Nokia 9

Many sources have said a successor of nokia 8 is in the works, the device is to be released not too late and apparently is going to be called nokia 9 with high end specs similar to the galaxy note 8.

Nokia 9

mobilecr mobilecr
✭✭✭  /  edited September 2017

Many sources have said a successor of nokia 8 is in the works, the device is to be released not too late and apparently is going to be called nokia 9 with high end specs similar to the galaxy note 8.  I want to share the importance of using AMOLED screens as nokia older high end phones, metal body, almost bezel less bodies, to make the phone's surface almost the entire screen. Years ago at the time Microsoft adquiered Nokia's devices business, the Finnish where working in a prototype called Nokia N950 which in my opinion should be used to inspired the upcoming nokia 9, its design was so beautiful, truly nokia design, in fact it was handed over to developers around the globe for testing with Meego OS, this time around it would be ahead of any manufacturer due to the android approach HMD has set.  HMD can take a look at the archives.  Maybe physical keys are now unnecessary but keeping the Nokia N950 main shape but updated with the times could make it a truly design award winning, perhaps slim it down more just a bit more.

Comments

  • Unknown
     /  edited September 2017
    I don't know what great things are in the pipeline with HMD products but many of the guys are ex-Nokians so the DNA is there!
  • user363 user363
     /  edited September 2017
    Can't wait for further products as Nokia were always fantastic with phones
  • user363 user363
     /  edited September 2017
    Who cares about iPhones or samsung, if Nokia get it right and listen to the consumer then they are onto a winner I don't know anyone who doesn't like nokia.
    I'm using the Nokia 6 it's brilliant but can't wait for the next higher spec nokia
  • mobilecr mobilecr
    ✭✭✭  /  edited December 2017

    A truly flagship from Nokia should come with FM Radio, USB type C connector, AMOLED...OLED screen, Dual SIM 4G LTE, DDR4 Memory for RAM and  NAND technology for internal storage memory, perhpas Micro SD card slot not hybrid shared with Nano SIMs, aluminum body, ZEISS optics, wireless charging, at least 3500 mAh battery, fast charging, latest Qualcomm CPU (perhaps the Snapdragon 845 successor of the current 835 cpu), perhaps 20 Megapixels sensors similar to the one found in nokia lumia 930 and the all powerful lumia 1020, of cours the pureview 808..nokia N8 etc. and please BUT pleased bezel less design...see Nokia N9..Nokia N950...imagine a Lumia 930 but running Android....it would be awesome...HMD can base the truly all powerful upcoming flagship (as leaks suggests Nokia 9) in those legendary devices

  • dbs dbs
     /  edited September 2017

    " aluminum body, ZEISS optics, wireless charging"


    You can't have an aluminium body and wireless charging. So it needs to have a glass/ceramic back (wood would also be cool).


    Based on the 930 the things needing updating would be:

    - glass back instead of polycarbonate

    - microSD expansion

    - less bezels

    - updated internals obviously (4/6GB RAM, SD 835 or 845 depending on when released, fast charging enabled etc).



    In fact, since HMD already recycled the design of the Nokia 5 for the Nokia 8, I don't see any problem with actually recycling older Lumia designs. In fact, lots of people loved those designs far more than what the competition offered.

    I could see a trio of high end devices in 3 sizes (like Sony did with the Z5 line - Compact, normal, Premium and Apple does with the SE, 8 and 8 Plus), based on old Lumias:


    - Compact version: based a mix of the Nokia N9 and Lumia 920 design (without bezels it would be a stunning device for those who hate large phones)

    - "Normal" sized version: based on the Lumia 930 design

    - Phablet: based on the Lumia 1520.


    And to be honest, releasing 3 sized flagships would most likely be a better financial decision than three low end devices. The profit margins on flagships would be higher and the money loss would be smaller (low cost devices are money losers for any OEM. Nokia learned that the hard way, HMD apparently didn't)

  • mobilecr mobilecr
    ✭✭✭  / 
    Sure... aluminum body does not allow wireless charging in an easy way...it is just an idea...perhaps HMD could manage to incorporate wireless charging in an aluminum body if they perhaps come out with something similar to the rounded plastic cover used in the Lumia 1020 ( most of the internal camera components were protected by the black rounded plastic cover makings the lens more prominent and eye catching) then it could be used in a similar way to enable wireless charging capabilities in a body made of aluminium...however it is also true that by doing that the wireless area would be reduced...less practical...limited to the rounded area which would also be reduced by design constraints etc etc...

    Glass cover would be more suitable but without the premium feel the aluminum offers...kind of complicated...depends on personal choice..HMD then has to get a balance and take a holistic choice...

    Yeah...Nokia 9 design was top notch...if updated as you said above...it would also be a hit no doubt about it.I also share the same idea...why not...to recycle older Lumia designs and updated them a little bit in the aesthetics department and Incorporate newer hardware and components for use with Android....? That is also true...many people in my country liked Nokia Lumia 930 very much better than iPhone 6 etc..but then they said if the 930 had Android they would buy it without a doubt....perhaps HMD stills has to pay something to Microsoft for design rights... perhaps that is the reason they have not used older designs which were better than more of the currently available in their catalog...
  • dbs dbs
     /  edited September 2017

    "Glass cover would be more suitable but without the premium feel the aluminum offers..."


    Actually I think - and so does most people actually - that glass is far more premium than aluminium. In fact, full body aluminium phones are now the mark of a budget phone. So while fine for the Nokia 3, 5 and 6, unacceptable for the Nokia 8 which HMD claims is a "flagship". Now YOU might prefer aluminium phones, that's perfectly fine of course. I personally really dislike them.


    I'd like to see them toy around with wood backs. It would not only set them apart from the competition, it would allow for wireless charging AND do away with the problem of fragility. A phone with titanium sides and a mahogany back? I'd be all over that!

    (Of course, this would probably need to be reserved for the real flagship. The premium one. Using wood would be significantly more expensive than Gorilla Glass or aluminium).


    "they said if the 930 had Android they would buy it without a doubt"

    I heard the same about the 920 and 1020 (I didn't use the 930 long enough before I jumped the sinking WP ship).


    "perhaps HMD stills has to pay something to Microsoft for design rights..."

    I'm not sure exactly what was the scope of the design copyrights transferred from Nokia to Microsoft, but I don't think Nokia transferred the designs of existing Lumia devices, only the portfolios of unreleased designs. Which would mean, if that's the case, that the design copyrights of the N9, 920, 1020 etc all remained at Nokia. In which case, since Nokia is part of the HMD Board of Directors, would mean it would be far easier to obtain those designs through a license transfer.



  • mobilecr mobilecr
    ✭✭✭  / 
    Well said ;) let's see and hope HMD and Nokia teams take all this ideas and come out with something great. They still have the chance to be in the spotlight once again
  • gordon_pcb_designer gordon_pcb_designer
     /  edited December 2017
    Actually is not true that is not possible to charge in wireless mode a metal case phone.
    It's not working with Qi standard, but Qualcomm demonstrate 2 years ago that there is a way and even with very good results. Look WiPower and Rezence standard if u want to learn more about this.

    The real point is there is a sense to go with a different standard especially now that Apple has "invented" wireless charging.. if not, then the only ways are glass or polycarbonate
  • mobilecr mobilecr
    ✭✭✭  / 

    sure, that's why I said it was an idea...metal bodies look high end but have limitations....glass bodies are better for Qi but they are a matter of personal choice, they look good too.  Sadly Apple is trying to look as if they were the first to incorporate Qi...they also introduce a kind of Qi charger for apple watch, iPhone 8, and wireless EarPods....and advertised that charger as if it were so innovating...just to see how advanced nokia was...nokia had already released Qi chargers in those lumia days very similar in shape and capabilities...as now apple is trying to..


    Hope nokia and HMD can deliver a truly competitor to iPhone X and Galaxy Note 8

  • gordon_pcb_designer gordon_pcb_designer
     /  edited September 2017
    Even IKEA has recently made fun of Apple and his "new" feature.. due they have even fornitures and lamps with wireless charger plate back to 2012 or something..
  • mobilecr mobilecr
    ✭✭✭  / 

    hehehe...this is proof how Nokia is all about innovation...Apple is all about advertising.  Many apple fans will argue...but Nokia has been many times..if not always years ahead of the Cupertino based company :)

  • dbs dbs
     / 

    "Actually is not true that is not possible to charge in wireless mode a metal case phone. It's not working with Qi standard, but Qualcomm demonstrate 2 years ago that there is a way and even with very good results. Look WiPower and Rezence standard if u want to learn more about this. The real point is there is a sense to go with a different standard especially now that Apple has "invented" wireless charging.. if not, then the only ways are glass or polycarbonate"


    Qualcomm did put forward some white papers on that HOWEVER it never materialised into real products.

    And with Apple's adoption of Qi, the battle for the wireless charging standard is done. Qi had already won against PMA. If what Qualcomm showed could actually be achieved in consumer products without drawbacks, Apple would have purchased the technology and made it proprietary. They didn't which means they really didn't manage to get or create a better standard than Qi.


    At any rate...we don't have to be limited to glass or polycarbonate. LG had on the G4 leather backs for example. Companies just need to be creative.

    Only metal interferes with wireless charging. Nothing else does. So why not be creative?

  • gordon_pcb_designer gordon_pcb_designer
     /  edited April 6
    As far as I know, Qualcomm offer WiPower as a usable feature so I doubt they could do that after a merely few white papers, anyway that wasn't the point of my post, and wasn't the point to change from QI standard to something else either.

    I only wanted to stress that it's not true that is impossible to charge wireless a metal case phone . That's all.

    As for the back material I shouldn't walk on too strange ways, we've to think that we and HMD Nokia aren't anymore at that good old times when they had the capability and the name to make incredibily strange phones as shapes and materials. Now Nokia need to come back with strong devices, good looking and of course with deep roots in the past. A lot of younger colleagues doesn't know anything about the old Nokia, some of them not even heard talk about Nokia..

    The edge between to be creative and to be mad (and/or kitch) it's too thin especially nowadays in this phone market.

    What they could do is to experiment with form factors, material and so on in a special product line dedicated for that so something not intended for mass market but something like capability and technological display.
    I don't think that a monocoque carbon fiber body (only to name a possible material) would be good for mass market. And conquer the mass market is what HMD Nokia would to do (I guess).

    Only my opinion, nothing else.
  • madbilly madbilly
    ✭✭✭  /  edited April 6

    Some great ideas here. The Nokia 9, when it is released, must be a "Communicator". I say go all the way with the N950 / N9 love and resurrect the Nokia Lauta (N9 front screen with slider keyboard), or pre-empt the Surface Phone with a Nokia 9 that has a flip-out keyboard and special Android that has a "desktop" mode.


    As for materials, I like both the Al-bodies (nice nod to the N8, E7, etc) and polycarbonate ones, especially as the Nokia design was anti-Apple - bold colours to cheer up the increasing monochrome world of iPhones everywhere.


    However, if HMD use wood, please please please make sure it's sustainably sourced, certified by a recognised body like the FSC. There's no point using a premium natural material only to get bad press and lose market just because you get it from the wrong supplier. (if you're going to use non-sustainable wood you might as well go the whole hog and dress the phone in tiger fur and shark's teeth).

  • If they really would go for a full wooden body i will be the first buyer in this galaxy 
    I really love anything wooden made, I've also have a beautiful custom wooden finishing for my Jolla, hand made from Finland.
    Who knows maybe they could arrange a collaboration with Lastu.. would be great
  • dbs dbs
     / 

    I'm not sure a full wooden body would be ideal for the rigidity and durability of the phone. But a wooden back would certainly be. I think the ideal would be to follow the current line of designs which is also present on the Nokia 3, where the back sits tightly on the metal frame of the phone. But instead of glass or polycarbonate, they'd use a wooden plate.


    Of course I'm sure HMD would get it from a sustainable source. Nokia would immediately terminate their contract (and, well, shut down HMD) if they didn't as one of the hallmarks of Nokia's business is the respect for the environment.

  • Beijendorf Beijendorf
     /  edited November 2017

    Why on Earth are you people promoting glass-backed phones from a company that excelled at a high-quality feel from durable polycarbonate unibody designs?


    I don't know if HMD has access to the factories and expertise that made the polycarbonate unibodies possible, but it'd certainly be my personal favourite pick, even for flagships. It's comfortable, durable, allows good RF transmissions and wireless charging, hides scratches well, etc. All in all, a better device.

  • gordon_pcb_designer gordon_pcb_designer
     /  edited November 2017

     @Beijendorf:

    "Why on Earth are you people promoting glass-backed phones from a company
    that excelled at a high-quality feel from durable polycarbonate unibody
    designs"


    I could agree with you, I would buy a Nokia flagship with polycarbonate body (or I think even better something like Lumia 830 in metal and polycarbonate on the back) but at the same time I'm thinking about what kind of WWIII would happen in any tech-oriented website and so on if Nokia would follow that road.

    If 90% of the smartphone market is rapresented by metal or glass unibody even on 45$ chinese phones, how can Nokia convince the people that the "old" poly is good enought or even better?
    No way, in my opinion..
    Nokia is living a new beginning, is "new" on the market end needs to come back in the imaginary of the people and to sell as much as possible to be able to invest in R&D so I think the only way for now is going with the flow.
    Instead I think they have to distinguish themself with innovations and offering something that other brands don't: amazing quality cameras like to destroy anything else on the market as done with the 808 (Nokia always has been recognized from that), OZO Audio for example is a very good point, they could give some very good DAC - and I mean very good - offering an enhanced music experience remebering the old Xpress Music and so on.
    I think this is the better way to make people and tech-websites talk and talk about Nokia in a positive way


  • mobilecr mobilecr
    ✭✭✭  /  edited November 2017
    Agree with you too... polycarbonate covers and bodies like Nokia N9 and many lumias were durable, no messy things like glass covers from other manufacturers. HMD could once again release phones with that vibrant colors Nokia N9 and lumias were famous from
  • dbs dbs
     / 

    "Why on Earth are you people promoting glass-backed phones from a company that excelled at a high-quality feel from durable polycarbonate unibody designs?"


    Because HMD isn't in a bubble like Nokia was back then and because time moved on. Competitors are all offering phones with more premium materials like glass.

    And if you want to charge over 600€ for a phone, you HAVE to offer more than a plastic body, no matter how durable polycarbonate is.

    The only way HMD could get away with selling a premium polycarbonate phone would be if the phone had everything and the kitchen sink in it (think Galaxy territory so, no "Pure Android" nonsense) AND was no more than 600€ on launch (which was the launch price of the Nokia 8).


    Anything else and the market would eat them alive not to mention the phone would crash and burn quicker than a Note 7 ; )

  •  @DBS:


    But glass isn't a premium material. It's cheap, it's fragile and it tarnishes quickly. On the other hand, I haven't heard anyone regard the Lumia polycarbonate unibodies as anything but premium. It's not entirely cheap to construct precision-milled polycarbonate unibodies either. As long as they nail the look and in-hand feel, it's probably going to be favoured by consumers.


    If it's a problem with marketing, they could just speckle some trace-elements into the mixture and call it "Titanium-infused Polycarbonate" or something, for the people that don't know plastic on its own is a quality material if done right.


    I'd be entirely fine with a phone made of either a steel frame and polycarbonate back, or an entirely unibody Titaniuim-infused Polycarbonate©®™ design.

  • @Beijendorf:

    It doesn't work like that I'm sorry.. my Canon Eos 60D's body is made of polycarbonate reinforced with glass fiber, but for the real world and worldwide forums is made of plastic..
    Doesn't matter if this material is used on Lockheed F-35, on Saab Gripen and various Sukhoi among others. . For people is still plastic.. sadly this is the rial world
  • dbs dbs
     / 

    @Beijendorf


    "But glass isn't a premium material. It's cheap, it's fragile and it tarnishes quickly."


    So are crystal chandeliers. And the glass being used on premium phones is Corning Gorilla Glass 5 which not only doesn't tarnish quickly, it's not fragile. If it's good to protect the front of your phone, it's good for the back. You can also use sapphire as HTC but that'd send the price of the phones through the roof.


    "On the other hand, I haven't heard anyone regard the Lumia polycarbonate unibodies as anything but premium."


    Then your memorie doesn't serve you well, my friend ;)

    Just take the Lumia 950 and 950 XL as great examples. They used Nokia-designed Lumia bodies. And they were criticised to no end by consumers because they came out in a time everyone had moved on to more premium materials like glass.

    I highly doubt consumers would accept to pay 700€ for a plastic phone when the competition offers more premium looks and feels for the same price.

    I certainly wouldn't.


    What HMD could ALSO explore, as an alternative to Gorilla Glass, is the use of Ceramic. Phones like the "Essential Phone" and the One Plus X use it and it offers a similar look and feel to glass but it's more resilient whilst still allowing wireless charging.

  • Unknown
     /  edited April 6
    If nokia 9 display comes with sAMOLED display with Nokia Clear Black technology with Anti-glare polarizer and Gorilla glass then it's superb like Nokia N9.
  • @gordon_pcd_designer:

    While I understand your point, marketing can do a lot to explain and sell material choices and designs. I'm not sure photographers would buy cameras for $3000+ if they were made of more sensitive materials, such as glass and aluminium. With the right marketing good material choice and looks, I'm sure the same sale could be made for $1000+ phones with regards to durability.


    @DBS:

    Crystal chandeliers aren't built to be carried around and dropped though. Phones are.

    And GG5 does tarnish quickly as it's only a 5-6 on the Mohs scale, and highly susceptible to scratches from sand, gravel, asphalt, etc.

    It's also very fragile, as you can see from all drops made GG5 fronts and backs; it breaks easily. The only reason it's used for the front of the phone is because there needs to be a transparent material there for the purpose of seeing the display. In simplified terms, the harder a material is, the more brittle it becomes.


    And the Lumia 950 (XL) were entirely Microsoft phones, not Nokia. They were criticised for being creaky and cheap-feeling, unlike the earlier Nokia phones. And I'm telling you this again; glass is not premium.

    Consumers happily paid the price for the Lumia 920/1520/930 without complaint of the material choices, even though metal phones were all the rage. There's no reason they wouldn't do the same today with equal build-qualities. Heck, people are praising the Pixel 2 (XL) looks and feel in the hand. That alone should serve as an indication that people are more intelligent than thinking glass is premium compared to high-quality materials such as polycarbonate.


    Ceramic backs are also fragile. They're actually even more brittle than tempered glass. They may have a harder surface which reduces wear, but for a phone that's meant to be able to survive a couple of drops, it's sub-optimal. So far the only optimal material we know of is polycarbonate. Metals are decent, but sadly block signals such as radio, wifi, Bluetooth and inductive charging.

  • dbs dbs
     / 

    @Beijendorf


    "Crystal chandeliers aren't built to be carried around and dropped though. Phones are."


    Yes they are. Unless I'm mixing it with candelabra? I'm never sure which is which in English. It's the ones you put candles in. The clock side-kick in Beauty and the Best.

    Anyway, phones aren't built to be dropped. They have that in consideration but they're not built for that. Specially not 700€-1000€ phones.


    "And GG5 does tarnish quickly as it's only a 5-6 on the Mohs scale, and highly susceptible to scratches from sand, gravel, asphalt, etc."


    No more quickly than polycarbonate or metal which is even more susceptible to scratches than glass.


    "It's also very fragile, as you can see from all drops made GG5 fronts and backs; it breaks easily."


    It doesn't break easily in normal use. Drop tests are not scientific AT ALL. Yet even amongst the lack of scientificity you can see in ALL those "drop tests" that the glass only breaks AFTER the metal of the frame has been compromised.

    But I can give you my experience with dropping an Xperia Z3 Compact (DragonTrail Glass) and a Galaxy S7 (Gorilla Glass) over and over on a variety of surfaces. It doesn't break. I have dented the S7 frame but the glass has remained intact. So it's definitely a question on attention to build quality.


    You can't use soft materials on phone construction though. There's no point even trying to make an argument for that. Until you manage to build ALL the internal components out of maleable materials (which you will never be able to do), having a phone with softer components will simply endanger the internal tech of the device.


    "And the Lumia 950 (XL) were entirely Microsoft phones, not Nokia. They were criticised for being creaky and cheap-feeling, unlike the earlier Nokia phones. And I'm telling you this again; glass is not premium."


    Actually no, they were not. The designs of the phones were part of the design portfolios that Microsoft acquired alongside the Nokia Devices & Services division. They were old Nokia designs that Microsoft picked up.

    And I'm telling you this again: glass is premium. Plastic is not.


    "Consumers happily paid the price for the Lumia 920/1520/930 without complaint of the material choices, even though metal phones were all the rage. There's no reason they wouldn't do the same today with equal build-qualities. Heck, people are praising the Pixel 2 (XL) looks and feel in the hand. That alone should serve as an indication that people are more intelligent than thinking glass is premium compared to high-quality materials such as polycarbonate."


    1 - The only people paying that happily were the people devoted to the Nokia brand (like myself) or to Windows Phone. The average consumer liked the colours but didn't really felt attracted to the phones enough to put up with Windows Phone. Which is why Nokia kept losing money.


    2 - Actually in 2012-2014 people were already clamouring for more premium materials like glass. Sony sold a ton of Xperias then because they were amongst the first Android OEMs to adopt the glass-on-glass construction. And by doing good glass instead of what Apple had done with the iPhones, they showed Android OEMs that a premium phone shouldn't have plastic on the back. 

    Which is why the Galaxy line was criticised to death by their users and they ended up being forced to move to metal frames and glass backs. Consumers did NOT want plastic phones anymore.


    3 - The iPixel 2 is NOT made of polycarbonate. It's ALL metal. The reason people think it's plastic is because it's PAINTED which a coat of colour. Much like the LG G5 was. And no, people aren't praising it. In fact, for each person that says "It feels nice", there are two people saying "this feels plastic-y". Even though it isn't. The G5 was also heavily criticised because of that layer of paint.



    "Ceramic backs are also fragile. They're actually even more brittle than tempered glass. They may have a harder surface which reduces wear, but for a phone that's meant to be able to survive a couple of drops, it's sub-optimal. So far the only optimal material we know of is polycarbonate. Metals are decent, but sadly block signals such as radio, wifi, Bluetooth and inductive charging."


    Plastic like polycarbonate ages badly, scratches and is a cheap. Therefore it's not optimal for a premium phone. Again, you can put it in one - and I'd buy a revised Nokia 930 with Android and a microSD card slot in it - but I would NEVER pay anything over 600€ for it. Whereas if the phone comes with premium materials like glass or ceramic, I will. Because I know why I'm being charged that premium.


    Ceramic, again, isn't more fragile than glass. Once again, it depends on how you use and build the back. Chemical composition is key.

    You can go for fragile glass like Apple did in the past (they have been banking on iPhone repairs for years) or you can go for a glass which is more resilient like Dragontrail/Gorilla Glass which uses a different chemical composition. You can go for a diluted sapphire solution (like Apple uses on the iWatch and the camera housing of the iPhone) or a pure sapphire back like special edition of the HTC U Ultra.


    So yeah. Polycarbonate is not a solution for flagships going forward. It's plastic. It might be better plastic but you can't make a back out of it UNLESS you severely reduce the price tag and clearly convince the consumers that using "premium plastic" is "better" than glass and allows for the cheaper price tag.

    Not only that, one thing you're right: people aren't stupid. And when they see ALL premium brands putting out beautiful glass and metal phones, they'll not fall for a 700€ phone with a plastic back, even if it brings a Nokia badge in it. Specially not when Apple has made ALL their phones glass and metal and so has Samsung, LG and Sony. 

    Consumers will look at the established brands. They'll see a patern. And they'll demand from the Nokia brand the same type of premium phones. If they deliver cheap plastic backs for the same price of the flagships of the competition that almost look like pieces of jewelry, they will discard Nokia immediately again. That's how the consumer market works, whether we like it or not :)



  • Beijendorf Beijendorf
     /  edited November 2017

    This response is frankly a bit absurd.


    Stationary light fixtures are not meant to be carried around. In fact, apart from modern smartphones I can't think of a single glass-construction that's meant to be carried around all day where the risk of drops or impacts is as high.


    The 950 (XL) were absolutely entirely Microsoft. Microsoft acquired the Nokia Devices division in September 2013, the 950's were launched in late November 2015.
    Device manufacturers don't construct devices 2 years ahead in time. The
    950 (XL) were entirely based on designs and requirements dictated by
    Microsoft.


    Your claim that smartphones aren't built for drops is disproved with that phone manufacturers subject their phones to solid tests with drops and tumbles to ensure survivability, and modern smartphone manufacturers even including MIL-STD-810G ratings for their devices. So yes, they are built with drops in mind.


    Polycarbonate is indeed a softer material than glass, but it can also hide scratches far better and it has a significantly higher survivability ratings in drops as it can absorb the shock much better than glass. You don't need scientific drop tests on a single device to figure out glass is fragile. One of the reasons the glass cracks on ground-impacts is direct fractures introduced on the panel from the impact surface, from which the crack formation propagates. Apple even worked on a gyroscopic motor to rotate the screen away from the ground during drops for this exact reason. To then attack a glass panel on the back as well is just downright dumb, or a combination of corporate greed and consumer ignorance.

    Glass can also be mass-produced in massive quantities for very low costs, which should tell you just how non-premium it is. It's just as premium as polycarbonate (i.e. not at all in the grand scheme of things).


    I also hope you understand polycarbonate designs aren't floppy gelatinous objects. That polycarbonate is softer than glass doesn't mean they bend and flex at the slightest touch. It simply means they can dissipate the energy of the impacts much better than rigid crystalline objects such as glass. The metal frame doesn't need to be affected for the glass to break on a phone, it's enough that the energy of the impact gets transferred to the glass, or the glass gets compromised in some way (such as a dent) - that's a reason why manufacturers have to build a plastic frame around the glass panel; so the plastic can absorb the impact as much as possible. A better option would be to build the entire back out of plastic instead.

    And as you just said yourself, the reason Nokia sold poorly back in the day certainly wasn't because of the material choices, but because of the OS. When Sony launched the glass sandwich, I recall most people wailing about the fragility of having glass all over, not to mention the smudgefest. And Sony was still not making money. Apple followed, and again the issues of the fragility of the device was brought up (switching to glass didn't even make any sense at this point, as there was no wireless charging and the metal frame still meant you needed antenna bands).

    And I'm well aware the Pixel 2's are using a plastic-coated metal body. I never claimed differently. I said quite clearly that people were praising its look and feel in the hand. Now imagine having an all-plastic body instead - you get that good in-hand feel combined with superior durability, radio reception and wireless charging. Neat, huh? If only someone had thought of that a few years back... Like... I don't know, Nokia maybe?

    Plastic doesn't age badly. Its scratches are barely visible compared to glass materials and it can sustain impacts far better, not to mention its other benefits to a device like a smartphone. Repeatedly claiming plastic is bad for smartphones without a single source to back you up won't change that. That you're willing to pay €100 extra for a glass back shows you just how easily you've fallen into the marketing trap of "glass is premium". It's cheap, it's easily mass-produced and it's not worth any kind of premium pricing.

    Apple actually use Corning glass as well, but places special orders for a double-ionic treatment for even stronger end-results.

    As for your claims of ceramics (Zirconium oxide in the case of smartphones) not being more fragile than tempered glass (such as Gorilla Glass' glass-ceramic), it'll just quote the American Chemical Society:
    "Ceramics, on the other hand, tend to be crystalline (Fig. 1(b)), and
    they are often characterized by ionic bonds between positive and
    negative ions—even though they can also contain covalent bonds. When
    they form crystals, the strong force of attraction between ions of
    opposite charges in the planes of ions makes it difficult for one plane
    to slip past another. Ceramics are therefore brittle. They resist
    compression, but they can break when they are bent.
    The combination of glass and ceramic forms a material that is tougher and stronger than each of the materials by themselves.
    "

    That you throughout your comment kept insisting that glass is expensive and premium while plastic is cheap and bad just highlights misunderstandings in the field. Glass is cheap. Plastic is cheap. Plastic is however durable and excellent for devices that need radio frequency transparency. If they need to convince consumers of this basic fact by developing a plastic alloy that sounds fancy, then so be it. But let's not pretend like glass is a premium material when it's not.

  • dbs dbs
     /  edited November 2017

    It's only absurd because you lack a fair big of knowledge ;)


    "I can't think of a single glass-construction that's meant to be carried around all day where the risk of drops or impacts is as high."


    Glasses. For example.


    "The 950 (XL) were absolutely entirely Microsoft. Microsoft acquired the Nokia Devices division in September 2013, the 950's were launched in late November 2015. Device manufacturers don't construct devices 2 years ahead in time. The 950 (XL) were entirely based on designs and requirements dictated by Microsoft."


    You have your dates COMPLETELY wrong. The deal was announced on 3rd of September 2013. HOWEVER, the deal was only closed on 25th April 2014. Only THEN did the Nokia D&S division moved to Microsoft. Before then, Nokia continued to operate separately AND there could be no exchanges of plans until the closing under penalty of the authorities preventing the deal.

    What that means is that Microsoft only started to get the things and the people after the conclusion of the deal. And THEN they started to work on the phones, which fits the normal schedule for release in 2015. Furthermore, they also cancelled the Nokia Goldfinger (the one with the 3D screen etc).

    The Lumia 950's design was part of the design portfolios that Nokia had. When developing a phone, OEMs go through SEVERAL designs and experiments. The designs that are rejected are still kept on portfolios because they might fit a device in the future.

    That's how the 950 came to be. It was built by Microsoft Mobile (but then again, so was the 930 already) but the design of the phone was NOT Microsoft's (in fact, it doesn't fit with anything the Surface division has designed and Panos Panay was already in-charge of those devices when the phones were presented).



    "Your claim that smartphones aren't built for drops is disproved with that phone manufacturers subject their phones to solid tests with drops and tumbles to ensure survivability, and modern smartphone manufacturers even including MIL-STD-810G ratings for their devices. So yes, they are built with drops in mind."


    Your claim that smartphones are build with drops in mind is disproved by your lack of knowledge of why those tests are carried out in the first place. And also by the fact that the legal warranty does NOT cover damages the phone suffers as a result of a drop.


    The testings done to the phones for dropping, splashing etc, aren't done so that consumers can drop the phones. They are done to assess the structural integrity of the phone. Because, in case the Note 7 didn't remind you, phones CAN explode. And seriously injure people. Those tests serve to check that, upon a drop, the structural integrity of the phone isn't compromised to the point of causing peril to the consumer.

    There ARE phones built specifically with drops in mind. The S-Active line from Samsung, the Caterpillar phones etc. But those phones are rugged and not built for the average consumer.


    Oh and funny you should mention LG's MIL certification. Pray tell me...what is the LG V30 made of? Wait? Gorilla Glass? And it passed a MIL certification? But...you keep saying "glass is very fragile"...how odd ;)



    "Glass can also be mass-produced in massive quantities for very low costs, which should tell you just how non-premium it is. It's just as premium as polycarbonate (i.e. not at all in the grand scheme of things)."


    By your logic, anything that can be mass produced isn't premium. OK. I'm not sure the folks at Ferrari, Armani, Chanel, Prada etc will like to hear that but I'll pass along the message.

    Glass is more premium than plastic. It has a nicer feel, it's more classy and yes, premium is defined by society NOT by your will. You seem to forget that. Your opinion doesn't matter. Society decided that glass is more premium than plastic and, therefore, it is. If society decided that dirt was more premium than diamonds, that would be how things would work. Regardless of which you can or can't mass produce or which you want to be considered premium.


    "The metal frame doesn't need to be affected for the glass to break on a phone, it's enough that the energy of the impact gets transferred to the glass, or the glass gets compromised in some way (such as a dent) - that's a reason why manufacturers have to build a plastic frame around the glass panel; so the plastic can absorb the impact as much as possible. A better option would be to build the entire back out of plastic instead."


    Well, first you seem to think that Gorilla Glass is the same type of glass than crystal glass or regular glass. It's not. So right from the beginning your view on the subject is affected by your lack of knowledge about the type of glass used on phones.

    Gorilla Glass is not regular glass, which you can read about here. And its durability and strength also depends on the OEM CHOICE of thickness for the glass panel (more technical details here.


    Then you talk about the "plastic frame around the glass panel". See...the problem is, you saw an iPhone teardown video and you think you know how all phones with Gorilla Glass are built. You're, of course, wrong. In fact, Apple is the first company I ever saw put that plastic frame around the glass. No other company has ever done that. Not Samsung, not LG, not Sony, no one. Why would Apple do that? I have some theories. One of them is, precisely, the thinness of the sheet of glass they went with (as opposed to a thicker layer favoured by Android OEMs).


    "When Sony launched the glass sandwich, I recall most people wailing about the fragility of having glass all over, not to mention the smudgefest. And Sony was still not making money. "


    Yet Sony was selling around 10 million phones per quarter, much more than Nokia. And much more than they have since then, with sales rapidly plumbing after the Z3 which, if you recall, was the last glass-sandwich Sony phone. Which means that consumers - not online reviewers, which are the only people who complain about "fingerprint magnets" actually - didn't think those factors were preventive of them buying a glass phone.


    I said quite clearly that people were praising its look and feel in the hand."


    Except they aren't. The only "people" praising that are the Android-tech reviewers but THEY will praise ANYTHING that Google does. And proof of that is that, when LG did the exact same thing with the LG G5, they ripped it apart because "LG covered a metal phone in paint". When Google does it, suddenly, "it feels very nice". Yeah, right.


    "Now imagine having an all-plastic body instead - you get that good in-hand feel combined with superior durability, radio reception and wireless charging. Neat, huh? If only someone had thought of that a few years back... Like... I don't know, Nokia maybe?"


    And as I've said, I have no problems imagining that...if the phone costs 600€ or less. But I do have a problem imagining a plastic phone in my hands that the company - whomever it is - thinks is worth more than that when it isn't.

    By the way...I prefer the feel of glass phones. 


    "Plastic doesn't age badly. Its scratches are barely visible compared to glass materials and it can sustain impacts far better, not to mention its other benefits to a device like a smartphone. Repeatedly claiming plastic is bad for smartphones without a single source to back you up won't change that. That you're willing to pay €100 extra for a glass back shows you just how easily you've fallen into the marketing trap of "glass is premium". It's cheap, it's easily mass-produced and it's not worth any kind of premium pricing."


    I've already debunked this. I'll just add that yes, plastic ages badly. It stains, it degrades and it does scratch.

    I'm willing to pay 100€ extra for premium materials. And, despite your failed attempts at defending that plastic is as premium as glass, that's what glass is. It's more premium than plastic. It has always been in EVERYTHING. Be it phones, drinking glasses, TV screens, light fixtures etc.

    You might not agree but there's always a minority in society that thinks everybody else is wrong and they're the ones who are right ;)


    "Apple actually use Corning glass as well, but places special orders for a double-ionic treatment for even stronger end-results."


    Which, funny enough, seems to have the opposite effect considering the reports of the iPhone 8 and X breaking easily (specially as opposed to phones like the S8 and V30).


    "Ceramics, on the other hand, tend to be crystalline (Fig. 1(b)), and they are often characterized by ionic bonds between positive and negative ions—even though they can also contain covalent bonds. When they form crystals, the strong force of attraction between ions of opposite charges in the planes of ions makes it difficult for one plane to slip past another. Ceramics are therefore brittle. They resist compression, but they can break when they are bent. The combination of glass and ceramic forms a material that is tougher and stronger than each of the materials by themselves."


    Important thing when you read scientific explanations: words.

    "tend to" means that it's not always the case, "they are often" means they're not always, and "they can" doesn't mean "they will".

    Now, the brittle in ceramics depends on the air pockets inside the material. The larger these pores are, yes, the easier it is to break. HOWEVER, the ceramic used in premium devices - like watches for example - which you correctly named - Zirconium Oxide - has those pores reduced to a minimum, which makes the material far more durable and resistant. Because they almost took what makes ceramics weak out of its composition. Therefore, the ceramics used on high end watches and even the iWatch are far more hard to break than glass AND, under normal usage, will NOT break.

    Obviously nothing is unbreakable just like nothing is unsinkable. However, then put side to side, these ceramics are more resistant (and less scratch prone) than glass. And both are better than plastic.


    The fact that you keep trying to convince yourself that plastic is as premium as glass when it's not and that you try to use science to compare apples and oranges, just shows how biased and unrealistic your understanding of how society works is. As I've said, the premium-ness of materials is a social construction and the glass used on these devices isn't the regular, cheap glass. 

    In fact, Gorilla Glass isn't cheap AT ALL. That's why when companies try to cut on expenses they opt for older versions of Gorilla Glass (HMD for example uses the 4 year old Gorilla Glass 3 on the Nokia 7 instead of the latest GG5) or they opt for plastic screens or DragonTrail glass.

  • madbilly madbilly
    ✭✭✭  /  edited April 6

    Will you both please stop this? The tone of your messages has become impolite and not in keeping with the rest of the forum, which is a very friendly place to discuss Nokia phones and help others. I know I'm not a moderator, just another forum user, but if we can't
    keep discussions here civil then Nokia might remove the forums then
    we'll have nowhere to discuss the phones we cherish.


    I agree that materials are an important part of what we expect in the Nokia 9, but your discussion has become personal, impolite and is unpleasant to read. If you must continue to discuss this then please stop trying to demonstrate which of you knows more than the other and stop making comments like "This response is frankly a bit absurd." and "It's only absurd because you lack a fair big of knowledge ;)" - these don't contribute to the discussion, only the anger you feel towards each other. It would better if you could avoid any use of the words "you" and "your" full stop.


    So, please debate the topic, not the person, or don't debate at all.


    Cheers :)

Prev1
Sign In or Register to comment.