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

I see that somebody removed the 'rumored' from the March 23rd release date on Verizon. Has this actually been confirmed anywhere, or is it still just speculation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.101.252 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 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?

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 [1] 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 [2]

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]

I think a criticism section is very useful. It gives the information many people want, in a way many people want it. You put information in a table when that's the clearest way to present the information, you make a graph when that's the clearest present to get some information. So, why not serve those that are looking for a criticism section? I think it's really as simple as that: many people are looking for this information, brought together as one paragraph, so why not meet their needs? However, add a criticism section to the iphone article and it gets deleted in seconds. In fact, i only proposed criticism points to add to the article and even that got deleted. I'm not talking about the discussion here, not even the article. I'm discussing it here, because i don't even dare touch any apple related articles anymore, because i'm afraid of the squad of apple fanboys guarding them. PizzaMan (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC) PS i know about Wikipedia:CRIT, just don't agree and strongly disagree with the bias it introduces when having a criticism section in some articles, but not others of comparable products.[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]

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[3] 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]

Stuff about the patent dispute should not be in this article. It is pure speculation to say that the dispute will have any impact on the Nexus One whatsoever. Please confine dispute-related stuff to the articles for the companies themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its notable that apple is suing because of patent issues related to the nexus one. There is no speculation about that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The N1 is but one of the named devices. We have no idea what Apple's specific motivations are, and the company appears to be agnostic about which of HTC's devices are infringing. When Robert Kearns sued the Ford Motor Company for patent infringement on his invention of the intermittent windscreen wiper, that action wasn't directed at specific cars using the invention at the time (like the Mustang), but at the company itself. There was no impact on the cars, only the company. The Nexus One will remain unaffected by this issue - it will be HTC itself that may or may not be affected. Adding Apple patent-related crap to this article is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many references that state otherwise. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164938/Apple_goes_after_Google_s_Nexus_One_in_patent_actions   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which are covered under WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you admitting that your statements are incorrect? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is not clear to me what you are talking about. The fact remains that patent filings target HTC, not specific devices. Legal actions are filed against organizations, not devices. This is not a Nexus One problem, but an HTC problem. If, and only if, some changes are made to the software or hardware of the device itself then it will become appropriate to briefly mention why. Until then, coverage of the patent dispute here would be completely inappropriate and disproportionate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A patent lawsuit is about specific devices, with the nexus one being the one most called out. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the target of the action is HTC, not the devices. That's a matter for the article on HTC. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by target. The target is also the nexus one as shown by numerous references. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. The Nexus One isn't being sued. It can't put up a fight on its own. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the references don't say the Nexus one is a target? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. But that is not the issue here. The overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources refer to this as an Apple vs. HTC event, with the Nexus One only being mentioned in passing (along with many other phones). Therefore, the HTC article is the appropriate place to document this matter (since it is a corporate matter, not a device matter) and continuously arguing for its inclusion in this tangentially-related article is rather tendentious, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which references are you referring to? The ones I see mention it in the title and not in passing. Continuously arguing for its exclusion in this directly-related article is rather tendentious, quite frankly. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't behave like a dick about this. A 5-second Google News search reveals the following top results:

• Google backs HTC in face of Apple lawsuit - The Times
• Apple lawsuit wrecks HTC’s quiet life - The Financial Times
• Apple vs. HTC: What the experts say - CNN Money
• Apple files patent lawsuit against HTC - Computerworld
• Apple Starts ‘Nuclear War’ in Patent Fight With HTC - Businessweek
• Strain on HTC From Apple Suit Is Likely to Be Long-Term - The New York Times

This is just a smattering of the top results, but I think my point is well proven. HTC will be greatly impacted by these Apple filings, but it remains to be seen whether or not the Nexus One itself will be. Without gazing into the crystal ball it is impossible to speculate. This is very much a corporate matter. If you think I'm wrong about this, I recommend you seek a third opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should take a step back and think about this, you guys seem to be getting a little worked up over what's really not that big a deal. This article claims that Apple said 10 of the 20 patent infringement claims have to do with the Nexus One. If that is the case, I think it probably bears mentioning in the article (but I would argue not in the intro). However, I'm not sure if that is the case: I haven't seen any other stories that have Apple specifically identifying the Nexus One as the target of the claims, and have a feeling it might just be a mistake or misleading choice of words on the part of the ComputerWorld author. There has been a lot of conjecture in the press about this lawsuit being aimed primarily at the Nexus One and Android indirectly. That being the case, it could comply with wp:crystal according to this line from the guide: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ie, saying something along the lines of "pundits believe Apple's recent lawsuits are aimed at stifling the Nexus One" is acceptable, saying "Apple's recent lawsuits are aimed at stifling the Nexus One" is not. At least that is my understanding of wp:crystal. TastyCakes (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I would say, however, that a preponderance of high-quality sources focus on the corporate aspect; that Apple is seeking injunction and damages against HTC for software-related details that are not specific to the Nexus One. In addition, speculation is all over the place that this is an attempt by Apple to attack Google by proxy for their development of Android - again, not specific to the Nexus One. There's no suggestion that any of this will have any impact on the Nexus One at all. Giving coverage to Apple's action here would surely be giving it disproportionate weight. The matter is already properly covered in the HTC article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, if Apple hasn't identified the Nexus One specifically in the suit. If it has, I kind of think at least a mention should be made somewhere in this article. TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Android phones manufactured by HTC (expect their most recent) and a couple of Windows Mobile phones are mentioned. The Nexus One has received no special attention in this regard. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't behave like a dick about this. A 5-second Google search about Nexus One and lawsuit reveals the following results:

1. Has the image caption:The Nexus One is at the center of Apple's ongoing suit against HTC for patent infringement.
2. Apple Targets Nexus One, Maybe Google in Lawsuit
3. Nexus One to Blame for Apple, HTC Lawsuit
4. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164938/Apple_goes_after_Google_s_Nexus_One_in_patent_actions
5. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703807904575097392317555912.html?mod=WSJ-Tech-LEFTTopNews
6. http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/03/03/apple-iphone-vs-google-iphone-the-proxy-war-begins/
7. http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/02/25181.htm

I am making a claim that the Nexus one is a target of the lawsuit with refernces. None of the references you provided counter that claim. In other words your references are worthless as are your arguments as are your personal attack.

Agree with TastyCakes that this should be mentioned in the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the section Availability: United States: "... Unsubsidized phones have no such limitation ..." - What limitation?? This sentence should either be clarified or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.14.254.26 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole availability US section should be cut down to something like 5 sentences, globallly no one really cares about this.

In comparison with the iPhone, this article simply lists that the phone cannot buy from the iTunes store, which I feel is a bit of a pointless comparison, as the article fails to mention that you can instead buy songs from the Amazon MP3 store. I am going to add this bit in (Sk8er boi6000 (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What does the total number of downloads at the Apple App store have to do with anything at all related to the phone? Absolutely nothing that's what. Removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.145.207 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the SAR rating of the Nexus One? Google's product page and owner's manual do not (so far as I can tell) mention anything about the results of SAR testing required by the FCC. I want to know these SAR radiation levels before considering buying the phone. — sloth_monkey 10:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article reports a pixel density of 252.15 ppi based on a source specification of a 3.7 inch display with a pixel resolution of 800 by 480. It is erroneous to derive 5 digits of precision from a 2 digit precision source. Since there are 25.4 mm to the inch, it is more likely that the pixel density is 254 ppi inferring that the display was manufactured with a 100 micron pixel pitch. Using the Pythagorean theorem, a 800x480 display has a diagonal of 933 pixels. At a 100 micron pitch, the diagonal would be 93.3 mm or 3.67 inches. This is within the rounding error of the quoted specification of 3.7 inches. Hgb asicwizard (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]