1. jeremyshaw's Avatar
    Nokia Lumia 800 review -- Engadget

    Not a lot to be said. They seem to be a little dissapointed at some of the HW differences between the N9 and this, but all in all, an okay phone (for them).
    11-03-2011 04:29 PM
  2. Jowiso's Avatar
    Yeah - I read the review. I certainly wasn't fascinated by the 800 when it was announced, so I'm not surprised that the Engadget review felt the same way. No front facing cam? No notification LED? PenTile display? All of those are negatives in my opinion.

    I'm looking forward to seeing the Focus S. At least we know that has a front facing cam and a Super AMOLED Plus display. Notification LED is questionable (probably absent), but it still looks like the better option. Yes, Samsung's plasticy build quality will still be trumped by the 800s unibody, but I think the Focus S will hold up better in the long term.
    11-03-2011 05:31 PM
  3. cckgz4's Avatar
    Notification lights will probably only be apparent in HTC devices so IMO reviewers should really get over it. Even with HTC notification lights, it's only for missed calls. Microsoft wants you to check the lock screen or start screen. It's kind of like a get with it or not type of thing. The other missing features disappointment is valid but as far as the specs not being "up to par", again, it's not needed for this platform. I really hate that Android has everyone on look out for beefed up specs and think they NEED it for a good performance
    11-03-2011 11:12 PM
  4. jeremyshaw's Avatar
    Notification lights will probably only be apparent in HTC devices so IMO reviewers should really get over it. Even with HTC notification lights, it's only for missed calls. Microsoft wants you to check the lock screen or start screen. It's kind of like a get with it or not type of thing. The other missing features disappointment is valid but as far as the specs not being "up to par", again, it's not needed for this platform. I really hate that Android has everyone on look out for beefed up specs and think they NEED it for a good performance
    it's not "think" they need it, it's pretty close to NEED it. My Atrix is a 1GHz A9 dual core (should be faster than all first gen WP7, and barely slower than second gen WP7, but only in certain circumstances), and the Tegra 2 GPU in it is slightly faster than the Adreno 205 present in the second gen WP7 devices.

    Yet, even with CM7 + ADW EX on it, there are plenty of times where it just stutters and lags for no good reason. I'm not talking about load times, either.

    Just IMO, Android NEEDS better HW specs to "feel buttery smooth," that just about every fandroid claims.
    11-03-2011 11:38 PM
  5. cckgz4's Avatar
    You misunderstood. Because of people using Android and needing the beefed up specs, everyone now feels that all platforms should follow suit when the other OS don't have that problem
    11-04-2011 12:03 AM
  6. Jowiso's Avatar
    Right. I totally agree. And I wasn't saying that the lack of a notification light was a huge deal - just commenting on what I would have liked to see included. To me, the biggest problems were the PenTile display and the lack of FFC. I have no issue with the processor speed or any of that. As you say, WP runs smooth as can be with that hardware. No need to beef it up and drain the battery.
    11-04-2011 12:19 AM
  7. jeremyshaw's Avatar
    You misunderstood. Because of people using Android and needing the beefed up specs, everyone now feels that all platforms should follow suit when the other OS don't have that problem
    Well, the anandtech article on iphone 4s does have a good point. Apple is no slouch in the HW dept, either, only recently becomming overcome by android devices in certain areas. Yeah, that could affect public perception. Surely affected mine when I chose my atrix over the hd7 (a decision I seriously regret, after getting to play with the hd7 in person recently).

    Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
    Edit, though my zune hd broke, so i replaced that with a craigslist sammy focus

    Edit2, and it replaced my atrix not too long later, too.
    11-04-2011 12:44 AM
  8. cckgz4's Avatar
    Right. I totally agree. And I wasn't saying that the lack of a notification light was a huge deal - just commenting on what I would have liked to see included. To me, the biggest problems were the PenTile display and the lack of FFC. I have no issue with the processor speed or any of that. As you say, WP runs smooth as can be with that hardware. No need to beef it up and drain the battery.
    Well wasn't necessarily referring to you, but these reviewers that work for these blog sites. To say in your article that an OS needs some notification light when the OS wants the consumer to utilize their lockscreen/home screen means they aren't doing their homework. Rather than throw their opinions off as facts or valid, they need to reword some of that. Yes it would be NICE but that's not what WP7 is doing. They also mentioned how they also couldn't see the charge status and battery life without turning on the phone, but they knew that as well being that they have a whole section reviewing Mango, so when they enter tidbits like that it adds more weight of negativity to the article. Basically, they are beating the horse that they've pummeled many times before.
    11-04-2011 12:58 AM
  9. SJamG's Avatar
    This doesn't show the Lumia in the best light! All valid points and all we have heard before....but I kinda get the impression that it wasn't a totally impartial review...sure, we know that this is Nokia's first attempt at a Windows phone, and that this is only revision 2 of WP7, think they were a bit harsh.

    Anyway...I'll still be getting one! I am really not a fan of HTCs build quality and like the idea of a uni/mono body design.
    11-04-2011 05:18 AM
  10. nyc_rock's Avatar
    IMO Nokia missed a huge opportunity to take the lead in WP hardware. By not including a FFC they have basically released a 1st generation device. They knew Microsoft purchased skype, they knew that there would be great OS integration with Video Chat. How could they possibly think it was a good move to get rid of the FFC? Especially when it already existed on the identical N9. They also blew a great opportunity for on board storage. Fine, you dont want to give expansion options, at least give bigger total memory capacity. 32 GB would have been a great option. When Nokia announced they were joining the WP game, I was excited. I thought they could easily occupy the top spot by offering class leading hardware and thier great design. Unfortunately, the Lumia is already behind the competition. A shame really.
    11-08-2011 06:48 AM
  11. Rallicat's Avatar
    IMO Nokia missed a huge opportunity to take the lead in WP hardware. By not including a FFC they have basically released a 1st generation device. They knew Microsoft purchased skype, they knew that there would be great OS integration with Video Chat. How could they possibly think it was a good move to get rid of the FFC? Especially when it already existed on the identical N9. They also blew a great opportunity for on board storage. Fine, you dont want to give expansion options, at least give bigger total memory capacity. 32 GB would have been a great option. When Nokia announced they were joining the WP game, I was excited. I thought they could easily occupy the top spot by offering class leading hardware and thier great design. Unfortunately, the Lumia is already behind the competition. A shame really.
    I don't beleive it is behind the competition. To claim that Nokia has missed an opportunity, is to miss the point of what they've tried to do here...

    Nokia made a decision to move to WP7, and with time against them, they had to act fast, so with the Lumia 800 they basically took an already shipping product (the N9) and adapted it for WP7.

    Certain features didn't make the cut. No FFC? Well, there's no video calling yet, and if they'd implemented it by themselves they have had to spend more time creating some sort of Nokia version of video calling. Storage? Well, I can only speculate that they were trying to keep costs down.

    If Nokia had started from scratch and brought a completely new design to market, with all the features you mentioned, then they wouldn't have been able to launch in /any/ market until (my guess) second quarter 2012.

    This is just an opening gambit from Nokia, and is the best they could have done in the timescale. To declare it a fail is to miss the point - it's about getting the ball rolling with WP7 as early as possible - and that's a definate win.

    We can expect more from Nokia in the future. They'll be releasing a whole range of different devices - including at the top end. I fully expect those devices to feature some of the hardware you've mentioned, and it won't be 'too late', because Nokia will have already done the groundwork with the Lumias.
    11-08-2011 07:54 AM
  12. nyc_rock's Avatar
    I don't beleive it is behind the competition. To claim that Nokia has missed an opportunity, is to miss the point of what they've tried to do here...

    Nokia made a decision to move to WP7, and with time against them, they had to act fast, so with the Lumia 800 they basically took an already shipping product (the N9) and adapted it for WP7.

    Certain features didn't make the cut. No FFC? Well, there's no video calling yet, and if they'd implemented it by themselves they have had to spend more time creating some sort of Nokia version of video calling. Storage? Well, I can only speculate that they were trying to keep costs down.

    If Nokia had started from scratch and brought a completely new design to market, with all the features you mentioned, then they wouldn't have been able to launch in /any/ market until (my guess) second quarter 2012.

    This is just an opening gambit from Nokia, and is the best they could have done in the timescale. To declare it a fail is to miss the point - it's about getting the ball rolling with WP7 as early as possible - and that's a definate win.

    We can expect more from Nokia in the future. They'll be releasing a whole range of different devices - including at the top end. I fully expect those devices to feature some of the hardware you've mentioned, and it won't be 'too late', because Nokia will have already done the groundwork with the Lumias.
    I totally, and respectfully, disagree. Blackberry is case in point. They have rushed so many crappy products out the door (playbook, storm 1, storm 2, Torch) and they have taken hit after hit after hit. You only have one chance to make a first impression and Nokia should have delayed the release if timing was the issue. I would much prefer to wait a couple of months and have Nokia establish themselves as the premier WP OEM than to release a device that is missing key hardware. The lack of a video chat client is not stopping HTC and Samsung from adding FFC's. They know the support is coming and are making phones that, from at least on perspective, are future proof.
    11-08-2011 09:28 AM
  13. Rallicat's Avatar
    I totally, and respectfully, disagree. Blackberry is case in point. They have rushed so many crappy products out the door (playbook, storm 1, storm 2, Torch) and they have taken hit after hit after hit. You only have one chance to make a first impression and Nokia should have delayed the release if timing was the issue. I would much prefer to wait a couple of months and have Nokia establish themselves as the premier WP OEM than to release a device that is missing key hardware. The lack of a video chat client is not stopping HTC and Samsung from adding FFC's. They know the support is coming and are making phones that, from at least on perspective, are future proof.
    Well the primary case in point I'd have thought, would be the initial roll out of Windows Phone itself - which at the start lacked plenty of key software features. Indeed even the iPhone had plenty of features that were lacking in it's earlier incarnations of both hardware and software, and the examples you give with RIM .. well, granted the playbook was a pathetic launch - but primarily because of features lacking in the software .. not hardware.

    The bigger picture has to be considered - none of the features that the Lumia 800 lacks could be considered /universally/ important. Take the Front Facing Camera ... I currently own the iPhone 4. Have I used the FFC? No - beyond occasionally trying it for a gimmick call with friends. Storage used varies per person, and features like NFC are not exactly pervasive at present.

    So, to my mind the importance of these features is subjective, and if the pre-order data so far is anything to go by, users are not exactly rejecting the product.

    You are right of course - this is Nokia's chance to make a good first impression, but specs aren't the only thing that make a first impression - the build quality of the device, the design of the device, and of course most importantly, the software (primarily Mango) is what will help to make a fantastic first impression with this product.
    11-08-2011 10:10 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD