Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

Modularity adds costs in so many ways that nobody is winning. The cost of a modular platform WITHOUT the radio would cost as much of not more than the current price of the N900 with the radios included. You have to add bulk to the device to provide the mechanical ability to add the module to the device, the device itself needs certification from the FCC, ETSI, SAR, etc, as well as the device itself. Now instead of doing the certification on a single device, you now have to certify the device and each module separately. Do you plan on having a modular antenna system as well? The antenna design for each module will be different, certification will need to be done with the appropriate antennas for each band. You're not embedding the antenna into the radio module since this will likely be too small to allow an adequate element to radiate sufficiently.

Have you seen GSM modules? You can get a GSM module off the shelf that is roughly half the size of my Nokia E71. This is HUGE compared to the device you intend to use it with. Surely Nokia would make this as small as possible, but it's still a separate assembly that needs to be packaged to protect the circuitry and that add bulk, no matter how you slice.

Now you've got to set up separate manufacturing space for each module plus the device itself for test and calibration. You're adding to number of tests and test times by testing everything separately versus testing a single device.

Once you get through all that now you have the customer to deal with. Can you guarantee that the module will be placed correctly, having optimal contact to provide the best performance of the radio? Is the antenna connector robust enough to always provide optimal RF match?

You haven't decreased inventory at all, you've increased it. Instead of a single device with cellular radio, you now stock the device, multiple radio modules and maybe an antenna modules. Then you have to design packaging for each of your plug-ins as well. At the end of the day, nobody is paying less for a product such as that, and if Nokia were to product it you'd likely be saying "man, that thing is freakin' expensive, it would have been cheaper just to drop the UMTS radios on the PCB"... Exactly!

Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

Just wanted to add my voice as another customer who would like a 850/1900 band N900 phone. Maybe another version in the near future to support it? I would definitely love to develop on maemo but I don't see the point in purchasing a device if I can't use it on my network's 3G

Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

Sure I can check the numbers...market share of over 40% worldwide for celluar phones. I'd say that was pretty popular. Versus a relative pittance of internet tablets (sans celluar stack) sold world wide.

Yep, they could have..but instead decided they wanted to create a mainstream cellular device. You don't want a mainstream cellular device. That's cool..so perhaps the N900 isn't for you and you should look at the alternatives you listed. It's for me, however...and for a LOT of other people precisely BECAUSE it has an included cellular stack.

And a more expensive (modular) version would be even more popular how? Nothing like a $1000 tablet with a $300 available cellular upgrade to spur market uptake ;)

Buy it or not....acceptable or not...the fact remains that it exists in the Apple products and it exists primarily due to cost concerns. Your opinion does not change the reality of the situation, however justified it might be.


Sure they could...but as has been repeatedly explained to you, it would wind up costing MORE than having everything integrated. Not to mention it would necessarily be even larger due to the space wasted with the modular connectors versus having chips soldered to a PCB. Sure..sign me up for N900-A aka "the brick"...bigger, more expensive, and doesn't provide a performance benefit. That'll be a best-seller for sure!

Let me know when they get all of the functionality and performance of the N900 in the same form factor for less money spent ;)

I'm sure there are plenty of interesting resources and information...that doesn't change the reality of the manufacturing process of consumer electronics.

Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

there is maybe a way by flashing the N900 to change the frequency so it might be usable 3g for AT&T or Canada. Like they do for other cell

http://cellphoneforums.net/nokia/t30...62-1661-a.html

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/forum...ad.php?t=87744

maybe someone will find a way

Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

Flashing should not change the frequency. The frequency is a matter of the antennas and tuners inside the phone.

I believe the quad band GSM / GPRS / EDGE radio and tri band WCDMA radio inside the N900 are separate.

Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

@JD2010: I just read those threads and it seems the consensus was that it's impossible to change the frequency by flashing the phone. Why do you think it would be possible to do on the N900 when it's not possible on other phones?
To stretch an analogy a bit, that'd be like changing a car from right hand drive to left hand drive by flashing the ECU.

Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

I think there are some CDMA phones that were flashed to turn on some Freqs and that's where it's coming from.

Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

Are the frequency bands really a hardware and not a firmware/certification issue?
I mean are the antennas for 850/1900 that different from 900/1700/2100? Any RF engineer who could explain that, around?

Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

Yep they are. A quick search on Wikipedia will explain the basics to you. The length of the antenna is basically linked to the frequency range that will work (wavelength). Frequency has to be generated using a carrier frequency based on clock cycles, only so many multipliers on a base cycle so that is definately a chipset design limitation.

Re: Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)
 

...and... where is Peter reply!!??

PEDRO: Just put that chip or set the BIOS option on on n900 in order to support WCDMA 850/1900. and... wualaaaaaa

That is not a big deal for them, the technology exist.