Nokia Takes On the RAZR With the 6170
posted Dec 9th 2004 5:50PM
It may not be razor thin, but the metal flip phone stylings of the Nokia 6170 is so obviously aimed squarely at the Motorola RAZR V3. Just in time for holiday shoppers, the 6170 went on sale today around the world, except for North America of course. Other than thickness, the 6170 matches the RAZR in nearly every other category. It's got a 128 x 160 65K color screen plus a 96x65 external screen, VGA camera, GPRS, and EDGE. However it lacks the Motorola's quad band goodness, opting for tri-band GSM instead, and it appears to be lacking Bluetooth as well- such a shame. It does one-up the RAZR by adding push-to-talk if your network supports Nokia's PTT protocol. Since our love for flip phones is well known, a US-friendly triband version will probably appear here well after the holidays are over (or just before they start next year).
Razr doesn't have EDGE, right? THAT is enough to pass over that one anyday.
The build quality of the 6170 isnt the best. Rumors says that a 3g (umts) flip model soon avalible from nokia! whoo!
What about ability to sync w/ Outlook?
:drool:
Such a sexy phone
I checked the manual, and there is no indication that this is a Series 60 Smartphone (running the Symbian OS). It is probably the more traditional Series 40 or the forthcoming Series 45.
The V3 is 13.9mm thick and the 6170 22mm. Big difference. V3 has a much larger display than the 6170, 2.2 inches, 176x220 vs 128x160. V3 is 262K colors vs Nokia's 65K. V3 has bluetooth class 1 means it has a 300+ range. V3 has MP3 ringtones and a great speakerphone. No Edge, but I don't surf the web on my mobile so I don't need it. No PTT. Nokia phone can only call another nokia phone if there was a service provide that offered Nokia PTT service. To my knowledge there are none. I love my V3.
Ewww...
I'd go for the Razor (half because the Razor looks kewler, and half because I don't think I'd want a phone without bluetooth).
That thing does not even compare to the RAZR
Yeah. That just looks ugly to me.
What makes this better than the Motorola is the fact that it isn't a Motorola.
Motorola=HORRIBLE quality
Is there a method to Nokia's phone names or do they just come up with an unused 4-digit combination and leave us to guess which are series 60 vs. series 40 vs. series 90?
hey richard, you mean a 30+ bluetooth range right? Wifi doesn't even get that far.
Hey, what's up with that big void above the screen?
Hooty, yes, and not to mention that motorola sucks by means of user interface.
Joey....I don't believe the V3 has class 1 bluetooth, to date the only implementation of that is with specific bluetooth dongles...but bluetooth class one has a range of 100 m which is roughly equivilant to 300 feet...outside....wifi has longer range....outside....indoors....no not 300 feet
The Motorola Razr V3 is an incredibly expensive phone. It costs over 700 euros (900 USD!) without operator subsidies. The Nokia 6170 costs only about half as much. You definitely need to take that into account when comparing the phones.
razr has a much cooler keypad and the razr is 262K colors and that in a 13,9 mm thick Package
i think that this phone could be nice but it doesn't have the looks like the razr has
and what is the price of this phone ???
hmm it looks like this phone isn't even full metal http://www.mobile-review.com/review/nokia-6170-en.shtml
Wow, that is one ugly rip-off. Nokia sells two kinds of phones - the standard ugly candy bar they haven't changed substantially in years, and shoddy rip offs of anyone else's good ideas. And lacking features. blech.
I agree this doesn't compare to the V3 (of which I'm a proud owner) but I don't think it's fair to say Nokia ripped off the V3 or even meant this to compete with it. The 6170 was officially announced in June, the V3 a month or two later... Why do gadget fans feel the need to "hate" on certain companies, whether it's Sony, Apple, Nokia, etc (usually it's the companies w/ the largest market share)? Yeah I have a V3, but I remember fondly my Nokia 8890, which was the V3 of its day.
The RAZR ain't all that. It's fat and weird at the bottom. This is sleek--almost Apple-like. Kudos to the designers.
Just wanted to clear up some misconceptions posted here... This Nokia might not be fully metal but neither is the Razr (or even the 8890). This is because covering the internal antenna with metal would kill the phone's reception.
The Razr is not USD 900 anymore. Its available for somewhere between 600 and 700, unbranded and sim-free.
This Nokia seems to be a decent phone, but is not in the same class as the Razr. True, the Razr lacks EDGE, Push2Talk, decent memory space and a functional phonebook, but it has quad-band, BT and the sexiest design currently available.
shipping this product
yeap
I've been after this phone for a few months actually.
- Long Story Alert -
I was excited about the Razr when I saw the first 2 full pages "coming soon" ad back in the wall street journal back in late july 2004. But then Motorola pissed me off by releasing the phone late here (and in England first) and only with Cingular. By then everybody and their mother knew about this phone (it's true - I know someone who's mom got it) and it lost it's "oooh, what's that?" effect - something my 8890 still pulled off up until its last day a few months ago. Accept it or not, a cell phone is a man's jewelry and a commonly known phone loses its value. Plus, the razr was (and still is)like $600+ sim-free.
So I gave up on the Razr. Then, When my shitty Ericson T60i was getting fixed because it kept crashing, Tmobile gave me a nokia 3360 as a loaner. And I was loving it because I remembered how easy it was to use. Especially to text message. I thought back to my nokia history - 6185, 8860, 8890 and remembered how happy I was.
So now it was on to engadget and nokia.com to figure out what's going to be a hot nokia product. It was the 6170 or the 6260. (It'd be the 8910i, but no go on the 1900 band) I didn't feel like waiting so I was considering the 6260 because it has some more of the features I can use (HTML browser, bluetooth), but its too big and not really that impressive. Plus, I really want a dual display.
So the 6170 it was and finally in December, it started being distributed around the world. gsmarena.com is the only forum I could find on the 6170 and according to users, the price is ranging from 317 euros to 4xx euros. some guy paid 490 euros for it in finland. And yesterday, somebody posted that they saw the phone in singapore for $390 USD. It's on ebay now too for about $420+shipping.
Trying to figure out what the best option is to buy this phone. I'm not waiting for the tri-band US version though. It'll take forever to get here. I'll take the 1900mhz unlocked version right now.
I'll post what I find to this section for anybody else interested in getting this phone.
- end long story -
"Since our love for flip phones is well known, a US-friendly triband version will probably appear here well after the holidays are over (or just before they start next year)."
Umm... this is kind of confusing me. Are you implying that the US friendly triband version will come out "well after the holidays" - being next year like feb or march? If so, then ok. But then you say, "or before they start next year," which would mean - before 2005? as in, within the next three weeks?
To Richard Best's comparison:
The Nokia also has MP3 ringtones + it fully supports sync of Outlook Calendar, Contacts and Tasks.
I keep hearing that the Motorola V551 is BETTER than the Razor V3 (besides the size factor of course). Is there anything that seperates this phone from the V551? Obviously they all have Bluetooth which is very important, but other than that, what is there?
i'm mourad i want to add me
The Razr's syncing with Outlook is disgraceful.
If a contact has three different contact numbers, e.g. mobile, office, home, it shows up as three seperate entries making scrooling an all day event.
The Razr does not have the ability to enter notes about the contact.
And even transferring photos is difficult. The only feature that works for me is that it allows me to have two different mobile numbers, that the Nokia does not.
All in all, Never Make a Pretty Cell Phone Your Life, ?u'll just find too much strife
The RAZR V3 is just a repackaged V600 in a metal case. There's nothing spectacular about the inside. But I guess with that price tag people expect more.
I'm not entirely sure why people are comparing the Nokia 6170 to the Motorola RAZR?
These are completely different specification phones.
The Nokia 6170 is a budget Nokia flip phone and when it is released on Pay As You Talk it will be a hard one to beat.
We have been very surprised about just how many Nokia 6170's we are selling at the moment - they are flying out the door!
And as stocks arrive of the new Nokia 7270 we are seeing orders on Nokia flip phones almost 10 times normal volumes.
After the success of the Nokia 7200 in the youth market it is not really surprising that Nokia continue to develop new 'funky' flip models.
LMP
Just bought this phone yesterday. If you're interested in purchasing it, read the story of my purchase and my review on: http://gsmarena.com/index.php3?sRedir=http://gsmarena.com/nokia_6170-reviews-812.php
cha_cha
I too don't know why people are comparing this to the RAZR. With the things mentioned in this article, then several motorola phones are like the RAZR phone. The Nokia 6170 is just another dual screen flip phone.. that is about the only similarity and that is just a category, big deal. It's not as thin, doesn't have similar buttons or styling, etc. And the features are different enough to not be contenders. This article is poorly written. Even if Nokia publicly stated (not saying they did) that the 6170 was the Nokia solution to the RAZR, then I would be saying the Nokia doesn't know what they are talking about. Because the fact remains that these 2 phones are vastly different in price, style and features. I don't know how you can get much different than that. So what, they are both flip phones with dual screens. I guess that makes them the same.