Nokia Lumia 1520 "Phablet" Image Leaked

[HK6]

I personally don't think 1080p screens, or quad-core processors for that matter, on smartphones are really that useful. However, having the extra column of tiles would be pretty handy. I've embedded the "leaked" picture of the Lumia 1520 (right) beside the Lumia 1020 (left) below.

 

 

The Lumia 1520 will feature a huge six-inch 1080P display, a polycarbonate body (not metal) with a 20 MP PureView camera akin to the Lumia 925’s design, specifications that we revealed last week from our verified sources. The device will also feature a quad-core Snapdragon CPU and Windows Phone 8 GDR3for the new 1080P support.

Source: http://www.wpcentral.com/nokia-lumia-1520-phablet-revealed-first-photo

[skullbringer]

Hey, another non-innovative nokia phone that looks like cheap mp3 player with windoze that nobody will use.

 

But news is news, eh? So thanks for posting

[kuddlesworth9419]

Lets all make predictions for when the mobile market collapses. I am guessing within the next 5 years as long as companies keep releasing the same crap each year.

[HK6]

Hey, another non-innovative nokia phone that looks like cheap mp3 player with windoze that nobody will use.

 

But news is news, eh? So thanks for posting

Oh, you mean like the Lumia 920? One of the first mainstream smartphones to include built-in wireless charging and OIS for the camera? Or did you mean like the Lumia 1020? With it's 41 MP sensor, xenon flash, and OIS, surely you must be talking about that. Wait, I know! You are talking about the Lumia 520, right? One of the highest quality low-end smartphones on the market, available for the same price as a pre-paid "dumb" phone. Yeah, you're right, Nokia don't innovate at all.

[R4STABAN]

Oh, you mean like the Lumia 920? One of the first mainstream smartphones to include built-in wireless charging and OIS for the camera? Or did you mean like the Lumia 1020? With it's 41 MP sensor, xenon flash, and OIS, surely you must be talking about that. Wait, I know! You are talking about the Lumia 520, right? One of the highest quality low-end smartphones on the market, available for the same price as a pre-paid "dumb" phone. Yeah, you're right, Nokia don't innovate at all.

 

My mate has a 925 and the wireless charging is a bit of a joke tbh

[wkronbaek]

Seems amazing apart from the OS. I really think Nokia blew it with that.

[skullbringer]

Oh, you mean like the Lumia 920? One of the first mainstream smartphones to include built-in wireless charging and OIS for the camera? Or did you mean like the Lumia 1020? With it's 41 MP sensor, xenon flash, and OIS, surely you must be talking about that. Wait, I know! You are talking about the Lumia 520, right? One of the highest quality low-end smartphones on the market, available for the same price as a pre-paid "dumb" phone. Yeah, you're right, Nokia don't innovate at all.

 

see, those "innovations" are not innovations, when they dont work, or dont make any sense, or nobody cares. Really who the hell needs OIS? The guy that uses the 41 MP camera, that doesnt improve quality at all in this formfactor? Or the guy that uses his phone every second day, because his phone needs at least 12 hours to charge for one day wirelessly.

If it all really would work together and if they were truly innovating, I would pay attention. But all they do, is trying.

The iPhone was truly innovative, 3G made sense, a quadcore processor made using a phone much more resposive.

 

Let me go one step further. I cant imagine of any evolvment of mobile phone technology to come in the future that I would consider "innovative", as of creating something new, that offers a really new experience. Except sth like Ubuntu Phone.

[HK6]

My mate has a 925 and the wireless charging is a bit of a joke tbh

Whether you like the technology or not (I know people that do enjoy it), it is still innovative.

 

see, those "innovations" are not innovations, when they dont work, or dont make any sense, or nobody cares. Really who the hell needs OIS? The guy that uses the 41 MP camera, that doesnt improve quality at all in this formfactor? Or the guy that uses his phone every second day, because his phone needs at least 12 hours to charge for one day wirelessly.

If it all really would work together and if they were truly innovating, I would pay attention. But all they do, is trying.

The iPhone was truly innovative, 3G made sense, a quadcore processor made using a phone much more resposive.

 

Let me go one step further. I cant imagine of any evolvment of mobile phone technology to come in the future that I would consider "innovative", as of creating something new, that offers a really new experience. Except sth like Ubuntu Phone.

I don't think you understand what the word "innovation" means. Here is the definition for you: "the introduction of something new"^[1]. It does not mean "the introduction of something new that skullbringer personally likes, and thinks is useful in a product". Who needs OIS? People that don't want video that shakes like a leaf (see: parent's videos of school concerts ~10 years ago), or people that want good low-light photography without having to buy a higher end camera or a tripod. 41 MP is solely to improve the quality of an image... I don't see what you are saying. Again, innovation does not mean specifically catering to your's, or anybody else's for that matter, use case scenario.

 

They are truly innovating, specifically in a market that seems to think throwing more specs at a phone is "innovative". Calling the iPhone innovative is subjective, and easily debatable. You would have to bring some sound reasoning and solid facts to make your point for it. Also, a new mobile OS is not innovative unless it introduces something new that another mobile OS doesn't already do.

[skullbringer]

Whether you like the technology or not (I know people that do enjoy it), it is still innovative.

 

I don't think you understand what the word "innovation" means. Here is the definition for you: "the introduction of something new"^[1]. It does not mean "the introduction of something new that skullbringer personally likes, and thinks is useful in a product". Who needs OIS? People that don't want video that shakes like a leaf (see: parent's videos of school concerts ~10 years ago), or people that want good low-light photography without having to buy a higher end camera or a tripod. 41 MP is solely to improve the quality of an image... I don't see what you are saying. Again, innovation does not mean specifically catering to your's, or anybody else's for that matter, use case scenario.

 

They are truly innovating, specifically in a market that seems to think throwing more specs at a phone is "innovative". Calling the iPhone innovative is subjective, and easily debatable. You would have to bring some sound reasoning and solid facts to make your point for it. Also, a new mobile OS is not innovative unless it introduces something new that another mobile OS doesn't already do.

 

Just to clarify my standpoint, I did not say, I like or do not like those "innovations". I just think they dont make any sense. For example, a 41 MP sensor on a camera makes no sense in low light scenarios at all, where  the amplitude of a lightwave is simply much taller that an actual pixel on the sensor, causing luminance noise and color. 

 

To be honest I dont feel like deabting further, because I am really not a "phone guy", and I dont feel like googling facts. All that comes to my mind are inconsistencies in your last post, and discussing about what you want to say and how others, like me, might understand that, has always been a waste of time to me.

 

And lets say, even if they did innovate, which you define differently than me, I want to ask you a question: Who buys their phones? How much market share do they have? I guess a innovation is "working" (for me at least), when people buy it and they can gain a significant amount in marketshare. Like the iPhone, that revolutionized the whole phone industry. Maybe also because of the Apple and Steve Jobs cult, but people thought, "that is soo cool", and said, "shut up and take my money!". But that is, what made them gain soo much market share in the first generation smart phone industry, and that is, what I would call truly innovative as a whole. Going from that "definition", Nokia was never really innovative in the smart phone industry.

[HK6]

Just to clarify my standpoint, I did not say, I like or do not like those "innovations". I just think they dont make any sense. For example, a 41 MP sensor on a camera makes no sense in low light scenarios at all, where  the amplitude of a lightwave is simply much taller that an actual pixel on the sensor, causing luminance noise and color. 

 

To be honest I dont feel like deabting further, because I am really not a "phone guy", and I dont feel like googling facts. All that comes to my mind are inconsistencies in your last post, and discussing about what you want to say and how others, like me, might understand that, has always been a waste of time to me.

 

And lets say, even if they did innovate, which you define differently than me, I want to ask you a question: Who buys their phones? How much market share do they have? I guess a innovation is "working" (for me at least), when people buy it and they can gain a significant amount in marketshare. Like the iPhone, that revolutionized the whole phone industry. Maybe also because of the Apple and Steve Jobs cult, but people thought, "that is soo cool", and said, "shut up and take my money!". But that is, what made them gain soo much market share in the first generation smart phone industry, and that is, what I would call truly innovative as a whole. Going from that "definition", Nokia was never really innovative in the smart phone industry.

The 41 MP sensor is not specifically for low-light, it is to take much higher quality pictures; the OIS is what improves the quality of low-light photos. Regardless, you are incorrect in the second half of your statement. The Lumia 1020 sensor has 1.1 µm/1100 nm pixels^[1], and the typical visible spectrum for the human eye is between 390 nm and 700 nm^[2].

 

The definition of "innovation" is universal, and is not subject to interpretation. The scope at which you determine innovation can change, for example: a 7-inch screen on a smartphone is innovative for smartphones, but not for mobile devices (as that would included devices like tablets). Market share, and the demographic they are targeting with a device, is completely irrelevant to innovation in this context. If you are saying that market share and success define innovation, you are completely wrong. Not only is that definition completely inaccurate, you also seem to have forgotten a time when Nokia had >30% market worldwide (higher than anybody else at the time).^[3]

[pit5000]

windows phone... no instagram, not interested

a platform without apps to make those amazing photos look like crap is a platform destined to fail.....  :lol:

[dalekphalm]

Very interesting device. I'm a strong advocate of the Windows Phone platform. I have a WP7 device that I quite like. The general design and principles of the WP platform are really strong, they just need to make some small changes to catch up to the features of the other 2 main OS's.

 

The other major issue, that people CONSTANTLY complain about, is the lack of apps. The biggest reason for the lack of apps (Like Google made apps) is lack of market share. The biggest reason for the lack of market share is the lack of apps. Frankly, I think Microsoft has been doing a stellar job of getting app development for their platform, when many app developers don't want to develop for such a small market share. It's a vicious circle which bars entry to new platforms into the market.

[skullbringer]

The 41 MP sensor is not specifically for low-light, it is to take much higher quality pictures; the OIS is what improves the quality of low-light photos. Regardless, you are incorrect in the second half of your statement. The Lumia 1020 sensor has 1.1 µm/1100 nm pixels^[1], and the typical visible spectrum for the human eye is between 390 nm and 700 nm^[2].

 

The definition of "innovation" is universal, and is not subject to interpretation. The scope at which you determine innovation can change, for example: a 7-inch screen on a smartphone is innovative for smartphones, but not for mobile devices (as that would included devices like tablets). Market share, and the demographic they are targeting with a device, is completely irrelevant to innovation in this context. If you are saying that market share and success define innovation, you are completely wrong. Not only is that definition completely inaccurate, you also seem to have forgotten a time when Nokia had >30% market worldwide (higher than anybody else at the time).^[3]

 

You are right about the term "innovation" it self, but I was talking in a different context.

It seems like you are not even trying to understand what I am saying and totally not getting my point, dude.

[dalekphalm]

You are right about the term "innovation" it self, but I was talking in a different context.

It seems like you are not even trying to understand what I am saying and totally not getting my point, dude.

I think the issue here is that you keep using the term innovation in the wrong context. You're right in that Nokia doesn't have a strong market share, which could be considered unpopular and unsuccessful. Though I'd argue that their phones themselves (The entire Nokia 8xx and 9xx series) are fantastic phones. Excellent build quality with good hardware features and specs.

 

Wireless charging for example, might have issues, but the technology is still very immature in phones. Yeah, 5 years from now wireless charging will be way better, but that in no way takes away the innovation of having it be a standard built-in feature of a phone now. While wireless charging has been around for some time, it has always generally been bulky, and in the form of a phone case, or a replaceable backplate, Nokia was the first (That I know of anyway) to have it as a standard feature on a phone.

 

I would also argue that you are not getting his point either. You're talking in a different context, but using words incorrectly that have different meaning then how you are using them. That's like me describing a bus but every time I refer to it, I'm calling it an airplane. Sure they are both forms of commuting, but that doesn't suddenly change the definition of an airplane.

[skullbringer]

I think the issue here is that you keep using the term innovation in the wrong context. You're right in that Nokia doesn't have a strong market share, which could be considered unpopular and unsuccessful. Though I'd argue that their phones themselves (The entire Nokia 8xx and 9xx series) are fantastic phones. Excellent build quality with good hardware features and specs.

 

Wireless charging for example, might have issues, but the technology is still very immature in phones. Yeah, 5 years from now wireless charging will be way better, but that in no way takes away the innovation of having it be a standard built-in feature of a phone now. While wireless charging has been around for some time, it has always generally been bulky, and in the form of a phone case, or a replaceable backplate, Nokia was the first (That I know of anyway) to have it as a standard feature on a phone.

 

I would also argue that you are not getting his point either. You're talking in a different context, but using words incorrectly that have different meaning then how you are using them. That's like me describing a bus but every time I refer to it, I'm calling it an airplane. Sure they are both forms of commuting, but that doesn't suddenly change the definition of an airplane.

 

I agree with you. Part of the problem might be, that English is not my native language. Immature would probably describe best what I would call a non working innovation.

[dalekphalm]

I agree with you. Part of the problem might be, that English is not my native language. Immature would probably describe best what I would call a non working innovation.

That makes much more sense. I will agree that immature would be a better way to describe some of these things. Often an innovation will require several years - and generations of products - before it's actually any good to use.