Shared publicly  - 
 
So Nokia World has come, and I'm looking for reaction.

My colleague Tim Conneally has news story and slideshow.

Bottom line: These new Nokias aren't coming this year to the United States. Europe will get them, at least. That means no big holiday bash here -- not that Nokia has much visibility.

Some people will complain the Nokia Lumia 710 and 800 Windows Phones are underpowered compared to iPhone 4S and Androids, like the Galaxy S II. I've been deprived using Windows Phone, so can't write from experience but users and carriers tell me that the software is light and fast on single-core chips.

What I find strange: Near as I can tell, there is no front-facing camera, a standard feature on Nokias going back years -- before most any phone from any other manufacturer. Would that bother you?

If you live in a region where the two Lumias will be available, will you buy and why?

http://betanews.com/2011/10/26/nokia-debuts-its-first-windows-phones-lumia-710-and-800/

http://betanews.com/2011/10/26/hands-on-with-nokias-first-windows-phones/
1
1
Kun Li's profile photosimon pas's profile photoAlenas Kišonas's profile photoVictor Volard's profile photo
27 comments
 
I'd love to see some figures on this, but I can say that I never ever used the front facing camera on my phone. I genuinely don't know anyone who does. Not too fussed about the specs, it's all dependent on what the OS requires. As long as the OS is smooth then it should be fine, I don't think you can compare it 1:1 with what Android and iOS require.

I won't be buying a Nokia phone soon but they are doing some interesting things. Maybe in a year or so I'll consider one, depending on the success of Windows Phone 7. For this year I just want to have a serious go at the Galaxy Nexus, that will be my main phone for at least 10+ months. Once I get bored with that I'll move on :).
 
At this point, is there really any reason to buy a single-core personal computing device unless it's a throw-away? That applies to any platform or form.
 
For years, +simon pasieka, I heard people excuse the Mac for having processors underpowered or seemingly so compared to Windows PC, contending: The OS was better optimized for the hardware. Doesn't that apply to Windows Phone? Seems that way to me.
Kun Li
 
The iOS IS better optimized for the hardware while iOS devices have much better hardware, still.
 
+Joe Wilcox , sorry, I was not making a "my platform of choice is better than yours" argument. Take any platform, and simple queueing theory tells us we'll get a better level of service from two processing units than one (unless the OS is dumb and not multi-core aware). Unless WP7 does not multitask well, and from what I am hearing it does, there is no way a single core Nokia will be more responsive than multi-core Samsung or HTC. Look at how crappy slow the netbooks were running XP until dual-core Atoms showed up (too late to save them tho), or how much more responsive OSX became with dual-core hardware. Math applies to WP7 too.
 
The benefit for multicore CPU is largely still not gained to the full even in desktop enviroments. As we know years of desktop usage multitasking and multicore are not really related to each other. It really is not that simple to implement really good parallel computing implementation. As for atom there are more things between those generations of atoms than simply single-core vs multicore.

As for real multitasking symbian, meego and webos have demostrated that in much lower power cpu:s,

So Joe is IMO right about optimization. Althought I do not use WP7 as my daily phone, I do not see any need for more powerful CPU in current version of WP7.

I do not get how ios should be better optimized than WP7. The hardware specs are pretty limited. It should be no brainer. As an iPhone user I am much more worried for ios. When platform will support 3GS, 4, 4S there is really strong danger of fragmentation and less optimized platform. Ios is entering really intresting times ...
 
+Sami Bister so you're saying you've haven't observed improved responsiveness running same OS on low-power HW with multi-core vs single core? Really?
 
I use WP7 HTC HD7 all the time, and with Mango and single-core 1GHz processor it is a very fast and responsive phone. Multitasking on WP7 is very clever, because the main process stops, only background tasks are running when you switch to another process. So at the moment WP7 does not need multi-cores to perform at it's best. I am sure clever multi-tasking is much better than multi-cores, because it saves battery. On my Honeycomb tablet it is obvious the disadvantages of not so clever multitasking and dual core processors.
Regarding front facing camera - don't forget that Nokia knows about Microsoft plaftorm much more than either of us. So my guess is that lack of camera is intentional and is related to Skype development - probably video calling is not coming in another 6 months and by the time it will be available - Nokia will have new phones.
 
+Alenas Kišonas clearly Nokia has bastardised refreshed an existing 4-5 month old design (http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/26/nokia-lumia-800-vs-nokia-n9-the-tale-of-the-tape/) . Removal of front camera despite Skype? Ouch. No dual-core, even though it was supposed to be in? Double ouch. (http://www.gsmarena.com/nokias_wp7_phones_to_use_u8500_dualcore_12ghz_chipsets-news-2669.php).
So looking at the state of the mobile market when this device comes out, either this is a terrible flagship device (ie. comparing to competition), or it's a stop-gap rapid-planned-obsolescence phone. Either way, why bother? Ahh .. pretty colour.
 
As i said - what is the point of having dual core, if single core is VERY fast and uses much less baterry. This is not a PSP - this is a phone ;) i wonder how many people with galaxy S2 are using all that processing power for something useful and not just to keep running dead processes? My hd7 runs smoother in every respect, than dual core galaxy tab 10.1 - what would you say about that?
Simon you are asking the wrong question. Why would anyone need a dual- core processor for a phone? Of course there are kids that want to play games on the phone, but this is the phone for majority of population to use it primarily as a PHONE. I will by 800 for myself and my wife - i like it. And it has much less problems that iphone 3g on it's release :-) 
 
Again, let's not turn this into Android vs WP7 argument. To claim that my WP7 experience will not benefit from multi-core hw contradicts math, and justifying it by saying no one really uses their smartphones anyways is somewhat silly.
Furthermore, praising Nokia for releasing an old design with reduced specifications or claiming it somehow benefits WP7, does not advance the cause for the WP7 platform. Because if you think about it, this is supposed to be the $600+ pinnacle poster-boy of Microsoft/Nokia intimate collaboration ... and this is the best they can do. Really?
 
+Alenas Kišonas You just dont get it! ARM Dualcore Proz. dont inevitably consume more power! And there are plenty reasons to buy a phone with Dual-Core, f.e. Games with better graphics, professional SW ect. .... Windows Phone dont support LTE, dont support NFC, dont support Dual-Core till the End of 2012!! I call WP7 Failphone......
 
It's silly to argue when both of you guys did not even use wp7. I'm saying dual core would not benefit wp7 at the moment - it is simple math - 1Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM was recommended setup for win xp in 2001. Are you saying that desktops in 2001 were unresponsive? For a phone it has to be a balance between responsivness, performance and battery life...wp7 is very well balanced, get over it :P
 
I have the Lumia 800 here - it's fast, very very snappy in use with zero lag.
Kun Li
 
It could be possible that the WP7 phone is fast now because of the lack of high quality game or video play apps which could use up most of it's computational capability. We will see how it behaves when more and more computationally intensive apps are there.
 
+Kun Li I spent this evening loading it up with apps, games, email accounts, social accounts etc. The truth is simple: this is a 2011 era 1.4Ghz CPU that is fast and Windows Phone 7 is well optimized. What matters to users is not what's under the bonnet, but how fast a phone is in actual use. WebOS ran sluggishly on fast hardware. iOS is pretty good. Android has issues at times with odd lags and the numerous apps multitasking in the background so often feels much slower than it should. This total package is what I call "subjective speed" see this old blog post of mine that sets this out: http://ianfogg.com/2008/11/10/the-only-speed-that-matters-is-subjective/
 
+Kun Li - games always drive for faster performance, but not everyone wants to run crysis 2 on the phone - i have pc, ps3 - do you really think i want quad core phone to hook to my tv and pretend that its so cool to play some silly game with so so 3D graphics (compare nfs on the phone and pc or ps3) . Every hardware has its purpose. Phone has a social purpose...
Kun Li
 
+Alenas Kišonas I believe time will prove you wrong. Apple and Google are both working on this, say turn your phone into game console. Android 4.0 is officially supporting it. This is inevitable trend, in my mind. If MS and Nokia have the same opinion as you, then I think they don't get it.
 
Portable gaming and game console are 2 very different things at the moment. Have you seen airplay demos? Have you seen how those games look on TV and how much detail they have? It's not gaming - it's pathetic :-) if phones will be acting as consoles - they will get very hot, heat kills battery. Maybe when we have 1nm technologies, then 32 core processors would not get hotter than current single core and it will be possible to get games like crysis 2 on the phone, but game consoles will be far away with 3d, 4K resolution for each eye, kinnect, voice control, etc...
 
Google does not know much about gaming, they can't even sort out their web priorities...
Kun Li
 
+Alenas Kišonas When iPhone was out, NDS fans were mocking the game quality on it. Now guess what? EVERYONE is playing game on their phones.

I am not sure if I really know Google knows much about gaming or not. And i would like to believe that you are really expert on that. But why do you bring up this topic even? It's way off the topic here. Google just needs to provide platform to game developer, instead of doing it by themselves. Why "Google's understanding of the game" has anything to do with the "future of game"?? That's the trend in the game industry, not in Google.

And I guess you are saying that "Nokia understands the game much better", ummmm, nice play. Please DO NOT turn this post into fanboy dispute, that's meaningless.

if you stick with all your current opinion and refuse to imagine the future. Take a look at what SONY is doing for playstation.
 
+Kun Li I mentioned Google, just because you said that Google is working on it. Nokia is not in a game business, but Microsoft is. I purchased "Hydro Thunder GO", "geoDefense", "Fable: Coin Golf" - those games are very nicely done on WP7, but novelty wears out and if I want to play games I am not looking at my phone to do that. You say everyone is playing games on their phones. Who is that everyone? How old are they? Do you really think it's good for kids to be stuck on their phone on every ocassion and play games?
I am not refusing to imagine the future, but the future looks pretty boring - everyone is on their phones playing games, not talking to each other, socializing on facebook instead of real life - I spend 50 hours a week on computer for the last 23 years - I do not wish other people to spend their time like that. There is more to life than being stuck on computer or your phone :)
Kun Li
 
You wish is not necessarily other's. And making your phone to be game console doesn't mean you have to play game every day. It just removes yet another redundant device for you, which is nice.

"Everyone" is kind of exaggerate but just take a look at how is Nintendo doing. Based on Sony's words, PlayStation Suite for Android will make its way to other Android devices not made by Sony. So what does this mean?
 
This means that parents will have trouble keeping kids off the phones :P
 
bringing this back to the issue at hand .. here is how the beloved Nokia Lumia 800 stacks up against competition
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsphone/en-us/buy/7/compare.aspx?devices=1753;1718:7;1699:7

Other than the Nokia brand name and distribution channel, is there a single compelling reason to get this? It seems HTC and Samsung have better screens, better battery life, better cameras, better CPUs .... and same OS with the same interface/experience. Am I the only one who would like to see Nokia actually compete?
 
Bigger screens are not better (resolution is still the same), Nokia has better camera, CPU's are the same just a little bit different freq. Nokia is competing on design and Nokia apps, not specs. Battery life seems a bit short - but still not as dissapointing as iPhone 4s :)
Add a comment...