Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Oct 2010 20:55 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless More mobile phone news! Rumours of an upcoming Palm Pre 2 have been swirling for a while, but now a French carrier has jumped the gun and spilled all the beans. Clearly a transitional device to bridge the gap between the first true HP devices, the devices updates and streamlines the Palm Pre Plus with an updated case, display, and internals. Also, it will pack webOS 2.0.
Order by: Score:
More markets?
by dpanov on Mon 11th Oct 2010 22:05 UTC
dpanov
Member since:
2009-01-12

Hopefully HP can deliver webOS phones to more markets than Palm managed to.

Reply Score: 2

RE: More markets?
by ricegf on Mon 11th Oct 2010 22:11 UTC in reply to "More markets?"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

It would be clever to at least support the 4 major US carriers. If Samsung can do it with Galaxy S...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: More markets?
by dpanov on Mon 11th Oct 2010 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE: More markets?"
dpanov Member since:
2009-01-12

Sure, but to be fair I care more about Europe, as I live here. In Bulgaria we have all the HTC, Nokia and Blackberry phones and even the iPhone (although on ridiculously high price), but we didn't even smell the webOS Palm devices.

Edited 2010-10-11 22:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: More markets?
by Moochman on Mon 11th Oct 2010 22:16 UTC in reply to "More markets?"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed. Especially in Europe.

Reply Score: 2

Boo. Hiss.
by mlankton on Mon 11th Oct 2010 23:25 UTC
mlankton
Member since:
2009-06-11

I continue to use my Pre despite an inferior hardware experience because I still feel the software experience is superior. Time flies in the world of smartphones, and HP needs to crank up webOS hardware development. This Pre2 is of no interest whatsoever. They need hardware that equals or surpasses newer offerings from HTC and Motorola. This ain't it.

Holding out for a nice, high res 4" with real keyboard, preferably metal construction instead of plastic from HP. But they better make it before mid summer 2011 or they are simply going to be out of the game, webOS or not.

Are you listening HP?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Boo. Hiss.
by mlankton on Tue 12th Oct 2010 13:32 UTC in reply to "Boo. Hiss."
mlankton Member since:
2009-06-11

Also, besides what I feel is a vastly superior mobile operating system, webOS is somewhat lacking in third party software. C'mon HP, offer some killer webOS hardware=more users adopt=more developers jump on board.

Reply Score: 1

Screen size seems the same?
by Eugenia on Tue 12th Oct 2010 00:02 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

If this has the same 3.1" screen, I would never consider it (no matter the added resolution). Palm has a very bad tendency on making handsets with very small screens. I personally want true 16:9, 1280x720 resolution at 4.5" size. Then we're talking.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Screen size seems the same?
by aliquis on Tue 12th Oct 2010 01:28 UTC in reply to "Screen size seems the same?"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Cool to see you around Eugenia ;)

So, happy now when you can even record HD video on a mobile phone? =P

N8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viv56drLjEk&fmt=22

Reply Score: 1

RE: Screen size seems the same?
by Lobotomik on Tue 12th Oct 2010 02:22 UTC in reply to "Screen size seems the same?"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

What´s with the gigantic screens nowadays? It is quite uncomfortable to put the current behemoths in your pockets, all that bulk and weight. And lighting up such a large surface eats up a lot of power, contributing to a puny battery life.

I had an HTC Magic with a 3.2" screen and it was large enough to comfortably use the browser, while compact and light enough for the shirt pocket. And this Palm phones have physical keyboards, so the full screen real estate will be available at all times.

I really wish them well.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Screen size seems the same?
by vivainio on Tue 12th Oct 2010 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Screen size seems the same?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

What´s with the gigantic screens nowadays?


If you are blowing 500eur on a device, you want a substantial screen on that. It's just a perceived value for money thing.

Switching to a device with smaller screen doesn't feel like a "upgrade".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Screen size seems the same?
by tony on Tue 12th Oct 2010 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Screen size seems the same?"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

"What´s with the gigantic screens nowadays?


If you are blowing 500eur on a device, you want a substantial screen on that. It's just a perceived value for money thing.

Switching to a device with smaller screen doesn't feel like a "upgrade".
"

It's not perceived value, it's actual value. Just the same way I can't go back from my 23/24 inch monitors on my workstation, I can't go back to 2" screens on cellphones.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It's not perceived value, it's actual value. Just the same way I can't go back from my 23/24 inch monitors on my workstation, I can't go back to 2" screens on cellphones.

That it's addictive is one thing. The question is : is it advantageous when it comes to making a battery last more than 1 day and fitting the thing in your pocket without crushing either the device or your leg ?

(The equivalent in desktop/laptop being that it's extremely hard to find backpacks that can store laptops more than 16" wide, leading to an obligation to use more impractical storage. Not to mention the weight issue.)

Reply Score: 2

_Nine_ Member since:
2010-10-13

So is a 19" LCD panel not an upgrade over a 21" CRT? Is a 50" plasma TV not an upgrade over a 60" rear-projection TV?

A larger screen only provides actual value if, in fact, that's what you want or that's what your needs dictate. There are some who think touchscreen keyboards are not an upgrade over physical ones.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

So is a 19" LCD panel not an upgrade over a 21" CRT?

Hum... Don't get me started on this, I've still to get past the "my eyes hurt" part of switching from CRT to LCD. Just as I finally started to get used to matte desktop LCD screens, I switched to a laptop and discovered shiny screens and lack of contrast management with horror...

Plus substractive synthesis is fundamentally a horrible idea anyway.

Edited 2010-10-14 05:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

So is a 19" LCD panel not an upgrade over a 21" CRT?


A wide-screen 19" is most definitely *not* an upgrade compared to a 4:3 21" CRT. In fact, any wide-screen that loses vertical space compared to the 4:3 screen it replaces, even if the "size" is larger, is a downgrade.

Is a 50" plasma TV not an upgrade over a 60" rear-projection TV?


Depends on the plasma and the TV it replaces. ;)

There are some who think touchscreen keyboards are not an upgrade over physical ones.


Here here!!

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

A wide-screen 19" is most definitely *not* an upgrade compared to a 4:3 21" CRT. In fact, any wide-screen that loses vertical space compared to the 4:3 screen it replaces, even if the "size" is larger, is a downgrade.

Indeed, widescreens are terrible for anything else than gaming and watching videos. Though some software manage to make use of the extra space for toolbar storage.

If I wanted a video game console, I'd have bought just that, not a laptop.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Screen size seems the same?
by _ktk_ on Tue 12th Oct 2010 10:42 UTC in reply to "Screen size seems the same?"
_ktk_ Member since:
2010-10-12

I actually would buy it for the fact that it has a small screen. I want a mobile phone, not a damn pocket computer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Screen size seems the same?
by mlankton on Tue 12th Oct 2010 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Screen size seems the same?"
mlankton Member since:
2009-06-11

Then buy a feature phone. If I have a GHz cpu and the ability to do everything on the web that I can on my workstation, I want to. Good luck browsing web forums and such with a 3.1" screen. Useless.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Actually, believe it or not, I daily browse OSnews and several Wordpress blogs on the 2.36" display of my E63 and it just works perfectly fine...

In fact, since a bigger display almost always means one of the following...
-A tactile keyboard with no haptic feedback and hence a tragic love of missed keys
-A fragile slider
-An alphanumeric pad like in the olde days
...I think that for an heavy comment/mail/text user and casual web browser like me, the format used by most Eseries and Blackberries just does its job perfectly fine...

Reply Score: 2

_Nine_ Member since:
2010-10-13

+1 to that. The fact that viewing some web pages and forums on phones requires all sorts of scrolling gestures doesn't mean that all phones should change--it means the sites need to change. Sites either need to suck it up and create mobile-friendly version, or the browser makers and HTML5 standards committee need to implement logic to refactor web pages based on screen size. Some mobile browsers do this already.

The issue is that sites don't want you viewing mobile versions and skipping all those wonderful ads. I don't want the full desktop experience on my phone. I want an experience that's customized for a mobile experience, which isn't just about screen size, but also about how i'm using it (aka, on the go). Have fun scrolling around full web sites. And, Apple's attack on Flash notwithstanding, have fun waiting for Flash sites to load on your mobile.

Reply Score: 1

kawazu Member since:
2005-12-11

Actually, believe it or not, I daily browse OSnews and several Wordpress blogs on the 2.36" display of my E63 and it just works perfectly fine...


+1 on that here... To me it generally seems a matter of use case, though... switched from a K800i to a Pre a while ago and never regretted. Talking about mobile devices, it's always a trade-off between device size, battery lifetime and screen (or, more important, keyboard) size. In most cases, the mobile device to me is the "uplink" to be online in situations in which I can't (technically, or due to space limitations - imagine the morning crowd in public transport) operate with larger computing devices. In such situations, as soon as the onboard software (browser, mail client, ...) does (a) render all the content you need reliably and in a pleasant way and (b) allows for easy-to-use facilities of scrolling and zooming, large screen size becomes an argument less relevant... ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Screen size seems the same?
by dagw on Wed 13th Oct 2010 07:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Screen size seems the same?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Then buy a feature phone.

What if I actually want android and all the advantages it brings?

Good luck browsing web forums and such with a 3.1"

I have an X10 mini pro with a 2.6" screen and find most web pages perfectly usable.

Reply Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I have an X10 mini pro with a 2.6" screen and find most web pages perfectly usable.


How's the build quality of the X10 mini-pro? What's it like typing on the small keyboard?

I'm very intrigued by it, and have been waiting for Rogers to bring it to Canada. I've seen the X10 mini, and it's smaller than I expected.

It's very hard to find a smallish Android phone with a full keybaord (onscreen keyboards all suck, and I don't want to waste half of the screen for the keyboard).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Screen size seems the same?
by dagw on Thu 14th Oct 2010 07:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Screen size seems the same?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

To be honest the build quality feels OK, but not great. That being said I've had it for 6 month so far, carried it in my jeans pocket with out any protective case and generally treated it without too much care, and it's still as solid as the day I bought it.

So while it might feel a bit plastic and not super solid it hasn't actually shown any signs of lacking in build quality.

As for the keyboard, I love it. Much better than any touch screen keyboard I've tried. Sure it's not in the same league as larger phone keyboards (like the old Nokia Communicators), but for the size it works great.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Screen size seems the same?
by _xmv on Tue 12th Oct 2010 11:52 UTC in reply to "Screen size seems the same?"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

1280x720 on a phone.. wtf

Reply Score: 2

RE: Screen size seems the same?
by JrezIN on Tue 12th Oct 2010 12:17 UTC in reply to "Screen size seems the same?"
JrezIN Member since:
2005-06-29

That would be pretty hard these days... you would probably have to set for 854x480 for 16:9 right now... but maybe next year...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Screen size seems the same?
by bnolsen on Tue 12th Oct 2010 15:23 UTC in reply to "Screen size seems the same?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

wow you can still see stuff at that DPI?

I like the large screen, but going overkill on resolution is a bit much. If it were possible I'd trade that high resolution for another day's battery life if possible.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Screen size seems the same?
by dagw on Wed 13th Oct 2010 07:10 UTC in reply to "Screen size seems the same?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

On the other hand, if this comes with a 4.5" screen I would never consider it. Phones aren't tablets and I wish they would stop converging. Requirement number 1 for a phone for me is must fit comfortably in my pocket, if it fails that test I don't care if it is made out of pure magic.

I have an X10 mini pro and love the size. I wish more phone manufacturers would experiment with what can be done with a sub 3" screen.

Reply Score: 2

megapixels?
by project_2501 on Tue 12th Oct 2010 13:31 UTC
project_2501
Member since:
2006-03-20

I don't get it - what's with all these tiny tiny devices with puny lenses and miniscule sensors boasting HD recording and high-res image capture?

You can't get that many quality pixels from tiny devices? There's a reason why professional video cameras and still cameras don't fit in your pocket.

Sure the things can output 1080p - but 1080p of what? fuzzy blurred gumpf?

I can take a 32x32 icon and rescale it to 1080x1080 - doesn't make it HD!

Reply Score: 2

RE: megapixels?
by bnolsen on Tue 12th Oct 2010 15:28 UTC in reply to "megapixels?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Marketing stunt. They use cmos sensors with ~2um pixels compared with 7.5, 9 or 14um on professional devices. You get high res devices but they're extremely noisy. In my experience 2.1 or 3.2MP is more than good enough for creating 4x6" or 5x7" prints which is what I would want off a cell phone.

Reply Score: 5

RE: megapixels?
by aliquis on Wed 13th Oct 2010 01:34 UTC in reply to "megapixels?"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

devices with puny lenses and miniscule sensors boasting HD recording and high-res image capture?

You can't get that many quality pixels from tiny devices? There's a reason why professional video cameras and still cameras don't fit in your pocket.

I can take a 32x32 icon and rescale it to 1080x1080 - doesn't make it HD!
Whould be much better if you knew what you talked about.

The Nokia N8 got a 1/1.83" sensor, that's almost as big as the Canon Powershot S95 and much bigger than the one in a Canon Ixus 130. I do understand that it's easy to get the impression the sensors must be small because the lens are but obviously you can't take that for granted. The iPhone4 one however is supposed to be 1/3.2".

Take this for example:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/gears-quick-guide-to-15-hd-camcorders,r...

"Sony HDR-UX1 1399.99 DVD AVCHD 3.5" 1440 x 1080i 1 x 1/3" CMOS/2.10"

See that? 1/3", and the camera cost 1400$
From 2007 though.

For video that may still be superior since it has fewer pixels and hence they can be larger.

DSLRs got popular because the sensors are much bigger giving a shallower depth. But in this case that will be more true for the mobile phone than the actual digital video camera ...

And the DSLRs only use a few of the total amount of pixels so you won't get resized DSLR image / sampling from all the pixels. However if you did I assume that would be superior, also on a phone.

The lens however is small. And fixed I guess. I don't remember how apertures work, it's rated f/2.8 but I don't know if that's related to sensor size or width of lens or diameter or something such.

Feel free to scroll down to Ixus 130 comparision:
http://mynokiablog.com/2010/10/03/the-truth-about-engadgets-nokia-n...

Actual video photage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viv56drLjEk&fmt=22

Photo quality against the Canon EOS 550D APS-C DSLR with kit-lens:
http://thehandheldblog.com/2010/10/04/shootout-nokia-n8-v-canon-550...


I agree less pixels may have been better, however people will simply assume the more pixel phone is better. In this case it doesn't matter much, the 12 mpx of the N8 gives about as big pixels as the 5 mpx of the iPhone4.

Also more pixels let you crop the image and keep decent resolution, or in the case of the N8 let you use digital zoom while still getting full 720p resolution (just choose different pixels on the sensor.)

Reply Score: 2