Talk:Nokia N900

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Operating Times[edit]

Additional usage scenarios are given by this press release: [1]
"Always online: Up to 2-4 days (TCP/IP connected)"
"Active online usage: Up to 1+ day"
These may be worth including in the battery section. The active online usage stat seems to parallel the "full day of work" uncited quote.
Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"full day of work" may be a misquote of konttori here[2]
Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that earlier (2-4 days, 1+ day, etc ..), but then I found out that the device is still undergoing major software improvements and those figures (~1 day of online usage) is more likely to be what Nokia is aiming for. I have unfortunately no link to provide (it was in a video on youtube if memory serves well). Let's stick to what Nokia said in the press release. --Mandor (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
a relevant video from Nokia World 2009, Video Interview With Dr. Ari Jaaksi @23:35 [3]. "you can run it the whole day" Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I still haven't been able to find the exact phrase "full day of work" said by anybody from Nokia. It should either be unquoted as prose or replaced with a quote that can be absolutely verified. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I found that in a YouTube video [4] @ 3:20. It is from Nokia World 2009 in Germany. --Mandor (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We are missing an important information, talk time on GSM and 3G. If I remember correctly it was 9/5 hours. It is somewhere in the press release ? --Mandor (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk time : Up to 9 hours (must be GSM) [5]. There is something more precise somewhere else. --Mandor (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
5 hours talk (3G), 9 hours talk (GSM). Source : [6] --Mandor (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Mandor (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

International Keyboards[edit]

Russian, image is copyrighted [7] Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

French, image is copyrighted [8] Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

still unconfirmed: Scandinavian, German, South European, Italian Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the external links you found to the article. --Mandor (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Nokia Shop Germany is selling the device with a QWERTZ keyboard.[9] Nokia Shop Italy is selling the device with what seems to me a normal QWERTY keyboard.[10] Nokia Shop Finland = QWERTY.[11] Nokia Shop Sweden = QWERTY.[12] --Mandor (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I got nothing from the Nokia Shop Greece.[13] Nokia Spain = QWERTY.[14] Nothing from Nokia Netherland.[15] --Mandor (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Of the remaining launch countries, I expect Sweden and Finland to share the same modified QWERTY keyboard layout with ä, ö, and å (possibly also æ and ø) added somewhere. Spain may have a QWERTY with keys for Ç, `, and ·. Netherlands, Poland, and Italy will probably get the same QWERTY as US/UK. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well the swedish keyboard is clearly visible in this [16] video and it has ä, ö, and å as primary keys with ø and æ as modified keys. This keyboard will probably be used for Norwegian and Danish also.[17] Having these as real keys is a big deal apparently and their presence on other phones (like the N97) is limited.[18] It is also suggested that this keyboard may be made available for Canada as well. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Polish keyboard is the same as QWERTY USA[19]. I am surprise with the Italian one. They need special characters. The dutch one is not widely used.[20]. From what I have seen, when they need additional keys they merge the arrows keys. Was there not a YouTube video in italian ?--Mandor (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Italian keyboard[21].--Mandor (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Display Colors[edit]

Not to be archived--Mandor (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I remain skeptical of the 16 million colors spec since the only source available lists it differently from some of the other 16 million color phones ("up to 16 million colours" vs "up to 16.7 million colors"). A possible explanation quoted from [22]:

from my desktop computer knowledge, if they say; "up to 16M colours" then the screen is 6bit with dithering, whereas the statement; "provides 16.7M colours" indicates a true 8bit per colour channel screen.

The true spec could be 18-bit color depth. [23] has an uncited statement that would otherwise support this reasoning. A source that ran color depth tests [24][25] on the N900 display would be really helpful.

Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for us the device has yet to be released, but from what I read[26] you might be right. Let's stick to Nokia "official numbers" for the time being and keep that mind for when we receive our new toys.--Mandor (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
OMAP3430 supports : XGA (1024x768 pixels), 16M-color (24-bit definition) display support [27]. I guess it depends on the screen of the N900 then. --Mandor (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing Digital Compass[edit]

Perhaps the article should contain a note, that the N900 does not have a digital compass, my english ist to bad for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.42.100 (talkcontribs) 18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should make a list of everything that is missing. Unless magnetometer have become a "must have" feature in mobile devices ? --Mandor (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So far I think they're a novelty feature in the few devices that have them. Agree that we shouldn't include it. Haakon (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Although in the general case, if that missing something was included in previous models (or if the omission is especially unusual) it should be mentioned. In this case, previous models did not include the feature and it is not especially ubiquitous in either mobile phones or tablets so mention is unnecessary. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The N97 has a magnetometer, and some (most) of the upcoming augmented realtiy applications require a digital compass. I think for future mobiles a digital compass is a 'must have'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.47.147 (talkcontribs) 13:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ignoratio elenchi. If the article was comparing the N900 to the N97 then that argument would be more relevant. For future augmented reality applications it will be a 'must have' simply because it is technically required. You make an additional unsupported assumption that augmented reality applications are also 'must have' for mobile devices. This assertion definitely requires citation since the augmented reality applications I have seen are trivial and many people are not aware of augmented reality. If, in the future, the typical person expects augmented reality on their mobile device, that assumption would become valid intrinsically.
Ignoring the irrelevant comparisons/applications/novelty of the module in question, digital compasses are not ubiquitous enough on mobile devices in general right now to make a negative assertion (even if you limit the scope to high-end mobile devices). Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it should be mentioned the N900 doesn't have a magnetometer, although it is the successor of an Internet tablet, it is now merging in to the internet/mobile phone area, where digital compasses are becoming the norm for phones released at the same time, therefore the comparison should be made against what will be on the market alongside N900, rather than to just the N810. The article has already made comparisons with other phones regarding features that were not relevant to the N810, the missing magnetometer falls in the same category. No double standards. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't have a magnetometer. though it can have some applications to make it work as a digital compass by using the gps signal and the 3D accelerometer. just like other nokia symbian os phones with gps and some with an accelarometer 2D/3D.

What is missing in the article ?[edit]

There is more for sure --Mandor (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

1) A photo of the inside (SIM + battery)

2) A photo of the 5MP camera

3) A close-up of the light/proximity sensor

4) A close-up of the front camera

Information[edit]

1) Wi-Fi is b and g

2) The N900 can be used as a modem (USB and BT ?)

USB yes, BT no [28] --Mandor (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
BT PAN may not be out of the box [29] --Mandor (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Moved to 19)
Apparently tethering through BT is possible with a hack [30] --Mandor (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Moved to 19)

ALL nokia phones with bluetooth have the hability to work as a modem using bluetooth very easily by using the nokia pc suite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.76.64 (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

3) Multitasking (relevant ?)

4) Read/write speed of the 32GB Flash ?

5) Geo-tagging (+purpose)

6) Easy to send pictures to flickr/facebook/etc...

7) Cold boot time[31] / Shut off time / from sleep / etc ..

One of the primary advantages of Upstart is that it is highly conducive to parallelizing the boot process. On an interesting side note, Upstart has been gaining a whole lot of traction in the mobile space and is used in both the Palm Pre and Nokia's upcoming N900.[32] --Mandor (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

8) Swipe to unlock, see : [33]

9) Location of each buttons (Power on/off, camera, LED status light, etc...) see : [34]

10) Infrared yes or no ?

Yes: [35] (also list magnetometer as a feature), With remote controller application.[36] (Specifically says that he does not know about the final product) --Mandor (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
No : [37] (list N-Gage games as available)
I will go ahead and add the IR port. --Mandor (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

11) Screen is transreflective (sun light readable)

12) Word prediction software

13) Back cover removal (no srew)

14) The memory card has to be accessed via the back

15) Free RAM, I have seen complain. (Relevant ?)

~50 to 60 MB on a prototype according to [38] --Mandor (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

16) No USB On-The-Go, unlike the Nokia N900 N810/800 and 770. See : [39]

Mandor , — (continues after insertion below.)

I think you meant unlike the N810 which has a Micro-AB receptacle and accepts both Micro-B connections to a host and Micro-A connections to a USB OTG device. The N800 had a Mini-B receptacle and was therefore in the same situation as the N900. The OMAP3430 of the N900 supports USB OTG but the N900 will ship with a USB Micro-B receptacle rather than the more desireable Micro-AB. Presumably, USB certification for full USB OTG functionality with the micro-AB receptacle was not possible due to hardware issues and time constraints. [40] Also, "OTG adds a fifth pin to the standard USB connector, called the ID-pin; the Micro-A plug has the ID pin grounded, while the ID in the Micro-B plug is floating." USB_On-The-Go Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Like the N800, the 770 could be used in USB OTG host mode through a non-standard ID-pin grounded Mini-B Male to A Female adapter such as: [41]. If the N900 does not allow USB OTG through the use of such an adapter this will be a significant disadvantage compared to previous versions. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Corrected --Mandor (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep an eye out for sources detailing how USB is implemented as this is important information. To counter one possible misleading reason about why this was not possible: the Pandora implements 500mA USB charging and USB OTG on the same Mini-AB receptacle so USB charging in general is definitely not a reason: [42].

This section is speculation/original research do not include in article!

Consider that the N900, when connected to a USB host, the ID-pin is left floating to indicate that the device should make a client connection and accept power at the rate of 500mA. To allow faster charging, the N900 charger could ground the ID-pin to indicate that it is not providing a data connection (or any kind of USB connection) and can supply more than 500mA of power. This is not unprecedented: [43]. Rather than being connected to the OMAP3430 chip, the N900 Micro-B receptacle ID-pin could be connected to a charging circuit that performs this negotiation between charging rates.

Therefore a logical hardware based reason for this limitation would be high current charging through the USB connector rather than simply USB charging. Since there is only one extra pin in the usb connector and high-current charger detection requires the use of it. Without detecting a high-current charger, the device would always draw the same amount; it would attempt to overdraw when connected as a client and break the USB spec. Since there is only one extra pin in the usb connector, it must be used for this detection and nothing else.

In this case, the ID-pin from the OMAP3430 chip would not reach the socket and would be permanently floating (if it were grounded it would prevent the N900 from acting as a USB client). In previous devices, it was possible to use an adapter cable that left the ID-pin floating and change the USB mode through software. If this scenario is accurate, then this workaround should remain possible. Obviously the power pins would never supply power in this scenario so even if this is accurate a USB OTG powered hub would remain necessary just like it was for the 770.

Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
After reading the USB Battery Charging v1.1 Spec [44] it is clear that this speculation is incorrect since one of the assumptions was wrong. Charging ports are detected by shorting D+ and D- with a resistance of "Rdchg dat" and the ID pin is left floating. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the TI data sheets [45] mentions pairing the second-generation USB transceiver chip ISP1702AET [46] with the OMAP3430. This chip has a pending USB Certification according to the data sheet so it's probably not the one used in the N900 but it would be helpful to know exactly which USB transceiver is used. I am going to look through the kernel source and try to find the info. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have found an interesting application (seems to be working for Maemo 5 too) which provide "communication between maemo device and host PC. For this, it provides tools to simplify tasks like connection establishment, Internet sharing, remote shell, file sharing, remote desktop and file transfer".[47] It might be a solution to this issue. --Mandor (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope my bad. You won't be able to, say, connect a USB drive to the N900. "Host - allows you to connect USB devices (external hard drives, digital cameras, card readers, input devices, etc.) to your maemo device just like a regular PC. Due to a hardware limitation, Fremantle does not support Host mode." --Mandor (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Is that what you were looking for in the kernel : [48] "From what I've read, the OMAP 3430 (often) comes with the TWL4030 chip, which serves power management (among other purposes), and allows usb-otg. There is a kernel module for wtl4030, so they probably really use the chip. The only question left is only, whether the omap3430 is implemented in a standard way." --Mandor (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
OMAP3 specific HW drivers, Responsibilities - Drivers for following HW components : HS USB Host & HS USB OTG [49]. Nokia did something "funny" with the hardware, that is the only logical explanation. --Mandor (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah that's pretty much the situation. We will have to see if someone is able to confirm that Nokia did something very non-standard to the WTL4030 chip because according to the reference manual for TPS65950 TRM [50], which is supposed to be equivalent to the TWL4030 [51], USB OTG pins interface directly with the USB connector with the exception of optional IEC ESD protection. I would have looked at the TWL4030 reference manual but it is not available. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

17) Firmware upgrade over the air

18) WEP, WAP and WAP 2

19) BT protocols (Headset (HSP)/Handsfree (HFP)/File Transfer (FTP)/Object Push (OPP)/Advanced Audio Distribution (A2DP)/Audio/Visual Remote Control Profile (AVRCP)) See : [52]

Preferred name is Bluetooth profile.
a)HSP : Support for Bluetooth Headsets.
b)HFP : Used to allow car hands-free kits to communicate with mobile phones in the car.
c)FTP : Provides the capability to browse, manipulate and transfer objects (files and folders) in an object store (file system) of another system.
d)OPP : Data synchronization ?
e)A2DP : Music streaming.
f)AVRCP : provide a standard interface to control TVs, Hi-fi equipment, etc. to allow a single remote control.
Unsupported (by Nokia) but can be easily enable.[53]
g)DUN : Accessing the Internet from a laptop by dialing up on a mobile phone, wirelessly.
h)HID : Provides support for devices such as mice and keyboards.
i)PAN : Networking using BT. --Mandor (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

20) Stand alone device or does it need to be activated from a carrier to take full advantage of the software/hardware. (Relevant ?)

Stand alone [54] --Mandor (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

microSD/SDHC[edit]

Don't all microSDHC devices support standard microSD? If so, the microSD mention would be unnecessary. --uKER (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah they do, I just added it because I saw the same in the infoboxes of some other articles Motorola_RIZR_Z8 HTC_TyTN HTC_S730 Samsung_GT-i8510. Feel free to change all of them if it's too redundant. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice updates lately.[edit]

Just saying thank you to Mandor, Bgkwtnyqhzor and others: this page is awesome, and the work you are doing on it in the last few days has been really helpful to me today. My Nokia 9500 was stolen today, and I'm looking for a replacement: this page has been really helpful. I've long had a yen for a nice linux phone, and this definitely looks like it might be it, if I can afford it when it comes out (I wonder how hard it'd be to run tcp/ip services on such a phone, like sshd, httpd and such. Would be kinda awesome and wearable-computingy to have a webserver in a phone, serving pages about where I am, what I'm doing, what I can see from the camera, etc.) I'm still evaluating Android, and although I hate the idea of it, also the reprehensible iPhone. But, linux onna phone. Mmm, tasty. DewiMorgan (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We have been waiting for reassessment since 16 September but I am optimistic that the article can achieve C class status and is well on its way to B class. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Prices[edit]

The prices are confusing since the press release says "estimated retail price of EUR 500 excluding sales taxes and subsidies" but the preorder prices are varying a lot presumably becase they mostly include taxes. EUR 599 including VAT in Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain; EUR 649 including VAT in France; 2499 PLN (about 597 EUR) including VAT in Poland; 5995 kr including VAT in Sweden; 499 GBP (about 547 EUR) including vat in UK; 649 USD (about 443 EUR) excluding sales/use tax in USA.

Just fyi, the mean sales/use tax in the USA is about 5.1% (source: [55]); and even though many people fail to comply with use tax [56], this technically raises the effective cost in the USA in general to approximately 682 USD (about 465 EUR).
We can always write the prices including the GST/VAT sale price. My argument for not including the sale taxes is there are just too many different % in each stats/provinces in North America. For the moment I will include the VAT in Europe. --Mandor (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we were editing at the same time. I included you suggestion for Canadian dollar and included the specification for the US dollar. --Mandor (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Right now the only place to "buy" (and it is a preorder) the N900 in France is the Nokia France website which clearly states it at 649. The article is wrong. - riahc3
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.167.190 (talkcontribs) 03:50, 26 September 2009
The article has been changed to the prices which include VAT so the issue is basically resolved unless you have a problem with the specific text or structure used. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The article has been edited a whole day before you made that comment (see:[57] and [58]). Is Wikipedia updated later in some part of the world or is it in real time everywhere ? --Mandor (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I went to nokia in Portugal and ask them directly and they said 699€ VAT included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.76.64 (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Carriers - United States[edit]

I am in the process of expanding the technical detail and what it means to the user. I think explaining what typical throughputs can be expected in the real world is helpful in contrast to the oft-touted network maximums. I realize that much of the information is weakly cited/uncited/unclear/not technically accessible at the moment but please don't delete any information from this section without discussing it here unless you are able to provide the correct information instead and ideally a citation. I predict to be working on this section and possibly the parent/sibling sections for some time to come. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok I won't edit that section. --Mandor (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I reorganized the Carriers section into a child of a new Networks section. The support of so many frequencies and locations makes this topic complex and IMO worth the additional article space (I wish more product articles expanded the information in this area actually, especially products aimed at the technical crowd like this one). Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That is a very nice addition to the article. I have been thinking about my impression that this whole article reads like a very detailed technical manual, or if you prefer, it state facts that most people don't care about. On the other hand, we have to recognize the targeted audiences for this kind of device (as you outlined). --Mandor (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of this stuff can be moved into the branch articles if it ends up being too technical when I'm through with it. Part of the problem is that most of the sub-topical wireless articles are really crappy. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reorganized the Carriers section out of the networks section and moved it back to where it was, both sections are becoming quite large and it is obviously going to be more relevant to most readers. It works better with the limited TOC this way as well. The only potential problem is the introduction to some of the terms in the carriers section now occurs in the mobile phone network support section after it. The point of organizing it this way is supposed to be technical accessibility, but I don't think it would be appropriate to move any of the technical details into or before the carriers section. Wikilinking terms at (at least) their first appearance in the article (and maybe even topmost section) is probably the best course of action here. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have included a few Wiki links. Just a quick question, what do you exactly mean by "data bearer" ? Do you mean the network provider (AT&T, Vodafone, ...) or do you mean the infrastructure (cell towers) ? Or is it, at some point, the same ? --Mandor (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
They was a major cut to this section and I have reverted it. Do I believe this section can be shortened, of course. I think it should at least mention the throughput of each network. Perhaps we can list the "average" upload/download data rate for the major carriers ? The VoIP section has to remain and should not be deleted. Your opinions are of course welcome. --Mandor (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that in some countries it's difficult to find a fitting carrier for the N900. But do details about which carrier supports which frequency really belong on a page that should focus on a device? That's like an article on external harddrives containing a list of companies which put USB ports into their computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennier1 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: carrier deletion -- That's a very imprecise analogy. The carrier information is a factor in a consumer's purchase decision. I just came back to the page to refer to the international info in preparation for a trip and was surprised to see it had disappeared. It's useful, pertinent object information. It's value-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.68.136 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

GPS chip[edit]

Somebody (lanbrown @ [59]) has deduced that the GPS chip in the N900 is the new Navilink 6.0 [60]. Is there a way for us to confirm/deny this ? This chip provide many features (BT/FM/GPS). --Mandor (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparing built-in GPS chip (Nokia N95 8GB --> NaviLink 5.0 single-chip GPS solution: NL5350) and external GPS (Nokia Bluetooth GPS Module LD-4W --> SiRF Star III LT GPS chip) [61]. From what I read most Nokia phones comes with the NaviLink GPS chip, so it might be safe to say the N900 will also come with a NaviLink (most probably the 6th generation) --Mandor (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
http://my-symbian.com/other/preview_n900.php
Confirmed, Navilink 6.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisama (talkcontribs) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the Nokia N900[edit]

I see somebody changed the name of the N900 from "maemo device" to "MID". I won't argue against this edit but I would like to know the differences between a smartphone and a MID ? Intel already explained the differences between a MID and a UMPC [62]. What they describe as a MID could probably be a HTC Touch Pro2 or Sony Ericsson XPERIA X2. --Mandor (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's technically accurate, wasn't Mobile Internet device trademarked or something by Intel? Even if it wasn't I thought it only referred to a very specific set of products based on Intel hardware, Moblin, etc. Maybe it is positioning (through Intel marketing) to become a generic device class but I don't think it is currently. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay it turns out it's not trademarked but my point about being heavily marketed for Intel still stands I think. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Data Network Throughput[edit]

Why is it here? None of it are exclusive to the N900, the technology behind it are already well-linked (GSM, GPRS, EDGE. HSDPA, HSUPA etc.), why be redundant and have it here (especially considering its tone and overall quality)? --antilivedT | C | G 06:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well as I said above : I do believe this section can be shortened. I think it should at least mention the throughput of each network. Perhaps we can list the "average" upload/download data rate for the major carriers ? The VoIP section has to remain and should not be deleted. As for the quality your are most welcome to help to improve it. What would you like to keep and what would you like to remove ? --Mandor (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Why? As I've said none of them are exclusive to N900, none of the sources have anything to do with the N900. An article should include content that's most relevant to the subject; why would a reader need the actual throughput over each of those tech when they're already well-linked? Look at HTC Dream and iPhone if you want an exemplar on what to include and what not to include. --antilivedT | C | G 18:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
We had a discussion last time about what to include and what not to include in the article. Since I believe the N900 target a different audience than the iPhone or HTC Dream we concluded that it might be a good idea to include those informations. You seem to disagree with that (?). I know it is not specific to the N900 but it is was you will get with the N900 anyhow. The VoIP should remain as it is specific to the N900. Same thing for HSPA+. Well I am going away for a while so what I propose is edit the article as you see fit and let see what other people have to say. Deal ? --Mandor (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Please read my entire comment since I have taken some time to thoroughly explain my position. It got long and I ran out of time so forgive it's roughness. I have separated these into numbered points so you are welcome to interrupt each one to address separately. Let me start by seeing if I understand your position clearly, feel free to correct me. Judging by your posts here and the section blank you made, you believe that this article should not include any throughput or latency figures or real-world use cases dependant on them at all regardless of justification.
1) Blanking sections of the article is not really constructive if the information is accurate and not present in the articles it should be in.
2) The fact that the techs are well linked is sadly irrelevant. Unfortunately, right now only the GPRS article has even an attempt to explain what these networks act like in the general case in the real world; that article is also completely unsourced and in some ways confusing because it leaves out a lot of important details (what is extended UL TBF mode and how does it help for example).
3) I concede: adressing the real world performance in the respective articles and linking them here would be better, since these are general topics. However, as the device is released, references with information on N900 performance in specific use cases can be used.
4) The specs of the device 107/64 GPRS, 296/178 EDGE, 384/384 WCDMA, 10100/2000 HSPA are extremely misleading so at least some sort of article space is appropriate to explain that (granted less than there is currently). Other articles have apparently ignored this issue completely, is it the general position of wikipedia to be more of a marketing tool than a resource for finding out why something does not match what the marketing says? From what I see in many similar articles, they are basically spec sheets and press releases converted into encyclopedic prose.
5) The HTC Dream and iPhone articles could use some article space to address network performance issues; for example: the iPhone global throughput averages [63] 812 kbit/s on HSPA and 162 kbit/s on EDGE, a far cry from the misleading 7.2Mbps figure touted in the iPhone article and the maximum 1000 kbit/s peak bit rate or 400 kbit/s typical bit rate mentioned in the first paragraph of the EDGE article. Also note that the nature of the 7.2Mbps figure is not specifically mentioned; I assume it is a maximum theoretical throughput but that is not specified in the article so it may even be reasonably interpreted as a claim of typical bit rate. In fact, I could probably find examples of users expecting this and being disappointed by the real world performance.
6) There are additional use cases relating to the difference between the marketing and expectable throughputs that I plan to address in the future; the information about VoIP was an attempt at that.
7) Please don't start an edit war or anything over an ideal or some strict interpretation of a wikipedia rule, I am really trying in good faith to address some valid concerns with this section.
8) The device is still pre-release and the article is low-importance and stub-class, I propose that the ideals can wait at least until these two conditions change. On this topic, the iPhone article is unfair as a direct comparison to how this article should be right now. It is a b-class top-imporance article with a lot of contributors and (although you may argue this) political concerns with regards to added/removed material. It also contains some technical inaccuracies in the exact area of our discussion here that weaken it's use as a counter-example of a good article.
a) It makes a claim that "The iPhone 3G has a maximum download rate of 1.4 mbit/s in the United States" supported by a link to a marketing statement on the AT&T website. This is horribly insufficient and misleading. The typical throughput for the iPhone in the United States given by independant measure is 797.87 kbit/s (slightly lower than the global average).
b) The limit is on the HSDPA class of AT&T cell sites not United States iPhone devices; this distinction is not made clear in the article. iPhones in all countries are basically the same and can benefit from future HSDPA upgrades to any compatible networks anywhere in the world including the USA up to their device maximums of 3.6 kbit/s and 7.2 kbit/s HSDPA for the two 3G versions. Stating it is a maximum download rate (and an unrealistic one at that) is unfair.
c) The United States throughput is not that different from countries that actually claim 7.2 mbit/s HSDPA.
c) It does briefly address uploading rate limits at 384 kbit/s although these are misleading as the real typical upload rates on iPhones is 157 kbit/s globally.
d) The reason given for uploading rate limits is that the HSPA protocol was not implemented. HSPA is not a protocol but rather a collection; "the HSUPA protocol" or alternately "the entire collection of HSPA protocols" would be more technically accurate statements. HSDPA is part of the HSPA collection and is indeed implemented on the iPhone. It would also be relevant to say that the limit is 384 kbit/s because the phone uses WCDMA rather than HSPA for uploading. Perhaps that would direct readers to more relevant pages where they could get the relevant information they need.
I have never owned a GSM device so even if the section ends up being blanked, at least the research I performed finding what I can really expect was useful to me (to compare with my current 2817/42 kbit/s evdo phone, another case of horribly unmet expectations). Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
..."edit war"? I saw something wrong and I boldy removed it, got reverted Mandor, so I took it here. How is that an edit war? (or maybe something else?) If you think the respective articles do not cover it, go improve that! What good is all this info on a phone's page instead of on say HSDPA page? We don't even need to list the maximum bitrates - just saying that it supports eg. GPRS, EDGE, 1800/2100 HSDPA etc. will do, with links to those pages, and let the reader decide whether they want that information or not. The page of the Nokia N900 is NOT the place to place your rants about mobile network technologies - they have nothing to do with N900 (it hasn't even been released for goodness sake). Unless this one performs any different to other similar phones (it'd be notable if it can do the full 7.2Mbit/s anywhere, for example), none of this should be here, they belong to the tech page.
PS: You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between wikt:maximum and wikt:typical, perhaps those links will help you.--antilivedT | C | G 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine. Calm down, the information will be removed if it's such a big deal; I'm not trying to run a crusade or anything. You are being really agressive and it's off-putting is all I meant. There are many levels of support for each of these technologies, I don't think it's as useful to simply state that it supports a certain protocol without qualifying it. I thought I was careful with the semantic details but apparently you take issue with something in that regard as well. Are you referring to a typical "maximum sustained throughput"? As far as I understand it, "maximum sustained throughput" is a discrete concept of a measured data rate and can have many variations including a maximum (ex: maximum maximum sustained throughput). Semantic details in this area are vague and being as specific as possible would be helpful. Please correct the information since you apparently know more about the semantics involved and I will move it to the relevant pages. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
OK then, say it supports 7.2Mbit HSDPA and leave it at that. There is no reason why this article should explain why the reader will never see that speed, or what internet radio service work over GPRS. As I've said, if you want those information to be on Wikipedia (provided it meets other criteria, like WP:RS, and proper citations), add them to the respective pages, not here. Now can we agree that this does not belong here and should be (re)moved from this page? --antilivedT | C | G 06:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) From WP:TECHNICAL: "Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more accessible explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it. [...] Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. [...] Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation." After reading this article, which is by and large fantastic for a mostly unreleased product, I was a little surprised by the last sections. While I personally am fascinated by much of this, There's simply far too much jargon and stats for what is supposed to be a readable encyclopedic article about a mainstream consumer device; Wikilinks and citations do not nullify these guidelines. See the analogous iPhone section for comparison. Note that the article doesn't once reference GSM frequency bands except in the infobox, and data throughput receives only a brief mention. Honestly, almost everything in the entire Mobile Phone Network Support section that isn't inappropriately technical for this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION or WP:OR. I suggest removing it entirely and merging the most important specs into Carriers. Please understand that I am critiquing the article, not the editors who are clearly working very hard to improve it. --hemi (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, from my point of view we have 2 delete/move, 1 keep and 1 keep with rewording (my position). My impression of this section is that it is technically challenging to read but should be kept where it was. It might be a good idea to try to reach a consensus before trying to modify the article. There is no consensus so far. I am still away from decent Internet access for another 10 days. I will, when time allows, work on this section and post it here for discussion. Again the end-user average download/upload speed is something worth mentioning, VoIP is also something I would also like to keep. I have little time now and will spend more time on that later.
Please try not to delete whole section on Wikipedia. Writing an article is something that takes a lot of time and seeing your work deleted like that is off putting at best. Deleting is going backward ... moving, merging, editing is going forward. Wikipedia should go forward. As such I am strongly against this deletion.
I am against this deletion. Moving/editing is more than welcome and can be discussed. --Mandor (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, Mandor. I have reiterated many times, and Hemidemisemiquaver has listed a bunch of guidelines, that this section does not belong here, for it is not unique to the N900 but endemic to ALL 3G phones. If the reader want the actual realisable speed of HSDPA, they can read it on HSDPA. Whether a VoIP solution will work over a 3G connection? On VoIP please. If you do not want your work to be edited mercilessly by others, do not contribute it to Wikipedia. Also, remember Wikipedia keeps every single edit on an article in the history, removing a section doesn't mean it's forever lost. There is no technical difference between moving and deleting; you can view it as an uncompleted move (to be by Bgkwtnyqhzor or someone, I do not have the time or will to do it myself) if it makes you feel better. --antilivedT | C | G 06:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A consensus is an agreement between people and I still see none. Unless we can achieve network neutrality, I think we should be careful about merging everything to say HSPDA or VoIP. By that I mean that most functions of a smartphone are dictated by carriers and as such are specific to said smartphone. The iPhone has now VoIP over 3G with Skype for example, a decision made by AT&T. Where should this information be, iPhone or VoIP, maybe under Skype ? But this is out of subject.
You pointed out what is bugging me in your edit; you stated you don't have time nor the will to complete this work and yet you started it. It might still be in the article history, but will probably get lost with time. A fine contribution to trash that is how I see it. If you do not want to work, do not edit Wikipedia. Until this incident we had daily major edits to this article and there is now just a few per week (you removed the "under construction" tag). Most unfortunate. --Mandor (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
...say "the iPhone supports Skype calls over 3G network" and leave it at that? By analogy, say the N900 supports 2G networks such as GPRS, EDGE, GPRS, and 3G technologies as UMTS, HSDPA, HSUPA; that N900 supports VoIP over both 3G and WiFi, and leave it at that? How hard was that?
And am I the one who isn't doing the work? The section is very poorly referenced; am I supposed to find which passage Bgkwtnyqhzor wanted to reference to when he linked the whole book on Google Books? For all my intents and purposes my work is done, that this article no longer has such a verbose and redundant section; If anyone (you included) want that content in some other page, they can fix it up to acceptable quality and do it themselves. That, however, is completely irrelevant to this article, that it does not belong to this article, which still stands true. Oh yea, and you neglected one thing - before I showed up the last 300-odd edits were exclusively yours and Bgkwtnyqhzor's. If anything, removing the underconstruction tag (after it's been transcluded instead) will actually encourage more people to participate, instead of you two owning the article. --antilivedT | C | G 05:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
As a potential user, the real questions are not "which acronyms does it support and precisely how fast is each one" but rather: "what won't it do?" - the section, as it stands, doesn't really answer this, though I kind of gather that only one model of the phone will be released, targeted at the EU, and it'll be a bit crippled in the US. - DewiMorgan (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It's partly answered in the Carrier sections, which says it'll work pretty much everywhere (3G included) except US (with AT&T) and China (and maybe some of the South American countries, I don't know about them), and you can use T-Mobile in the US. As with Nokia tradition they'll probably release a NAM version some time later, although at the moment it only has 1 version. --19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SNES emulator, Wiimote control and TV out[edit]

Here is a fine example of what can be accomplished with the N900 : [64]. Probably worth adding here or in the Maemo article. --Mandor (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on the partitioning[edit]

UPDATE! I'm glad to inform that the above mentioned limitation of storage space for software installation is HISTORY now. It is being worked on just as you read this and final units WILL NOT have this restriction. There will be an additional storage space of 2 Gigabytes (under /home/opt) made available for installation of 3rd party software and all packages (along with all their dependencies) bigger than 500 kB will install there, leaving the root file system for small packages (where hundreds of them can fit) and for system use. Shortly speaking, expect over 2 GB of space for installable software, i.e. an AWFUL LOT of it.[65] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandor (talkcontribs) 03:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

dmesg[edit]

Probably what we were all waiting for : [66]. --Mandor (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Successor to What?[edit]

Not sure the article is quite accurate. It seems that the N900 is as much, if not more, a successor to the N97 as it is to the N810. The form factor, hardware, camera, and phone capability are essentially descended from the N97 where the name "N900" and Maemo OS make it a descendant of the N800/810. Thoughts? Zenter (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Devices do not really reproduce, but n900 definetely is n8x0 descendant. n900 & co are standard linux but on portable hardware ("computer"), n97 identifies more as a cell phone. There's a huge difference between linux and symbian. Plus I don't think Nokia links n97 to n900 in any way in its commercials and stuff. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's more like a second cousin twice removed from the Communicator series. - DewiMorgan (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nokia says it's the sucessor of the N810. and it makes sense since it's the latest maemo OS device they make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.76.64 (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Stereo microphone - can anyone confirm this?[edit]

All N900 video samples I saw on Youtube only feature mono audio. So can anyone confirm there are really two microphones built in as stated in the article? Eistea (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The N900 has a microphone and stereo speakers located on each side of the device.

Unfortunately this is ambiguous
The N900 has a microphone (and stereo speakers located on each side of the device).
not
The N900 has (a microphone and stereo speakers) located on each side of the device.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Battery and SIM[edit]

I suggest removing the last sentence of the second paragraph of "Battery and SIM": "it should also be noted that if Nokia had included the same battery, with the increased efficiency, the battery life could have been even more than its predecessors.". Apart from language reasons, this is obviously clear after reading the previous sentence and to me it sounds a bit too much like it was written by a disgruntled user. PhilippGs (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Included items[edit]

Is a USB cable included? It's not listed in the included items section but seems that one is included in the box... Stlpaul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC).

Can't speak for the packages sold in all countries but mine contained a USB-to-Micro-USB cable, a charger with a Micro-USB connector and an adapter to connect Nokia's old-style chargers with their round connectors to the Micro-USB port. Lennier1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC).

I would like to include information regarding the lack of a charger adaptor in at least one country. Unfortunately, the information comes from my own blog. What can be done?

It would be better if you could cite the Nokia website, for example, as blogs could have mistakes in them, or some other bias. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Review[edit]

This was posted in the Computing list ages ago and I've taken a look through the criteria. It is very close to a B rating, though I'm giving it a C rating as its a bit too technical in places. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

recent announcements[edit]

I think it is too early to definitively say where this is all going, but given some of the negativity with which it has been received, and out of concern that we do not mislead our readers: we need to try to establish as concisely as possible the significant details of these announcements both for those who will be reading here and who may be using the device, as well as for those who might be thinking of buying one. Mish (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The current summary regarding MeeGo is now not concise. And by the way, all that I wrote in the summary is either referenced to reputable sources in this article or uncontroversial facts. Stating uncontroversial important facts in the summary is better than stating subjective controversial opinions even if well sourced. Andries (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I take your point. I agree that this needs to be allowed to settle down to see how things stand, and to give time for information to come through WP:RS. I note that somebody has added Skype support. I have tested this, and it seems to work very well, both initiating and receiving calls, which activate the second camera, allowing both callers to view each other. Don't have a source that confirms this yet, though, so that would be WP:RS. Mish (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If there are concerns about the future of the N900 (which I can understand) voiced in reputable sources then they can be written down concisely in the article, but not (yet) in the summary. (It does not seem so serious when I read this though.) Andries (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

MMS in PR1.2?[edit]

MMS Support is listed on this wiki page as being available with PR1.2, but it's not in the PR1.2 changelog: http://wiki.maemo.org/Maemo_5/PR1.2

I haven't been able to find any reference to say that PR1.2 includes MMS support, and http://talk.maemo.org/ is full of posts about there being no MMS support. 86.20.198.199 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be there with an app. See. Andries (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it a phone?[edit]

Somewhere amidst all the excitement about the non-phone things this phone does, it would be good to say something about the, umm, phone. With which cellular service providers is it compatible, for example? 68.110.104.80 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You can use it as a phone, this is true. Either using a pre-pay or contract SIM, or using Skype VoIP. It's not really a phone, though. Mish (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Please explain -- in the article, which currently starts by saying "The Nokia N900 is a mobile Internet device and smartphone". You seem familiar with the device. Encyclopedia readers might not know what you know. So tell us please. Does it connect to Verizon? AT&T? What? Thanks. 68.110.104.80 (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a communication tablet. I have no idea whether it connects to Verizon or AT&T. Mine has been connected to O2 and Orange. I mostly use the WiFi: web-browsing, e-mail, RSS, watching video, music, Skype calls - and texting via the phone network. I also use it as a spirit-level and seeing what the weather forecast is. But that is all WP:OR.Mish (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "The latest Nokia devices are no longer traditional mobile phones. Instead they are mobile computers that include sophisticated services such as messaging, games, as well as capability to access online services, download applications, take pictures and video as well as to process text. Such devices should be seen more as portable computers with phone functionality rather than traditional mobile phones mainly capable making a phone call. N900 belongs to this category of mobile computers."[67]
I'm not very comfortable using that quote as a reliable source.
For starters, it is taken from a forum. And even if we were to assume that the quote is accurate, it is basically a statement from Nokia itself, which could be considered a primary source.
Furthermore, even if a primary source from a forum were to be accepted as reliable. Nokia's assertion that the N900 is a computer because it includes sophisticated services such as messaging, games, as well as capability to access online services, download applications, take pictures and video as well as to process text seems to be more a Product differentiation technique than anything else.
We know this because most Smartphones in today's marketplace already do most -if not all- of those things.
Likeminas (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

my recent call will deleted[edit]

Hello i have one of this cellphone,now i in front of one problem which occurred suddenly.my recent call will be deleted after 10 min and i couldn't find the reason.and note that i have restarted the device but it didn't work.

please help me with your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirhosseinsaeedi (talkcontribs) 09:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

In the main article the reference http://nokiaaddict.com/2010/02/09/the-n900-get-a-bigger-battery-2400mah/ is broken (404). --Mortense (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Redundant HTML[edit]

In the main article there are a lot of these:

 <ref name="n900specs" /> 
 <ref name=n900specs/> 

Aren't they redundant? --Mortense (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They're for backing up multiple, specific parts of the text in different locations. In the References section itself they are represented by a single item (with a-l links back). ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

units produced / sales[edit]

How many N900s have been sold? Could we get a chart like this?--78.48.80.235 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nokia N900. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done, all fine except for the redundant |deadurl=yes parameters added by the bot. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Nokia N900. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)