| Author |
Nokia 3G phone (6650) is... |
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
@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:
|
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. |
|
That could actually be one of the reasons
[ This Message was edited by: ppcrockar on 2002-09-27 12:09 ] |
|
|
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2002-09-27 13:05, ppcrockar wrote:
My question is just does it anywhere states that the 6650 handles transparent handovers? I have my doubts...
|
|
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. |
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
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.
|
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
128kbps is not much?!?!? What about 64kbps upload???
You must be joking  |
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2002-09-27 15:51, Super G wrote:
Right, nothing about some HTML support. But I hope it does support it.... considering it has only wap 1.2.1
|
|
Nothing about a pIII with overclocking possibilities, but I hope it supports that. Since it has java-support.
|
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2002-09-27 15:53, Super G wrote:
128kbps is not much?!?!? What about 64kbps upload???
You must be joking
|
|
OK guys. What we are talking about here is something that can give 3G a kickstart and 128 kbps is a bit sad when talking about multimedia applications; and considering that the upper limit of 3G is 2000 kbps.
Keep in mind the enormous costs for 3G-licenses and keep in mind the costs of entirely new networks and realise that NOKIA 6650 DOES NOT LIVE UP.
For all the hassle 3G has brought; a doubled transfer rate is not enough.
Please realise these things:
1) Yes, Nokia 6650 uses technology common to 3G
2) Yes, it carries a colorscreen and a camera
3) It completely lacks any sort of innovations
3) That DOES NOT MAKE 6650 a justifiable 3G-device
The future should hold much better surprises. |
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
I'll just remind you that if I put a wlan (802.11b) card in a PDA I should be able to achieve transfer rates of up to 10 000 kbps.
Just to put things in perspective.
| tech | kbps
| | wlan | 10 000
| | 3G | 2 000
| | 6650 | 128
| | gprs | ~57*
|
* - depending on which device.
Personally, I would say 3G starts at 512 kbps, because only then will multimedia-applications start to be meaningfull. Imagine downloading music-files on 128 kbps. And only being able to store two or three songs in your 7 MB memory. Luckily they didn't include a music player (which would otherwise have been a "klockren" 3G-feature.)
[ This Message was edited by: jb on 2002-09-27 18:06 ] |
Arakin
Joined: Sep 27, 2002
Posts: 24
PM |
>* color wap (WAP 2.0)
Registered just because this one misunderstanding of WAP seems to pop up quite often .
The difference between WAP 1.2.1 and WAP 2.0 is not color. WAP 1.2.1 is as much color as WAP2.0. E.g. Go to http://vsky8.vodafone.com/ with your WAP 1.2.1 browser (with mobile that supports color of course or in Finland go to http://wap.sonera.net with 7650 and you'll see nice colorful WAP pages.
There is a screenshot of the Sonera one at http://www.sonera.net/matkaviesti/uutinen50.shtml (the text on the page is in Finnish but the screenshot should prove my point).
The biggest difference between WAP2.0 & WAP1.2.1 (that I'm aware of) is the markup language WML for 1.2.1 and XHTML for 2.0.
So to say WAP 2.0 is better than WAP1.2.1 because of color is totally wrong!
|
john74
Joined: Dec 21, 2001
Posts: > 500
From: GREECE/AUSTRALIA
PM, WWW
|
it has an antenna aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhh
|
peanut
Joined: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: UK: Oxon and Leics
PM |
@arakin so with 1.2.1 these are colour, and with 2.0 they are not? This is not what happens! The only device that will show it in colour is my ipaq!
This post was posted from a WAP device |
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2002-09-27 19:25, Arakin wrote:
The difference between WAP 1.2.1 and WAP 2.0 is not color. WAP 1.2.1 is as much color as WAP2.0.
|
|
OK, I apologize for that misunderstanding. |
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
@jb
Quote:
|
For all the hassle 3G has brought; a doubled transfer rate is not enough.
Please realise these things:
1) Yes, Nokia 6650 uses technology common to 3G
2) Yes, it carries a colorscreen and a camera
3) It completely lacks any sort of innovations
3) That DOES NOT MAKE 6650 a justifiable 3G-device
The future should hold much better surprises.
|
|
I couldn't agree more
|
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
Thanks Araking for this very good clarification!
That makes me smile when thinking about all these pseudo SE defenders on this forum
Anyway all these skepticals around should have a look at this:
http://www.infosync.no/news/2002/n/2377.html
Oliver Thylmann has grown tired of all the negative hype surrounding everything related to mobile telecommunications. That doesn't mean he's prone to positive hype, however.
Nokia recently released the Mediamaster 230 S, a set-top box which among other features offers Bluetooth supports and lets you synchronize images taken with a Nokia 7650 - or any other Bluetooth 1.1 phone that supports the OBEX object push profile. Just minutes after reading the announcement, I spotted the cries of an analyst writing that camera equipped phones will not succeed, mainly since standalone digital cameras will always deliver superior quality.
Allow me to be crystal clear on this one; this is just another example of the herd phenomenon, and I'm getting sick and tired of it. When mobile telecommunications were all the hype, they were ALL the hype. You rarely heard somebody say that things were getting out of hand until 3G licenses suddenly skyrocketed. Nowadays, mobile telecommunication is presumably all down the drain, and it seems that is all there is to say about that. 3G will be a failure. Digital cameras are better than the ones integrated into phones. MMS is too expensive. E-Mails are too hard to type.
Oh, come on! Can we please try to do a bit of independent thinking, and not deem everything mobile telecom-related as a failure before even considering the concept or that particular idea?
Sure, 3G is not going to suddenly have all of us connected at 2 Mbps with a 50 EUR flat-rate. Some people that need Internet on their laptop at all times will be the first to adopt the new service, especially if they are, for example, consultants making 100 EUR an hour and need to be productive at all times as best they can.
Digital cameras will for quite some time ahead offer better resolutions than those integrated mobile phones. A friend of mine just visited Photokina here in Cologne. There are no cameras that go well above a resolution of 10 megapixels, even though, as far as I know, 4 megapixels would be up to par with standard film in terms of grain versus pixels. These are of course professional cameras, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that we'll have a 20 megapixel camera in a phone any time soon. But - (again) come on. Who would need that? The entire point about camera phones is that you always have them with you and can take instant snapshots. My digital camera already changed my life in the sense that I carry it with me a lot and can simply press a button and take a picture without thinking about possible development costs for a ruined shot. The camera phone will be with you virtually all the time, and hence used even more often for quick snapshot of what's happening around you. It was never meant to be the camera you take with you on your trip to the Pyramids in Egypt.
As for MMS, I actually don’t think it is that expensive. They are simply doing what is called price skimming, skimming of the cream of the market. Ever heard of first adopters? Those are the people that just have to have the latest gadget, and will pay almost any price to use it and its features. Well, these people are now sending MMS messages back and forth and are paying a high price. The price will likely stay that high for some time, but given the fact that this is a novely and that you can still send SMS messages in abundant numbers, you'll find that it’s not really that expensive. Whoever is thinking that MMS will just take over from SMS has not understood the idea behind either of the systems. Whenever I can send a message that fits inside 160 characters and only needs text, then there is no reason whatsoever to use MMS.
E-mails are hard to type on a numeric keypad - I couldn't agree more. Isn’t it wonderful to be reachable on your mobile phone though when somebody tries to call you, though? Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to leave from wherever you are for any reason and also know about the important e-mails coming in? Perhaps some of them only require a brief reply, and then you can do that from the convenience of your hand instead of having to seek out the nearest Internet café - or even delay the reply until you're back in the office. Otherwise, just get a PDA with a thumbboard and hook it to the phone via Bluetooth or Infrared. Heck, you could even get a foldable keyboard for the PDA and carry something only slightly inferior to a laptop in terms of communications with you.
Of course, all of the above doesn't make mobile telecommunications sound like the wonderful concept it was hyped to be, but if you stop to consider what you in reality are capable of pulling off, all of the above mentioned features are actually pretty damn cool. Always having a camera with you to grab that lucky snapshot of something happening around you. Being able to send that picture off right away if needed or wanted. Always being able to go out whilst keeping in touch with the rest of the world in a variety of ways, and respond to incoming request if you want to.
There is a Japanese saying that's worth keeping in mind: If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read.
So please. Next time you read that this or that is doomed to fail (even if it's coming from us here at infoSync), think about what the person writing it means with 'failure'. Maybe it’s not failure at all. Maybe the bar was raised too high. Maybe they got the entire thing wrong. And by all means, don’t believe me.
|
Aivar
Joined: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Estonia
PM |
From the past...
has anyone tried this phone (Nokia 6650) at all?
[ This Message was edited by: Aivar on 2005-12-05 14:40 ] |
Dragonfly_TP
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Belgium
PM |
Hey! I have here a few of them (5 or so) we use it for testing the 3G network (signal strength and so) but it is not an attractive phone compaired to all the newer 3G phones. |
|
|
Posted: 2002-09-27 13:05
