That looks sick. I especially like how the two shorter sides are done, making the port area nice and flat.
If things go well on the software availability front, it might be worth consideration. People are raving about the camera, but that's not as important to me.
That looks sick. I especially like how the two shorter sides are done, making the port area nice and flat.
I like that detail as well, and more than megapixels, I like how it looks like it has a REAL flash, not just an LED or tiny Xenon light even.
But I will never buy a touchscreen phone unless Apple makes an iPhone Nano. So far of all the touchscreen phones I've seen, the only one whose form factor I can tolerate is the Sony Ericsson X-10 Mini. But it runs Android 1.6, and will be upgradable to 2.1, with no guarantees on 2.2, so there's no way I would get that, either.
Hmm, I just went to my Wired.com rss feed so I could learn more about the phone. There were 765 articles in the feed. I did a search for the work "nokia" on Safari Browser on that site and only one article turned up, and it was regarding the number of "clicked ads" that Nokia gets on it's phones. Nothing about the new N8 phone was mentioned.
That looks sick. I especially like how the two shorter sides are done, making the port area nice and flat.
If things go well on the software availability front, it might be worth consideration. People are raving about the camera, but that's not as important to me.
Good. Now please stop wasting your time on Apple-related websites. Please. Stop. Wasting. Your. Time.
And that'll make them just another Android manufacturer. Dependent on Google. A slave to Google. Call Android open all you want, it'll live or die by Google's hands.
No if it's going to die it'll be killed off by the carriers installed crapware. The mere fact it's open will mean it'll be exploited.
Nokia has better development tools then Android. They acquired TrollTech for them. There just isn't enough developer interest in Nokia's platform by app developers because they don't have much of the high end market share.
Android is hampered by lack of focus toward developers. To see a real competitor to the iphone something would need to happen to bring together all the best traits of the competition. Each company does one thing right, but that isn't enough.
The only advantage I see to Android is that some developers (or clients commissioning apps) want to target it at a loss (with a more limited version usually) because it is the only non-Apple platform that feels like it may have some kind of future success because it is multi-vendor. Personally, I don't see how Android could catch up to the iPhone without a radical change in strategy. They at least need to focus more on developers, because the tools are much more limited then the iPhone. They implemented what was easy and now feel like they have stalled out.
Nokia can at least focus Symbian and QT on their medium to low end phones targeted to users that have no (or little) interest in apps. I am really curious what would happen if Apple were to enter the low end phone market.
i am really starting to suspect that windows phone 7 will edge out android. ms has all the parts they need to make a impressive product but will they tie it all together and come out with a winner?
i am really starting to suspect that windows phone 7 will edge out android. ms has all the parts they need to make a impressive product but will they tie it all together and come out with a winner?
WM7 and Android are different business models.
Microsoft wants to charge money for WM7 -whereas Android is free. If WM7 is to succeed it has to add a significant amount of value to the device over Android. Given that Android is astonishingly popular, I think MS have a mountain to climb.
Of course, Mr. Ellison might level the mountain off a little.
i am really starting to suspect that windows phone 7 will edge out android. ms has all the parts they need to make a impressive product but will they tie it all together and come out with a winner?
WM7 and Android are different business models.
Microsoft wants to charge money for WM7 -whereas Android is free. If WM7 is to succeed it has to add a significant amount of value to the device over Android. Given that Android is astonishingly popular, I think MS have a mountain to climb.
Of course, Mr. Ellison might level the mountain off a little.
That will help some. But the big mountain isn't in convincing handset makers to make phones, as HTC, LG, and Samsung have committed to the platform. It's not in convincing service providers to sell the phones, as all four major carriers will do so. No. The mountain is in convincing the general public to buy the phones that are built.
Microsoft will spend half a billion dollars on WP7 advertising. But if it doesn't sell the phones to the public properly, it won't be a success. If Microsoft tries to sell WP7 as a do-it-all platform, it will fail. The platform doesn't have basic features which are expected in traditional consumer smartphones, like multitasking and cut/copy/paste. So how does Microsoft sell WP7?
The secret is in copying Apple's iPhone 4 approach. They could have marketed a bunch of things. Instead, they did very simple, rather emotional, advertisements for FaceTime. It was the sole thing that Apple marketed about the iPhone 4. Looking back, it was brilliant, because that was Apple's ace-in-the-hole. It's the one thing that no other smartphone had.
What is Microsoft's ace-in-the-whole? What can WP7 do that no other smartphone can do? There are two I can think of:
1. Gaming Microsoft's XBox Live integration is exclusive to WP7.
2. Business. WP7 includes unparalleled enterprise features, including top-notch Exchange, Office, and Outlook support, enhancing productivity away from the home and office.
If Microsoft can focus on those two things, and ignores everything else, then they have a shot at selling their platform to enough people, that developers are encouraged en masse to develop apps for WP7. A year from now, it's likely that WP7 will include multitasking and other consumer features that will make the platform more palatable to the typical iPhone consumer. From there, Microsoft has a chance to make real inroads on Android and iPhone.
I quite like the appearance of this phone, but I really do think they need to go down the Android path.
Maybe, I think that they should be pragmatic: their OS (I can't tell for Symbian 3) was sub-par and unpolished those last years compared to Android or the iPhone and really pulled down an otherwise great hardware quality, their project was to go the Linux way with the upcoming MeeGo, designed with Intel to be an unified and multi-platform like android, but they better release it quickly, done it right and have it competitive because soon it may be too late to keep afloat a dedicated developer community jumping on the Android bandwagon. if they fail that last card they may have indeed to go the Android way. The strange think about their OS woes is that they have some great software otherwise, like Ovi maps.
Comments
That looks sick. I especially like how the two shorter sides are done, making the port area nice and flat.
If things go well on the software availability front, it might be worth consideration. People are raving about the camera, but that's not as important to me.
That looks sick. I especially like how the two shorter sides are done, making the port area nice and flat.
I like that detail as well, and more than megapixels, I like how it looks like it has a REAL flash, not just an LED or tiny Xenon light even.
But I will never buy a touchscreen phone unless Apple makes an iPhone Nano. So far of all the touchscreen phones I've seen, the only one whose form factor I can tolerate is the Sony Ericsson X-10 Mini. But it runs Android 1.6, and will be upgradable to 2.1, with no guarantees on 2.2, so there's no way I would get that, either.
No love for Nokia from Wired.
But I will never buy a touchscreen phone unless Apple makes an iPhone Nano. .
What do you use now?
But we are not part of any of these companies. We are consumers.
I'd rather be a consumer of a company which makes products I like. As a consumer, rather than as "part of a company", profits are irrelevant.
[My response retracted]
So how do we DeathGrip this thing. YouTube videos posted in 3.... 2.... 1....
That looks sick. I especially like how the two shorter sides are done, making the port area nice and flat.
If things go well on the software availability front, it might be worth consideration. People are raving about the camera, but that's not as important to me.
Good. Now please stop wasting your time on Apple-related websites. Please. Stop. Wasting. Your. Time.
Geez man, I'm getting sick of you polluting every single bloody thread.
But not enough to simply put me on ignore?
Spare me your whining and take some personal responsibility. Fer chrissakes, grow up.
good. Now please stop wasting your time on apple-related websites. Please. Stop. Wasting. Your. Time.
<plonk>
What do you use now?
Sony Ericsson Elm (T-9 dumbphone), and I love it.
I've got an iPod Touch for apps and internet and an iPod Classic for music.
<plonk>
What does this mean? And you're asking me to grow up?
It looks a bit like you could pop the phone out of the surrounding case.
C.
And that'll make them just another Android manufacturer. Dependent on Google. A slave to Google. Call Android open all you want, it'll live or die by Google's hands.
No if it's going to die it'll be killed off by the carriers installed crapware. The mere fact it's open will mean it'll be exploited.
Nokia has better development tools then Android. They acquired TrollTech for them. There just isn't enough developer interest in Nokia's platform by app developers because they don't have much of the high end market share.
Android is hampered by lack of focus toward developers. To see a real competitor to the iphone something would need to happen to bring together all the best traits of the competition. Each company does one thing right, but that isn't enough.
The only advantage I see to Android is that some developers (or clients commissioning apps) want to target it at a loss (with a more limited version usually) because it is the only non-Apple platform that feels like it may have some kind of future success because it is multi-vendor. Personally, I don't see how Android could catch up to the iPhone without a radical change in strategy. They at least need to focus more on developers, because the tools are much more limited then the iPhone. They implemented what was easy and now feel like they have stalled out.
Nokia can at least focus Symbian and QT on their medium to low end phones targeted to users that have no (or little) interest in apps. I am really curious what would happen if Apple were to enter the low end phone market.
i am really starting to suspect that windows phone 7 will edge out android. ms has all the parts they need to make a impressive product but will they tie it all together and come out with a winner?
i am really starting to suspect that windows phone 7 will edge out android. ms has all the parts they need to make a impressive product but will they tie it all together and come out with a winner?
WM7 and Android are different business models.
Microsoft wants to charge money for WM7 -whereas Android is free. If WM7 is to succeed it has to add a significant amount of value to the device over Android. Given that Android is astonishingly popular, I think MS have a mountain to climb.
Of course, Mr. Ellison might level the mountain off a little.
C.
No love for Nokia from Wired.
Are Wired still around? Didn't know that, thought they had died years ago.
i am really starting to suspect that windows phone 7 will edge out android. ms has all the parts they need to make a impressive product but will they tie it all together and come out with a winner?
WM7 and Android are different business models.
Microsoft wants to charge money for WM7 -whereas Android is free. If WM7 is to succeed it has to add a significant amount of value to the device over Android. Given that Android is astonishingly popular, I think MS have a mountain to climb.
Of course, Mr. Ellison might level the mountain off a little.
That will help some. But the big mountain isn't in convincing handset makers to make phones, as HTC, LG, and Samsung have committed to the platform. It's not in convincing service providers to sell the phones, as all four major carriers will do so. No. The mountain is in convincing the general public to buy the phones that are built.
Microsoft will spend half a billion dollars on WP7 advertising. But if it doesn't sell the phones to the public properly, it won't be a success. If Microsoft tries to sell WP7 as a do-it-all platform, it will fail. The platform doesn't have basic features which are expected in traditional consumer smartphones, like multitasking and cut/copy/paste. So how does Microsoft sell WP7?
The secret is in copying Apple's iPhone 4 approach. They could have marketed a bunch of things. Instead, they did very simple, rather emotional, advertisements for FaceTime. It was the sole thing that Apple marketed about the iPhone 4. Looking back, it was brilliant, because that was Apple's ace-in-the-hole. It's the one thing that no other smartphone had.
What is Microsoft's ace-in-the-whole? What can WP7 do that no other smartphone can do? There are two I can think of:
1. Gaming Microsoft's XBox Live integration is exclusive to WP7.
2. Business. WP7 includes unparalleled enterprise features, including top-notch Exchange, Office, and Outlook support, enhancing productivity away from the home and office.
If Microsoft can focus on those two things, and ignores everything else, then they have a shot at selling their platform to enough people, that developers are encouraged en masse to develop apps for WP7. A year from now, it's likely that WP7 will include multitasking and other consumer features that will make the platform more palatable to the typical iPhone consumer. From there, Microsoft has a chance to make real inroads on Android and iPhone.
Welcome! Some have suggested that Nokia partner with HP and utilize Palm OS. Can you comment on the relative merits of Symbian vs Palm OS?
I have no Palm experience so can not comment on that. But you can not get a worse choice than Symbian that is for sure.
It looks a bit like you could pop the phone out of the surrounding case.
C.
And then you would notice a thin metal band surrounding it... the antenna...!!
I quite like the appearance of this phone, but I really do think they need to go down the Android path.
Maybe, I think that they should be pragmatic: their OS (I can't tell for Symbian 3) was sub-par and unpolished those last years compared to Android or the iPhone and really pulled down an otherwise great hardware quality, their project was to go the Linux way with the upcoming MeeGo, designed with Intel to be an unified and multi-platform like android, but they better release it quickly, done it right and have it competitive because soon it may be too late to keep afloat a dedicated developer community jumping on the Android bandwagon. if they fail that last card they may have indeed to go the Android way. The strange think about their OS woes is that they have some great software otherwise, like Ovi maps.