Google Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

Template:Multidel

Until Google has confirmed this (and they haven't) this is just speculation - that should be mentioned in the article. --IceHunter (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted. There will be no Nexus One phone launched. It's just an internal developers' phone. However, it's very similar to the HTC Passion. Seriously, this article must be deleted.--Lester 12:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Here I am holding this phone in my hand, and now I find out it doesn't really exist. You are right this article must be deleted before others actually imagine that they have the phone when it is just a figment of their imagination. 70.179.140.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Google has confirmed that it has handed out *something* to its employees. Whether this will ever hit stores, and how, is still speculation. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true the media got duped. That alone might be notable, so there is no reason to delete the article. Brandon (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The media didn't get duped. They just got it wrong. Google was happy to let it roll along, and receive all the free publicity that Google is into phones.--Lester 09:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current rumour is that it'll be made official on the Google event on the 7'th of january 2010. So let's keep the article for just a few more days, just in case. Sammi84 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was wrong about the way the phone would be marketed, and it will go to market with the name Nexus One. However, I still think it will be the same basic phone as the Passion and Bravo, with only minor variations. Same AMOLED screen. Same Snapdragon processor. Same OS. I guess it will become clearer in the next few days.--Lester 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tyrell Corporation's Nexus series Replicants from Blade Runner are the origin of the unit's name. --68.45.218.70 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nexus One" is most likely a reference to Blade Runner, but the word "Android" was in the language long before "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was published, and this is the first claim I've heard that it was the origin for the OS name, and the Android OS wiki page doesn't mention any relation. Does anyone have a cite? (Daetrin (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Given that the author's estate was not consulted/compensated for the naming of Nexus, I would guess that you won't find any citation for the name originating there. - Gwopy 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Stupid lawsuit. Not noteworthy. Section should be deleted. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit certainly is noteworthy, if it has made it into the Wall Street Journal^[1] and The Daily Mail. User:Daniel.Cardenas, your edit [1] with the summary "Deleted name origin speculation as not notable. See discussion page" is not quite clear as you also deleted all reference to the lawsuit. I have re-added a small, referenced section on it to the article. 81.157.194.110 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest: the term 'android' was used long before Dick first used it; Nexus, a Latin word meaning connection or centre, is the name of a 1960 Henry Miller novel, pre-dating Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by eight years. 81.157.194.110 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Wall Street Journal prints something does that make it notable? There are plenty of examples of them printing crap. If we try to use common sense does anyone think that a word from the dictionary plus a "one" is copyrightable? Don't know about you, but sounds ridiculous to me. Would like to hear other people's thoughts about this. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, to your first point - we go on what constitutes a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Mail both meet easily this criterion. I agree with you, the lawsuit itself might well be stupid; but the fact that it is happening is notable and ought to be reported here. Leaving it out will leave us liable to accusations of POV in our editing. 81.157.194.110 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As editors we need to decide what is notable and encyclopedic. I don't believe another frivolous lawsuit is notable or encyclopedic for this article. Perhaps it belongs in the copyright article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Android/Nexus link may perhaps give the estate a very small chance of success, but this does smack somewhat of using the launch of the Nexus to further the estates own position. The article could be interpreted as supporting the estate at present, as it gives only one indication of the use of the name explicitly, and that use appears to give credence to their claim. Perhaps adding clarification over the etymology of the word 'Nexus', demonstrating its long and sustained use in many contexts over time, would be appropriate. Rich Osborne (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that discussion is appropriate for a copyright article not a phone article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of photos (and a few videos) of the Nexus One on the Internet and I think someone should put a photo on the Wikipedia article. JoseySmith (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. This phone is brand new. Certainly someone can find a royal-free image of this phone somewhere that we can use. mz (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is lacking an "input" parameter. Does anyone know if it is QWERTY and touchscreen? Timneu22 (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is screen keyboard only. I'm hoping for good B/T keyboard support. Skrrp (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article at times has reported a screen resolution of either 854x480 or 800x480. Currently the cited source http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_google_nexus_one-3069.php reports a resolution of 800x480. Hgb asicwizard (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought wikipedia style guideline was to put references inside the period, but then found out that it is suppose to be after the period unless the article has evolved with a different style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REFPUNCT#Ref_tags_and_punctuation   So I'll be placing them on the outside now. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the information on the $279 and $379 prices come from? It doesn't seem to be in the cited articles and there's other (unofficial so far) information that seems to contradict it. (http://androidandme.com/2010/01/carriers/t-mobile-news/t-mobile-nexus-one-rate-plan-qa/)(Daetrin (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/05/google_nexus_one_announcement/ --86.25.48.130 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro should be a summary of the article and highlight what makes it interesting. One of the things that makes android phones interesting is the open source platform. I think this should be highlighted as such. Just mentioning "open source" is not sufficient. What do you think?   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating on the talk page. People who are interested in the operating system are likely to read the Android (operating system) article, and see more open source information over there. I think the simple mention of open source in the introduction is sufficient, the way it is.

As well, following Wikipedia:Lead section, it's good to keep the article introduction as short and clean as possible.

Comment? Other folks have an opinion about the current introduction section? Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the item in this discussion thread, someone has modified the lead of the article while ignoring this discussion. Uncool.

I have removed the unneeded sentence fragment for "open source platform" from the lead. The lead should be as short as possible. Further expansion on all topics can be made in the body of the article, or in linked articles. Please read Wikipedia:Lead section carefully.

Comments from other editors welcome.

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person who removed the open source from the first sentence probably didn't know there was a discussion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Answered my own question about the slot.] I'm specifically interested in whether it can interface easily with standard bluetooth keyboards. From the diagrams on Google it looks like the micro SD slot inside, a confirmation of this and speculation on whether the case looks easily removable and redesigned to take extended range batteries would be amazing.

(Google - 2 micro SD slots in the next one, one of them very high speed please.)

Thanks, Skrrp (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a micro SD slot, it's inside the case, and you can't take it out without removing the battery (at least I can't). I guess it's a part of the move towards regarding SD as "permanently installed memory" rather than "memory that can be removed at any time". No idea about the bluetooth keyboard possibility. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to see if anyone has the URL for the uaprofile, this is the X_WAP_PROFILE header the device sends when browsing online (not to be confussed with the UAString)

This provides a url to an xml file which has detailed technical information about the device

Is this the HTC Dragon?

- it has the model name PB99100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balmark (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nexus One is exactly the Dragon and the Passion. I don't know if there is a Windows Mobile version or cousin. WirelessSleuth (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any TACS for this device? The first 8 digits of an IMEI is the TAC, it uniquely identifies the device as a HTC Nexus One

The first 8 digits of my Nexus One are 35495703. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I also show 35495703. Skrrp (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Mobile is the AWS operator in Canada with licenses in all provinces, except Quebec. They operate on AWS band V. Bell Mobility and Telus in Canada operate a new HSPDA network that is not compatible with the current Nexus One. Which sucks. But what happen to Rogers' HTC devices? What do Bell's Palm devices run on? What are their OS and AWS?

There is no evidence that phone lacks multitouch because of an apple patent. In fact Nilay Patel (who has a law degree) of engadget, maintains that it is very unlikely that the nexus one and the milestone lack multitouch because of any apple patent. As such I will delete any mentions of said apple patent. That is all.

Eli H 02:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeekyzebra (talk • contribs)

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/surprise-surprise-htcs-euro-spec-nexus-one-does-multitouch/ The original version of this article mentioned Apple patent, but it seems to have been removed. I've read various other mentions that the issue is related to Apple asserting patent on gestures and no such patent was filed in Europe where software patents are more difficult to assert[2]. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search using google lands many articles asserting an apple multitouch patent [3] [4] and apples intention to vigorously assert its intellectual property rights [5] .   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many references in this article are from personal blogs and websites of questionable reputation (and significance, for that matter). Very bad references, overall. Dmarquard (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one of the criticisms about 3g as a post in google support forums as a reference. Doesn't seem notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.152.161 (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Early days yet, but my Nexus is showing greater general signal strengths than either my G1 or mobile modem, all on the same carrier. It is especially good at giving basic 2G coverage in known signal black holes in my area. I'll be watching the 3G patterns over a couple of days normal use. Skrrp (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention anywhere... 118.90.111.248 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a reference is found put it somewhere not in the intro since that information is not of main interest to most people. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the comparison section necessary? As it is, it includes only two pieces of information, and only compares it to one other phone. Should it be deleted? (I can't sign in here, but I'm unknownwarrior33) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.31.39 (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phone is new. The natural evolution is that it gets expanded and then eventually moved to its own article. I believe the information is important to many readers. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking over this current section right now and am finding it to not be very balanced. Most of the info is praise (which I think is deserved), but as everyone here knows, for one piece of praise this thing gets, a piece of criticism can be found. I'm going to attempt to balance this section out a little bit and add a little more meat to it because, as the first editor pointed out, there's simply not enough info here for the thing to deserve it's own section yet. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an editor added a criticism section to the article. What do you guys think about combining criticism and comparison sections into a general Reception section? roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The price comparison seems biased and highly dependent on the telecom plan & hardware options. According to the official Google site https://www.google.com/phone/choose?locale=en_US&s7e=, the standard T-mobile subsidized plan is "500 talk minutes. Unlimited nights and weekends. Unlimited T-Mobile to T-Mobile minutes. Unlimited domestic messaging including SMS, MMS, IM. Android Unlimited Web. $79.99 per month." 24x80+180=$2100. The closest ATT plan is "450 minutes, 5000 night&weekend minutes, Unlimited mobile-to-mobile, Iphone data plan, unlimited messaging" is $40+$30+$20=$90/month X 24 + ($100 for 8GB iphone 3g or $300 for 32GB 3Gs) or $2260-$2460. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.238.34 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Google website describes the 3.5mm jack as a stereo headphone jack. It is more appropriate to describe it as a stereo headset jack as it includes connection for a microphone as well as connections for both a right and left speaker. The stereo headset included with my Nexus One has a four-conductor jack. Hgb asicwizard (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I entered a quote about apple asking google to not incorporate multitouch. An editor deleted the entry as not encyclopedic due to the source not being identified. I know that many people want to know why multitouch is not incorporated by default and this is very good indication why. What do you think? Should the text remain?

"...An Android Team Member told VentureBeat that Apple asked Google not to incorporate Multi-Touch and that Google simply agreed. ..."[6][7]

Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I accidentally hit "save page" before I could write my whole explanation down as to why I'm removing the quote. Also writing it down here to avoid an edit war and provoke discussion. Not only is the quote not notable, it can't be verified nor does it come from a reliable source. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Quotations clearly states we shouldn't use quotes when a summary is better. This is completely summarized properly in the line before the quote. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The line above does not summarize anything about google agreeing not to incorporate multitouch. Are you saying venture beat is not a reliable source? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying if one of those three things listed above are not met, then it can't be in Wikipedia. Are you saying the source is verifiable? roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've summarized the unverifiable quote into the article. Even though the information not stay there for long, the article should at least adhere to as many guidelines and policies as possible. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm saying venture beat is a verifiable and reliable source. Wikipedia quotes does not have explicit guidelines when a summary is better. The quote is better than your summary in my opinion. Can you explain why you think a summary is better? I also believe others will find this information very notable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, now you're getting away from the real point I'm trying to make. You're telling me the unnamed source in both of those article is a verifiable source? You're also telling me it's not possible this source could be speculating? Because I'm pretty sure if we were to open a WP:RFC, we'd get a difference consensus. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying what VentureBeat said is verifiable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously whatever they write is verifiable. The issue here is this. Is the source (not that website) verifiable? Is this not speculation? The problem here is you have one cited source saying they talked to someone and this is what they think and another cited source here commenting on the first cited source. To me, that unverifiable information that's purely speculative. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:43, 11 January 2010 (U

This feature is ENABLED AND WORKING. My Nexus One is connected to my 802.11n-ONLY router right now!

This may be the case, but we still need a reliable source for the information. Please review the following links:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Nexus One, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

PolarYukon (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: this is not a reliable source, but they claim 802.11n is not currently supported. Other "gadget" websites have similar information as of now:

[nexus404.com on Nexus One and 802.11n]

-.- heres your "verifiable source": http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=613294 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.191.73 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I empathize with the information you are trying to share, but Wikipedia does not consider this a reliable source. As well, the link you have given provides more questions than answers: exactly what 802.11n support exists in the phone? why has Google removed N support from the specifications? why doesn't N mode work for several users who have posted in the forum in your provided link? To post any answers to these questions in the article, we need updated specifications from Google, or from a reliable source. Regards, PolarYukon (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]