- 10-10-2012, 08:56 AM #1
The photos for the press made it look thin, but the hands on videos show how thick the 810 is. Yikes.
Why can't Nokia make a thin-and-light phone? Doing so with low end components should be relatively easy, after all.
10-10-2012, 09:04 AM #2
- 61 Posts
Nokia has a reputation for sturdy "break the floor, not the phone" phones. Perhaps they don't WANT to make a thin and light phone?
Personally, I'm okay with that. Thin and light is overrated. We're at a point where any thinner and lighter will feel flimsy, and until we have unbreakable flexible displays or phones on our wrists or something, I don't need it to be thin and light.
- 10-10-2012, 09:10 AM #3
I still like the feel and thickness of my old Palm 750. You could play football with that phone and not break it. :D
Some people like thin. So many of the phones today are so thin and fragile, I'd be afraid to use them without a heavy duty otterbox case.
- 10-10-2012, 09:47 AM #11
Light and thin or thick and heavier is a personal choice I think. No wrong or right way to go. It makes me think of bowling. Some people like a heavier ball to hit the pocket and explode the pins. Some like a lighter ball to fling down the alley at 80 mph. But curiously, how many men like throwing the lighter ball as opposed to the heavier ball? Yet it seems the opposite when it comes to phones.
- 10-10-2012, 09:53 AM #12
That's because you are not holding a bowling ball on your ear. Is not rocket science, portable devices are supposed to be lighter.
You don't care if your TV or Fridge is heavy but your earrings and headphones should be light. A heavier phone just means it will get more damage when it falls on the ground.
- 10-10-2012, 10:02 AM #14
I saw the hands on and thought it looked average for thickness. Overall it is a nice looking phone. I barely handle my trophy without the case on... Just feels flimsy. Weight is more important to me than thickness.
Sent from my mwp6985 using Board Express
- 10-10-2012, 10:21 AM #15
It doesn't seem that bad to me. I'm used to having bulk on my iPhone 4, even with the case I use now. I think I can handle the 810 just fine. Of course, I'll have to try it out hands-on in the store before I decide whether to buy it.
10-10-2012, 10:53 AM #16
- 1,332 Posts
I looked at pictures of the top view and estimated that you can roughly fit three 3.5mm headphone jacks along the thickest point so the 10.9mm thickness is most likely true.
I don't think it looks that thick, it's just the tapered edges with the blue cover that make it look like it has a bulge. You will feel better after you see some thickness comparison shots with other phones.
10-10-2012, 10:57 AM #17
- 249 Posts
Nokia is just throwing that out the window by increasing screen size without reducing it anywhere. That equals phones that look huge. For example, you can't really notice that the Lumia 800 is quite thick because the other dimensions are small, but when they magnified that thickness by increasing the other dimensions without reducing the thickness, they created a monster.
They should have just taken out wireless charging and some other fancy technology to reduce the thickness IMO.
- 10-10-2012, 11:02 AM #20
I want to see the 810 in black in a hands-on as well. I'm wondering if the thickness isn't "called out" by the color. I know that when I wear a blue shirt, I look a lot fatter in photos than if I wear a black shirt... brighter colors typically make things (and people) look larger.
- 10-10-2012, 06:59 PM #21
It's not a matter of it making ANYONE tired. It's just a personal preference if people like to feel the heft or not.
A heavier phone just means it will get more damage when it falls on the ground.
- 10-10-2012, 07:39 PM #23
For me, I prefer thin phones because they fit easier into the pocket of my skinny jeans. Thickness mattered less back in the day because our phones had 2.5 in. or less displays. Nowadays, our phones are huge!
BTW, Nokia doesn't make thin phones because I don't think it knows how. Making thin phones actually takes a lot of tech savvy. Just be thankful we're past the days of the Nokia 5800 or N97.
10-10-2012, 07:58 PM #24
- 571 Posts
All I can say is OH NOES for the thickness; that's gonna be major trouble for my coat pocket or hipster jeans. Ack, the bulges and stretching of fabric!
In all serious as for why Nokia can't manufacture a thin phone it might just come down to product/design philosophy or more likely costs. Apparently they haven't heard yet or are very few people complaining about the thickness of the device.
Also, I agree with Winning Guy. It all comes down to how a phone is engineered for impact and looking at unscientific drop tests it looks like the SGS3 fails most of the time on a side / corner drop. That's not to say a 900 or 920 won't eat it either, but I still can't see how just about every video I saw the display fractured on a side/corner drop. I still would like to see a link to better tests though.
- 10-10-2012, 11:21 PM #25
ONE other thing yhou should remember as well the measurements of all those thin phones do not take into account the protrusion of the camera lens from the back of the phone. They are measuring the thinnest afea of the phone for their super thin specs. The camera unit on the lumias does not protruse which to me is a great advantage in the sleekness and style. Its also a true measurement of the thickness and protects the camera from scratches and damage to the back of the phone and camera bezel.
Last edited by jfa1; 10-16-2012 at 12:08 PM.