Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

And E61i isn't good form factor for phone.

Also your definition of "most" as "most people use a headset" is... strange. Really, if I see two people per week using headset it is plenty.

ps. I live in center of 2mln city - not desert.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

..but ..but ..I already use my N800 to make calls with Gizmo. Are you telling me to stop? If I were to get a wireless data plan, you better believe I could and probably would use my N800 for voice calls just as I already do. :P My only problem with a N900 having a cell phone radio is the lock-in and eventual uselessness of the cell radio when they phase out whatever it is. I prefer having a module for radio if anything at all. Additionally, not having it would help lower the initial cost.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

But the point is, it's not an unprecedented phone size. And, it's quite usable in that way. The reason I used a headset is not wanting to hold _any_ size phone in my hand, up to my face. Rather have my hands free for other stuff. It has nothing at all to do with the phone's size.

The exact opposite for me (my bias being: in/around silicon valley). The only people I see talking directly into phones are people who aren't likely to buy a NIT in the first place (lower income, lower gadget interest or sophistication in general, etc.). Everyone who buys smart phones, etc. -> headset of one kind or another.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

And the purist argument against having a WWAN radio in the NIT is already moot anyway. The N810 WME exists. That's a WWAN radio in a NIT.

There's 2 false arguments going on wrt to "3G" for the NIT:

• Not a good device for making voice calls -- Moot: the NIT is already used for making voice calls.
• A WWAN Radio built in is bad because of X -- Moot: the NIT already has a WWAN family member, the N810 WiMAX Edition.

Anyone who is resting their arguments against 3G upon things that fit those 2 statements either has already proven to be wrong, or is expressing a moot argument.

The actual arguments are:

• Which WWAN Radio networks should be supported? -- If Nokia is going to support something as niche as WiMAX, why not also support something that is very widely (globally, even) deployed, like WCDMA? They can already do that and support the 3 major flavors (Euro, Asian, AT&T*) with a single chipset. Nokia even already has quite a bit of experience there.
• Which types of voice calls should be supported? -- If you do add WCDMA and/or EVDO, why _not_ also add GSM and/or CDMA for voice, SMS, and MMS? Why would you ONLY allow VOIP calls if the chipset probably already gives you the capabilities for non-VOIP calls?

So:

If we have a WiMAX edition, why NOT also have a WCDMA edition?

If we have a WCDMA edition, why NOT support GSM, voice, SMS, and MMS?



* I'd love to see T-Mobile-USA support added to that, but I expect that that will follow as soon as it's economically feasible to add that to the chipset ... the hurdle is really "why not have a WCDMA Edition"?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I think you just illustrated the argument AGAINST embedding a cell radio in a NIT and a good argument for what I've been saying--put a slot in there where we can buy a radio separately and CHOOSE the carrier and radio we wish to have. Making multiple 'editions' of a product is terribly wasteful and expensive.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Actually, not bad. I must confess I do not like the idea of the top end sticking out (pocket issues), but it would be workable. You've just inspired me to pull the ExpressCard/34 remote out of my laptop (******ed IR remote that just stores in the slot; I've no real cards for it), and hold it up on the back of my N800. What I see, I begin to like.

Yes, and I don't know what signals we can get off our SoC, much less the OMAP34xx, but I know we've got USB (which seems to be what most WWAN cards use), PCIe and PCI both seem longer shots. A USB-only ExpressCard/34 (or maybe even a /54, if it seems helpful) is comparatively easy to add.

Depends; it could be mounted on the battery door with a flex-cable, simplifying that greatly.

:D:D:D

I'd rather see dual, hot-swappable batteries, but it would be less change, hence more likely to make it, to mount the card slot in the door. In a production unit, the case-back would have to connect to a connector with a flexible cable. The USB test-pads used for factory flashing would work nicely for a N810 mod, though.

Interestingly, the BP-4L and BP-5L seem to be practically the same size. From that, online pictures of the N810, and the N800 & EC/34 sitting on my desk, I wonder if the Mugen 3.5Ah battery that's available could have such a slot added to its casing, but off to the left, not centered.

(This is getting a little OT, as we don't want the N900 to merely be suitable for hacking something together out of third-party components. But it would be a cool mod, and I think it would actually be feasible.)

I'm seeing EC/34 EDGE modems for ~$140, N800 back covers for ~$20; I'll have to look at the possibility of adapting a BP-4L for the N800 (and frankensteining the N800 and N810 battery doors), and EC/34 connector/slot hardware, but this is actually looking feasible. And involving no mods to the card itself (the biggest single investment), if I did fail, I could resell that, or use it in my laptop.

Oh, by the way, you've pretty well sold me on suitability of the ExpressCard form-factor; it's not as big as I was thinking. :D

Pardon me while I go shopping for components...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

While I don't completely agree with you that it's a solid argument AGAINST multiple editions, I will say that my preferred model is in fact having a module over something built in. My ranking is probably:

1) some module interface, maybe ExpressCard -- though, heavily depends upon having the right drivers available for the NIT. Extra bonus: if you can make it so that you can do data, txt, and voice all at once.

2) many editions (probably 3 initially: no-WWAN, WiMAX, and WCDMA, I doubt anyone, at this point, would make an EVDO version ... though eventually there would be a 4th edition with LTE)

3) no built-in WWAN option at all.


I think by far, #1 would be the best and most ideal.

I also think, BY FAR, that #3 is absolutely the worst of all possible plans.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

god this thread is getting stupid.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Understood, but that is because its a licensed spectrum in contrast to DECT, BlueTooth or WiFi.

Thats a moot point. There are all kind of backward compatibilities. You were able to use GPRS 5 years ago, and you'll be able to use GPRS in 5 years, too. The same is true for the popular implementations of 3G. Yes, you never know. A telco could go kaboom. We might enter in a Great Depression, or a war, or a black hole... but these networks were rolled out with major infrastructure investments.

If you'd argue: well, soon 4G is out, and my current $device can't use that, yes, you have a valid point. However new != better, and this is an inherent feature of hardware, and also true for USB 3.0, BlueTooth 3.0, 4G, WiFi 802.11i, WiFi 802.11g, and so on. Its even more an inherent feature of embedded hardware.

To mitigate this the Sharp Zaurus had a CF and a SD card. However, on-board storage was minimal (except C3x00 series), and it did not have on-board WiFi, BlueTooth, or GPS. Most Zaurus users ended up with a SD card for storage, and a CF card for WiFi (only supporting 802.11a/b). While there were CF cards providing GPS you couldn't use them because you already needed a WiFi card.

On a NIT this is potentially different because a NIT already has BlueTooth, WiFi and the N810 even GPS. However in this Age you can't expect users to carry around all kind of devices, batteries, cables, and so on. The default ones are already more than enough. That makes a USB 3G not a good option although it'd use about 400-500 mA while in use, and about 70 mA when idle (can be disabled too, ofcourse). So, if the NIT would have CF, PCMCIA, or USB (normal connector) this'd open a wide perspective of possibilities. Add to that being able to power the device over USB, and the fact such USB controller shouldn't be wasting much space in contrast to PCMCIA or CF.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

the thing about wimax is that many see it as a extended range wifi, and therefor not tied to the evil that its the mobile operators.

sad thing is that most wimax implementations so far are using licensed frequencies. so no chance for a urban area to pop up a couple of wimax antennas gotten of the shelf and hooked into some peer or transit provider, municipal style...

thing is that for me any kind of 3G radio in the tablet would bring the price up without adding much in the way of utility.

i already own a phone that i can use for those times that i cant access a wifi connection. and that happens so rarely, that paying for two subscriptions/plans would be overkill. instead i can use the one phone connection i already have with any device that has bluetooth or a usb port (if i remember to bring the cable).

so a 3G radio would basically be expensive dead weight.

but thats me. some others may want a one device solution. to them i would say to grab a HTC or iphone.

oh, and using the tablet for voip, not this guy. i carry a phone, i use a phone, simple as that. i would much rather see xmpp get a single voice and video standard in place then sign up for skype, gizmo or some other voip provider.

on the other hand, i would not mind seeing a CF slot ;)

oh, and did people see this recent development on the neo freerunner:
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS6565189083.html

i wonder if nokia could provide for something similar on the next tablet ;)

that is, expandability by bulking it up...

dont know about others, but my favorite toy growing up was lego ;)