Talk:Nokia Lumia 920

This phone is in the category GPS devices, but no GPS or Glonass is mentioned in the list of data inputs or anywhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.37.81 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

GPS with A-GPS & GLONASS Jack007 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It isn't under Data Inputs, it's under Connectivity. One of the main reasons is that it's being fed data from an external source, not figuring out the data from an on-board sensor. 58.165.106.227 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC) CrampetsReply

is not twice as fast It's 60Hz like most other phones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.246.142 (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi guys,

I've noticed a tendency for the writing tone of this article to slip towards an advertising style rather than an encyclopedic style.

When editing, please keep in mind that we need to use formal, objective language, and stay away from emotive or promotional language.

InternetMeme (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

I've noticed some confustion regarding the function of components of the phone:

• The phone is powered by a lithium-ion battery.

• The phone is operated by the Windows Phone 8 phone operating system.

One would therefore write that the phone "uses a lithium-ion power source", or that it "runs the Windows Phone 8 operating system". I have no opinion on which is more relevant to write at the start of the article, but please ensure that you don't conflate the terminology.

why is it not "powered" by a battery?

Will this thing be compatible with AT&T's LTE? The frequency specifications don't match — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmshmm (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes. AT&T Thursday disclosed plans to sell the Nokia Lumia 920 and Lumia 820 smartphones for its 4G LTE networks

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9232046/AT_T_gets_Nokia_Lumia_920_for_LTE_exclusively_ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack007 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

In regard to another post, RE Screen Refresh Rates

I doubt that "most other phones" run at 60Hz consistently. Sure, a majority can hit 60Hz, but that doesn't count if it's just sitting there doing nothing. When animations animate, or things change, that impacts the refresh rate, and in some cases, drops it well below the 24Hz framerate expected of PAL. Dragging the statusbar down on my Sony Xperia S for example, drops it's framerate from 57Hz to 6Hz. And rotating drops it to 0Hz.

Perhaps, then, Nokia are saying it's capable of displaying animations and completely redrawing on-screen content within 1/60s. Because my Android can't do that in 1/10s, which is well more than twice as fast, even though it also runs on a 1.5GHz dual-core Qualcomm CPU... Turn "Show Screen Updates" on, and FPS Test (Available in the Android Play Store) shows the refresh rate not exceeding 30Hz, with an average of 29Hz, even though the screen is able to refresh itself at up to 60Hz.

Is this what Nokia were talking about? The speed at which it can completely recalculate and redraw the screen, rather than the speed at which it can just refresh?

I certainly hope so. It's about time phones could display properly smooth animations...

58.165.106.227 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)CrampetsReply

You're correct in a way. While the screen hardware on other phones can receive and action screen refreshes at up to 60hz (depending on the phone), traditional AMOLED and LCD displays can't actually switch their pixels on and off that quickly. So during animations many pixels are perpetually in a state part-way between one colour and another, usually leaving trails and blurring the animation.

The display on the Lumia 920 is fast enough to make the switch between colours at an average of 9ms rather than the usual ~23ms. So while this still cant reach 60 switches a second it hits at least 30 which is invisible to most human eyes, and over twice as fast as most other phones.

Nik Rolls (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article says that the Lumia 920 supports USB On-the-Go, and as a reference lists a fairly poorly written article. I can't find any reference in Nokia's spec sheets to indicate USB OTG for this phone, nor can I find any information about it being supported by Windows 8 (which I would expect is a prerequisite).

Nik Rolls (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

yes same here. In future please use Nokia Specification site http://www.developer.nokia.com/Devices/Device_specifications/Comparison.xhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.196.81 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Only positive, biased wording. Tagremover (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Did you even read the section that you claim is biased? It clearly says that the device received mixed reviews, and quotes reviewers describing positive and negative attributes of the phone. 108.127.74.71 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC) -Joseph FreemanReply

Hi there, would just like to mention that while the printed Forbes magazine is definitely a reliable source, the online web portal forbes.com is definitely not. As Mashable explains: 'Authors, whether on staff or freelance, write their own headlines, upload their own multimedia, format their own articles in WordPress and press the publish button themselves. Unlike the printed product, no one edits their work. No one verifies the facts'.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.244.5 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

These sorts of edits need to be more scrutinized and edited heavily whenever possible. Forbes IS a reliable source, but Deutsche Bank is a bank. Chase/Bofa/RBS..etc.etc..etc.

in the case with nokia, or any stock, analysis from brokers, banks and "experts" need to be taken lightly. can't we ignore goldman sach and morgan stanley downgrading nokia while grabbing 200 million shares? Researchers and market analysts are not reliable sources, and neither are banks. Claims need to be written as claims, not implied as fact. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Vodafone Germany has begun selling the Lumia 920 in cyan, see source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekkertaðsjáhér (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the 'Catwalk' rumor mention from the lead section because it is not one of the most important points in the article - it may be once it is confirmed, but for now it's just a rumor. Also, it should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article (WP:LEAD).

I read the refence and the source says they got it from sources familiar with Nokia's plans. Could you provide a reference stating that this is a rumor? --Danieljmiller (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is a rumor as long it is not confirmed by Nokia itself. "Sources familiar with Nokia's plans" could be just anyone. Tom Warren doesn't have an exactly good reputation when it comes to rumors. --Lprd2007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you provide a reference? --Danieljmiller (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned the Portico update again in the Reported Problems section, because at least 2 of the issues has been addressed in that update. I tweaked the wording from a previous edit (that got reverted from an IP sockpuppet) from "fix" to "address" to reflect the fact that some users still had issues after the update (excluding the camera). Now that I think about it, I forgot to mention that the update also addressed the random reboots and bluetooth issues.

Each fixed issue must be properly referenced in its own "Reported problems" line, instead of just stating ".. that addressed some of these issues ..." --Danieljmiller (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree, I was just to lazy to do that myself :P --Lprd2007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the Reception section, I took some content from the Microsoft Surface article, which as a product it had similar complains from reviewers (including weight, some issues, immature ecosystem, etc.). You can see that overall, the Lumia 920 had mixed to positive reactions, most reviews were positive (7+ out of 10), some were very positive (9+) and there *are* a few very negative ones). But still, I'd love to reach consensus on this.

These are mixed reviews. We should delete such subjective statements and not tell if the reception was positive or negative. --Danieljmiller (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Every single similar article on Wikipedia gives an overview about overall reception before the reviews themselves. --Lprd2007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed the weird start of the Reception section ("Nokia 920 has been well received so far, It has been in short supply everywhere..."), "well reception" is a very subjective matter.

I agree. --Danieljmiller (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Sales, I mentioned that demand -I'm not saying sales- has been consistently high, which is factually accurate, it's backed up below by a handful of sold out and high demand reports.

There is no source stating that demand is high. Most sources only cite the sold outs because of the constrained supply. --Danieljmiller (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that can be the case given that the phone was on top of Amazon's best seller list, among tens of other retailers. I think that does mean that demand was high. But you may be right in that the tone is not so neutral. --Lprd2007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nokia Lumia 900 was also on top of Amazon's best seller list, but it has also been a flop. It seems like the phone is only bought through Amazon on the first few weeks. OK, now we agree that the demand was high in the past. But, declined in the present. --Danieljmiller (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed the Forbes sales report because it doesn't accurately reflect the Lumia sales (at that time, it was definitely unknown). The same holds true with WSJ's "The much hyped Nokia 920 has barely moved the needle for Nokia" article, which I also took the liberty of removing.

Now that we know about the constrained supply, we should remove more sources that don't accurately reflect sales. --Danieljmiller (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are no reputable sources confirming the constrained supply. The original source was removed. --Lprd2007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I also removed the Ubergizmo article not only because of the attention-calling title ("Nokia has admitted that they decided to introduce the Lumia 920 in a very deliberate and thoughtful manner"), but because the original source has been removed (or it didn't exist) ([1]), and the other two sources do not report such "deliberate" short supply.

The only original source I see is: http://wmpoweruser.com/nokia-admits-that-lumia-920-was-limited-by-cautious-ordering-component-shortages/ --Danieljmiller (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, WMPoweruser cites 3 sources: 2 don't say anything about the "deliberate" low supply, the other was removed. --Lprd2007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess that's pretty much it. The article got semi protected so hopefully we'll get more thoughtful and consensual edits instead of anon IP edit warring. Well, at least try not to remove my improved citations. ;) --Lprd2007 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please, revert those changes until we reach a consensus. --Danieljmiller (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would just like to add that the 2 version of the 920, the regula and 920T also differ in processor. The 920T has a 1.7Ghz S4 Pro, whereas the normal lumia 920 has a 1.5ghz S4 Plus. Source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/09/lumia-920t-snapdragon-s4-pro/ Diedjuh2 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done Vacation9 12:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In February 2013 the Nokia Lumia 920 won the Engadget Reader's Choice Smartphone of the Year Award 2012. http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/20/winners-2012-engadget-awards-readers-choice/ 136.8.33.71 (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done Added to "Awards" section. - Camyoung54 talk 14:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nokia Lumia 920 uses Bluetooth version 3.0. It is wrongly listed as 4.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.64.75 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Bluetooth Version is 4.0, 4.0 LE is enable with the Lumia Cyan Update. 71.79.101.168 (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was told by the AT&T rep when I bought this phone that he saw a video of someone driving a nail with it. This naturally eliminated any concern I had about dropping the phone and breaking it. Within a week I dropped it and the screen shattered like glass. I went back to AT&T and told them it wasn't a good idea to allude to the idea that the unit is very hard to break. They referred me to Nokia for warranty, who then lead me to a repair company in Alabama for the repair. Insured freight included, the cost of the repair is over $200...I paid $325 for the phone, so this isn't going to happen. Just thought someone might need to be forewarned of this because it almost seems like a scam. (Rvititoe (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC))Reply

• This is unfortunate for you. I have, however, thrown my phone around, without a case, just to demonstrate the durability of this phone. In two years, I have not had this phone break on me once. 71.79.101.168 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

i am suggesting that only one article (either with the current Lumia 920 name or with the word "series" added at the end) should be used for all these phones. The LG Optimus One article lists at least 10 carrier variants, but they are all present on one article with a brief description of the variants. Even the Lumia 520 and 521 share just an article, and the 525 ought to be merged with the 520 article. The same should be done for the Lumia 920, 925 and 928. Please let me know if there are any objections. Thanks, --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Do not support — Lumia 925 and 928 are different devices with different features and design, and they were also made for different markets. -Mardus (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Do Not Support. The 925 is as different as the 1020 from the 920. The 928 (Verizon Only) is not as different though, that article could be merged. 71.79.101.168 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Do not Support. The 925 and 920 while similar, they are not the same phone. Not only from the clear design aspects; example being materials used, the actual design, where some of the ports are, screen, camera (rather big noticeable difference), and other noticeable differences. The 521 and 520 are almost indistinguishable from each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elitewolverine (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

There's currently a dispute over which GPU is inside the Lumia 920T (Chinese variant). The following sources claim it's the Adreno 320:

• http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_lumia_920t_has_adreno_320_gpu_instead_of_adreno_225-news-5062.php
• http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/09/lumia-920t-snapdragon-s4-pro
• http://www.neowin.net/news/chinas-nokia-lumia-920t-gets-supercharged-with-a-faster-adreno-320-gpu
• http://www.slashgear.com/nokia-lumia-920t-leaks-comes-with-faster-snapdragon-s4-and-adreno-320-gpu-09256354
• http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/china-s-rumored-lumia-920t-has-faster-processor-than-us-version-1111492

The original source appears to be China Mobile, through their Sina Weibo page.

However, editor Wind-waves is disputing that, based on the following two sources:

• http://games.cntv.cn/2012/news_01_1120/121977.shtml
• http://news.mydrivers.com/1/247/247329.htm

I don't speak Chinese, but based on rough online translations it seems someone posted on social media a photo of a 920T showing the MSM8260A chipset, which has the Adreno 225 graphics, and the sources therefore conclude that the earlier information was a false rumour. @Wind-waves: please clarify if I've misunderstood or left out something important.

I'm not familiar with Chinese news sites, so I don't know how to determine the reliability of those two sources. I've looked hard for English sources, but everything I've found only supports the current information (MSM8960T + A320). I'm hoping that moving the discussion to this talk page will attract input from other editors so we can arrive at some sort of consensus. Indrek (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank for your help, @Indrek: , and I want to add another reference, which shows the original source was first appeared in the China mobile's official news site. However, China mobile is a carrier, not a reviewer or a media. Therefore it is possible for China mobile to make mistakes .

The author in ZOL (a very big Chinese site) also said "刚才我们已经说过了诺基亚920/920T的配置，并且在移动版的发布会也确认是高通 骁龙Snapdragon MSM8260A无疑", which means "We have talked about the hardware of the Lumia 920/920T just now, and we also confirmed the Lumia 920T uses the Snapdragon MSM8260A in the China mobile's announcement." (I changed arrangement and some words but it does not affect the meaning.)Wind-waves (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• http://mobile.zol.com.cn/340/3405415.html

Video call — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.183.47 (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply