| Author |
Nokia 3G phone (6650) is... |
mr_miu
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
Posts: 53
PM |
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/
|
|
|
gareb
Joined: Sep 05, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
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 ] |
adamrj
Joined: Jan 15, 2002
Posts: 155
From: NW London
PM |
Err what's that thing sticking out of the top of it? |
faca
Joined: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 192
PM |
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.
|
lmi
Joined: Sep 08, 2002
Posts: 71
From: Portugal
PM |
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... |
pinolo77
Joined: Jan 17, 2002
Posts: 390
From: Lugaggia, Switzerland
PM |
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 |
mr_miu
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
Posts: 53
PM |
@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? |
Thullan
Joined: Jun 14, 2002
Posts: 111
From: Sweden
PM |
Quote:
|
Don't tell me that pretty looks are more important to you than advanced technology.
|
|
For me it is, and size. I am not alone. |
Froddan
Joined: Jan 18, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
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? |
faca
Joined: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 192
PM |
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 ] |
doowap
Joined: Apr 06, 2002
Posts: 82
From: Biel/Bienne - Switzerland
PM |
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... 
D  wap |
Epedemic
Joined: Dec 28, 2001
Posts: > 500
From: Denmark, Copenhagen
PM |
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...
|
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
Quote:
|
I think we have to admit that Nokia playied a very nasty move... But yet a very smart one
|
|
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. |
Thullan
Joined: Jun 14, 2002
Posts: 111
From: Sweden
PM |
Quote:
|
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?
|
|
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. |
jb
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 303
PM |
Quote:
|
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!?!
|
|
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: 2002-09-26 17:13
