• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nokia Lumia 929

If this is a 1080p handset, you can bet it probably includes a Snapdragon 800. Could be a Snapdragon 600, but I wouldn't expect anything less.

Nokia is dumb if they keep the 929 title, though. If it has the hardware I mentioned, it clearly doesn't belong in the same class as the Lumia x2x series.
 
pantsaregood said:
If this is a 1080p handset, you can bet it probably includes a Snapdragon 800. Could be a Snapdragon 600, but I wouldn't expect anything less.

Nokia is dumb if they keep the 929 title, though. If it has the hardware I mentioned, it clearly doesn't belong in the same class as the Lumia x2x series.
Click to expand...

My guess is the 3 will be reserved for Windows Phone 8.1 devices.
 
It's possible, but would still lead to confusion. I think Nokia's naming scheme is well on its way to being botched as badly as Intel's CPU naming, though.

520/521 are very much variants of the same device.
920/925/928 are very much variants of the same device.

810/820/822 are variants of the same device, but the "10" in the Lumia 810 makes it appear to belong to the same generation of devices as the Lumia 710.

620/625 are named somewhat poorly, too. The 625 is actually a bit faster than the 720.

I don't know, I feel like Nokia could've done better with their model naming and the Lumia 720 really fails at filling a niche. I believe the device would've served its target of being mid-range better if it had a 1.2 GHz CPU and 768 MB of RAM instead of 1.0 GHz/512 MB. A 4 inch screen probably would've served the device better, too.
 
New pictures of a white 929 leaked today
BVkqhAMCAAAbEGF.png
 
I've made mention a couple of times that they should have scrapped this numbering scheme for something more sensible. For example:

First number(s): 7xx for low-end (such as the 520, 521, 620, and 625), 8xx for mid-range (such as 810, 820, 822), 9xx for high-end (such as 920, 925, 928, and the upcoming 929), 10xx for the high-end camera devices (1020), and 15xx for the super-sized devices (such as the 150; I'd say over 5 inches covers this)

Second number: Screen size could be used here, like 4 for the 3.8-4.9" devices, 5 for the 5.0-5.9" devices, then 6 for the 6.0"+ devices.

Third number: I would imagine this would be a little messy internationally, but my initial thought is to go with carrier variant here. They sort-of did already with the 92x devices, with the 920 for AT&, 925 for T-Mobile (until it reached AT&T), and the 928 for Verizon.

The only real problem (beyond the international use of the third digit) I could think of would apply to the tablet(s), since they've decided to give them the Lumia brand name as well. The upcoming one is the 2520, but my suggested scheme would make it something like the 2510x (25 for the tablet, 10 for the 10.6" screen, and x for the carrier). If they made all of the tablets carry one universal antenna (meaning cover all bands for all carriers), they could go 2510, I guess. They could also just use 1 for the 10" screen (since screens won't actually exist in the 1" realm), then go 251x, with the x again a carrier digit.

I don't know. Regardless, I like the idea of this 929. I'm not really thinking a 1520 would work for me, despite my reasonably-sized hands. My 920 fits perfectly in the side pocket of my jeans, while a 1520 would stick out of the top by maybe 1-2 inches. Even reaching the top-left with my right thumb's a bit of a stretch on my 920, but I think a 5-inch device would still be doable for me, especially if the cut down just a tick on the top and bottom bezels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top