Posted by Ruvjet
http://www.mobil.se/nyheter/visa.asp?id=5799&sid=1
This swedish article says that nxt week Nokia are going to unveil the new communicator, 9310, alongside the 6100.
9310 will have integrated camera, GPRS, MMS, and W-Lan.
Posts on the Symbian Forums suggest that it will have Symbian 7.0 and a touchscreen.
IF this phone is released in Q1-Q2 next year, that is a lot of businessmen who will just upgrade from 9210 to 9310, rather than choosing the P800.
I think this is a real shame for
.
Do people think they have had a good first year in partnership?
Posted by bingo
The communicators have always been plagued with problems (some minor, some major) so I expect people will consider carefully before taking on another one.
It is a shame, but
are not alone in taking a-g-e-s to ship their products... maybe they just announce too soon?
Posted by gadgetboytom
i have seen it is ok, quite nice design is good
Posted by gadgetboytom
oh and p800 delay isnt
's fault its the networks that dont reach targets for testing
oh and the p800 is well ahead of the 9310 for release
_________________
Proud owner of a lunar grey t68m with a t68i front cover!
We should have our own avatar!!
[ This Message was edited by: gadgetboytom on 2002-10-30 14:06 ]
Posted by orange
Are you really trying to say that it's networks' (operators) problem if the phone doesn't work in the network!? You must be joking. It's vendors job to make it work.
Posted by gadgetboytom
no not at all but if the phone isnt signed of by the networks it wont go on sale
its not
's fault if the testers cant reach targets
if testing isnt done properly the phone is full of bugs (7110)
_________________
Proud owner of a lunar grey t68m with a t68i front cover!
We should have our own avatar!!
[ This Message was edited by: gadgetboytom on 2002-10-30 14:19 ]
Posted by orange
If the phone is ready for sale, operators just have to approve the phone to their network. So, it's not operators fault if the phone doesn't work properly in their network.
Posted by gadgetboytom
why not?
if they dont approve it, how can it go on sale.
most operators have their own testers its up to the to get the testing done.
_________________
Proud owner of a lunar grey t68m with a t68i front cover!
We should have our own avatar!!
[ This Message was edited by: gadgetboytom on 2002-10-30 14:35 ]
Posted by Ruvjet
| Quote: |
|
If they don't approve it, it is because there is something wrong with the phone. Manufacturer at fault.
If the phone was ok, or even close to ok, it would be released without question.
Posted by gadgetboytom
no no you dont get what im saying
wont release the handset until all testing is completed by the operators, it hasnt been so the phone hasnt come out
Posted by Super G
@ bingo:
| Quote: |
The communicators have always been plagued with problems (some minor, some major) so I expect people will consider carefully before taking on another one. |
Like what problems? I've got a 9110i (oldy) and I must say I have no problem with it. Or to be more exact it has rebooted itself some 5 times in the few years I've had it. I wouldn't call this a problem really. It's annoying when it happens, but it's been very rare. Maybe I'm just lucky.
Apart of this, 9310 is just a rumor on mobil.se... Let's see. Are you talking about this potential communicator gadgetboytom? I wouldn't be so sure...
Already 9210i is quite nice feature wise, but it suffers from its bulky design and lacks GPRS, a third band, and now MMS. But the UI is excellent and the screen is wonderful with a very high resolution (for handhelds).
As to the 6100 (strange number... I guess this wouldn't be the real number for it) some pictures have been on the web for a while, from FCC website.
Posted by gadgetboytom
super g you know me i dont bullshit
Posted by rdlc
The networks havent even been given the P800 yet. You really know nothing at all. For a start companys like phones 4 u sell the phone without even testing it so why havent they got it then.
Posted by gadgetboytom
ok mate
so your saying that phones dont get tested before they go on sale
sorry you argument is vague and telling me i no nothing is not the way to dissagree (try you dont know anything)
Posted by gadgetboytom
sorry im astounded you dont know this
phones need extensive testing on the networks
Posted by ShibbyLicious
@gadgetboytom
im wiv u man 100%
make the p880 sw n fw all perfecto it then gets delievred to network operators to be tested so its compatible and behaves correctly with their network service provisions and services
hence
have made the phone it works as it should
netowrks make sure it does work wiv their netowrk - in uk the netowrks are v.complicated n do cause many problems wiv handsets, tis one of the main reasons why they have operator specific sw in them (ie orange specific sw and virgin had specific t68i sw which even had diff default pics)
there is no blame on anyone
there is no fault with anyone
its a process of ensuring the networks relase a handset that functions and integrates with their network 100%
nuff sed
shibby
Posted by gadgetboytom
Thank you cheers shibby
you know you try to explain and get insulted its not nice
Posted by orange
Ok, I try to explain it once again...
Vendor has a new terminal they send it to the operator for their testing. Operator sends it back and says, that it doesn't work properly in the network. You have to fix these and these problems. Vendor tries to fix the problems and send a new software for the terminal. Operator run the tests again and it won't work now either. Operator says now there's these and these problems. This loop goes on until vendor has software that works properly.
So, vendor should do testing and deliver terminals that work properly. Operator only test that the terminal works in their network (acceptance testing). They don't care about the software bugs that are not related to network.
So, my point is that it's vendors job to test their terminals, not operators.
Posted by wrecked_porsche
That means its a combination of booth !
Posted by wapchimp
actually P800 has failed network test by VODA UK - I will sit on the fence for this one - the argument is a bit of both - handset doesn't work network - network doesn't work with phone.
Posted by airevolt
oh...p800 why sooooo long???? nokia has already released a dozen of cool colored headsets!!! ....
This was posted from a P800
Posted by Super G
Picture from Nokia 9310 here!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.nokia.se/digitaltv/support/9310s.html
Posted by gadgetboytom
ooh you dont know how right you are
_________________
Proud owner of a lunar grey t68m with a t68i front cover!
We should have our own avatar!!
[ This Message was edited by: gadgetboytom on 2002-11-01 13:30 ]
[ This Message was edited by: gadgetboytom on 2002-11-01 13:31 ]
Posted by gadgetboytom
| Quote: |
|
really? you sure
Posted by dal_l
This testing thingy is something that is very subjective. Vary from operator to operator. Some wouldn't tolerate a single bug while others will just make-do with a few drop calls. I was told that different terminals (made by Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens etc) interpret the signals in so many different ways that it's difficult to test for compatibility. There are cases where a phone is optimised for a particular network but can be erratic under another operator within the same country.
Japan solve this problem by having their very own unique network ... so for the GSM/CDMA clan, it's a problem for the rest of the world to solve ... and hope that the manufacturer debug it sufficiently to satisfy every networks it's suppose to work on.
Posted by gadgetboytom
i agree
we see this sort of thing every year from the big 4
moto nokia
and siemens
so many phones dont make it through because of poor internal design
they need to adopt a unified way of thinking
maybe the utms networks wont have these problems
Posted by wapchimp
@Super G - this is the 9410i 
- slightly lighter & better battery life.
_________________
The T68i does NOT have ANY secret games!
Is there light at the end of the tunnel for the P800???
my T68 is still dead
check out tagtag.com/wapchimp
[ This Message was edited by: orangeman on 2002-11-03 21:38 ]