A presto! The Nokia N85 reviewed

[slitchfield]

In Italian, at least. But we've come to trust p@sco's judgement and here, after a week or two of real world use, he pronounces the Nokia N85 as both 'very, very beautiful' and the 'top' Symbian-powered phone in the world, even trumping the Samsung i8510 and Nokia N96 overall. If you can read Italian then you're in for a treat.

Read on in the full article.

Unfortunately I had no time to do a complete translation but I can do a short summary:

1. the phone is solid and the slider seems to be a great improvement if compared with that of the N95. But there are some problems on fingerprint in the upper part (lucid) of the phone.
2. very useful function of zoom with dedicated keys that are highlighted only when you use the browser web.
3. the screen is fantastic especially for what concerns the images and videos. Furthermore the visibility of the screen is good also with intense sunlight. Probably, it is the best screen available on the N series and P@sco hopes that bigger screens based on the same technology will be available soon.
4. the software of the phone is one of the most complete Symbian tried up to now. It has very useful functions that other more expensive phones (N96 and Innov8) do not have. For example, “Update of installed Applications” and “Setting of Net”. This last allows the use of various web services that are not yet clarified.
5. among the applications there is a FM transmitter also. As already tried successfully with the N78, it is possible the use of the transmitter to link the phone to the car stereo during the GPS navigation
6. the system is very solid and stable. N85 has about 72 MB free that lower down to 58/60 MB with the simultaneous use of different applications. He used in a test the following applications at the same time: address book, Photo gallery, Settings, X-plore, Handy Taskman, Jbak Taskman, Application Management and diary still having 28 MB free. At this point, he tried to start RealPlayer also but the phone re-booted. Anyway he thinks this has been a very hard trial.
7. navigation is very fast with both WiFi and 3G. Web pages are loaded very fast and it is also fast in GSM mode. Regarding this point, it is better than both N96 and Innov8 but it must be considered that the screen dimensions penalize this terminal respect the two above mentioned.
8. the GPS has been used to Geotag some photos and for a brief urban travel with Maps. The fix is very quick (30 seconds) and the signal has been maintained during all the travel even in zones with high buildings.
9. the photos have been compared with those of the N95. In general they appeared good-looking but it seems that is necessary some improvements (with the next firmwares) especially for what concerns the macro and the night modes. Anyway as a first release it is very good already
10. the recorded videos are fluids but there are some limits if you want to record subject in fast moving. The play of recorded videos is not easily to describe: the colors are so natural that you have the impression to look something through a real window and not a screen of a mobile phone.
11. the audio is very good and it is better than that of the Innov8.
12. Bluetooth has been tried with the SU-8W keyboard and with the BH-501 earphones. No problems have been found with the keyboard that worked up to 3 meters. On the contrary the earphones had signal problem after only 1.5 meters (the same earphones did not have problems with other phones tried)
13. with NGAGE the phones works very well. The screen is marvellous and, of course, perfect for gaming. About the phone performances, no slowing down have been observed. The phone seems to be a perfect game-machine
14. the performance of battery is not so easily valuable because of the recharge when the phone is connected to the computer via USB. The first impressions are that the battery duration is similar to that of Innov8 and N96.

Overall: the best Symbian device ever tried by P@sco. If you do not need the DVBH (N96) or an 8 Mpixels camera (Innov8), this is the one for you.

[slitchfield]

Thanks for the translation effort!!

[BuhSnarf]

The bit that intrigues me is the comment about the battery life, saying that it's similar to the INNOV8 or the N96. I was hoping that with the bigger battery and the energy saving OLED screen that we'd see quite a big improvement of battery life, as I was hoping to have the n85 as my next phone and was thinking that the battery life was the reason I'd pick the n85 over the INNOV8, or even the n96. Currently with an n95 and battery life is important to me!

Are digital signatures still required for the more interesting software? In other words: does Nokia/Symbian still control what I can install on my own phone? I llike Symbian, and my N95, but the whole certificate/signing-thing is really starts to annoy the hell out of me, and is likely to be a dealbreaker for my next mobile.

I'm certainly not against digital signatures for software, and in a business-environment I indeed would like to enforce it, but NOT on my personal mobile which I bought, and is mine to control. I sure hope they have put in an "master override" feature somehow. Well, other than a not-so-official crack for Symbian.

[genXhippie]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Are digital signatures still required for the more interesting software? In other words: does Nokia/Symbian still control what I can install on my own phone? I llike Symbian, and my N95, but the whole certificate/signing-thing is really starts to annoy the hell out of me, and is likely to be a dealbreaker for my next mobile.

I'm certainly not against digital signatures for software, and in a business-environment I indeed would like to enforce it, but NOT on my personal mobile which I bought, and is mine to control. I sure hope they have put in an "master override" feature somehow. Well, other than a not-so-official crack for Symbian.

A very good question. indeed imo. This is one topic that needs to be openly discussed/written about more, but is oddly not. We consumers wouldn't willingly consent to the lock-down of our pc/macs tomorrow, but it's supposedly acceptable on our Nokia phones. Why? This is major issue dealing the rights and liberties of ownership being stripped away under the cloak of security concerns. If Nokia/Symbian were genuine in their actions/intent, then a "master-override" would/should be present to allow the actual owners of the phones to have final say imo.

If N85 has better audio quality than INNOV8, then N85 has the best audio quality among all phones right now since M-R said that INNOV8 is the only phone that can beat N91, the king of sounds, in audio quality. I think it's not a good review.

[Tzer2]

Are digital signatures still required for the more interesting software? In other words: does Nokia/Symbian still control what I can install on my own phone?

"Control" is perhaps a little strong. As far as I know they have never turned down signing any software except malware (which obviously none of us want to see on any device).

Also, it's important to note that the signing process is only required for apps that access certain restricted phone functions such as sending text messages or activating while other apps are running.

An app that runs entirely offline and doesn't interact with other apps wouldn't require signing, which covers lots of good software including most games. Signing isn't the be-all and end-all, most types of app can do without it.

The main reason for the lockdown seems to be the SIM card: if malware gains access to that it could cause all kinds of havoc because it's effectively an online payment authorisation system. It would be like giving malware direct access to your credit card and internet connection rolled into one, because SIM cards can be used to make payments in many countries.

There's also the possibility of SMS spam from infected phones, like e-mail spam from infected zombie PCs (which is now a very very serious problem in the computer world).

We consumers wouldn't willingly consent to the lock-down of our pc/macs tomorrow,

Actually, interesting point here: a lot of consumers would love to give up access to most software if it meant they didn't have to worry about viruses, malware, trojans etc.

In fact that's pretty much what people already do on PCs, they choose Linux or Mac purely for the sake of security. By choosing a minority OS they're giving up access to a wider range of software, but gaining a much safer computing environment.

[slitchfield]

GREAT answer, Tzer2! I was about to launch into something similar, but you just saved me 15 minutes 8-)

[genXhippie]

Originally Posted by Tzer2

"Control" is perhaps a little strong. As far as I know they have never turned down signing any software except malware (which obviously none of us want to see on any device).

It's not a bit strong, because whether or not any software has been turned down doesn't ease the fact that Symbian is dictating what software is allowed on our phones.

Originally Posted by Tzer2

The main reason for the lockdown seems to be the SIM card: if malware gains access to that it could cause all kinds of havoc because it's effectively an online payment authorisation system.

If your assumption is correct, it still doesn't explain nor justify the stripping away of final say(rights and liberties) from us owners. Once again, if Nokia /Symbian's intents are geniune(not driven by control and/or revenue through the signing process) why isn't a "master override" available to us owners? Why should we have to hack our phones now, to regain the openness that was previously available?

Originally Posted by Tzer2

Actually, interesting point here: a lot of consumers would love to give up access to most software if it meant they didn't have to worry about viruses, malware, trojans etc.

In fact that's pretty much what people already do on PCs, they choose Linux or Mac purely for the sake of security. By choosing a minority OS they're giving up access to a wider range of software, but gaining a much safer computing environment.

Yes, I actually agree , but you have missed my point. The minority systems are still open(not locked down) to the owners. So once again, why has Nokia changed its perspective from open to closed?

Btw, Tzer2 thanks for engaging in discussion.

Originally Posted by Tzer2

"Control" is perhaps a little strong. As far as I know they have never turned down signing any software except malware (which obviously none of us want to see on any device).

But they can block at will. And when the service is down, which does happen, I cannot install software which needs to be signed.

Also, it's important to note that the signing process is only required for apps that access certain restricted phone functions such as sending text messages or activating while other apps are running.

...

Actually, interesting point here: a lot of consumers would love to give up access to most software if it meant they didn't have to worry about viruses, malware, trojans etc.

Yes, indeed, and I already stated that I do like the feature of signed apps. And indeed, not having to worry about virusses and stuff is nice.. But it should have an override! It's my phone!

A scenario I'd prefer is this: a switch to be able to override software installations that can only be switched from a PC. E.g., when (re)flashing the firmware. Thus, it's a semi-hardcoded switch, which software on the phone itself cannot touch. When the phone is set to "protected" mode, there's no way software on the phone itself, signed or not, can alter that switch.


But here's another one for you: I've made a J2ME app, to be able to easily view my family's online photoablum (also home-brew software). Works very nice. But since it's unsigned, everytime I stat the software I get the message that it is "untrusted", and "are you sure you want to allow this software internet access?". It's my own software on my own phone! YES, I trust it, and YES allow it!

Too much security warnings have the reverse effect: people are hitting "OK" and "Allow" without even reading the warning. And that's what's happening now.

[Tzer2]

But they can block at will. And when the service is down, which does happen, I cannot install software which needs to be signed.

They could block signings at will but they don't. You've got to judge how they actually behave instead of how they theoretically could behave.

Having downtime on an app signing service isn't going to affect end users, and it will only be an inconvenience to developers. If you've spent several weeks or months writing an app it's not going to make much difference if you have to wait an extra day to get it signed.

(EDIT: Sorry about the earlier version of this reply, I was totally braindead when I wrote it... :-) )

But here's another one for you: I've made a J2ME app, to be able to easily view my family's online photoablum (also home-brew software). Works very nice. But since it's unsigned, everytime I stat the software I get the message that it is "untrusted", and "are you sure you want to allow this software internet access?". It's my own software on my own phone! YES, I trust it, and YES allow it!

I do agree they're going a bit overboard with these warnings, and maybe some kind of "unsafe mode" accesible only to advanced users would be appropriate.

However, the problem is partly caused by trash journalism like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7675882.stm

It has sentences like "One of common (malware) types we see now runs amok on the Symbian platform. ... These viruses work their way through the contact book, sending themselves out to every subscriber who has been called or has called that handset ...which just isn't true.

Again, I've used many Symbian devices for 2 years and never ever come across a virus in the wild or ever been sent anything suspicious by anyone. It's happened to me on Windows PCs, but never ever on mobile phones.

If you read the article carefully it's actually quoting entirely from people who make their living selling security software, so they're not exactly the most neutral people when it comes to assessing a threat.

That's the kind of publicity that Symbian probably feels it has to respond to, and locking down the platform is one such response.

Originally Posted by Tzer2

They could block signings at will but they don't. You've got to judge how they actually behave instead of how they theoretically could behave.

No I don't. In fact, I don't trust them at all. Why would I? Obviously they don't trust me!

Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnXU7z2_6Jg

Having downtime on an app signing service isn't going to affect end users

It already affected me, as an end-user, trying to install a piece of software requiring a certificate. But alas, the service was down.

Even if it does work, it just is annoying as hell.

I do agree they're going a bit overboard with these warnings, and maybe some kind of "unsafe mode" accesible only to advanced users would be appropriate.

Exactly

Currently only Symbian itself is a valid certificate authority for signed symbian-apps. (but please correct me if I'm wrong). In my view, it should be possible to allow for other CA's to sign apps as well, just as is the case with Java-apps. This would also allow us to import other CA-certificates, and even create and distribute our own.

However, the problem is partly caused by trash journalism like this:

...

If you read the article carefully it's actually quoting entirely from people who make their living selling security software, so they're not exactly the most neutral people when it comes to assessing a threat.

That's the kind of publicity that Symbian probably feels it has to respond to, and locking down the platform is one such response.

The security business indeed is a virus itself. "Common sense" is a much beter anti-virus product than any of the commercial offerings, IMO.

So in short: Symbian platform security IS nice to have, as long as I am in full control. The problem they are trying to "solve" by keeping it locked up as it is, and annoying users in the process, isn't as big as they pretend it is.

But, back to the original question: is there any change in handling the certificates on the N85?

Tzer2, if you didn't notice, the original question was if digital signatures were still needed for the more interesting software. Why you started talking about basic software is beyond me.Just so that you know... Some certificates must be bought and you must prove that you're part of a company to buy them, these certificates are the ones needed for the more interesting software. Could you remind us again as to what was so 'GREAT' about the answer, Steve?

@Unregistered: No, there is no change. You're limited to basic apps with all newly released S60 devices.

[Rafe]

The thing is digital signature / Symbian Signing etc. have to be done in a platform way and are to a large extent about keeping operators happy.

Most people will never notice the issue. I do appreciate this annoys some people a lot, but relatively speaking (against total devices sold) it is a minority. Symbian / Nokia tend to do design things for the mass market (its good business). And yes I agree, personally, that it would be nice to be in full control, but of course that opens things up too...

The crucial thing here is 'in my view' - perfectly reasonable to have your own view, but that view does not suit everyone.

I also don't really buy the it's my phone argument - well yes it is, but you buy it as-is. Fair enough - it can do more - but then thats true of a lot of products. People can want it, but should not expect it. (Though I do see the other side to this too).

The job of Nokia and Symbian with the signing stuff is to keep the optimum amount of 'people' happy and safe within the framework. This inevitably means some people will not be happy. It makes good business sense to maximise the number of satisifed customers. Of course this is a complex calculation - how do you evaluate of the various factors and components?

Now I think you can argue that they may have got this calculation wrong (or the framework is bad), but unsuprisingly there is a trend towards being conservative.

Personally I think the way forward would be to allow people to unlcok the majority of functions on their phones if they wish to. However would you be prepared to accept this if certain operators then said you couldn't use the phone on their network?