Talk:Nexus One

Just rumor - Delete the article

Until Google has confirmed this (and they haven't) this is just speculation - that should be mentioned in the article. --IceHunter (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Article should be deleted. There will be no Nexus One phone launched. It's just an internal developers' phone. However, it's very similar to the HTC Passion. Seriously, this article must be deleted.--Lester 12:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Google has confirmed that it has handed out *something* to its employees. Whether this will ever hit stores, and how, is still speculation. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is true the media got duped. That alone might be notable, so there is no reason to delete the article. Brandon (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The media didn't get duped. They just got it wrong. Google was happy to let it roll along, and receive all the free publicity that Google is into phones.--Lester 09:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Current rumour is that it'll be made official on the Google event on the 7'th of january 2010. So let's keep the article for just a few more days, just in case. Sammi84 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was wrong about the way the phone would be marketed, and it will go to market with the name Nexus One. However, I still think it will be the same basic phone as the Passion and Bravo, with only minor variations. Same AMOLED screen. Same Snapdragon processor. Same OS. I guess it will become clearer in the next few days.--Lester 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No Blade Runner reference?

The Tyrell Corporation's Nexus series Replicants from Blade Runner are the origin of the unit's name. --68.45.218.70 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Nexus One" is most likely a reference to Blade Runner, but the word "Android" was in the language long before "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was published, and this is the first claim I've heard that it was the origin for the OS name, and the Android OS wiki page doesn't mention any relation. Does anyone have a cite? (Daetrin (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Given that the author's estate was not consulted/compensated for the naming of Nexus, I would guess that you won't find any citation for the name originating there. - Gwopy 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Stupid lawsuit. Not noteworthy. Section should be deleted. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The lawsuit certainly is noteworthy, if it has made it into the Wall Street Journal and The Daily Mail. User:Daniel.Cardenas, your edit [1] with the summary "Deleted name origin speculation as not notable. See discussion page" is not quite clear as you also deleted all reference to the lawsuit. I have re-added a small, referenced section on it to the article. 81.157.194.110 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest: the term 'android' was used long before Dick first used it; Nexus, a Latin word meaning connection or centre, is the name of a 1960 Henry Miller novel, pre-dating Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by eight years. 81.157.194.110 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the Wall Street Journal prints something does that make it notable? There are plenty of examples of them printing crap. If we try to use common sense does anyone think that a word from the dictionary plus a "one" is copyrightable? Don't know about you, but sounds ridiculous to me. Would like to hear other people's thoughts about this. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes, to your first point - we go on what constitutes a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Mail both meet easily this criterion. I agree with you, the lawsuit itself might well be stupid; but the fact that it is happening is notable and ought to be reported here. Leaving it out will leave us liable to accusations of POV in our editing. 81.157.194.110 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This needs a photo

There are lots of photos (and a few videos) of the Nexus One on the Internet and I think someone should put a photo on the Wikipedia article. JoseySmith (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. This phone is brand new. Certainly someone can find a royal-free image of this phone somewhere that we can use. mz (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Input

The infobox is lacking an "input" parameter. Does anyone know if it is QWERTY and touchscreen? Timneu22 (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is screen keyboard only. I'm hoping for good B/T keyboard support. Skrrp (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Screen Resolution

This article at times has reported a screen resolution of either 854x480 or 800x480. Currently the cited source http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_google_nexus_one-3069.php reports a resolution of 800x480. Hgb asicwizard (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference style. Reference after period

I thought wikipedia style guideline was to put references inside the period, but then found out that it is suppose to be after the period unless the article has evolved with a different style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REFPUNCT#Ref_tags_and_punctuation   So I'll be placing them on the outside now. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Price

Where did the information on the $279 and $379 prices come from? It doesn't seem to be in the cited articles and there's other (unofficial so far) information that seems to contradict it. (http://androidandme.com/2010/01/carriers/t-mobile-news/t-mobile-nexus-one-rate-plan-qa/)(Daetrin (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/05/google_nexus_one_announcement/ --86.25.48.130 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

wp:lead

The intro should be a summary of the article and highlight what makes it interesting. One of the things that makes android phones interesting is the open source platform. I think this should be highlighted as such. Just mentioning "open source" is not sufficient. What do you think?   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for participating on the talk page. People who are interested in the operating system are likely to read the Android (operating system) article, and see more open source information over there. I think the simple mention of open source in the introduction is sufficient, the way it is.

As well, following Wikipedia:Lead section, it's good to keep the article introduction as short and clean as possible.

Comment? Other folks have an opinion about the current introduction section? Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the item in this discussion thread, someone has modified the lead of the article while ignoring this discussion. Uncool.

I have removed the unneeded sentence fragment for "open source platform" from the lead. The lead should be as short as possible. Further expansion on all topics can be made in the body of the article, or in linked articles. Please read Wikipedia:Lead section carefully.

Comments from other editors welcome.

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The person who removed the open source from the first sentence probably didn't know there was a discussion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone who gets one of these increase the depth of the tech description please

[Answered my own question about the slot.] I'm specifically interested in whether it can interface easily with standard bluetooth keyboards. From the diagrams on Google it looks like the micro SD slot inside, a confirmation of this and speculation on whether the case looks easily removable and redesigned to take extended range batteries would be amazing.

(Google - 2 micro SD slots in the next one, one of them very high speed please.)

Thanks, Skrrp (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a micro SD slot, it's inside the case, and you can't take it out without removing the battery (at least I can't). I guess it's a part of the move towards regarding SD as "permanently installed memory" rather than "memory that can be removed at any time". No idea about the bluetooth keyboard possibility. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have the UAProfile URL for this device?

I'm looking to see if anyone has the URL for the uaprofile, this is the X_WAP_PROFILE header the device sends when browsing online (not to be confussed with the UAString)

This provides a url to an xml file which has detailed technical information about the device

Code names?

Is this the HTC Dragon?

- it has the model name PB99100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balmark (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nexus One is exactly the Dragon and the Passion. I don't know if there is a Windows Mobile version or cousin. WirelessSleuth (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

TACs ?

Does anyone have any TACS for this device? The first 8 digits of an IMEI is the TAC, it uniquely identifies the device as a HTC Nexus One

The first 8 digits of my Nexus One are 35495703. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wind Mobile , Bell Mobility, Telus

Wind Mobile is the AWS operator in Canada with licenses in all provinces, except Quebec. They operate on AWS band V. Bell Mobility and Telus in Canada operate a new HSPDA network that is not compatible with the current Nexus One. Which sucks. But what happen to Rogers' HTC devices? What do Bell's Palm devices run on? What are their OS and AWS?

Multitouch Patent

There is no evidence that phone lacks multitouch because of an apple patent. In fact Nilay Patel (who has a law degree) of engadget, maintains that it is very unlikely that the nexus one and the milestone lack multitouch because of any apple patent. As such I will delete any mentions of said apple patent. That is all.

Eli H 02:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeekyzebra (talk • contribs)

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/surprise-surprise-htcs-euro-spec-nexus-one-does-multitouch/ The original version of this article mentioned Apple patent, but it seems to have been removed. I've read various other mentions that the issue is related to Apple asserting patent on gestures and no such patent was filed in Europe where software patents are more difficult to assert. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)