| Author |
Nokia 3G phone (6650) is... |
jack078
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Posts: 187
From: toronto
PM, WWW
|
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
| |
|
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
Quote:
|
the SE people I'm not so sure about... And, btw, the 7650 is a much bigger success than you seem to think.
|
|
Well, whoopie.
Quote:
|
@jb: Do you know how complicated WCDMA or GSM chips are? And show me one asian 3G phone the size of T68.
|
|
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:
|
transparent handovers between GSM and WCDMA networks? The impressive thing about this phone is that
|
|
As people already have pointed out, transparent handovers became old news as of a couple of days ago.
Quote:
|
it is a dual-mode GSM/WCDMA phone, but I guess it's hard to explain how impressive this really is to people |
|
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.
|
Raven
Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
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!
carpe noctem |
Supa_Fly
Joined: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Toronto, Ontario
PM, WWW
|
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 |
Raven
Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
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.
This post was posted from a T68i |
gsmwraith
Joined: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 79
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
PM, WWW
|
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? |
mr_miu
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
Posts: 53
PM |
@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...
|
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
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.
|
faca
Joined: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 192
PM |
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...
|
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
Slightly sarcastic. But well deserved  |
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
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.
|
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
@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  |
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
(in reply to Prom1)
Quote:
|
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
|
|
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:
|
allows you to be talking and SEND a SMS/MMS message SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!!!! No phone right now can do that
|
|
Boy, have I missed that feature.
Quote:
|
The antenna, external, is necessary as I'm not aware of ANY W-CDMA or CDMA2000 phone that doesnt have an external antenna.
|
|
Although ugly, you should look into Sony Ericsson T206. |
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
@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.... |
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2002-09-27 10:14, faca wrote:
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,
|
|
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:
|
sometimes wonder what are all those engineers doing in Nokia, Motorola, SE, etc. when it it soooo simple to make 3G networks and phones.
|
|
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:
|
Really? I thought that they just put in Windows Media |
|
You thought wrong, man =)
Quote:
|
milestone'? Why would they call it 'milestone' if GSM/WCDMA handover is so simple and not inovative like
|
|
I believe his point was; once you reach a milestone you can't reach it again.
Quote:
|
you claim it to be? And, where is that mysterios SE 3G
phone? The last 3G 'mobile phone' I saw from Ericsson
|
|
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 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2002-09-27 01:44
