Talk:Nokia N8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brands  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Form factor[edit]

I think it is a slate form factor. Or not? I cannot find reputable sources for the slate form factor, only for the monoblock which does not sound like a form factor to me, but more a construction method. Andries (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think its a slate - I've held it and used it. --Corporate troll (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Picture should show a screenshot of symbian 3 as well!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.37.249 (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Flash Lite version 4.0[edit]

I cannot find the Flash Lite version 4.0 on adobe website. Highest version there is 3.1 Andries (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.adobe-flashlite.com/?p=1587 http://www.adobe-flashlite.com/?p=1200 http://blog.flavert.com/2009/09/26/flash-lite-4-in-2010/ Drzn (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not the adobe website and more importantly I do not believe that it is a reliable source, so I do not think that it be used for Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why you find it hard to believe that Flash Lite 4 exists. Nokia has mentioned its availability at multiple places. There's also verification by third-parties. Adobe cannot publish something which it did not create. FL 4 was created by CalSoft, not by Adobe, which is why you won't find anything about it on Adobe website.--Sdrazfar (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
All sources except one say that Flash Lite is created and maintained by Adobe. Flash Lite version 4 is not ready according to Adobe website. The statement that Flahs Lite version 4 was created by Calsoft is hence an extraordinary claim and hence requires extraordinary (or corroborating) proof. Andries (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Speculative[edit]

This article is about an unreleased product and should be marked as such --Treekids (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is marked as such. It is not speculative because the hardware is finished and the Operating system (Symbian^3) is functionally complete. Andries (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Webtv/MSNtv?[edit]

Very sorry but I kind of doubt it will have webtv/msntv. Any source? or is it not going to be that webtv and you mean Internet video?70.15.191.119 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean this MSN_TV? You can plug the mobile via HDMI to your TV and then , as I understood, use a bluetooth keyboard as a remote control for the mobile. I guess the source is Nokia product page. Andries (talk)

Will be the first penta-band 3.5G device?[edit]

Isn't this not true anymore? The iPhone 4 is already here, and it features penta-band 3.5G. Furui (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Xenon flash ambiguity[edit]

The introductory paragraph states that the N8 is "the second camera phone equipped with xenon flash since the Nokia N82 smartphone in 2007." What is that supposed to mean, precisely? I find it a bit ambiguous.

Mophoplz (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. What's the ambiguity you're seeing there? --uKER (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, the article has been edited and I just performed a couple of corrections so it's fine now. --uKER (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the late reply. I wasn't sure whether it meant that the N82 was the first phone to feature xenon flash (I owned a Sony K800 camera phone which debuted in 2006 and also had a xenon flash), whether the N82 was the first Nokia phone to feature it, or whether the N8 was simply the next phone after the N82 to feature it. The article reads much better now, though--thanks for your edit. --Mophoplz (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bluetooth version 3.0 - 2.1[edit]

I have just made a protocol analysis and my N8 (N8-00 RM-596) has Bluetooth 2.1+EDR. Should i provide Dump or Screenshot or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.124.203 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Image not Proper[edit]

The image shown is not a proper one as it should show the idle screen of the phone in question eg htc touch wikipidia page or samsung galaxy s wikipidia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.107.164 (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This image is not N8, its a prototype, i think real N8 photo should be uploaded.--122.173.64.55 (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Akku fixed?[edit]

It is not fixed, and can be changed with a simple screwdriver, as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN3Qa1FOjik

Numbers sold?[edit]

It would be useful to have an indication of how many devices have been sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.155.6 (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing contents - The N8 and the demise of Nokia as a smartphone manufacturer[edit]

(((((Full disclosure: I have owned an N8 smartphone (amongst others) for more than 8 months, I was one of those who "pre-ordered" the device.))))) Ok guys, this is NOT fair. Why do some pple keep on saying that my contributions are not-neutral or opinionated?? Don't you think it would be hard to argue that Nokia's stock price is opinionated? Or Nokia's market share in the smartphone segment? Or the market share of Nokia's Symbian operating system? Or Nokia's smartphone sales numbers / inventories / market share, especially in the higher end of the market? Truth is, Nokia bet big on the N8. It was supposed to be Nokia's flagship for 2010, but it arrived late and it arrived riddled with plenty of bugs. It was announced to be "Nokia's I-Phone killer". I'm not making this up!! That's what it was supposed to be... but it didn't turn out that way. Also, the phone (as an integrated device), AND the relaunched appstore (the so-called ecosystem/user OVI platform) AS WELL AS the operating system (Symbian3) were a commercial failure, and had poor technical reviews. The only thing that got rather positive reviews was the hardware. Now, the N8-page on Wikipedia does not need to be a review, I realize that. The single point I am trying to make is that the N8 was (and continues to be) INSTRUMENTAL in Nokia's demise in the smartphone market, especially afaic Nokia's commercial losses in the direct confrontations with similar high-end models of Apple, Google, HTC, Samsung, etc. And when I say instrumental, I mean "instrumental". The problems with the N8 were the immediate reason for Nokia to largely abandon Symbian and Meego, and switch to Microsoft and Microsofts operating system (Windows Phone 7) and Microsoft's mobile ecosystem (still to be developed, including services like live.com, hotmail, skype, bing, etc.). A simple look at the evolution of the stock price, sales numbers, user experience reviews, industrial Symbian3 and Meego acceptance, the sales numbers at the OVI Store, Nokia dropping OVI Music, etc. are a perfect illustration for this... or is it, because they're all moving relatively downwards, that one should conclude they are "not neutral" and "opinionated"??? I would argue for exactly the opposite... The N8 is a milestone in the history of Nokia, a long time market leader and pioneer in the cellphone market. The N8 was/is instrumental in the demise of Nokia as a standalone cellphone market leader.


>>> I suggest that we either create a special segment/section, or a separate page for this relation between the N8 and the demise of Nokia. (even if "demise" means a downward 'negative' trend!!!).

Also, and yes this is a personal opinion, I think it's pretty stupid to censor / delete the contribution of someone who is trying to bring some info to this page, which in it's present state is nothing more than a marketing/advertising plug, containing many "opinionated/commercial" statements that imvho are actually questionable (from my point of view, ie. as a user who has used this device for many months, and who is familiar with some of the many bugs and production issues the N8 initially suffered from). The way I see it (and have experienced it firsthand), it's the current (ad-like) Nokia N8 page that is opinionated!!! Bfaabaa (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC) bfaabaa


This page is found searching Nokia N8 and the name of the page is also N8. You expect of course to read about the Nokia N8 smartphone. Failure. My advice is to take away everything that is NOT about N8 here, it does not belong to this page. It is only both - confusing and annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmopalomaa (talkcontribs) 23:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's actually a lot of background info in the history section. I had earlier tried to rewrite - reprose some of the technical info, but was sanctioned, bcse my entries amounted to "negative criticism". Whatever... If you think there's a need for more technical information, or if you want to rewrite the technical info sections, pls. feel free to do so. IMHO those section very much look like a NOKIA advertising plug, so I would definitely like to see you add a bit more text / info.
AFAIC the history section: in 2010 Nokia was still the world's leading cell phone manufacturer, also in the field of smartphones, though it was clear for all to see that Nokia's product range was sliding and the company was losing market share very rapidly. Therefore Nokia announced it would be introducing a new killer phone (the I-Phone 4 killer), designed and marketed to take back the lead from Apple. Also, OVI suite and Symbian3 were introduced. The N8-00 was Nokia's flagship in the war against Apple. It was supposed to outdo both the I-Phone 4 and the Google HTC, but it has failed miserably in that mission. Not only was the phone not good enough, but there were also a range of issues (software, hardware and production-related). There had also been repeated delays into the shipping/sale of the phone; and consequently it arrived too late in the market for the 2010 Christmas season. The N8 was Nokia's last stand, it was Nokia's last chance to catch up again. The N8 was the flagship that for Nokia not only lost the battle of 2010, it was also the flagship that lost Nokia's war in the high-end smartphone and cellphone operating systems' wars. After the N8 debacle Nokia decided to no longer go out it alone, but to drop its inhouse Symbian operating system in favour of Microsoft's Windows Phone 7. This lead to a lot of criticism, not in the least from the N8/Symbian3 app-developers.
Also, this was my first entry - ever - in Wikipedia. Therefore, feel free to correct some of my technical mistakes or to check the links in the footnotes, and feel free to amend/edit the text I've uploaded to the page. IMHO it's still waayy better than the corporate propaganda that was there, before I edited it!
Rgds, Bfaabaa (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Bfaabaa
A reception section with some criticisms would be fine, but some of your original text went over the top and should be toned down. For example, the statement that the N8 is not a technical breakthrough was over the top, because only very few phones are technical breakthroughs. Not even the iphone was a technical breakthrough, except for multitouch. The iphone was "only" a improvement in user interface. Andries (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Please use reviews of the Nokia N8 as a source. The treatment of the decline of Nokia and Symbian should be at Nokia and Symbian, not here. Andries (talk)

Style?[edit]

'A bit' opinionated article... Especially the top part (synopsis?)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.124.200 (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Nokia N8 Smartphone.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Nokia N8 Smartphone.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nokia N8 Smartphone.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs coverage of critical reviews[edit]

As an example of how badly this faired when reviewed, have a look at this review from the Sydney Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-on-the-go/nokia-n8--lightweight-smartphone-20101019-16sgk.html

Unusually, the review stirred up so much trouble that Adam Turner had to do yet another review:

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-on-the-go/hands-on-nokia-n8-20101022-16wjf.html

For the record, I have one of these devices and I have to say he is spot on the money. - Letsbefiends (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please create a Reception section but mention the software version being reviewed. Andries (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain?[edit]

The line reads as such: The directors of the film Hooman Khalili and Pat Gilles were given help by Bill O’Keefe who funded the film for 500,000 and was premiered at Sundance Film Festival. 500,000 what? Zimbabwean Dollars? Robvanvee (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)