Talk:Nexus 4/Archive 1

Archive 1

LTE Radio

It says here: "While some more expensive high-end phones are shipping with usable LTE radios, the Nexus 4's LTE radio is not activated and only uses HSPA+ with a theoretical peak speed of 42 Mbps (5.25 MB/s), compared to the 100 Mbit/s (12.5 MB/s) that can theoretically be achieved with LTE." That the Nexus 4's LTE radio is 'not activated', this is incorrect. The Nexus 4 does not have an LTE radio; but rather an LTE chip that is inactive. Zovator (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception/reviews

Are there any actual reviews of the phone yet? So far the reception section is just about LTE, which makes for goods puns but bad articles.Citing (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that this article is very light on the criticism of the N4 availability. The phone has been sold out since November. There were massive problems with Google Play and the shopping cart. There were back orders. LG tried raising prices in places like India. There has been no word about restock from Google (or LG). Basically, there are millions of potential buyers out there who are upset that there is no supply and no word from either company when it will go back on sale. Most of the articles since November have been about how Google botched this launch, how the launch has been a failure, how there are angry customers who can't buy a phone. I think that something needs to be mentioned in this article so that future readers will know what a debacle this has been for Google and LG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.190.102 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done and sorry about this, the article seems to have been forgotten about for some reason in terms of updates... --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bluetooth Version

I'm replacing the unsourced text "3.0 enabled, 4.0 compatible hardware" with "4.0 with A2DP" from GSMArena [1]. They usually are very reliable source.

Feel free to revert if you have better info. Cheers --Chic happens (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Control

I've been checking this article ever since the Nexus 4 was released, and the content has gotten worse over time. The article has become a mishmash of edits from several people that doesn't sound good. Like "The Independent" and "The Guardian" reviews. And the "International Business Times," "Boy Genius Report," and "Phonearena" mentions. Where are other tech sites, like Engadget, The Verge, Ars Techinca, Slashgear, Mashable and CNET? The reviews come from general news sites, not sites committed to technology like I mentioned.

Also, what does this mean? "While some more expensive high-end phones are shipping with usable LTE radios, the Nexus 4's LTE radio is not activated and only uses HSPA+ with a theoretical peak speed of 42 Mbps (5.25 MB/s), compared to the 100 Mbit/s (12.5 MB/s) that can theoretically be achieved with LTE." Some people might not understand what 5.25 MB/s or 12.5 MB/s is. Are they the upload speed? The average speed? The maximum speed expressed in MB/s?

Also, the external link "Short review and list of reviews." The short review doesn't explain anything, and the list of reviews, the one with the stars, well...some are wrong. For example, Wired.co.uk is claimed to have given the phone only one star, but actually, they gave it 9/10. Certainly not a reliable external link. Also, "As well criticized was that the phones back glass as well as the phone's front glass tend to break easily. The front glass breaks around the speaker." Enough said. Also, why are the main reselling prices in pounds, with dollars in parentheses? It's not primarily a British-sold phone, is it? No offense to the British, but it does seem to have a slant towards them, the reviews stated above included.

The Nexus 10 article is a thousand times better than this. I am hoping this article will be changed for the sake of quality control. This is my first and my last post here, so that's my statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.123.170 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, it's always appreciated on Wikipedia. Generally consumer tech articles include varying pieces of information which may or may not conform with the standards set on other articles. It's unfortunately but we currently do not have enough editors to ensure the standard of consumer tech articles is maintained across the entire field. Articles such as Nexus 7, Galaxy S III were all improved substantially by one or two regular contributors with the help of many others who performed minor copyedits and styling and format adjustments. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be added to Comparison of Android Devices

Should be added to Comparison of Android devices? - Tried to do it myself but started messing up the table format so I gave up. Apologies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.243.91 (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's already listed (at the end of the LG section of the smartphone table). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Overheating and throttling

I believe this is a significant detail that should be put in the article, Anandtechs review for example covered the thermal throttling issue very well. Basically after just minutes of gaming, the SoC and battery get too hot so it drops the graphics chips clock by half, and the CPU from 1.5 to 1.1GHz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.32.39 (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add that to the article yourself; here is the link to that Anandtech review you were referring to: page 3. As you can see, the article is far from complete at the moment; I plan on adding some stuff in the future but I doubt the article will meet the desired standard of readers anytime soon. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Prices

- It made sense to change the subheading from Reception to Prices and reduce the very-subjective lines implying demand for the device is massive (as compared to what? -- 500k units isn't massive these days)

Why are prices on Wikipedia always stated in U.S. dollars as if the U.S. is the only country on Earth?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.97.79 (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an American company's product so it makes sense to put it in US dollars (otherwise it'd be clogged with other currencies). Also make sure to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). It makes conversations less confusing.Citing (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

He removed the signature that SineBot added. Next time look at the revision history and revert/re-add the IP's changes. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It was listed in US dollars because it was added by someone from the US. There is no need to get all worked up over it and have the inferiority complex appear. Also, prices are always listed in US dollars (and others in addition to it), since this is the English Wikipedia and the US dollar (also peso sign) is used by convention as the standard sign/denomination (as is in international transactions and economics), not £. And actually, prices should not even be listed per WP:PRICE. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"prices should not even be listed per WP:PRICE" - Have you even read WP:PRICE?

"Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. In general, if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price of an object instead of just passing mention, this is an indication that its price may have encyclopedic significance."

The price is of encyclopedic significance because it is the thing that makes the Nexus 4 stand out. Media sources just about universally make a big deal about the price. Therefore mentioning the price is in line with WP:PRICE DrHenley (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You can include the price but not as trival catalog-like information; so if you can state a reason for why the price is significant in the prose, including it is not a problem. The source cited also has to backup claims of significance. Also make sure the price is in USD, as it's more widely recognised than other currencies. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 15:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, this is in the style guide at WP:$. I can see an argument for there being no specific national tie (the handset is sold in multiple countries), but in that case USD is still perfectly acceptable, and I'd expect (although it's not explicit) the "first major contributor" rule of WP:DATERET to apply to the currency to use. —me_and 13:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

SD card slot

I had reworded the "no SD card slot" statement to read along the lines of "memory not expandable", and someone, in good faith, readded the "no SD card" bit. While pretty much the standard today, SD cards are not the only type of memory expansion in existence. Complete lack of expandability is broader, and the article is not accurate without mentioning it. This said, while I understand the popularity of the "SD card" term, I feel the statement is turned redundant for the sake of dumbing it down to make it more accessible. With total lack of expandability mentioned, do we really need to specifically note that there is no SD card slot? --uKER (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is probably that you called it "memory" when you mean "storage" - memory usually refers to RAM not storage capacity. While saying that you can't expand the storage is redundant with "no SD card slot", your wording is not. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I made a mistake here. As you can see in the article I never presented it as "expandable memory". --uKER (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Diagonal

4.7 in are 119.4 mm and not 120 mm. So which value is the correct one? --Jobu0101 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! It's all probably just a matter of rounding up the numbers. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't call an error on 0.6 mm. --uKER (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So shall we correct it to 119 mm? --Jobu0101 (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, 120 is much better to me, as a nice and round number. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The use of the codename "occam" is wrong

There is a misunderstanding here regarding the codename for Nexus 4, so allow me to clarify. Nexus 4 only has one codename, which is "mako". The citation of Google's Factory Images for Nexus and Pixel Devices page indeed does show the name "occam", because up until and including Nexus 4, Google used to (very confusingly) give devices and their relevant firmware build lines different code names. "mako" is the codename of the device, "occam" is the codename of the firmware Google built for it.

To make this more clear and evident, I'll explain using a different device. The Galaxy Nexus device, for example, came in three versions - a GSM/Global version codenamed "maguro", a Verizon CDMA version codenamed "toro" and a Sprint CDMA version codenamed "toroplus". If we look at the aforementioned firmware page, we can see 4 different firmwares for Galaxy Nexus:
"takju" for Galaxy Nexus "maguro" (GSM/HSPA+) (with Google Wallet)
"yakju" for Galaxy Nexus "maguro" (GSM/HSPA+)
"mysid" for Galaxy Nexus "toro" (Verizon CDMA/LTE)
"mysidspr" for Galaxy Nexus "toroplus" (Sprint CDMA/LTE)

As seen there, we understand that the devices codenamed "toro" and "toroplus" have been given firmware codenamed "mysid" and "mysidpr", respectively. The device codenamed "maguro", though, has been given two firmware build lines - "yakjo" for the regular firmware, and "takjo" for the Google Wallet-inclusive version.

Compare this to the title given to Nexus 4's firmware:
"occam" for Nexus 4

As before, "occam" is the firmware codename. Unfortunately, however, in this title Google were not as verbose as in the titles given to Galaxy Nexus, and therefore forgot (or intentionally omitted) the device codename, "mako". Otherwise, the title should have looked like this:
"occam" for Nexus 4 "mako"

Also, note that in newer devices, this confusion does not exist anymore, because only one firmware line is built for each device, and they share the same codename. So for example, Nexus 5 is codenamed hammerhead, and the firmware is also named hammerhead.

In light of this explanation, I am editing the main article and removing the codename "occam". Please comment here if you have further questions. Haha01haha01 (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nexus 4. 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/20121102005717/http://www.lgblog.co.uk/2012/10/nexus/ to http://www.lgblog.co.uk/2012/10/nexus/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)