General discussions : Other manufacturers : Nokia 3G phone (6650) is...
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Other manufacturers
> Nokia 3G phone (6650) is...
Bookmark topic
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: 2002-09-26 17:13:00
Edit :
Quote
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: 2002-09-26 17:27:00
Edit :
Quote
Err what's that thing sticking out of the top of it?
--
Posted: 2002-09-26 17:52:00
Edit :
Quote
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: 2002-09-26 18:43:00
Edit :
Quote
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: 2002-09-26 18:56:00
Edit :
Quote
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: 2002-09-26 19:27:00
Edit :
Quote
@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: 2002-09-26 19:28:00
Edit :
Quote
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.
--
Posted: 2002-09-26 19:29:00
Edit :
Quote
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: 2002-09-26 19:41:00
Edit :
Quote
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: 2002-09-26 20:28:00
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
