I cannot agree more. It's 3 weeks for me too and I have used much more the left side which is not affected! There is a small possibility to be the firmware; I leave that possibility open since I don't how the pressure is registered or if you could compensate the lack of sensitivity in 'special' areas. Most probable cause though seems to be faulty hardware.

This is really scary. I only hope that this is only in the first or some specific batches and that later it was fixed. Many others seems not to have this problem which must mean something like that.

Nokia makes really good devices and the 770/N800 look like they were made from a different company which used the logo.. This doesn't mean that I am not in love with my N800!

Please let us know of the result and how much time they needed for the repair.
Thanks, Chris

I contacted the sub-contracted repair company on Monday (2 April) which is when I found out it had already been repaired with a replacement LCD - note: no contact from Nokia or the repair company, I had to track them down for an update.

I had expected it back by Friday at the latest, but no luck. I'll have to contact them again on Tuesday to find out where the heck it is.

Rest assured you'll get a full update when I have it back!

Relax Karel. You appear to have jumped to reply before actually reading my post. In case others did as well, kindly note that I was brainstorming, NOT specifying known cause. That should have been readily apparent.

Karel, kindly remove chip from shoulder and read again, thanks.

As for your broad condemnation, I can personally guaran-damn-tee you that at least some parts of Nokia Quality Assurance worked EXTREMELY hard on assuring N800 quality. But I realize it's very easy to rant without having experienced the flip side of the situation.

Textrat, imo it's the way the internet tablet screens are/were always problematic (both on the 770 and the n800) that are making people frustrated. High density (~220 ppi) touchscreens (or touchscreen manufacturers) are probably hard to come by but it's not really an excuse because Nokia is such a big player and manufacturer in international mobile electronics. I can accept the design(cpu/ram wise, not case design) and material-selection(bad touchscreen) errors in Nokia 770 because it's such a new design/device, but seeing a similar error repeated (problematic touchscreen, I really don't care how it's a different problem because the regular customer won't care either) repeated in a beauty like n800 is just frustrating to me.

I've just scanned how my n800's screen is mounted and noticed one thing. If you look into the gap between the silver cover and the display you'll notice that there is a metal frame around the lcd, keeping it tightly. Tightly everywhere around the display, except for where the problematic sensivity area is located. The frame on the right edge of the lcd is loose and it's bent a bit. There is a gap between the frame and the lcd surface an the gap is biggest exactly where the sensivity is worst. No idea whether this has anything to do with the sensitivity issue.

I understand this and believe I have made that clear numerous times.

I believe I've also made clear that while I want to objectively engage in brainstorming and root cause analysis rather than engage in futile venting, I don't intend to let Nokia off the hook.

Let me run you folks through a hypothetical scenario:

Company N decides to make and market a widget... we'll call it widget7. The widget is unique, advanced and complex. Company N understands the potential widget market well, having been successful in parallel enterprises and engaged in detailed analysis of the potential market. Company N is also heavily involved in the infrastructure that will support the deployed widgets, another factor that should help the product's success.

Company N relies on other companies to make widget components, especially the doohickey, an extremely advanced part manufactured by the highly reputable Company S. Company S proves themselves adept at making the required doohickeys for widget7. There are, however, some defective doohickeys that make their way into widget7s.

Even as widget7 begins slowly infiltrating the enthusiast marketplace, Company N is already hard at work on widget8. Widget8 requires a more advanced doohickey, based on user feedback from widget7. Let's call it doohickey+. Company S demonstrates that they can handle it, assuring Company N they've addressed the earlier issues. In fact, the purchasing agreement makes Company S completely responsible for outgoing quality of the doohickey+.

Let that sink in.

Company N will still perform full testing on assembled products, of course, although using an AQL sample. As we all know by now, AQL sampling is designed to pass products, not fail them-- the goal is to sample a number that gives you confidence that IF your lot fails then you are not failing the entire lot unnecessarily. It is a gamble that almost every consumer device manufacturer makes, since it is time and cost prohibitive to fully inspect every single item in large lots. Let's say the lots are 10,000 per production run. Let's also say that sample sizes are 315 devices out of that lot, arrived at by standard statistical formulae.

Company N performs their testing and finds no doohickey+ defects during the production run. Testing is extensive and ensures that all critical functionality is covered.

After a couple of months, it becomes apparent that a tiny minority of purchased widget8s have problems with their doohickey+s. Based on the AQL sampling, Company N knows without a doubt that the defects affected no more than 5% of produced devices. They know this because, based on the sample technique, anything more than 5% would have caused defective doohickey+s to appear in the tested devices, enough to fail the lot and drive rework. 5% of 10,000 is 500. That seems like a lot to the purchasers, who congregate in a forum to commiserate, but of course quality engineers know that it is not. Still, the following formula applies:

Perception = Reality.

Unknown to those angry purchasers, even as defective doohickey+s showed up in the wild, they also appeared in internally-acquired devices. Company N passes this along to Company S, who was responsible for letting the defective doohickey+s out of their plant. Corrective and preventive measures are taken.

Company N's repair systems *should* be equipped to handle the ~500 devices in the wild, but for inexplicable reasons they are not. What should have been a small, easily-contained situation festers until it appears larger than it really is due to the justified complaints of a vocal minority. The situation escalates-


-and that's where I have to end our fairy tale. The real ending has yet to be written.

Great hypothetical scenario, thanks. I think it's also about the way these devices are handled by Nokia service points. I know that if I gave up my device* I may not see it again for two or three months (according to the chatter here in ITT forums) and more than 3 days is not "good service" to most people, and more than a week is just unacceptable.

That is also the reason my Nokia 770 (that has lost almost all touchscreen sensitivity but the screen edge areas) is sitting on the desk and not in some OSS-friendly friend's backpack.


* Not that the 770/n800 are sold in my country, so no service points that could repair them here. More than a week won't work if I were to send them abroad (to get service) with a friend either, since they won't be shipping the item back internationally and somebody has to pick it up. (obviously the issue is the service times and not the international shipping policies)

Yeah, I dinged the service system in the last paragraph.

I'm also have this problem with the right side and mine is bought on June the 7th. Sending it back for repair is something I'm not going to do at this point because it seems the chance is really high getting the same problem again even if they would replace the screen.

I thought mine wouldn't have this problem because the box had two Nokia seals on it and the down one was broken. I was hoping that Nokia opened it to upgrade the unit for this problem but unfortunately I was wrong. Still makes me wonder why they opened the box.