Slashdot Mirror


Nokia Shows Off Megapixel Camera Phone

Anonymous Coward writes "According to PC World, the Nokia 7610 has been announced at Cebit in Germany - it boasts a megapixel camera (1152 x 864 pixels), 65,000 color screen, and 4x zoom, along with an MP3 music player and smart phone features that allow users to manage and edit digital images. It can also create short films of up to 10 minutes and with the Movie Director application users can add special effects and music to the video clips." Other readers point out a picture of the phone, which comes with the LifeBlog software "to help people organise the information they capture about their lives on handsets."

256 comments

  1. Wow by dolo666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Locker rooms everwhere are in jeapordy, complete with automated pr0n-site deployment!

    1. Re:Wow by slim · · Score: 4, Informative

      Locker rooms everwhere are in jeapordy, complete with automated pr0n-site deployment!

      You joke, but municipal swimming pools in my county have banned camera phones from their changing rooms, for the stated reason that paedophiles might use them.

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Have traditional cameras been banned too?

      What do you do, leave your cell phone on the ground somewhere while you go in and change?

      Why not just fucking beat the shit out of anyone that improperly uses a camera of any type in a changing room? I think that'd be more effective, and quite a bit more fun. And free phone calls too!

    3. Re:Wow by swordboy · · Score: 0

      Why don't they just ban cameras? A ban on camera phones doesn't keep someone from sneaking in a small camera. What ignorance.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    4. Re:Wow by slim · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just ban cameras? A ban on camera phones doesn't keep someone from sneaking in a small camera. What ignorance.

      I just report it, I don't agree with it ;)

      More to the point, neither a ban on on cameras nor a ban on camera-phones keeps a determined person from sneaking in either. It's not like they have security personnel at the door.

      It's knee-jerk pointless policymaking.

      (c.f. prohibition of drugs completely failing to solve the problem... but that's offtopic so I'll stop now)

    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't completely control the problem, you may as well not make rules one way or the other, right? We may as well throw away any form of self-government and follow the animal kingdom's example of survival of the fittest.

    6. Re:Wow by SnappleMaster · · Score: 1

      My health club is the same. The sign on the door to the change room says "no cell phones". Obviously what they really mean is "no cameras". If you want to be literal, the posted policy says they don't mind if you walk in with your Nikon SLR and start shooting. Americans... *shrug*

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    7. Re:Wow by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2, Funny

      So now paedophiles can only watch but cannot record? That means they have to come back every afternoon.

  2. 4x digital zoom by erixtark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I assume that's 4x digital zoom, not optical.

    1. Re:4x digital zoom by erixtark · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yepp, that's digital:
      http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,8764,54962, 00.html

      Still no flash, though. Guess I'll stick with my Pentax Optio S4 for a while longer.

      I wonder when digital cameras will have bluetooth in them so I can take real pictures with a real camera and send them through the phone.

    2. Re:4x digital zoom by kryonD · · Score: 2, Funny

      Looks down at my D505i that I bought in Japan almost a year ago for $120 and sighs. It's now nothing better than a travel alarm with cool games.

      (D505i: 1.3MP digital camera(SVGA images), modified 16MB sony memory stick slot for easy storage and transfer of data, 8x digital zoom, 256,000 TFT display, full blown on phone email support [not this gay SMS text messsaging crap], Java powered with an open spec API so I could write my own stuff, all the features of my old Palm pilot, and kick @$$ games by Sqare Soft [The guys who write the Final Fantasy series])

      Yeah, Nokia really is breaking new ground here...and at a bargain price of $600. Why have we let America get so far behind? And why do we put up with this inferior crap?

      just my venting folks....be back in Japan in less than a year.

      --
      I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
    3. Re:4x digital zoom by *weasel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or, just have the phone use a general wireless device for storage. That way you could keep all your data (mp3s, digipics, pda, etc) in one place, and devices could leverage functionality.

      I'd really like to be able to use 1 data source for my phone/pda/camera/mp3 player. Convergence devices are cute, but impractical. Removing storage from each of those items listed would let them shrink to about the size of a sharpie (real digi camera excluded, but getting there), and would let me /add/ functionality (new devices) without worrying about swapping data around, or incompatible memory card formats and such.

      At the gym I like to have mp3s without the phone, and I'd like to not violate the 'ban' on digital cameras.

      Pictures I take with my real camera, I'd like to be able to email.

      Songs I get from iTunes i'd like to be able to email, or directly, wirelessly, share.

      contacts in my pda i'd like to have access to on my phone - but I really don't need/want the power drain of a palmOS or winCE just to make a phone call.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    4. Re:4x digital zoom by ozbon · · Score: 2, Informative

      The full spec is here http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,,54665,00.html. Not a bad bit of kit at all.

      The rest of the Nokia kit from ceBIT is visible at http://www.nokia.com/cebit2004/new_releases.html

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    5. Re:4x digital zoom by stiggle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some digital cameras do have Bluetooth.
      My Sony digital video camera has it.

    6. Re:4x digital zoom by pgallenga · · Score: 1
      I wonder when digital cameras will have bluetooth in them so I can take real pictures with a real camera and send them through the phone.
      As of now there exists at least two problems in really doing that:
      1) The maximum size of MMS messages sendable/receivable by most cell phones is 100Kb.
      2) GPRS traffic is too expensive in most countries both for sending and receiving (I'm excluding special offers and flat rates).

      Regards, Paolo :-D
      --
      Paolo A. Gallenga System Administrator pgallenga@email.it
    7. Re:4x digital zoom by nlper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why have we let America get so far behind?

      It's only a few time zones. What's the big deal?

      You do realize Nokia is based in Finland, right?

      Tyler

    8. Re:4x digital zoom by DarkKnight · · Score: 1

      There is in fact a campact flash wireless 802.11b card available now from Sandisk. It includes 128Mb memory as well.

      However I think its more for a pdas rather than a camera to send photos. But the idea is sound, especially for studio photography to get infinite storage.

      --
      /* Andrew Fong - rogue programmer */
  3. short films? by wiggys · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm sure it can create short films of 10 minutes... that's if you don't mind a low resolution low framerate compressed-to-hell pixellated blob resembling vomit!

    Best stick with the mobile phone that's also a low-res video camera aspect I think instead of making wild marketing claims about how the phone can make you the next Steven Spielberg...

    --

    Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.

    1. Re:short films? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just encoded Kylie Minogues lingerie advert and sent it to my colleagues Nokia 6600 via Bluetooth and the picture is pretty clear, even at 1.3Mb for 1 minute 10 seconds,

    2. Re:short films? by baker_tony · · Score: 0
      The whole point of having a digital camera in a phone is because it can fit in to such a tiny space. It's bascially there for capturing the surprise moment.

      I can only imagine how huge a phone would be with a film in it! Probably the size of one of the 80's brick phones I would imagine. May as well have a seperate film camera!

    3. Re:short films? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      Compared to other consumer electronics, the res ain't that bad - it's comparable, or slightly better, than the mid-range camcorder I bought early last year.

      Sure, it won't turn you into the next Spielberg, but it's certainly better than the old "Hi-8" camera I was using until last April.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    4. Re:short films? by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I'm sure it can create short films of 10 minutes... that's if you don't mind a low resolution low framerate compressed-to-hell pixellated blob resembling vomit!"

      I have a Nokia 3650, and yeah it has a movie mode. Yeah it's postage stamp sized. Yeah it's pixellated. You know what? I have a video of my phone of my dog and cat playing together. It is low res and pixellated, yet you can still tell what's going on in the 'movie'. I captured a cute short-lived moment that would have been missed if I had run to the other end of the house to grab the DV cam.

      I guess my point is that it may be technologically disappointing, but that doesn't mean it isn't still interesting.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  4. That's not a megapixel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's only 995328 pixels.

    1. Re:That's not a megapixel... by Tet · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's only 995328 pixels.

      True. Workstation framebuffers always used to be 1152x900, which gave just over a million pixels (that resolution was chosen to maximize the display area for cards with 1MB of video memory). However, when the PC world finally caught up with workstation resolutions, they opted for 1152x864 instead, in order to preserve the 4:3 aspect ratio[1], thus it's slightly less than 1 million pixels.

      [1] No, I don't know why they did this either, as they were quite happy to use a different aspect ratio elsewhere (e.g., for 1280x1024).

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
  5. Crappy Lens by Brahmastra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the resolution of the sensor increases in cell-phone cameras, Image quality is going to suck even more because of the crappy little lens used in them.

    1. Re:Crappy Lens by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > As the resolution of the sensor increases in cell-phone cameras, Image quality
      > is going to suck even more because of the crappy little lens used in them.

      When that becomes a problem which will lose more sales than it generates I'm sure it'll be addressed. Until then, a camera on a phone is still just a bit of a giggle and better than nothing. The quality of pictures on my phone (SE T610) is great, considering what I paid for it, which is nothing!

    2. Re:Crappy Lens by dknj · · Score: 1

      Whats even worse is you can't get a good phone without getting a camera on it. I just put a Toshiba VM4050 and i'm stuck with a rather useless camcorder feature. The camera and picture ID ring is kinda cool, though i'm sure the novelty will wear off soon.

      -dk

    3. Re:Crappy Lens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The technology to incorporate real Zoom and
      not just digital was featured recently in the New scientist..it was just at the patent stage 6 months ago so I'm guessing itll be a couple of years yet before phone cameras will be
      serious competion for digital cameras..

    4. Re:Crappy Lens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fluid lens is in the corner.

    5. Re:Crappy Lens by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's true that the image often is out of focus in different parts on camera phones and the colors are bleeding into each other, this is mostly because they use (cheap?)plastic lenses with poor optical qualities rather than the size.
      But you are correct the higher pixel counts is worth nothing unless they improve the lenses.

      The 640x480 I have in my old Nokia phone could have produced a good picture if they had installed a proper lens. I guess they thought that since it was so low resolution it didn't matter,but it does. (or it was just a proof-of-concept phone)

    6. Re:Crappy Lens by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Just remember, you're paying for the camera somewhere along the way. It may be hidden in the price of the phone or the monthly fees, but it's there someplace.

      I'm a Luddite. I don't want my phone to take pictures, play movies, hook me up with AOL Instant Messenger, play stupid little games, or sing the "Happy Days" theme song whenever someone tries to call me. I'm even iffy about the text messaging thing. I don't even want to think how I'll react when my camera asks me to edit a movie.

      Just give me a phone that allows me to send and receive calls, keeps a few dozen phone numbers, and shoots laser beams out of the antenna, and I'm happy as a clam.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    7. Re:Crappy Lens by Threni · · Score: 2, Informative

      > It may be hidden in the price of the phone or the monthly fees, but it's there
      > someplace.

      I pay 15 UKP a month. For that I get 750 mins of off peak calls to any land line and T-Mobile (my supplier) mobile. I also get 50 text messages. I also get the phone, which is pretty neat (it supports java, has blue tooth, infrared, 65,000+ colour screen, camera, voice recorder, plays midi files etc). At the end of 12 months I sign up for another year and get another phone free (well, technically I've actually been getting 100 UKP off the cost of a new phone - its just that this phone has an `upgrade price` of 100 UKP).

      I can understand your `I just want a phone` attitude entirely, but it's not like these features are at the expense of a perfectly satisfactory phone. They are in addition to it. In fact, its exactly because the phone has so many good features that ensures people from multiple target groups (business people, kids who want games, women who want a sexy phone etc) want it and make it something that can be mass produced to keep the cost down. You think the phone would be much cheaper if it didn't have Java, or Bluetooth, or a camera? As long as it costs 100 UKP or less, I don't care what it costs! The price would only be an issue if I lost/had stolen this phone before a year is up and I'd have to get a phone to use for the duration of my 12 month contract. But I've already got 2 or 3 phones from previous contracts laying around that I could use.

    8. Re:Crappy Lens by SnappleMaster · · Score: 1

      /agree

      Lenses in most consumer level digital cameras totally suck. This is definitely a problem once you get up to 3-4 mpixels but at 1 mpix it's really not a big deal.

      Personally I'm not moving to digital until I can put my Nikkor lenses on a digital body (and not pay mega bucks for the body!)

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    9. Re:Crappy Lens by SnappleMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're old. And so am I! (Kidding... :) )

      The price tag on this phone is $613. Uh... wtf? I make a very comfortable living but IMHO $613 for a phone is stupid. When I want to take pictures I'm not going to want to use a one megapixel camera. The images will look like absolute crap compared to any decent digital camera costing half as much, or less! Similarly I'd expect the other non-phone features to suffer drawbacks.

      Give me a solid, sexy little device that let's me talk to people and costs $30 and I'm a very happy camper. Strangely enough it's getting harder and harder to find such a beast!

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    10. Re:Crappy Lens by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      Nikon D70. $999US, ships tomorrow. 6.3MP sensor, 3fps, the N80's AF module, the F5's meter and Nikon's crappy digital flash tech (Why couldn't Nikon buy Fuji's Flash system, which allows normal Nikon flash capabilities on a Digital body).

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
    11. Re:Crappy Lens by SnappleMaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah I've been looking at it. Nice but still not cheap enough. (I'm asking a lot, I know.)

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    12. Re:Crappy Lens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the Nikon sensor still doesn't produce images that are as clean as Canon 10D/300D sensor

    13. Re:Crappy Lens by Combuchan · · Score: 1

      From the picture's on nokia's website, it appears that they are using a CCD-based camera which, especially compared to the crappy CMOS camera in my audiovox CDM-8900 (and most webcams) produces quite a good picture. I've done side-to-side comparisons w/ a CCD Nokia at the local pub here (eg, low light conditions) and you could actually discern what was in the picture quite easily, even on the Nokia's small low resolution display--my camera would have taken a big black field.

      And besides...1152x864 ought to be enough for anybody anyway. :P

      --
      "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
    14. Re:Crappy Lens by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, that's not true. The Canon CMOS sensor is noisier than a CCD sensor like the Nikon's use (The D70 shares a sensor with the D100). Of course, if you want the best results in a 6MP camera, you should be buying a Fuji S2 Pro.

      Now the 1Ds Mk.II does produce better images, but it's way more money.

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
    15. Re:Crappy Lens by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      It's about the same price as an F100, has a better meter, less-sensitive AF and the same shutter. Of course they did cheap out and use a Pentamirror viewfinder insted of a pentaprism.

      What's wrong with the price? It's quite reasonable considering the specs.

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
    16. Re:Crappy Lens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CMOS is inherently noiser than CCD. But, what canon does is subtract the noise profile of the CMOS sensor from the image obtained, resulting in cleaner-than-CCD images.

    17. Re:Crappy Lens by SnappleMaster · · Score: 1

      "What's wrong with the price?"

      I'm a cheap bastard. I'm willing to spend bucks on the optics. I own a couple of excellent lenses (though not pro-grade). But I'm too cheap to want to spend $1k on the body. I get results out of an ancient body that are every bit as good as the results you'd get out of a top-of-the-line body. YMMW, but Nikon has known how to build an effective light meter for ages, I usually manual focus, and I don't need auto-bracket or any of the "fancy" stuff.

      Anyways, this is way off topic now. $1k for the nikon body is really not bad, just not for me personally. It's just too much money to spend for resolution that while very nice, is still not quite high enough to kill film.

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    18. Re:Crappy Lens by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      Oh, I do agree on that. I'm a big fan of my $200 20 year old FA.

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
    19. Re:Crappy Lens by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what Nikon does as well(And Fuji, Kodak, Pentax, Minolta, Sigma and Olympus too) and considering that Nikon currently has the most noise-free output in the D2H (Which uses an inherently noisy LBCAST sensor), I'd say that Nikon's got a pretty good handle on the issue.

      Canon's technology results in an image whic is less noisy than a prosumer digital, not less noisy than the other DSLR's (except maybe Sigma's POS Foveon job)

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
  6. actually by fuck_this_shit · · Score: 5, Informative

    the 72MB are marketspeak for 8mb internal plus 64mb sd card.

    1. Re:actually by S3D · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here full specification Comparing with Nokia 6600 8mb instead of 6mb and packged with 64mb card instead of 32mb. In fact some user alredy using 512mb card with Nokia 6600. The same OS version, so I guess the same RAM and CPU. Actually, if prices drop it may be a good time to pick up Nokia 6600. The only significant difference seems a camera.

    2. Re:actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6600 has a camera, too.

  7. Nokia have fallen behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My v601sh is better than this and has been on sale for ages!

    1. Re:Nokia have fallen behind the times by Kristoph · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The phone you reference is from Japan which has had superior phone technology for many years. It is fair to say a phone that comes out in Japan today will take at least two years to have a US/European competitor.

      Nokia is not so much behind the times but, much as every other vendor, is is behind Japanese phone technology.

      ]{

    2. Re:Nokia have fallen behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The latest & best Docomo, au & vodafone phones in Japan are only about 1.3 megapixels. I'm sure Nokia are using one of the Japanese sensors (like sanyo or someone) so they will catch up soon enough. The Japanese phones are not always ahead... they tend to miss out on a few technologies ... english predicitve text for one (^-^), but also the big clunky PDA combo phones which are too different to the standard flip-phone form to catch on (i guess).

    3. Re:Nokia have fallen behind the times by kryonD · · Score: 1

      "[Japanese phones] tend to miss out on a few technologies ... english predicitve text for one..."

      Uhh....if you extract your American, "why doesn't everyone speak English?", attitude from this, Japan has had predictive text in JAPANESE for at least 3 years. If they actually had enough demand for phones with English as the primary language, I'm sure they'd accomodate your desires.

      While I'm at it, let's b!tch about another "new" feature on the Nokia....mp3 playing. This ideas was tested in Japan almost 5 years ago and was quickly tossed as useless. For those that do have a camera phone, notice how quickly your battery drains when your taking pictures. Now imagine how much of your measily 2 hour talk time is going to be sacrificed playing the latest Britney Spears (typed with the lisp from Stan's sister Shelly in South Park) tune. Also, how much are you going to be gouged by the phone company for downloading it? Even using a memory stick, it wouldn't suprise me if the novelty wore off the second time you missed an important phone call because you had drained your battery.

      end rant except to say that I have yet to see a useful technology in an American phone that hasn't been in a Japanese one fro at least two years. Note that Palm Pilots are useless in Japan as the written language is too complex to do with a stylus and all the rest of the PDA features were already in the cell phones when Palm first came out.

      --
      I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
    4. Re:Nokia have fallen behind the times by fuggsy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the full compliment of Japanese smileys inbuilt with all japanese phones, which IMHO is more usefull than the camera feature. (the most basic one had been placed at the end of my comment about english text prediction (^-^) ). My Jphone SA-04 from 2.5 years ago didn't have japanese or english text prediction, but a did have a full set of smileys. ~\(^-^)/~

    5. Re:Nokia have fallen behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you got anything that isn't a fugly clamshell design?

    6. Re:Nokia have fallen behind the times by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      So what does the near future hold in terms of technology and cool new tricks for newer phones in Japan?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  8. 0.995328 megapixel by wfberg · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Almost, but not quite.

    Although it's always fun to point out to megapixel-fetishists that 1024x768 looks find on a 15" panel mere inches from your face (wossat, 50% of your visual field) unless you're staring intently to make out every detail of some nice tits.

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    1. Re:0.995328 megapixel by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      Actually, it tends to look as pixellated as shit.

      As does 2MP images seen full-screen on my 21" monitor (At 1600x1200).

      Now my 2800dpi slide scans look damned nice, but they're 31MB per uncompressed image. Would kill to have Minlta's 5400dpi slide scanner though.

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
  9. Megapixels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Megapixels is the most idiotic resolution measurement system ever. Quick, what resolution does 3 megapixel equal? 3.2? 4? 5? IF THE CAMERA HAS A RESOLUTION OF 1152x864, just fucking say so. I should make a camera with a resolution of 1x5000000 and call it a 5 megapixel camera just out of spite.

    1. Re:Megapixels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My camera gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it!

    2. Re:Megapixels by kraker · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always thought that "1 Megapixel" is just "one very big pixel". My camera has three very big pixels (well, 3.3 in fact.). I hope that's one for each primary colour... ;-) 1 Megapixel cannot convey colour information, not for each primary colour anyway.

    3. Re:Megapixels by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Megapixels is the most idiotic resolution measurement system ever. Quick, what resolution does 3 megapixel equal? 3.2? 4? 5? IF THE CAMERA HAS A RESOLUTION OF 1152x864, just fucking say so.

      Weight is the most idiotic dimension measurement system ever. Quick, what dimensions do 3 kg equal? 3.2? 4? 5? IF THE IRON SLAB HAS DIMESIONS OF 10x3x7 cm, just fucking say so.

      My point being: Absolute resolution is one thing, but megapixels are quite useful for a quick quality approximation. Just as you know that a 20 kg backpack will be a hell of a lot more back-breaking than a 5 kg one, megapixels can give you an idea of what to expect from a camera.

      I'm not saying megapixels tell you everything, though.

      PS. My appologies to the metricly challenged.

      --
      .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    4. Re:Megapixels by neur0maniak · · Score: 2, Funny

      You really shouldn't confuse your Masses with your Weights, not when you're putting other people down..

      Besides,
      Masses have Densities, What do megapixels have to compare with that?

    5. Re:Megapixels by binaryDigit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IF THE CAMERA HAS A RESOLUTION OF 1152x864, just fucking say so.

      I suppose you'd also prefer if auto manufacturers told you that a cars engine was a 84x90 vs simply stating that it has a 3litre engine? Point is that most people don't give a crap if its 1152x864 or 1280x768, 1MP gives a more than close enough approximation.

    6. Re:Megapixels by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I suppose you'd also prefer if auto manufacturers told you that a cars engine was a 84x90 vs simply stating that it has a 3litre engine?

      That would be pretty useless. People care about the volume, because that's what they're dealing with. The dimensions are irellevant.

      The actual dimensions of a digital image are relevant. I work in width and height. I don't try to reduce a 3 megapixel image to 1 megapixel. I convert an image from 2048x1526 to 1152x864. It is useful to know this information, because that's what people are dealing with. Monitors give maximum resolutions in widthxheight after all.

    7. Re:Megapixels by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

      You really shouldn't confuse your Masses with your Weights, not when you're putting other people down..

      Granted, physics is not a strong point of mine ;)

      Besides,
      Masses have Densities, What do megapixels have to compare with that?


      A density is to a mass what a resolution is to a megapixel, given certain dimensions. An N-megapixel image will end at at a certain DPI when displayed at given dimensions.

      Pixels-per-inch is pretty analogous to weight/mass (which?) per cubic inch, which is what a density essentially is, right?

      Alternatively, I got it all wrong? ;)

      --
      .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    8. Re:Megapixels by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It's just marketing. They think people will have trouble dealing with dimensions. Also "Megapixels" sounds cooler. It suggests there are some fantastic versions of pixels in this camera, or if you know what the prexis "Mega" means, it says we're looking at milliions, rather than the rather mundane thousands of pixels in vertical and horizontal resolution.

    9. Re:Megapixels by binaryDigit · · Score: 1

      That would be pretty useless. People care about the volume, because that's what they're dealing with. The dimensions are irellevant.

      To the majority of people yes, but that is exactly my point. When purchasing a digital camera, the majority of the market does not care about the exact dimensions. Just like for a car, MOST people don't care about the exact bore and stroke, just the size. However, a few DO care, as bore and stroke often will give you a good idea of the engine characteristics (e.g. shorter stroke often times means higher rpms).

      Bottom line, MP is a more than good enough measure for the majority of people. Those who care will take the time to find out exactly what the dimensions are (and I'd be willing to bet that amongst any major level, eg 3mp or 5mp, that even those who care don't care enough to worry about minor variances as other factors will weigh in signifcantly more).

    10. Re:Megapixels by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "I should make a camera with a resolution of 1x5000000 and call it a 5 megapixel camera just out of spite."

      Why bother, just create a single pixel, use a high sample rate, and market it as "5 megapixels per second", just like optical-mouses

    11. Re:Megapixels by Ozan · · Score: 3, Informative
      You had your chance to rant about camera pixel measurements and you blew it. 3 megapixel is equal to 3 million pixels, as 3 megawatt is equal to 3 million watt. Since the ratio of CCD-chips is 4/3 there is no ambiguity.

      The real annoying thing is the definition of pixel itself. Since sensors for 3 colors are needed most manufacturers count one sensor for one color as a whole pixel - although normaly three of them are needed to cover the whole colorspace. This is like tripling your monitor resolution by not counting pixels but phosphor/lcd fields for every color! Furthermore the sensors for every color are not lined up as on a monitor but arranged in a checkerboard pattern like this:
      red_blue__red_blue__red_blue_
      green_red_green_red _green_red
      red_blue__red_blue__red_blue_
      (I don't now anymore if the color used twice is red or blue. This increases the SNL for this color.)

      Now for each quadruple of sensors the data for one pixel is generated. There is no more information to get out of the CCD than this. After this the camera interpolates the data to increase the number of pixels used in the actual file the camera stores. What interpolation algorithm is used and how good it works is bound to the camera manufacturer.

      This will go on until multi-layered CCDs emerge on market. These use one spot on the chip to measure all three colors by layering the sensors. My guess is they will use marketing-speak as for example using 'triple' as prefix for everything.
    12. Re:Megapixels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should make a camera with a resolution of 1x5000000 and call it a 5 megapixel camera just out of spite.

      You should, and then stack 300000 of them vertically and sell it.

    13. Re:Megapixels by badasscat · · Score: 1

      Megapixels is the most idiotic resolution measurement system ever. Quick, what resolution does 3 megapixel equal? 3.2? 4? 5? IF THE CAMERA HAS A RESOLUTION OF 1152x864, just fucking say so. I should make a camera with a resolution of 1x5000000 and call it a 5 megapixel camera just out of spite.

      And you call yourself a geek?

      You can safely assume that these are square pixels in these sensors (they are). You can also safely assume that the aspect ratio is going to at least approximate that of 35mm film, as that's been the standard for many, many years. In fact, 1152x864 is a 4:3 aspect ratio, which is the same as 35mm film. Having to spell these things out is basically the same as a TV producer selling a TV by its actual screen dimensions rather than by a diagional measurement. It's more info than you need to know for comparison purposes, and more info than you need to know to figure out the exact dimensions on your own (assuming you know anything at all about TV's, and if you don't, plenty of resources exist to help you learn).

      Now, the problem I have with these "megapixel" measurements is that 1152x864 does not even equal 1 megapixel! It is less than 1,000,000 pixels. It's not even a question of real megabytes vs. marketing megabytes in hard drives (the 1024 vs. 1000 thing); 1152x864 is just not a megapixel. I don't think it's ethical for a company to make a camera that's close to a megapixel (but not quite) and still call it that, because what's the threshold for what's "close enough"? Is a camera that's got 800,000 pixels close enough to be a "megapixel" camera? To some companies it probably is, but that's a big difference in resolution from a true megapixel camera. 1152x864 is closer than that (995,328) but still not a megapixel.

    14. Re:Megapixels by joshwa1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      you mean the foveon sensor: http://www.foveon.com/X3_tech.html

    15. Re:Megapixels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah!
      For all we know 3 megapixel could be 2x1500000!

    16. Re:Megapixels by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Can you count it for me: how many syllables are there when you say "megapixel" and how many for "a thousand one hundred fifty two by eight hundred sixty four pixels"?

    17. Re:Megapixels by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Megapixels is the most idiotic resolution measurement system ever.......IF THE CAMERA HAS A RESOLUTION OF 1152x864, just fucking say so.

      Who, outside of the techie nerd community, wants to memorize such petty numbers?

      I think it is annoying when people say 1024x768 when they could just say XGA, it is pretty established in the digital projector industry and community. Or 1280x1024 (or IMO better, 1280x960) when they could just say SXGA. Geeks like flapping their mouths to say large numbers to the last decimal place, I guess.

    18. Re:Megapixels by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      1152x864 is closer than that (995,328) but still not a megapixel.

      I think there are better things to do than fuss over a 0.5% difference, this is much less than the alleged shortfall made by hard drive MB claims, but those marketing distinctions are often pretty clearly marked on the box of the hard drive. If it were maybe ten percent, then maybe I would agree.

      A lot of industries go by nominal sizes anyway, which is often spelled out in the technical specs. Often, it's not as if they are out to short the consumer. A 72" wide desk is really 71.88", this is so desks and tops can be stacked end for end and still fit within an alloted panel size with gaps. Please don't tell me you'd fuss over that, and that is 1.7% size difference.

    19. Re:Megapixels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who, outside of the techie nerd community, wants to memorize such petty numbers?

      Everyone who is going to work with those images and wants to know how big they are instead of a stupid and misleading approximation some marketroid whipped up?

    20. Re:Megapixels by Combuchan · · Score: 1

      jwz had a far better rant on the same topic. :P

      --
      "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
    21. Re:Megapixels by svirre · · Score: 1

      (I don't now anymore if the color used twice is red or blue. This increases the SNL for this color.)

      It is green because it is closest to the middle of the spectrum. It does more than just increase the resolution of that color yhough. It's primary purpose is to increase the luminosity resolution. This is called a bayer pattern.

      Now for each quadruple of sensors the data for one pixel is generated.

      Nope each photosite generates a pixel. It's color is calculated using a demosaic algorithm which uses the surrounding photosites as well. (calling this interpolation is rather misleading)

      This means the bayer sensor has a luminosity resolution close to the pixel resolution, but a chrominance resolution somewhat lower. This works out fine because your eyes has pretty much the same characteristic.

      This will go on until multi-layered CCDs emerge on market. These use one spot on the chip to measure all three colors by layering the sensors.

      They are allready on the market. Unfortunately they are not good enough to be competitive with traditional sensors yet. While they have the same chroma and luma resolution (which might be considered wasteful), they do have a lower resolution overall due to larger photosites. I also suspect that the precision by which these detectors ca diffreciate between wavelnghts aren't too good as they are hugely dependent on the precision of the doping of the semicondctor.

    22. Re:Megapixels by gnireenigne · · Score: 0

      Hate to nitpick but 35mm film frames are not 4:3, they're 3:2.

      A standard photo print is a 4x6 inch sheet. When you print digital camera files without cropping the image, you will end up with blank borders on the short ends (or and image size 4x5.4 inches or so)

  10. blah by zaunuz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've had it with mobile-phones... when something new like this comes out, they cost like 2000$, and when the prices are low enhough for the average person to buy something new has been released. Im happy with my Ericson T65, and as long as it survives the daily beating i give it, i will keep it.

    --
    this is probably the most boring sig in the world
    1. Re:blah by matticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      wow. have you ever heard of the early-adopter-penalty? How is this different from any other technology in the history of the world? Can you afford the highest-speed Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 or Dual G5? I can't. But remember, this phone coming out will make phones that came out 6 months ago cheaper. Remember this in a year when this phone is given away with every mobile phone contract. Until then, I'll be enjoying my 7250 I bought right after the price dropped. Small form factor, good keypad, everything I want in a phone, plus a crappy 352x288 camera that I have taken some good memories with when I didn't have my digicam on me. This phone cost $1200 when it came out, and I got it for a tenth of that. Now it's free with contract. Welcome to the real world.

    2. Re:blah by whovian · · Score: 1

      Well, my issue is/was different. When the prices are low enough for the average person to buy a phone with reasonable and sufficient features, the phones and calling plans are removed from the market and are replaced by these high-end jobbies only ethusiasts can afford.

      Problem is that with the "little guys" making it possible for you to have a cell phone essentially for the purpose of having for the proverbial reason "just in case", while your calling plan might be dirt cheap, you have to buy the phone at like 50-100 USD. And most, but not all, of those phone look ugly. But you have a cell phone.

      In the cell phone business, they can still get you one way or another.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    3. Re:blah by juhaz · · Score: 1

      I've had it with mobile-phones... when something new like this comes out, they cost like 2000$, and when the prices are low enhough for the average person to buy something new has been released.

      So? It's not like the original phone (or whatever, this applies to EVERYTHING if you haven't noticed) becomes any worse because there's also this new and expensive toy for milking early adopters.

      Unless you've got some strange fixation that it needs to be the newest and more expensive or nothing. Which doesn't seem too likely considering the age of phone you are using, after all.

  11. Er... by nuclear305 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, that's great and all...seeing technology advance like this.

    But, honestly who buys a phone for the CAMERA? Now we're packing in video editing software and whatnot. Is this really necessary? The quality is usually so poor that it's not worth the small size...

    Yea, I own an LG-VX6000, and I tell you this...I bought it for the actual features it has as a phone and not the camera. I've taken a few pictures with the camera, and put simply...there can be no replacement for film and digital cameras anytime in the near future.

    If you want to take pictures..buy a camera! It will be a better investment of your money.

    1. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I go through my life, I frequently come across things I spontaneously want to take a picture of, for fun or reminding.

      Tell me, which device am I more likely to use: the crappy-image cell phone that I never leave home without, or the glorious digital camera sitting at home in my drawer?

    2. Re:Er... by Kristoph · · Score: 1

      Well, I travel a great deal on business and I would love to show my wife the occasional interesting thing I see. I will not carry a camera though because I have enough stuff to carry and worry about.

      A camera phone, on the other hand, would work nicely as it would not add to my carrying weight.

      So I am personally in the market for a decent camera phone.

      ]{

    3. Re:Er... by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cameraphones are NOT meant to replace regural (digital)cameras! You wont take wedding-photos with camrea-phones. But the point is that you walk around with your camera very rarely, whereas most people carry their phones with them all the time (well, almost). If you happen to see something interesting, you can snap it's picture, since you will always have a camera (although a bit low-quality) with you.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    4. Re:Er... by eraserewind · · Score: 5, Interesting
      But, honestly who buys a phone for the CAMERA?
      30% of the phone market if the Sony Ericsson are to be believed.

      The point of phones on cameras is that people bring their phone everywhere. People don't bring their camera everywhere, no matter how small it is. Of course a tiny fixed lens is going to be worse than one with real optical zoom, but it's plenty good enough for a lot of things.
      Yea, I own an LG-VX6000, and I tell you this...I bought it for the actual features it has as a phone and not the camera.
      As you should. It is after all primarily a phone.
      I've taken a few pictures with the camera, and put simply...there can be no replacement for film and digital cameras anytime in the near future.
      People said the same about digital cameras when they first arrived, but now you are including them with film to make your point. This Nokia phone has the same resolution as the Kodak that I bought 5 years ago. That's not such a long time really. Other manufacturers have already 2 and higher megapixel phones, and I can't see them stopping competing with each other anytime soon.
    5. Re:Er... by nuclear305 · · Score: 1

      I walk around with my digital camera very often as a matter of fact.

      I have a Canon S400 that fits very easily into my inner jacket pocket or a cargo pocket. In fact, it has a smaller profile than my wallet in all aspects.

      There *ARE* high quality digital cameras that are practical for carrying around.

    6. Re:Er... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      I walk around with my digital camera very often as a matter of fact.


      But most people who own a digital camera do not. And since you would be carrying a phone regardless, why carry two devices if you could carry just one device? Of course, if you are planning to shoot some pictures, carrying a regural camrea is better, but cameraphones excel at those ex tempore pictures you weren't planning to shoot.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    7. Re:Er... by bwy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't get this trend. Maybe is is strictly because I am a geek- but-

      I don't want one device that does everything because it will always be a primary type of device with other stuff hacked in. I don't want to talk on the phone using my PDA, listen to MP3s on my phone, use my MP3 player as a PDA, or use my camera as a can opener.

      Now, the technology exists I'm sure. I have no doubt someone could invent a device that was a near best of breed in all categories- functionality wise. But the form factor would suck! For example, PDA's need to be thin and have a lot of surface area. That form factor doesn't make a good phone however.

    8. Re:Er... by hsa · · Score: 1

      But, honestly who buys a phone for the CAMERA? Now we're packing in video editing software and whatnot. Is this really necessary? The quality is usually so poor that it's not worth the small size...

      It's a "live for the moment" thing.

      First, there is a necessity for the camera. When you need to take a picture, you need to take the picture, and you never know when that time comes. You seldom carry your camera with you, but you almost always take your phone with you when you leave home. To those people who take casual shots it is cool. These shots are not for serious photographer, they are just "cool pictures" that you usually show your friends ("this is the girl I met last night") or send via MMS to other people's phones.

      Then there is the necessity to evolve, to make better designs, and (mostly) sell you new products. So how can you improve cheap plastic imitation of camera? Simple: just add more pixels and common people reading the camera adds will think new camera is good.

    9. Re:Er... by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      >>But, honestly who buys a phone for the CAMERA?

      >30% of the phone market if the Sony Ericsson are to be believed.


      That's not what Sony-Ericsson said, they said they expect 30% of the phones sold to HAVE a camera in them. You make it sound like they said all of these people are actively seeking out camera phones, when that's most likely not true.

      There are plenty of people who want other features that don't come in phones that don't have cameras. I just upgraded to a T616, but I didn't want the camera, I wanted Bluetooth, modem capability, calendar, sync capability, etc. I would have been perfectly happy to get a model that had all of those things, but no camera, but Sony Ericsson doesn't seem to make one of those anymore. I have to keep my T68i for use on days when I go to clients with "no camera" policies in place. With the T68i, the camera was an optional snap-on accessory. I don't know why the phone vendors can't offer models of their higher-end phones with and without cameras.

      ~Philly

    10. Re:Er... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Camera phones will NEVER be good for anything. The reason is simple, optics. You are never going to be able to put good optics into the 5mm or so that cellphone manufacturers give for the lens, it's a matter of physics. You could have a 10MP sensor behind it and it wouldn't matter. I guess camera phones will replace the $10 point-and-shoot fixed lens Walmart camera, but that's a lot of expensive electronics to replace such a lowly item. The real answer is that it is not customer demand that is driving camera phones, it is service providers trying to find a billable use for their expensive 2.5G data networks, and camera phones have enough of a novelty effect at this point to drive some sales of expensive phones and some usage of the data network. Longterm most people decide that they don't really need the camera portion, especially once they get their bill and see the per shot charges!

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Er... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      You're just not a very creative individual. I can think of tons of reasons I'd want to have a camera enable phone. My friend just got one recently, and is amazed as how much stuff he actually uses it for.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    12. Re:Er... by Thorgal · · Score: 1
      You are never going to be able to put good optics into the 5mm or so that cellphone manufacturers give for the lens, it's a matter of physics.

      Physics you say? Just look at your eye (pun intended).

      --
      "Man in the Moon and other weird things" - wfmh.org.pl/thorgal/Moon/
    13. Re:Er... by anti-trojan · · Score: 1

      You are thinking in the terms of today's technology for lenses:

      http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04030302philip sf luidlens.asp

    14. Re:Er... by haggar · · Score: 1

      2 Mpixel phones? I don't know of any 2 Mpixel phone. In fact, this Nokia model is a first 1 Mpixel phone as far as I know.

      --
      Sigged!
    15. Re:Er... by cs0nro · · Score: 1

      I belive nokia are bringing out a 1 MP camera phone - so Quality is going to improve.

      Basically evolution

      --
      Get a life get a motorbike !
  12. That's a lot of features... by dealsites · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can understand combining a phone, camera, and mp3 player since they are all features that fit into a nice small form factor. I think that this will put a lot of the mp3 players and lower-end digital cameras out of buisness. After all, everyone wants a cell phone, why not get an added feature for just a $$ more. Combining a hand-held game however doesn't really fit the profile though, as with the N-Gage.

    --
    Find real time deal updates from multiple sources

    1. Re:That's a lot of features... by goatan · · Score: 1
      After all, everyone wants a cell phone, why not get an added feature for just a $$ more.

      I don't and i had one for a while but got rid of it and i know im not alone. It's mainly because they have been persuaded that they need one that people want one, when they get it they realise it's not actually all that much use to them especially for the cost of using one.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    2. Re:That's a lot of features... by phorm · · Score: 1

      No, makes more sense to have a dedicated portable gaming console and a standardized jack to interface with the phone. Better quality games/screen, etc... and you could play online or maybe download other games

      The issue becomes though, that while phones shouldn't be capable of becoming an N-Gage or a Gameboy-Advance... there is a nitch for older tech.

      I mean, with micro 2-4GB HDD's out, the main lack is the screen, battery life, etc. You play too many games and you have no more battery to use it as a phone. Rather than trying to move the phones to the handheld-gaming market, why not make them compatible with handheld games (hey, I can play online with my GBA if I bought phone X), and perhaps capture the "nostalgia" market with older stuff like galaga etc.

      The main idea is that "advancements" shouldn't encroach on the tried-and-true features of the phone, especially not at cost overrun. I really don't mind having a phone that has a camera, or games, so long as it does all the phone features (dialing, # list etc) and doesn't cost me much more for them. Mine has a calendar which reminds me of important events... saves me getting an underutilized PDA. If it had a camera, fine by me so long as the camera feature didn't make it $150 more than phone Y (in which case I would have just bought phone Y).

  13. yes, but... by elementik · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can I *CALL* people on the damn thing..!?

    --
    --- Stop the world! I want to get off!
    1. Re:yes, but... by vidnet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do all these comments get modded up? Would you mod up someone who said "I don't want RAID support in Linux, I just want an OS that lets me read my mail"?

      "I don't want an arpanet with scifi mailing lists, I just want to exchange military information!"
      "I don't want a computer that plays pong and does spreadsheats, I just want to crack german codes!"
      "I don't want to melt rocks and make tools, I just want a nice heavy one to throw at my enemies!"

      For crying out loud...

    2. Re:yes, but... by geekster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps... if you can figure out those wierdly placed buttons...

    3. Re:yes, but... by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a Nokia 6600, a camera-phone. And (this may come as a shock to you) using it to call people is no shape or form more difficult than using my previous phone (Nokia 6310i which doesn't have a camera).

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    4. Re:yes, but... by john_uy · · Score: 1

      the parent i believe is more sarcastic than funny.

      i much agree to him. there are some phones out there that they focus more on features that it is quite difficult to call a person with a *few* keystokes (excluding speed dial.)

      i know a couple of people who call a lot do not use the flashy phones as it is very inconvenient to call when you have to move through a joystick, or a jog dial or other features of a phone. you also have to navigate a couple of links before being able to dial a person.

      way off from my first phone where i can easily locate a person from the phone book and call them in a push of a button.

      --
      Live your life each day as if it was your last.
    5. Re:yes, but... by fermion · · Score: 1
      You are comparing apples and oranges. For instance, a GPC is a totally different thing from a specialized device like a phone. A more proper comparison would be a manufacturer putting Raid support in a PDA. A phone is a phone. It is, for many people, a critical piece of technology that must work. Features that do not directly increase that core functionality adds unnecessary complexity and reduces reliability. As other have mentioned, it also poses risks that many find unacceptable, and limits the places in which the device may be used.

      We have very few camera phones connected to land lines. The technology has been available for years and the additional cost is minimal. Ask yourself why? It has little value to the consumer or phone company. OTOH, there is value to a camera phone. First, there is a population, mostly women, who like to have constant record of the things going on around them, particularly the children. There are many other groups the need occasional visual records. Such groups traditionally have kept an instamatic in the glove box to satisfy such a need. However the biggest benefit of the camera phone is to the telephone companies who can charge for the air time

      The problem is that it is become increasingly difficult to get a plain phone. Basic phones will likely become a product that phone companies will charge a premium on to offset the loss of future air time.

      To complete you example list, it is cheaper to buy a computer that plays pong and does spreadsheets. I probably have four or so in my closet. I can, until monsanto patents rocks, go out and pick up a rock for free.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:yes, but... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      None of these analogies are appropriate.

      1) Nobody who isn't using the RAID support notices the RAID support. The kernel can be cluttered up with all sorts of features, and nobody would notice.

      2) The ARPAnet was never intended to reflect the needs and desires of a single user.

      3) You can delete any software you don't want.

      4) Huh? Okay, I think I get it now. If you want to stick with throwing-rock technology, there's no end to the supply of pristine, unmelted throwing rocks. The supply of rocks-made-into-tools doesn't interfere with your desire to obtain non-melted rocks.

      But with a cell phone, all these extra features that many of us don't want are very visible, and clutter the interface to the point where it's difficult to figure out how to accomplish even the basic tasks. And nobody seems to be selling stripped down cell phones anymore.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    7. Re:yes, but... by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's certified to last for at least one megacall.

    8. Re:yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do all these comments get modded up?

      These comments get modded funny.

      Would you mod up someone who said 'I don't want RAID support in Linux, I just want an OS that lets me read my mail?'

      Yes, i would mod it funny.

  14. AAC Support! by Luckboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Take a good look, iTunes users. This phone has AAC support. One of the few players outside the iPod to do it. Don't take that to mean you can play music from the iTunes Music Store, I doubt it supports the Fairplay DRM, but now you can use the smaller better (IMHO) format than MP3!

    http://www.mobitopia.com/20040317.html#155506

  15. Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another day, another Nokia with a stupid and clumsy keypad.

  16. Nokia and mobiles by Alioth · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nokia do make nice devices. Phones, though, are a compromise. I've had a look at things like the XDA (you look a real dork holding a big wide PDA to your ear when making a phone call, and it also runs Windows - I don't want MS bloatware in my pocket thanks). The Sony-Ericcson T800/T900 has a much nicer form factor, but you've still got to type with a stylus when you text someone or need to enter a URL.

    I bought a new phone less than a month ago, and I looked at all of these. Then I saw the Nokia 6820. It is the same size as my old cheap-o basic Nokia phone, so it fits easily in any pocket I care to put it in...but it folds out - with a full QWERTY keyboard. Although I had to compromise in screen size (standard mobile phone screen) to have a genuine pocket-sized phone, the fold-out keyboard more than makes up for it: texting is fast, if I'm waiting for a plane, I can go onto IRC (using a neat little open source J2ME IRC client), I can ssh into a server if I get the call saying there's trouble and do some basic troubleshooting all with a keyboard. I couldn't care less about cameras particularly.

    The camera in my 6820 is useful in case of emergency, or if I really need an image right now and to hell with the quality because it means I now always have a camera with me. If I get rear-ended at traffic lights, I can take some photos of the incident to supply with the insurance forms as an example.

    1. Re:Nokia and mobiles by scrm · · Score: 1

      I can go onto IRC (using a neat little open source J2ME IRC client)

      What client do you use for IRC over J2ME exactly? Do you have any recommendations for a good J2ME IM client? Cheers...

      --
      ---- scrm
    2. Re:Nokia and mobiles by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      If I get rear-ended at traffic lights, I can take some photos of the incident to supply with the insurance forms as an example.

      That's why I keep a film disposable in the car. Basically free, always ready to use, no questions about digital editing.

    3. Re:Nokia and mobiles by budhaboy · · Score: 1
      I don't want MS bloatware in my pocket thanks

      Sounds like a penile expansion device soon to be marketed by spammers.

    4. Re:Nokia and mobiles by Alioth · · Score: 1

      WLIrc. Got it from SourceForge.

    5. Re:Nokia and mobiles by TonkaTown · · Score: 2, Informative

      Virca is good for J2ME phones with socket support, but WirelessIRC is even better on phones like the Nokia 7610 (plus 7650, 3650, N-Gage, 6600, 6620, Siemens SX-1 and Sendo X), and SymIRC is nice on the P800 and P900.

    6. Re:Nokia and mobiles by Tet · · Score: 1
      I've had a look at things like the XDA (you look a real dork holding a big wide PDA to your ear when making a phone call, and it also runs Windows - I don't want MS bloatware in my pocket thanks).

      As a perfect example of why I don't have an XDA, my boss just came round asking if anyone knew how to do a hard reset on the XDA, as his had hung, and a normal reset wasn't fixing it. So he's about to lose all the settings etc he had on the phone...

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
  17. Product details with more pics by Danta · · Score: 4, Informative
  18. Driving by Mr.+Certainly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, yet another discraction while driving... SMILE!

  19. Aaaactually.... by rasteri · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...It's only a 0.995328 Megapixel camera. You've been lied to!

    1. Re:Aaaactually.... by nchip · · Score: 1

      Afaik digital cameras have more pixels on the CCD than end up on the picture. Mostly on the edges, since the CCD is an analog device, and at the edges the image quality isn't so great.

      Think about it like the CRT monitors are sold as 19" actually have a viewable area of 18".

      --
      signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
  20. Also From Siemens by IYagami · · Score: 1

    New Siemens S65, with an integrated 1.3 MegaPix video camera

    http://www.siemens-mobile.com/cds/frontdoor/0,22 41 ,hq_en_0_27139_rArNrNrNrN,00.html

  21. Poor design... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've personally owned four handsets in my time, and through work I've had the experience to use dozens of others, and when asked by others which manufacturer to go for when buying a phone I don't hesitate to say Nokia. But, having seen some of its recent designs, including this one, I can't help but think that the people in Nokia's design teams are losing it.

    Just look at the numeric keypad portion of this new handset. Then look at the numeric keypad of any handset you have to hand. Unless you own a quirky model, the odds are that your current numeric keypad is little different to that on a wired phone: four rows of three (1-2-3, 4-5-6, 7-8-9, *-0-#) arranged in a grid-like fashion with similar-shaped and -sized buttons.

    This traditional configuration is great, because it allows you to dial numbers easily by touch alone, even in very poor lighting or total darkness. Now tell me how you're meant to do that on this new handset? 3, 6, 9 and # are pretty well vertically aligned but 1, 4, 7 and * are pratically sloped at 45 degrees.

    Now I don't know about you, but if I was dialling without looking (something that's child's play on most phones) I'd expect the 7 to be two buttons directly below the 1, but on this handset, if you drop two buttons vertically down from 1 then you're hitting 8. Which means that to dial a number on this handset you're pretty much forced to look at the keypad as you dial. That's poor design.

    Sure, sure, it looks pretty enough. But if how a handset looks even comes in your top three criteria when buying a new phone (above, say, features/functions, battery life and size/weight) then you're a fool.

    The unwritten first rule of useability and ergonomics is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The traditional keypad layout works, and it works damn well: it looks like someone needs to remind Nokia of that.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Poor design... by Emil+Brink · · Score: 1

      Or, maybe they just sidestep that issue by making the keypad backlit, as cell phones have been doing for at least five years now...

      That said, I think I agree with the spirit of your post. Nokia's designers are having a bit too much fun with the shape of their phones for my tastes. Luckily for them, I don't decide what's hot or not.

      --
      main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
    2. Re:Poor design... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why people always complain about new designs when they haven't even used this design?? I mean, If it was for people like these, then we'd all still use the old "wheel" system of ancient analogue phones... I guess somebody also asked the same question "Jesus, you imagine pressing the right button in the dark, when I can count the holes on the wheel and be sure is the right number??"....

    3. Re:Poor design... by briqui · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Change is not necessarily bad - ergonomics and design for human use have definitely made some things a lot better - but this does seem like a particularly poor change. In particular the right hand side of the keypad looks horrible to use.

      If you hold your currenly phone in you hand anything like me you dial with your thumb most of the time with the rest of your hand holding the phone. Now try pressing the '3' key on your current phone - by far the hardest key to hit on the whole keypad because of how you have to bend your thumb.

      Now look at the new design - a tiny, tiny 3 key right on the edge of the keypad.

      Ug.

      Do these people even use the phones they produce?

    4. Re:Poor design... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Why people always complain about new designs when they haven't even used this design?? I mean, If it was for people like these, then we'd all still use the old "wheel" system of ancient analogue phones... I guess somebody also asked the same question "Jesus, you imagine pressing the right button in the dark, when I can count the holes on the wheel and be sure is the right number??"....

      1. Have you looked at the pictures of this model?

      2. Do you have any design or usability experience at all?

      This isn't a revolutionary or evolutionary change that Nokia has made, it's a cosmetic change. This new keypad design does nothing except make the phone look more pretty (and even that's a matter of taste); it's not as if this new keypad layout works any differently to the keypad layout on my four year-old Nokia 3210.

      In terms of usability, for the reasons I gave in my original post, this layout is a big step backwards because it subtracts one of the major benefits of a traditional four by three layout (ie, easy "blind" dialling) and adds nothing in exchange.

      If you can show just one benefit of this new layout apart from "Ooh, it looks nicer" then I'll shut up and concede that you have a point. But, until you can think of one, be prepared to be ridiculed for suggesting that any deviation from what's come before is automatically progress.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    5. Re:Poor design... by sysopd · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Amen. I have owned several handsets and played with hundreds more in my quest to find the right phone. One of the things I loved about my older phones (qualcomm and nokias) was the efficient button layout and ease of use without looking.

      Until recently it has taken me no time to get up and running with a new phone-- this has all changed. The samsung SCH-a310, for example, has a normal key layout but the tactile response is poor and its hard to feel the difference between keys when scanning with your fingers.

      Nokia has been making some terrible design choices with their key layouts lately.. the first one I remember trying was the 3600 and the 3650. Recently they've been marketing the 3200's like crazy, which look like 1993 pager technology, albeit with a camera. I tried this one out thinking it might be easy to use, but its neigh on impossible to know what key you're hitting, then you have to make sure you hit the right SIDE of the key to get the correct number.

      Now I know, after awhile you get used to it, and then when you get a new phone you need to unlearn what you have learned. But shouldn't the interface technology we use strive for ease of use and ergonomics instead of visual acceptance and clever button placement? I mean we could all be using Datahand ergonomic keyboards in the future, but somehow I doubt these new cell key layouts are for anything other than aesthetics.

  22. Re:AAC Support! by noisehole · · Score: 1

    according to the specs music is played back using RealOne Player, so no thank you!

  23. Convergence by Epistax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Phones are adding things. Watches are getting bigger. Let Phone(t) be a function defining a Phone at type t, likewise for Watch(t).

    Phone(t) = Watch(t) | t->infinity

    1. Re:Convergence by JollyFinn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Phone(NOW)==Watch(NOW) Hey I know that lots of younger people don't wear any watches anymore in Finland. Mobilephone shows time always when on. While its not as convenient to take one from you pocket that check you wrist. Some just don't wan't to carry one more thing in their wrist, and there fore they use the thing they carry anyway. After I run out of batteries in my current whatch I might do same thing. Only reason I keep whatch that is convenient in sauna and when I'm in hurry.

      --
      Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
  24. opera browser included.. by perler · · Score: 1

    and not to forget that the opera browser is bundeled with another phone.. i wonder if it can become a defacto-standard.. Press statement..

  25. I apologise for luddism. by shic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since the early 1990s I've seen immense value in having a mobile phone - just to remain in contact. 1990s phones were temperamental, fragile, bulky and permanently approaching a flat battery. In the noughties things started to look up - phones designs started to become more robust (no aerial sticking out); came in conveniently small packages and battery life sufficient for a working week on standby.

    Britain recently passed drive-phoning laws - which bans using a hand-held phone while "driving" (including when stationary - say in a not-infrequent motorway hold up) and I decided a legal hands-free kit would be needed. Blue-tooth seemed to be the perfect answer to the problem - a simple system wired into my car so that whenever my engine is running, the in-car hands free kit takes control of any phone calls - allowing me to legally use my phone without taking it out of my pocket. Off I trooped to the mall now obscenely cluttered with mobile phone shops. To say I was surprised is an understatement!

    Phone size - if I want blue tooth then I must have a larger phone (very undesirable) but that it would have a camera in it (no use at all thanks - maybe even a hindrance as I might not be permitted to take it with me everywhere I go) and a snazzy colour screen (Why!?! I just want to make and receive calls!) and a dramatically reduced battery life to boot. As for wireless connectivity - the vendors advise it is normally turned off, and activated only for the duration I'm using a particular blue tooth service...( What's the point then!?!!! ) and that using blue tooth would dramatically reduce battery life again!

    Don't get me wrong I've been very impressed with my current Nokia 8310, but can't help feeling that more modern phones have become feature crazy and now neglect the primary requirement to make mobile telephone conversations convenient and reliable with minimum effort. Nokia - PLEASE - stop concentrating on the gimmicks and get back to making solid reliable phones for business use.

    1. Re:I apologise for luddism. by illusion_2K · · Score: 1

      Phone size - if I want blue tooth then I must have a larger phone (very undesirable) but that it would have a camera in it (no use at all thanks - maybe even a hindrance as I might not be permitted to take it with me everywhere I go) and a snazzy colour screen (Why!?! I just want to make and receive calls!) and a dramatically reduced battery life to boot. As for wireless connectivity - the vendors advise it is normally turned off, and activated only for the duration I'm using a particular blue tooth service...( What's the point then!?!!! ) and that using blue tooth would dramatically reduce battery life again!

      Admittedly I don't actually use the bluetooth on my phone at all, but it sounds like what you're looking for is something akin to the Nokia 6310i. I find that the call quality on it is great, the battery lasts for days on end without recharges and it doesn't have a 'snazzy colour screen.' That being said, it's been documented that the bluetooth implementation that Nokia put on these has some security flaws so it's probably a good idea to have it turned off when you don't need it. However, if you're just going to be using bluetooth in your car then it shouldn't be such a big problem. Incidentally, you can also set up the bluetooth to be voice activated - so turning it on when you get in your car shouldn't be a problem either especially if you get a power adapter for your car (in which case battery life doesn't matter).

      Anyway, the point is pretty much moot since you got one of their other phones, but for the 'give me substance over style' crowd around here, this phone seems to fit the bill in almost every respect.

    2. Re:I apologise for luddism. by eraserewind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You shouldn't complain about phones that are clearly not marketed towards you. Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola, etc. have absolutely huge ranges of phones. They cater for just about every market niche you could concieve of. One consequence of that however it that many/most phones will have features that you have absolutely no interest in. Do you complain that trucks have way too many features, and are way too bulky, when all you want is something to pop down to the shops in? No you don't (I hope!). This is exactly the same thing however. Does this phone look like it is trying to be a solid reliable business phone? Does it look like it even knows what a solid reliable business phone is? No, but plenty of other models do.

    3. Re:I apologise for luddism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can stand German luxury, I recommend a Siemens S55. It is small, it looks good and it has bluetooth. I use bluetooth to sync my calendar between Evolution and the phone (using multisync) in Linux and it works very well.

    4. Re:I apologise for luddism. by shic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > ... plenty of other models do.

      My observations have been different... while the 2-3 year old design works well, I would have hoped that a phone company would have extended an excellent design such as the 8310 to provide robust wireless integration to motor vehicles. It seems that developments in mobile phones these days have become more concerned with style than substance. The reply about the 6310i is interesting but still makes me compromise on size - and leaves me wondering about issues relating to "always-on" Bluetooth. Surely it should not be a problem to listen for Bluetooth messages from my car without seriously adversely affecting battery life?

      I'm not complaining about this phone per-se, but I am complaining that all mobile phone makers seem to have abandoned the idea that functionality improvements in core features will drive sales - especially considering the substantial demand.

    5. Re:I apologise for luddism. by TonkaTown · · Score: 1

      You don't need a big phone for Bluetooth, look at the Siemens S55 for instance, almost identical in size to your Nokia 8310, but with Bluetooth.

      The S55 is much the same age as the 8310, and some of the newer Siemens phones like the S65 for instance give you even more features for your money.

      Nokia are masters at not making one phone with every feature.

    6. Re:I apologise for luddism. by shic · · Score: 1

      The S55 looks rather good on the web page... two questions...

      1) Do I need to place it in the in-car holder to use it wireless, or will the car kit work with it still in my pocket?
      2) Assuming it will work from my pocket, do I need to press buttons to turn Bluetooth on and off, or is it reasonable to just leave it to the phone and the car to negotiate between themselves?

      I wonder why this isn't offered at any of the retail outlets? Hmmm... maybe I just wonder why the retail phone shops are so pathetic...

    7. Re:I apologise for luddism. by bluGill · · Score: 1

      I agree on the ergonomics thing. Thats why my current phone isn't a nokia even though I liked their old models. Not on the more features thing though.

      Phones need to be a certian size, several years ago they reached a point where technology would allow them to go smaller, but the phone became less useful. They have all this extra space, why not use it. A few people want cameras, it doesn't cost much to add one, so why not give them one. A moment's thought latter reveals that inventory management becomes too complex with many modeles, they can lower the price on the camera phone to the price of the non-camera phone just be getting rid of the non-camera model and getting that much less inventory problems.

      In other words, the camera is something you can ignore and doesn't cost anything so why not just accept it even if you won't use it?

    8. Re:I apologise for luddism. by Trashman · · Score: 1
      In other words, the camera is something you can ignore and doesn't cost anything so why not just accept it even if you won't use it?


      I don't get this mentality. What about people who work in institutions where cameras and other recording devices are strictly prohibited?

      I have a Nokia 8390. It's looking somewhat beat up but the phone works like a champ. And what is it w/ the US that it seems that all of the phones that I'd like aren't available here?

      I've been looking phone with a:
      -Color screen.
      -Bluetooth.
      -Is small, (I'll take one that is little bigger than my current one, or flip phone.)
      -Somewhat Stylish (i.e. not faggy looking)
      -Is sturdy.
      -Is a GSM phone. (preferably, a world phone but doesn't have to be.)
      -Isn't a PDA.
      -And w/o a Camera (Although if it has one, I won't mind. Chances are though that I prob won't use it)

      I've found several phones that meet my criteria, but none of them are available in the US. I would have to inport one and that costs too Much $$$.
      What Gives?
      --
      Do not read this .sig
    9. Re:I apologise for luddism. by radish · · Score: 1

      Large phone? Try the SE T610, it's about as small as they come and is fully loaded with bluetooth goodness. Plus it's free (or cheap) with most plans. Battery life is average, and if you don't want the other features just don't use 'em. Not like the camera does any harm if it's not switched on.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    10. Re:I apologise for luddism. by shic · · Score: 1

      Hmmm - but can you tell me:

      If I get into my car leaving my phone in my pocket, will the phone negotiate with the car to allow me to answer/make calls legally, or must I somehow enable the collaboration by pressing buttons on the phone (which would be illegal once I've set off and annoying to do before I set off - especially for short journeys)?

      If I need to do something special - then there is no advantage to Bluetooth and I would be better off slotting the phone into a cradle every time I get behind the wheel.

    11. Re:I apologise for luddism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy a Nokia 810 car phone
      and use your bluetooth phone with it

  26. Re:AAC Support! by Danta · · Score: 2, Informative

    AAC support on Nokia mobiles is nothing new--the Nokia 3300 and the already discontinued Nokia 5510 have supported AAC for quite some time already.

  27. Non-slashdotted picture of the phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  28. Good point by AllenChristopher · · Score: 1, Funny
    "In the noughties things started to look up -"

    It's true... camera phones are really useful for looking up the noughties.

  29. newshounds by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine what it will be like when the next spectacular terrorist attack happens, and cnn suddenly gets flooded with multimedia snuff clips from a population saturated with camera-phones?

    also consider that broadcast quality tv has about 500 lines of resolution.

    1. Re:newshounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good point.

  30. Quality doesn't mean security. by alexatrit · · Score: 1

    And in related news, the security team still maintains that any sort of photographic device won't be allowed on the company grounds, regardless of whether it's an SLR, digital, or a phone. I guess it wasn't because of crappy quality...

    --

    Nothing but the finest in meaningless drivel
  31. Well thats just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just what we needed. A phone, mp3 player, camera, picture and video editing suite. Next up, a flipout butter-knife to take victorinox out of the equasion and we monopolise the market. WooHoo! A phone is hardly that anymore, PDA is the propper term now. Its a fashion accessory actually, teenie bopper girls and boys spend a heap on money on 'the latest' phones just so they can be 'hip'. A phone is meant to RING places...RING! the damn nokia 5110 does that...and it's a measely $15. I know a bunch of you are going to jump at me because otherwise people would carry around 10 different devices, but this has gone too far.

  32. like watching scrambled p0rn by millahtime · · Score: 1

    " that's if you don't mind a low resolution low framerate compressed-to-hell pixellated blob resembling vomit!"

    So, what your saying is that what you shoot with this camera will look like scrambled p0rn we used to watch. you hope on occasion there is a boob or something you can make out.

  33. Who cares as long as the quality sucks. by TEB_78 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It really doesn't matter what Nokia put into their phones as long as they don't know how to make quality.
    Here in Norway clerks in several stores where asked if they would recommend Nokia to their customers and almost everyone said no! They have too much customer complaints on Nokia phones. Every third Nokia phone sold in Norway has to get service within 6 months...
    The most recommended phones where Siemens and Sony Ericson. They only have to have one out of ten phones into services within 6 months.

    1. Re:Who cares as long as the quality sucks. by SoTuA · · Score: 0
      Seems like the Sony in Sony Ericsson got them some quality. Everybody and his uncle has a broken Ericsson phone in this country (cheap plastic crap, the 'Ericsson-only' phones).

      Conversely, my current phone (nokia 3320) survived a four story fall with nothing but a cracked shell, easily replaceable. Dropped too many times, never anything but scratches.

      Never tried a Siemens.

      Hate Motorolas. Worst. Interface. Ever.

    2. Re:Who cares as long as the quality sucks. by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      We use nothing but Nokia-phones in my workplace. we have about 60 of them. And apart from few minor glitches (and the users beat the crap out of them) they work very well. The brand-new models sometimes have few software-glitches, but they haven't bothered us much.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  34. What happened to cell phones?!!? by wobedraggled · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just want to make a damn call from the thing, but the keypad is not very well designed for punching up a phone number. Cell phone keypads have become an ugly mess as of late. I don't need it to do anything but make calls, and have a phone book. I don't need a camera and I have a gameboy. geeze.

    --
    Ubuntu- Linux for human beings.
    1. Re:What happened to cell phones?!!? by TonkaTown · · Score: 1

      Fine, so don't buy one. You're not one of those guys who only uses his laptop to play solitaire are you?

      If all you need (or are able to use) is a dumbphone get one of those, personally I use my phone for a hell of a lot more than just making phone calls.

      Having a smartphone saves me from lugging a camera, gameboy, mp3 player, pda and laptop around everywhere.

    2. Re:What happened to cell phones?!!? by TheTranceFan · · Score: 1
      I hear that! It's like all the tenets of industrial design have been pushed by the wayside. I wonder whether these kinds of keypads are easier to use for one thumb than the other? And can you run them without looking at them?

      IANAD (designer) but to me the newer phones are just *ugly*, and I bet their usability suffers too.

  35. Only 1 megapixel? by achurch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess now would not be the time to mention that Japan is already up to two megapixel phones . . .

    1. Re:Only 1 megapixel? by stedlj · · Score: 0

      Megapixel phones have been in Japan for over a year. All current US camera phones I have looked at require the pictures be emailed from the phone not a direct download. Meaning you have to pay extra for web access just to get the pictures out of the phone.

      Hopefully this will change now.

  36. I like my camera phone by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    I use it mostly for documenting rack cabinets at our co-lo and taking pictures of hardware errors in the BIOS log file(never can find a floppy to dump it to) on the IBM servers.
    Oh year, and for the occasional Microsoft bluscreen on a information of billboard sign somewhere.
    While I can live without my camera in my phone, it has helped me from time to time.

  37. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!! PARENT IS A TROLL!! by TEB_78 · · Score: 0

    It's no troll, I'm serious. And I can document the numbers from norwegian newspapers.

  38. damn by *weasel · · Score: 1

    so what are the restrictions on importing japanese phones?

    I understand they have a different network, but is there any level of compatibility?

    at 25000 yen (~$240) that v601sh is a hell of a deal even /with/ shipping. Heck, most of the japanese vodaphones are vastly superior to our tech /and/ cheaper.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    1. Re:damn by fuggsy · · Score: 1

      The v601sh is on the 2G PDC network - not used outside of Japan. Even Docomo and Vodafones phones that use the same standard can't be used on each others networks. The 25000 yen price assumes you are starting a new account with vodafone, they will want you credit card numbers and also to see your passport so they know if you skip the country they can get the last months bill etc. BUT there is no real term contract, so you can cancel without any cancellation fee (unless you choose long term subscription discount)

      However, the V801sa is compatible with GSM and WCDMA. I would like to know if you can take that and subscribe to another vodafone network outside of Japan. It's about 29000yen.
      http://www.vodafone.jp/japanese/service /vgs/main_h .html

  39. And EU/USA GSM standard supports those formats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And european/american GSM standard supports those formats?

    Nope. Go buy that japanese toy if you like it but it's useless piece of shit in Europe/USA.

  40. Siemens trumps Nokia by gingerTabs · · Score: 1

    In other news, Siemens release a bunch of new phones, one of which has a 1.3 Megapixels camera.

    Linky.

    1. Re:Siemens trumps Nokia by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge, Siemens 1.3 megapixel camera wont be released until Q3, whereas the Nokia-phone is released in a very short time. By Q3, Nokia might also have 1.3 megapixel camera.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:Siemens trumps Nokia by akiro · · Score: 1

      SonyEricsson also introduced a 1.3Mpix phone a couple of weeks ago, the s700. (Warning, horrible flash-contraption)

  41. Camera phones are old news by coachvince · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Phones with additional features will always be a compromise, between packing all the features in, keeping the size manageable, and trying to make it fit in the hand like a phone should (does anybody really like using those matchbox sized phones?). As it is, in the US and UK, you really need a hands-free device. That could easily be connected to a wristwatch with the same features. Maybe we could even use the cord running between as an aerial, and improve the signal. Then, it becomes an all-purpose device, with less concern about the fit in the hand. With Hitachi's new mini hard drive coming out, it'll be the camera/watch (and/or phone). If you think it's annoying not being able to have your cell phone in a locker room, wait til you can't have your wristwatch in there, because it can store hours of DV. Phones with additional features will always be a compromise, between packing all the features in, keeping the size manageable, and trying to make it fit in the hand like a phone should. As it is, in the US and UK, you really need a hands-free device. That could easily be connected to a wristwatch with the same features. Maybe we could even use the cord running between as an aerial, and improve the signal. Then, it becomes an all-purpose device, with less concern about the fit in the hand. A+ certified, and just as proud of being potty-trained

    --
  42. My Siemens experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've had nothing but bad experiences with Siemens so called cellphones. One died after 3 days of purchase. The next one (the one I got with my warrant) lost all my contact information and notes after 4 months of operation. Repairman upgraded the software and before I walked home with my upgraded Siemens phone I noticed it hat gasped it's last breath. Sad. Never gonna buy Siemens again.

  43. Camera phones are a terminatible offense by hacker · · Score: 4, Informative
    My fiance works for the biggest pharmaceutical in the world, and they just recently sent out a company-wide communication that said that any employee, friend-of-employee, visitor, contractor, or vendor found onsite using, carrying, or possessing a cellular phone with a camera will be immediately terminated, no questions asked.

    For the employee friends, visitors, vendors and contractors, this means they are immediately banned from any and all sites for a duration of 3 years. The employee who has friends onsite using a cameraphone is immediately terminated.

    They are being very harsh, but these are the rules. Having someone walking around with a miniature camera in their hands inside labs, through buildings, etc. is an ENORMOUS risk to them.

    Check with your employer first, before you invest in one of these phones, or you could find yourself out on the curb without a job.

    Cellphone vendors need to be very careful with their product lines, and includes phones that do NOT include these features, so that they can continue to sell product. Don't just cater to the teenagers who think having a camera and a phone is "cool". Cater to the people who actually have to pay for those cellphone bills... the parents, and the businesspersons who actually use the devices for what they are.. a phone.

    1. Re:Camera phones are a terminatible offense by BancBoy · · Score: 1

      "any employee, friend-of-employee, visitor, contractor, or vendor found onsite using, carrying, or possessing a cellular phone with a camera will be immediately terminated" - Whoah! So they will terminate your friend if they have a mobile phone with a camera...that's pretty severe!

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
    2. Re:Camera phones are a terminatible offense by hacker · · Score: 1
      "Whoah! So they will terminate your friend if they have a mobile phone with a camera...that's pretty severe!"

      No, YOU are terminated if your onsite visitor or friend is found using a cameraphone (or camera or other recording device, audio or video) onsite.

      It is pretty harsh, and these cellphone vendors are making it harder and harder to get a useful phone, without having all kinds of battery-draining cruft on it (camera, big color screen, etc.)

  44. Exporting pictures by slim · · Score: 4, Informative

    Careful if you're buying a camera phone. They're rather good fun, but you need to know upfront whether you're going to be able to transfer pictures onto a PC directly.

    I know a number of people who have to send a costly email/photomessage for every picture they want to move off their phone, because their network operator (from whom they bought the phone) has disabled the functionality to transfer a picture over a wire/bluetooth/IR.

    1. Re:Exporting pictures by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      Network operators tend to be dicks. I bought a Sony Ericsson T206 from Telus (a Canadian provider) because out of all the phones they offered for pre-paid (to hell with contracts) it had the features I wanted, which included a ringtone composer and the ability to send ringtones via sms. Turns out Telus decided to remove those features, since they figured their customers would be happier BUYING ringtones directly from them for $1.50 each. So I guess *I'm* the ass for assuming they were selling a *real* T206, since the box said "Sony Ericsson T206" and not "Telus Ericsson, which is like the Sony version, only shitty". Dicks.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    2. Re:Exporting pictures by anti-trojan · · Score: 1

      I'm not living in the States, thus I can't be sure, but I don't think it's too difficult to reflash the firmware such that the disabled features come back. Here in Europe every mobile shop can do it for you.

  45. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!! PARENT IS A TROLL!! by TEB_78 · · Score: 0

    I'm no translator, So anyone else please do the translating. But here are the articles.

    Noone recomends Nokia:
    http://www.itavisen.no/art/1302995.html
    http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/nett/article.jht ml?articleID=740523

    Nokia most repaired:
    http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=1933591

    From the last article:
    "Mens hver tredje solgte Nokia-telefon ma inn til reparasjon, er tallene langt bedre for konkurrentene Siemens, Sony Ericsson og Motorola. Fra disse produsentene trenger bare hver tiende telefon service for det er gatt seks maneder."

    translated to: "While every third Nokia-phone sold have to have service, the numbers for Simens,Sony Ericsson and Motorola are much better. only 1 out of 10 need service within 6 months."

  46. Movie Director's creator by rexguo · · Score: 1

    Is the company I work for, www.muvee.com. It is a mini version of our autoProducer product which does smart automatic video editing.

    --
    www.rexguo.com - Technologist + Designer
  47. For better or for worse? by lhpineapple · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll admit that the functionality and versitility of these new phones sound great, but it really begs the question, how much is too much?

    It's hard enough to pry some people off a computer and make them, oh let's say, take a walk outside. I don't know if I could handle seeing every other person sitting at a park bench "appreciating" the scenery by listening to an mp3, taking pictures, and posting them in their blog.

    It's probably inevitable. I just hope we don't let technology govern what little part of our everyday life that we have left that isn't affected by technology.

    1. Re:For better or for worse? by haggar · · Score: 1

      I just hope we don't let technology govern what little part of our everyday life that we have left that isn't affected by technology.

      Too late, dude!

      --
      Sigged!
  48. Where's my brick phone?!?!?! by dfn_deux · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I for one am sick of all these new feature being put into phones. What happened to wireless sets that were actually good as phones.. Since my first wireless in 1995 it seems that every generation of phone seems to get worse and worse, more feature and poorer reception. Gimme a good old fasioned brick phone with support for the new wireless networks and I'd be a happy happy person, imagine the standby time you could get with a brickphone sized battery and newer more efficient processing....

    --
    -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
  49. Megapixel rating is on entire sensor, not output by blorg · · Score: 4, Informative
    That's not a megapixel... That's only 995328 pixels.

    Actually, it's standard for digital camera manufacturers to quote the megapixel rating based on the entire sensor, rather than the output resolution. The sides of the sensor are blacked out, for calibration, and don't appear in the final image.

    1600x1200, for example, is the standard 2.0 megapixel resolution (but 1600x1200 is actually only 192k pixels).

  50. The Phone Event Horizon by mccalli · · Score: 4, Funny
    Douglas Adams was wrong. There's is no Shoe Event Horizon, instead make way for the Phone Event Horizon.

    I mean, it fits the pattern. Every second store on the high street is a phone store. Phones are made increasingly more difficult to use, and are replaced more and more frequently until eventually it becomes uneconomic to open anything other than a phone shop.

    I warned you. Don't say I didn't warn you when the Phone Warriors are sent in. Relax and enjoy your phones. They are very stylish and fashionable...

    Cheers,
    Ian

  51. Re:AAC Support! by TonkaTown · · Score: 1

    RealOne player isn't the only app capable of playing music on the Symbian platform, although it does tend to come preinstalled with most of the recent Nokias.

  52. Phone Calls? by bailout911 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, this sounds great, but how does this PHONE do with making PHONE CALLS? You know, the thing you use your phone for 90% of the time? I'd bet that most people who have camera/mp3/video/whatever capabilities in their phones probably use those for about 3 days until the "look, it's cool" factor wears off, then they just talk on their phone like normal people.

    --
    --Stupid Sig Here--
  53. this was SOOOOOO 2002... by andrewleung · · Score: 2, Informative

    sony had this out in 2002... and it did work through a bluethooth phone...

    Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-FX77

    A pretty sweet camera... great design... i'm STILL using the earlier model with the same design...

  54. Re:Bah, mp3. by Nicholas+Q+Name · · Score: 0

    Yeah, especially seeing as ogg/vorbis is OS and MP3 isn't.
    I just compressed the new zero 7 album to MP3 @ 180kbps and to ogg @ circa 120kbps: ogg is obviously the smaller file size (this is so important for data transfer) while the quality is audibly no different - neither is perfect but ogg has the advantage, I think.
    OS afficianados really ought to at least consider making the switch (almost painlesss) to ogg/vorbis.

    --
    Sig: Closed for refurbishment.
  55. Re:Megapixel rating is on entire sensor, not outpu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1920k.

  56. Whilst in Japan ... by phoebe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sony Ericsson have a 1.3 MegaPixel 1280 x 960 16x zoom called SO505iS.

    1. Re:Whilst in Japan ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm using it to browse this page w/ "Tsukin-browser".

      QVGA screen is also good for text browsing:)

    2. Re:Whilst in Japan ... by GuyBrY · · Score: 1

      if you haven't noticed, a worldwide gsm version wit' many of the same features was debuted at Cebit the Panasonic S500

  57. Re:Megapixel rating is on entire sensor, not outpu by Frag-A-Muffin · · Score: 0, Redundant


    1600x1200, for example, is the standard 2.0 megapixel resolution (but 1600x1200 is actually only 192k pixels).


    Ummm, you mean 1,920k pixels right? :)

    --

    AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
  58. Why not QVGA screen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > a megapixel camera (1152 x 864 pixels), 65,000 color screen, and 4x zoom

    It's too hard to indicate a megapixel picture on this cheap screen.

    Following Japanese mobile phone company, Nokia should take a QVGA screen.

  59. Yes, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can use those phones:)

    They are 3G phones covering WCDMA & CDMA 1X.

    You suck!

  60. Re:Megapixel rating is on entire sensor, not outpu by Tet · · Score: 1
    1600x1200, for example, is the standard 2.0 megapixel resolution

    It's worse than that. Mine (an Olympus C2020Z) claims 2.1 megapixels, yet is still only 1600x1200.

    --
    "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
  61. If you're prepared not to go Nokia... by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

    You could always try a SonyEricsson T68i - for a mobile phone it's pretty old now, but:

    a) It's fairly small
    b) It's got a good battery life
    c) It's got bluetooth and GPRS
    d) Okay, it's got a colour screen, but it's small and doesn't have a camera or anything
    e) They're really cheap and easy to get hold of nowadays

    I have heard of people having reliability and speed problems with them, but mine's always been fast and rock solid, so I'm guessing it's something to do with the older firmware revisions or something.

    As for bluetooth - it's true that you have to specially turn it on to being discoverable (which on the T68i only lasts for 3 minutes), however this doesn't matter once you've paired your BT headset with it.

    Once the devices are paired, they should just work. I've had no problems with my T68i and a BT headset, and my Palmpilot connects to it fine as well.

  62. Great... by patrick.whitlock · · Score: 0, Redundant

    i used to only have to worry about the soccer mom talking on her phone while driving... now i got to worry about her trying to be talked through taking a picture, while listening to a kenny G MP3 on the highway... fabulous

  63. Refresh My Memory.. by citizenc · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Refresh my memory. Why do people, all of a sudden, need cameras in their phones? Pictures, mp3 playback, Internet access, email, instant messaging... I can hardly wait until Nokia releases a phone that does everything EXCEPT actually make phone calls. *Rolls eyes*

    1. Re:Refresh My Memory.. by Hitmouse · · Score: 1

      Yeah and I'm waiting for a computer that'll do everything EXCEPT actually decode Nazi war codes.

  64. Ergonomics are meant for everyone... by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    ... sure, we do it this way, but Nokia targets it's phones to everyone,
    including for an important part (and this is not meant discriminative, nor stereo-typing) women .
    And they happen to fancy phones that look nice, rather than those with pure functionality.

    As research shows that more women own mobile phones than men,
    you better be giving that group the advantage.

    It'll probably be a temporary thing though.
    Once every phone is fashioned with a touchscreen like the SE-P900, you can make your own key-layout :)

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  65. Another picture phone?! by barfarf · · Score: 1

    Hey... only pictures? What in the world happened to my cd burning, flow bee haircutting, enema delivering, nose picking cell phone? THOSE are the features I REALLY need... Oh wait, I have an antenna for picking my nose.

    But I really, really need the rest of those features!

  66. it's not a troll! by TEB_78 · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with trolling, but with information. The information in the post above is well known facts in Norway.
    Maybe it's because of the climate in Norway, but it's still a problem.

    So when someone advertises for Nokia on Slashdot, I think people has the right to know that Nokia isn't all that good. They have a reputation about accepting more quality problems than the other mobile-producers.
    Sure they have good features, but if they took some more time on QA they might have made quality products too.

    I'll post the URLs (again), but I don't care to translate, I'm not that good an translater. I'll give a short summary though:
    - The first two articles are about the same thing. basicly saying that the stores don't dare to recomend Nokia because of the quality problems.
    - The last article is a bit older, saying that Nokia has the phones that need most repaires (1 out of 3).

    http://www.itavisen.no/art/1302995.html
    http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/nett/article.jht ml?articleID=740523
    http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hb s?artid=1933591

    So again...this is not a troll, but informative.

  67. Did anyone watch the movie? by joel2600 · · Score: 0

    The 'spotlight' movie on nokia's site is absolutley hilarious. http://nokia.com/nokia/0,8764,54996,00.html I would give a synopsis, but I wouldn't want to ruin this masterpiece.

  68. Design for right handed people? by pdjohe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let me try to explain...

    If you move your right thumb up and down like you were dialing a number, it can be somewhat natural to move down and to the left at the same time. I think the keypad shape reflects this movement. It might be more natural than expected to dial numbers with the distorted keypad shape.

    Guess I gotta go to a shop and try it out first.

  69. But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..it's i-mode only, isn't it?

  70. Because... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...sometimes, there are compromises. Quite often, in fact. And at some point you have to ask yourself, is this really what it started out as? Some of the phones these days sounds more like PDAs where you add a little add-on module to make it a cell phone than the other way around.

    Don't be too surprised if it soon comes a multi-gadget with a feature list containing:
    Digital Camera
    ....
    Kitchen Sink
    Cell phone (optional)

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  71. MMC vs SD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's the difference between sd card and a mmc? are they cross compatible?

  72. This is news? by esoteric_z · · Score: 1

    1 MP.. big deal? There's been a 2 MP camera-phone out in Japan for 5 months (with a Fuji-developed sensor and lens) and a 1 MP camera-phone for over a year. This isn't exactly ground-breaking technology news. :/

  73. no nightshot?? by iamhassi · · Score: 1
    "It can also create short films of up to 10 minutes..."

    can you please add NightShot for those "special" moments?

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  74. Wow by MasTRE · · Score: 0, Troll

    I guess it's time to put my 10D on eBay..

    --
    Must-not-watch TV!
  75. Nokia keypad design... by juhaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nokia seems to have this weird fixation of pushing more and more weird keypads to their phones one after another. Not that they are the only ones, something like Siemens SX1 is even worse, but still...

    What's wrong with the good old squarish design with all numeric keys being at least approximately same size & shape?

  76. What about a PHONE! by FatAssBastard · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I don't want all this stuff in my cel phone. Obviously many people do, or they wouldn't be making this stuff, but I just want a PHONE, preferably one with just a grayscale text display. I don't ever want my phone to crash, y'know?

    Does such an animal even exist anymore? Or do you have to get a multi-color screen, mp3 player, etc. etc.???

    --
    /.: why the hell am I here?
    1. Re:What about a PHONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recently my mothers phone stopped working so we went to her network here in Australia to get a replacement phone. She hardly uses it and is technologically phobic, so we wanted a basic grey screened phone, without camera etc. It turns out that it was MORE expensive to buy the featureless phone than it was to get a camera phone. I ended up getting her a brand new 3G videophone for $19/month, which includes $19 worth of video calls, $99 cap (make unlimited calls, only pay $99), 3 batteries, 2 chargers etc. Crazy I tell you!

  77. erm...Siemens unwraps 1.3 megapixel camera phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.theregister.com/content/68/36331.html

  78. Bad idea by rofthorax · · Score: 1

    This is like putting a v8 engine on a tricycle..
    You have a magepixel display/camera on a telephone which can't verywell utilize the content. unless using a wireless wap connection.. Kinda pointlesss.

    --
    Just say no to license servers!!
  79. 802.11X cell phone by MicroDV8 · · Score: 1


    Calypso's Patent Could Have an Immediate Impact on the Way OEMs Do Business
    March 3, 2004 5:30am ET (BusinessWire)

    Calypso Wireless, Inc. (OTC:CLYW), announced today that it is in the process of contacting all major OEMs in the wireless industry to notify them of the patent that could have a significant and immediate impact on the development of the industry, as well as major implications on the way OEM's such as Nokia (NYSE:NOK), Ericsson (Nasdaq:ERICY) and Motorola (NYSE:MOT) do business. Last week, Calypso Wireless announced it had been granted U.S. Patent #6,680,923 titled "Communication system and method", which covers the seamless roaming of voice, video and data between Wide Area Network access points, such as cellular towers (GSM/GPRS/EDGE, CDMA, WCMDA etc.) and short-range Internet access points (such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.). Calypso Wireless is already in negotiations with a major OEM manufacturer to license its ASNAP(TM) technology. Due to the patent, even those OEM manufacturers that don't wish to license Calypso's technology at the time, but plan to create wireless devices that roam seamlessly between these networks, will have to obtain rights from Calypso Wireless.

    Calypso's patented technology enables mobile users to seamlessly switch between cellular and wireless IP networks via the WLAN, accelerating wireless broadband deployment. The technology could also provide significant savings to mobile carriers in additional frequency spectrum and infrastructure equipment by offloading capacity to the WLAN and IP networks while providing additional sources of revenues. Internet-ready devices, including wireless cellular phones, PDA's and notebooks - can seamlessly connect to either the mobile carriers cellular phone network or any wireless LAN, such as 802.11x (Wi-Fi). In other words, global connectivity of voice, video and data will be done through the most efficient connection point, at a lower cost to both the mobile carrier and the consumer.

    "Our technology could dramatically boost overall wireless handset sales, and change the industry's growth projections globally. We believe that when consumers will be given an opportunity to connect at a speed of up to 11,000 Kbps (11Mbps) so that they will be able to watch DVD-quality movies or perform movie-quality, real-time video conferencing, they will use it. By teaming up with us, OEMs will now be able to manufacture and market such devices and dramatically boost their sales," says David Davila, President & CEO of Calypso Wireless.

    About Calypso Wireless, Inc.

    Calypso Wireless is the company behind the revolutionary ASNAP(TM) technology for which Calypso recently was granted US Patent #6,680,923 titled "Communication system and method" Calypso's technology enables the phones and other mobile devices to automatically detect an available wireless local area network and then seamlessly switch between the signals from a GSM/GPRS link tower to a short range broadband network such as cable with Wi-Fi. The wireless customer remains connected to the GSM/GPRS or CDMA network until his mobile phone automatically detects and switches to a Wi-Fi network. At that point, the phone seamlessly switches to that network and is now able to connect at a speed of up to 11,000 Kbps (11Mbps) enabling movie-quality, real-time video conferencing via Calypso's cell / Wi-Fi phones, or any mobile device powered with Calypso's technology.

    This release is intended as a forward-looking statement within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The risks and uncertainties that may affect the operations, performance development and results of the Company's business include but are not limited to (i) The ability to provide technology in the future, (ii) Unexpected changes in the technology market, (iii) The success of the Company's expansion and sales and marketing strategies (iv) Competition within the Data Synchronization market (v) The ability of the Company to continue to finance its long-term strategy and

    --
    while stress >= sanity{ coffee++; }
  80. Not news by greggman · · Score: 1

    In Japan we have several 2 megapixel phones.

    As for the thoughts that these cameras will not replace digital cameras, they will for all those people that only need snap shots. The Casio Exlim series has lenses small enough they could fit just fine in a cellphone and they take pictures that 80% of the population would be happy with. Integrate the 2, will happen by next year in Japan, and there will be no reason for 80% of the digital cameras out there. Only the Pro-sumer stuff will have a point.

  81. Re:Bah, mp3. by fm6 · · Score: 1
    Why dont they do like Sony on their Minidisc players (recompress in their format then upload on the device)
    I used to own a player that worked that way, and it was not cool. Cruddy Philips software was a pain to install (it was officially unsupported on Win2K, but you could make the driver work if you were clever) and tended to lock up.

    I suppose Vorbis would be less of a pain, since you can always find software to translate from MP3 to Vorbis. But life is a lot simpler if you don't need special software to access your device. The best MP3 devices act like a plug-and-play disk drive, and let you download files with a simple copy.

  82. Software and pain by Bilange · · Score: 1

    Sony's minidisc software was so buggy that instead of using what Sony provided, I installed Realone with my drive's plugin for Realone to transfer my files :)

    --
    "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
    1. Re:Software and pain by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Yikes! Sony's software must have been really bad for for Real software to be an improvement!

      I own a Sony voice recorder that's designed to look like a disk drive when you plug it into an USB port. So retrieving voice files is easy, and presumably it would work on Linux without a special driver. But the voice files are a proprietary Sony format, so you still need their software to listen to them. Which puts you at Sony's mercy, a situation I don't care for.