10-16-2012 01:16 PM
44 12
tools
  1. TJWINS's Avatar
    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 and brmiller1976 like this.
    10-11-2012 12:53 AM
  2. squire777's Avatar
    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.
    metalchick719 likes this.
    10-11-2012 01:52 AM
  3. brmiller1976's Avatar
    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
    10-11-2012 01:56 AM
  4. brmiller1976's Avatar
    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.
    10-11-2012 01:58 AM
  5. TJWINS's Avatar
    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 by TJWINS; 10-14-2012 at 02:58 PM.
    10-14-2012 02:48 PM
  6. VagrantWade's Avatar
    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.
    10-14-2012 02:58 PM
  7. brmiller1976's Avatar
    Gravity is the principal factor in damage, yes. In a zero-g environment, there'd be little or no damage from a drop.
    10-14-2012 03:03 PM
  8. Winterfang's Avatar
    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.
    10-15-2012 06:35 PM
  9. Xsever's Avatar
    Try a drop test of the Galaxy S3 and a heavy phone and tell me who will suffer the less damage.
    The people at Nokia's crash test lab would love to take you up on that offer. Damage is not only external. It's also in terms of functionality.
    metalchick719 likes this.
    10-15-2012 06:44 PM
  10. Reflexx's Avatar
    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?
    metalchick719 likes this.
    10-15-2012 06:45 PM
  11. Winterfang's Avatar
    Yeah.

    So if I drop an egg and a golf ball, the golf ball will be more damaged, right?
    What if drop a hammer and a cup of Coffee? See I can also make ridiculously examples instead of trying to prove my point.
    10-15-2012 07:28 PM
  12. Reflexx's Avatar
    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.
    10-15-2012 08:04 PM
  13. anvilofstars's Avatar
    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.
    10-16-2012 12:06 AM
  14. maverick786us's Avatar
    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.
    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
    10-16-2012 01:09 AM
  15. maverick786us's Avatar
    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.
    10-16-2012 01:18 AM
  16. Winterfang's Avatar
    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.
    I could had use a feather an a concrete block, it would still won't prove anyone point because those are different materials. It's a dumb comparison that doesn't translate over the point that a lighter smartphone will suffer less damage than a heavier one upon a fall.
    10-16-2012 11:40 AM
  17. Reflexx's Avatar
    I could had use a feather an a concrete block, it would still won't prove anyone point because those are different materials. It's a dumb comparison that doesn't translate over the point that a lighter smartphone will suffer less damage than a heavier one upon a fall.
    My point is that it's not just about weight. You're attempting to simplify something that isn't that simple.

    With these devices, there's a lot of engineering that goes into it. There's also a balancing act they have to play with many different factors.

    To conclude that a lighter object will take less damage in a fall when dealing with these complex devices is just plain wrong.
    10-16-2012 12:47 PM
  18. jfa1's Avatar
    I saw the hands on. Is hideous beyond belief.
    Thats great your hideous beyond belief is not everyone else's hideous beyond belief.
    metalchick719 likes this.
    10-16-2012 01:10 PM
  19. jfa1's Avatar
    It's not marketing. It is the bell curve or equilibrium for phone size that is being raped by Nokia. Back in the days of 2 inch screens, phones could be thick and still easily fit in your pocket. As screens sizes increased, there was a need for the engineers to shave off that screen size increase in other areas to maintain the general fit in your pocket size.

    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.
    No what they have done is a design feaature to keep the camera lens assembly totally inside the device shell instead of having it protrude several millimeters above or below the body. The measurement of phones that have camera protrusions are generally measured at the thinnest point not the thickest.

    And I dont think that Nokia is raping anything with their design if you personally dont like it ghen hyou dont like ut what Nokia has done is not a crime of violence against you or anyone else if you dont like it you dont like it. Nothing more nothing less buy a thin WP8 device or your choice there are plenty of them out there.
    10-16-2012 01:16 PM
44 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD