Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

CDMA is in decline. And last I checked, bringing up CDMA in a conversation about two clearly known GSM phones is much like talking about cars, but switching it to be about a diesel engine.

Sure, it's still a car, but you didn't specify that in the beginning. I'm quite sure semantic hounds will have fun with that one.

I'd still say that the iPhone doesn't really have that much in its favor for the majority of this group collected here it seems.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

I have iSSH on the iphone and it's horrible compared to the N900. Even the simple act of creating and using a private/pub key pair is a hassle on the iPhone. I can't see much on the screen on the iphone due to on-screen keyboard. ssh is one area where the N900 and the real kbd really shines. I'm fortunate to have good eyes for up-close work so I set the font size to 10 and have 96 columns of text available when editing. A real dream come true for me.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Not to mention unless you install some backgrounding application (after jailbreaking) you can only run that app.

If leaving an ssh connection is an issue you can just change it so SSH is off by default and then setup an alias to turn it on when needed. Or off (vice-versa).

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

the only reason i reckon the wii outsold the ps3 is because of the price. the interactive motion controlled games of the wii and the touch screen of the ds would attract a broader range of players, parents and young kids alike. for the hardcore gamers like myself i would go for the ps3 and psp all the way.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

The PS2 was priced higher than the competition and it outsold the others during its time. It had the pleasure of being both a full-fledged DVD player as well as a game system. The Gamecube nor Dreamcast had that pleasure.

Fast-forward, the PS3 is the Blu-ray "backdoor", just like before it is a full-fledged player and at a cheaper price than most other players yet you also get a game system.

Doesn't seem like it's working in Japan. The interactivity of the Wii could be one reason. Another would be that games speak more for themselves than the exclusives on the PS3/360. But remember... this is Japan. So Shigeru Miyamoto really is like a god there... and that's perhaps the biggest draw.

A lot of speculation, true... but the fact is that it outsold the more powerful PS3 in their home territory.

Hardcore gamers seem to really favor the XBOX Live system, despite having less in numbers, it's more "active" for a paid-for system. Sony's Playstation Network, while free isn't as "active" it seems.

And I'd actually say that the PSP isn't really a "hardcore" gaming solution - the releases are too far and few between in most cases and they've really screwed up with the PSP go. And even though hardcore gamers make up a serious core of the gaming community... the Wii and Nintendo DS have shown that casual gamers are definitely willing to buy games... even moreso than the hardcore crowd.

Can it be said it's the same in the phone market too? The hardcore power users just might not flock to the N900 and other more powerful offerings than the more commercially/casual user phones?

Who knows?

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

an email app? are you serious. the iphone email experience for me was a nightmare. you can argue theres an app for that. but the n900 defeats the purpose for that app.yeah there alot of issues right now. but do you remember the iphone in its first month first year bugy little ****.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

what the f is a hardcore gamer? just because you play hrs of 1st person shooters all day does that make you a hardcore gamer. so some one who plays twilight princess or mario galaxy isnt a hardcore gamer. please.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

I'd argue that anybody that plays Mario Galaxy or Zelda: Twilight Princess is easily a hard core gamer as well as the Halo, Killzone 2 or Modern Warfare gamers as well.

Just my personal opinion. I'd call the Wii Fit users casual gamers though - which until MW2 was one of the top best-sellers this entire year.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

I do. And I was not happy with it in the first two years of the iPhone.

But Exchange 2003 support right out of the box is something a lot of people expected but didn't get with the N900 - only Exchange 2007. And my memory isn't too short, but the iPhone didn't have it initially either. And OS 3.x has introduced some new quirks on the iPhone.

But for IMAP, both have been heralded as great for a mobile client.

The fact that people are bringing up the issues now though shouldn't be seen as a negative. Can't get better without pointing out a few shortcomings. That's how I see it.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

got a lil sensitive over hearing that term used so losely lately. wasnt really an attack on you jus that in genereal. but ive lost many hrs of sleep with the 360 wii and ps3. but i do get you its about the user experience not the hardware. thats what will push the n900 to the top

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

listen nokia. lets not forget the n96.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Naw, I didn't take it personal. Just continued with the discussion.

We do agree... it's the user experience and software that will push the N900 to the top. I just wonder though... what user experience/killer app will be what kicks it to the top.

I think the typical consumer is totally opposite of the heavy-duty users of these type of phones; thus the user experience and killer-apps are markedly different.

Video calls - be it via Skype I'd hope - is what I've been screaming for the most thus far. But I know that I'm a serious minority in that wish. Most others want something a lot more "powerful"... like tools to admin a server. I'd rather have a larger screen for that kind of stuff.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

CDMA might be in decline, but if you discount it T-mobile is #2 and not #4, and also not supported by the iPhone. Original statement still untrue since iPhone only supports one of the two (unless you want to argue there's only one major UMTS network in the US, which is then your problem).

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

AT&T is GSM. Verizon is CDMA/GSM with a swift movement to GSM mostly. Sprint is CDMA, and T-Mobile is GSM (mostly, some pockets of Suncom were CDMA, but I couldn't tell you if they forced the upgrade to GSM in the last two years)...

T-Mobile is a far cry from being #2.

And I think that my original statement has been taken so far out of context, I'd like to return to it. N900 supports only T-Mobile's 3G (not GSM, please don't confuse those terms) and nobody else. You will be using EDGE if you're not on T-Mobile's network.

Quad band radio in the iPhone can support the areas that are 2100mhz within the T-Mobile area (they exist, just like 850 exists in NYC for instance). So you'd have 3G access, albeit in just a few places.

If you suggest otherwise, I'd love to see your proof. I don't mind admitting I might very well be wrong. But without seeing it, I'll stick with the fact that the N900 is not as portable as a quad-band data enabled phone of any brand. 1700mhz is unique only to T-Mobile in the US.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Do you have a source for Verizon going GSM-family before rolling out LTE (4G), which is still at least a year or two away? (Not to mention that one source I found there said they were likely to stay with CDMA for voice since in LTE a lof of focus is on the data capabilities)

The iPhone has tri-band UMTS support (850/1900/2100, quad-band GSM is the same as in N900), which doesn't support Tmobile.

So in summary, for 3G the N900 only supports Tmobile of the current major US carriers. iPhone can run 3G on AT&T and in some areas also T-mobile. So yes, the iPhone has more 3G support (in North America), which I admitted from the start. What I objected to was the statement that it supports "all major [US 3G] networks", which it clearly doesn't.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

I know of nowhere that Verizon is GSM. The only phones they support that do GSM (and CDMA) are their world phones meant for roaming outside the U.S.

Verizon's next step is LTE in the 700 Mhz band. According to a Verizon spokesperson at an LTE rollout event in Philadelphia several weeks ago, they'll be running voice over data on it eventually, and CDMA will die off (but will probably take several years to transition everyone off of it, similar to the move from analog)

For a 3G phone to work with T-mobile's 3G it must support *both* 1700 and 2100, not just one or the other. 1700 is used for uploading and 2100 for downloading. So getting the iPhone to support 3G on T-mobile is a bit more complicated than it looks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

I use google apps, as the mail web client is so good. the web calendar is good too, and works offline with google gears.
Could use Evolution, i guess.

heathen! That only runs on Windows doesn't it?

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

iphone at the moment = casual users since it got a more mature software support.
3 years almost on the market makes a huge difference.
But the iphone sure sucked right after release and still does unless you jailbreak it.

The N900 is as stated more targeted to the early adopters at this point but is so much more in line with my needs then the iphone.

Hard not to see the obvious advantages with superior codec support movies/music and the lovely drag and drop file system compared to the inferior itunes that really kills the "easy" part.

Also would love to see the iphone try viewing stuff on the screen streamed from your server.

N900 does that right out of the box with say, Tversity installed on your pc.
Pretty nice to be able to be in the bedroom streaming media to your phone that you just connected to your tv with the tv-out from the phone.
And that is done without a single setup, show me any iphone jailbroken or not that can deliver that solution for your media needs ;D

Iphone is a great phone for some users, just like the N900 will be a better choice for others like me.
We should be happy with the amount of awesome phones that comes out.

And a final note, I like so much more to be able to customize my screens then having them cluttered with tons of apps...

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

And if I play all of the above (including Wii Fit) and beat MW on Veteran mode? =P

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

You're the f'n man.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

So their worldphones are only for roaming outside the US? Then what about the HTC Touch Pro 2? Verizon offers that and it's quad band GSM on their site. Same for Blackberry Storm, Blackberry Tour, Blackberry Storm 2... and a few others.

Ok, this I didn't know. Thanks.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

I didn't realize this.

Would this potentially cause a battery hit in comparison to 3g networks that use only a single band?

It seems like it could potentially improve performance to.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Every 3G bands have to use two different bands for the upload and download. Like the EURO 2100 even if it is only called 2100 it is actually using somewhere in 19XX for the upload and somewhere in 21XX in download. It all depends on how they explain it or how they imprint it.
For better clarification please refer to this

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

First of all let me ask the mods why this thread has not been moved to competitors section? If I mention anything remotely related to Apple or iPhone in my threads they get immediately moved there.

Secondly, peope who have smoked the Nokia pot, wake up. The N900 is a great device, much better than the average. But it is not market leader in many ways. Basically it's a half baked device. Let's start with hardware:

1. Screen. It has a good resolution and color. Sensitivity is good. How much extra would've cost to apply the oleophobic layer on it like the 3GS'es? $2 bucks, five tops.
2. Camera. It is better than the 3GS but worse than many other Nokia's. 5MP is pretty average. Lots of phone cams are now 8MP. New Sony-Ericcson has 12MP. Where is the optical zoom? Regular P&S cameras half the width of the N900 have 3X optical zoom.
3. Keyboard. Good typing on it. Worse than BlackBerry. Controversial (learnable though) location of space bar. 3 rows of keys. Could've easily been 4 like the Droid's or most other smart phone's.
4. Speakers. Good but worse then N95's.
5. CPU. Same as 3GS. Could've been 1GHz SnapDragon.
6. Storage. Same as 3GS with expandable. Noone will use that feature because one must remove the batter to replace the microSDHC card. Why isn't there an external slot?
7. Browser. Better than Safari. No portrait support (yet). Again a half baked solution.
8. Phone hw: better than 3GS. No North American frequency support for 3GS except T-mobile. I thought that frequency tuners are eletronic, so whatever chip Nokia uses should be programmable to so frequencies yet it's not.
9. Overall build quality: on par with 3GS
10. OS: better than 3GS
11. Available software: 3GS wins

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

trolltastic! at least get your facts straight.

sim card is behind the battery. microsdhc is next to the battery and accessible without battery removal

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Though I would have preferred an external slot. Heck I would've preferred the use of an SD slot instead of microSD. There's no point in a 1 Ghz Snapdragon since the Snapdragon takes care of all functions (audio, gpu, etc..). While the N900 and the iPhone both use the 600 Mhz for CPU, while offloading the GPU and audio work to dedicated processors. For example, right now Flash 9 uses the CPU mainly (hence why some sites like Hulu don't work well on the N900). But Flash 10 offloads the work to the GPU.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Correction: remove the battery is incorrect. Just pried open my N900. All you have to do is to take the back cover off by risking to break the little plastic flaps around the edges. Definitely not a daily task.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

I am writing this from my N900. Did a test of 3g speeds btw N900 (tmobile) and my iPhone 3GS, which is on att, as I traveled from NJ to northern OH along interstates.

att has much better coverage and I was often getting 2 Mbs download. Tmo would only get 3g every once in a while and even then would top 900 kbs. Interestingly, upload would be higher on tmo than on att, about 340 kbs vs 280.

Of course, that has not much to do with the device. On the other hand, if its potential is limited by the only provider one can use it on in the US, that tends to reflect poorly on the device as well.

My other qualm is the email client. It is beyond poor, completely unusable. It takes about 30-45 sec to retrieve a message (imap) and then it often freezes. Email is a fairly essentiqal fumction so one would hope to have the basics done right the first time around. iPhone's email client is, on the other hand, quite robust and usable.

So, while I would love to replace iphone with N900, for everyday smartphone use iphone is still ahead by a large margin.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Ok, I'm curious. Any of you out there using a n900 in a T-mobile high speed 3.5G area? I'm in FL, in one of the 3.5G areas. I'm currently on AT&T myself, but a co-worker of mine is on T-mobile with a G1. Sitting in the same office, I was pulling 500kbs off of one of the speed test sites (the large file test), while he was getting 5Mbs off of the same site, same file size. Real world speed/bandwidth anyone?

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

snedley, sorry if this is a stupid question:

Can the 3G bands be updated through a firmware update, or are bands part of the hardware? In other words; could a firmware update potentially allow AT&T users to get 3G?

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

apology accepted, but not a promising first post, eh? :-)
I think you knew the answer, you were just being an optimist.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Because the 3GS' screen is better? Nearly all components have both advantages and disadvantages - pick the screen that fits the best for your usage. If you prefer the 4:3 ratio and the 480x320 resolution more than anything else, then it's up to you.

Buy some duct-tape. Buy a DSLR. Get pants with giant pockets. Now you're done - your "phone" will have a killer camera.

The optimal number of rows is subjective. The combination of hardware and software QWERTY is still rare among the flagship models. Once again, prioritize yourself what's important and what's not. Maybe you're looking for a Nokia 1112...

Worse than 3GS'? I wouldn't think so. The N95 and the 3GS are champs in some areas, while they're seriously lacking elsewhere (especially the 3GS). No device is perfect, but the N900 does actually combine most of the good things from both the N95 and the 3GS.

First off, the 3GS and the N900 does NOT have the same chipset. Some say one of them is better, others say otherwise. The 3GS' CPU is an ARM Cortex A8 833MHz underclocked to 600MHz (identical to the N900's speed). The 3GS' GPU is an PowerVR SGX 535 28MPolys/s underclocked to 7MPolys/s (half of the N900's speed). And most importantly, the 3GS lacks a DSP. It really doesn't matter what's on paper - it's the reality that matters. Good luck to even match the N900's GPU with the 3GS - you'll need it, really. The lack of a DSP doesn't make it better.

Now, when we've accepted that the Iphone hardware is crapified, let's discuss why Snapdragon should have been chosen instead? Perhaps becuase the best multi-tasking phones (N95, Omnia HD and least but not last N900) happens to have an OMAP SoC? Or perhaps becuase the Snapdragon (in theory as well, see previous posts) is junk?

You must be kidding. The storage of the N900 is yet unmatched, no matter what competitor you consider today. Se previous posts for more information about this.

Do you prefer having to wait for a superior product, or do you want to have the possibility of trying it, despite of the lack of completion. The incomplete product (in this case Micro-B) might still prove itself better than the complete competitors (which is the case here).

Get over it. Do you buy a phone or a contract in the first place? Also, enjoy an Iphone with T-mo - not that you can easily buy one unlocked.

Or not. The most N900 faults have been software issues, which (mostly all) can be solved with firmware updates. However, the first batch of the 3GS had a dump chipset position (in order to minimize the design as much as possible without skipping some necessary parts), which often caused overheating. It might be history by now, but how as a consumer are you supposed to know that, when Apple never even admitted the issue in the first place (now that it's fixed they could at least admit it, but no... we prefer silence).

Personally I agree, but this is highly subjective. The Iphone is Unix-based, and if it wouldn't be that locked, gimped and simplified, then maybe you'd think otherwise.

Quantity > Quality ?

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

The problem is that Nokia is playing the catching up yet again to Apple. The 3GS came out months before the N900 and hardware-wise the N900 definitely is only marginally better and in some cases worse then the 3GS. Available software wise it's definitely worse.

This is in competing with a company that didn't even know what a phone was 2 years ago. Nokia may have the talent pool to do great things, but nothing it ever did was revolutionary. Everything was always a small incremental improvement over the previous version.

When the iPhone 4G or whatever will came out next year rest assured it will blow people away. To be fair, Nokia may end up doing the same with N920 should it chooses to remain a player in the game.

Don't forget the Android movement either. Close to 1 million of the Motorola Droids have been sold so far. What are Nokia's numbers with the N900?

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

To be fair, if AT&T doesn't get their crap together, the iPhone may suffer. Unless Apple has a contract in which they are able to bail on AT&T, they are going to experience a drop in sales at least in the U.S. (I'm not sure if the iPhone is sold overseas, but I assume it is.)

AT&T is so bad that just recently (yesterday apparantly) they have stopped selling the iPhone in New York City, stating that "New York is not ready for the iPhone."

The truth though, as we all know, is that AT&T's network isn't ready for the bandwidth usage of it. AT&T was also recently rated the WORST cellphone carrier by Consumer Reports. No surprise, the number of dropped calls I got on AT&T was horrendous.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

This is simply untrue. A quick glance over threads on this forum reveals numerous hardware/build quality issues with the N900.

The overall build quality of the 3GS is better than the N900. It feels more firm and not that plasticky as the N900.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Yes the iPhone is sold overseas. AT&T was practically given a lifeline when Apple gave it the exclusivity contract. The only reason why they singled out the iPhone two days ago was because the N900 they sell in the US doesn't work with 3G speeds on the AT&T network. In the meantime would be BB users were laughing. Shame on AT&T for blaming the iPhone for their shitty network.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

I manage it several time a day, no sign of issues yet. At least the ability to extend beyond 32GB is there. You lost this point.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Oh, and I just opened the back cover of my N900 without any issue. I don't get how it's difficult. There's even a little "lip" to grab onto (the side opposite the camera lens) which you simply pull on and it opens.

I've opened mine dozens of times without issue or worry. *shrug*

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

The same build quality that resulted in some units burning while others had off color screens? Every device out there regardless of who makes it will have some manufacturing issues.

Re: N900 vs Iphone.
 

Well there is thengoing dispute between Nokia & Apple so one might argue that they still don't know what a phone is! The only thing Apple did that was revolutionary with the iPhone was the UI. Even some of the gesture control interface was nicked from Creative!