It seems pretty unusual to get a visual on an unreleased Nokia with zero accompanying info, but it
looks legit enough, so we're going with it. All we know about it is what we can deduce from the pic: funky color scheme (not bad!), external music controls, generously-sized external display (typical for Nokia), and a camera with flash. It'd be rad if this turned out to be some hip new low- to midrange S60 device, but we suspect it'll turn out to be some standard-issue Series 40 fare. We'll keep y'all updated.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Adam @ Jun 11th 2007 9:51PM
You know, if you take away the color and the music controls, the rest looks like a 6133/6126
Rich @ Jun 11th 2007 10:15PM
This doesn't look like a Samsung.
No...
http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/zoom.php?p=860&g=2
...not...
http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/zoom.php?p=855&g=2
...at...
http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/zoom.php?p=787&g=2
...all.
jaytv @ Jun 12th 2007 1:50AM
Rich, the most obvious difference between this Nokia and a Samsung, is that even in beta/unreleased form, it probably is less buggy than those Samsungs you claim it resembles!
chuck @ Jun 11th 2007 11:26PM
Rich, I hate to break the news to you, but just because it's a flip phone with a camera, flash, and music buttons, it isn't a Samsung ripoff.
Furthermore, Samsung is probably the least original big cell phone company out there. They've copied pretty much all of Motorola's latest handsets, including the razr, slvr, and pebl.
And this new Nokia, as mentioned before, looks very much like a Nokia 6126/6131/6133.
Rich Brome @ Jun 12th 2007 2:01AM
chuck,
There's something very specific about the design of the music keys and the bevel/indentation of the LCD that reminds me specifically of a Samsung. It's not just that it's a flip phone with music keys, etc.
It does look like the 6126 et al. The difference is the proportions. It looks smaller. To me it looks more like an upgraded 6085.
Nick S @ Jun 12th 2007 2:02PM
That thing is ugly. The color I mean.