Related
I dropped Nokia after being soured by their N97 fiasco. Used Android exclusively since then, but for the most part, hardware was crap - sure processors were blazing fast but cameras sucked, such simple features as FM transmitter weren't available and the most important thing - battery life was horrible (sorry, coming from the other brand, getting 16 hours of battery life is horrible). So I decided to give Nokia N8 a chance... sure, the latest iteration of Symbian does feel outdated, but not too bad, I don't have 2342343 fart apps and finding apps is a pain. Now the good stuff - I get 2.5 days where with Android I'd get less than 24 hours, camera is superb, build quality is awesome (all aluminum), reception is WAY better than on any HTC/Samsung mobile that I had, actually useful features, phone is very snappy.
So the question begs... Why, why can't Android (which is the superior OS at this time) can't get such a battery life? Why do manufacturers insist on putting so-so cameras in their handsets? Why use all plastic in the construction? Why.. why..
Sad to say, but I'm way more satisfied with a device running a somewhat outdated OS.
And where exactly are you purchasing these Android brand cell phones?
What brand? The HTCs and Samsungs? Well, one came from Ebay, few came from the carriers. See, I didn't specify any specific models because every single ones that I used lacked in few important things, such as battery life. Either way, let's hope Android survives its retarded fragmentation and becomes just as stable (but not as stale) as Symbian has.
herzzreh said:
I dropped Nokia after being soured by their N97 fiasco. Used Android exclusively since then, but for the most part, hardware was crap - sure processors were blazing fast but cameras sucked, such simple features as FM transmitter weren't available and the most important thing - battery life was horrible (sorry, coming from the other brand, getting 16 hours of battery life is horrible). So I decided to give Nokia N8 a chance... sure, the latest iteration of Symbian does feel outdated, but not too bad, I don't have 2342343 fart apps and finding apps is a pain. Now the good stuff - I get 2.5 days where with Android I'd get less than 24 hours, camera is superb, build quality is awesome (all aluminum), reception is WAY better than on any HTC/Samsung mobile that I had, actually useful features, phone is very snappy.
So the question begs... Why, why can't Android (which is the superior OS at this time) can't get such a battery life? Why do manufacturers insist on putting so-so cameras in their handsets? Why use all plastic in the construction? Why.. why..
Sad to say, but I'm way more satisfied with a device running a somewhat outdated OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should consider WP7. Nokia is doing some hardware with WP7 in mind. They currently have the Lumia 800 (N9) and the Lumia 710. There isn't anything better than WP7 in my experience. It's even better than iOS. The battery life isn't too good right now, but Nokia's hardware may have that resolved.
Give WP7 a nod and check it out.
herzzreh said:
I dropped Nokia after being soured by their N97 fiasco. Used Android exclusively since then, but for the most part, hardware was crap - sure processors were blazing fast but cameras sucked, such simple features as FM transmitter weren't available and the most important thing - battery life was horrible (sorry, coming from the other brand, getting 16 hours of battery life is horrible). So I decided to give Nokia N8 a chance... sure, the latest iteration of Symbian does feel outdated, but not too bad, I don't have 2342343 fart apps and finding apps is a pain. Now the good stuff - I get 2.5 days where with Android I'd get less than 24 hours, camera is superb, build quality is awesome (all aluminum), reception is WAY better than on any HTC/Samsung mobile that I had, actually useful features, phone is very snappy.
So the question begs... Why, why can't Android (which is the superior OS at this time) can't get such a battery life? Why do manufacturers insist on putting so-so cameras in their handsets? Why use all plastic in the construction? Why.. why..
Sad to say, but I'm way more satisfied with a device running a somewhat outdated OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My camera is great. And as much as I use my phone...a day is pretty good for battery life..my. phone is a beast..
sent...ah whatever its on there now..
Well no OS is perfect, but all are satisfactory. Battery life is more or less due to Android inefficiency at handling resources. Camera, well that depends on the maunfacturers. To be honest, we all don't need or atleast I don't even need a N8 camera on my phone. I'm not the best photographer or do I expect to be, hence why my average 8MP is good enough for me. Nor do I always want to zoom into a photo to see the little details I captured. I like it exactly 8"x11".
Kailkti said:
Well no OS is perfect, but all are satisfactory. Battery life is more or less due to Android inefficiency at handling resources. Camera, well that depends on the maunfacturers. To be honest, we all don't need or atleast I don't even need a N8 camera on my phone. I'm not the best photographer or do I expect to be, hence why my average 8MP is good enough for me. Nor do I always want to zoom into a photo to see the little details I captured. I like it exactly 8"x11".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's perfectly understandable. This was more of personal rant for me - I'm kinda pissed that what I think is a superior OS doesn't do it for me, nothing more.
P.S. I disagree that all are satisfactory... Symbian S60v5 was something truly out of a horror movie.
Well I can't really say for symbian since I have never extensively used it. But judging from what I read about symbian, I will retract my statement of all are satisfactory.
I have to say, although Im an avid Android user, I feel its unfinished and lacks the polish both WP7 and iOS have. Whether ICS attempts to rectify this I'm not sure yet. The only thing thats stopping jump onto WP7 is lack of lastest gen hardware.
Give my a 720p with a dual-core proccessor and I'll be first in line!
I think the deal with battery life isn't always the battery or OS, but WHAT the phone can do and how often you use it. My old N95 8gb which I LOVED and hung onto for many years (and claimed a high price when recycled), that thing had many functions and that battery could last for hours or days, things like GPS/Maps (with the 3G loading more map squares as you move). The only time my Nexus S hasn't lasted a day unexpectedly was when I found the Facebook chat talking away in the background !! (quickly removed after that incident) I like the battery monitor graph so I can identify if there's a specific battery hog, but otherwise I always think if your phone is awesome and has many apps then the battery won't last long because you'll want to use it all the time. I imagine blackberry's last for a long time because they don't do anything fun afaik. :3
Also I find my OS very good ("pure Android"), and it gets frequent updates.
khsbenny said:
I have to say, although Im an avid Android user, I feel its unfinished and lacks the polish both WP7 and iOS have. Whether ICS attempts to rectify this I'm not sure yet. The only thing thats stopping jump onto WP7 is lack of lastest gen hardware.
Give my a 720p with a dual-core proccessor and I'll be first in line!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mine looks and feels very polished.
Android is Linux. Ubuntu doesn't look good out of the box, you gotta tinker with it to get it just right.
Sent from my Incredible 2 using xda premium
lowandbehold said:
And where exactly are you purchasing these Android brand cell phones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
everywhere..
and I think we must consider iPhone now..
I agree, Nokia is just superb in overall quality. Samsung focuses on great screens, HTC caters to gimmicks and openness and is pretty much favored largely by members here because they push the openness... Horrid build quality though. Nokia is just superb in quality. I'm so glad that they now utilize an OS that can keep up.
herzzreh said:
I dropped Nokia after being soured by their N97 fiasco. Used Android exclusively since then, but for the most part, hardware was crap - sure processors were blazing fast but cameras sucked, such simple features as FM transmitter weren't available and the most important thing - battery life was horrible (sorry, coming from the other brand, getting 16 hours of battery life is horrible). So I decided to give Nokia N8 a chance... sure, the latest iteration of Symbian does feel outdated, but not too bad, I don't have 2342343 fart apps and finding apps is a pain. Now the good stuff - I get 2.5 days where with Android I'd get less than 24 hours, camera is superb, build quality is awesome (all aluminum), reception is WAY better than on any HTC/Samsung mobile that I had, actually useful features, phone is very snappy.
So the question begs... Why, why can't Android (which is the superior OS at this time) can't get such a battery life? Why do manufacturers insist on putting so-so cameras in their handsets? Why use all plastic in the construction? Why.. why..
Sad to say, but I'm way more satisfied with a device running a somewhat outdated OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hmmm.. the camera on my evo 3D works amazingly. it is exceptional in my opinion. just because the the default "auto settings" aren't amazing, doesn't make it terrible. adjust the exposure, sharpness (all available in settings) bam, amazing pictures.
i'm not quite sure why the battery life is so bad on most android phones? the only thing i can think of (theory obviously, but logical) is that a lot of the top end android phones like mine for example have big processors and bigger screens... that display CHEWS through my battery life like you would not believe. it is rarely less than 50 percent of the battery consumption.
needless to say, another thing i enjoy about android is the fact that there are always expandable battery options. the one in my phone is currently the 4,000 mah from seido... i charge my phone once a week.
i have said it once, and again, i will never own a smartphone that cannot be rooted/jailbroken... there is too much spying going on from carriers and phone companies. they know what apps you use, how often you use them, and when you uninstall them. if you think i am making this up, you are a fool. they do this to market to you every time you log into the app store/market so they know what to throw at you - things you like...
i personally like to have all of that stuff NOT on my phone. for me, android provides freedom to choose what i put on my phone and who gets to see it... not the other way around. plus all of the customization that comes with android platforms. i would take a dream machine phone to move me in a different direction.
either way, here is a screen shot of my last battery cycle, this a modest example as there was very heavy use this past weekend. usually i charge it on a monday and it lasts till saturday/sunday...
oh and cool story bro
EDIT*** oh and z33, i totally agree with you about build quality. the build quality on the evo 3D seems rugged and archaic. i wish it was a little more "sexy" looking. i just love the utter performance of the thing. it is astounding the things this phone is capable of.
i think of it like.... apple products and a select few of other phones are like ferraris to me... and my phone is like a 67 camaro with a chevy big block and blower.... doesn't look to nice, but eats up anything in performance.
the lumia 800 is said to get over 27 hours heavy usage on 1450 mh, and that's immensely heavy use. I'll be testing this once I have it in my possession but it's another testament to Nokia optimization.
that would be expected out of a single core phone with a 3.7 inch low resolution display. not surprising.
and i shouldn't say low resolution, i guess the appropriate observation would be "lower" resolution than many others out there. most are pushing HD pixels.... 800x480 or whatever it is, is pretty bare minimum by today's standards. but on a smaller screen i suppose it will still look pretty slick and sharp.
z33dev33l said:
the lumia 800 is said to get over 27 hours heavy usage on 1450 mh, and that's immensely heavy use. I'll be testing this once I have it in my possession but it's another testament to Nokia optimization.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No matter what the build quality...it is just straight ugly. There is nothing sexy whatsoever about that phone. And the colors? It looks like it is made for a teenage girl. Also, you already admitted to the fact that they use second rate hardware...
khsbenny said:
I have to say, although Im an avid Android user, I feel its unfinished and lacks the polish both WP7 and iOS have. Whether ICS attempts to rectify this I'm not sure yet. The only thing thats stopping jump onto WP7 is lack of lastest gen hardware.
Give my a 720p with a dual-core proccessor and I'll be first in line!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The apps are atrocious, I have been using an HD7 for about a week and I am quite reaady to switch back. Moving to a Nexus One by the end of the week.
i tried the n9 yesterday, and i must say that the UI i far ahead of both android and ios. however, it has almost no apps compared to android/ios, and it is probably going to stay that way since nokia has dropped meamo.
lowandbehold said:
No matter what the build quality...it is just straight ugly. There is nothing sexy whatsoever about that phone. And the colors? It looks like it is made for a teenage girl. Also, you already admitted to the fact that they use second rate hardware...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I admitted that they often use outdated processors. Please stop attempting to troll, you're not particularly good at it.
No matter what phone you have, is it Android, Windows or Symbian, no matter post it here !!
Nokia Lumia 800, no competition. The build quality is unparalleled as it is a nokia device built out of polyurethane with a clear black display. This phone has fallen off of a second story balcony unscathed. It also runs the worlds best mobile OS, WP7, smoother than any of the other phones. WP7 is the smoothest, most responsive OS with the best social network integration and everything works outstandingly. It's the first device I've seen that is just outstanding out of the box. I have a GS2, I have an iphone 4s, neither of them hold a candle to this thing of sheer beauty.
z33dev33l said:
Nokia Lumia 800, no competition. The build quality is unparalleled as it is a nokia device built out of polyurethane with a clear black display. This phone has fallen off of a second story balcony unscathed. It also runs the worlds best mobile OS, WP7, smoother than any of the other phones. WP7 is the smoothest, most responsive OS with the best social network integration and everything works outstandingly. It's the first device I've seen that is just outstanding out of the box. I have a GS2, I have an iphone 4s, neither of them hold a candle to this thing of sheer beauty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahaha ok mate but the Nokia Lumia 800 is just brand new and a couple of days out and its a windows, But wait in the future of android, i think by myself Android is smoother and better then windows... sorry but that is my meaning.
cheers and have fun with your Nokia
I can assure you that android isn't smoother. The average framerate on upper end android phones is 26 fps or so. WP7 runs a consistent 60 fps. That's fact. If you feel it's better then that's your call but smoother can be disproven . Also, while it's only been available to the public for a week or so I've had mine about 3-4 weeks now.
I love my Samsung Fascinate but like any other phone it has it's issues. I like my wife's iPhone but it too has issues. I am sure that any WP7 phone is great and I am sure that it too has issues. there are plenty of phones to go around and people will like/dislike them all for one reason or another. I say pick one that works for you and respect everyone else for their decision too.
My favorite phone is whatever is in my pocket at any given time!
Definitely Galaxy S i9000 because of performance (not the best now but still run everything) and really nice looking display..
I love my Nexus S. I bought it cause it was one of the cheapest android phones on staff discount, and I didn't know anything about android at the time. I lucked out with a great device.
I like Android.
As much as I don't like WP, the Nokia Lumia is OUT OF THIS WORLD.
Sent from my HTC Sensation XL with Beats Audio X315e using Tapatalk
The phone that sends me to an ectasy akin to taking vegetable matter or performing vigorous activites. Or my sgs 2, its almost there. xD
Xperia arc, I love the feel when its in your hands.
ういこ!
Vibrant as it is my first android phone.
Hello guys, as of 24th of this month and until 24th feb im eligible for my upgrade on my contract. Im currently using a HD2, and im looking for advice on an upgrade. i have the highest contract so there is no phone as of yet i cant upgrade to. if i cant get it on my network ill just cancel and grab it somewhere else. a few points to point.
NO IPHONE i hate the thing its terrible.
NO ANDROID. not because i hate it but because im a windows fan boy. although i dual boot linux and run media centre via linux.
I loved the look and the feel of the hd7, BUT its dated and i want something that is keeping up with the times.
Basically windows phone 7, and Big screen, Gaming must be smooth like the hd7.large hdd. no idea if any phones do Hd movie playback well. i can run 720p via coreplayer on this hd2 so im guessing newer models can. i know its a large list, and pretty much a tight one ive seen the titan, but not sure if it beats the hd7. and tbh i want something to beat iphone.
whats due for release on t mobile uk up until 24th feb? what you brainiacs here think.
I'd go with the Titan
Sent from my HTC Vivid via Tapatalk
If you want WP then I'd recommend the Nokia Lumia. I don't currently have a Nokia phone but I had them for years and really rate them. If I didn't want Android, that's what I'd have.
That nokia with apple old Nano style is very eye appealing.
I been using windows 7 on my HD2 and I'm really falling for it. A few reason so far is the smoothness and ease of access. The zune software works very well with my computer. Android google music is cool but limitation to music and excludes video, picture, and podcast. iTunes I just hate with passion!
If you are going WP& I would recommend either the Titan or the Lumia they are two different devices just see which fits you the best
Focus S.
Samsung appearance/construction may not be that great but Super AMOLED+ is easily the best in terms of WP7 displays (and given how all WP7 phones have pretty similar specs, display is probably the most important thing which makes it stand out).
Super Amoled (+ / HD) is my preferred screen but the Lumia has an AMOLED screen and seems like a much better device. The Focus S was my third choice
The lumia devices have a clear black display that completely enhances AMOLED to a whole new level. I own a lumia 800 and it's mindblowing. If Nokia releases the rumored 900 before lumia 900 by then, take it and run.
get a blackberry then, it's solid, it always works, and it also have Apps
good on battery life, and great resale value
I love my original Focus, mainly because of the size and the front ascetics.
AllGamer said:
get a blackberry then, it's solid, it always works, and it also have Apps
good on battery life, and great resale value
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
10 minute boot time, application catalogue that you can scroll through in a matter of half an hour, no good games or decent apps, and halfway out the door as a company. Yeah, totally legitimate option.
z33dev33l said:
10 minute boot time, application catalogue that you can scroll through in a matter of half an hour, no good games or decent apps, and halfway out the door as a company. Yeah, totally legitimate option.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And more of a market share than WP7!!
lowandbehold said:
And more of a market share than WP7!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's on a constant decline!
z33dev33l said:
The lumia devices have a clear black display that completely enhances AMOLED to a whole new level. I own a lumia 800 and it's mindblowing. If Nokia releases the rumored 900 before lumia 900 by then, take it and run.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting. How is it in sunlight? (I know that isn't very important for most people, just wondering)
It takes a second longer to adjust than my focus s but once adjusted it's equally clear.
What I don't understand is at the start of the year we had the big show down of the GS4 vs the HTC One. People were going spec crazy to even the fact that the GS4 must be better because it has DDR3 or the HTC One screen must be better because the PPI is 480 (my phone says 480) to the GS4s 441. We even had people complain that the GS4 was a pentile screen and it didn't look as sharp as the HTC One and that OLED fades over time and if you have a static image on for too long, you'll see burn in. I can confirm the screen burn with OLEDs, the phones I've had in the past with OLED screens always get it.
However suddenly when it comes to Nokia they seem to get away with selling you dated hardware. It's 720p, the PPI is 334 and it's a PENTILE OLED screen...... they even put this tinted black glass over the front to try and hide the future screen burn. Somehow Nokia get away with it and people don't care, where it comes to everyone else however, they'll get scrutinized and people will say it's **** straight away.
Not only that but you're getting a dated S4 dual core and an Adreno 225 which is 2/3 years old at this point. What Nokia are basically doing is selling you last years hardware at $300 on contract! I could accept the argument that Windows Phone doesn't need better hardware or whatever, though nor does Android. My Galaxy S2 never had any lag or weird issues at the time it was released, it was one of the fastest phones out there. It's easy to look back at it now and say it was a PoS, that's because the software has evolved to the point it's showing its age. My point is, I'm not going to buy a phone that is crazy expensive, to get dated hardware that is now so cheap that Nokia must be making a mint.
I keep seeing this argument of how Android is laggy and requires 1000 cores to run properly. It's just not the case, I have a HTC One and Android runs perfectly smooth, no stutter and nothing has pushed it in terms of gaming and the browser is mega fast. If I put the HTC One next to a Windows phone in a store and compare them, I'm not seeing Android lag at all. In fact what I do see is the browser on the HTC One is way faster and it boots up a hell of a lot faster and the animation on the scroll is smoother, where it looks like it is dropping frames on the Windows Phone.
Windows Phone is smooth on the whole yeah, however it's a myth to me that Android is a laggy pos that requires a super computer to run well. I look at my usage on my HTC One and what does it say? 2 cores in use, 2 cores on idle and it's clocked at 1.1ghrz. So in reality Android doesn't need 4 cores to run well, those cores are only used from moment to moment when the cpu requires it. The same with memory, my phone is using 768mb ram right now, it doesn't need 2gb of ram, though I'm guessing a chunk of that is for the GPU as well, when it comes to memory, more is always better as it allows games to use larger texture files and what not. So I just don't get why you'd spend more money for less, I don't find that acceptable, yeah if the price was cheaper then it would be fine but... it isn't.
Battery life as well for the 1020 is meant to be horrible if you actually use the thing you buy it for, the camera. It's only 2000MaH and you cannot replace it and from my experience with the 808, you really need to replace that battery if you're taking lots of shots. If an Android device got that poor battery life, people would be going crazy, yet it's another thing that because it's Nokia... let them get away with it. I get 1-2 days out of my HTC One, it's only like 300MaH more than the Nokia 1020 and the 920, it's proof again for me that Android doesn't drain battery life mad, it's how you use it. You have freedom on Android to use the device how you life, I'm sure if you have 6 pages of widgets and you have every app open from under the sun in the background, you will drain battery. I'm just glad I have the freedom to do that and with true multitasking, not just a saved state.
I have to come onto form factor as well, again if an Android phone was as big as a 920 or a 1020 then people would be going crazy, even if it was an iPhone. Every review says the 920 is giant and hard to fit into your pocket and every review says the 1020 is horrible to hold because they put the camera bump too low down. Why do they get a free pass from that? People hated how the HTC One rocked about on a flat surface but no one seems to care that the 1020 is even worse.
Windows Phone lacks apps, it's a restrictive OS where you have to wait for Microsoft to do everything for you. It's basically a worse IOS with a different look, both pride themselves on being smooth but where Windows Phone lacks functionality, people give it a free ride because it looks different. I see so much hate on IOS because of Apple and how it's a closed OS, yet the same people do not care it's the same for Windows Phone. If Microsoft made it open like the desktop, I'd be so happy, however I hate having to wait years for them to do something, when a custom rom would have already done it on Android. Yet in every argument, the good points of Android never come up, it's always these unfounded arguments of how poorly it runs. I just think do your research, if you're going to buy a PoS phone that runs Android, then that's your own fault, you can find those cheap good for nothing phones on any platform.
At the end of the day though the 920 had a mediocre over saturated camera where the images were far too soft. I remember a website doing a blind comparison and funnily enough the iPhone 5 was everyone's favourite because Apple just get the software so right. The 1020's focus is obviously the camera and technically it beats everything but the 808, which lets be honest isn't really a smart phone as it runs Symbian. I've owned an 808, I've compared pictures to the 1020 and the 808 looks much better, especially in full resolution mode. I had to sell the 808 because I couldn't stand being on Symbian any longer and a camera doesn't make a phone, I can buy a separate camera and I have. I have a go pro 3 for my Motorcycle and I have a DSLR for shooting pictures I actually care how they turn out... obviously a DSLR beats even the 808 and 1020.
Again though I think the 1020s camera is flawed, it doesn't have a dedicated image processor, so images take so long to save. At the same time I could have taken 20 images on the HTC One or GS4 and for every day use they look just as good when you upload them to facebook or whatever people do. I think people are trying to treat the 1020 as some professional camera and forgetting about the rest of the phone. If you want a professional camera, there are much better options and you don't get locked into a 2 year contract paying $300 upfront. I do not feel that it's a good quick point of shoot like most other smart phones out there, just simply because it does take a long time to save images. Obviously the image quality is better, I've had first hand experience, however the images are over saturated like mad, judging by the 920, Nokia will not fix this. The images are over sharpened, you can not go down to ISO 50 and there is no ND filter for direct sunlight shots. So I don't see any advanced in this camera over say the 808 or a dedicated camera, I cannot see why it's hyped so much. The end result is too much grain and noise in the picture, especially if you use Nokia's automatic settings which just increase the ISO even in the daylight to 200... no wonder why there is so much noise. Realistically I want to be putting it to 50... yet I can't?
I think there is far too much hype for the phone that doesn't really do anything really well, the OIS could have been much better and the mic performance is lacking. I'm not sure if it's their software controlling the mics or if it's crap hardware. However it sounds like it's only recording in mono or it's really muffled or something, maybe Windows Phone doesn't support stereo recording?
You get these crazy rabid Nokia fanbois now just going crazy if there is any criticism and it's really weird. You don't get this from Android because people aren't tied to an OEM, people generally just go for the best handset that is released at that moment in time.
slannmage said:
What I don't understand is at the start of the year we had the big show down of the GS4 vs the HTC One. People were going spec crazy to even the fact that the GS4 must be better because it has DDR3 or the HTC One screen must be better because the PPI is 480 (my phone says 480) to the GS4s 441. We even had people complain that the GS4 was a pentile screen and it didn't look as sharp as the HTC One and that OLED fades over time and if you have a static image on for too long, you'll see burn in. I can confirm the screen burn with OLEDs, the phones I've had in the past with OLED screens always get it.
However suddenly when it comes to Nokia they seem to get away with selling you dated hardware. It's 720p, the PPI is 334 and it's a PENTILE OLED screen...... they even put this tinted black glass over the front to try and hide the future screen burn. Somehow Nokia get away with it and people don't care, where it comes to everyone else however, they'll get scrutinized and people will say it's **** straight away.
Not only that but you're getting a dated S4 dual core and an Adreno 225 which is 2/3 years old at this point. What Nokia are basically doing is selling you last years hardware at $300 on contract! I could accept the argument that Windows Phone doesn't need better hardware or whatever, though nor does Android. My Galaxy S2 never had any lag or weird issues at the time it was released, it was one of the fastest phones out there. It's easy to look back at it now and say it was a PoS, that's because the software has evolved to the point it's showing its age. My point is, I'm not going to buy a phone that is crazy expensive, to get dated hardware that is now so cheap that Nokia must be making a mint.
I keep seeing this argument of how Android is laggy and requires 1000 cores to run properly. It's just not the case, I have a HTC One and Android runs perfectly smooth, no stutter and nothing has pushed it in terms of gaming and the browser is mega fast. If I put the HTC One next to a Windows phone in a store and compare them, I'm not seeing Android lag at all. In fact what I do see is the browser on the HTC One is way faster and it boots up a hell of a lot faster and the animation on the scroll is smoother, where it looks like it is dropping frames on the Windows Phone.
Windows Phone is smooth on the whole yeah, however it's a myth to me that Android is a laggy pos that requires a super computer to run well. I look at my usage on my HTC One and what does it say? 2 cores in use, 2 cores on idle and it's clocked at 1.1ghrz. So in reality Android doesn't need 4 cores to run well, those cores are only used from moment to moment when the cpu requires it. The same with memory, my phone is using 768mb ram right now, it doesn't need 2gb of ram, though I'm guessing a chunk of that is for the GPU as well, when it comes to memory, more is always better as it allows games to use larger texture files and what not. So I just don't get why you'd spend more money for less, I don't find that acceptable, yeah if the price was cheaper then it would be fine but... it isn't.
Battery life as well for the 1020 is meant to be horrible if you actually use the thing you buy it for, the camera. It's only 2000MaH and you cannot replace it and from my experience with the 808, you really need to replace that battery if you're taking lots of shots. If an Android device got that poor battery life, people would be going crazy, yet it's another thing that because it's Nokia... let them get away with it. I get 1-2 days out of my HTC One, it's only like 300MaH more than the Nokia 1020 and the 920, it's proof again for me that Android doesn't drain battery life mad, it's how you use it. You have freedom on Android to use the device how you life, I'm sure if you have 6 pages of widgets and you have every app open from under the sun in the background, you will drain battery. I'm just glad I have the freedom to do that and with true multitasking, not just a saved state.
I have to come onto form factor as well, again if an Android phone was as big as a 920 or a 1020 then people would be going crazy, even if it was an iPhone. Every review says the 920 is giant and hard to fit into your pocket and every review says the 1020 is horrible to hold because they put the camera bump too low down. Why do they get a free pass from that? People hated how the HTC One rocked about on a flat surface but no one seems to care that the 1020 is even worse.
Windows Phone lacks apps, it's a restrictive OS where you have to wait for Microsoft to do everything for you. It's basically a worse IOS with a different look, both pride themselves on being smooth but where Windows Phone lacks functionality, people give it a free ride because it looks different. I see so much hate on IOS because of Apple and how it's a closed OS, yet the same people do not care it's the same for Windows Phone. If Microsoft made it open like the desktop, I'd be so happy, however I hate having to wait years for them to do something, when a custom rom would have already done it on Android. Yet in every argument, the good points of Android never come up, it's always these unfounded arguments of how poorly it runs. I just think do your research, if you're going to buy a PoS phone that runs Android, then that's your own fault, you can find those cheap good for nothing phones on any platform.
At the end of the day though the 920 had a mediocre over saturated camera where the images were far too soft. I remember a website doing a blind comparison and funnily enough the iPhone 5 was everyone's favourite because Apple just get the software so right. The 1020's focus is obviously the camera and technically it beats everything but the 808, which lets be honest isn't really a smart phone as it runs Symbian. I've owned an 808, I've compared pictures to the 1020 and the 808 looks much better, especially in full resolution mode. I had to sell the 808 because I couldn't stand being on Symbian any longer and a camera doesn't make a phone, I can buy a separate camera and I have. I have a go pro 3 for my Motorcycle and I have a DSLR for shooting pictures I actually care how they turn out... obviously a DSLR beats even the 808 and 1020.
Again though I think the 1020s camera is flawed, it doesn't have a dedicated image processor, so images take so long to save. At the same time I could have taken 20 images on the HTC One or GS4 and for every day use they look just as good when you upload them to facebook or whatever people do. I think people are trying to treat the 1020 as some professional camera and forgetting about the rest of the phone. If you want a professional camera, there are much better options and you don't get locked into a 2 year contract paying $300 upfront. I do not feel that it's a good quick point of shoot like most other smart phones out there, just simply because it does take a long time to save images. Obviously the image quality is better, I've had first hand experience, however the images are over saturated like mad, judging by the 920, Nokia will not fix this. The images are over sharpened, you can not go down to ISO 50 and there is no ND filter for direct sunlight shots. So I don't see any advanced in this camera over say the 808 or a dedicated camera, I cannot see why it's hyped so much. The end result is too much grain and noise in the picture, especially if you use Nokia's automatic settings which just increase the ISO even in the daylight to 200... no wonder why there is so much noise. Realistically I want to be putting it to 50... yet I can't?
I think there is far too much hype for the phone that doesn't really do anything really well, the OIS could have been much better and the mic performance is lacking. I'm not sure if it's their software controlling the mics or if it's crap hardware. However it sounds like it's only recording in mono or it's really muffled or something, maybe Windows Phone doesn't support stereo recording?
You get these crazy rabid Nokia fanbois now just going crazy if there is any criticism and it's really weird. You don't get this from Android because people aren't tied to an OEM, people generally just go for the best handset that is released at that moment in time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The hype is for the camera. It is much better than anything out there. There are dozens of reviews for this phone already. They have regurgitated the same things you have listed. No one in the mainstream tech media is trying to distort the truth. Just because searching Lumia 1020 on Google turns up a million hits from MyNokiaBlog and WPCentral and WMPoweruser, the domain names should already make it obvious. These are fansites and propaganda sites with almost zero traffic. Just because you see them often on Google or twitter doesn't mean everyone is gushing over the Lumia 1020 and ignoring or justifying all its failings. No one has this phone and no one is buying this phone. The Lumia 1020 forum at WPCentral is almost dead and this forum is practically dead. This is the internet. It should be pretty obvious that it only takes one or two people posting incessantly to make it feel like a legion.
Lol people call me a troll when I post long rants about the Lumia 1020. But this is a real troll rant. Blowing up little flaws and non-issues, or spinning misinformation. It's like an aggregate or everything bad that has been ever said about this phone, true or false, for the sake of piling it on instead of real concern. I actually care about the Pureview tech, so I complain alot. I think you're just bored.
Nothing I said was false.
All true things no doubt. But if you value having a truly great camera in your pocket, then the shortcomings are able to be quite easily overlooked.
The only things lasting more than two years in your phone are your pictures - why not get the best ones possible so you can have good mementos?
Sent from my RM-877_nam_att_205 using Tapatalk
Wow... you really need to get back on your medications dude. Maybe get outside more.
LagunaCid said:
All true things no doubt. But if you value having a truly great camera in your pocket, then the shortcomings are able to be quite easily overlooked.
The only things lasting more than two years in your phone are your pictures - why not get the best ones possible so you can have good mementos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. During his techno-babble rant against the 1020 (or is it the 920? or WP in general? )... the one spec that the OP forgot to mention ... the one that is most salient to why the 1020 is getting hype... the one that everyone is talking about... the fact that it has a 41MB camera. Oops, must have forgotten that one. I'll say it again, FORTY ONE MEGABYTE camera. That is not a leap in phone technology and innovation, it is a freakin rocket launch. That absolutely crushes all existing smart phones, beats most point-and-shoots, and even produces better photos than some entry level DSLRs. None of the other specs matter if the OS runs smooth (save maybe the screen argument... although you blew that too. Ive had a 920 since it came out and there is no sign of fading or burn-in at all, and never will be during its useful life). Number of cores... GHZ processor... blah... blah... blah... none of that matters if the user experience is excellent, which it is and you even admitted:
Windows Phone is smooth on the whole yeah
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having quad core this or over-clocked that does a WP user no good because unlike android, it doesn't need it to run properly. That is stuff that android users haggle about. But the one things that your phone won't ever do... ever... with all it's technical superiority and all... is take 41-freakin-MB photo
You know what really grinds my gears with Nokia? Battery. Can they at least ball up and put something that actually lasts? 2000mAh is n.o.t.h.i.n.g. for smartphone these days, especially phone with CPU/data active OS like WP. Got 920 and then swapped it for 925 (work phones), and i really really don't talk that often or use it, and i couldn't even last a day without shutting things down. Sad.
I am an amateur photographer, I had the lumia 1020 phone since release and I haven't looked back. In matter of fact I stopped using my galaxy note II completely. Alot of people say megapixels are over rated but 41mp has been really helpful to me, I can crop out like 5 individual pictures out of 1 shot without losing quality.
smuook said:
Exactly. During his techno-babble rant against the 1020 (or is it the 920? or WP in general? )... the one spec that the OP forgot to mention ... the one that is most salient to why the 1020 is getting hype... the one that everyone is talking about... the fact that it has a 41MB camera. Oops, must have forgotten that one. I'll say it again, FORTY ONE MEGABYTE camera. That is not a leap in phone technology and innovation, it is a freakin rocket launch. That absolutely crushes all existing smart phones, beats most point-and-shoots, and even produces better photos than some entry level DSLRs. None of the other specs matter if the OS runs smooth (save maybe the screen argument... although you blew that too. Ive had a 920 since it came out and there is no sign of fading or burn-in at all, and never will be during its useful life). Number of cores... GHZ processor... blah... blah... blah... none of that matters if the user experience is excellent, which it is and you even admitted:
Having quad core this or over-clocked that does a WP user no good because unlike android, it doesn't need it to run properly. That is stuff that android users haggle about. But the one things that your phone won't ever do... ever... with all it's technical superiority and all... is take 41-freakin-MB photo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean 41 Mega Pixel photos? 41 MP not MB. I can make most cameras take a 41MB picture but it doesnt mean its going to look good. Its an innovation for its packaged size as in for its ability to be designed into a relatively thin form factor. In fact the full 41 MP, photos are not as good as its down sampled 5MP version. The hardware on the 1020 is solid only the camera is bleeding edge. My problem with WP is not the hardware or the UI its the app ecosystem. The lack of the apps I absolutely need keeps me from getting one. I had a 920 last year for a week and the lack of my most used apps was just too much. I waited and those apps still arent on WP. I will continue to wait till WP has the apps I need before I buy another one.
I've heard many said 2016 was the worst year of releases of Android devices. I just feel like nothing has really been exciting, it's kind of like the same ole same ole this year. Many may laugh, but the Nextbit Robin has been the most exciting release for me this year. Reasoning being is they actually did something to differentiate themselves by not just focusing on the same ole same ole hardware specs battle (Though I do believe they need to make some improvements for their sucessors), but using software to advance their smartphone and its experience. There have been many improvements made to it, the gallery app, camera app, some upcoming cloud updates like battery life, etc.
I however was impressed by the OnePlus 3 this year, and I thought the Axon 7 is a great smartphone (though I'm not too keen on the camera quality). Other than that, I'm kind of meh this year. People debated on who's the top at times, but honestly, I prefer a smartphone company to just do something great that's unique. I kind of hope Blackberry doesn't die off with their smartphone line. I think they still have something unique and different that the can bring to their own line of smartphones.
Any thoughts?
Any smartphone anyone else has been excited for this year that have already been released or that will be releasing before this year's end?
I think that 2015 was more boring. Marshmallow that was released last year was just Lollipop with like 5 new features, and the phones from last were are pretty boring as far as innovation went. At least the Iphone 7 (2016) was more full of innovation than the 2015 Iphone 6S. And this year we got much more interesting devices. The LG G5 and Moto Z series are one of them. They are both modular and completely redesigned from their successors. Sony as well. They are also redefining their smartphone designs. And as for Nougat that was released this year, Nougat brought a lot of new changes. Such as somewhat a redesigned look, Multi-Window, Vulkan API. And at the end of the year, we will also see the new Pixel phones, and perhaps the Daydream VR as well. In conclusion, 2016 wasn't really boring. i would say that 2015 and even 2014 were much more boring than 2016 is.
I don't think devices are any less exciting, people are not getting excited because the phones have gotten so good that it takes a lot longer to make major improvements or breakthroughs anymore.
I'm not sure what's so innovative about the iPhone 7? I'm not about to give up the headphone jack. When I get stuck inside the office for the day sometimes, i have my phone plugged into the computer speakers all day long and plug it in at times.