nokias new superphone leaked

evolutionqy7

yeah i know regarding N900. But at the time that was there most people had the N97 and after that every one was in shivers of the thoughts of owning a Nokia again so most people never had the chance to try it.

I do look forward to see Nokia coming back with better built quality and better OS. But tbh i think the best way in my opinion is to re establish a new brand name cause i think the "Smartphone" word and Nokia don't go together anymore.

I think this will be more than likely the same history as windows mobile. Was good in the start. Then will fall like an apple from the tree and it will have to start from scratch.

Venom

Joe the Santa wrote: »

but this is Nokia's problem now. They are only able to get people who are used to symbians. It's unlikely people will go back to it once they have used WIn 7, android or iOS but people are still leaving it so the pool of people willing to buy the high end Nokia phones keeps getting smaller and smaller.


In relation to starting with a new OS they already did this with Maemo but it only ever produced 1 phone and then they went and changed it to Meego which Nokia haven't released any phones with yet, however it does look promising and I really hope is a success as I really do like some of Nokia's hardware

Nokia really need to just pick 1 OS platform and stick with it for all there phones as how can they attract developers when they change or plan to change the platform all the time.

ChopShop

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

yeah i know regarding N900. But at the time that was there most people had the N97 and after that every one was in shivers of the thoughts of owning a Nokia again so most people never had the chance to try it.

I've had both, N900 wasn't even close to the disaster that the N97 was, but unless you're prepared to do some coding yourself, it's lacking on usability side.

I'd love to see Nokia bounce back, and i'm not necessarily against buying Nokia again... but i'd take some convincing.

Gooch2k4

wernstrom! wrote: »

I've had both, N900 wasn't even close to the disaster that the N97 was, but unless you're prepared to do some coding yourself, it's lacking on usability side.

I'd love to see Nokia bounce back, and i'm not necessarily against buying Nokia again... but i'd take some convincing.

That E7 in the pic above is so pretty, such a pity

evolutionqy7

wernstrom! wrote: »

I've had both, N900 wasn't even close to the disaster that the N97 was, but unless you're prepared to do some coding yourself, it's lacking on usability side.

I'd love to see Nokia bounce back, and i'm not necessarily against buying Nokia again... but i'd take some convincing.

the N900 wasnt but people just didnt want it after the N97. Most people just went of to a different manufacturer

KrisW

An N8 user talking about missing functionality on an Android Device lol.

Care to enlighten us as to what the Android devices are missing?

Acceptable power management (24 hours per charge is not acceptable in the twenty-first century)
Full bluetooth support
Full application functionality in the absence of packet data.
A decent camera (I know this is a problem of the licencees, but you said "devices", not OS)
Privacy

Nokia really need to just pick 1 OS platform and stick with it for all there phones as how can they attract developers when they change or plan to change the platform all the time.

Well, it seems they took your advice. There is one SDK, it's called Qt, and it lets you build applications that run on Symbian, Meego, Linux, Windows, MacOS X or even iPhone (there's a port in progress).

ChopShop

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

the N900 wasnt but people just didnt want it after the N97. Most people just went of to a different manufacturer

Whilst they were marketed as Smartphones... i'm not sure they were really aimed at the same people. The N900 seemed like something of a wasted opportunity. The N97... perhaps just a waste full stop.

KrisW wrote: »

A decent camera (I know this is a problem of the licencees, but you said

).

I'm wondering, did you want us to just accept this as fact?
Or suggest otherwise so you can argue with us?

Venom

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

the N900 wasnt but people just didnt want it after the N97. Most people just went of to a different manufacturer

Nokia had turned away alot of people with the awful N97 and very lackluster support of the 5800 during the lead up to the N900's launch but the fact they allowed it to be marketed as a product aimed at serious tech-head's instead of top end phone users was a huge mistake.

The current naming scheme of there phones is insane and I honestly couldn't name there top end phone when I can for every other of the major manufacturers.

@KrisW
I get two days out of my Desire on single charge which is a lot better than I got from my 5800.

The rest of your comments just shows you haven't ever used an top end Android device :rolleyes:

partyatmygaff

KrisW wrote: »

Acceptable power management (24 hours per charge is not acceptable in the twenty-first century)

My Nokia N97 got me less than 24 hours as well. At least I can underclock my Desire and turn off some of the connectivity features to stretch it to two days.

Full bluetooth support

I see no tangible disadvantage between my Desire and my old N97. The only thing that's bugging me is that HTC Sense has a strange bluetooth software stack that prevents Wiimote tethering. Installing a stock AOSP ROM gets rid of that problem however.

Full application functionality in the absence of packet data.

Applications are functional, data or not. I don't see where you got that one from.

A decent camera (I know this is a problem of the licencees, but you said "devices", not OS)

Hardware.

Privacy

How is Android any less private than Symbian?

evolutionqy7

KrisW wrote: »

Acceptable power management (24 hours per charge is not acceptable in the twenty-first century)

Sorry man. My N97 barely lasted me a day. I even bought another battery to see was it faulty but that didnt do anything either. Battery life was shocking bad for a phone that couldn't do alot

partyatmygaff

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Sorry man. My N97 barely lasted me a day. I even bought another battery to see was it faulty but that didnt do anything either. Battery life was shocking bad for a phone that couldn't do alot

To be fair you could take screenshots fairly easily.

All you needed to do was launch an application. An easy way to get a "screenshot" :pac:

KrisW

I've never owned an N97, but a friend in work does. I certainly wouldn't claim it to be the best phone ever made. Almost the opposite, in fact.

Regarding data access - try using the maps and navigation without a data connection, and "Privacy" was a quip about Google's general creepiness... we're still allowed to joke, right?

I get two days out of my Desire on single charge which is a lot better than I got from my 5800.

The rest of your comments just shows you haven't ever used an top end Android device

I did, a HTC Desire (not the HD) as it happened, borrowed over a period of three/four days. The Sense UI was slick, but I found it lacking coherency, and overall I did not like it. I found the battery life to be poor. The phone was also a lot bigger than I'd prefer, and the camera was mediocre. I'd forgive one of these, but not all. It wasn't right for me. Note the "for me". The N8 gave me everything I was looking for, except the UI polish, which I'm willing to wait and see on.

That's pretty much all I'm going to say about Android phones in a post about a Nokia handset running Symbian. Can we agree that we've all individually made the best choice for our own needs?

the fact they allowed [ N900 ] to be marketed as a product aimed at serious tech-head's instead of top end phone users was a huge mistake.

I agree in part, but I don't think it was really market-ready: business users just would not have accepted it (vs BlackBerry), and it lacked the multimedia features needed for a top-end consumer device (vs iPhone). The N900 was an offshoot of the old N770/N810/N880 Internet tablets, which I always got the feeling were a kind of "hobby" product. I had one of the N810s, and it was pretty cool - one of those things that makes you think of applications for it. Sadly, despite it being Linux, and easy to hack, actually writing those applications was a royal pain in the butt, thanks to the choice of framework used [GTK+].

The current naming scheme of there phones is insane and I honestly couldn't name there top end phone when I can for every other of the major manufacturers.

Right now, the top end is N8, but it will be N9 when that arrives. The naming scheme is actually pretty straightforward and logical:

- One Letter for the type of phone (C = Consumer, E = Business, N = Multimedia, X = Entertainment, S = Luxury) followed by

- a number between 1 and 9 depending on where it is in the range. 9 is top, 1 is the cheapest. Not all series go to the bottom of the tree, and the number 4 is not used at all because it's a homonym for the word "death" in many east-Asian languages.

- Currently, only the N-series covers points 8 or 9, but that may change.

- the -00 and so on are for variations or new versions of the model. This year's C6-00 is replaced by C6-01 early next year, for example, and there are two versions of the cheapest C1 phone available: C1-00 and C1-01.

So, put those together, and you get this, the current model range:
C: C1, C2, C3, C5, C6, C7
E: E3 E5, E6, E7
N: N8 [N9 not officially announced yet]
X: X2 X3 X5 X6 X6 X7
S: nothing announced yet.

... it's a hell of a lot saner than the old four-digit model numbers, which were a bloody mess that told you almost nothing about whether the phone was old, new, cheap or expensive, or what it was replacing.

Gooch2k4

KrisW wrote: »

I did, a HTC Desire (not the HD) as it happened, borrowed over a period of three/four days. The Sense UI was slick, but I found it lacking coherency, and overall I did not like it. I found the battery life to be poor. The phone was also a lot bigger than I'd prefer, and the camera was mediocre. I'd forgive one of these, but not all. It wasn't right for me. Note the "for me". The N8 gave me everything I was looking for, except the UI polish, which I'm willing to wait and see on.

Right now, the top end is N8, but it will be N9 when that arrives. The naming scheme is actually pretty straightforward and logical:

- One Letter for the type of phone (C = Consumer, E = Business, N = Multimedia, X = Entertainment, S = Luxury) followed by

- a number between 1 and 9 depending on where it is in the range. 9 is top, 1 is the cheapest. Not all series go to the bottom of the tree, and the number 4 is not used at all because it's a homonym for the word "death" in many east-Asian languages.

- Currently, only the N-series covers points 8 or 9, but that may change.

- the -00 and so on are for variations or new versions of the model. This year's C6-00 is replaced by C6-01 early next year, for example, and there are two versions of the cheapest C1 phone available: C1-00 and C1-01.

So, put those together, and you get this, the current model range:
C: C1, C2, C3, C5, C6, C7
E: E3 E5, E6, E7
N: N8 [N9 not officially announced yet]
X: X2 X3 X5 X6 X6 X7
S: nothing announced yet.

... it's a hell of a lot saner than the old four-digit model numbers, which were a bloody mess that told you almost nothing about whether the phone was old, new, cheap or expensive, or what it was replacing.

No the new naming scheme makes even less sense than the old one, for example: the C6-01 couldnt possibly be replacing the C6 as:

1. its only out 4 months

2. the 01 doesnt have a hardware QWERTY


Also you say the Desire was too big for you, the N8 is only marginally smaller, and you have the much nicer, higher res, and larger screen to make up for that

KrisW

The second two digits are for model variations as well as outright replacements. C6-01 is newer than C6-00, and both are lower-positioned than any C7 model. There are two versions of the C1, both were released together: the C1-01 and C1-00, but the "C1" tells you what you need to know, it's a very cheap general-consumer phone.

What else do you want to know? No model code will ever tell you the feature set of a device, nor should it. The purpose is to guide a customer in making a shortlist based on their budget, not to explain the exact features of the handset. If someone asked me to recommend a phone, my two questions would be: how much have you to spend, and what do you want to use it for? There's a fairly straightforward connection between those answers and Nokia's model numbers.

If you think the old model numbers were sane, which came first: 1630 or 1600?

Gooch2k4

Your completly disregarding my point, how can a phone thats main selling point is its QWERTY keyboard, be replaced less than 6 months later by another with without that.

its not a successor, thats like saying the x2-01 is succeeding the X2, theyre completly different phones

Venom

KrisW wrote: »

The second two digits are for model variations as well as outright replacements. C6-01 is newer than C6-00, and both are lower-positioned than any C7 model. There are two versions of the C1, both were released together: the C1-01 and C1-00, but the "C1" tells you what you need to know, it's a very cheap general-consumer phone.

What else do you want to know? No model code will ever tell you the feature set of a device, nor should it. The purpose is to guide a customer in making a shortlist based on their budget, not to explain the exact features of the handset. If someone asked me to recommend a phone, my two questions would be: how much have you to spend, and what do you want to use it for? There's a fairly straightforward connection between those answers and Nokia's model numbers.

If you think the old model numbers were sane, which came first: 1630 or 1600?

I get where you are coming from regarding the naming scheme but I still think its an overly complicated way of doing things that is still going to be way above the heads of most of the people buying the phones.

KrisW

Gooch2k4 wrote: »

Your completly disregarding my point, how can a phone thats main selling point is its QWERTY keyboard, be replaced less than 6 months later by another with without that.

its not a successor, thats like saying the x2-01 is succeeding the X2, theyre completly different phones

I'm not disregarding your point:

the -00 and so on are for variations or new versions of the model.

The second two digits are for model variations as well as outright replacements.

Perhaps the QWERTY keyboard was dropped because it wasn't a selling point, I don't know. Perhaps the C6-01 isn't a replacement, and will sell alongside the C6-00. Again, I don't know. I don't really care much, either, it's just a phone at the end of the day.

I get where you are coming from regarding the naming scheme but I still think its an overly complicated way of doing things that is still going to be way above the heads of most of the people buying the phones.

I think it's complicated by having to cover such a broad range of products, in lots of markets.

Looking at alternative schemes out there, the manufacturers all have much smaller ranges, or they brand the products differently in different markets, which is really confusing, but avoids the risk of selling products called "fellatio" in the local language, I suppose. Reusing names is equally confusing: try to find a the right RAM to upgrade an Apple iBook.

donkey balls

Lads i use an N97 at present and the battery life is better than the Iphone4 I got,Maybe its just me using Nokia handsets over the years that I got use to the lay out etc.
Normally i would have the music player on for about 2hrs a day while going training then the rest of the day it would be constantly ringing work etc.
Now im no techie head so no need to get stuck into me:o regarding the UI/OS etc and which is best, What i did like about the Iphone4 compared to my N97 was the UI and web browsing was fast&slick if nokia can manage to replicate the same there onto a winner.
I held a dummy version of the N8 last week in an 02 store and it felt solid compared to the Iphone 4 which imo feels rather fragile.

Gooch2k4

iPhone 4 feels fragile? like i mean im no fan of iPhones in the slightest, but i can admit the 4 is a very well built phone

KrisW

iPhone 4 is pretty solid, but I get what he's saying. The 3GS and previous iPhones are just much better to hold. Perhaps it's all the glass on the back of the 4, or the hard corners, but anyone I know with an iPhone 4 ends up holding it on their fingers, not in their hand. It's not comfortable, and it's not particularly secure either.

I held a dummy version of the N8 last week in an 02 store and it felt solid compared to the Iphone 4 which imo feels rather fragile.

The real N8 is more solid than the shop dummies, but I wouldn't say the iPhone 4 was any less solid or well built - iPhone 4 is very well put together. The N8, like pretty much any other phone (including the 3GS), has a shape that allows it to be gripped well.

donkey balls

Spot on regarding the glass on the iphone4 a mate of mine has the 3GS and it has a better feel to it.