Nokia Maps is rebranded as HERE Maps (and HERE Drive and HERE Transit)
How about HERE, THERE and EVERYWHERE?
Thanks. I'm here all night.
A Linux phone running Mozilla OS can be found on Nokia’s stand at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona this week – but it’s not a "Plan B". It’s more a statement of intent from the Finnish handset company about its Maps platform, which Nokia is opening up and licensing more aggressively to non-Nokia mobile devices. CEO Stephen …
My old N900 had the whole world on it, not just a few choice sections. It was really useful when in the remote outback areas of Australia with no signal or data connection for days or weeks at a time. Can you do that with any other map system?
That said, they weren't so good at keeping up to date with new roads in Oz, and there were a lot of false positives in some of the more remote areas - tracks I was relying on that turned out to be old or 'management -only'
On Google maps, "offline maps" means you can select a few city-sized regions at a time. And there's a hard coded limit on the number (I forget how many, less than 10), even if you have GBs of storage free!
On Nokia maps, "offline maps" means you select what maps you want, countries or continents at a time, or even the whole world if you want.
The Google method means you have to know in advance - that's feasible if you're just travelling to a city, but not if you'll be travelling about in the country. Also it's much easier to just always store entire countries/continents/the world, rather than having to update every time you go travelling.
(I use Android, but still waiting for this feature 7 years after Nokia did it.)
"On Nokia maps, "offline maps" means you select what maps you want, countries or continents at a time, or even the whole world if you want."
The other things that Nokia Maps offers is speed reminders, camera warnings, decent lane guidance, far better voice directions, and better voice quality. I might also add that Google Maps has a bad habit of bailing out of an "in progress" navigation if it loses network connection, leading to the bong of death, which translates into English as "you're on your own at this next junction, mate!"
Google Maps is very good in so many ways, where it falls down is limited functionality and the fact that it is built for a networked world that hasn't yet appeared, and shows little sign of doing so. I'd like to think I could soon buy Nokia Drive for my SGS2, but I fully expect Nokia to successfully botch the opportunity, by either over-pricing the product, and/or making it functionally unattractive in a desparate attempt to try and boost sales of Lumias.
"On Google maps, "offline maps" means you can select a few city-sized regions at a time. And there's a hard coded limit on the number (I forget how many, less than 10), even if you have GBs of storage free!"
Of course! Otherwise you wouldn't have to keep telling Google where you are ;)
>On Google maps, "offline maps" means you can select a few city-sized regions at a time. And there's a hard coded limit on the number (I forget how many, less than 10), even if you have GBs of storage free!
Perhaps you should actually use it before explaining it? ... I have 3 offline maps cached at the minute total size <200Mb which cover all of Nothern England - and much better than my in-car when it comes to new builds and industrial estates.
Yes, I have used it, that's how I knew about it(!)
Sure, you can awkwardly arrange 3 of your slots to cover nothern England, and then still not have enough for other places in the world you might want to travel to. And it's hopeless if you'll be driving across Europe, or around a wide area in the US, say. Meanwhile, on Nokia Maps I just clicked the countries or continents I wanted - none of this "arrange 3 of my limited number of slots to cover part of a country".
The fact that it only comes to less than 200MB is exactly my point - if I have GBs free, why can't I use it?
"The fact that it only comes to less than 200MB is exactly my point - if I have GBs free, why can't I use it?"
As said, Google are in the business of gathering data on you, storing it, and using it to sell you stuff. If you are offline then they can't gather data about you. Arguably they could have it all uploaded later when you go online but this would be harder to spin as they couldn't use the "necessary to provide the service" excuse.
"Perhaps you should actually use it before explaining it? ... I have 3 offline maps cached at the minute total size <200Mb which cover all of Nothern England - and much better than my in-car when it comes to new builds and industrial estates."
3 maps? What a ridiculous faff. It's 2013 and my £60 tomtom 8 years ago had the whole country in with nothing to do but switch on and go. Google have some quality maps, but it's a crap user system.
Google Maps already does Offline, and has FAR better POI and live traffic information, along with Streetview, better satellite imagery, indoor maps, better public transport maps.
The only people I can ever see this appealing to, as those desperate for NAVTEQ maps, but like the rest of the world, hate Windows Phone/Lumia with a passion. There is now an option.
For the rest of us, Google Maps is just fine.
Google Maps need the competition, and they need as many users as they can to keep up map quality. A map service simply cannot compete on quality without user-submitted content.
If I was Apple, I would launch a desktop version of their maps as soon as possible, and offer on it a proper way to report issues. The little tool they have on their phones is just not going to be enough.
Part of the reason for people to move primarily onto, then stick with, the iPhone range, and Samsung Galaxy models is because you know exactly what you are getting and upgrading barely involves thinking about. iPhone 5 is better than 4, Galaxy 3 is better than 2, etc.
Now with the Lumia's you have, in order of release:
Which is better? Fuck knows, and cares enough to even bother finding out.
I kind of see your point, but if anything Nokia have sorted out their naming conventions since Lumia. The nadir was when they had lots of random four-digit pincode phones that nobody could remember. It was as though Nokia couldn't be arsed giving their phones memorable names. Also their N series phones where the numbering would jump around. The N96, N85 and N79 were all the same underlying device, but people would think the bigger numbers were better (in fact they were all fucking terrible).
Quite right - iphone 5 is better than iphone 4, iphone 4 is better than iphone 4S - wait. But still we know that iphone 4/4S was better than 3GS (not to be confused with a Samsung GS3, or indeed a Stargate SG-3) which was better than an iphone 3S, sorry, iphone 3G, which was better than iphone 2. Hang on a moment.
But yes, it's true, of course everyone knew that the iphone 5 would be the next one after iphone 4, that's why the media were going on about it for 18 months, when actually the 4S was released instead.
Still, looking forward to the iphone 6, or iphone 5S, or iphone 4G, in whichever order they come.
no offense but if you can't figure it out, you shouldn't be allowed a phone.
the x20 series are better than the x00 series. The 15 Euro 105 is the most basic of the lot.
Most of us can actually tell the difference between iterations. ie 920 is newer than the 900 in the same way that 5 is better than 4. Also since 920 is higher than 820, it's a reasonable assumption that it is a more premium model.
The 15 euro 105 is a series 30 phone, not a winphone at all. The 109 is a series 40 phone. The reason the 105 is notable at all is that it is their new bottom-of-the-line featurephone and it has a colour screen, not because it's a windows device.
Which is a shame, at 15 quid I might have got one to have a look...
If that's too difficult for you I wonder how you even managed to register here. It's quite simple. They release them out of numerical order to fill in the most important (to their minds) price points first. If you want a Lumia now you have a choice betwen the low end 520 or 620, mid range 720 or 820 or flagship 920. That's 5 phones getting better in numerical order. Let me go to GSM Arena and choose a Galaxy, should I get...
Galaxy Note 8
Galaxy Xcover 2
Galaxy S II Plus
Galaxy Grand i9082
Galaxy Grand i9080
Galaxy Stratosphere II
Galaxy Pop SHV
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
I did this as a joke, I didn't even expect there were half that many. Sorry, Nokia has 5 phones and it's obvious the differences and price points, Samsung is a mess (a very successful mess).
Worst thing is, lower model is lighter and thinner than high end model.
Next, they will start doing E72 type mistakes, an upgrade to E71 business phone which can't take proper macro photos.
See symbian haters? That was what we were talking about when we said symbian os is just a victim.
I've just looked over the specs of the 109, it's 14.9 mm thick! I remember a time when phone manufacturers would pride themselves on making small and thin phones, but this!? It's nearly as thick as two iPhones.
OTOH, I love the way the blurb says 'pages will blast onto the screen'. Yeah, right. Who in their right mind would use this phone for browsing the interwebs? Furthermore, who would use a phone like this to connect to FB or any other social network?
If they could have made a small affordable good-looking phone with a battery that would last for a week, I would buy one as a stand-by unit in case my iPhone fails, but this is just not on.
It's nearly as thick as two iPhones.
I would buy one as a stand-by unit in case my iPhone fails
The Asha series tends to be low-cost handsets with a long battery life for regions of the world where a mobile handset might be the only connectivity you're going to get.
Your favoured comparison-item indicates that you are not the target market.
Wait, did you seriously criticise a 15 euro phone, for being thicker than a £500 phone? (Also the volume of a 109 may well be pretty small anyway - when a phone is that small, it's harder to make it thin too.)
There was a time when a phone couldn't do things like apps at all. Like year 2000-era £15 phones, or a 2007 iphone.
You’re comparing a 109 expected to retail at £15 sim free with an iPhone retailing at over £500 sim free!?
The 109 is obviously intended for the developing world where 100’s of millions already use phones like it to browse the web. It’ll probably still do 75% of what the iPhone can, at 3% of the price. Also looking at the specs it will last 780h on 2g, in other words it could last over a month as a backup not just the week you want.
Was this a serious, if misguided, spec comparison, or where you just fishing for compliment on your choice of a iphone?
If the latter. Then well done you bought a phone that's at least 25% better than the 109 and only had to pay 330% more for it.
Apple release one smartphone each year (with several variants) at premium to mouth-watering price points (you can also buy the old models at a discount, from ebay etc.).
Nokia now have 5 up to date smartphones: 520, 620, 720, 820, 920: the 520 being the entry level model and the 920 the high end, all pretty much compatible. The low end device, the 520, is considerably cheaper than the iPhone 5 and probably has enough functionality to meet the needs of a large part of the market.
Whatever else you make of the phones, this is not hard to understand, even for my 90 year old aunt!
"and their phones all look the same."
Yes, but you'll notice that they don't have a dozen different models of it all looking the same. Their product strategy is clearly a singular one, and you basically just have to choose the specs/price you want.
Compare to Nokia of old, when they ruled the market, and filled every possible niche with a wide variety of form factors. Not just picking your screen size and price point. Dull.
What a depressing thought. Do many people buy smartphones on looks? Obviously a few do, but I hoped it was a tiny minority.
I don't really understand the point anyway. Mostly they all look the same, because they're all a vaguely rectangular shape with a big glass front, and sometimes a button or three at the bottom. Plus buttons on the side. So your only real choice is materials and colour. The 'cooler' materials seem to be glass and aluminium, which are actually the least suitable ergonomically - because they're more slippery and cold. It's amazing how cold my new aluminium iPhone is when it's 0 degrees and I answer it, as opposed to the Nokia it's just replaced. I really like the rubberised back, preferably coating metal so it's stronger when I drop it.
Also, if Nokia like their current design, why have their phones look different to each other? If they think this brightly coloured thing is the way to go, it makes sense they do it across their range. Also, they do them all in black, it's just those aren't the ones that get into the marketing shots.
"I don't really understand the point anyway. Mostly they all look the same, because they're all a vaguely rectangular shape with a big glass front"
Yes, that is my point. They're all pretty much the same. You basically choose the largest screen you can comfortably hold, then which colour matches your wardrobe. Dull.
"Do many people buy smartphones on looks?" Of course they do.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019