Print 59 comment(s) - last by qualme.. on Feb 8 at 1:33 PM

PRADA Phone by LG
LG's PRADA to be the "world’s first completely touch screen mobile phone"

Weeks before Apple wowed the world with its touch screen iPhone; LG was already showing off its KE850 PRADA. The PRADA, like the iPhone, eschews traditional hard keys for a touch screen display which gives the device a more minimalistic look.

"We at LG are exceptionally proud of the PRADA Phone by LG," said Dr. Scott Ahn, President & CEO of LG Electronics Mobile Communications Company. "The two companies have worked together seamlessly towards a truly shared vision, to develop one of the most beautifully stylish handsets the market has ever seen."

The PRADA is actually smaller than Apple's iPhone, measuring 98.8mm × 54mm × 12mm while the iPhone comes in at 115mm x 61mm x 11.6mm. The difference in dimensions stem mostly from the iPhone's inclusion of a 3.5" 320x480 resolution display, while the PRADA uses a 3" 200x400 display.

The PRADA supports tri-band EDGE (900/1800/1900), features a 2MP camera with LED flash, a microSD slot for memory expansion, 800mAh battery, Bluetooth 2.0 and USB Mass Storage Support. Sadly, WiFi isn't a part of the package.

When it comes to software, the PRADA's user interface is based on Macromedia Flash. The PRADA has a built-in music player (MP3, ACC, ACC+, WMA, RA) and video player (MPEG4, H.263, H.264). Also included is a document viewer (ppt, doc, xls, pdf, txt).

The PRADA will launch in Europe at the end of February while Taiwan and Singapore will receive the phone in late March. Korean customers will have to wait until Q2 to get their hands on the PRADA.

Pricing in the European market will start at 600 Euros or $776 USD if you do a straight conversion. Apple has priced its iPhone at $499 for a 4GB model and $599 for a 8GB model -- both requiring two year contracts with Cingular Wireless.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

nice price (sarcasm)
By Ckilla on 1/18/2007 10:17:33 AM , Rating: 1
and people where complaing about the 600$ price tag on the ps3? this is just a phone! i bet you won't hear those same complaints though. funny.....

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By novacthall on 1/18/2007 10:22:11 AM , Rating: 3
There's a market for almost anything. Granted, few details are available on this phone that I can find, but this one seems to be catering directly to the "more money than sense" market segment.

I'm typically a fan of LG's stuff, but the Prada looks to be a tough product to support.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By marvdmartian on 1/18/2007 11:19:38 AM , Rating: 2
seems to be catering directly to the "more money than sense" market segment

Actually, that should be the "More dollars than sense" niche, shouldn't it? ;)

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By vdig on 1/18/2007 11:34:47 AM , Rating: 3
More dollars than cents. Way more than my two bits.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By 05SilverGT on 1/18/2007 10:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'll be the first one to say $600 is crazy for a phone. It's too easy to damage or scratch. The only thing thing I want that is that much in my pocket is cold hard cash. It does make the PS3 look like a bargin though.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By Griswold on 1/18/2007 10:32:48 AM , Rating: 1
Right, since when do we compare the prices of a living room game console to the price of a PIM/Phone/music&video player that is mobile? They serve completely different purposes.

I'm not saying this is cheap or a good price, but lets not compare apple (no pun) to oranges. Gadgets like this have always been pricey without a contract (the article does not mention if that price includes a exclusive contract like the iphone does, which makes the iphone too expensive in my book).

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By Ckilla on 1/18/2007 11:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
i didn't think i was comparing apples to oranges.... the ps3 is supposed to be a one stop shop and so is this phone, they are both electronic gadgets that no one "needs". i think they have alot in common

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By Operandi on 1/18/2007 11:12:07 AM , Rating: 1
One is a phone, the other is game console..... they have almost nothing in common.

Comparing the two is like comparing an apple to a head of cabbage let alone an orange.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By Ckilla on 1/18/2007 11:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
well i guess we will just have to agree to disagree because, I disagree with you... lol

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By RussianSensation on 1/18/2007 11:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think the point here is you have 2 technology items who are trying to be at the top of their food chain.

In 1 case it is a console that is leading on the forefront of HD movies and will provide gaming for at least 5 years.

In the 2nd case it is a phone which is going to be obsolete by something better in 1 year at most, or will drop in value at least 2x as it becomes mainstream and less cool (i.e. see Razr).

You are right that it's unfair to compare accessories in different industries, but it's fair to compare what their lasting appeal or impact will be on that industry. For $600 PS3 is actually not bad of a value. A $600 phone is like an 8800GTX which drops 2x in price and is outdated in 1 year.

Of course a phone shapes the image of the person using it in today's society. Which means for some people $600 is a bargain to stay 'fashionable', while PS3 is simply a device and nothing else.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By slacker57 on 1/18/2007 3:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Reading the "apples to oranges comparison" in every iphone thread is getting a little tiresome. Here's my take on it:

The cliche really doesn't apply because we're not comparing the functionality. If someone were doing a review/comparison of both products and claimed "PS3 is the clear winner because the iPhone won't let you play a blu-ray disk," then you could rail on the reviewer for making apples to oranges comparsions. However, we're comparing the price/desirability of both items, and don't you know, the price for both happen to be pretty comparable. I'd say that a $600 apple and a $600 orange are pretty comparable. I don't want to pay $600 for either one, but since I like oranges (a blu-ray player, HD gaming) better than I like apples (a phone with a touch screen and an mp3 player that a vast majority of the target market already has), I can make a comparison and determine that the $600 orange is a better value.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By qualme on 2/8/2007 1:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
very nice analogy

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By neocurvature on 1/18/2007 11:55:27 AM , Rating: 3
By calling this phone an electronic gadget, you're completely missing the point. This is a fashion item, first, second and third. Its value is not based on what kind of features it has or whether it has a wide screen. Rather, its value is based on whether it looks good and have sex appeal.

To say that this phone it's too expensive because there are other phones available for $200 is like saying an LV bag is expensive at $2000 when you can get a Gap bag for $25. While that statement is technically true, it also completely misses the point. Plenty of people buy that LV bag, and I'm guessing plenty of people will buy this Prada phone.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By Ckilla on 1/18/2007 2:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
lmfao wow i guess i did miss the boat.... i woulda never thought a phone had sex apeal? wow so your saying that if i drop 600$ on a phone i stand a better chance of getting laid?

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By neocurvature on 1/18/2007 3:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
No. I'm saying the target customers of this phone will buy it for its sex appeal, just like people buy prada bag for its sex appeal. Fashion is all about sex. What's so surprising about that?

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By FITCamaro on 1/18/2007 3:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about you but the first things I look at on a woman are far from her purse. Well. Two are close.

A Prada purse doesn't make a fat chick sexy.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By neocurvature on 1/18/2007 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're still missing the point. It has nothing to do with you. It's all about how a product makes the customer feel about herself.

Case in point, many (if not most) women are crazy about shoes and handbags. They think nothing about spending $500 on a pair of Jimmy Choo and $2000 on a LV bag. Yet how many men really pay attention to what shoes a woman is wearing? Very few. Then why women spend all those money on shoes and handbags? Because the shoes make them feel good and sexy about themselves. They spend their money to make themselves feel good. They don't spend it to hope to attract your attention. Got it?

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By KashGarinn on 1/19/2007 2:39:43 AM , Rating: 2
Reading it, black on white.. that just confirms that all women are bloody stupid.

Want to feel sexy? Have sex! why should you buying overpriced items affect how you feel about yourself? It's completely ridiculous.

Women of the world, you've been told.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By jmunjr on 1/19/2007 2:53:00 AM , Rating: 2
They aren't stupid, they are insecure. Well ok they are stupid enough to get duped by society, if that makes one stupid.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By hubajube on 1/19/2007 4:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Want to feel sexy? Have sex!
Your typical man RARELY sexually satisfies your typical woman. So women get that feeling from other areas.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By TheDoc9 on 1/18/2007 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
They are very similar with the only real difference of one being portable and the other sits under your tv.

In any case, like the new crapple phone that's $600, this certainly requires a contract.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By Oregonian2 on 1/18/2007 2:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
But then if you're keeping this in a Prada purse, one might want to keep it hid. Such a cheap phone would be an embarrassment.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By Behlal on 1/18/2007 3:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, what you fail to understand are the huge discounts you get in Europe with contracts. These discounts tend to far exceed the rebates you get in the US. I got a phone in europe that would have cost me £350 (~700) off contract, but which was completely free with a contract. When I recently looked at phones over here in the US (i.e. I was considering the new Blackberry Pearl on T-Mobile), the discounts were far less and fixed to the duration of the contract (unlike European ones, where the discount becomes greater the more you pay per month). I wouldn't be surprised to see this phone in an Orange store in the UK for less than $200(equivalent) with a contract.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By Frank M on 1/18/2007 11:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's very rare that tech is priced along the lines of currency rates. I bet you'll see it a lot cheaper in the US than the conversion rates would indicate. It'll still be way more money than I'm willing to spend, of course.

RE: nice price (sarcasm)
By uberfu on 1/19/2007 11:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
well - that's now 2 phones that have hit the $600 mark_ I'm sure they be more - but I really haven't been paying that much attention_

When the RAZR [motorola] was first released 2 years ago - it was going for $500_

Hell yeah - that's a little pricey for a phone_ But what're you gonna do?

I also bet that the interface isn't as robust as Apple's iPhone is_ And the fact that the LG phone's interface is running off Flash - means that ther is still another underlying operating system involved_ Good luck - LG_

Another pretty phone...
By h0kiez on 1/18/2007 9:40:48 AM , Rating: 2
So the biggest thing the iPhone didn't get right (lack of 3G) isn't any better here. Add in the lack of wi-fi, and it seems like as with other LG phones like the chocolate, style is more important than substance...although the way they sell them, I can't blame them.

RE: Another pretty phone...
By Spivonious on 1/18/2007 10:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
The average buyer of the expensive cell-phone cares more about how low they can get their pants and which sports team jacket they wear. I think the lack of wi-fi won't even be noticed.

RE: Another pretty phone...
By audiophi1e on 1/18/2007 10:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
For the Paris Hiltons in the world, when a phone becomes a fashion accessory, $600 might be considered cheap if they're put in the pockets of your $2000 Prada bag.

but IMHO, are you kidding me? $600 for a phone? at least the iPhone is also a widescreen iPod.

I wonder though if this kind of article should be better suited in a GQ magazine or something vs a techie website that cares more about the chips inside the phone than the phone itself.

RE: Another pretty phone...
By dnewfield on 1/18/2007 11:11:01 AM , Rating: 2
The LG phone is 600 Euros, significantly more than the iPhone will be.

By KristopherKubicki on 1/18/2007 11:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
They are the same price in the US and the LG will likely be cheaper in Asia

RE: Another pretty phone...
By Spivonious on 1/18/2007 12:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
I saw lots of working-class people who looked as though they could barely afford to feed their kids, living in a slum district, and taking the bus to the store because they can't afford a car walk into the Gamestop where I worked and buy a 360 and three games. They also always had the latest gadget, be it an iPod or the newest cell phone complete with rap ringtones.

These people place just as much importance on looking cool as the super-rich place on fashion. I guarantee you that at least one person making less than $20,000 a year has an iPhone ordered for every baby-momma they have.

RE: Another pretty phone...
By FITCamaro on 1/18/2007 3:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly yes. I always love driving through a poor part of a town and looking at the $3000 Lincoln Town Car with the $5000 rims, $3000 stereo, and $3500 chameleon paint job parked outside what might as well be a shack.

Half the pixels of the iPhone's display.
By masher2 on 1/18/2007 10:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think Apple has the clear lead here...the displays are hardly comparable.

By KristopherKubicki on 1/18/2007 10:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
True, but the iPhone does not actually display native widescreen -- so you end up losing a significant portion of the iPhones pixels to letterboxing anyway.

RE: Half the pixels of the iPhone's display.
By Araemo on 1/18/2007 1:10:25 PM , Rating: 2

It certainly looked to me like the whole screen was used by interface elements.

are you saying that if you play a widescreen video, it'll be compressed to be 4:3 and put in the center of the display?

By KristopherKubicki on 1/18/2007 3:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
That's what people say is occuring with the iPhone, yes.

By ATC on 1/18/2007 9:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if I misunderstood your statement, but the iPhone can be held in landscape and portrait orientations and the screen adjusts accordingly.

The screen shots at the following link from Tom's hardware show the iPhone playing movies in widescreen taking up the whole display with the iPhone being held sideways (landscape orientation).

Is that what you're saying it cannot do?

Correct me if I'm wrong here but....
By UsernameX on 1/18/2007 11:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
Both the LG and the iphone are the same prices? Why would someone pick LG over the iphone... because of a slightly smaller frame?

RE: Correct me if I'm wrong here but....
By zombiexl on 1/18/2007 11:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe because LG has actually made some good phones, where this is new to Apple.

Plus i'm sure this is the MSRP without a contract. The iPhone (if that name holds up) is a high price despite its suppliment from the Cingular (now the new AT&T, in my area it used to be AT&T so i dont see whats so new about it).

By Araemo on 1/18/2007 1:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
What's new is that it's SBC, not AT&T. ;)

RE: Correct me if I'm wrong here but....
By ninjit on 1/18/2007 1:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
Cingular's name hasn't changed (yet)

It's the landline stuff that's been (re)integrated.

SBC bought up AT&T and decided to keep AT&Ts name.

Cingular bought out AT&T Wireless over 2 years ago, and now operate under the Cingular brand name only - SBC owns Cingular.

I have read about them going back to the AT&T name for all products sometime soon, but no announcements yet.

By masher2 on 1/18/2007 9:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
> " have read about them going back to the AT&T name for all products sometime soon, but no announcements yet. "

The announcement was made some time ago. The marketing campaign for rebranding Cingular starts next week.

By HaZaRd2K6 on 1/18/2007 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote: player (MP3, ACC, ACC+, WMA, RA) and...

Is that supposed to read "AAC, AAC+"? As in Apple's audio codec?

RE: Typo?
By Staples on 1/18/2007 12:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
You beat me to it. Yes it is called AAC and not ACC.

I couldn't believe there were so many comments and no one had pointed that out.

RE: Typo?
By finbarqs on 1/18/2007 1:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
hrm.. Samsung had a phone like this AGES ago. The samsung I330 or I300. My friend had it... horrible... you ALWAYS had to look at your cell phone if you're gonna dial somewhere... Bad for driving...

RE: Typo?
By PrinceGaz on 1/18/2007 10:13:13 PM , Rating: 1
You shouldn't be using any sort of phone keypad while driving, be it touch-screen or conventional buttons.

RE: Typo?
By ninjit on 1/18/2007 1:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm hoping that's a joke because AAC does NOT stand for APPLE's Audio Codec

it's Advanced Audio Codec/Coding.
And is a standard defined by MPEG, and NOT proprietary (unlike MP3).

Yes Apple maybe the biggest adopter of AAC, but it's a shame it's not supported by more players/companies because it is better than mp3, and is license free (as far as I know).

So this is a CDMA phone?
By zombiexl on 1/18/2007 9:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
I guess it shouldnt be surprising since the Fusic (sprint) and the Choclate (Verizon) are CDMA asnd have been big sellers.

I love my Fusic, although the mp3 playing capabilities could have been implemented better. I hope those issues were addressed on this phone.

RE: So this is a CDMA phone?
By SocrPlyr on 1/18/2007 9:39:09 AM , Rating: 3
no it is not. there is no cdma in europe. plus verizon doesn't use edge, cingular does. don't expect to see this in the US too soon.


RE: So this is a CDMA phone?
By zombiexl on 1/18/2007 11:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
Thats right I got EDGE mixed up with that Sprint thing.
It's fine by me that its not coming to the US soon, since GSM coverage is still spotty in a number of areas.

phones as status symbols
By exdeath on 1/18/2007 11:38:56 AM , Rating: 2
Phones like this spend most of their time being displayed on the highly visible outside edge of desks and restaurant tables, or hanging out car windows. It is rare that they are actually used for anything.

RE: phones as status symbols
By gramboh on 1/18/2007 11:57:34 AM , Rating: 1
People like that deserve to be phone bashed:

(#3 is my favourite)

RE: phones as status symbols
By rippleyaliens on 1/18/2007 2:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Dude $600 for a device, that tends to get scratched, dented ,and dropped. Well you can count me out.
IPhone is same catagory. I would be afraid that i would drop it. I am hard on phones. but not that hard. for $600 the phone best have the MEGA GPS running on it, tellng me to slow down, for taco bell, or something..

Prices are just getting crazy, just to call and say, "Hello"

RE: phones as status symbols
By WxGuy192 on 1/18/2007 2:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
That's one of the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen... I hope someone catches them and gives them what they deserve. I don't care if folks use phones as fashion statements -- why the heck do you care? Does it annoy you? Lots of things annoy me, but I don't go steal and destroy those things that do so. Grow up.

it's still an LG POS
By AppaYipYip on 1/18/2007 3:56:59 PM , Rating: 1
Apple is superior for the simple reason that they not only control hardware design, but they develop the SOFTWARE. The hardware is not what is going to complete the human/machine interface, it's the software.

Apple > all

RE: it's still an LG POS
By msva124 on 1/18/2007 6:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
Apple actually designed the Core processors. If it wasn't for them, AMD would still be on top in the performance wars.

RE: it's still an LG POS
By msva124 on 1/18/2007 6:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
There are many UI designers at Apple, BTW. Some are good, others are not so good.

Touch screen = bad
By msva124 on 1/18/2007 6:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Would you want a touch screen on your cellphone?

By phaxmohdem on 1/18/2007 11:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki