This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Google 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 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Telecommunications This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

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]

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]

What currency are the prices in? All it says is dollars, but no mention of what sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.82.98 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 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]

What about the HTC Bravo? Is this also it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.6.6 (talk) 22:32, 22 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[1]. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search using google lands many articles asserting an apple multitouch patent [2] [3] and apples intention to vigorously assert its intellectual property rights [4] .   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per more recent interviews with Google's own Android Senior Product Manager, Eric Tseng, available on the internet, sources stated in article... I have clarified the use of "multi touch" in the Nexus. It should be broader to the entire platform, however, it would take much work. From the mouth of Google, they claim Apple didn't have anything to do with it, and only that Android is "designed" with one handed use in mind. Tbonecopper (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)tbonecopper.[reply]

You can try "Multitouch" on the Nexus One by installing the Dolphin Browser available from Android Marketplace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimParsons (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 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]

I have to object to the entire "criticism" section at this point. Most of the issues are common problems that consumers have with cell phones (A fee for terminating the contract? Seriously?) and on the iPhone page, for example, this section or anything like it doesn't exist. The references for many of the complaints are unreliable at best, and I could find and post a hundred random blogs complaining about problems with Blackberries or the Palm Pre if those phones had a similar section. It really cheapens the article and makes it look biased against Google. Instead of this section, shouldn't there be a general "Reception" section that includes any criticism, along with any praise from reputable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.232.184 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the fact that the criticism section seems biased against Google. User comments by Nexus One owners on review site have indicate that these users have no clue about the alleged problems with the Nexus One. Seems to affecting only a small portion of users. And the Nexus One (hardware) does support multi-touch. --13lackhat (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The iPhone page has a section on restrictions which I find similar. I deleted criticisms that had forum posts as references. You are welcome to add a reception section if that will help. I tried before to add info about the strengths of the phone but some of my edits where reverted. Strengths include open platform, available unlocked, backed by google and the open handset alliance.

Changing subjects: I agree with some people's theories that Microsoft is dishing out money to slam google in anyway possible. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel.Cardenas

If references from forum posts are not reliable should we not be objecting to the [5] reference. I think a public reception or criticism second should have opinion from the "public" and not just the journalists.

Second point, how was the point regarding the loaning of a Nexus One a forum? To be specific, I was talking about [6]

Changing subjects: You seem to be an experienced Wiki contributor, why not help make this article neutral?

--13lackhat (talk) 22:22, 22 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]

I agree that the comparison section seems a bit biased. It reads like a press release for the Nexus One trying to make it look better than just the iPhone. Why aren't there comparisons to other smartphones/app-phones? No comparison to the Verizon Droid? The Eris? Nokia's latest offering? There seems to be a biased focus against just the iPhone. The pricing information in the article is also not accurate, or at least incomplete It doesn't include the difference between contract and non-contract plans. Are pricing plans really relevant to an article that is about hardware, when the pricing plans are not unique for the piece of hardware? iPhone gets special pricing from AT&T because it's an iPhone. T-Mobile's Even More Plus non-contract service price for the Nexus One is the same as for any other smartphone on their system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortedloop (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison section is in fact biased, and adding a criticism section to cancel up with the "praise" given in the comparison section is not enough, because unlike "criticism," "comparison" implies neutrality that is absolutely not present in the section. In fact, the whole "comparison" business is pure rubbish. Leave that to CNET or a magazine. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. I'm sure Britannica would never compare two products just for the hell of it, unless such comparison had historical value. I am adding a couple of template messages because I am sure that section goes against a very good number of Wikipedia policies.--AndresTM (talk) 05:29, 8 February 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]

Yeah, this is hardly "non-standard" as well. The four-conductor jack has been all over phones since 2000ish... its quite common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.232.226 (talk) 07:12, 25 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. ..."[7][8]

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]

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus-One/1654/2 - Step 14:The Bluetooth and 802.11n wireless is provided by a Broadcom (BRCM) BCM4329[9] chip. 94.30.88.34 (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think about keeping the last 15 threads? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The default for MiszaBot are five threads, though.--Oneiros (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section read:

Users have been experiencing some problems with the 3G network. Those who lose their 3G reception on their Google Nexus One phone will been pushed on to EDGE, which is much slower. The reason is still unknown as to why this is happening, but according to several articles the problem lies with T-Mobile. However T-Mobile claims that the issue lies with HTC's hardware since other Android phones access 3G successfully in areas where Nexus One is unable to do so.

Cleanup suggestion:

Intermittent connection issues causing the phone to switch from 3G to slower EDGE connectivity have been reported by T-Mobile customers ^{[citation needed]}

--75.82.173.229 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a user of the Nexus One for the past week, I can certainly say that the screen is perfectly readable in direct sunlight, if the brightness is increased to 100%. The reviews referenced in the section which say otherwise probably didn't try changing the brightness setting before making their claims.--HackerOfMinds (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will be good when someone makes a youtube video of that. There is one that attempts this, but it is shot in doors with sun hitting the devices. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there is no photo of the Nexus One in this article, only the logo. Why is this??? Other articles about smartphones (for instance the iPhone) have photos of the phone, so why not the Nexus One? Please can someone who owns a Nexus One take a good photo of it and upload the photo to Wikipedia. JoseySmith (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]