Talk:HTC Evo 4G

upload a photo

I'd like to be able to upload a photo like this: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/03/htc-eveo-4g-03-pr.jpg

Not sure how that works out as far as rights go, but it's a standard press release photo from sprint, so I assume it's allowed. I don't have access to upload though. Purefusion (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)purefusion

Name

In official publications, EVO is always fully capitalized...68.52.147.84 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

New Evo

I think that the two pages, HTC EVO and the HTC EVO Shift, should be combined, they are bascaily the same thing, The new one is based of the 4G model — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlxeMsatain (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, on the grounds that aside from the name, the only things the two phones have in common are the OS and HTC Sense, the specifications and everything else about the two phones are wildly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SudoGhost (talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

It seems that "large, vibrant 4.3 inch display" is a bit over the top. Just calling it a 4.3 inch display should be enough, no? Dwarfyperson (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vibrant should be removed, but large should stay, since as far as I know, the EVO has the largest (if not one of) screens of any cell phone I know of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.129.79 (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Undid All The Vandalism

I undid much of what the Apple tools/slaves did to besmirch this website. All Apple tools first clean up your own propaganda sites before you do so with this. I used this site to help me research my own Evo purchase...I replaced my primitive iPhone with this. It is a wonder of technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.92.11 (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The ad hominem attacks are cute but you could try not being a dick by asking me why I made the changes before jumping to faulty conclusions. Spoiler: doesn't involve me being an Apple "tool." Brandon (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying to you was that this website was valuable for me when I was researching the phone. It provided me more information than anything else on the web, even Sprint's own site for the Evo. So the site in its original form was a worthwhile source of valid information. My second point was that if you go to Apple product sites the same if not worse verbiage is used describing those products. Finally, this site has been up for a long time and it has only been with the release of the iPhone 4G that this site's validity has been questioned. If you had really cared about the quality of the page then you had many, many months to do so. What's the old expression...if the shoe fits... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.92.11 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And just to be..."fair"...why did you make those changes?99.33.92.11 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm a long time Wikipedia users and when I went to research the Evo 4G I found this disaster of an article. The first revision of the article, which is the source of the sections I removed is blatant spam. Wording like "The HTC Evo 4G is America's first 3G/4G Android smartphone" is straight out of a press release and doesn't belong anywhere near Wikipedia, along with "Focus on wireless entertainment" serving no purpose but to further Sprint's official marketing material. Not to mention "pricing" should actually be a controversy section due to the backlash caused by it. I haven't extensively read the iPhone article but it seems to be everything this article should be, discussing the history, hardware and controversy instead of PR spam. Brandon (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could do something a bit more constructive than just deleting everything? The "Pricing" section could go, but I don't see anything wrong with the "Focus on wireless entertainment" section as-is and the "4G/WiMAX technology" section with a few edits. Herohtar (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Both sections are entirely promotional. "Focus on wireless entertainment" and 4G are Sprint's marketing lines, not useful information. For the information to be conveyed in an informational manner it would require entirely rewriting the prose, which is why I've removed it so people can start writing fresh. Brandon (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

4G isn't a marketing line; it's a technology that the EVO uses, which is a perfectly valid topic for a Wikipedia page. I can't seem to find any Sprint material that uses the line "focus on wireless entertainment" or anything similar, but even so there is nothing promotional about listing the phone's wireless entertainment capability -- if that is the case, then every article that discusses a product needs to be deleted. Herohtar (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The HTC website defines the Network specs on the Evo 4G as "CDMA 800/1900 MHz EVDO Rev. A, WiMAX 2. 5 to 2.7GHz; 802.16e". 802.16e is defined as 3G Transitional/3.5G/3.9G. Therefore, despite its name, this phone is not 4G. Raptor45 (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

lawl just because you found an uncited wikipedia page that says that it is "3.5/3.9G" and not 4G doesn't mean it isn't 4G. The wikipedia page for 4G lists 802.16e as an early 4G technology with a citation from IEEE "System Description Document." Furthermore the page on WiMAX states that Mobile WiMAX (which is a "4G" technology) includes the 802.16e standard. 802.16m is " the core technology for the proposed WiMAX Release 2" which, if ANYTHING, would make it a 4.5G technology. WiMAX = 4G; 802.16e is a type of WiMAX; therefore 802.16e is a type of 4G - QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.2.195 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And I quote, "One of the drivers for the popular use of 4G has been the aggressive promotion within the industry of the IEEE 802.16e (WiMax) mobile standard. A version of this standard was, however, recently accepted by the ITU as an addition to the IMT-2000 family and therefore is clearly to be considered together with the other 3G IMT-2000 technologies." Source: ITU Also, "The long term evolution of WiMAX is expected to track further enhancements to the IEEE 802.16 standard. Numerous enhancement projects are underway in the 802.16 Working Group, and a more ambitious undertaking is planned in the IEEE 802.16m amendment project which, when chartered, would target future systems beyond IMT-2000 known as IMT-Advanced." Source:WiMAX Forum These documents show that 802.16e is IMT-2000 and therefore 3G, while 802.16m will be IMT-Advanced and therefore 4G. For this reason I believe that the section of the article is relevant and accurate information, and should remain. Raptor45 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, it appears then that there is a conflict between IEEE and ITU. While the ITU clearly does NOT classify it as 4G, IEEE does. "Although mobile WiMAX is not currently a part of the IMT-2000 definition of 3G " Source:WiMAX Forum seems to imply that the techonlogy is currently not part of 3G. It actually doesn't really imply that as much as actually flat out say it. The conflict then appears to not only be between wiki users but also the industry itself, therefore I suppose some section noting this could be put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.2.195 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous

The previous article may have leaned too heavily toward PR; but all of the useful footnotes (from independent reviewers and news articles) are gone. The useful info is gone. Someone with some authority needs to restore the earlier versions of this article and lock it down for a little while. Arguing over an adjective or two is fine; but deleting whole swaths of text is just ridiculous. PVarjak (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

very poor quality article

EVO 4g has been one of the best selling smartphones right now. But the article misses this point plus many others as well. This article needs major improvement with more information on specs and sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.100.98 (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this is a historically significant phone and should be treated as such. DaHebrewHammer (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The only significant points of "poor quality" I'm finding are a ton of instances of hideous grammar and incredibly long run-on sentences. 64.167.56.158 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I recreated the article, I can see that I have incredibly long run-on sentences. I wasn't expecting to find myself to be the only one editing the article. I unfortunately don't own a HTC Evo mobile phone. I own an iPhone, that's why. I just thought that the article was poorly written compared to what I made right now. I recreated it again but it still has many problems. If you plan on criticizing why can't you be bold and correct it yourself? Thanks anyways

Justinxtreme (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Some Basic Points Missing from the Article

Is the phone GSM/CDMA?

Does it take a SIM?

Is it locked or unlocked?

Will it work with other carriers?

Is it tri-band or quad-band?

Is it "only" sold by sprint?

Does it have carrier branding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.178.98 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

1) CDMA

2) No, CMDA does not use SIM cards.

3) Locked (though since it's Android, could be unlocked)

4) See 3

5) Dunno.

6) Yes, in that only Sprint (and their partners) sell it, since only Sprint has CDMA and WiMax networks.

Feel free to look up citations.

It's a general article about the phone, not a FAQ.

Justinxtreme (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be recreating the article

Hi guys, I'm not a expert or anything but this article is really under the norm of what an article of a phone like the HTC EVO should have. Especially since it's one of the biggest competitors to the iPhone. I created the iPhone 3GS article (check the history and see the difference).

The thing is though, I don't have an HTC EVO 4G but either way the article I create should be way better than this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinxtreme (talk • contribs) 10:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

802.11n support

802.11n WiFi support was added in the latest OTA update. The only references I can give are a picture of my access point's WiFi client list showing the MAC addresses and whether they have 802.11b/g/n support, and a screenshot from my EVO's Hardware Information screen showing the corresponding MAC address.

Sorry if that's not enough for Wikipedia, I'm just new to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.71.113 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues (page)

I noticed that there are a few new paragraphs adressing the issues with the phone. No sources have been linked and they aren't worded that well. Should these be removed unless sources can be supplied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnut64 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

US centric??

From reading this article it sounds like the phone was designed for Sprint; Pricing, availability, reception, carriers et al. Fact is though this phone is sold world wide, unless there are more than two Evos, and this page should stop reading like a Spring data entry. Southsailor (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article reflects the sources, the sources tend to focus on Sprint as the primary carrier, I suspect this is why the article reflects this. Do you have any sources that discuss other carriers? - SudoGhost™ 13:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in memory?

The article says, "It features 1024MB of eDRAM...", while the info box at the left says, "Memory: 512 MB RAM". That seems contradictory... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.65.168.24 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are also several other discrepencies in the page, it would seem as if someone replaced the specs in the article with the specs for the evo 3d. Screen resolution (Evo 4G is not 960x540) memory, etc etc. 216.152.208.1 (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with HTC Evo 4G+

HTC Evo 4G+ is totally different from HTC Evo 4G because it is only sold in South Korea as a GSM variant of HTC Evo 3D. It is more like a successor of HTC Evo 4G for it has a dual-core CPU. For more information, please visit the official site for HTC Evo 4G+ http://www.htc.com/kr/smartphones/htc-evo-4g-plus/#specs

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HTC Evo 4G. 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/20100424015924/http://gizmodo.com:80/5500343/sprints-htc-evo-the-first-ever-4g-phone-meet-the-new-terrific to http://gizmodo.com/5500343/sprints-htc-evo-the-first-ever-4g-phone-meet-the-new-terrific

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on HTC Evo 4G. 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/20090622225037/http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=127149 to http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=127149&p=irol-newsArticle_newsroom&ID=1434543
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722153051/http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/recent-teardowns/2010/06/teardown-of-the-htc-evo-4g-smart-phone/ to http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/recent-teardowns/2010/06/teardown-of-the-htc-evo-4g-smart-phone/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327024628/http://www.crn.com/networking/224200297 to http://www.crn.com/networking/224200297
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027085203/http://www.evo4gforum.net/htc-evo-4g-apps/appbrain-app-market to http://www.evo4gforum.net/htc-evo-4g-apps/appbrain-app-market

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) 14:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)