Talk:Nexus One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Google (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.
 
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Apple vs. HTC and Nexus One[edit]

Stuff about the patent dispute should not be in this article. It is pure speculation to say that the dispute will have any impact on the Nexus One whatsoever. Please confine dispute-related stuff to the articles for the companies themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Its notable that apple is suing because of patent issues related to the nexus one. There is no speculation about that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The N1 is but one of the named devices. We have no idea what Apple's specific motivations are, and the company appears to be agnostic about which of HTC's devices are infringing. When Robert Kearns sued the Ford Motor Company for patent infringement on his invention of the intermittent windscreen wiper, that action wasn't directed at specific cars using the invention at the time (like the Mustang), but at the company itself. There was no impact on the cars, only the company. The Nexus One will remain unaffected by this issue - it will be HTC itself that may or may not be affected. Adding Apple patent-related crap to this article is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There are many references that state otherwise. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164938/Apple_goes_after_Google_s_Nexus_One_in_patent_actions   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Which are covered under WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
So are you admitting that your statements are incorrect? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is not clear to me what you are talking about. The fact remains that patent filings target HTC, not specific devices. Legal actions are filed against organizations, not devices. This is not a Nexus One problem, but an HTC problem. If, and only if, some changes are made to the software or hardware of the device itself then it will become appropriate to briefly mention why. Until then, coverage of the patent dispute here would be completely inappropriate and disproportionate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
A patent lawsuit is about specific devices, with the nexus one being the one most called out. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
But the target of the action is HTC, not the devices. That's a matter for the article on HTC. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by target. The target is also the nexus one as shown by numerous references. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, no. The Nexus One isn't being sued. It can't put up a fight on its own. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying the references don't say the Nexus one is a target? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course not. But that is not the issue here. The overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources refer to this as an Apple vs. HTC event, with the Nexus One only being mentioned in passing (along with many other phones). Therefore, the HTC article is the appropriate place to document this matter (since it is a corporate matter, not a device matter) and continuously arguing for its inclusion in this tangentially-related article is rather tendentious, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Which references are you referring to? The ones I see mention it in the title and not in passing. Continuously arguing for its exclusion in this directly-related article is rather tendentious, quite frankly. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't behave like a dick about this. A 5-second Google News search reveals the following top results:
This is just a smattering of the top results, but I think my point is well proven. HTC will be greatly impacted by these Apple filings, but it remains to be seen whether or not the Nexus One itself will be. Without gazing into the crystal ball it is impossible to speculate. This is very much a corporate matter. If you think I'm wrong about this, I recommend you seek a third opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should take a step back and think about this, you guys seem to be getting a little worked up over what's really not that big a deal. This article claims that Apple said 10 of the 20 patent infringement claims have to do with the Nexus One. If that is the case, I think it probably bears mentioning in the article (but I would argue not in the intro). However, I'm not sure if that is the case: I haven't seen any other stories that have Apple specifically identifying the Nexus One as the target of the claims, and have a feeling it might just be a mistake or misleading choice of words on the part of the ComputerWorld author. There has been a lot of conjecture in the press about this lawsuit being aimed primarily at the Nexus One and Android indirectly. That being the case, it could comply with wp:crystal according to this line from the guide: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ie, saying something along the lines of "pundits believe Apple's recent lawsuits are aimed at stifling the Nexus One" is acceptable, saying "Apple's recent lawsuits are aimed at stifling the Nexus One" is not. At least that is my understanding of wp:crystal. TastyCakes (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I would say, however, that a preponderance of high-quality sources focus on the corporate aspect; that Apple is seeking injunction and damages against HTC for software-related details that are not specific to the Nexus One. In addition, speculation is all over the place that this is an attempt by Apple to attack Google by proxy for their development of Android - again, not specific to the Nexus One. There's no suggestion that any of this will have any impact on the Nexus One at all. Giving coverage to Apple's action here would surely be giving it disproportionate weight. The matter is already properly covered in the HTC article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree, if Apple hasn't identified the Nexus One specifically in the suit. If it has, I kind of think at least a mention should be made somewhere in this article. TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
All Android phones manufactured by HTC (expect their most recent) and a couple of Windows Mobile phones are mentioned. The Nexus One has received no special attention in this regard. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't behave like a dick about this. A 5-second Google search about Nexus One and lawsuit reveals the following results:
  1. Has the image caption:The Nexus One is at the center of Apple's ongoing suit against HTC for patent infringement.
  2. Apple Targets Nexus One, Maybe Google in Lawsuit
  3. Nexus One to Blame for Apple, HTC Lawsuit
  4. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164938/Apple_goes_after_Google_s_Nexus_One_in_patent_actions
  5. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703807904575097392317555912.html?mod=WSJ-Tech-LEFTTopNews
  6. http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/03/03/apple-iphone-vs-google-iphone-the-proxy-war-begins/
  7. http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/02/25181.htm
I am making a claim that the Nexus one is a target of the lawsuit with refernces. None of the references you provided counter that claim. In other words your references are worthless as are your arguments as are your personal attack.
Agree with TastyCakes that this should be mentioned in the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a neutral party. The lawsuit should be mentioned in this article, and I believe it is significant enough to make the header. I actually came here from the lawsuit page to compare pictures. Mention it, relax, and move on. Nobody is saying the whole article has to be about the lawsuit. Billyshiverstick (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Done in the US[edit]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/21/nexus-one-is-sold-out-in-googles-store-forever/ -- so it looks like the Nexus One is done for but I have no desire to update the article to reflect that 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)68.102.171.147 (talk)

This is not the only method of obtaining the device. It purely means you cannot order directly from Google any longer and have to go through one of their Retail / Channel partners to obtain it, usually from a physical store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.32.95 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The parent comment makes a good point. In several ways, the article says "NO MORE NEXUS ONES WILL BE SOLD <tiny>by Google</tiny>". Not to minimize the significance of Google's distribution channel, and of this news, but this article is about the Nexus One, not the Google phone store. For instance, there's a section called "Discontinuance". Shouldn't that be more like "Discontinuance of Google online sales"? TypoBoy (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Samsung speculation[edit]

Should the speculation about a Samsung Nexus Two be added to the future section? I can cite many reports on many different news sites and reputable gadget blogs. NexusBoy (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Plan info unnecessary/dated[edit]

I think that listing all the plans & pricing info for the various providers dilutes the main focus of the article (the phone itself) and starts to read like a dated sales pitch. Besides, pricing info has no meaning for the international audience. It would be better to just name the known providers and provide access to their current offerings in the external links section.--Hooperbloob (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

New article structure[edit]

I think that the article should be restructured, as it's not doing so well in its current state. Using a formula that has worked to promote several phones and tablets to GA status (see 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5):

1. History – Tell how the phone was developed, the announcement, and production
2. Features
2.1 Software – Tell how the phone's operating system functions
2.2 Design – Tell the phone's outer design (sometimes included with hardware if not that notable)
2.3 Hardware – Describe the phone's inner hardware and how it functions
2.4 Accessories – The accessories that came with the phone and those officially made by said company
3. Reception
3.1 Critical reception – Reviews of the phone
3.2 Commercial reception – How well the phone performs in the market, usually with sales numbers
3.3 Other reception – Reception towards anything else that is notable (usually not needed)

I also think that something along these lines would work well across all articles on phones and tablets – y'know, a consistent standard. Zach Vega (talk to me) 12:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather go with a structure like Nexus 7 (2012 version) or HTC One. You're just trying to force the exact same format that the iPhone articles use. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The Nexus 7 or HTC One follow the exact structure I just named. Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. Please be a bit clearer about how those articles are better than the proposed structure above. HTC One for example is structured almost identically to the above structure except for a model variants section which the Nexus One page obviously won't have. Are we really quibbling over the ordering of features? – Steel 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting this article from scratch has been on my to-do list for a while but I don't really have the time right now. I'll help where I can. – Steel 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to restructure the article, however I just wanted to get some input from other editors before attempting. Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yea this structure works although the hardware sections are generally placed before software, but it can transition to accessories more easily if hardware comes after software. The History section can be divided into Development, Announcement, and Production subsections if necessary. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)