Engadget does not like Nokia. They made it pretty clear during a mobile summit when they spoke with Jon Rubinstein.

Watch for yourself - Start at 55 mins...

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/17/t...er-ipod-event/

I would would expect nothing but a bash from these guys.

Yes, I don't know why Nokia left out the phone features you mention. I certainly agree that people looking for a smartphone and not understanding the N810, etc., heritage of the N900, could be disappointed. I just think Nokia is marketing the N900 as a smartphone, has conceived of it that way, and intends it to lay the groundwork for future Maemo based smartphones, for better or worse, whether the N900 is up to the job or not.

To me the lack of call and end buttons is the biggest stumbling block. It's almost as if Nokia deliberately left out a couple features found on the N97/N97-mini, so they wouldn't be too much in competition with each other. It also would have made a lot of sense to have the same tilt up screen sliding form factor on the N900.

The guy clearly said it isn't a real smartphone because of the landscape issue...

I for one find accelerometer based re-orientation very irritating most of the time and am pretty sure I will find it's absence refreshing.

Omg, not all reviewers out there have to take the same stance as Nokia fanboys, y'know..

honest question: why do you guys NEED a hardware call and end call button?

Obviously any button related function could be reproduced on the touch screen. But I find it convenient to have a few dedicated buttons for some of the most basic elements of a phone, like, well, the phone. It's like a shortcut. In the rush of answering a call, it can be easier to find a button. It's locatable by touch and doesn't necessarily require looking at the screen. It's a quick way to launch the phone application. It's a quick way to end a call, even if the screen has been switched to another application for some reason (to look something up during a call perhaps).

You know, why have any dedicated buttons for anything? Unlock? The camera? Volume rocker? It's just about a certain basic level of convenience for basic functions. I still consider the phone to be one of the most basic elements of a phone.

It's a little bit like professional video cameras (or still cameras for that matter). They have lots of dedicated buttons and switches. It's low end cameras that are completely driven by an on-screen interface. A lot of people find interacting with a screen for every function less useable.

Anyway, that's my preference.

Because we have cars and need to have the eyes on the road?

Actually, that is one reason that is definitely not amongst my reasons. I don't talk on the phone and drive. Once again I'm surprised how openly people acknowledge doing this, as if it's perfectly fine, despite the ample evidence that it's exceptionally dangerous (i.e. people drive as poorly when talking on the phone, even with a handsfree headset, as drunk drivers).

Even pedestrians need hardware keys while walking in a busy street...

After using the N810 for quite a while, I don't see that this is a problem.

Using the finger: HAVE scratched it, due to a corn of sand on the screen. Would have seen it, except there was a big finger in the way, pressing it down. Also, makes the device full of finger fat, eww. The N810 isn't the easiest to clean either, with the immersed screen.

Using the nail: No scratches, no smudges. And much more accurate. Styluses, nails and toothpicks FTW.

Srsly. For twenty years I've been telling people not to finger my PC screens, and all of a sudden, a screen that's not full of finger marks is considered old fashioned? Get your fatty fingers off my screen! Consider what you're doing to your eyes, reading blurry screens...

I prefer a clean, non-fatty screen over designer glasses, any day.