Slow, buggy, unreliable?

My Nokia 5230, running the regular S^1 was never slow, didn't have any bugs, was never unreliable.

Virtually every review of the N8 (outside of the hugely biased Engadget/Gizmodo/mobile-review) are saying that the N8 is a huge improvement.

When do you find it slow? What are you trying to do? As previous posters have said, it's a full multi-tasking OS, so I'd be interested in finding out exactly what you're finding so hard to do.


What bugs are you experiencing? I found loads when I used an N97 (I ended up chucking it against the wall in frustration) - but very few on the 5800, for instance. I'd like to hope that the N8 will be at a similar level to the 5800, but time will tell.


Again - I find the 5800 to be reliable enough. It's just a shame that it doesn't have the hardware spec that went into the N97.


So - please list the bad ones, then!


Of course your viewpoint is valid! You obviously have strong feelings about it. I just want to drill into it a bit more & find out what exactly is causing you to describe Symbian in particular as "dreadful". I'd agree that the N97 was a very disappointing phone, but I'm still not sure whether that was due to the OS, the UI, the rest of the software, Nokia panicking and rushing out a phone without going through thorough testing, or the Nokia build quality in general. What do you think?


Wise words!

I've used some of these enhanced front ends - they aren't a part of the core OS, and something like the SPB Mobile shell does exactly the same thing for Symbian.

Its what is under the bonnet that is stronger on Symbian than the other mobile platforms - solid multi tasking, memory handling, power management - all better than iOS and Android - which both need considerably more resources.

What you're calling dated is the front end/user interface. Please stop confusing the two totally different elements.


It just re-iterates to me what I've thought for years - that Samsung and SE really haven't ever had a clue as to what route to go. They were the only companies offering Symbian, WM and Android handsets.

Samsung have shown massive incompetence in their handling of Symbian, as shown by their complete lack of support. That Hyperx - an independent developer - has made the i8910 into a truly class leading handset shows that Samsung really didn't have a clue.

Both Samsung and SE were always small time players in the Symbian world - and they're just not producing handsets now. At least for the moment they're still shareholders in Symbian.


I do agree that Apps are big business, and I never understood why Nokia took so long to leverage it - they had an app store years before the iPhone, but they just never seemed to "get it", and what was on there was inconsistent, badly labelled, etc.


You obviously missed the articles several years ago then. Nokias stated aim was that Maemo would be taking the "higher end" handsets, and that they wanted Symbian to migrate to the low-mid end, to eventually replace S40.

And you can't argue with the idea of cheaper handsets that can handle app stores. Nokia have the 5800/5530/5230, all reasonably well specced.

Although I do admit that the Orange SanFrancisco is an overwhelmingly good product - £99 for 99% of what you get in considerably higher end Android products.


I do agree to a point, and there is nothing wrong with people posting their views - and at least you have the decency to backup your views with reasoning, unlike the majority of posters.

But remember - those posting are a truly tiny percentage of the buying public, so therefore are not necessarily a representative view of whats out there.

I think I will never buy Nokia again. There are far too many alternative (and IMO superior) choices now available.

I'm sorry, I don't have the time or inclination to go through my hatred of symbian in any greater depth.

So to clarify, any critical reviews are automatically 'hugely biased'?

And you, of course, aren't?

In what way is the OS dated? You say you've looked under the bonnet, so could you be a little more specific in terms of what you think is wrong? What features of the OS make it dated?


From what you've just said, I'm assuming that you're quite a techically skilled person. Could you explain to me what the difference is between Symbian (the operating system) and S60 (the user interface that provides the look and feel) is? I strongly suspect that it's the UI that is putting people off, as a lot of people highlight the look & feel as an issue.



How much of that is due to advertising and branding, I wonder? With 2 big, well-known, American brands behind the iPhone and Android, it's very easy to believe what they tell us, as opposed to actually trying to think for ourselves.

For example, you've already said (about market share, I think):


I wonder whether it's like it's a fashion-thing. At the moment Apple & Google are fashionable and far more appealing than a homegrown small OS.


You may well be right. I'm not sure it's a bad thing for Symbian, though, as I can see the next development in the Smartphone market will be based on cost. We already have very feature rich devices - can the manufacturers continue to keep adding more and more features to differentiate their phones? I personally think that Symbian is a very efficient OS that has been proven to run on lower spec devices. This puts Nokia in a very good position to roll out the mid-market devices to the masses (if they realise that, and who can tell with Nokia!).


Now that's an interesting point. I wonder if Nokia will buy back Symbian, especially if they are considering the mass market lower priced handsets?

That's a shame, as I was really interested in how you'd formed your opinion.

It's hard to know how much weight to give to your opinion, if you can't justify yourself and back up your views.

Who says it needs to be given any weight whatsoever?

Your agenda is fairly clear anyway.

I was thinking the same thing while reading this thread... You hit the nail right on the head.. Well done Sir...

He mentioned specific websites..not all of them...

You need to compare between GSMARENA, Endgagdet, Mobile-Review camera tests for the N8 and then you will see the bias against Nokia.... While Techradar re-reviewed the N8 and bumped the score from 3.5 to 4 out of 5 after lots people pointed out lots of flaws in the original review.

Is it? You'd better let me know what it is, as I didn't think I had one!

eta... but only if you've got the time and inclination, though!

Don't worry, I still haven't and I still don't

I am biased because I own an HTC Desire ... and love it

I cannot comment on the other phone because I have no actual experience of using it - but I do love my phone (last night spend ages talking text messages in) ... how funny

The Gizmodo video showing the difference in speed between a BB, iPhone and the N8. Except that the person using the N8 was slow, didn't have a clue how to use it.

Sample pictures on those 3 sites apparently taken with the N8 were absolutely dire. Whereas elsewhere (particularly gsmarena) have shown that the camera in the N8 is better than a lot of compact cameras, and can (at least in reduced web views) take pictures that are indistinguishable from a DSLR.

I'm all for balanced reviews, but Engadget/Gizmodo/Mobile-review have not even slightly given balanced views of the phone.

Precisely.

And the standout, at least on the camera is from gsmarena. They did a truly blind comparison with the N8 and two other cameras. People voted on what they thought was best.

When the voting was revealed, the N8 beat the competition by a landslide - and that was against the Pixon 12 and a Sony dedicated camera. What was interesting was that Eldar at M-R somehow managed to take some seriously bad pictures with the N8 and thought the Pixon12 was better. Whereas all other evidence proves him to be completely wrong.

The confusion is clearly on your part. I understand the difference between a UI and an OS that it sits on which is why I made the comment about 'what's under the bonnet'. Please read the whole post before you comment, it saves you looking silly...


If you see offering hardware solutions for more than one OS as a sign of not having a clue then I think I need to take your posts less seriously. This isn't a negative, supporting more than one OS isn't a lack of direction, I think you need to have another think on this one. And to ditch to OS that's starting to loose it's popularity over those which are proving to be more popular is a good business move.


Samsung and SE are both big names. Their departure from the development side of Symbian will certainly have a negative affect on where Symbian goes from here. They're both pulling out of providing Symbian handsets and both pulling out of Symbian development. That means less investment, less staff and and less ideas working on the OS.


This is another struggle for Symbian. The lack of apps and lack of interest for the large amount of developers drawn to iOS and Android is making the Symbian OS less attractive to potential customers who want apps. It appears many buy a smartphone almost purely for the apps.


Again your confusion takes the better of you. If I'm saying I believe this will happen then there's possibly a clue in there for you that I am aware of such articles


Take a quick peek at Android, already on that route with things like the Wildfire from HTC. By the time the current version of Symbian hits lower end Nokias as their core OS it will be a bit late to try and snatch that ground back from Android with the phones that by then will be cheap and low end but still support a vast number of apps in the market.


Exactly, Nokia are going to struggle to fit the Symbian OS in at lower ends too for reasons such as this.


I accept that the posts on here are made by a few forum users and it's not an national debate, however these users are buying members of the public so I would suggest that if the majority of DS users who talk about such subjects are suggesting that they aren't interested in Symbian that in some way it's reflective of a larger picture.

If you listen to chat about smartphones people tend to want an iPhone. Mainly because it's been pushed to them as the smartphone. However with Android rapidly gaining ground and people realising there are alternatives that offer more than the iPhone does people are also starting to look at Android handsets. The current talk appears to be of Android and iPhone, Symbian doesn't appear to get so much of a mention. Most internet articles appear to compare Android and iOS handsets and gadget mags and shows then to put the two head to head also.

Nokia used to be the name in mobile phones. It took over from Motorola a good while back as the top brand. Sadly over the years it's let itself slip and it's quickly lost it's brand presence. Now is the time for Android and iOS to take hold as smartphones are still doing a decent trade while the rest of the mobile phone sales aren't doing as well as they were.

Nokia has the problem that Android and iOS are more heard of. They are more talked of. Yes, there are those of us such as me and you who can have a more 'geeky' chat on the subject, but for your every day buyer who wants apps it's pretty much coming down to Android phone or iPhone. They'll remember the Nokia name, but when the sales team at the phone store point out the number of apps on Android or iPhone and when they realise their mate has an Android phone or iPhone they aren't going to opt for the Nokia - in short, it's out of fashion.

Nokias main problem is that they've never had much of a presence in the states. And in case you hadn't noticed, the majority of negativity towards Nokia is coming from US based sites, who are also being quite ludicrously biased against the N8.

At the end of the day all the main platforms - Symbian^3, iOS, Android (and Palm I guess - I won't take BB seriously as a smartphone platform outside of a corporate environment, supported them for too long) are all good platforms.

Interesting you talk of fashion. I expected my stepkids to go out and either buy an iPhone or Android device. Same with the ex wife. The kids surprised me - one bought a Blackberry, the other went for the SE Satio. The ex wife was always a fashion victim, and went for the iPhone

In the way that it's been around for a good while now, under various guises of middleware and UIs and finally other brands are starting to see it's a sinking ship and have started to move away from it with only Nokia trying to fight like mad to keep it afloat.


I think a major issue with Symbian, that is causing part of the problem today, is that despite many different handsets running Symbian it's normally the case that the middleware on top - the bit that the user sees and recognises to be 'Symbian' - is often limited to a certain brand or in some cases, down to certain models. What I mean by this is that you can buy an iPhone running iOS and you get compatibility with other iPhones. You can buy an Android phone and although the manufacturer may have chucked on a different UI, for the major part it's still Android and you get compatibility with other Android phones. This is what I think is wrong with Symbian.

I appreciate the difference between middleware, UI and the Symbian OS iteself, however this is the problem with the OS. It's not sold as Symbian, one united product that all work together.


For you to ask such a question it's clear that you already know the answer and I believe I've exhibited a knowledge of the differences already. If we're going to debate the subject let's do so without petty trip up attempts on subjects we both clearly have an understanding on.

I'm not a Symbian expert, there's no need to be an expert of an OS that's starting to head to the realms of Betamax, but I do know enough to know that S60 is a platform that runs on top of the Symbian OS, just as you get UIQ and others - which is part of my point above. This isn't like version control, such as Android 2.1 to 2.2, this is more like considerable differences. And the chances of collaboration are non-existent with big brands pulling out of Symbian development and leaving Nokia standing almost on it's own.


Yes, I suspect the UI puts people off too. But if that's the case then it makes no odds as to what OS is underneath it because your average shopper doesn't care, even if they did understand the difference.

There are some, such as you and I, who may have a little more knowledge than your average smartphone consumer on operating systems and other related subjects, however that's not what sells smartphones to the masses. If a handset has a slick UI, plenty of visible and understandable features and fulfils the current trend of having a good choice of apps then it sells well.

The days of smartphones being bulging devices in only the pockets of geeks who want a bit more function than the small neat phone in everyone else's pocket is well and truely over. The brands have managed to make geeky smartphones attractive and made them appeal to the non-geeky out there and this is why Symbian is sinking fast with the likes of Android rushing up to take it's crown.

If I had the money I'd go and buy myself a nice Audi R8 Spyder today. I'd be over the moon with it compared to my current car. I'd not have a clue about the horse power, the build of the engine or any other technical stuff that my mate who works with performance vehicles does, but I'd buy it because it appeals to me. This is what I'm talking about above. People don't care about the engine in a smartphone, they want a nice UI, lots of apps and a good experience all round.


I think you're being a little condescending and insulting towards the general buying public here. It's more a case of Google and Apple being well known brands. People will recognise those two names much more than they will Symbian. I guarantee that nearly everyone in modern day communities has heard of Apple and Google, but most will be unaware of Symbian.

Branding does play a large part in the game, I'm not denying that, but it's not a case of not thinking for yourself, it's a case of demand. People want smart UIs, they want plenty of apps, they want customisation and they want it in a nice package. If it comes with a big brand behind it then there's confidence there too because you've heard of them or used them before.


Currently Symbian has the highest market share in smartphone users. However that's now dropping. This is because we've moved from smartphones appealing to a specific techie market to being appealing for all. Symbian's not kept up and it's suffering as a consequence.


Fashion will play a role here. Apple and Google products are currently popular and are offering what people want. They are appealing, hence the numbers they are selling in. There's no denying this fact and there's nothing wrong with demand. A demand that Apple and Google are meeting and one that Symbian seems almost oblivious to until it's too late.


But they already have competition in this area too. Android handsets are being produced for the lower price range and are already available. With Symbian it's a case of 'in the future' they'll be running low end devices. Again they've left it too late as Google takes hold of the lower price market too.

This appears to be a pattern with Symbian, it seems all about what Symbian will do in the future rather than what it's doing now. It's constantly playing catch up to others, hence it's decline. It's certainly lost out on the high end market to Apple and Google and it seems like the lower end market has got Google creeping in there already before Symbian's started to have a proper crack at it.

Nobody's going to buy a cheap Symbian device if they can find a cheap Android device because of the points discussed already with the top end devices.


I think it will be hard pressed to see anything positive come from big names pulling out of a sinking OS to be honest. Brand specific platforms appear to be starting to take a dent in sales as cross platform sales are up.

That's only part of the picture. There's also negativity, and more noticeably a lack of interest, from the general public of buying users towards Nokia. It's not just press based.


BB should be taken seriously. It's a very popular platform. I agree that it's mainly business users who go for them, however it seems their non-business user buyers are also quite high in number. It doesn't offer the same sort of smartphone experience as some of the others, but it's surprising how many kids opt for BB because of features like BB messenger and because many of their mates have them - they are also cheaper than many top end smartphones and easy to get hold of on payg.


Which shows choice varies amongst people. The Blackberry devices are popular with kids, my niece has one and it appears a lot of her mates do. People tend to buy what's popular and what appeals to them.

Both Android and MeeGo are built on Linux and as smart phones are more like computers, than mobile phones of the last couple of decades, I feel they have the upper hand.

Symbian is based on Epoc the old Psion OS. It probably has too much old legacy code developed for much simpler hardware, to be really viable for smart phone technology.

There comes a time when software becomes harder and harder to update for new technology and it makes sense to ditch it and start again. Their is the argument about maturity of code being more reliable, but if it needed a huge rewrite to get to version 3, maybe Nokia should simply have put all their resources in to MeeGo.

By wasting time and resources on Symbian, they are giving Android a free run. I own a T-Mobile Pulse Mini £99, Android phone, hardly a top of the range smart phone.

So if Android can run on 100 quid phones, I'm sure MeeGo could, which begs the question, why insist on keeping Symbian on the cheaper phones?

If Nokia doesn't move fast it's going to become one of those yesteryear companies, that you never hear about, with just a few die hard fans still defending its superior quality and features.

I really do think some people are reading far too many articles about symbian dieing, whilst the market share has dropped a little, it is also pretty stable again, and the idea of them not selling lower end phones is strange and 5530 was available for around £90 last year and seemed to do pretty well in sales, along with things like 5230.

SE and Samsung never really did an awful lot towards symbian and since N8 is running Symbian3 I doubt you'll see many other variants appear anyway.

Personally I've had an iPhone and never got on with it (have an ipod touch now, and its still not the most stable thing I've used). Currently have an Desire and whilst is pretty good I dont get wowed by the app store so probably not the right market for it

By that flawed logic I guess that the new windows7 phones were based on win3.2?

No-one could possibly believe that Symbian has legacy code for Psion still in it.

Actually - I don't honestly know the difference. I'm asking the question because it's something that other people have said.

Maybe it's because I've ventured into a thread where you're all already arguing, that you & sotek are so suspicious of me? I'm not trying to be petty, and I have no agenda. I just want to understand more. I'm interested. I'm smart & happy enough to cope with a tricky UI, but I certainly recognise I'm not like the majority of customers.

As background, I've had smartphones since an awful motorola windows phone called the MPx220 in 2003, and I've had a load since then. I'm not a geek, but I like technology. I like the functionality that smartphones give me.

At the moment I'm interested in the N8 and how it really does compare with Android phones such as the Desire. I'm genuinely interested why there's such negativity about Symbian & whether a lot of it is just based on general perceptions (which is the feeling I'm getting from sotek's posts) or whether it can actually be tied back to facts.



That's very useful to know - thank you. No one has mentioned this middleware before (it's probably what I was losely describing as "other software", I guess). How does that tie into MeeGo?



It's funny that you mentioned Betamax. I was wondering if it was going to be a similar situation - a technically superior product, that simply lacked backing & ultimately popularity. However, in that market, only 1 product ended up dominating. Will it be the same in smartphones, do you reckon?

It also reminds me of when the Internet suddenly went from being academics, students & the military to being populated by the general public. It's like the iPhone is todays AOL...


Maybe - but have you watched the X-Factor lately?

Seriously, thanks for taking the time to reply. It's appreciated!

If there was a notable lack of interest, Symbian devices wouldn't be outselling iPhones and Android devices. Its primarily the stateside press and keyboard-warrior type bloggers who are bringout out the majority of negativity, which seems to be seeping into a lot of forums.


Prior to BB becoming such a success, I was supporting it in a corporate environment for years. Connected via BES it was a truly excellent platform. Seamless exchange connection, truly decent security and (at the time) excellent battery life (7 days of 24 hours usage!). But the current models don't have the same battery life, but at least they still have the unique point of truly decent security.

Thats extremely flawed logic. Symbian has evolved from the old Psion OS in about the same way that Windows 7 has evolved from Windows 3.1. Its had several re-writes along the way, the first one dropping the Symbian 6.1 app support (little endian to big endian, or vice versa?), but at least S^3 has got API level compatibility with S^1.


Symbian have ditched the old code base, or did you miss the press? S^3 is a complete from-the-ground re-write of the core OS. Sounds very similar to what Microsoft did with Vista-Win7 - re-write and make it work as it always should have.


Google don't care what hardware their OS runs on - they just want it out there in as many hands as possible, and as a result there isn't that much of a difference between the low and high ends.

The £99 ZTE Blade has virtually every major feature - 800x480 OLED multi touch display, 600mHz CPU+GPU, fair amount of internal memory, GPS, digital compass, orientation sensor, autofocus camera (which is too slow ). What do the £200+ android devices add other than maybe a slightly faster processor or a better camera? And those items aren't really that expensive to add.

The reason why Meego is high end and Symbian is low-mid range is just plain marketing and product differentiation.


Corporates don't move fast, but with S^1 it does appear as though they've finally got things right.

You could level the same argument against Microsoft. How long did they persevere with Windows Mobile? They didn't change the UI in any notable way between CE2.0 and WM 6.1. Despite this almost complete lack of progress people are still showing an interest in W7P.