Posted by mr_miu
not a beauty...
and what do you feel about this:
Wap 1.2.1
Talktime: 2 h 20 min (WCDMA), 2 h 40 min (GSM)
132x52x25 mm
141 gram
Memmory: 7 MB
Price: 750 euro
Hmmm, no thanks!
http://www.nokia.com/phones/6650/
Posted by gareb
Think the same and wonder what SE gonna come up with
_________________
The south gonna do it 'gain
[ This Message was edited by: GEORGIA REBEL on 2002-09-26 16:27 ]
Posted by adamrj
Err what's that thing sticking out of the top of it?
Posted by faca
I think the most important thing about this phone is 3G, not its design. Wouldn't you agree? I think that Nokia did a pretty good job for their first 3G phone. It has a 128 kbps downlink, which is double the speed I have with my fixed-line modem at home! You can record video and audio simultaneously with it. And all you can say about it is that you think it's ugly!?! Is that the best you can do? Don't tell me that pretty looks are more important to you than advanced technology.
Posted by lmi
well, i don't think much of this phone either. It's big, it ain't pretty. There's no chance to make video conference because the cam is at the back. It has no flash for pictures neither a setting for low light. It can though record video BUT! only for 20 seconds, although there's a total memory of 7Mb. There's a cover for the cam lense but I don't like it. Maybe it's important because it's the first 3G aikoN phone, but I really don't like it! and it doesn't impresss...
Posted by pinolo77
The back of the phone reminds me of the back of my t68 ... The same design.
And it looks very much like their first WAP model. I have to say people at Nokia are clever...
They launch one, ugly phone which is 3G. Now, I ask you something, how many of you are now seriously waiting 3G and will eventually not buy the P800.
That is what I call a clever move from Nokia, gives them time to come up with something new, makes the press talk about them and puts the P800 way back in terms of its percieved qualities. P800 is not out yet and is no longer top of technology.
You will probably buy a P800 just to get mad after two months when Nokia will have forced
to launch the same P800 but UMTS enabled.
That is why Nokia sells more. THEY ARE CLEVER. They know that this UMTS phone will not affect the sales of other Nokia, it is a sort of flag. They knew they would have had a hard time in competing with
on the P800 and so they playied this move.
And also...
All companies that will launch the UMTS will show this Nokia phone on their advertisements, just as they did at the beginning of WAp and as tehy did with t68 and MMS. That will make a huge marketing hit for Nokia, both in terms of brand recognition and sales.
So... Nokia won this battle because
did everything possible to lose it!
There are no UMTS networks there... No one will buy the phone for another six months and by that time new models will have hit the market. BUT...
is about to launch a phone on which they invested a lot of money and that could help them build market share.
I think we have to admit that Nokia playied a very nasty move... But yet a very smart one
Posted by mr_miu
@faca,
Yes, the design is not the most important thing, but things like
wap 1.2.1 when T68i has 2.0, and memory: 7 MB.
I expect more from a 3G phone like:
MP3, >32 MB memory, 10 hours talktime, NO antenna
and so on...
Why should i buy this? for the 128 kbps downlink!
I canīt really say that this is advanced technology worth 750 euro.
Faca, to be honest, would you pay 750 euro for this intead of
750 for the P800?
Posted by Thullan
| Quote: |
|
For me it is, and size. I am not alone.
Posted by Froddan
I think pinolo77 has a good point there.
But 128 DL? Motorola A820 has 384 DL, and it should be coming out soon, it's also triband + 3G.
Anyway, smart move by Nokia.
And for those who choose design over tech, why not a Motorola V70?
Posted by faca
| Quote: |
For me it is, and size. I am not alone. |
That figures... How stupid of me to expect an unbiased technology-oriented discussion on a forum like this.
If you people don't understand what 3G means for the future of mobile technology, that's your problem. This phone was not designed to impress some trendy kid, it is a feature phone introduced to present a new and much more advanced technology. I was actually very impressed that they could fit all that new and complicated 3G/UMTS/WCDMA technology together with the old GSM one into such a small device so soon. It is a huge technological achievement and all that you people can say is that it looks large and ugly!?!
@mr_miu: You expect too much from the very first 3G models. But, trust me, by the time 3G networks become fully operational and commercially available, you will see 3G devices a lot better and more feature-packed than the P800. I WOULD actually buy the P800 if it were available now, but where is it? Am I supposed to wait till 2003 for it? 2003, the first year of UMTS? I don't think so... I think I'll just settle for a normal phone for now, and in the end of 2003 I'll buy something like that Motorola's 'Paragon II'. Now, THAT is what the P800 should have been. Nokia probably has something similar in their plans (they said they will announce 3 more new phones by the end of the year). I agree with pinolo77, Nokia people are very clever. P800 might sound like a cool device, but a P800-like 3G device is going to be fantastic !
@Thullan: I hope all your future phones will look very pretty so that you can impress a lot of people with them and be cool... Who cares what's inside or how it works anyway, right?
[ This Message was edited by: faca on 2002-09-26 20:04 ]
Posted by doowap
I agree with pinolo77 when he says they projected this phone to be the first in the UMTS house, no matter its real quality. But sorry for Faca and his unbiased views about Nokia products (
), but I'm not buying a phone that allows full screen video on demand with only... 7Mb memory....
A 54 seconds download @128kbs is enough to fill the memory...
Posted by Epedemic
wap 1.2.1 ........ WTF?!? even the 3650 has wap 2.0.... i like the question in their faq tho... "Does the 6650 have realplayer?
No it does not"
Hey... weren't 3g supposed to be all streaming video joy?
this phone is purely cosmetical to nokia... it looks like shit... the specs are shit (compared to 3650 & p800 and considering its 3G) but it'll sure as hell get some attention...
Posted by jb
| Quote: |
|
I'm totally with you on that one, man.
I don't doubt that this was a plan devised to poison the market. The question is if it works. Maybe it backfires and everyone thinks "nokia has really lost it, have you seen their _latest_ - uh!" .. Things like these are hard to know.
I think the reason this phone sucks (in terms of mass and volume and performance) is because, behind the curtains, Nokia really sucks. Today I reveal this long forgotten secret to you. Tell everyone you know.
Probably that is only a test phone they pulled from some old drawer to still everyone's desire for something new. Neither 7650 or 36-whatever have satisfied the public (because they, too, suck.)
8210 was a huge hit. 3310 as well. I know for sure 8210 wasn't designed by Nokia and tech-wise I hear from service-center-guys that it's a disaster. 3310 and its brother and sisters sell because they're cheap. Maybe the story is supposed end here?
Let's all hope.
Posted by Thullan
| Quote: |
|
Sort of. I want a phone that fits nicely in my shirt pocket or bag, feels solid and has a look that I like. I have no use for Bluetooth, Ir, joystick count, ring signals that make my phone walk or anythink like that.
I also prefer clothes that look good rather than clothes from Fristads even though they are much more durable. I also prefer a nice analog metal wristwatch which barely shows the date instead of a huge plastic Casio with built-in camera and remote controll.
But we are all different, luckily.
Posted by jb
| Quote: |
|
Well actually, do you know how small radio IC:s are? And that there are asian 3G-phones the size of T68?
The problem with making small phones is not that it's difficult in itself. What IS difficult is to make a small attractive device in huge volumes - it doesn't matter SO MUCH what kind of radio IC:s you attach to it (if you know how to make and control them.)
And when it comes to technology (standby/talktime/weight), this new phone is in no way impressive - if that was your point.
Posted by burger
I think that the 6650 has two antennas because they has to be optimized for their networks, an external for 3G and an internal for GSM.Another thing is that SE all ready has some 3G phones in japan.
Posted by faca
@doowap: Do you know what video on demand is? You don't need a lot of memory to watch streaming video. Oh, and, you might want to try using the calculator next time you want to do some math. 128kpbs is approximately 16KB/s so you would need 448 seconds (or around 7.5 minutes) to fill 7 MB. But, like I said, 3G is about streaming video, not recorded video. And, FYI, I have never owned a Nokia phone. And, in my post I actually say that I will buy a Motorola phone. So, what makes you think that I am biased to Nokia? Because I don't worship SE and its P800?
@Epedemic: RealPlayer is not the only software that can play streaming video. And, yes, the 6650 can play streaming video, it was even demonstrated on its presentation. This phone is certainly not 'shit', but I'm really tired of explaining why.
@jb: Nokia may be a lot of things, but it certainly doesn't suck. They keep increasing their market share, e.g. in 2002., Q1 they had 35.4%, and in Q2 37.2% - for comparision, SE had 6.4% in Q1 and only 5.2% in Q2 (so their market share is dropping even though Sony and Ericsson joined forces). So, Nokia people certainly don't suck, they know very very well what they are doing. It's the SE people I'm not so sure about... And, btw, the 7650 is a much bigger success than you seem to think.
@Thullan: Are you comparing mobile phones with clothes!?! And with wristwatches?
@jb: Do you know how complicated WCDMA or GSM chips are? And show me one asian 3G phone the size of T68. And then tell me, is that the first 3G phone from that manufacturer? Does it support GSM too? Can it do transparent handovers between GSM and WCDMA networks? The impressive thing about this phone is that it is a dual-mode GSM/WCDMA phone, but I guess it's hard to explain how impressive this really is to people who compare such advanced wireless technologies with that of a wristwatch...
Posted by Freak
the biggest and best news for me was that nokia will relise 3 more phones with color screen before dec. and one of them will be a new comunicator! thatīs what nokia say, so itīs not a rumor!
Posted by Froddan
I agree with Faca.
No matter how it looks or what it lacks in features, this phone has a cutting edge technology in the use of different networks.
It is NOT an easy task to make a phone which uses two different network technologies, and switches seamlessly between them.
As far as I know there are only two phones that can handle this, Motorola A820 and Nokia 6650, by "accident" the two biggest brands in cell phone market.
Posted by captainsm
It's ok i guess..
Posted by Hoggi
Of course the design is important!
The small screen is poor design!
The atenna is poor design!
the size is poor design!
And who is buying phones for showoff any more? Nobody would buy 33xx series if they thougth it would impress their friends!
Like we like the design og women we like the design of objects. But you have to remember tha good design is good functionality too. when the screen is too small and the phone is to big then it has poor design. And i haven't began talking about the software in the phone......
I really hope SE will do better!!!
Posted by ppcrockar
Well.. I don't think it's cutting edge technology wise either. I mean ok it's GSM/W-CDMA but that's it. That's what a 3G phone is all about anyway, it wouldn't be a 3G phone if it didn't have W-CDMA. But that's it, it's too big, it's worse feature wise than the best GSM phones. Talk time is really crappy... wap 1.2.1... come on...
I can't see people with High-end GSM phones buying that phone... I mean it's a downgrade from what you have right now. As a concept phone it might be ok, but as a phone that will not be available until next summer it's pure crap.
If 3G is to catch on we need way much better and more innovative phones than this.
And switching between networks is not innovative.. SonyEricsson, Nokia and Motorola has done it so far. That's also part of a 3G phone...(at least to start with)...
[ This Message was edited by: ppcrockar on 2002-09-26 22:58 ]
Posted by Froddan
| Quote: |
|
T39?
Posted by Froddan
| Quote: |
|
And how many GSM/WCDMA phones are there, that has been revealed?
Motorola A820 and Nokia 6650. THAT makes these two to cutting edge technology phones.
Feature wise the A820 winns clearly, EMS 5.0, Wap 2.0....
Motorola and Nokia has done it for sure, and they have shown the phones, but how about SE?
Posted by Superluminova
lets face it if SE has a gsm p800 which has better features than the 3g 6650. i can't wait till SE shows off there 3g model, hopefully sometime soon
. but it will take a while for 3g to take off, since most mobile user don't have a clue what GPRS is!
Posted by faca
Man, am I in a mood today or what?
@Hoggi: The design IS important (I never said that it isn't) but what's inside is even more important (same goes for women too
). The 6650 looks OK to me. You mentioned SE, so, speaking of design, what do you think about T300?
I really hope that SE will do better too, but, let's face it, those guys aren't even capable of producing a complex 2.5G phone like the P800 without major delays, let alone a 3G device. I just hope they won't put a lot of features into their soon-to-be-announced 3G phone, because it will take them 10 years to release it to market...
@ppcrockar: '...ok it's GSM/W-CDMA but that's it...'. That's it!?! I only wish that mobile phones were so simple like you make them sound to be...
Sure, that's all part of a 3G phone so anybody can do it... You just buy little chips and glue them together... And if you want switching between networks you just buy another little chip and that's it... There is nothing complex or innovative about that... Everybody does that...
If it so simple, can you name any other phone that can do that except Nokia 6650 and Motorola A820? You don't think that 3G is cutting edge technology? So, what is cutting edge for you?
And, where did you get that 'next summer' crap from? 6650 will be used for testing new 3G networks even before the end of this year. You will be able to buy it in the first half of 2003 (but that depends on the commercial launch of these networks).
[ This Message was edited by: faca on 2002-09-26 23:31 ]
Posted by Freak
| Quote: |
|
according to this article http://www.mobil.se/nyheter/visa.asp?id=5667&sid=1 they will not starting to sell the 6650 before next summer! but who knows, maby they lie on nokia!? or maby www.mobil.se lie!?
Posted by ppcrockar
Hardware wise it's probably not that much difference between GSM and and W-CDMA phone. It's just another coding technology. And yes you can probably almost just change the radio chips, with software for that of course. But the hardest part of a 3G phone is probably the rest of the software, all multimedia services and so on.
And the fact that it's just Nokia and Motorola that have shown actual phones doesn't mean that no other manufacturers has that. Ericsson has been showing phone that can seamlessly switch between GSM/W-CDMA. This is from CNET News:
"Parent company Ericsson on Tuesday also announced the first live test of a handover of calls between the GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) and WCDMA third-generation mobile standards.
This means that a person talking on a cell phone from a car would automatically have the call transferred from a 3G network covering only a city area to a GSM network when driving into the countryside.
GSM is the world's dominant, second-generation wireless technology, currently used by most European operators. WCDMA is a new standard that enables fast data transfers, particularly useful for data-heavy multimedia services such as video messaging.
"From the operator's point of view you can offer customers complete coverage from the very beginning, and you don't need to have full 3G coverage in a country,'' Ericsson spokesman Peter Olofsson said.
"It has been debated and questioned whether this can be done. We don't know what our competitors are doing, but as far as we know they haven't shown it yet.''"
Well.. W-CDMA is a nice standard and uses the available bandwith better than TDMA, it's still just a form of Transmission coding.
What 3G phones need is something more than can be offered by GSM/GPRS. Ok so it's faster, but that's not enough to make people make the switch to 3G. The 3G phones have to be much more powerful than the GSM/GPRS phones otherwise I don't see 3G beeing a success in many years to come...
And I'm talking about great new innovative software, innovative new services and innovative new solutions on the phones.
Not just a GSM-phone with 3G capabilities, and for sure not a 3G phone with wap 1.2.1.
Maybe I had to high hopes for this one. I thought that Nokia would have presented a phone that would give a sneak-peak of what 3G phones could do... and if it's just this.. then it's nothing spectacular....
Posted by Froddan
| Quote: |
|
Have you read the magazine Mobil? It's the same as mobil.se
For example they've claimed that you can use a SE bluetooth headset with a 7650, since BT is an open source it works fine even "cross-branded". They also claim that 6310i is dualband only, and that you need SoftGSM software (euro 165) in order to use a T65 as a gprs modem on a pc...
I woldn't trust them too much
Posted by Froddan
Any pictures of the SE 3G phone? Other information about it?
Posted by jack078
Nokia always does that....
seperates all features to different phones. one has bluetooth, but no GPRS. another one has GPRS but no bluetooth.... etc.
this may cut the production cost to release simple features phone but simply get your attentions, rite?? you guys all excited??
but anyway, using an old crap of 7xxx series style housing for 3G phone... come on
Posted by jb
| Quote: |
|
Well, whoopie.
| Quote: |
|
Actually, GSM-chips themselves don't have to be so deadly complicated as you seem to think. It's all those other things that need to be in a phone that makes phone-making so complicated. As I said, the difficult part is making the phone small.
But I don't know about WCDMA.
| Quote: |
|
As people already have pointed out, transparent handovers became old news as of a couple of days ago.
| Quote: |
|
Oh no we understand, better than you think, how profoundly impressed you are. And we're glad it happened for you. You'll have to have more patience with us.
Posted by Raven
First off, what's up with all this; "it only has wap 1.2.1, not 2.0 therefor it sucks" crap???!! What the hell is the big diff!!???
Second, what's up with all these great new high tech handsets getting bigger and bigger and uglyer and uglyer?! I believe in the COMINATION between design and functions!
Posted by Prom1
Well, features wise its a great phone, even the design says that the T68i had a HUGE influence because it was SO successful.
Features......First and foremost is an UPGRADE to any phone on the market, that anyone can buy worldwide right now! Proof?: W-CDMA & GSM and giving you 128kbps maximum (although less that EDGE, but EDGE phones are not available currently!). Also the phone allows you to be talking and SEND a SMS/MMS message SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!!!! No phone right now can do that except maybe Motorola A830.
Talk & standby times are a joke and should be improved by a new battery before this hits the market else would hurt Nokia.
The antenna, external, is necessary as I'm not aware of ANY W-CDMA or CDMA2000 phone that doesnt have an external antenna.
Dont get me wrong, I hate NOKIA phones to date, but happy that SonyEricsson phone had an impact that Nokia had to copy the basic shape design of the T68
Posted by Raven
Thats not true. It's more likely that ericsson copied the design of the T68 from nokias 8210. The 6650 kinda resembles nokias first wap enabled phone, the 7110 if you forget about the flip.
Posted by gsmwraith
OK i guess I dont understand all of this can someone point me ina direction to figure out what all this hoopla is abotu 3g/umts?? any god web pages etc?
Posted by mr_miu
@Raven
#First off, what's up with all this; "it only has wap 1.2.1, not 2.0 therefor it sucks" crap???!! What the hell is the big diff!!??? #
Wap 2.0 includes colour, 1.2.1 does not!
From a 3G phone I expect at least that...
Posted by Super G
mr miu:
what's the big deal? if wap 2.0 is not supported. How many colour wap pages are there out there?
I would guess it supports HTML in many forms, so why bother getting wap 2.0?
Anyway, I agree with faca, who can recognize what Technology means, not only software.
Posted by faca
| Quote: |
Hardware wise it's probably not that much difference between GSM and and W-CDMA phone. It's just another coding technology. |
Oh, man... I can't believe I'm actually discussing about 3G with you... You know what? You're right, GSM and WCDMA are absolutely the same... And, if you want to upgrade you network to 3G, you just go to a cell station, connect your keyboard, mouse and monitor to it, wait until Windows 98 boots, and then you right-click on your desktop, choose 'Options' and change the option 'Fancy name' to '3G' and the option 'Max speed' to 128 kpbs (or 384 or whatever, depending on how much you want to impress people). It's that simple, I really don't understand what's all the hype about.
| Quote: |
And yes you can probably almost just change the radio chips, with software for that of course. |
Of course... And fortunately, these kind of chips grow on trees, so phone manufacturers just have to take them down and replace the old ones in their phones. In fact, I sometimes wonder what are all those engineers doing in Nokia, Motorola, SE, etc. when it it soooo simple to make 3G networks and phones.
| Quote: |
But the hardest part of a 3G phone is probably the rest of the software, all multimedia services and so on. |
Really? I thought that they just put in Windows Media Player? Btw, does this forum have 'the most ridiculous statement ever found in a post' topic? This last one would be a very good candidate...
| Quote: |
And the fact that it's just Nokia and Motorola that have shown actual phones doesn't mean that no other manufacturers has that. Ericsson has been showing phone that can seamlessly switch between GSM/W-CDMA. This is from CNET News: |
Isn't that article entitled 'Nokia, Ericsson reach mobile milestone'? Why would they call it 'milestone' if GSM/WCDMA handover is so simple and not inovative like you claim it to be? And, where is that mysterios SE 3G phone? The last 3G 'mobile phone' I saw from Ericsson was actually a van full of equipment. I hope that this one is a little smaller...
| Quote: |
"It has been debated and questioned whether this can be done. |
Why couldn't it be done? I mean, just ask ppcrockar, and he'll explain to you just how easy it is...
Posted by Super G
Slightly sarcastic. But well deserved
Posted by Super G
Ah, I like Prom1's objective comments
Though on the T68 design I must disagree!
To me the 6650 looks very much like it was designed at the same time as the 8210. In fact they both look from the same family (e.g. the soft keys, the small arc under the keypad, etc), hence 6650 looks somewhat outdated.
The 6650's color would be metallic grey with some black buttons, it would be so much nicer.
Posted by ppcrockar
@Super G
Since Wap2.0 supports color it would be much better to have in a phone with a color screen especially when we are talking 3G. And no I don't think the Nokia 6650 supports HTML. The press release says nothing about HTML, and since that would be a major feature it would probably be mentioned in the pressrelease
Posted by jb
(in reply to Prom1)
| Quote: |
|
To begin with here, that phone is not on the market and you can't buy it. We don't know when we will be able to buy it. All we know is it will cost too much.
CDMA-2000 phones offer a transfer rate of 153 kbps. Have a look at this fine device.
While your at it, look here
and search for "384 kbps".
| Quote: |
|
Boy, have I missed that feature.
| Quote: |
|
Although ugly, you should look into Sony Ericsson T206.
Posted by ppcrockar
@faca
Do you know anything about Transmission coding schemes at all? I'm not saying that they are the same. But the difference in the transmission coding primarily affect the radio part of the phone.
Do you know how few components there actually is in a phone like the T68. The T68 is primarily 3 ASIC's, the circuit board is not that crowded as you might think. Sure there are quite a few layers on the circuit board but there are quite few components..
And the sarcastic comment about Win98 and 3G networks was quite funny
BTW if Windows where used in the mobile networks I would not be using them....since they would have crashed half the time.
What makes it harder to build a GSM network than a W-CDMA network? Of course it's not a question of just upgrading the software, and nowhere did I ever imply that. But when you build a GSM or W-CDMA network from scratch the development required is about the same I would guess.
I'm not saying that these chips grow on trees but they are probably not that hard to get hold of. But my guess is that the big players make thier own ASIC's. And the smaller companies can license the platforms from Motorola or Ericsson.
Regarding your comment on my software comment. My point was (and still is) that the software development/debugging takes longer than finishing the hardware.
Well I do agree with your comment about handover of calls between GSM and WCDMA networks. I was just saying that it would be a requirement in the beginning when the W-CDMA coverage will be limited . BTW nothing in the pressrelease actually says that the Nokia 6650 actually handles handover between the 2 networks. It is just stated that it supports GSM/WCDMA, it doesn't say that it can switch networks during call/data transmission. I really hope that it can do that though....
Posted by jb
| Quote: |
|
Ehm, obviously the difficulties with 3G lie in
1) Building the network to offer enough coverage and bandwidth
2) Building small devices that can utilize this bandwidth in a useful and attractive way
The difficulties ARE NOT to actually make or get hold of the radio chips. And probably most phone-makers license (if don't, they should) the radio-platform so they shouldn't have to worry about it.
We agree that Nokia should receive some credit for managing to implement the wcdma/gsm transparent handover. What disturbs us is the giant size and the useless specs.
| Quote: |
|
As we said, radio-chips is not the only thing to worry about when you make phones. I believe wcdma-test-units have been around since at least 2001, so there shouldn't be any unclearities as to WHAT wcdma really is and WHAT to put in the devices.
The difficulties are in making them in volumes and making them attractive. For 700-800 EUR nokia and this new phone have not achieved that.
You can be sure this was not nokias first try at making wcdma-chips. Be sure however that they don't have an optimized factory for spitting out millions of these. If they at all make them themselves.
| Quote: |
|
You thought wrong, man =)
| Quote: |
|
I believe his point was; once you reach a milestone you can't reach it again.
| Quote: |
|
I think that releasing 3G-phones at this time would disturb the demand for 2.5G-phones. Maybe that is why the features of this new nokia are so lousy.
[ This Message was edited by: jb on 2002-09-27 12:00 ]
Posted by ppcrockar
@jb
I totally agree with you about the 3G difficulties, coverage and bandwith aswell as ahndset size are the main challenges.
My question is just does it anywhere states that the 6650 handles transparent handovers? I have my doubts...
| Quote: |
|
That could actually be one of the reasons
[ This Message was edited by: ppcrockar on 2002-09-27 12:09 ]
Posted by jb
| Quote: |
|
Uhm. Yeah. They don't mention that it is capable of transferring an ongoing call between the two; however it says:
* WCDMA and GSM 900/1800 networks
* Automatic switching between bands and modes
Since there has been some controversy around transparent handovers, it probably doesn't support it.
I see a demand for this phone from people who want fast data transfers while they are out running ("business professionals"); but there are a number of problems:
* it is marketed as a movie-phone (eh?)
* It does not seem to support GPRS
(which means only circuit switched data outside of 3G-coverage)
* It does not seem to support GSM 1900
* 128 kbps is only about twice the speed of GPRS, so it's not that big a gain in speed. For wap this doesn't matter. Essentially all you can do anyway is check email and maybe surf the internet a bit faster.
When all comes around your T68 will do the job just as good and in addition it gives you:
* color wap (WAP 2.0)
* cost-effective data-transfer _everywhere_ (GPRS)
* ability to use phone in the americas (GSM 1900)
* good looks (half the size)
* and it saves you 750 EUR
"Half the price and size but twice the device"
bha ha ha.
Posted by Super G
Right, nothing about some HTML support. But I hope it does support it.... considering it has only wap 1.2.1
It supports GPRS (see press release).
It supports multitasking.
It has a USB port, Bluetooth.
It has Java.
Note that movie clips are 20 seconds only (100kB), because of MMS specifications which limits the movies to 100kB.
Etc etc.
Posted by Super G
128kbps is not much?!?!? What about 64kbps upload???
You must be joking
Posted by jb
| Quote: |
|
Nothing about a pIII with overclocking possibilities, but I hope it supports that. Since it has java-support.