Lumia 810 is super thick

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
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.

Oh come on. We're not insects. I think we call handle a few grams of difference between phones.

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.

This is not necessarily true. It's all about how it's engineered to take impact.
 

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
I'm glad that people who like heft to their devices at least have the option to buy Nokia.

I think it would suck if all OEMs pretty much did the same thing, limiting choices.
 

sentimentGX4

New member
Feb 23, 2012
247
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

blehblehbleh

New member
Dec 14, 2011
571
1
0
Visit site
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.
 

jfa1

New member
Dec 15, 2007
2,567
1
0
Visit site
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.

Okay so Nokia switches and makes a thin phone and then everyone will be saying its too thin anf cheap and plasticky and all the complaints that people are saying about the samsung ativS. Give me a break!. Somepeople want heftier phones some like thinner devices.Its not that thick and the heft of even the 920 is less than my old HTC Tilt2 with WM 6.5. If you arent strong enough to carry it around get some weights and build up you arm strength. You're obssessing over small differences in thickness and width that are not that large in the grand scheme of things.And its a metter of personal preference if you dont like it dont like it Somebody else has different opinions That does not mean your right or wrong its just your opinion. Its not the end of the world.


EDIT EDIT
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:

TJWINS

New member
Aug 5, 2012
188
0
0
Visit site
I think the 810 looks thicker than it really is because of the wireless charging shell used in the video. I think there are both wireless and non-wireless shells for the 810 based on the pics shown from CNET's hands on earlier today. If you look at both pics below you can see the shells with the wireless charging have a recessed camera while the second photo seems to have a non-recessed camera which lays flush with the door and shows an overall slimmer appearance. I hope this is the case but only time will tell. If it is true that both wireless and non-wireless shells are available for the 810 then T-Mobile would have made a mistake showcasing this device today with the wireless charging shell and should have opted for a slimmer look. What do you guys think???

A change of plate - Taking a look at T-Mobile's Nokia Lumia 810 (pictures) - CNET Reviews

Optics from Zeiss - Taking a look at T-Mobile's Nokia Lumia 810 (pictures) - CNET Reviews

You can really notice the difference when comparing the flash openings.
 

squire777

New member
Feb 21, 2012
1,345
0
0
Visit site
hmmm good post and I agree with your findings. I think in the regular shells it does look a little less thick.

I hope the non-wireless shells exist and will be sold separately.
 

brmiller1976

New member
Aug 5, 2011
2,092
0
0
Visit site
Okay so Nokia switches and makes a thin phone and then everyone will be saying its too thin anf cheap and plasticky and all the complaints that people are saying about the samsung ativS.

That's a bit like saying "okay, so Nokia makes a phone with a glass touchscreen and then everyone will be saying it's too fragile and crack-prone like the iPhone 4S."

There are worse fates in the world than being compared to the best-selling phones on the market -- the Galaxy S III and the iPhone.

Mobile devices should be mobile... thin and light. If I wanted thick and clunky, I could get that Treo 755p out and start using it again, or just carry around a tablet with a 4G wireless card. :p
 

brmiller1976

New member
Aug 5, 2011
2,092
0
0
Visit site
If it is true that both wireless and non-wireless shells are available for the 810 then T-Mobile would have made a mistake showcasing this device today with the wireless charging shell and should have opted for a slimmer look. What do you guys think???

I'm hoping you're right. It would be pretty consternating if the much-more-capable HTC 8X was thinner than the entry-level 810.
 

TJWINS

New member
Aug 5, 2012
188
0
0
Visit site
I just noticed that the camera module on the 820 is part of the phone with the battery cover having a large camera module cut-out while the camera on the 810 has a much simpler design having only the lens and flash embedded in the back of the phone with the module artwork on the battery cover with two small cut-outs for the lense and flash. This would probably explain why the 810 is much lighter than the 820 while keeping the same camera quality. Less hardware makes the phone lighter. I like this design because there is no camera module that could get scratched like on the 900.
 
Last edited:

VagrantWade

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,400
1
0
Visit site
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.

Yes. Because gravity is the only factor in this situation. Derp.
 

Winterfang

New member
Apr 20, 2011
3,541
6
0
Visit site
Don't bother explaining Logic to the ones that don't want them to listen. For some God forsaken reason people associate plastic with cheap (non expensive) and light with cheap (poor quality).

Try a drop test of the Galaxy S3 and a heavy phone and tell me who will suffer the less damage.
 

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
Don't bother explaining Logic to the ones that don't want them to listen. For some God forsaken reason people associate plastic with cheap (non expensive) and light with cheap (poor quality).

Try a drop test of the Galaxy S3 and a heavy phone and tell me who will suffer the less damage.

Yeah.

So if I drop an egg and a golf ball, the golf ball will be more damaged, right?
 

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
What if drop a hammer and a cup of Coffee? See I can also make ridiculously examples instead of trying to prove my point.

I'm pointing out that a device's ability to survive an impact isn't determined solely by weight. There is a lot of engineering involved.

You are the one that claimed that it was as simple as a heavy device breaking easier.

I then gave an example that proves that it isn't as simple as Heavy=Breaks easier.

Then you come along and give another example that proves ME right because a hammer would be more durable than a cup of coffee. :lol::lol::lol:

This isn't rocket science. But it does take a little common sense.
 

anvilofstars

New member
Jul 27, 2012
13
0
0
Visit site
Gravity is the principal factor in damage, yes. In a zero-g environment, there'd be little or no damage from a drop.

If we are going to get technical, electromagnetism is the principal factor in damage. When you drop a phone, the phone goes down, but electromagnetism is what keeps the phone from falling through the floor. (hence gravity is the weakest force)

Anyhow, you have proven correlation and then assumed causation. There are some things to consider that can't be ignored. For example, the materials used is important because some materials absorb energy from impacts better than others. These materials would probably keep the internals more safe.
 

maverick786us

New member
Sep 17, 2012
956
0
0
Visit site
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.

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. :cool:

I like my Lumia 900 over GS2. With GS2 is very difficult to make a grip while taking photographs because it is thin. My Lumia 900 feels sturdy, roubust and its material looks premiumed compared to GS2 because of its weight
 

maverick786us

New member
Sep 17, 2012
956
0
0
Visit site
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.

By making it thin you comparomize in a lot of things like battery size, speaker quality (iPhone 5 had to compormize speaker quality while maknig it thin) and other factors. Maybe you should by phones to cut something.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,736
Messages
2,242,598
Members
427,979
Latest member
mducros