Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

All the early adopters who have been waiting, waiting, waiting for their fix since.....well, too long. THATS WHO! :D

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Keynotes - Symbian & Qt. The best of both worlds by Mr Benoit Schillings, CTO, Trolltech on Smartphone Show 2008, London. Keynote to be held on 22 octobre from 10:50 till 11:15.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

They don't stop you; I'm not sure if it's a technical TOS violation or not, but a number of people do it. SERO (yeah, it's now become Sprint Everything, and like double the price, but basically the same) forbids it, but you can still get by with it on many phones with additional software.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

IMHO, it could be the same size as the N800 and work well as both. :p
But I expect I'm one of the less fashion-conscious; being seen in public with a device the size of a small laptop held up to my ear wouldn't bother me. (The ergonomics of using an Eee as a phone, however, would bother me; the N800's cool ergonomically, though.)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I actually agree, Benson. The tablets make really good desk phone replacements, too. ;)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

i would be more worried about my wrist and arm for holding onto the bulk of the tablet for any extended call.

still, i have a bluetooth handsfree, so...

but then it seems its even less fashionable to use those (maybe unless your using a jawbone or that apple one, two guesses why)...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

indeed, i suspect that we will see more and more cross-compilable apps.

hell, it may even happen that nokia uses QT to make available phone tools on linux...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I don't want phone capabilities in tablets. Why?

- price
- size; IT is too big to make good phone; I much prefer having two devices than one bulky.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Like Trolltech's Greenphone based on Qtopia? Trolltech has shifted development of Qtopia to Neo FreeRunner.

BTW, the toolkit is called Qt; not QT.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

proper capitalization was never one of my strong points ;)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Ordinarily the capitalization doesn't matter. However, TrollTech made the dubious decision to call their framework Qt, which is far too close to Apple Computer's video solution "QuickTime" or QT.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Perhaps its the other way around.

Besides, one of the above sucks. ;)

The .qt extension is also used by Qt more often than anyone uses it for QuickTime.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I stand corrected.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Good point, but QuickTime sucks, too. :p

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Actually, you could do a PCMCIA or ExpressCard slot the same way you do an SD/XD card slot: you have a shallow slot that leaves the card hanging out. If you put this on the top edge of the N810, with the "top" facing the back face of the N810, then you could put various cards in, have them stick out the top, and still allow the screen to slide up (because the card's top bulge would be facing toward the back of the NIT).

So, think about a PCMCIA or ExpressCard slot right where the N810's power button is. The slot's top side is the back of the N810. It runs the full depth of the N810, except for the connector space needed at the other end of the device. The rest of the card would stick out the top of the N810.

The advantage of picking PCMCIA would be that they make caddies for both CF and ExpressCard cards, so 1 PCMCIA slot could function for all 3 device formats. But, it also happens to have the largest door size, so that's a problem. And, I would argue against CF for the same reason you argue against PCMCIA -- it seems to be a dying format. I see fewer and fewer of the cards out in the wild. Especially for things like WWAN access.

The other problem is that this would probably have to do a bit a dance with the battery, and that area that the N810 WME uses for its WiMAX radio.

Such a slot would, however, give you several things like: no need for a second SD card slot, as those who want one can just plug in an SD->PCMCIA (or SD->CF or SD->ExpressCard) card reader.

Also, it would end the debate about WWAN radio access: you'd just get an ExpressCard WWAN radio, possibly an ExpressCard->PCMCIA caddy, and then just worry about having the appropriate card drivers.

Several other custom interfaces would also be taken care of ... they probably make CF IRDA devices, and things like that, for example.

I like the idea, but I also see that it has potential for being rather difficult to implement, even WITH the expectation that cards will stick out the top of the N900. It would be easier if the N900 had 2 small batteries instead of 1 medium size battery (the two smaller batteries I'm thinking of are the ones in the Nokia 6301, for example). Then you could just have the slot be center top, descending through the back of the device. And then put the two smaller batteries on either side of it. This would also give the added advantage of hot swappable batteries.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

And that will probably the only widely agreed upon statement wrt to 3G/WWAN on the NIT ;-)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Yeah.. that's what I thought. That doesn't seem very open source at all yet. I'm not even sure that it should be in conversations about open source OS's until it actually is.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Most cell phones make lousy phones, in this regard. In fact, I haven't ever seen a GOOD cell phone in this regard. Anything that isn't shaped like a landline handset is pretty much s**t in this regard (even clamshells). And THAT would require the NIT to be a bit bigger.

Most people use a headset of some form (bluetooth, wired, whatever), and that renders the size/shape of the NIT itself completely irrelevant to the discussion of using it for making phone calls.

And, really, in this regard, it's already being used for phone calls (Gizmo and Skype). The argument that making phone calls on the NIT isn't viable is already refuted and wasted typing. The argument isn't "should we be able to make phone calls on the NIT" ... we already can. Answered and finished. The device's shape already works in this regard. Move on.

The argument is "which types of phone networks can we use for making those calls". Right now, we can use proprietary VOIP (Skype and Gizmo) and open VOIP (SIP). What's being asked for here is extending this to cover cellular/mobile voice networks.

Except that that's a huge straw man argument. It's almost completely irrelevant.

I have a Nokia E61i. I also have a T-Mobile contract. The two have nothing to do with eachother, other than the fact that I have my T-Mobile SIM in my E61i. Everything works (except the Euro 3G, obviously). Lots of people make GSM compliant devices that just need a SIM card. And the carriers will happily sell you a SIM card (prepaid card only, contract with a free or cheap phone that you can use for backup, etc.).

And I could have just as easily used it with an AT&T SIM card. With their pre-paid $20/30 days unlimited data option.

If a carrier wanted to support the device, sell it as a contract discounted phone, whatever, great. Bully for them. But it's not even remotely required.

(and, by the way, if the card was plugged directly into the NIT, it wouldn't be "tethering" so "anti-tether" plans wouldn't matter)

It's "The Way To Do It" because the options suck, not because it's the best possible option. No one "forgot" this, contrary to your condescending assertion. You seem to be forgetting, though, that there each possibility has pros and cons, and being limited to one option means that people who don't fit that one options pro/con list are left out in the cold (or with poor half-assed capabilities).

The same could be done with a Mini-PCI-Express module, or an ExpressCard slot -- you only have to re-buy the network interface, not the whole device.

And, let me get this straight... you're defending not having to re-buy your NIT by saying "I had to re-buy my phone". So, either way, you have to re-buy a device. But with a WWAN-NIT, you only have to carry _1_ device, instead of 2.

And "yet another carrier contract" -- you didn't have to do that with your phone? If you didn't, then you didn't get the discount. Same options if we're talking about a WWAN-NIT. You can buy the NIT off-contract and use your existing SIM card and service, no problem. If you buy on-contract, you get the discount.

Really, your arguments vary between condescending non-truths, moot statements, or self-contradictory statements that end up being the same with or without the WWAN inside the NIT.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

As I pointed out, the size of the NIT is irrelevant to it's being used to make voice calls.

And, it having the ability to make voice calls doesn't mean you have to use a voice calling plan. Tell your carrier "I've put my SIM card into a Data card, so give me a data calling plan". Go from there.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

No. It's not.

In addition to what I've said already (about not holding it to your face), the N810 is only barely a little longer than the E61i, and only slightly wider (like 1 or 2 mm wider). It's form factor is already rather close to other phone offerings.

The "it's too big" argument is just flat out wrong.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

And E61i isn't good form factor for phone.

Also your definition of "most" as "most people use a headset" is... strange. Really, if I see two people per week using headset it is plenty.

ps. I live in center of 2mln city - not desert.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

..but ..but ..I already use my N800 to make calls with Gizmo. Are you telling me to stop? If I were to get a wireless data plan, you better believe I could and probably would use my N800 for voice calls just as I already do. :P My only problem with a N900 having a cell phone radio is the lock-in and eventual uselessness of the cell radio when they phase out whatever it is. I prefer having a module for radio if anything at all. Additionally, not having it would help lower the initial cost.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

But the point is, it's not an unprecedented phone size. And, it's quite usable in that way. The reason I used a headset is not wanting to hold _any_ size phone in my hand, up to my face. Rather have my hands free for other stuff. It has nothing at all to do with the phone's size.

The exact opposite for me (my bias being: in/around silicon valley). The only people I see talking directly into phones are people who aren't likely to buy a NIT in the first place (lower income, lower gadget interest or sophistication in general, etc.). Everyone who buys smart phones, etc. -> headset of one kind or another.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

And the purist argument against having a WWAN radio in the NIT is already moot anyway. The N810 WME exists. That's a WWAN radio in a NIT.

There's 2 false arguments going on wrt to "3G" for the NIT:

• Not a good device for making voice calls -- Moot: the NIT is already used for making voice calls.
• A WWAN Radio built in is bad because of X -- Moot: the NIT already has a WWAN family member, the N810 WiMAX Edition.

Anyone who is resting their arguments against 3G upon things that fit those 2 statements either has already proven to be wrong, or is expressing a moot argument.

The actual arguments are:

• Which WWAN Radio networks should be supported? -- If Nokia is going to support something as niche as WiMAX, why not also support something that is very widely (globally, even) deployed, like WCDMA? They can already do that and support the 3 major flavors (Euro, Asian, AT&T*) with a single chipset. Nokia even already has quite a bit of experience there.
• Which types of voice calls should be supported? -- If you do add WCDMA and/or EVDO, why _not_ also add GSM and/or CDMA for voice, SMS, and MMS? Why would you ONLY allow VOIP calls if the chipset probably already gives you the capabilities for non-VOIP calls?

So:

If we have a WiMAX edition, why NOT also have a WCDMA edition?

If we have a WCDMA edition, why NOT support GSM, voice, SMS, and MMS?



* I'd love to see T-Mobile-USA support added to that, but I expect that that will follow as soon as it's economically feasible to add that to the chipset ... the hurdle is really "why not have a WCDMA Edition"?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I think you just illustrated the argument AGAINST embedding a cell radio in a NIT and a good argument for what I've been saying--put a slot in there where we can buy a radio separately and CHOOSE the carrier and radio we wish to have. Making multiple 'editions' of a product is terribly wasteful and expensive.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Actually, not bad. I must confess I do not like the idea of the top end sticking out (pocket issues), but it would be workable. You've just inspired me to pull the ExpressCard/34 remote out of my laptop (******ed IR remote that just stores in the slot; I've no real cards for it), and hold it up on the back of my N800. What I see, I begin to like.

Yes, and I don't know what signals we can get off our SoC, much less the OMAP34xx, but I know we've got USB (which seems to be what most WWAN cards use), PCIe and PCI both seem longer shots. A USB-only ExpressCard/34 (or maybe even a /54, if it seems helpful) is comparatively easy to add.

Depends; it could be mounted on the battery door with a flex-cable, simplifying that greatly.

:D:D:D

I'd rather see dual, hot-swappable batteries, but it would be less change, hence more likely to make it, to mount the card slot in the door. In a production unit, the case-back would have to connect to a connector with a flexible cable. The USB test-pads used for factory flashing would work nicely for a N810 mod, though.

Interestingly, the BP-4L and BP-5L seem to be practically the same size. From that, online pictures of the N810, and the N800 & EC/34 sitting on my desk, I wonder if the Mugen 3.5Ah battery that's available could have such a slot added to its casing, but off to the left, not centered.

(This is getting a little OT, as we don't want the N900 to merely be suitable for hacking something together out of third-party components. But it would be a cool mod, and I think it would actually be feasible.)

I'm seeing EC/34 EDGE modems for ~$140, N800 back covers for ~$20; I'll have to look at the possibility of adapting a BP-4L for the N800 (and frankensteining the N800 and N810 battery doors), and EC/34 connector/slot hardware, but this is actually looking feasible. And involving no mods to the card itself (the biggest single investment), if I did fail, I could resell that, or use it in my laptop.

Oh, by the way, you've pretty well sold me on suitability of the ExpressCard form-factor; it's not as big as I was thinking. :D

Pardon me while I go shopping for components...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

While I don't completely agree with you that it's a solid argument AGAINST multiple editions, I will say that my preferred model is in fact having a module over something built in. My ranking is probably:

1) some module interface, maybe ExpressCard -- though, heavily depends upon having the right drivers available for the NIT. Extra bonus: if you can make it so that you can do data, txt, and voice all at once.

2) many editions (probably 3 initially: no-WWAN, WiMAX, and WCDMA, I doubt anyone, at this point, would make an EVDO version ... though eventually there would be a 4th edition with LTE)

3) no built-in WWAN option at all.


I think by far, #1 would be the best and most ideal.

I also think, BY FAR, that #3 is absolutely the worst of all possible plans.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

god this thread is getting stupid.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Understood, but that is because its a licensed spectrum in contrast to DECT, BlueTooth or WiFi.

Thats a moot point. There are all kind of backward compatibilities. You were able to use GPRS 5 years ago, and you'll be able to use GPRS in 5 years, too. The same is true for the popular implementations of 3G. Yes, you never know. A telco could go kaboom. We might enter in a Great Depression, or a war, or a black hole... but these networks were rolled out with major infrastructure investments.

If you'd argue: well, soon 4G is out, and my current $device can't use that, yes, you have a valid point. However new != better, and this is an inherent feature of hardware, and also true for USB 3.0, BlueTooth 3.0, 4G, WiFi 802.11i, WiFi 802.11g, and so on. Its even more an inherent feature of embedded hardware.

To mitigate this the Sharp Zaurus had a CF and a SD card. However, on-board storage was minimal (except C3x00 series), and it did not have on-board WiFi, BlueTooth, or GPS. Most Zaurus users ended up with a SD card for storage, and a CF card for WiFi (only supporting 802.11a/b). While there were CF cards providing GPS you couldn't use them because you already needed a WiFi card.

On a NIT this is potentially different because a NIT already has BlueTooth, WiFi and the N810 even GPS. However in this Age you can't expect users to carry around all kind of devices, batteries, cables, and so on. The default ones are already more than enough. That makes a USB 3G not a good option although it'd use about 400-500 mA while in use, and about 70 mA when idle (can be disabled too, ofcourse). So, if the NIT would have CF, PCMCIA, or USB (normal connector) this'd open a wide perspective of possibilities. Add to that being able to power the device over USB, and the fact such USB controller shouldn't be wasting much space in contrast to PCMCIA or CF.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

the thing about wimax is that many see it as a extended range wifi, and therefor not tied to the evil that its the mobile operators.

sad thing is that most wimax implementations so far are using licensed frequencies. so no chance for a urban area to pop up a couple of wimax antennas gotten of the shelf and hooked into some peer or transit provider, municipal style...

thing is that for me any kind of 3G radio in the tablet would bring the price up without adding much in the way of utility.

i already own a phone that i can use for those times that i cant access a wifi connection. and that happens so rarely, that paying for two subscriptions/plans would be overkill. instead i can use the one phone connection i already have with any device that has bluetooth or a usb port (if i remember to bring the cable).

so a 3G radio would basically be expensive dead weight.

but thats me. some others may want a one device solution. to them i would say to grab a HTC or iphone.

oh, and using the tablet for voip, not this guy. i carry a phone, i use a phone, simple as that. i would much rather see xmpp get a single voice and video standard in place then sign up for skype, gizmo or some other voip provider.

on the other hand, i would not mind seeing a CF slot ;)

oh, and did people see this recent development on the neo freerunner:
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS6565189083.html

i wonder if nokia could provide for something similar on the next tablet ;)

that is, expandability by bulking it up...

dont know about others, but my favorite toy growing up was lego ;)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Really? I see headsets in use so rarely, I find this surprising. Is there published data on this?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

WiMAX really isn't comparable to 3G, especially not when you throw voice in the mix.

As with most of the proponents of a cellular radio in this thread, it seems to be just a lot of made up statistics and hot air.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

No, it has nothing to do with WiFi. WiFi is an unlicensed spectrum for short range. WiMAX is a licensed spectrum for medium range.

Also, not all WiMAX access providers are (old) mobile operators earning money from people who pay by the minute to speak to one another. That is one of the reasons it is exciting.

Yeah, and knives are used to cut something.

That is what unlicensed spectrums are for, but only short range can be unlicensed.

For you, indeed, but I'd say a device meant to be used on the Internet (and relying on this for functionality) should easily provide access to the Internet.

Thats great for you, but normal people need to care about 2 devices, and normal people aren't able to always get a legal WiFi connection.

With another device there is another point of failure, you need to care about 2 batteries, you need to care about 2 stable devices, you need to carry 2 devices, you need to carry cables for 2 devices, you need to start up 2 devices. Oh wait... you want to use navigation? Go grab yet another device.

I want one small, stable device which is able to be used for navigation, audio, video, Internet, PIM. Integrated and synced. And yes, it might cost something more than 500 USD indeed.

For you, yes. You already own a phone, and are apparently happy with it.

Earlier you expressed unhappyness about mobile operators, now you argue against SIP. SIP is great if you have 24/7 connectivity.

IIRC CF doesn't allow enough I/O.

EDIT: Wrong, standard & specs have considerably evolved.

ISPs love DVB-H for it decreases their bandwidth. Phones with such capability are heavily subsidized by telcos here.

..and your current one is your mobile phone? ;)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

-1 lack of audi alteram partem
-1 flamebait
-1 guilty by association/generalisation
-1 leadership bonus

Total score: -4.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Look, all the N900 needs is the following:

-5 Ghz 16-Core ARM/x86 hybrid processor
-AGPS, with the cool free satellite internet that only hackers from Die Hard know about
-Hologram Projector
-Voice Recognition
-Solar/Kinetic/Wind power (no recharge, infinite battery)
-Taser to shock the iPhone users
-Enough graphics power to emulate a few PS3s
-super high res multitouch, folding screen, that can stretch to any size and resolution, and provides tactile feedback and raised surfaces (as well as holograms)
-Virtual surround sound
-Everything else I cant make up (use your imagination)

Oh, and under 200 bucks please!

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

if so, why did you get a tablet?

no, data networks/connections. my current phone is a fairly unimpressive feature phone from sonyericsson...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

All of those features were Soooo 2007 :D

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

The iPhone is far from being an all-in-one solution. Unless you narrow your definition of "all" to being a few specific things.

HTC has a couple of devices that come close to "all in one", but they're REALLY _HUGE_. Like the "advantage" and "shift". Not even close to pocketable.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

the advantage is not that much bigger then the N810...

http://www.sizeasy.com/page/size_com...-Playing-Cards

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Huh. I never looked at its actual dimensions. I had just seen pictures of people working with it and carrying it/etc. And it just looked like it was 2-3x bigger than an iPod. Like maybe closer to the size of the Samsung Q1 (non-ultra).

Learn something new every day.