×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nokia's New All-In-One Phone

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the new-toys dept.

317

conq writes "BusinessWeek has a piece on Nokia's new phone, introduced today and hitting the shelves in July. The N93, costing $660, will supposedly fill all of your needs for electronic equipment on the go. From the article: 'Should anyone miss the point, Nokia's press extravaganza in a spiffed-up Berlin warehouse ended with a video in which the camera slowly panned across a tableau of dusty, discarded electronic equipment -- including digital cameras and a cobweb-covered iPod. The message: Nokia plans to make these products obsolete.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

317 comments

Trying to outdo the NGage (5, Funny)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201790)

As the greatest stupidity in consumer electronics.

Re:Trying to outdo the NGage (1)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201850)

Now, now. My N-Gage QD is the best phone I've had.
Lousy game machine but a great phone. It runs Opera well and the form factor is really nice for sending SMSs.

Re:Trying to outdo the NGage (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15201867)

Wonderful. Another phone I can't use because every freaking version of it comes with a camera. Why are these companies not at least attempting to court the market of professionals who can't bring cameras into their place of business? Samsung does a decent job, as they at least offer flip-phones without cameras, but Nokias are uniformly awful with this.

Target market:: Corporate droids (4, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202121)

The press release has enough buzzwords to give a corporate climber a bigger stiffy than Viagra. "Digital life", "global convergence"... Geez I better buy one so I'm corporately compliant!

Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (5, Interesting)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201800)

This is essentially a computer.

It may or may not be as much of a computer as a Treo or a Pocket PC, but it has many trademarks of a computer. Pictures, music, videos, wifi and even voip services are possible. This in particular make phones in direct competition with their carriers. Why pay $150 a month for cell phone service when you can get a "Multimedia Enabled" voip capable phone with a $50 dataplan and talk all you want through Skype or other similar services?

Bottom line? If we let carriers like Verizon continue to cripple these awesome phones, we lose money, ease of use and a significant portion of usability. But if we keep taking them to court and winning, we will have the ability to use all of the features the manufacturers intended and save money in the process.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (4, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201879)

There is no way to fix this in the US without pro-consumer laws. The market would sort it out, but the locks in place (including crippled phones, 2 year commitments, locked phones, etc.) prevent the market from being as effective as it should be.

I'm not normally pro-reguilation, but we need a few simple laws to fix this. Let's start with this:

  1. You must publish phone prices just as large as the prices after discounts
  2. You may not charge more for service to a customer who didn't buy their phone with you
  3. Users must be able to take their phones to/from competitors with the same kind of network (from Sprint to Verizon, both CDMA)
  4. You may not disable features of a phone or cripple them (no file uploads, no locking bluetooth down, no 'you must e-mail your photos, can't download them from your phone bypassing our extra charge')
  5. You must clearly list which features of the phone would require extra service (i.e. most camera phone functionality on Sprint) and what it would cost. None of that "Extra charges may apply" bull at the end of a list of 40 features.

I'd like to just outlaw contracts longer than 6 months and bundling phones with service, but the above will do as a start. Hell, a government mandated network standard (instead of GSM/CDMA/EDGE) could be an improvement, even if in the form of a mandate for the industry to pick their own standard with some regulatory backing to the mandate ($1,000,000 per day per company per metropolitan area if they go over the deadline to decide or the deadline to implement sounds good to me).

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201905)

Excellent idea. Unfortunatly, it won't happen in the USA any time soon.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (3, Interesting)

SaDan (81097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201926)

Not with an attitude like that, it won't.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201958)

I have to disagree on the contract length thing.

I am very happy to stay with the same service if it is somewhat decent, my price never goes up, and I get a few hundred dollor discount.

What we really need is to be allowed to return our phones for a full refund including activation, and contract release, for a 30 say window after purchase so if the service sucks we arn't stuck.

I had cingular for 2 years and they were nothing but decent to me, but then I switched to T-mobile to save some money, they too are decent, but the network is not as good (but covers my house and 3 offices better than Cingular, just not anywhere else).

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202329)

We have the 30 day thing. No termination fees would work for me though.

The problem is that in technology 2 years is a VERY LONG TIME. I could buy a phone/contract today and it may have the best service in the area or the best network or whatever. In 6 months that my not be true. In 1.5 years that may not be true. Yet I'm still locked into my contract.

That's another one for my list that I just thought of:

  1. No contract only prices in ads. Consumers must be able to get a month to month contract from the start. If there is any preferential pricing when you sign up for two years, it must be VERY CLEAR that the price is attached to the two year contract, and you must specify in the same print size what the cost would be for the same plan without a contract or a different length contract (1 year, for example)
  2. NEW PHONE DOES NOT EQUAL NEW CONTRACT - Consumers MUST be able to buy a new phone without having to sign a new 2 year contract to get it.

I have been told by cell phone companies that if I bought a new phone I would have to a) pay to get out of my current contract with them, and b) sign up for a new 2 year contract.

I believe that the companies are predatory. They keep cell phone prices very high (low end cell phones cost $200?) I'm amazed they don't cost more! Then they offer these huge subsidies for the phones when you sign up for a contract which prevents most people from being able to ever afford them without the long contracts.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

Traiklin (901982) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201999)

they'll just say that isn't fair, goes against a free market blah blah blah

The usuall BS lines, then when that fails they will file lawsuits, you know since judges shouldn't be avalible to work on cases with murderers, rapists and the like, they need to help the poor phone company that over charges their customers because the big bad government is taking their lunch money.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (4, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202071)

As much as I loathe the business of cell phones, and feel as if I have been "trapped" in one contract or another for several iterations of phones now, I think regulation is completely the wrong answer to fix the "problems" you mention.

First, you enter any of these contracts completely by choice. If you don't want to sign up for a two-year commitment, buy your phone on the open market -- without their discount. It's an incentive, not an imperative.

You are already allowed to bring your own phone to their network. You don't pay more for a non-provider-provided phone.

If you want a phone that's portable between carriers, again, you're free to buy one on the open market. (AFAIK, not counting locked phones, GSM phones are more portable between carriers than CDMA phones. Analog is a few months from death, and I have no idea whatever became of TDMA or PCM.)

If you want a phone that's not crippled by Verizon (the worst) or another carrier, buy one on the open market.

Basically, the reason contracts are as bad as they are is that people are very attracted to the "free" phones, or the steeply discounted phones available from the cellular providers. That's the idea. But the free market is still out there. Quit whining about locked-down phones and insane contracts and spend the $200 extra for an unlocked phone. Or take their discount and STFU about it.

What I'd rather see is sanity brought to the plans. Having to "guess" at how many minutes you'll use in a month is a pretty lame way to force us to make a purchase. But all of the "pay as you go" plans cost far more for anyone but a mime.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15202168)

The contracts aren't that big of an issue. I've got yearly contracts for my apartment, my DSL, my cable, why not my phone? The issue is with not specifying the actual prices of things, simplifying what you're going to pay as "extra charges" that "may apply", and while you think buying an unlocked phone isn't a big deal, I went to 6 or 7 mobile phone stores before I found a guy who could figure out how to sell me a phone plan for a phone I didn't buy from them. Of course, this was back when phones were all the same and you couldn't just hook them up to a computer to save your phone number list... these days with the "smartphones", GSM and SIMs you'd probably more luck in convincing a salesperson that you're going to use the phone you already own with their service.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15202152)

I would like to subit to add to your list: 1) Some way to encorage mutlinationatals to offer the same products in all countries. 2) plain english contracts written in at least 30 point helvetica- 3) flat rate phones-no more bull about how privlidged I am to have a phone that fits in my pocket. flat rate not to exceed 50.000000 USD OR 100yen wich ever is lower. 4) Allow customers to be Grandfathered into a better rated plan meaning if I start with a 40 dollar flat rate plan, and Cingular drops the same plan to 20---They better notify me or be mandated to pay differency back in no less than 31 day.
All this would assume regulations had teath.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201990)

This device still doesn't match the HP Ipaq 6515. No built-in GPS, no MS Office, and it will probably be bigger than the Ipaq.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

Oscar_Wilde (170568) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202039)

Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it.
 
How did mobile phones in the USA become so messed up in the first place? The idea of not being able to buy any handset to slip my existing SIM card into is strange to me.

I know that GSM networks haven't been big in the USA but surely they are an option by now?

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

Caeda (669118) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202110)

The fact that you often pay nothing, or close to nothing for phones that cost $200-$300 unlocked may have something to do with the fact you can't transfer them? Why should the cell phone company pay a $300 bill so you can take the phone somewhere else...

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

Oscar_Wilde (170568) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202297)

Why should the cell phone company pay a $300 bill so you can take the phone somewhere else...
 
They shouldn't and the way it works in the places I've visited is the handset is locked to a particular network for some months, some amount of prepaid credit, however many calls, etc and is then unlocked (usually at the customers request). At that point you can do whatever you want with it.
 
I know there is an up-front cost to get an unlocked phone straight off but at least that's an option. If your phone company only offers contracts that come with phones then you should be able to get it unlocked after the contract expires and sell it to recover some of the cost.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202142)

That and GSM isn't particularly well implemented in the states. I have GSM and GPRS through T-Mobile and it comse up short next to CDMA phones. Not only is the coverage not as good, but there have been more instances of dialing up someone and having only half of the connection actually work (I can hear what they're saying or they can hear me but not both) and the sound quality is definatly not as good. I tried to read out a CD key to someone over my phone (that's what he gets for leaving the sleeves behind when he has to reinstall something on his laptop) and it was hopeless. Every time I read it out he got something a bit differenent because he couldn't make out the individual characters very well at all; even with me going "alpha niner X-ray...".

T-Mobile GPRS has terrible latency too, often on the order of seconds. OTOH, my wife's CDMA phone doesn't do data at all so there's really no comparison there.

Re:Awesome phone? Carriers will cripple it. (1)

Oscar_Wilde (170568) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202311)

That and GSM isn't particularly well implemented in the states.... snip
 
Ouch, that really does make it sound like something is very wrong with the GSM networks in the USA.
 
How many GSM networks/areas have you used? Are all GSM networks in the USA this bad?

iPod obsolete? (4, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201809)

So this thing will have 2-60GB of storage in it?

And high resolution, non-shitty CCD+Lenses in the camera?

And last as long or longer than both devices, on the same battery?

Somehow I doubt it, and this is Nokia sticking their collective foot in their mouth again, just like they did with the ngage.

Re:iPod obsolete? (4, Informative)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202175)

Somehow, you should probably just go read the specs [nseries.com] for the phone rather than make uninformed generalizations.

To answer your specific questions:

50MB internal memory. The mini-SD memory card reader accepts cards up to 2GB.

3.2 megapixel (2048 x 1536 pixels) camera, Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar lens, 3x optical zoom, MPEG-4 VGA video capture of up to 30 fps.

Power Management

  • Battery: Lithium Polymer battery BP-6M 1100mAh
  • Talk time: up to 3.7hrs (WCDMA)/up to 5.1hrs (GSM)*
  • Stand-by time: up to 10days (WCDMA)/up to 10days (GSM)*
* Operation times may vary depending on radio access technology used, operator network configuration and usage.

Re:iPod obsolete? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202276)

About what I was expecting.

At a max storage capacity of 2GB (as you said) it won't replace the iPod. It'll give the shuffle and nano a run for their money but as was noted elsewhere, providers will likely cripple it.

Battery life is always a best-estimate. I imagine with 3 functions sharing the same battery it'll die quicker with moderate phone usage than my 2.3 year old iPod does when playing songs for 5 or so hours.

More widgets crammed into a phone again. I'd get if I could afford it, but Nokia is speaking WAY too soon about replacing digital cameras and iPods.

Re:iPod obsolete? (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202386)

Parent is right in his statement, those specs are crap. Battery life being the most boring of all, I don't see any improvement over any current phone. The camera doesn't excite me either, even with the named lens. Big deal.

Re:iPod obsolete? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15202411)

Everybody was expecting the average Mac boy to write this kind of shit.

New? (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201819)

My Moto MPX220 has pda functionality, camera/camcorder, 1gb mp3/movie storage and a dual core process in a flip phone design. What's so great about the nokia?

Re:New? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15201855)

and your moto is just a subset of windows mobile devices (some with faster procs) that can ALL do the same thing your mpx can... my hw6515 included.

Re:New? (1)

NeMon'ess (160583) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201986)

The N93 has a second hinge for clamshell orientation instead of flip phone. Want to watch the video you just took, read e-mail or browse the internet on a landscape-oriented screen? You can with the N93. Want to take a picture or video with the camera up high above the crowd and be able to tilt the screen down and see what it sees? The N93 can. Want to use it as a camera and hold it in the more stable thin-edge-towards-you orientation while still seeing the screen? The N93 [nokia.com] can. Yeah I sound like Nokia is paying me for this, but I really like this phone.

Re:New? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15202415)

want to have an operating system that is at least marginally useful? windows mobile devices can.

Re:New? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15202277)

What's so great about the nokia?

Well, after you use the Nokia for 10 minutes and exhaust its battery, you can put the phone in your sock and use it to knock someone out and steal their phone if you have to make a call.

Durability? (3, Interesting)

NoTheory (580275) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201829)

So has there been any serious discussion about the fact that the screen is held to the body of the phone by a single strut? My inclination is to say that it looks flimsy, and while i'd be interested in the functions of the phone, i'd be afraid to do things like cradle the phone.

Re:Durability? (1)

asbjxrn (825716) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202291)

So has there been any serious discussion about the fact that the screen is held to the body of the phone by a single strut? My inclination is to say that it looks flimsy, and while i'd be interested in the functions of the phone, i'd be afraid to do things like cradle the phone.

It may not be an issue if it is designed well.
I don't think I'd trust Nokia to do that, though. Last year my wife bought a Nokia 9300 and on that one the charging contact has already failed. And that contact at least looks more securely fastened than that hinge. Nokia claims it can't be repaired, and they don't sell external chargers for the battery. Basically a dead phone. Luckily I've gotten a third party external charger somewhere else, so it's not completely useless. But I'm not buying another Nokia any time soon. (Although I guess all companies are more or less the same.)

Usability (1, Insightful)

apenzott (821513) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201832)

...and the article does not mention how usable the device is.

(fumble fingers here has a hard enough time using a plain vanilla Nokia phone with its chicklet keys.)

Phones are so close to replacing the iPod (5, Insightful)

Filiks (578065) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201840)

The problem with browsing songs on a cell phone is the lack of an iPod-like wheel to navigate with. Well you know how the iPod has tactile buttons under the scroll wheel? The cell phone solution to add twelve buttons instead of five like the ipod has. Put the buttons in a standard dial-pad orientation. Then replace the wheel shape with a rectangular touchpad. Print the image of the wheel and the numbers on top, and put a protective clear coating as the final layer. End result: A touchpad with cursor functionality if desired, standard dialing with the numbers in the right locations and tactile feedback, and iPod wheel navigation!

For naysayers out there who might complain the touchpad can't be made accurately enough for a cursor, fine. Forget that part. But the iPod wheel and dial-pad could be created today. It's just taking Apple's tech to the next step.

Re:Phones are so close to replacing the iPod (1)

moochfish (822730) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202059)

http://www.middlewareblog.com/2006/04/20/the-futur e-of-ipods/ [middlewareblog.com]

I think the most elegant solution to this problem will come from Apple in a year or two.

Re:Phones are so close to replacing the iPod (1)

Filiks (578065) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202357)

Solve the problem of tactile feedback. Users for the most part, want to feel a click as they press a button. They don't want to accidentally dial a "1 instead of a "2. Girls (and guys) with long nails makes this feature especially important. With a touch screen, clicking requires lifting the finger and tapping, like on a laptop's touchpad. On a cell phone and iPod, people are used to, and it's easier to slide a finger or thumb over the keys/wheel then press harder to select.

Re:Phones are so close to replacing the iPod (3, Funny)

gozar (39392) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202064)

The cell phone solution to add twelve buttons instead of five like the ipod has. Put the buttons in a standard dial-pad orientation. Then replace the wheel shape with a rectangular touchpad.

I think someone already perfected a rotary dialing interface [flickr.com].

Re:Phones are so close to replacing the iPod (1)

imboboage0 (876812) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202173)

Your idea is great. Seriously. I love it. The problem is this: Apple would sue Nokia all to hell and we know it. It's a good sensible design, but Apple probably has some sort of patent on the wheel.

Re:Phones are so close to replacing the iPod (1)

Filiks (578065) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202384)

Sounds like Nokia and Apple should team up! Nokia probably has patents on cell phone features and UI that Apple will need if it ever wants to make a phone of it's own. Of course since Apple is dedicated to simplicity and intuitiveness, the versatility of the N93 probably makes it too complicated. Instead I fully expect to hear a future announcement from Motorola and Apple about a simple and Apple-styled phone that integrates the click wheel.

Re:Phones are so close to replacing the iPod (2, Insightful)

aliens (90441) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202258)

There's another half of that problem. The interface with a PC.

Unless it's dead simple to transfer music you're out of luck. Add in the fact not too many providers are keen to offer cables to hook up your phone to your PC and the problem grows.

Bundle a phone with a dock and software for Mac's and PC's that just works, that's no more expensive than a Nano and you might start gaining market share.

Oh and price, I'm not dropping more than $200 on a gadget. I lose/break my phone, that's $150-200, I lose/break my ipod $150-200, I lose/break my camera $150-200 (and that's a darn good one), I lose this all in one mess? $600 please.

try not to laugh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15201841)


image of phone [engadget.com]

one thing is for sure, Nokia are pretty consistant in making phones asthetically ugly as they can, still looks like a Motorall flip phone from the early 90's, its as if a good display, touchscreen , hi-res etc isnt important to them, unlike the massive surge of smart phones with hi-res screens, touchscreens to replace aging remote controls, handwriting recognition, etc etc

Re:try not to laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15201885)

So? it's a flip phone whose top cover can also flip sidewise (personally I don't see it as a very bright idea, but whatever floats their boat) Lacking any references for size, it seems to be somewhat larger than a 'regular' flip and rather square-ish. Still, nowhere near the league of the ugliest phones I've ever seen.

Re:try not to laugh (1)

moochfish (822730) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202289)

Looks like they built the functionality of a brick straight into the phone! Er... Wait, I think I have that sentence backwards...

Where are the pictures? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15201860)

Does anyone have any good links to pictures of these products? - For all I know it may be the size of a beige PC and need AC power.

If it is the same size as my existing nokia and does all of this i may just be impressed.

OK, get it over with (4, Funny)

randyest (589159) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201868)

Cue the asshat that appears in every convergence thread to cry "I just want a phone to make calls and nothing else" in 5, 4, 3, . . .

Right here (3, Insightful)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201922)

Seriously, have you tried finding a phone that is stylish, small, has good battery life, and yet doesn't cost an arm and a leg because all it does is voice/text?

Yes, there are plenty of small-ish, plastic phones that do this. But they lack the elegance of, say, a Motorola V3 or a high end Nokia or Sony.

I think there is certainly an untapped market for the following phone:
- metal body
- slimline and actually fashionable design (may I suggest sleek, matte-silver or black, no clear plastic or flourescent colours?)
- integrated aerial
- 4-6 day battery life
- medium sized colour screen
- adequate sized buttons for SMS
- speakerphone feature
- compatible with ordinary (wired) handsfree
- robust and preferably semi-hardened against water and dust
- FAST and bug free software
- price reflecting the functionality and manufacture cost, not the desirability of the device

Leave out bluetooth, photos, videos, IR, memory card functionality, internal hard disk or flash drive, huge colour screen and any other crap you might consider adding 'because it's cool' that would drive up the price.

I and many others will buy this phone.

Re:Right here (1)

randyest (589159) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201967)

Yes, I have and I got a Motorola V3C. I guess you live somewhere very different from me (New England) or you haven't looked hard. The V3C is free after rebate at Verizon. Cingular too, I believe. It also plays music and video and has a 1.3MP camera and Bluetooth. Great phone. Nothing wrong with having all those features -- they don't seem to take up much space and you can save battery by disabling or not using them.

Thanks to you and the other two of you for fulfilling my prophecy :)

Re:Right here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15202198)

Listen, idiot, you must not work with the Government or any serious company, as they DO NOT ALLOW CAMERA PHONES!!! You dumb fuck, read the demands.

Re:Right here (1)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202202)

I have a Motorola V3.

It meets some of my criteria: stylish, metal, speakerphone, price I suppose if you are right

It fails on: battery life (about half my old Sony-Ericsson t68i), robustness (I have heard endless stories of V3s breaking mysteriously), speed of menus (very slow text entry, in particular), adequate sized buttons, and weighed down with tons of unneccessary crap which cannot be removed or disabled

Re:Right here (2, Informative)

pnot (96038) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202002)

Seriously, have you tried finding a phone that is stylish, small, has good battery life, and yet doesn't cost an arm and a leg because all it does is voice/text?

Yes. It's called the Nokia 1100. OK, it doesn't *quite* meet all your specifications---the case is plastic, and the screen is monochrome. But it's robust and splash/dust/sand-proof, the buttons are big, the aerial is integrated, and the battery life is huge. Dirt cheap, and very reliable from what I've seen. If my ancient Nokia 3310 ever dies, this is what I'll be getting.

Re:Right here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15202035)

That's actually why I chose T-Mobile. They are the only carrier that has a deal with Samsung to make phones that match this. See ths Samsung SGH-X105. http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=325 [phonescoop.com]

It wins on everything but the "FAST and bug free software" part. Although, a couple of software upgrades and I haven't noticed any bugs lately, it's just the damn phonebook is slow to load on first boot.

Treo 650 (1)

gatzke (2977) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202232)

My treo 650 does all that crap. The 700p is coming soon.

- slimline and actually fashionable design (

Got it, I like the Treo look

- integrated aerial

I assume you mean antenna, the treo is integrated to the body, but it sticks out. Not sure what you want...

- 4-6 day battery life

Works that long if not talking much and not searching for a signal. Using PDA only I have gotten a week, If not swap a new battery without loss

- medium sized colour screen

320x320, I want bigger but it works

- adequate sized buttons for SMS

Thumbs are actually fine for the treo, and pretty quick too.

- speakerphone feature

Ok, but not great.

- compatible with ordinary (wired) handsfree

Yep, wired MP3 stereo or wired mic as well. Look on treocentral for a cool mic / headphone combo unit with integrated volume / hangup button and retractable spool.

- robust and preferably semi-hardened against water and dust

Mine got run over. The screen is mangled and I can only read 60%, but it works. Touch screen is fine...

- FAST and bug free software

650 could be faster, but I have not had a reset in months.

- price reflecting the functionality and manufacture cost, not the desirability of the device
as ugly as the crackberry poptart, decent style, metal housing, no moving parts, good bat life.

Treo 650 or 700p is the way to go. The camera is ok on the 650, but could be better.

Re:Treo 650 (1)

gatzke (2977) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202300)


Forgot to say bluetooth and the camera / video is pretty cool.

BT could be better (wireless mp3 would be better) but it is a neat trick.

Camera at 640x480 sucks, but having video and camera is nice. With 1GB card you can do like 3000 photos or 4 hours of crap video. 700p coming soon should have a 1+MP camera finally to help some on this side.

The treo 650 is awesome. You can navigate all without the stylus if you need, and you get palm PDA aps.

Word, Excel, PDF and it beats me a chess.

Re:OK, get it over with (1)

robogun (466062) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202407)

You need a new term to describe your gadget then, because "phone" does not begin to describe all those wonderful, battery sucking, bulky, heavy and ugly low-quality features.

Or maybe you can add a term, like swiss army knife vs. pocket knife. Yay, a Swiss Army Phone?!?!!1

Reminds me when this was going on with wristwatches, and some guy shows up with one that had a stopwatch, compass, light, altimiter, survival kit, radio transponder and in fact did everything but tell the time. And it weighed about 3 pounds.

I understand that in Europe coverage is better, (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201872)

but here in U.S. I'd be happy to have a cellular telephone that can actually place an occasional PHONE CALL! Keep your camera/MP3player/PDA/whatever technology and just give me a trustworthy cellular network. Then we'll talk about extras.

Re:I understand that in Europe coverage is better, (1)

slashdotmsiriv (922939) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201896)

from the previous post:

"Cue the asshat that appears in every convergence thread to cry "I just want a phone to make calls and nothing else" in 5, 4, 3, . . ."

"but here in U.S. I'd be happy to have a cellular telephone that can actually place an occasional PHONE CALL! Keep your camera/MP3player/PDA/whatever technology and just give me a trustworthy cellular network. Then we'll talk about extras."

Great timing guys, way to go!

Re:I understand that in Europe coverage is better, (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202045)

I didn't say I didn't want other features, dimbulb. You made an assumption but that only makes an ass out of you. I said I'd like good service, because no matter what nifty features you add on to that cell phone it's primary function is still making calls because that's the part that costs money. Yes, I like gadgets as much as the next bytehead, but I can't justify an extra fifty or sixty bucks a month in juice money to the likes of Verizon for a PDA-wannabe cell phone that can't serve it's prime function well (because the cellular network is crap) and is only a half-assed PDA anyway. Yes, I'm perfectly aware that that is the carrier's fault not the phone manufacturer, but that difference is moot so far as my wallet is concerned.

Re:I understand that in Europe coverage is better, (1)

Embedded2004 (789698) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201937)

Talk to your carrier not the company which develops your cellphone.

Nokia can't do anything to improve your carrier. It's like asking Nokia to start making better fast food.

Re:I understand that in Europe coverage is better, (1)

farmkid (15226) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202179)

Hear, Hear!

I live in a major metro area, and I travel every week on business. I've been through Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile. All work in some areas, and all fail in various highly populated areas. None of them provide dependable service at home.

Does anyone really like all-in-one devices? (1, Insightful)

grapeape (137008) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201883)

I guess there is obviously a market for this stuff but am I alone in prefering a few different devices that do what they are supposed to do well, rather than a single device that half asses everything. I gave up on the PDA because they kept trying to "converge" it making the latest incarnations mostly crap. I go out of my way for a simple phone, my big requirements are signal and sound quality. I guess I was brought up on the KISS principle, its hard to believe that im alone in that.

Re:Does anyone really like all-in-one devices? (0, Redundant)

nile_list (812696) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202009)

am I alone in prefering a few different devices that do what they are supposed to do well, rather than a single device that half asses everything.
Exactly! How long have humans had cameras and telephones and music? About as long as we've been able to enjoy using all of those things /without/ "converging" them into a single device.

It's pretty simple.

  • A phone has certain interface requirements: 10 buttons for dialing, one for taking a call, a few directional keys for navigating menus, a microphone, a speaker, etc.
  • A (non-trivial) camera requires other, /different/ things: a lens, buttons for adjusting shutter/aperature/exposure, white balance, etc.
  • A music device requires headphone jacks, a way to navigate a music library, buttons to control playback, etc.

Rotary telephones, regular cameras, and iPods are examples of how devices with one dedicated function are extremely usable. The more you try to force "digital convergence" of disparate devices with completely different interface requirements, the more you end up with a clunky and hard-to-use gadget.

Sure, it'd be great to have something that could do everything and still be intuitively easy to use and still fit in your pocket... but I don't think it'll ever happen.

Re:Does anyone really like all-in-one devices? (1)

Tolookah (837210) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202269)

I've just been reading down the page, could have replied above, but the idea really struck me from your post, what about a phone, with a switch to say what mode you are in, and a touchscreen to do funcionallity, so depending on the switch, you have a different interface. when you are in phone mode, the buttons, mp3 mode, play, pause, next etc. and when you are in camera, the standard camera buttons. I don't want this multi-device, but I think this would be a step in the right direction.

I just think this device would always need the ability to pick up an incoming call, like a popup on the screen.

I myself would like a simple phone that can talk to my computer so I can upload my calendar for alerts, sync my contacts and maybe download voice recordings, to make easy notes to myself.

Oooooo! (3, Interesting)

quadra23 (786171) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201888)

Purchasers will also get a free copy of Adobe (ADBE) Premier Elements 2.0 video editing software.

If you buy this multimedia computer (AKA not a phone) will it be able to run this software (as you would assume since its bundled)? Alas, apparently this does not replace your other computer [adobe.com] that requires at least 4 GB of disk space. I suppose if someone figured out how to run DirectX 9 on this multimedia computer...

Obsoleting everything? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15201893)

...ended with a video in which the camera slowly panned across a tableau...

If they shot this with the actual phone, then maybe it will make all that other stuff obsolete.

Forced Upgrades (1)

silentsurfer (969556) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201910)

Some times it seems like mobile phones break every 12 months to force people to upgrade, I certainly don't want to be spending $600+ on a device that is designed to break.

Re:Forced Upgrades (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202296)

My current phone is nearing two years old with no signs of slowing (though I think I will replace the battery soon), and the last phone lasted four years. I don't coddle them, either -- plenty of scrapes and scratches on them. I've always found phones kind of hard to destroy.

N80 (3, Interesting)

somethinghollow (530478) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201912)

I've been waiting my ass off for the Nokia N80 [nseries.com], out of the same series of phones. It shares many of the same features. While lacking the Carl Zeiss lens, it gains wireless LAN (802.11g). Combine that with a keyboard accessory, the N80 could be very handy for remote on-the-go system administration (via whatever Series 60 SSH client exists) or blogging while on-the-go with the built-in 3MP camera. For the geeks, the N80 seems a bit cooler and isn't quite as crazy of a form factor as the N90 (though sliders might still be a little off-beat).

Its all about battery life (5, Insightful)

owlman17 (871857) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201921)

Unless they somehow make a new battery that's dramatically better than the ones we have, people aren't really going to take these all-in-wonders seriously. I wanted to get a new phone last Christmas, that had an mp3 player and could play good games. Didn't want to have to carry so many gadgets in my pockets everytime I went out. So I got myself an SE Walkman phone. I won't do a review on that here, but to sum things up, the sound was ok, I could play games, make calls, etc. (Also had a camera and and FM radio btw.)

In the end, I had to make up my mind each day what I was going to use it for since I had to recharge every so often. (Much more often than what I would have liked.) A phone? A camera? Or a player? Maybe a little of each?

I ended up buying a small Creative flash player. A single battery lasted about 18 hours, could hold much more songs, etc. In practice, since I use it about 2 hours a day, I could go on a single charge for a week. (And no more calls or text messages interrupting my music or games.)

Instead of shelling out more than half a grand for an ultra-phone, I think money's better spent buying a regular phone, plus a dedicated gadget. (Player, camera, etc.)

(And on a slightly unrelated note, a lot of people still prefer regular calculators over the ones in their PCs.)

Treo 650 (1)

gatzke (2977) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202203)

My Treo 650 works for days without charge doing limite phone / pda / mp3s.

It definitely should handle a whole day of MP3s and phone. If not, you can swap a new battery and not lose anything if you need to.

Does all that other crap too, word, pdf, mp3, crappy camera, videos, 2 GB SD card,

No wifi, no stereo wireless MP3...

Had it all for a year so far.

That's nice and all, but... (2, Funny)

Crazyscottie (947072) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201947)

... Does it run Linux? </cliche>

Re:That's nice and all, but... (4, Insightful)

spectre_240sx (720999) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202051)

While that might not be all that important, I am curious as to whether it's possible to get it to sync with linux and OS X. The next phone I get I'd like to be able to sync without being forced to use Outlook.

Re:That's nice and all, but... (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202128)

almost every major phone syncs with OSX using isync pretty much out of the box. You even get a little picture in isync that looks like your phone. This is nothing new and has been in OSX for years. Linux on the other hand probably works somewhat with a hodgepodge of software.

It depends on your carrier, and the software sucks (1, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202313)

It depends on your carrier, and the software sucks...

Verizon will lock you out of your phone; if you go online and try to grab a copy of Motorolla Phone tools (yes, I know this is a Windows application suite), they specifically note that they have disabled thing, like the ability to download background images and ring tones, at the request of Verizon.

For other carriers, whether you can sync with Linux is a function of which SourceForge package you download, and how long your phone has been out. The best ones seem to be for Nokia phones (Nokia is popular in Europe, despite the exploding battery issue) and because the E.U. has a law permitting reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability, a lot of phone hacking happens there.

For MacOS X, iSync will handle your address book and data connection. If you want the camera portion of your phone to show up in iPhoto, it's not going to happen. If you want the background picture to show up there, too, and be downloadable to the phone, that's also not there. If you want to take an iTunes song and use it as a ring tone, that's also not there.

To be fair, this takes extra software on both the Mac and the PC - not just the Mac - and, again, your carrier can lock you out of it, if they choose to do so.

For third party applications for doing the transfers, you're normally talking about needing a WAP enabled phone, and your computer uploads the content to a web site, and then you pay text and data transfer charges to get the URL, then the content itself, down to your phone, unless you get software designed to talk to the phone over USB (also needs a data cable, anmd extra expsense - at least Motorola uses standard 5 pin minim USB 'A'/'B' cables for many of its phones).

I've personally purchased an application that is considered the best out there for image and ring tone transfers (it's basically a piece of crap, so I won't name names, but it runs on both Mac and PC, and it's considered the best of the lot, for both platforms); it wasn't useful for ring tones or image cut down until I downloaded 3 or 4 other packages from freeware/open source sites, and even then, editing was somewhat hinky.

The bottom line is that the phone companies (or should I say "phone company", now that AT&T has reassembled itself like a Terminator II) control the code on your phone, and as long as they do, they own what you can and can't do with the phone. And if next Tuesday, that means not syncing with Linux or MacOS X, then that's what it means.

-- Terry

Re:That's nice and all, but... (1)

Oscar_Wilde (170568) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202325)

Pretty much any recent Nokia phone will work with iSync and I'd bet money on any Series 60 phone working with it (as soon as Apple releases device profiles or someone else puts one together).

The relevant bit of Apple's site [apple.com] has more info but hasn't been updated for these new phones.

And it all adds up to...? (0)

krotkruton (967718) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201949)

The high-end N93 will hit stores in July and retail for $660. (Wireless service providers may offer deals to get that price down.)

So the phone might cost around $400, or maybe as low as $300 if you're lucky. However, accessing the internet costs you a monthly fee and cuts into your minutes, unless you are on Wi-Fi (and then I'm not sure what it does). There is no mention of the DRM that the phone will be using, so getting music will probably cost at least $1 a song, not to mention downloading costs your minutes too. You could probably transfer the songs directly from your computer, but then you'd have to buy an attachment (and software?) to make the connection, which will cost extra. I'd bet the attachment will be required to transfer the pictures and video to your phone, unless you want to pay extra monthly fees to get picture and video messaging, which also count against your minutes.

It's great that the phone has all these features, but they aren't free. These features not only factor into the price of the phone, but also bite into your wallet as you use them. Guessing that it costs $75 a month for all the features, that comes out to well over $1500 dollars to use this phone for a year... How many people will think that its really worth that much to have all the features in the same place?

bloat-o-phone (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 7 years ago | (#15201979)

My initial thought was "Oh great, another Japanese-style bloat-o-phone" -- but after looking at the specs, I see the N93 is actually even more bloated and heavy than that (a typical Japanese bloat-phone is around 115g, and already seems kind of clunky and awkard; the N93 is 180g!).

I understand some people like all-in-phone phones because they only have to carry around one device ... but it seems rather silly when it reaches the point where you don't want to carry it around at all because your pockets aren't big or strong enough. I rather like the ability to split up my gadgets as is convenient for the situation -- carry one thing in my pocket, another in my bag, leave another at home because I know I won't need it.

[Of course some day all-in-one devices will probably become so small and functional that there will be little reason not to use them ... but that N93 seems very far from that ideal.]

Phones are HUGE- Photos Here (2, Interesting)

El Nombre (970691) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202089)

This phone is seriously huge!

Check it out here: http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/nokia_nx3/index .php?p=9/ [phonescoop.com]

Also, the N73 was also announced, which is thankfully a smaller phone, still feature rich, and is quad band unlike the N93, and thus better for those of us in the US.

Check it out: http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/nokia_nx3/index .php?p=7/ [phonescoop.com]

Also, for those who are interested in phones check out howardforums.com It's the best message board for cell phones and network information.

Ever heard of ppc-6700? (1)

blueapples (614410) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202104)

The Pocket PC 6700 from Sprint and other carriers already does all this and it's based on Windows Mobile 5.0 instead of the presumably new or limited market share OS that Nokia will use. I just got one last weekend and so far I am very happy with it: Bluetooth, wi-fi, wireless broadband (Based on EV-DO: "3G" to some people), 1.3 MP camera & video. Mobile IE can handle most website okay, but the screen is a bit small. Any larger and it wouldn't be very useful as a phone though, so it's a good balance.

Sprint rather predominantly advertises the wi-fi feature of this device, so I disagree with the article that "telcos" are threatened by hybrid wi-fi devices. I bet they freaking love the ability to have someone using a device with their branding but not consuming their resources. Maybe when you throw in a working VOIP application it becomes a bit different, but for pure data stuff, they'd love that.

Nokia is only #2 in my book (to market anyway), the PPC-6700 has already done all this.

Music? (1)

Mikeytsi (186271) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202139)

Yes, but can it recognize more thn 99 songs?

No model so far that Nokia has released will recognize more than 99 songs. Pretty silly in the days of 1 and 2GB memory cards,....

operating system? (1)

Barbarian (9467) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202146)

How about if it came with some kind of OS other than the crappy ones usually bundled with phones? I'd like to see a device like this with Windows Mobile or something linux based, that normal people can actually write programs for.

Finally! (0)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202147)

Nokia breaks the world record for worst cell phone battery life ever. Someone give them a blue ribbon or something.

Thanks but no thanks (0, Flamebait)

Gno (970625) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202159)

Im sorry but until the all in one device can hold 40Gb of Mp3s then I don't care, until the all in one device can take 10 Megapixel pictures at 1600X1200 then I don't care, Until the all in one device isn't taking a gamble at the portable gaming insdustry then I don't care. Until the all in one device isn't an over-sized, expensive, clumsy, POS with lots of shiney half-assed features added on then I don't give a damn. I'm sorry but the reason the 40Gb ipod isn't smaller and more battery friendly is becuase it can't be. The reason the 10MP fuji fine pix isn't cheaper, and smaller is beacuse it can't be. The reason the DS isn't smaller is because nintendo hasn't released the 6th color yet. This is why no one is going to buy a $660 all-in-one esspicailly a nokia whom is know for their cheaper line. It just doesn't stack up.

Re:Thanks but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15202363)

until the all in one device can take 10 Megapixel pictures at 1600X1200 then I don't care,

Just to set the record straight, 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 megapixels.

But I agree with your point. It's ridiculous for them to claim that this phone can approach the quality of even my little point-and-shoot digital camera.

Someday... (1)

AK__64 (740022) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202205)

I really think convergence is the future. It'll take some time, but someday compact cameras will just fade away, and ditto for dedicated mp3 players. I think the main things that are needed are:
1. Better battery life
2. Cheaper devices
3. Better ergonomics/interface,
4. And finally, a different sales model with cell service providers.
OTOH all you old-schoolers will be happy to know that in my mind, I still see dedicated cell phones hanging around for a while.

Someone is gonna make a fortune (0, Flamebait)

jigjigga (903943) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202220)

if they just make a phone! Does anyone else not get fed up with all of this crap in phones these days? The interfaces are AWFUL and these extra "features" just get in the way and add to cost. I want a cheap, working, easy, etc.. phone. If I wanted a camera, a video player, a computer, etc.. i would get those instead!

Cute, but.. (1)

Mr_Tulip (639140) | more than 7 years ago | (#15202260)

Most people do not really want one device to do all of these functions. I have gone through several such devices, and they are essentially a gimmick, soon discarded in favour of separate devices that do each job well. What I want is to be able to receive phone calls on my mobile, even when the battery on my MP3 player is dead.

Or use my phone independantly of my PDA, like when I'm playing tetris while talking to my wife.

Having said that, I'll bet they sell a truckload of these to early adopters, who will play with it a bit, then promptly throw it into a drawer never to be used again, eventually poisoning some landfill somewhere.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...