Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Google Handhelds

Google Nexus One Hands-On, Video, and Impressions 262

Posted by timothy
from the there's-a-nap-for-that dept.
wkurzius writes "Engadget has gotten their hands on a Nexus One and have put their first impressions up for the world to see, including whether or not they think it's the 'be-all-end-all Android phone / iPhone eviscerator.' Their opinion? 'Not really.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Nexus One Hands-On, Video, and Impressions

Comments Filter:
  • Only one question... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by houstonbofh (602064) on Saturday January 02, 2010 @11:27PM (#30628928)
    Is it locked? That is really the "killer app" point for me. A commercially sold phone that is hacker friendly from the start.
    • by LostCluster (625375) * on Saturday January 02, 2010 @11:32PM (#30628956)
      It's feature-locked. It only has the hardware to work fully on T-Mobile. Like the article says, take it to AT&T and you can't reach the frequencies they do 3G data on. It's not a bad design trade-off... why give the T-Mobile users hardware they don't need, when a majority of customers with an unlocked device would take it to T-Mobile because of their "unsubsidized hardware, cheaper service" pricing?
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Totenglocke (1291680)
        I'm sorry, but WHY for the love of Farley do Android phones always go to T-Mobile? Their 3G coverage is essentially non-existent, which defeats the purpose of a smartphone. I'd love to buy this phone, but if it's T-Mobile only, then there's no point because you'll only be able to use programs requiring the internet when you're on a wireless network (if it supports that).
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jbuilder (81344)

          Have you been paying attention to T-Mobile at at all lately? Because that's not even true. They're 3G coverage has expanded to the point in the last year alone that it's at 85-90% of AT&T's 3G coverage. They cut the timetable for their rollout of 3G from 36 months to 17 months. I literally had 3G turn on overnight in my own neighborhood just a couple of nights ago.

          And even IF you don't have 3G coverage in your area - you will soon - and if you have WiFi in your house (who doesn't?) you'll be off and

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

            They're 3G coverage has expanded to the point in the last year alone that it's at 85-90% of AT&T's 3G coverage

            so what, like 2% of the US then?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by fm6 (162816)

            and if you have WiFi in your house (who doesn't?) you'll be off and running with high speed internet access when you're at home.

            If you have WiFi in your house, you already have that, and without having to deal with the tiny screen and awkward data entry.

            In a phone, Wifi is a fallback, at best. The only advantage a phone has over other internet devices is portability. And "must be near a hotspot" is not portability.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Totenglocke (1291680)
              Bingo. The other use for WiFi on a phone is to turn off 3G and use WiFi for internet (say when you're at work or at home) and it drastically extends the battery life of the phone. I've started doing that with my iPhone - if I'm home or at a friend / family members house, I turn off the 3G and use their wireless and my battery life about doubles.
            • by Maxmin (921568)

              In a phone, Wifi is a fallback, at best. The only advantage a phone has over other internet devices is portability. And "must be near a hotspot" is not portability.

              Android's primary target market is *currently* sessile early-adopter geeks who are near hotspots 90% of the day. That, plus the fact that wifi is wayfuckingfaster than North American mobile networks, means your point is nearly moot. Except for those using their phone on the road.

              As Android spreads out to more mobile networks, things will even o

              • by adolf (21054)

                Wayfuckingfaster? Baah.

                I pull about 2.5 megabits per second over Verizon's 3G on my Droid, every place I've bothered to test it. This is a good bit faster than most intentionally-free public access points that I've used, and I'm very pleased with its performance on CDMA. 3G coverage has been absolute, for me, as well -- except in a few small rural Ohio towns where no cell phones work at all.

                At home and at work over WiFi, sure, I can do a little better than that (6 and 7Mbps, respectively) -- but not bett

      • by JSBiff (87824)

        "why give the T-Mobile users hardware they don't need"

        I have a bit of a question about this. . . is it *really* any more expensive to create a radio frequency generator that can tune *either* set of frequencies? Why would the phone need additional hardware? Every radio has a tuner mechanism to choose the frequency. I mean, my 30 year old FM radio can tune 88Mhz *and* 107Mhz. Why can't a cell phone radio tune 1700Mhz *and* 1900Mhz? It's not fundamentally different technology, it's just a different frequency?

        • by NotBorg (829820)

          Can't lock in the customer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H frequency that way.

        • You apparently never studied RF physics.

          88.1 mHz to 107.9 mHz requires a much smaller antenna than anything in the gHz-plus range. Add to that the fact that the FM band only spans 20mHz so you don't need a very agile tuner.

          Now, you want fifteen times that range, and also ten times the frequency... oh boy are you in for a much bigger antenna that's going to weigh down your device... not to mention you're not going to see anything in the 1800 mHz range that is ever going to be interesting.

          Notice that the iPho

          • by Chris Oz (684680) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @05:20AM (#30630508)

            I doubt that the antenna is the actual problem. From what I remember and it has been a long time 20 years since I did any serious antenna design. You actually need longer antennas for lower frequencies eg 1/2 the wavelength for a dipole and 1/4 for a whip antenna. So the phone antenna can be quite small. Similarly I would be surprise if you couldn't make a fairly broad band antenna at for a mobile. The biggest problem with broadband antennas is impedance mismatching and hence VSWR problems mainly for TX. As you move up the frequency a given antenna can generally operate over a wider band more easily because the wavelength difference between the antenna length and the TX frequency becomes for a given TX band. A 20MHz (capital M for Mega not small for milli) TX band at 100 MHz will give you ~ a 20% variance in wavelength which is larger than the wavelength variation from 1.7 GHz to 2GHz.

            Having said that I haven't done any RF design for phones so there may be some gotchas antenna wise that I am not aware of but I suspect the problem if it is a space problem may come from other front end requirements such as the high Q crystal filters, diplexer if they use one, and power amp (depending on design) but I am only guessing. Certainly there are lots of small quad band phones that seem to have solved this problem. Expense is another factor.

            • It's possible to hit all four GSM bands used world wide... but have you seen the bricks such phones are compared to the relatively slim iPhone?
          • You apparently never studied RF physics. 88.1 mHz to 107.9 mHz requires a much smaller antenna than anything in the gHz-plus range. Add to that the fact that the FM band only spans 20mHz so you don't need a very agile tuner.

            Frequencies at that range require an extremely large antenna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency). You apparently never studied SI units.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by rich_r (655226)
              Broadcast FM is VHF (Very High Frequency). ELF is down below 1khz, with wavelengths of hundreds of meters.
              The difficulty with microwave (ghz) is that because wavelengths are so short, the entire circuit needs to be tuned, not just the antennae.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by JSBiff (87824)

            "You apparently never studied RF physics."

            Not much, not in depth. Only a little bit, while studying for an Amateur Radio Technician license. But, enough to know that the following statement isn't completely accurate:

            "88.1 mHz to 107.9 mHz requires a much smaller antenna than anything in the gHz-plus range."

            I call BS on that. The length of the antenna that is required is *inversely* proportional to the frequency, because the length of the antenna is a function of the wavelength of the frequencies being tuned

      • ...Because compared to T-Mobile AT&T's coverage is huge? Really, I'd much rather support T-Mobile rather than AT&T (not going to support Verizon and Sprint has no coverage either where I travel) but some places I go T-Mobile has no coverage and AT&T does (yeah, they are places in the middle of nowhere but that doesn't diminish the fact I still need cell service). I'd really like to have an unlocked Android handset to use on AT&T that has all the features I want, I'd really like a Droid but t
        • AT&T has too many smartphone customers on their network already... just look at the complaints from the iPhone users where there is 3G coverage, but the network's too congested. You haven't seen the "AT&T is the network with the fewest dropped calls!" ads lately, have you?

      • why give the T-Mobile users hardware they don't need

        I would take exception to that, what happens when you go into an area where T-Mobile is not and AT&T is? AT&T doesn't have as wide data coverage as Verizon, but T-Mobile is behind further still... even if there were a cost to it, I'd prefer to at least have the option as a T-Mobile user to consider paying for data roaming and it certainly takes a lot of shine of an "unlocked" device that you can realistically only use with one carrier (unless the

        • AT&T is actually a roaming partner of T-Mobile in markets where T-Mobile has no towers, AT&T is on the frequencies they use elsewhere, and therefore can't take customers who get their bills in such zip codes. So, you use AT&T's network and T-Mobile doesn't charge extra for that if you're on a nationwide plan... and who isn't these days?

          In the early days of cell phones, I used to take a CellularOne phone into NH from MA, and it would say "Would you like to enter a credit card to use BellAtlantic

    • by NotFamousYet (937650) on Saturday January 02, 2010 @11:36PM (#30628984)
      If you want a commercially sold phone that is hacker-friendly, I'd advise the Nokia N900. Have you considered that?
      • by jbuilder (81344)

        The N900 PIM-specific functionality is far behind what Android or iPhone is capable of. If you're OK with that, then I would be inclined to agree. The N900 is a solid device.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by quenda (644621)

          The N900 PIM-specific functionality is far behind what Android or iPhone is capable of.

          But it does run the google-apps mail & calendar web version well - both main and mobile versions.

        • lulz. Only if you consider Debian to be far behind what Android or iPhone is capable of. What are you missing?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by abigor (540274)

            Games? I don't play them on a phone, but a lot of people sure seem to.

      • The N900 is good, but I think eventually Android development is going to catch up to the iPhone and have good commercial games. The N900 probably never will (well, aside from emulators and Quake). Its like the difference between buying a PSP and a GP2x, the GP2x is more hacker friendly, both have similar feature-sets, but you are going to get better quality games on the PSP at the expense of not being able to run a few nifty apps (assuming a non-hacked PSP). Community driven projects are great at making emu
        • by Delwin (599872) *
          So long as Android keeps it's 16MB max heap per application you're not going to see any serious gaming on it.
      • by anethema (99553)
        Haven't seen his in any of the replies, but the N900 is just like the Android in bands. 2G only on ATT.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by metamatic (202216)

        I have an N800, and I'm familiar with Maemo. It has a lot of fairly basic deficiencies. For example, there has been a bug open for several years about the fact that it's impossible to set your preferences for date format. That's a bit of a killer for me, trivial as it may seem, as I use ISO format everywhere, and the last thing I need is my phone and organizer using a different format from everything else.

        I've also been displeased with Nokia's lack of continuing support for older devices. When I went throug

    • by B5_geek (638928) on Saturday January 02, 2010 @11:39PM (#30628996)

      Get a Nokia N900 if you want that killer feature.

      Debian ... check
      root access ... check
      ssh + screen ... check

      apt-get install damn near anything ... CHECK!

      • by LostCluster (625375) * on Saturday January 02, 2010 @11:49PM (#30629064)

        Nokia took a big turn a few years ago, dropping the "free after service provider subsidy" models in favor of going very geek. I had one of their recent phones earlier this year while I was waiting for my subsidy to get an iPhone to come available.

        The initial failures of the Ovi App Store were annoying, and with only the built in apps available to me it needed some work. They're racing in the same division as much bigger fish called Apple and Google, but they seem to have a neat device in the Booklet 3G... just a plain Windows netbook with a $300 provider discount making it $299.99, and Best Buy was kicking in another $100 to make it $199.99 over the holidays. The killer feature on this one is a solid battery.

        They're really going for the geeks... but are there enough geeks who will pass on both Apple on AT&T and Google on Verizon and T-Mobile?

        • by Albanach (527650) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @12:22AM (#30629224) Homepage

          They're racing in the same division as much bigger fish called Apple and Google

          In Q3 2009 Nokia sold 16.16 million smart phones. Apple sold 7.04 million.

          Apple's market share is certainly growing, but in the world of cell phones, they don't come much larger than Nokia.

          • by LostCluster (625375) * on Sunday January 03, 2010 @12:45AM (#30629324)

            Not quite an apples-to-Apple Inc. comparison there.

            Apple effectively has two very similar packages in "smartphones", would you like the 3GS in 16GB or 32GB. Some non-S 3G phones are still in inventory and selling at a discount. And let's not forget Apple has the bigger App Store, and developers who target the iPhone also get to see their apps run on the iPod Touch which isn't considered a "smartphone" for lack of a phone.

            Development for Nokia's line of phones is much harder, because there's more than one screen size and a much wider range of capabilities.

            It's a little more than just product moved that matters. Nokia's App Store is nothing compared to the iTunes App Store, and we know 30% of all money that goes through that goes straight to Apple.

          • What's the profit margin on an iPhone compared with Nokia smartphones? Include app store profits and Apple is probably ahead. Apple has generally had the model of selling shiny products with fat profit margins.
          • by mgblst (80109)

            Yes, but somehow Apple iPhone division made more profit worldwide than Nokia, even though Nokia sold over 100 million more phones.

            You can pull out numbers to go either way.

            Nokia are a big fish, but they have stumbled majorly. They risk being made irrelevant like Ericsson and Motorola if they don't change this. They fucked up the same way Microsoft fucked up and lost this battle as well.

            I liked Nokia, but the fact it took someone like Apple to shake up this industry shows how out of touch they really are.

          • compared to where nokia was 4 years ago, that's a large decline. if you are a nokia shareholder, that's a terrifying decline.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Maxmin (921568)
              "Smartphones," he said. Nokia's worldwide marketshare for stupidphones is still many times that of all smartphone sales combined.
          • The large majority of the Nokia smartphones are being used as dumbphones: The owners never install an application, and only scratch the surface in terms of the phone's capabilities. Compare that to the iPhone...

        • They're racing in the same division as much bigger fish called Apple and Google,

          I’m sorry? Apple and Google may be big companies, but in the mobile phone sector they are not able to hold a candle to Nokia. Nokia has ten times more experience and market share, than both of them combined!
          (I’m not exaggerating. They did car phones in 1981 and their first really portable mobile phone is from 1987. Apple’s global market share is somewhere around 4%. Google’s is negligible. Nokia’s is somewhere around 45%.)

          Yes, they were a bit resting on their laurels, and got c

          • Apple has made it's trademark in limiting the number of products their software runs on, so there's fewer possible configs to support. iPhone has had one screen size its entire life, and the iPod Touch has always been an iPhone without the cellular modem stuff which is pretty nice if you're often around WiFi and have non-smart phone on you.

            Google is open sourcing its phone operating system... so any provider can call up any hardware maker they want to make a GooglePhone. They're only making a device of thei

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by El Royo (907295)
      If you're looking for a hacker friendly phone then you really can't beat the Palm Pre. Linux OS underlies it. Very strong homebrew community that works -with- Palm. The whole phone is open for tinkering. Shortly, it should be supported on Verizon and the GSM version should be available in the states later this year (of course, you could import a QWERTZ phone from Germany now, but that seems like a lot of effort to me). Recently, the homebrew community ported Doom to the phone, it works with the new Ope
      • by fm6 (162816)

        There's much to like about the Pre, feature-wise anyway. The one thing that makes me hesitate is Palm's long decline in quality. I use to be a rabid fan of Palm, but each generation of products has been flakier than the last. The last straw was my Centro, which had too many problems to mention, and finally stopped working in less than a year. After I ditched it I vowed never to buy another Palm product. The Pre tests that resolution, but not quite enough.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    In the past, when Google was a smaller company, we'd see very direct and targeted products being developed. First was their excellent search engine, then AdSense, and then GMail and Google Maps. The quality was good, the feature set was quite complete, and they were rife with innovation.

    Lately, however, it seems that Google has just started throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. There seems to be a significant lack of focus. Android, Chrome OS and Nexus One follow this path. There's nothing about the

    • by MikeURL (890801) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @01:02AM (#30629400) Journal
      If you take a look at their financials about 96% of their revenue comes from the ads they place on their search results. The rest is adsense and then all the other stuff is a rounding error.

      Google very clearly exemplifies why a company of their size and profitability should be paying a huge dividend. They hold on to their money like these projects they are investing in are high-growth high-profit ventures and they aren't. So now Google is a hardware reseller? Who the fuck did the RROI for shareholders and decided that works out.
    • by wickerprints (1094741) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @01:07AM (#30629432)

      Ah, but this is what Google wants everyone to believe. They want you to think that they're just messing around and dabbling in every tech-related market. But the truth is far more subtle and interesting.

      Google's real product, its core focus, has always been and remains its analytics. Everything they have developed or acquired--GMail, Maps, YouTube, Android, and of course, Google search--has been about one thing, and one thing only: gathering data and analyzing it in order to better match the consumer with the advertiser. You want to know/buy something. Someone else wants to tell/sell it to you. And Google's entire business model is about profiting off the need to make this connection efficient.

      When viewed in this context, it becomes crystal clear why they have their hands in all these seemingly disparate technologies. They have a huge advantage, in that by cross-indexing the data they have collected on you, they can have a very complete picture of your preferences. It doesn't matter that YouTube doesn't turn a profit on its own. It doesn't matter that GMail and Android are free. In a sense, these things are not really products. They're more like...well, bait. They are a means to understand you better, and in turn, sell that understanding to people who want to sell you their products. Therefore, you are not Google's customer. The advertisers, the ones who pay Google for their analytics, are their real customers.

      Given Microsoft's recent unveiling of Bing (and their "cashback" program), it appears that MS management still doesn't understand Google's strategy. They are trying to compete in this one area, thinking that if they could attract people to use their search engine, they would be competitive. While that tactic might have worked a decade ago, it's much too late now. They are throwing money at the problem because they don't understand that Google is successful because they offer services that are free, easy to use, and effective, then take the data they collect and sell that knowledge to advertisers. They have misunderstood in the same way that people misunderstand why Google developed all these different technologies and offered them for free.

      It's also one more reason why I won't use Android, despite how good it is. I already use too many Google services. I don't need them to know even more about me than they already do.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ColdWetDog (752185)
        Maybe I should get my wife a Google account, a gMail account and a Nexus. Then Google can tell me what she's about. I sure can't seem to figure it out on my own...
        • LOL

          I think if you did that, you'd probably discover she's about shoes. Prada or Jimmy Choo. And handbags. Then again, I don't think you really need Google to tell you that.

      • by shawb (16347) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @02:14AM (#30629748)
        I honestly think Google is a lot smarter than that... they don't sell data to the advertisers. Google keeps that data in house and simply decides which ads to show to which viewers. Selling that data would be like a dairy farmer selling his cows. In fact, that's one thing that almost makes me trust my data with Google... they don't want their competitors getting their hands on that data. It's not a kind heart and dedication to not being evil that drives Google to keep your data safe... it's pure financial self interest (and not even the enlightened variety.)
      • 100% wrong. Advertising doesn't pay enough for google to be the Iluminati. No, what google does very well is it implements huge backend systems that are cheaper and more reliable than anyone else.

        It does this by :
        1. A custom (Linux based) OS and file system and failover system (by duplicating all data 3x)
        2. custom, super-cheap hardware based on PCs
        3. Hiring the smartest programmers it can possibly find, although it tends to pick people based upon educational achievement and not

        • by dkf (304284)

          100% wrong. Advertising doesn't pay enough for google to be the Iluminati. No, what google does very well is it implements huge backend systems that are cheaper and more reliable than anyone else.

          And it's by selling precisely targeted ad space online that they pay for all those backend systems and services. They're profitable and have plenty of costs, so they must have at least one strong income stream. As far as anyone (outside a few who really know) can tell, that's the ad business.

      • It's also one more reason why I won't use Android, despite how good it is. I already use too many Google services. I don't need them to know even more about me than they already do.

        no. by using an android phone they aren't going to know any more about you than if you just used their other services over the web. the thinking from google is that the phone is just a hook. if they can get me using it on my phone, then i'll use the web interface at some point and contribute to their ad-based revenue. in fact,

  • by cupantae (1304123) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (llienoram)> on Sunday January 03, 2010 @12:07AM (#30629144)

    I can't see exactly what's wrong with this phone. All that was meant by the "not really," I think, is that it isn't mindblowingly superior to other Android phones. It looks very nice.

  • by dafing (753481) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @12:30AM (#30629268) Journal
    Very funny, isnt this thing meant to be coming out soon? I realise all tech has crashes, but when you are going up against the iPhone, I think you should be able to change wallpaper without constant crashes! Thats the sort of thing that would put me off buying a phone, if a friend told me "this is so much better than the iPhone, check out the sparkly backgrounds" and then CRASH, #2 CRASH, #3 CRASH as you try and change the background! I'd automatically assume the rest of the phone were as buggy. Do other Android devices have similar crashes? I've had iPhone apps crash before, but never the actual first party OS functions before. I dont have much hands on experience with Android, its not really available in New Zealand.

    Anyway, hope I dont come across as a jerk. I have big hopes for Android, although I dont see myself leaving my iPhone soon. The Nexus One seems to have a very nice interface with some software features that Apple would do well to copy. I dont like the look of the hardware, I'd prefer the iPhone. Its good to have strong and healthy competition in any market, I dont think Android handsets have been on par with the iPhone yet. Im trying not to get too excited over the Nexus One, as too often we hear "iPhone Killer" bandied about. Perhaps if we didnt have such high hopes, we would be more tolerant of Androids current flaws, rather than instantly dismissing the device when it turns out not to be made of solid gold and curing cancer. I remember the ridiculous hype over the Droid, with a massive marketing campaign, and then it seems to have just fallen dead? When I hear of the Nexus One, commenters will often mention "the Droid sucked" or "this is so much better than the Droid" etc.

    I hope the Nexus One comes out soon so I can see it, although New Zealand seems to only have one or possibly two Android handsets on sale?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      The thing about the iPhone is... it crashes... often (I don't have one but the majority of my family members do, as do a few of my friends). Sometimes it fails to pick up calls, applications crash, SMS messages are sometimes delayed hours, while I would be quick to blame it on AT&T, my current "dumb" phone doesn't have these problems (well, not that theres any applications to crash on the stupid thing...) while running on AT&T. On my iPod touch, applications will occasionally simply refuse to load,
  • Critical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iluvcapra (782887) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @12:33AM (#30629284)

    No multitouch? Okay.

    No physical keyboard? Okay.

    No multitouch AND no physical keyboard? Sorta fatal combination.

    • Re:Critical (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Solandri (704621) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @03:48AM (#30630228)

      No multitouch? Okay.

      I am wondering if Apple has some sort of patent on using multitouch in a UI which is preventing other phones from implementing it without getting a license from them. On the face of it, I'd consider it an obvious invention since the whole reason humans have thumbs is so they can manipulate objects with 2+ digits. But you never know with our crazy software patent system.

      • by LS (57954)

        Also there's tons of prior art. Anyone have an answer to this question? Why aren't other touch screen phones supporting multitouch?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Aladrin (926209)

      Why exactly do you need to hit more than 1 key at a time? Hint: You don't.

      Or maybe you were suggesting that multitouch is necessary to make a touch-interface that doesn't screw up all the time. It isn't.

      I've got the G1 with the new updates and the on-screen keyboard is almost as easy to use as the physical one. I rarely pull out the keyboard any more because it isn't worth the time.

  • Nexus six (Score:5, Funny)

    by SoVeryTired (967875) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @01:02AM (#30629402)

    Hmm, I think I'll wait a few years for them to release the Nexus Six. Maybe it'll come with a Voight-Kampff machine built in.

    • Hmm, I think I'll wait a few years for them to release the Nexus Six. Maybe it'll come with a Voight-Kampff machine built in.

      Just don't ask me about my mother. I hate it when people do that.

  • Nexus One (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Wild Norseman (1404891) <tw.norseman@gmai l . c om> on Sunday January 03, 2010 @01:21AM (#30629490)
    I can't wait until they come out with the Nexus-6 models. I might even call mine... Rachel.
    • I can't wait until they come out with the Nexus-6 models.

      I might even call mine... Rachel.

      You will need to load it with memories of course.

  • Ok.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by ShooterNeo (555040) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @01:22AM (#30629496)

    So you can buy a Nexus One for $530 and pick up a data SIM for $29 a month. You get unlimited voice, unlimited SMS. I think the data SIM is capped at 5 gigs/month....which at 4 minutes/megabyte comes to thousands of 'minutes' a month. 5 gig is a little sparse for watching youtube videos, but more than adequate for finding information and checking maps.

    2 year cost comes to $1,226. Iphone 3G two year cost is $1,975. Pretty substantial savings.

        I would guess that google voice is/will be a ton more flexible than other voice providers...can probably do VoIP using wifi whenever you are near a hotspot. Can most likely auto-forward to a home VOIP system whenever you are at home or the phone is turned off. If you have wireless internet at home and at work (who doesn't?), that basically means unlimited everything whenever you are there.

    Better display and better hardware than the iphone as well.

    To be honest, this sounds like a winner. This smartphone can do many of the tasks of a real PC, yet the 2 year cost is about what you'd pay on the cheapest plan offered by a major wireless provider in the United States.

    • by JSBiff (87824)

      I just wish it had a real keyboard. I have tried playing with the phones with on-screen keyboards, and it just doesn't work for me. I'd love a Nexu One + G1 Keyboard. I like the new OLED display tech and faster cpu on the Nexus One. I love the keyboard on a G1. Wish I could get both in one phone.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by amRadioHed (463061)

        Who says the Nexus One has an OLED? I keep on seeing it from people commenting on articles about the phone, but it's not said in the articles themselves.

        Honestly I'm not sure I prefer OLED for phones. As much as I'd kill for an OLED display at home, it seems like a bit of a problem for something I'll be using a lot outside during the day.

        I agree about the keyboard thought. I would love something like the Droid, but I'm not about to switch to Verizon for it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      ...But that is assuming your wireless carrier doesn't mess with VoIP. While I don't think T-Mobile would (heck, they even supported unlocked iPhones for free!) other carriers might not be so forgiving AT&T, Verizon
      • Re:Ok.. (Score:4, Informative)

        by ShooterNeo (555040) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @02:34AM (#30629854)

        The Nexus one only really supports T-mobile. I did think about that...VoIP on a wireless link does sound pretty unreliable. There might be static, garbled communications, needing to speak loudly into the phone...even dropped calls. Then I thought "just like the kind of service I'm getting for ~$40/month through AT&T right now..."

        At least with google voice, you'll get great reception when you are connected via wi-fi to a decent internet connection (like at home for sure). Probably get about the same quality at home as you'd get on a real landline. And you don't have to pay any sort of long distance charges, or worry about minutes. Plus, all your voicemail gets transcribed and you can read it right there in gmail. Sounds like a winner to me.

    • where do you get a data sim for $29 / month?
      • by uptownguy (215934)

        where do you get a data sim for $29 / month?

        T-mobile. And posting from my iPhone on that very plan...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by whisper_jeff (680366)

      Better display and better hardware than the iphone as well. To be honest, this sounds like a winner.

      Sorry, but I've heard this argument before in discussion about the iPod. 1,001 times before. Every time I hear it, it clearly tells me the commenter just doesn't get it. You clearly do not understand why the iPhone is successful. Here's a tip: the iPhone wasn't the best hardware when it came out. It's never been the best hardware. There's always been phones with superior hardware offerings. Yet it still is an enormous success. Figure out the reason for that "yet" and you might realize why your "better hard

  • When will HTC be releasing the PassionC? I'm pretty happy with my current carrier (Verizon) which means I need a CDMA version of this phone...
  • the "not really" comment in the article is comparing it to the iphone. i wish people would realize that there will never be an
    "iphone killer". android is a calculated chipping-away at the iphone. from TFA, the nexus one sounds like a big chip.

We can predict everything, except the future.

Working...