all the time, not just where there's a wifi spot...i live in a 2nd/3rd tier market and there's some wifi around, but not everywhere...

i know it works for some folks...but for me it feels like i'm walking around with handcuffs...

[Peter @ Oct 7th 2007 10:02AM]

But one market this is great for is anyone involved in colleges. I'm at Brandeis University, and I have wifi everywhere I go, so my Dell Axim x51v has constant connectivity, so it basically is like a smartphone in terms of browsing and email, and I can do skype whenever I want too. A smartphone makes it too difficult to do some simple things, like put in an assignment into the tasks or edit a schedule. My Axim makes it nice and simple.

On the other hand, when I'm at home in New York, I would rather have a converged device. No matter what, I need to have my phone--Samsung Sync--and my 80GB iPod, so if I want my PDA with me, I have three heavy devices. If I want my camera with me, that's 4. At college, I can just drop whatever I don't need off in my room, but when I'm in the Village, I can't do something like that, so it becomes difficult. Also, I'm not as surrounded by free wifi as I am at school, so the PDA becomes less useful.

In all, I personally would like to have a combined device that took the ease of use and the internal power of a PDA and merged it with a phone so that I could just make a call too. I also just don't want to have to spend $40 or however much more for a data plan. I'm locked into AT&T on a family plan, and their data is really expensive for the smartphones. A PDA, on the other hand, has no contract, so it's just the cash you lay down up front. I don't know where I'd come down on this issue in the end.

Actually, on second thought, everybody should just buy the iPhone.

[neoAkira @ Oct 6th 2007 9:07PM]

If anthing HP finally made a good looking PDA. Their PDA's normally are very unpleasing to the eye.

[TDG01 @ Oct 6th 2007 9:24PM]

I'll give you that...it is good lookin