x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Nokia claims it "didn't need" 1080p or quad-core until now

Nokia claims it "didn't need" 1080p or quad-core until now

Posted: , by Michael H.

Tags :

Nokia claims it
Microsoft has been very careful about how quickly it brings the Windows Phone ecosystem forward, which has meant that some things that Android users might see as commonplace are just now starting to come to WP devices like 1080p displays and quad-core processors. Of course, with a well optimized platform and the design aesthetic of Windows Phone, the benefits of those new features may only be noticeable at certain times and there are downsides to the better tech.

At least, that's the argument being put forth by Nokia's VP of software program management Samuli Hanninen. According to Hanninen, with a 1080p display you can "only see the benefits when using a 5-inch screen and larger, anything below that the eye can't see the difference" (something that the team at Motorola would agree with), so there wasn't any need to push the hardware there until now. Additionally, Nokia was focused on working with Microsoft to optimize the Windows Phone software for the Nokia Lumia 1020's impressive camera. The WP software needed to be rewritten to handle the camera that Nokia wanted to use.

When it comes to quad-core processors, if the software isn't optimized properly you won't see any speed improvements, but you will notice a big heat difference in your device and faster battery drain. But, it seems that those concerns have been addressed with the new Snapdragon 800. It's lucky that Snapdragon came out with that chip just as Microsoft was ready with Windows Phone 8 GDR3, eh?

source: TechRadar

  • Options

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:02 8

1. hung2900 (Posts: 965; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)

I thought that one core is always enough for WP?

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:32 10

10. Shatter (Posts: 2036; Member since: 29 May 2013)

Not for 1080p gaming.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 20:39 14

19. akki20892 (Posts: 3902; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)

One core is for OS, two cores is for multitasking, and four cores for high hd gaming. So I guess quad core is perfect for all this activities. And over 300 ppi is enough for high resolution displays.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 21:00 2

21. grahaman27 (Posts: 361; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)

The only popular game wp has is temple run.... The original.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 21:18 3

22. dexter_jdr (Posts: 1163; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)

umm halo for WP?

posted on 24 Oct 2013, 02:12 1

31. dexter_jdr (Posts: 1163; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)

templerun2. temple run Oz. stfu

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:04 1

2. -box- (Posts: 3991; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)

They're not wrong, and it's essentially overkill to beat the andrones on specs.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:18 3

5. Beijendorf (Posts: 354; Member since: 27 Aug 2013)

I've tried a Lumia 1020. The camera is slow. Really slow. The web surfing is still giving me a checkerboard when I zoom around pages.

It desperately needs a faster processor, but Nokia didn't have the ability, and I think you know why.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:20 22

6. ZeroCide (Posts: 785; Member since: 09 Jan 2013)

I think the camera is slow due to the large megapixel file rendering. and the internet is slow due to atts network. Overall WP is a fast OS.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:28 3

9. Beijendorf (Posts: 354; Member since: 27 Aug 2013)

Just like most people of the world, I don't live in the US. Nor am I talking about load times, I'm talking about render times.
Windows Phone may very well be an energy conserving mobile OS that puts a low strain on processors, but it still needs faster processors to get away from a lot of the slow app load times, slow rendering and the ability to handle 38 megapixel photographs.

And I think it would have had one, had Microsoft not been so excrutiatingly slow at releasing updates. They didn't want to save Nokia, they wanted to buy them out from the start. They started making offers a long way back, so it wasn't a surprise a corporation as morally corrupt as Microsoft would force their partner out of business just so they could do a takeover.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 21:44

24. UrbanPhantom (Posts: 949; Member since: 30 Oct 2012)

I will agree that Microsoft hasn't been the fastest horse on the track in terms of updating their OS, but I'm not convinced that a dual core cpu is to blame for slow rendering times on the 1020. Also, Nokia was out of money and time to rebuild their shattered fortunes in the smartphone industry, and selling their D&S makes sense. Microsoft's interference may have hastened their demise, but Nokia certainly dug it's own hole...

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:22 2

7. cse.vicky (unregistered)

For Camera may be they need an extra dedicated one.

But for web-surfing its a problem with the rendering of IE as a whole ! Their desktop ones are sad as the mobile ones. I hope Firefox comes :)

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:33

11. Shatter (Posts: 2036; Member since: 29 May 2013)

Firefox is the best, Chrome has been going downhill recently. I used to use Firefox for an extremely long time for like 5-6 years all I used was firefox, then I used Chrome for like a year or so up till about 6 months ago.

My recommended browser is still Chrome but my personal one is firefox. Chrome is easier for normal users to use.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 22:31 1

28. HASHTAG (unregistered)

Don't know what world you're living in saying that Chrome is going downhill. Psh!

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 20:18

18. fanboy1974 (Posts: 1345; Member since: 12 Nov 2011)

Right now you got to go "overkill" to step in the ring with the big boys. For me it doesn't hurt to offer a top of the line cpu, 1080p display and 2gig of ram. The Nokia 1520 is the first phone I would consider getting from a hardware point of view. But my issue is still with the tile interface and lack of apps. And I feel that next year Apple will have that perfect sized phone; not to big and not to small with a super fast cpu and tons of app support.
Nokia/Microsoft needed to make this move happen now instead of later. Next year is going to be an all out war.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:08 3

3. _PHug_ (Posts: 463; Member since: 11 Oct 2011)

They didn't need it yet because Samsung didn't show them that they needed it yet.

They also didn't need to make Phablets, until Samsung showed them why they needed to.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:43 14

13. Beijendorf (Posts: 354; Member since: 27 Aug 2013)

Samsung didn't feel an overwhelming urge to make smartphones until Apple produced the iPhone and made billions. They didn't have to shape their Galaxy S like the iPhone 3G either, but they certainly did.

Market trends started by one is followed by all. What's your point?

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:50 1

14. Shatter (Posts: 2036; Member since: 29 May 2013)

The original iphone technically was not a smartphone because it didn't support third party applications until the iphone 2 came out.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:56 3

15. GeekyGene (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Aug 2013)

Oh so "third-party applications" make something "technically" a smartphone. Mmk.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 22:29

26. sprockkets (Posts: 1611; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)

Samsung made Windows Mobile phones like the Blackjack, well before the iphone came out.

posted on 24 Oct 2013, 02:56 1

32. sbw44 (Posts: 433; Member since: 04 Dec 2012)

Samsung didn't make phablets until Dell showed them.

Apple also showed samsung how to design their phones!

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:17 3

4. Beijendorf (Posts: 354; Member since: 27 Aug 2013)

Nice try, whomever at Nokia it is that writes up diplomatic-class excuses for why Microsoft isn't a pile of crap towards Nokia.

You didn't have the capability to make devices larger than 4.5" until now because Microsoft didn't provide you with the software that was required, not the other way around.
And it's apparent too. Seriously, it's not like you're desperately trying to push out as many 1080p quad-core devices as you can now because you know you were lagging years behind the competition and are now trying to play catch-up... right? Oh, it is? Well...

And even with the release of a phablet, Microsoft didn't push the OS software ahead to give it Windows RT-capabilities. They had the ability, they just don't care.

Face it Nokia, you picked a bedpartner that is only in it to pleasure themselves, caring nothing for their partners. It's apparent on the other hardware fronts as well, where Microsoft is slowly out-competing their (former) hardware partners. And they can too, since Microsoft themselves don't have to pay for Windows license fees.

Christ Microsoft, you suck. Just die already you old sleazy fool. You're like John Edgar Hoover - doubly so after the whole Skype-buyout and decentralisation so you could get the billion reward for cracking the NSA issue of not being able to monitor Skype calls.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 21:50 2

25. UrbanPhantom (Posts: 949; Member since: 30 Oct 2012)

Give it a rest about Microsoft, already? Google is just as bad or worse when it comes to spying. Did you ever stop to wonder how those targeted ad's show up on Facebook? Google might be a progressive company, but big business is still just big business...

posted on 24 Oct 2013, 06:54

35. Beijendorf (Posts: 354; Member since: 27 Aug 2013)

Google isn't even in the same ballpark when it comes to evil. Microsoft has even been fined huge amounts and forced into strict regulation for its shady business practices. Their willing aid to NSA is just another step to show what a messed up corporation it is.

Google on the other hand has been open with its users about the data they gather for advertisement purposes, and even gives you the option to opt out, as with their recent advertisement change.

I don't trust any megacorporation, but I know Microsoft would sell me to the wolves for a nickel, while Google would hold back and rather have me and everyone else as a user any day.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:24 6

8. theaztech (unregistered)

i love nokia phones, what i dont like is windows os. I mean its really fluent and speedy. Its just that its too simple for me. Not technical wise but apperreance wise, it looks nice but there not much customization. And lets not get in to the apps. For now ill stay with my Note 3 by my hand.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 19:33 4

12. promise7 (Posts: 891; Member since: 03 Jul 2013)

I don't know if that "1080p display you can only see the benefits when using a 5-inch screen and larger, anything below that the eye can't see the difference" is true or not, but i've heard the same arguement where people said on a TV 32" or less the human eye can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Again, don't know how technically true these statements are.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 20:08 3

16. softfurryanus (banned) (Posts: 232; Member since: 09 Jul 2013)

Nokia, you still don't, nobody does, when people say "you don't need a quad core 2.3 GHz processor in a phone" I think to myself "so what, it has one, and it's damn cool that it does."

Really, I don't want the bear minimum.

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 20:53 1

20. Muzhhur (Posts: 261; Member since: 14 Sep 2012)

better camera better display and better cpu, so then who's now the best on the market?

posted on 23 Oct 2013, 22:31 1

27. sprockkets (Posts: 1611; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)

I thought Elop said dual and quad cores aren't necessary. Hmmm...

The explanation here is Bull. The screen resolution has nothing to do with CPU count.

posted on 24 Oct 2013, 00:56

30. gaurang (Posts: 94; Member since: 16 Nov 2012)

i think os optimization should be given the first priority rather than rapidly increasing the specs of the device...sure people say it will be future proof but if the os is not able to efficiently utilize all of the horse power it has been given...it will still be a stuttery experience..

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories