Talk:Nokia N9

Jolla is N9's successor

Absolutely, it's another family, another working model, another company. The only thing that Jolla has in common with N9 is that Mer forked Meego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.228.216.129 (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Jolla mobile with Sailfish is continuation of N9 as:

• after Elop's killing that project ("no metter what a success N9 will be this is the last MeeGo device" - Steven Elop). By that decision no Lumia can be considered as successor.
• Lumia is not any continuation or successor by al means. It is of entirely different OS, of entirely closed instead open project, of entirely different policy and of entirely different customers target. This is discontinuation. What makes this is misleading and false information that Lumia is successor.
• MeeGo team has decided they are not going to leave such promising project as MeeGo hence some persons has established Jolla company
• This team of Jolla, where finally almost all members of the former MeeGo team in Nokia has joined as employees, so the Jolla is direct continuation of the N9 and the MeeGo team, unlike any team of Lumia which has nothing common with the N9 or the Linux MeeGo.
• Jolla and MeeGo community has develop successors which are Jolla (mobile phone), Jolla Tablet, Sailfish OS
• Jolla is commonly considered as the N9 and Linux MeeGo continuator, just contrary to Elop who is creator of Lumias.
• In Wikipedia must not be false information, especially when they are against facts mentioned above.

Ocexyz (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad photo

The phone comes in black, cyan and magenta. Not dark red. Is there a good stock photo we could use?--88.112.67.118 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Trojan

Too funny :P Obviously written by a Nokian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.100.33 (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Harmattan != MeeGo

Harmattan is based on Maemo and is not MeeGo.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeeGo#MeeGo.2FHarmattan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.61.160 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

MeeGo is combined Maemo (Nokia) with Mobilin (Intel), version prepared by Nokia for N9 is Harmattan and is also described as "MeeGo instance", you can't say it is not MeeGo - that would be against facts. Some software added by Nokia is not opensource and is dedicated for N9 and is inside Harmattan, this causes most probably Nokia wanted to protect their interests. And also the contract with Microsoft causes N9 was in big trouble even to appear as a product in sell on market. Basic firmaware, kernel and procedures are MeeGo (and inside it contains Maemo and Mobilin) and above is Harmattan. From the other point one can say it is Maemo 6 and this will be true also. But saying Harmattan is not MeeGo is false, it is not "full" or "pure" MeeGo as there are Nokia additions which enforces some modifications. Nokia has introduce Harmattan as codename of MeeGo for smartphones, but there is also codename Meltemi of MeeGo for most simple phones, sometimes called "non-system". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.134.147 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It has 802.11a

See:

http://europe.nokia.com/find-products/devices/nokia-n9/specifications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.193.164 (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This specification also from Nokia, but for developers does not state 802.11a http://www.developer.nokia.com/Devices/Device_specifications/N9/ Andries (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

FM transmitter

The Nokia N9 also has an FM transmitter and receiver [1] --Tallyho (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ! --Mandor (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the display PenTile matrix family?

Is the display PenTile matrix family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

sure no --Rat2.Call me Remy 15:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The display on the N9 is certainly pentile, RGBG. --Javispedro (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Eh?

Bad rather the English used that is in this article. Maybe of the Russian origin or retarded person, not sure. What is MeeGo not sure since understanding is bad and can't make out meaning since English is shitty have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.123.219 (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

disorientig photo

Photo of N950 is not good idea as N9 does not have such a keyboard at all, I'd rather to remove it - can confuse somebody. And my english is worse then bad also. How extraordinary!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.122.44 (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, the good question is where to put the image of N950, if not there... The software is completely compatible, and hardware characteristics are mostly the same disregarding hardware keyboard. Would it be ok to create a separate article about N950? Animist (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• N950 deseves for separate article as phone given to developers óńly by manufacturer for development and not avible on normal market, however very very almost N9, but keyboard etc. IMHO 77.254.134.147 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

N950

There should be own section for N950, because it is direct sister model for N9 and uses pretty much same hardware and software. No N950-article is just redirect to list of nokia phones. --Zache (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lankki

The original name for the phone was Lankki. Lankki overrides Microsoft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.69.251.157 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So "Lankku" ought to be replaced with "Lankki"? Which one is proper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.134.147 (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

To my recollection, "Lankku" is correct, so I recommend leaving it as it is. Davidmaxwaterman (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Market position of N9 & MeeGo ecosystem in comparison to Lumia & WP competition

Meego sales and WP7 is not written objectively and all referenced articles rely on one another. Additionally source http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9210845.htm relies on research published by a Nokia N9 fanboy (pardon my straightforward language) Paul Bonner, just look at the articles contact info. Additionally the title is too long and heavily biased against WP7, simple "Market position" as title should be sufficient. I would consider merging this part with another part of the article or making it more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.236.53 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So, sources like Bernstein Research http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/nokia-windows-phone-sales-set-to-disappoint-1042773 are all copy+pasting from one fanboy? Can you provide sources that confirm your thesis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.215.49 (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Section has many citations from diffrent sources, then why it is still marked as single source? Can this be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.134.147 (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How many more additional citations for verification of this section are needed? In movies James Bond treats 2 sources as enough to confirm a fact. Wikipedia is above this standard? Well J.B. was not using citations... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.134.147 (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep it to the topic. The topic is N9, not Nokia's marketing strategy, not Lumia or WP, and certainly not some 4 month old guesstimates on which phone OS sell more than another. This is an encyclopedia, not a blogging platform!--Caygill (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A constructive way of presenting differing views is to present them both with their sources. As an example, Tomi Ahonen, a very outspoken former Nokia executive and present Nokia critic can give one side of the coin, then a reputable source the other POV -all this keeping in mind the importance and weight of the matter, and what amount of space it should get in the article.--Caygill (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There are different sources provided. Its not clear how salles-numbers could have different views. Please provide serios sources that do not agree with the numbers given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.215.224 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr(s) Caygill your opinion is unlogical and irrational IMHO. Deifferent and independent and reliable sources provided facts which are described and so sourced as Wikipedia requires. If sales numbers would be different that would mean there are different sales of the same products by the same company? That would be rather against facts, wouldn't be? It is not clear how that would be possible with reputable sources? And if several provided sources are not reputable then what sources would be reputable for you? In this way any source you donn't like can be "not reputable", what would make any article improvements impossible, and that would be against main idea of Wikipedia IMHO. Or would you like to propose a limited list of reputable sources? Only for this article or for all articles in Wikipedia? Company officials are obligated to propagate a company marketing point of view, that would turn wikipedi into company marketing bulletin. Marketing approach especially of a company, or alianse of a fiew of them, involved in agressive marketing companies don't have to be adequate nither with neutral POV nor objective approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.163.191 (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You ask how sales figures can have different sources?

• Presented figures and their sources in this article are historical rumors. Normally opinions and bloggings do not constitute as reliable sources. They are opinions, not verifiable secondary sources, according to Wikipedia standards.
• Nokia is a +100.000 employee publicly listed company, mostly own by American constitutional investors; it is obligated to provide accurate and truthful investor information by law. Hence, why debating what someone said or assumed in November or December, when the actual fact can be found today?
• Discussing in length and highlighting an assumed battle between device A vs B, misses completely the point of presenting this device in an encyclopedic article. Both devices are produced and sold by the same company, any rivalry and competition would normally refer to competing devices by competing brands and producers.
• Of course there might be an own section, describing the impact of a "community" and the unusual activism surrounding N9. That is an own topic, not to be confused with the previous - launch and sales of N9. --Caygill (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Folowing your thinking there are no reputable sources as everything published anywhere is somebody's opinion which can be a roumor. And such places like Techcrunch or Wikipedia is just a bucket of roumors. The concept of historical rumors is very interesting, anyway when diffrent sources says the same you claim they intentionaly lies. Could you provide sources confirming this?
• Companies always provids currently promoted point of view and are specialised in using statistics to sell their truth, what does not mean that they provide untruthful information. This is art of marketing and attracting, used to interpret data in the way which is convininet for managment or current needs, whatany they are.
• You have "assumed battle"? Have you declared a war? With whom or with what? This seems to be your POV. N9 has introduced a new standard in mobile phones, both in software and in design. This design has been used literaly identically by device using different software. I haven't seen any "this one is bad and this one is wonderfull" what could be "assumed a battle" or bad will. However I suppose you can be involved in such kind of action. As section name says this reflects just a arket position on background of device which use just the same design, or in other words it is the same phone construcion using different software. In this cathegories this is how the same construcion is received by market when use different software. As you pointed Nokia is +100 000 employe. Hard to believe they all have one and the same idea only and the same believs in every possible aspects. I suppose they are humans not robots or statistical numbers in papers. So trying different approaches. Perhaps you should refer to N10 protoype which was to be N9 successor, and which was/is to be triple boot machine. At boot user could open one of three systems: MeeGo, Android, Windows. Such phone would avoid problems you have with accepting different but still legitimate POV. Nokia offers devices with Windows, Symbian, MeeGo, S40, "non system". Do they love each other or rather there is rivalisation beetwen them in market categories thinking?
• Seems there is separate section. What you call "the impact of a "community" and the unusual activism surrounding N9" normally is assumed as howling succes or enthusiastic/positive market response. Seems you assume company marketing POV as binding. You want to separate launch, sell, marketing and market reception and you disagree that there is community of users? That kind of thinking would be quite strange and do not leaves any space neither for neutrality nor dofferent POV. 83.4.130.158 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with verifiable facts, not a blogging platform or a collection of rumors. Most of this "sources" I refer to are spin-offs of rumors; one source publish a rumor, twenty others publish a story based upon the first. This is nothing more than gossips. More importantly, you mix now promotion with shareholder information. I refer to the latter, something a company cannot lie about, or they face legal consequences - in the US probably a massive class act lawsuit. But, what do you want to achieve, what do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caygill (talk • contribs) 08:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Some anonymous IP continues to change the numbers in the section Market Position to something clearly wrong and I keep changing them back to what is reflected in the cited sources. On the other hand, I don't find these speculative numbers very relevant for the article. Maybe we just remove them? Martin.uecker (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sales facts of Lumia

The article uses various guesstimates between 500-600k devices to prove some point I really don't understand. But facts has been available for soon 2 months regarding the last quarter sales of 2011. The number is in the ballpark of 1,1-1,5 million devises, which is based on notable facts. It may also be noted that BOTH N9 and Lumia 710/800 had a very limited distribution at that time, only a handful of markets. All this has changed a lot, next useful data will be available after 2012 Q1 reports (soon). --Caygill (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That is Novel Synthesis and guesswork - you can't use those claims in an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, you refer to the present article or the interim report figures?--Caygill (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Horrible layout

The article is currently mostly a mess. All the "Nokia N9 as a X" subsections in the hardware section look like something a student right out of PR school would write. They are of course not hardware related at all. Also, it seems that many developers are using the article to advertise their applications in subtle and non-that-subtle ways (i.e. the giant section on a single piece of software). Plenty of citations to forum posts, self-citations, and so on. This article is even for some reason referencing my own homepage where I don't talk about the N9 at all!

I believe that basically all of the "Nokia N9 as a X" subsections and most of the "Application Software" section has to be removed. Also, the full PR changelog is probably too much, I would put just a small table listing the key points. After this the article starts looking better, and can be used as a starting point for something even better.

Sadly, the entire article is protected for some triviliaty regarding sales numbers when compared to the Lumia 800. Sounds to me that you are centering on a mote when the entire article is a mess. Javispedro (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an article template would steer the mobile phone articles to a better quality and uniformity.--Caygill (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, layout can be improved. That layout was a reason to protect the article? What template? 83.4.130.158 (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is shit in it's current state and needs the flamethrowers turning upon it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Layout/template. There are standards for Wikipedia articles. There is not yet a template, a suggestive model how to build a good mobile device article. Looking at many articles and their flamed debates, one would be very useful.--Caygill (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)--Caygill (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A template would be nice indeed, though there are too many phone articles already... I think that the iPhone ones look like a model to follow, if only because I guess most editors spend quite a lot of time with them. --Javispedro (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I was bold and removed half of the article, rearranged most of what was left and wrote a few new bits. Did not touch the "market share" section (I did move it though), although in my opinion it is too long. Hopefully it looks much better now. At least, with half of the garbage removed, one believes editor manpower will be better spent :)

Feel free to revert any of my changes if you think you can improve what I deleted and make it fit with the rest of the article. But to be honest the only information I would be tempted to put back is the long changelog -- and maybe that would fit better in its own Harmattan article. --Javispedro (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents worth of opinion: the length and structure gives now a much better feel and readability of the whole. It's easy enough to form an understanding of the device and, as such, it's a much better encyclopedic article. I humbly SUGGEST that this article is kept as such, compact and readable, and sub-articles are created based on need and interest to cover software or other matters in lenghts. Looking again at the iPhone and iOS articles, they also use sub-articles to cover smaller parts of the OS and its functionality.--Caygill (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It still needs a lot of work, a lot of the sources are worthless and the prose is completely incoherent in parts and reads like a bad translation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"History and availability" and "Reception"

I believe the biggest step left would be to rewrite these two sections. They could be combined, especially the "availability" part to the "reception" section. Any puffering of the "bad parent idea" should go, and be replaced with facts and quotes, explaining possible diffrences in perception. The long article tells also very little about N9's history, development and the assumed good reception. This could be expanded. --Caygill (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

sounds good. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"gap .. reduced"?

"The gap between the glass and the display has been reduced"...

If the gap has been reduced, it should be said what the previous version was - ie the one with the larger gap. IINM, there's only been one version of the N9 released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmaxwaterman (talk • contribs) 10:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Should reviewers' suggestions be included at all?

"Still, many reviewers did not recommend to buy the N9, because of Nokia's earlier decision to drop MeeGo for Windows Phone for future smartphones — often questioning this decision at the same time."

The above sounds like pushing a POV, as, AFAIK, Wikipedia should not be the place to make suggestions as to what people should buy or not, since there is no justifiable reason to include some external reviewers' "do not buy" recommendations on the basis of Nokia having decided to move to another operating system, as N9 has not been reported to have any defects or substantial shortcomings (unlike with much of the Lumia series because of Windows Phone 7.5).

Including reviewers' negative suggestions because of an OS move alone may become a self-fulfilling prophecy in and of itself, as lower sales might lead to a cut and then a premature end of production.

Once the phone is not available for sale anymore, the article should then include reviewers' recommendations and how these affected sales. If a cause-and-effect event actually happens, it could be written about with a reference to a reputable source that would confirm the course of events.

That some reviewers did not recommend N9 for purchase is equal to some of the same (and other) reviewers having glowing reviews of Lumia phones, and not because of the devices' actual merits, but because Lumias are being marketed very aggressively.

Looking forward, Nokia are going to have to support N9 for a few more years and the item is still in production. N9's open source background makes it possible to develop software for it for a much longer period than even Nokia's own planned support lifetime.

What the article should reflect could be features and shortcomings, as this would better inform potential users of the phone. -Mardus (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mardus

I don't think it would be appropriate to hide the fact that most reviewers recommended against buying the phone and I also don't see how reporting this fact is pushing a POV. On the other hand, I think you have a good point about N9's open source background. In fact, the active open source community around Maemo was the main reason I bought the N9 myself. Maybe one could point this out in the article? This smartphone is a lot more than just its technical features!

In fact, considering Nokia's current situation, it seems that the open source community around Meego and Maemo might be around much longer than Nokia itself. Martin.uecker (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Market Position =

Q4 2011 report from Nokia says explicitly that the number of Lumia's sold is 1 million up to January 26th (on the first page third line). Still, there are repeated edits that change the article to incorrectly claim that 1 million Lumias have been sold Q4. Also, adding POV statements like "trustworthy analyst company Canalys". I will continue to revert such edits. As I said above, my other proposel would be to remove the whole paragraph, because all the N9 numbers are speculative. What do you think? Martin.uecker (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: I kept the paragraph but removed all speculative numbers. Instead I added more sources to the claim that the N9 outsold the Lumias initially, which I think is interesting and relevant. I also completely removed the reference to Canalys, because it was a forecast released before Nokia's Q4 2011 results got published and is in contradiction with the actual numbers. Martin.uecker (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Last reverts of edits from smartmo (talk)from anon. IP are actually mine. Forgot to login. Interestingly, smartmo refers to talk page in the edit summary, but fails to discuss its disputed edits here. It is also a single-purpose account, but seems, as far as I can see, to have a lot of valid edits. Martin.uecker (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to discuss with him on his talk page. He refuses to discuss here. Martin.uecker (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I leave his version stand for now. The version with my last edit from August 25 2012 has five more references he deleted. Martin.uecker (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)