Official Thread: Nokia C6

Me personally i'm digging this phone.
Any word on TV-out? That's one thing i'd like on my next phone that i'm missing now.

Some of you guys talk like this phone was supposed to be the next big thing, it's not.
It's budget orientated.
So far it looks to be close to an n97 mini, for alot less money.
No you probably can't hack into the defense department with it, but it's not meant to be a superphone, it's meant for the average jackazz to do average things with.
Stop comparing it too $600 phones and compare it $300 phones and see what you think.
Do you goto the ford dealer and complain that your 30k mustang isn't as good as an 80k dodge viper? Of course not, most times you get what you pay for, and not everyone is on a viper budget.

TV out and a $300 or less price tag and this may be my next phone.
 
I was little disappointed that Nokia didn't unveil any high end models but now I have to say that I really like the looks of C6, black looks GREAT! I was determined not to get any more black colored phones but now I suddenly could use one :p

Specs wise, as I currently use 5800 xm, the C6 is a perfect(ish) device to upgrade to. It has better camera (5MP) slide out qwerty keyboard (I really need one, I suck with virtual :rolleyes: ) and a widget home screen, all the missing parts that I have waited to try out next :). And the price is not bad.

I just may give C6 a go if Nokia does not release any really amazing high end models ('cos in heart I'm a high end user myself :2thumbs: )
 
What if you went to the dealership and discovered the Dodge Viper that was 80k has dropped to 35k now. And the 30k Mustang is still 30k???? Would you consider comparing the 2 then??
 
Well, if they had taken say the leather upholstery and AC out of the Viper as well as used a weaker grade of steel in the chassis as well as replaced the door hinges with cheaper ones (trying to think of a comparable to the N97 Mini materials and 8GB memory and tilting slide :)), maybe. It might be last years model too and be on sale because of that. :)
 
LOL LOL AGAIN! So you think that the bill of material costs is derived by taking the retail price and deducting the MANUFACTURER's margin ONLY? By saying that let's assume Nokia's margin on it is 25% (its actually probably much less) I am in no way implying/trying to say its manufacturing cost is $200. :)

And yes, you might be in the right ball park with $100. So adding $50 to that would be even more unrealistic while assuming it to still retail at Eur 220 at launch.
 
The only thing that stands out is Quad Band 3G HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100, a first for Nokia. Alongside Quad Band GSM this truly is a World Phone. But weighing a whopping 150g , it is heavy as a brick, way too much for my taste.
Nokia forgot how to make good phones.
 
Again, never said that. Where did you learn how to read?

If you go back to my original comment, i said that Nokia could have easily replaced certain crappy components with better ones in order to enhance the end-user experience. I think most users would rather spend an extra 50 to get a better phone, then be this close {_____} to a better phone. How frustrating is it to be a Nokia customer these days? Most people have asked for more RAM, capacitive screens, a better processor, better QA (software and hardware please) and better flash units. Nokia has barely listened. Their go to market strategy is completely disjointed, their execution is severely flawed. It really feels as though they are using a shotgun approach for product development. Long gone are the days of the N95 and communicators.

That said, if we agree that the costs of all materials and assembly is in the 100 dollar range, and that Nokia really wants the MSRP to be under 300 for optics (especially since it will dip below 250 within 2 months), there's a lot of profit margin there. A ton actually (more than most electronics actually). Where is it going? Probably not the retailers, most likely Nokia coffers.

Anyone else think something is terribly wrong with this picture?
 
Don't worry too much about Viipottaja, he's the resident nokia apologist.

Yeah, there's something wrong with this picture. If the phone had just *this* much more RAM... 192 instead of 128 even, it'd be a great buy, or it would for me. Resistive at this price point is OK, and the slower CPU is also acceptable at that price point.

What's utterly unforgivable is slinging this phone out with not enough RAM to run a RAM hungry OS. It's like a manufacturer claiming a PC is "Vista Ready" with 512MB of RAM and a integrated graphics chipset that borrows from system RAM.
 
Folks,

Regarding the 3G bands C6 supports, don't be fooled by the "press release" that UMTS Band I (2100) / II (1900) / V (850) / VIII (900) in one... As in the typical Nokia tradition, think again!!!

C6-00 / RM-612 / FCC ID PYARM-612:

GSM 850/900/1800/1900
UMTS Band I (2100) / II (1900) / VIII (900)

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas...me=N&application_id=424038&fcc_id='PYARM-612'

C6-00.1 / RM-624 / FCC ID PYARM-624:

GSM 850/900/1800/1900
UMTS Band I (2100) / II (1900) / V (850)

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas...me=N&application_id=474942&fcc_id='PYARM-624'
 
N97 Mini capabilities at the current N97 Mini prices are a sore mismatch. But bring it down to 5800 prices---and original Nokia list prices always go down in time---and you touch a neat sweet spot in price/capability.

I think this is good. Better value than X6.
 
Nokia should release N97 with more c:\ capacity & atleast 256MB RAM to boost thier revenues. No need to release these low end phones that require more effort to make them.
 
The quidance price is Euro 220, and often times the US price is almost the same in US$ (i.e. its not usually correct to use the exhange rate to "guess" the price in the US). So, yes, really quite cheap for what it has.

ps. To me the most significant announcement of today as C3, the S40 qwerty.. Euro 90!! Now that is REALLY cheap and could sell in massive numbers in many markets and certain segments, depending of course how good/bad the email/messaging experience really is.
 
djsphynx, so what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that they should just add a better processor and more ram which would cost $50 more in components, and then charge $50 more for the phone? If yes, my arguments stand.

IF you are instead saying that they should add those components and increase retail price by some undefined higher amount, my question to you is: what does that have to do with the C6, which was planned to and is going to sell at Eur 220? And don't worry - it is pretty safe to say that Nokia does not have a $150/phone margin on the C6. :)

Jonnycat26, thanks for calling me yet another name! Much appreciated.

Thetruth#34, good point (also given that the processor is also at least clocked higher). While there is more to pricing than components costs, at least a partial factor probably is the much bigger, better, TS screen and the likely somewhat better camera unit.
 
Back
Top