OSNews

I wish the N9 would have the E7 housing; the N9 housing looks dull compared to the E7...

well the N9 isn't officially announced yet, and what we saw was probably a prototype, so things can still change a little bit. This has proved that Nokia can still make hardware that can turn heads even in the age of the iPhone, though like many have said it will be the software that will make or break this thing. And we won't be seeing any real in depth reviews for a little while longer. I think that most people expect it to do well in areas where symbian all ready has high market penetration, which should help Nokia's falling stock price. The question is will it be enough to gain ground elsewhere.

Edited 2010-09-14 22:39 UTC

They look like great phones, I just wish they had Android on them.

That's a cop-out. Marketing can't make up for bad software. There are plenty of bad software that has had great marketing (as recently as the Kin), and they didn't sell well.

As tough as it may be to accept, people use Android (and Apple) because they're great, easy to use platforms with a ton of great apps.

Nokia is losing market share not because of marketing, but because they're falling way behind.

And defending the stylus? Nokia won't even defend the stylus, they know they need to get rid of it and are moving towards multi-touch as quick as they can. They're just way behind. Unless the stylus is being used to actually draw or write, it's just a cop-out way to make a mouse-based interface work with our stubby, imprecise human fingers.

No, sorry but the stylus is definitely a plus. You are not forced to use it. It does not replace the mouse and is not meant to. Try Maemo on the N900 and see how handy the stylus is. You don't use it to open an app or to scroll. You use it for Xournal and for apps that require precision. Xournal is definitely not possible on device without a stylus. You still use your finger to scroll and to access menus. Multi-touch is nice but it does not replace the stylus.

Edited 2010-09-14 17:56 UTC

The presence of a stylus does require a resistive screen, which is less responsive to touch than capacitive. For the vast majority of people that would like to have a ui that does not require the use of a stylus, this is not a good trade off.

In the ideal world you would have a multi-touch screen that work well with a stylus. Indeed there is a trade off, but it is a good trade off for many people, including myself. Resistive touch screen has many advantages over capacitive, especially in mobile computing.

I can't disagree more. Obviously, part of it is personal preference. But its like you're recommending a Mc Donald's hamburger patty over a dry aged kobe rib-eye.

McDonald's is another example of good marketing. The kids think it is uncool to go to the Italian restaurant whereas McDonald's is cool, although the McDonald's is not necessarily better than the Italian restaurant.

Not my kids

They prefer burger king

Did you just equal the Italian place with McDonalds in terms of quality Oh dear, I'd stay away from that restaurant then :-)

No, sorry but the stylus is definitely a plus. You are not forced to use it. It does not replace the mouse and is not meant to. Try Maemo on the N900 and see how handy the stylus is. You don't use it to open an app or to scroll. You use it for Xournal and for apps that require precision. Xournal is definitely not possible on device without a stylus. You still use your finger to scroll and to access menus. Multi-touch is nice but it does not replace the stylus. "

If you lost the stylus, would you lose significant usability on the phone?

If I lost the stylus, I could replace it with anything that has a sharp edge, is not corrosive and can be handled in one hand. So I would not loose any usability at all.
Anyway, if I had no stylus at all I would indeed loose significant usability. Xournal would suck without a stylus. I could still use the phone app, watch movies or surf the web without loosing much though. I could still use the phone like other phones that do not have a stylus. I would definitely loose the extra usability brought by the stylus.

Tons of great apps only matter if your phone comes with crappy apps out of the box. Modern Nokias give you very usable navigation app (with free worldwide navigation), great push e-mail client and service, fully functional office suite (at least on E-series), etc. etc. I only need 6 additional apps for my day to day needs. Compare that with my/your Android.

Well it worked out for Windows...

Any GEM on Atari (ex)users out there?

I prefer the stylus over greasing the screen with my fingers.

Agree with the marketing comment. Lots of good products are sold badly and disappear. I haven't seen a Nokia phone in Boston for a long time.

Now that they have new leadership maybe it will be different (better?).

I like the Qt backend and think that it is a better way to develop code than the Java API that Android has. It also allows developers to use those skills for other apps on regular PCs as well. Win-win in my humble opinion.

Go Nokia!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who still likes Symbian. I'll say that some of the UI should be cleaned up, but Symbian can do pretty much everything and has to be one of the most power-efficient mobile oses around (very nice if you actually value battery life on your phone). It might not have a lot of bling, but that's just fine with me. I'll take functionality and performance over bling any day, and I've yet to see any current mobile os that can outdue Symbian for pure functionality and battery life.

I don't know about Symbian. I owned several Nokia phones where my latest was an N95 and I never liked Symbian, too messy and just not user friendly.

It's just too boring compared to all the other stuff in the market right now. Look at the video alone, the phone looks so old-fashion. And then he demonstrates multi-touch like we never seen that before come on.

The reason Symbian is the most used OS is because it is installed on $10 phones, not because it is so good so as long as Nokia keeps Symbian alive I'll keep running away from Nokia and buy something else.

i think that windows mobile 6.5 is more boring than symbian

I like Symbian too, because it's both powerful and power-efficient.

About the "powerful" aspect, I think some might disagree, so let me explain this : as far as I know, there's still nothing like the Symbian home screen around in bling phones, as of today. It gets a while before you get used to it and fully master it, granted. But then, with a quick look, you know everything important going on in your phone in an effortless fashion. No need to open several apps, no need to scroll across multiple panes and fight visually repulsive and unreadable widgets with an inconsistent UI. No hassle. Customizable to fit everyone's need.

Symbian may not randomly generate fart noise and display the fluid simulation of said fart on screen simultaneously, with propagation delays taken into account, granted. But unlike most other smartphone OSs it gets the basic phone and PDA functionality right, and makes it a pleasure to work with most of the time. And for those who love complex and battery-sucking applications on a 2" screen, there's still some gems on the OVI store, like the Skype app.

Symbian is a balanced OS. It can be nearly as good as s40 as a phone OS, though it's a bit more complex, and it introduces nice smartphone functionalities as the icing on the cake. That's why I like it.

Edited 2010-09-14 17:23 UTC

All those OSs are far behind Symbian in many important aspects. They all require large touch screens, lots or RAM and powerful processors to work. All that adds up to expensive phones with shitty battery life. Symbian on the other hand has non of those problems.

I recently bought a new Symbian phone and it is better than my Android phone in many ways. It cost less than half of even the cheapest Android phone, I only need to charge it once a week, for calling and texting I find it quicker and easier to use than my Android phone and yet it still has wifi, facebook, mp3 player, GPS navigation, browser and all kinds of stuff like that if you ever need it.

So while Symbian is not as powerful as iOS, Andorid and Moblin, it still has many features which makes it in many ways a better OS for actual phones (as opposed to portable media devices).

There's more to life than the iPhone "experience". Some people do not want to carry around a large and heavy slab with a one-day battery life, no matter how stylish. Some prefer pink, or clamshell, or Hello Kitty themed, or a physical keyboard, or waterproof, a better camera, or a xenon flash, loud loudspeakers, or inexpensive... Apple provides no choice, although its fans never seem to notice. For some of those not totally blinded, one-size-fits-all is not the right approach.

Most people will not spend all day playing games and browsing the internet, but might like using their email and social networks, checking maps and location info. Nokia provides them with several price-performance-style points to choose and be happy. The Nokia "experience" needs improvement, but it is getting it, and it is good enough as it is, anyway.

Android ??? Nokia has no handset running Android, as far as I know. And if you list all smartphone OSs, you forget Bada and WiMo. Moreover, if you rode this thread, you'll see several reasons why Symbian *is* competitive with iOS... By being much better for a different, larger user base.

Oh, and RIMOS, too