Talk:Nexus One/Archive 1

Archive 1

This needs a photo

There are lots of photos (and a few videos) of the Nexus One on the Internet and I think someone should put a photo on the Wikipedia article. JoseySmith (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. This phone is brand new. Certainly someone can find a royal-free image of this phone somewhere that we can use. mz (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Input

The infobox is lacking an "input" parameter. Does anyone know if it is QWERTY and touchscreen? Timneu22 (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is screen keyboard only. I'm hoping for good B/T keyboard support. Skrrp (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Screen Resolution

This article at times has reported a screen resolution of either 854x480 or 800x480. Currently the cited source http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_google_nexus_one-3069.php reports a resolution of 800x480. Hgb asicwizard (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference style. Reference after period

I thought wikipedia style guideline was to put references inside the period, but then found out that it is suppose to be after the period unless the article has evolved with a different style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REFPUNCT#Ref_tags_and_punctuation   So I'll be placing them on the outside now. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

wp:lead

The intro should be a summary of the article and highlight what makes it interesting. One of the things that makes android phones interesting is the open source platform. I think this should be highlighted as such. Just mentioning "open source" is not sufficient. What do you think?   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for participating on the talk page. People who are interested in the operating system are likely to read the Android (operating system) article, and see more open source information over there. I think the simple mention of open source in the introduction is sufficient, the way it is.

As well, following Wikipedia:Lead section, it's good to keep the article introduction as short and clean as possible.

Comment? Other folks have an opinion about the current introduction section? Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the item in this discussion thread, someone has modified the lead of the article while ignoring this discussion. Uncool.

I have removed the unneeded sentence fragment for "open source platform" from the lead. The lead should be as short as possible. Further expansion on all topics can be made in the body of the article, or in linked articles. Please read Wikipedia:Lead section carefully.

Comments from other editors welcome.

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The person who removed the open source from the first sentence probably didn't know there was a discussion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone who gets one of these increase the depth of the tech description please

[Answered my own question about the slot.] I'm specifically interested in whether it can interface easily with standard bluetooth keyboards. From the diagrams on Google it looks like the micro SD slot inside, a confirmation of this and speculation on whether the case looks easily removable and redesigned to take extended range batteries would be amazing.

(Google - 2 micro SD slots in the next one, one of them very high speed please.)

Thanks, Skrrp (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a micro SD slot, it's inside the case, and you can't take it out without removing the battery (at least I can't). I guess it's a part of the move towards regarding SD as "permanently installed memory" rather than "memory that can be removed at any time". No idea about the bluetooth keyboard possibility. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

HTC Dragon

No mention anywhere... 118.90.111.248 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

After a reference is found put it somewhere not in the intro since that information is not of main interest to most people. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No Blade Runner reference?

The Tyrell Corporation's Nexus series Replicants from Blade Runner are the origin of the unit's name. --68.45.218.70 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Nexus One" is most likely a reference to Blade Runner, but the word "Android" was in the language long before "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was published, and this is the first claim I've heard that it was the origin for the OS name, and the Android OS wiki page doesn't mention any relation. Does anyone have a cite? (Daetrin (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Given that the author's estate was not consulted/compensated for the naming of Nexus, I would guess that you won't find any citation for the name originating there. - Gwopy 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Stupid lawsuit. Not noteworthy. Section should be deleted. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The lawsuit certainly is noteworthy, if it has made it into the Wall Street Journal and The Daily Mail. User:Daniel.Cardenas, your edit [1] with the summary "Deleted name origin speculation as not notable. See discussion page" is not quite clear as you also deleted all reference to the lawsuit. I have re-added a small, referenced section on it to the article. 81.157.194.110 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest: the term 'android' was used long before Dick first used it; Nexus, a Latin word meaning connection or centre, is the name of a 1960 Henry Miller novel, pre-dating Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by eight years. 81.157.194.110 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the Wall Street Journal prints something does that make it notable? There are plenty of examples of them printing crap. If we try to use common sense does anyone think that a word from the dictionary plus a "one" is copyrightable? Don't know about you, but sounds ridiculous to me. Would like to hear other people's thoughts about this. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes, to your first point - we go on what constitutes a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Mail both meet easily this criterion. I agree with you, the lawsuit itself might well be stupid; but the fact that it is happening is notable and ought to be reported here. Leaving it out will leave us liable to accusations of POV in our editing. 81.157.194.110 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As editors we need to decide what is notable and encyclopedic. I don't believe another frivolous lawsuit is notable or encyclopedic for this article. Perhaps it belongs in the copyright article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Android/Nexus link may perhaps give the estate a very small chance of success, but this does smack somewhat of using the launch of the Nexus to further the estates own position. The article could be interpreted as supporting the estate at present, as it gives only one indication of the use of the name explicitly, and that use appears to give credence to their claim. Perhaps adding clarification over the etymology of the word 'Nexus', demonstrating its long and sustained use in many contexts over time, would be appropriate. Rich Osborne (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that discussion is appropriate for a copyright article not a phone article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Apple patent text

I entered a quote about apple asking google to not incorporate multitouch. An editor deleted the entry as not encyclopedic due to the source not being identified. I know that many people want to know why multitouch is not incorporated by default and this is very good indication why. What do you think? Should the text remain?

"...An Android Team Member told VentureBeat that Apple asked Google not to incorporate Multi-Touch and that Google simply agreed. ..."[2][3]

Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I accidentally hit "save page" before I could write my whole explanation down as to why I'm removing the quote. Also writing it down here to avoid an edit war and provoke discussion. Not only is the quote not notable, it can't be verified nor does it come from a reliable source. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Quotations clearly states we shouldn't use quotes when a summary is better. This is completely summarized properly in the line before the quote. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The line above does not summarize anything about google agreeing not to incorporate multitouch. Are you saying venture beat is not a reliable source? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying if one of those three things listed above are not met, then it can't be in Wikipedia. Are you saying the source is verifiable? roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've summarized the unverifiable quote into the article. Even though the information not stay there for long, the article should at least adhere to as many guidelines and policies as possible. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying venture beat is a verifiable and reliable source. Wikipedia quotes does not have explicit guidelines when a summary is better. The quote is better than your summary in my opinion. Can you explain why you think a summary is better? I also believe others will find this information very notable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, now you're getting away from the real point I'm trying to make. You're telling me the unnamed source in both of those article is a verifiable source? You're also telling me it's not possible this source could be speculating? Because I'm pretty sure if we were to open a WP:RFC, we'd get a difference consensus. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying what VentureBeat said is verifiable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously whatever they write is verifiable. The issue here is this. Is the source (not that website) verifiable? Is this not speculation? The problem here is you have one cited source saying they talked to someone and this is what they think and another cited source here commenting on the first cited source. To me, that unverifiable information that's purely speculative. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:43, 11 January 2010 (U

Just rumor - Delete the article

Until Google has confirmed this (and they haven't) this is just speculation - that should be mentioned in the article. --IceHunter (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Article should be deleted. There will be no Nexus One phone launched. It's just an internal developers' phone. However, it's very similar to the HTC Passion. Seriously, this article must be deleted.--Lester 12:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Here I am holding this phone in my hand, and now I find out it doesn't really exist. You are right this article must be deleted before others actually imagine that they have the phone when it is just a figment of their imagination. 70.179.140.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC).

Google has confirmed that it has handed out *something* to its employees. Whether this will ever hit stores, and how, is still speculation. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is true the media got duped. That alone might be notable, so there is no reason to delete the article. Brandon (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The media didn't get duped. They just got it wrong. Google was happy to let it roll along, and receive all the free publicity that Google is into phones.--Lester 09:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Current rumour is that it'll be made official on the Google event on the 7'th of january 2010. So let's keep the article for just a few more days, just in case. Sammi84 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was wrong about the way the phone would be marketed, and it will go to market with the name Nexus One. However, I still think it will be the same basic phone as the Passion and Bravo, with only minor variations. Same AMOLED screen. Same Snapdragon processor. Same OS. I guess it will become clearer in the next few days.--Lester 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Price

Where did the information on the $279 and $379 prices come from? It doesn't seem to be in the cited articles and there's other (unofficial so far) information that seems to contradict it. (http://androidandme.com/2010/01/carriers/t-mobile-news/t-mobile-nexus-one-rate-plan-qa/)(Daetrin (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/05/google_nexus_one_announcement/ --86.25.48.130 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What currency are the prices in? All it says is dollars, but no mention of what sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.82.98 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Code names?

Is this the HTC Dragon?

- it has the model name PB99100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balmark (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nexus One is exactly the Dragon and the Passion. I don't know if there is a Windows Mobile version or cousin. WirelessSleuth (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the HTC Bravo? Is this also it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.6.6 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

TACs ?

Does anyone have any TACS for this device? The first 8 digits of an IMEI is the TAC, it uniquely identifies the device as a HTC Nexus One

The first 8 digits of my Nexus One are 35495703. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I also show 35495703. Skrrp (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Multitouch Patent

There is no evidence that phone lacks multitouch because of an apple patent. In fact Nilay Patel (who has a law degree) of engadget, maintains that it is very unlikely that the nexus one and the milestone lack multitouch because of any apple patent. As such I will delete any mentions of said apple patent. That is all.

Eli H 02:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeekyzebra (talk • contribs)

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/surprise-surprise-htcs-euro-spec-nexus-one-does-multitouch/ The original version of this article mentioned Apple patent, but it seems to have been removed. I've read various other mentions that the issue is related to Apple asserting patent on gestures and no such patent was filed in Europe where software patents are more difficult to assert[4]. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick search using google lands many articles asserting an apple multitouch patent [5] [6] and apples intention to vigorously assert its intellectual property rights [7] .   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Per more recent interviews with Google's own Android Senior Product Manager, Eric Tseng, available on the internet, sources stated in article... I have clarified the use of "multi touch" in the Nexus. It should be broader to the entire platform, however, it would take much work. From the mouth of Google, they claim Apple didn't have anything to do with it, and only that Android is "designed" with one handed use in mind. Tbonecopper (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)tbonecopper.

You can try "Multitouch" on the Nexus One by installing the Dolphin Browser available from Android Marketplace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimParsons (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be exact all, since version 2.0, Android has supported 'multitouch', in respect to providing application developers with an API to accept simultaneous input multiple points on the screen (dependent on the device's screen be multitouch-capable). What has been missing from Android until 2.1-update1 was support for a 'pinch-to-zoom' gesture in shipped applications (the browser, maps and media gallery), although third party applications (such as the photo editor 'PicSay') have used the aforementioned multitouch API to support such as gesture on devices running Android 2.0+, for quite some time.--Rfdparker2002 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have the UAProfile URL for this device?

I'm looking to see if anyone has the URL for the uaprofile, this is the X_WAP_PROFILE header the device sends when browsing online (not to be confussed with the UAString)

This provides a url to an xml file which has detailed technical information about the device

Here is a sample of the headers sent from my Nexus One device (intercepted with wireshark). Enjoy. Gamerman2360 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GET /ip/headers HTTP/1.1
Host: www.ioerror.us
Accept-Encoding: gzip
Accept-Language: en-US
Cookie: [deleted]
Accept-Charset: utf-8, iso-8859-1, utf-16, *;q=0.7
Referer: http://www.google.com/m/search?source=android-home&client=ms-android-google&q=my+headers
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-us; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17
Accept: application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache

March 23rd release date confirmed?

I see that somebody removed the 'rumored' from the March 23rd release date on Verizon. Has this actually been confirmed anywhere, or is it still just speculation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.101.252 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Many references in this article are from personal blogs and websites of questionable reputation (and significance, for that matter). Very bad references, overall. Dmarquard (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, one of the criticisms about 3g as a post in google support forums as a reference. Doesn't seem notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.152.161 (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Early days yet, but my Nexus is showing greater general signal strengths than either my G1 or mobile modem, all on the same carrier. It is especially good at giving basic 2G coverage in known signal black holes in my area. I'll be watching the 3G patterns over a couple of days normal use. Skrrp (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to object to the entire "criticism" section at this point. Most of the issues are common problems that consumers have with cell phones (A fee for terminating the contract? Seriously?) and on the iPhone page, for example, this section or anything like it doesn't exist. The references for many of the complaints are unreliable at best, and I could find and post a hundred random blogs complaining about problems with Blackberries or the Palm Pre if those phones had a similar section. It really cheapens the article and makes it look biased against Google. Instead of this section, shouldn't there be a general "Reception" section that includes any criticism, along with any praise from reputable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.232.184 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the fact that the criticism section seems biased against Google. User comments by Nexus One owners on review site have indicate that these users have no clue about the alleged problems with the Nexus One. Seems to affecting only a small portion of users. And the Nexus One (hardware) does support multi-touch. --13lackhat (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The iPhone page has a section on restrictions which I find similar. I deleted criticisms that had forum posts as references. You are welcome to add a reception section if that will help. I tried before to add info about the strengths of the phone but some of my edits where reverted. Strengths include open platform, available unlocked, backed by google and the open handset alliance.

Changing subjects: I agree with some people's theories that Microsoft is dishing out money to slam google in anyway possible. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@Daniel.Cardenas

If references from forum posts are not reliable should we not be objecting to the [8] reference. I think a public reception or criticism second should have opinion from the "public" and not just the journalists.

Second point, how was the point regarding the loaning of a Nexus One a forum? To be specific, I was talking about [9]

Changing subjects: You seem to be an experienced Wiki contributor, why not help make this article neutral?

--13lackhat (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a criticism section is very useful. It gives the information many people want, in a way many people want it. You put information in a table when that's the clearest way to present the information, you make a graph when that's the clearest present to get some information. So, why not serve those that are looking for a criticism section? I think it's really as simple as that: many people are looking for this information, brought together as one paragraph, so why not meet their needs? However, add a criticism section to the iphone article and it gets deleted in seconds. In fact, i only proposed criticism points to add to the article and even that got deleted. I'm not talking about the discussion here, not even the article. I'm discussing it here, because i don't even dare touch any apple related articles anymore, because i'm afraid of the squad of apple fanboys guarding them. PizzaMan (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC) PS i know about Wikipedia:CRIT, just don't agree and strongly disagree with the bias it introduces when having a criticism section in some articles, but not others of comparable products.

Comparisons?

Is the comparison section necessary? As it is, it includes only two pieces of information, and only compares it to one other phone. Should it be deleted? (I can't sign in here, but I'm unknownwarrior33) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.31.39 (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The phone is new. The natural evolution is that it gets expanded and then eventually moved to its own article. I believe the information is important to many readers. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking over this current section right now and am finding it to not be very balanced. Most of the info is praise (which I think is deserved), but as everyone here knows, for one piece of praise this thing gets, a piece of criticism can be found. I'm going to attempt to balance this section out a little bit and add a little more meat to it because, as the first editor pointed out, there's simply not enough info here for the thing to deserve it's own section yet. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw an editor added a criticism section to the article. What do you guys think about combining criticism and comparison sections into a general Reception section? roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The price comparison seems biased and highly dependent on the telecom plan & hardware options. According to the official Google site https://www.google.com/phone/choose?locale=en_US&s7e=, the standard T-mobile subsidized plan is "500 talk minutes. Unlimited nights and weekends. Unlimited T-Mobile to T-Mobile minutes. Unlimited domestic messaging including SMS, MMS, IM. Android Unlimited Web. $79.99 per month." 24x80+180=$2100. The closest ATT plan is "450 minutes, 5000 night&weekend minutes, Unlimited mobile-to-mobile, Iphone data plan, unlimited messaging" is $40+$30+$20=$90/month X 24 + ($100 for 8GB iphone 3g or $300 for 32GB 3Gs) or $2260-$2460. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.238.34 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the comparison section seems a bit biased. It reads like a press release for the Nexus One trying to make it look better than just the iPhone. Why aren't there comparisons to other smartphones/app-phones? No comparison to the Verizon Droid? The Eris? Nokia's latest offering? There seems to be a biased focus against just the iPhone. The pricing information in the article is also not accurate, or at least incomplete It doesn't include the difference between contract and non-contract plans. Are pricing plans really relevant to an article that is about hardware, when the pricing plans are not unique for the piece of hardware? iPhone gets special pricing from AT&T because it's an iPhone. T-Mobile's Even More Plus non-contract service price for the Nexus One is the same as for any other smartphone on their system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortedloop (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The comparison section is in fact biased, and adding a criticism section to cancel up with the "praise" given in the comparison section is not enough, because unlike "criticism," "comparison" implies neutrality that is absolutely not present in the section. In fact, the whole "comparison" business is pure rubbish. Leave that to CNET or a magazine. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. I'm sure Britannica would never compare two products just for the hell of it, unless such comparison had historical value. I am adding a couple of template messages because I am sure that section goes against a very good number of Wikipedia policies.--AndresTM (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

3.5mm stereo headset jack

The Google website describes the 3.5mm jack as a stereo headphone jack. It is more appropriate to describe it as a stereo headset jack as it includes connection for a microphone as well as connections for both a right and left speaker. The stereo headset included with my Nexus One has a four-conductor jack. Hgb asicwizard (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is hardly "non-standard" as well. The four-conductor jack has been all over phones since 2000ish... its quite common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.232.226 (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

How is Goldman Sachs lowering sales estimates a valid criticism for a phone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.0.104 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n

This feature is ENABLED AND WORKING. My Nexus One is connected to my 802.11n-ONLY router right now!

This may be the case, but we still need a reliable source for the information. Please review the following links:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Nexus One, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

PolarYukon (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional info: this is not a reliable source, but they claim 802.11n is not currently supported. Other "gadget" websites have similar information as of now:

[nexus404.com on Nexus One and 802.11n]

-.- heres your "verifiable source": http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=613294 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.191.73 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I empathize with the information you are trying to share, but Wikipedia does not consider this a reliable source. As well, the link you have given provides more questions than answers: exactly what 802.11n support exists in the phone? why has Google removed N support from the specifications? why doesn't N mode work for several users who have posted in the forum in your provided link? To post any answers to these questions in the article, we need updated specifications from Google, or from a reliable source. Regards, PolarYukon (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus-One/1654/2 - Step 14:The Bluetooth and 802.11n wireless is provided by a Broadcom (BRCM) BCM4329[10] chip. 94.30.88.34 (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What do people think about keeping the last 15 threads? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The default for MiszaBot are five threads, though.--Oneiros (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Poorly-written and unsupported section

The section read:

Users have been experiencing some problems with the 3G network. Those who lose their 3G reception on their Google Nexus One phone will been pushed on to EDGE, which is much slower. The reason is still unknown as to why this is happening, but according to several articles the problem lies with T-Mobile. However T-Mobile claims that the issue lies with HTC's hardware since other Android phones access 3G successfully in areas where Nexus One is unable to do so.

Cleanup suggestion:

Intermittent connection issues causing the phone to switch from 3G to slower EDGE connectivity have been reported by T-Mobile customers

--75.82.173.229 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Visibility under Sunlight

As a user of the Nexus One for the past week, I can certainly say that the screen is perfectly readable in direct sunlight, if the brightness is increased to 100%. The reviews referenced in the section which say otherwise probably didn't try changing the brightness setting before making their claims.--HackerOfMinds (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Will be good when someone makes a youtube video of that. There is one that attempts this, but it is shot in doors with sun hitting the devices. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with other phones? Is that necessary?

This is an article about the phone itself, no comparisons should be noted. Talk the iPhone 4 article and compare it to this :) Justinxtreme (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that. It looks out of place in the article, especially comparing to the iPhone 3GS and not comparing to the Samsung Galaxy S for example. Then I went to the iPhone 3GS page and there is no comparison to any other phone let alone the Nexus One/HTC Desire. I'm going to remove it. 110.175.254.120 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wind Mobile , Bell Mobility, Telus

Wind Mobile is the AWS operator in Canada with licenses in all provinces, except Quebec. They operate on AWS band V. Bell Mobility and Telus in Canada operate a new HSPDA network that is not compatible with the current Nexus One. Which sucks. But what happen to Rogers' HTC devices? What do Bell's Palm devices run on? What are their OS and AWS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.253.168 (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why no photo of the phone???

At the moment there is no photo of the Nexus One in this article, only the logo. Why is this??? Other articles about smartphones (for instance the iPhone) have photos of the phone, so why not the Nexus One? Please can someone who owns a Nexus One take a good photo of it and upload the photo to Wikipedia. JoseySmith (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Availability: United States section needs an edit

In the section Availability: United States: "... Unsubsidized phones have no such limitation ..." - What limitation?? This sentence should either be clarified or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.14.254.26 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole availability US section should be cut down to something like 5 sentences, globallly no one really cares about this.

iTunes Compatibility

In comparison with the iPhone, this article simply lists that the phone cannot buy from the iTunes store, which I feel is a bit of a pointless comparison, as the article fails to mention that you can instead buy songs from the Amazon MP3 store. I am going to add this bit in (Sk8er boi6000 (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

App Store Downloads?

What does the total number of downloads at the Apple App store have to do with anything at all related to the phone? Absolutely nothing that's what. Removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.145.207 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific absorption rate

What is the SAR rating of the Nexus One? Google's product page and owner's manual do not (so far as I can tell) mention anything about the results of SAR testing required by the FCC. I want to know these SAR radiation levels before considering buying the phone. — sloth_monkey 10:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Pixel density (PPI)

The article reports a pixel density of 252.15 ppi based on a source specification of a 3.7 inch display with a pixel resolution of 800 by 480. It is erroneous to derive 5 digits of precision from a 2 digit precision source. Since there are 25.4 mm to the inch, it is more likely that the pixel density is 254 ppi inferring that the display was manufactured with a 100 micron pixel pitch. Using the Pythagorean theorem, a 800x480 display has a diagonal of 933 pixels. At a 100 micron pitch, the diagonal would be 93.3 mm or 3.67 inches. This is within the rounding error of the quoted specification of 3.7 inches. Hgb asicwizard (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

T-Mobile Prepaid has data plan?

"Prepaid Plans: Great value, flexible options."

According to t-mobile, they only offer pre-paid data plans for the Sidekick platform. Going into depth about the pre-paid plan for use with the Nexus One is misleading. Yes you can use it as a phone with a prepaid plan, but it doesn't seem that you can use any of the data features. This should be made clearer. MarkTAW (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Multi-Touch vs Limited Dual-Touch

I find the word "multi-touch" heavily misleading on the Nexus One. It cannot even register two fingers without a high probability of performing an unwanted mirroring of their positions, effectively returning a wrong position for both. This is mentioned in the article, but not understandable to an uneducated reader.

IMO, we need a concise term to describe this form of dual-touch. I think "limited dual-touch" or "relative dual-touch" might be more intuitive than 2x1D, as (oddly) proposed in the article itself.

This is apparently handled inadequately throughout multiple pages on Wikipedia. It might be very useful to have an article that explains the difference between "limited dual-touch", which is reduced to 3-diminsional universally usable output information (avg. position and finger distance), and true dual-touch, which registers two definite positions. Also, the word multi-touch should be avoided if the exact number of parallel input positions is known. 88.64.99.64 (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased view of sales?

Were the sales really "notably poor"? Certainly some people have claimed so, but others have disagreed. Even aside from Google's claim that they achieved the goals they had originally intended, a couple hundred thousand units sold hardly seems "notably poor," it only seems small in comparison to blockbuster sellers like the Motorola Droid and the iPhone. Compare it to the Microsoft Kin, which reportedly sold less than 10,000 units and was discontinued after just six weeks (which the wikipedia article describes just as "poor sales," not "notably poor sales.") Daetrin (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Foistware tone

I tidied up the tone of the Foistware section, not to mention you don't need a task killer and the reloading of those apps is largely irrelivant: http://geekfor.me/faq/you-shouldnt-be-using-a-task-killer-with-android/ Potentially worth noting that they can be removed through the likes of 3rd party firmware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.32.95 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Done in the US

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/21/nexus-one-is-sold-out-in-googles-store-forever/ -- so it looks like the Nexus One is done for but I have no desire to update the article to reflect that 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)68.102.171.147 (talk)

This is not the only method of obtaining the device. It purely means you cannot order directly from Google any longer and have to go through one of their Retail / Channel partners to obtain it, usually from a physical store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.32.95 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The parent comment makes a good point. In several ways, the article says "NO MORE NEXUS ONES WILL BE SOLD <tiny>by Google</tiny>". Not to minimize the significance of Google's distribution channel, and of this news, but this article is about the Nexus One, not the Google phone store. For instance, there's a section called "Discontinuance". Shouldn't that be more like "Discontinuance of Google online sales"? TypoBoy (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Samsung speculation

Should the speculation about a Samsung Nexus Two be added to the future section? I can cite many reports on many different news sites and reputable gadget blogs. NexusBoy (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Plan info unnecessary/dated

I think that listing all the plans & pricing info for the various providers dilutes the main focus of the article (the phone itself) and starts to read like a dated sales pitch. Besides, pricing info has no meaning for the international audience. It would be better to just name the known providers and provide access to their current offerings in the external links section.--Hooperbloob (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Apple vs. HTC and Nexus One

Stuff about the patent dispute should not be in this article. It is pure speculation to say that the dispute will have any impact on the Nexus One whatsoever. Please confine dispute-related stuff to the articles for the companies themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Its notable that apple is suing because of patent issues related to the nexus one. There is no speculation about that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The N1 is but one of the named devices. We have no idea what Apple's specific motivations are, and the company appears to be agnostic about which of HTC's devices are infringing. When Robert Kearns sued the Ford Motor Company for patent infringement on his invention of the intermittent windscreen wiper, that action wasn't directed at specific cars using the invention at the time (like the Mustang), but at the company itself. There was no impact on the cars, only the company. The Nexus One will remain unaffected by this issue - it will be HTC itself that may or may not be affected. Adding Apple patent-related crap to this article is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many references that state otherwise. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164938/Apple_goes_after_Google_s_Nexus_One_in_patent_actions   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which are covered under WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So are you admitting that your statements are incorrect? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not clear to me what you are talking about. The fact remains that patent filings target HTC, not specific devices. Legal actions are filed against organizations, not devices. This is not a Nexus One problem, but an HTC problem. If, and only if, some changes are made to the software or hardware of the device itself then it will become appropriate to briefly mention why. Until then, coverage of the patent dispute here would be completely inappropriate and disproportionate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A patent lawsuit is about specific devices, with the nexus one being the one most called out. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But the target of the action is HTC, not the devices. That's a matter for the article on HTC. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by target. The target is also the nexus one as shown by numerous references. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. The Nexus One isn't being sued. It can't put up a fight on its own. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the references don't say the Nexus one is a target? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. But that is not the issue here. The overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources refer to this as an Apple vs. HTC event, with the Nexus One only being mentioned in passing (along with many other phones). Therefore, the HTC article is the appropriate place to document this matter (since it is a corporate matter, not a device matter) and continuously arguing for its inclusion in this tangentially-related article is rather tendentious, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which references are you referring to? The ones I see mention it in the title and not in passing. Continuously arguing for its exclusion in this directly-related article is rather tendentious, quite frankly. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't behave like a dick about this. A 5-second Google News search reveals the following top results:

• Google backs HTC in face of Apple lawsuit - The Times
• Apple lawsuit wrecks HTC’s quiet life - The Financial Times
• Apple vs. HTC: What the experts say - CNN Money
• Apple files patent lawsuit against HTC - Computerworld
• Apple Starts ‘Nuclear War’ in Patent Fight With HTC - Businessweek
• Strain on HTC From Apple Suit Is Likely to Be Long-Term - The New York Times

This is just a smattering of the top results, but I think my point is well proven. HTC will be greatly impacted by these Apple filings, but it remains to be seen whether or not the Nexus One itself will be. Without gazing into the crystal ball it is impossible to speculate. This is very much a corporate matter. If you think I'm wrong about this, I recommend you seek a third opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should take a step back and think about this, you guys seem to be getting a little worked up over what's really not that big a deal. This article claims that Apple said 10 of the 20 patent infringement claims have to do with the Nexus One. If that is the case, I think it probably bears mentioning in the article (but I would argue not in the intro). However, I'm not sure if that is the case: I haven't seen any other stories that have Apple specifically identifying the Nexus One as the target of the claims, and have a feeling it might just be a mistake or misleading choice of words on the part of the ComputerWorld author. There has been a lot of conjecture in the press about this lawsuit being aimed primarily at the Nexus One and Android indirectly. That being the case, it could comply with wp:crystal according to this line from the guide: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ie, saying something along the lines of "pundits believe Apple's recent lawsuits are aimed at stifling the Nexus One" is acceptable, saying "Apple's recent lawsuits are aimed at stifling the Nexus One" is not. At least that is my understanding of wp:crystal. TastyCakes (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I would say, however, that a preponderance of high-quality sources focus on the corporate aspect; that Apple is seeking injunction and damages against HTC for software-related details that are not specific to the Nexus One. In addition, speculation is all over the place that this is an attempt by Apple to attack Google by proxy for their development of Android - again, not specific to the Nexus One. There's no suggestion that any of this will have any impact on the Nexus One at all. Giving coverage to Apple's action here would surely be giving it disproportionate weight. The matter is already properly covered in the HTC article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, if Apple hasn't identified the Nexus One specifically in the suit. If it has, I kind of think at least a mention should be made somewhere in this article. TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All Android phones manufactured by HTC (expect their most recent) and a couple of Windows Mobile phones are mentioned. The Nexus One has received no special attention in this regard. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't behave like a dick about this. A 5-second Google search about Nexus One and lawsuit reveals the following results:

1. Has the image caption:The Nexus One is at the center of Apple's ongoing suit against HTC for patent infringement.
2. Apple Targets Nexus One, Maybe Google in Lawsuit
3. Nexus One to Blame for Apple, HTC Lawsuit
4. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164938/Apple_goes_after_Google_s_Nexus_One_in_patent_actions
5. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703807904575097392317555912.html?mod=WSJ-Tech-LEFTTopNews
6. http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/03/03/apple-iphone-vs-google-iphone-the-proxy-war-begins/
7. http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/02/25181.htm

I am making a claim that the Nexus one is a target of the lawsuit with refernces. None of the references you provided counter that claim. In other words your references are worthless as are your arguments as are your personal attack.

Agree with TastyCakes that this should be mentioned in the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a neutral party. The lawsuit should be mentioned in this article, and I believe it is significant enough to make the header. I actually came here from the lawsuit page to compare pictures. Mention it, relax, and move on. Nobody is saying the whole article has to be about the lawsuit. Billyshiverstick (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

New article structure

I think that the article should be restructured, as it's not doing so well in its current state. Using a formula that has worked to promote several phones and tablets to GA status (see 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5):

1. History – Tell how the phone was developed, the announcement, and production

2. Features

2.1 Software – Tell how the phone's operating system functions

2.2 Design – Tell the phone's outer design (sometimes included with hardware if not that notable)

2.3 Hardware – Describe the phone's inner hardware and how it functions

2.4 Accessories – The accessories that came with the phone and those officially made by said company

3. Reception

3.1 Critical reception – Reviews of the phone

3.2 Commercial reception – How well the phone performs in the market, usually with sales numbers

3.3 Other reception – Reception towards anything else that is notable (usually not needed)

I also think that something along these lines would work well across all articles on phones and tablets – y'know, a consistent standard. Zach Vega (talk to me) 12:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather go with a structure like Nexus 7 (2012 version) or HTC One. You're just trying to force the exact same format that the iPhone articles use. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Nexus 7 or HTC One follow the exact structure I just named. Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Please be a bit clearer about how those articles are better than the proposed structure above. HTC One for example is structured almost identically to the above structure except for a model variants section which the Nexus One page obviously won't have. Are we really quibbling over the ordering of features? – Steel 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting this article from scratch has been on my to-do list for a while but I don't really have the time right now. I'll help where I can. – Steel 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to restructure the article, however I just wanted to get some input from other editors before attempting. Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea this structure works although the hardware sections are generally placed before software, but it can transition to accessories more easily if hardware comes after software. The History section can be divided into Development, Announcement, and Production subsections if necessary. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

nexus one digitizer issue

Nexus One Touch Replacement-India htc Nexus One LCD Display Touch Screen Replacement Services We can replace your htc Nexus One tablet LCD screen front glass and Display assembly, thereby saving you time and money spent on tablet repair services in Chennai. This htc Nexus One Tab or mobile repair service is available all days a week in Chennai, 3/1,3rd Main Road, 1st street corner,Cit nagar,Nandanam,Chennai-35 htc Nexus One Screen Specification and price in india-Chenna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.69.112 (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nexus One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100108223433/http://www.google.com:80/phone/static/en_US-nexusone_tech_specs.html to http://www.google.com/phone/static/en_US-nexusone_tech_specs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nexus One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/googlephone/NexusOneOwnersGuide.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forums.t-mobile.com/t5/Google-Nexus/Nexus-One-Specifications/td-p/288027
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161025180007/http://www.techsliper.com/2016/10/google-nexus-one-launches-on-vodafone-uk.html to http://www.techsliper.com/2016/10/google-nexus-one-launches-on-vodafone-uk.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117123319/http://financierworldwide.com/article.php?id=10120 to http://www.financierworldwide.com/article.php?id=10120
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://android.modaco.com/content/google-nexus-one-nexusone-modaco-com/299078/how-to-unlock-the-bootloader-on-your-nexus-one/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nexus One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523002711/http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.2-highlights.html to http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.2-highlights.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nexus One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316230252/http://news.nexus-one.co.uk/post/449889239/google-runs-into-a-problem-with-nexus-one-trademark to http://news.nexus-one.co.uk/post/449889239/google-runs-into-a-problem-with-nexus-one-trademark
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100427020307/http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15952/digital-life/free-sat-nav-for-irish-android-users to http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15952/digital-life/free-sat-nav-for-irish-android-users
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714202910/http://www.nouvoyance.com/files/pdf/measuring-pentile-display-resolution-vesa-standards.pdf to http://www.nouvoyance.com/files/pdf/measuring-pentile-display-resolution-vesa-standards.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119042931/http://www.synaptics.com/about/press/press-releases/synaptics-clearpad-on-nexus-one-smartphone to http://www.synaptics.com/about/press/press-releases/synaptics-clearpad-on-nexus-one-smartphone
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512065547/http://www.synaptics.com/sites/default/files/Product_Brief_CP2000_01_0.pdf to http://www.synaptics.com/sites/default/files/Product_Brief_CP2000_01_0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402112258/http://whatswithtech.com/nexus-one-phone-feature-overview-technical-specifications/ to http://whatswithtech.com/nexus-one-phone-feature-overview-technical-specifications
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121115000/http://www.newsden.net/nexus-one-android-2-3-3-gingerbread-gr140-official-update-download-6795/ to http://www.newsden.net/nexus-one-android-2-3-3-gingerbread-gr140-official-update-download-6795/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)