iPhone Review Series: iPhone vs. BlackBerry 8700 - Page 2

There seems to be one glaring oversight in this review, one that I think really makes the iPhone a non-starter for people considering switching from any BB or qwerty smartphone device. How is lengthy amounts of typing on the iPhone compared to your BB???

I personally haven't used the iPhone, but what I've gathered from the many reviews and opinions of friends who actually own the device, it seems to be only "ok" at lengthy typing or excessive SMSing. I think this is a critically point, because of the ever increasing amount of text messaging going on in North America, and it's dominance over voice in Asia.

I am sorry but i just do not get the point of this article, you are comparing a phone designed for consumer use with a phone designed for business use. The excuse that it is designed to help people who may be thinking of migrating from a blackberry 8700 to an iPhone has overlooked one very important thing...

The vast majority of blacberry customers are corporate customers and the majority of these people do not supply their own phones but use work supplied blackberry. The people responsible for purchasing decisions with regard to the corporate communciations portfolio are extremely unlikely to be buying an iphone to replace Blackberry, not for a long time yet anyway.

The only people who are likely to move from Blackberry to iPhone are the people who own one for personal use or are self employed, this is a small proportion of Blackberry users.

I hope it is running on unleaded! Apple have a greener image to maintain now, you know...

The one issue that was not addressed in the otherwise good review was audio quality of the iphone vs. the blackberry? Doesn't anyone use cellphones to talk anymore? And what about Verizon vs. AT&T service? I have used Sprint and AT&T with a Treo and I find the Sprint service (which is often badmouthed) to be of better quality and consistency than AT&T.

Acousticat from NJ

Not at issue. Typing on the iPhone is a breeze after a couple of weeks.

I think there will always be differing opinions on this type of thing based on personal preference and what certain people become used to. I think typing long messages on the T-Mobile Sidekick with its horizontal keyboard is easier than typing long messages on vertical keyboards. But once you've used the vertical keyboard long enough you get used to it.

With the iPhone its easier to type long messages in the horizontal keyboard. In this mode the buttons are larger than they are on the Blackberry. At this point I can type horizontally without looking at the keyboard because the keys are always in the same place. The vertical keyboard is more difficult because the buttons are smaller. Since you cannot feel the button you have to be more purposeful about your target. The letter you hit flashes above your finger you can always see if you hit the right or wrong letter.

User experiences will vary, but I played with an iPhone for a few minutes and almost instantly felt at home with the "keyboard". It's much better for me than just about any other handheld device (save for game units like GBA) because the keys aren't so freaking stiff. Hopefully v.2 will be available by the time I can justify buying one.

Lately when I've heard people say this I ask them what would they want in the second version. Since the entire UI is software there is little they could add to v.2 that they could not add now.

The audio quality is equal between the phones if you ask me. I wish both of them had a louder ear piece though (I am around loud noises during parts of the days).

If you mean Service by how they treat me, they are the same but it seems I can get in and out of the AT&T store faster. Verizon is king in my region so Service as in coverage area AT&T is behind.

The iPhone was using EDGE, which was the purpose of the comparison. As EDGE is about as available as 3G on my Sprint service, anything else wouldn't be meaningful. WiFi is far too spotty to be generally useful. Not cached, a new page for both. Besides a cached page is an old page.

I'm not saying that there won't be improvements on the iPhone. I've continually said otherwise.

But we have to compare what we have now, not what might be here sometime down the road. After all, wireless services will be hitting several hundred Mb/s, we surely can't compare a service today to that either.

As you've read, I'm waiting untol 3G and official support for third party software is available for the iPhone. Sure, I'd love GPS as well.

I agree that this is an evolving project. But, we all have our requirements. They are valid for everyone, no matter what they may be.

It's actually still valid.

If the 150kb/s (max) service is about equal to the 800kb/s (max) service in a number of attempts, then you know that there is a good possibility that it is doing well, whereas the "faster" service isn't.

If the faster service is noticeably faster, then you can see the difference when conditions are more favorable to the faster service, if the slower one is performing as fast as you've experienced it to be.

The same thing would be true from the same carrier. The 3G and slower services are running on different hardware (on the carrier end), using different software. The carrier might have good speeds on one of those services, and good coverage, but poor service on the other service, as well as poor service.

Performing well on one doesn't mean that performance on the other is automatically equal, and often isn't.

All that you can do is to try it a number of times, and see what happens.

I don't understand that Teno. Are you saying that Apple can't add more to a v.2 than they could add to this, as far as software goes?

The only natural way I can see software being added to v.2 that could not be added to v.1 would be because of additional hardware: GPS, video recording.

With all hardware being equal the only reason I can see v.2 getting software that v.1 doesn't is an artificial way to sell v.2.

Apple could do this but it doesn't make much sense.

If v 2 is an OS upgrade, as we get with our computer OS, tgen extra abilities could make much improved, or new software possible.

After all, software that exists now, in some cases, couldn't be written for earlier versions of the OS, or, at least, the superior features wouldn't be there.

What would prevent an OS upgrade in v.1?

I'm a bit confused here.

My assumption was that, from what you were saying, that v1 and v2 referred to OS upgrades, not device upgrades.

You were talking about the hardware being equal in the v1 and v2. That doesn't leave any room for change in the hardware, so you must have been talking about software.

If not, I really don't see how we can have a v2 phone without, as you said:


But, then you said:


It wouldn't be a v2 device if that were true. It would be the exact same device.

That's essentially the crux of my point. The majority of iPhone's functionality is software. Without significant hardware changes there is little a v.2 could do that v.1 could not do with a software upgrade.

Without hardware changes the only reason v.2 would come with software that v.1 does not is to purely make a v.2. Without hardware changes v.1 and v.2 are the exact same device with v.2 having newer software. Apple will have only created an artificial barrier to have a v.2. Which makes little sense.

My understanding of Apple's policy for the iPhone, is to update, or upgrade the software, I would imagine, including the OS, to, as they said, add features, fix bugs, etc.

You don't have to upgrade the hardware to do that.

In most phones with a touch keyboard, the keyboard is fixed, it can't be changed.

But Apple can look at how people are reacting, and re-do it if they wish. Going to horizontal in all programs. That would be adding a feature.

Obviously, features that require new hardware can't be added to older models, just like computers, but otherwise, sure.

Apple could add target disk functions like the iPods have now. There could be any number of things the hardware supports that Apple hasn't supported as yet. We don't know.

Just remember that newer OS's add functionality to current hardware.

This is THE comparison that so many of us Blackberry users were hoping for.
Thank you for a detailed, careful analysis.

We have to admit that is the first of a kind, and nobody is perfect. So iPhone still will shake the World, no doubt...Blackberry is great, functionality is amazing, but Apple is Apple, The name speaks for itself, i choose Apple iPhone...

iPhone is version 1.0 and for that only is a fenomenal product; If they improve it over time
like an iPod it is really going to kill all over the world. Right now I rather opt for Blackberry - you can take it literally anywhere and have your email delivered realtime...

The BlackBerry's browser is easier to use than Safari.
The BlackBerry is way ahead of the iPhone.
You were comparing an old BlackBerry.
If you want a fair, unbiased[towards Apple, something very common], then compare the crappy iPhone with a Pearl or a Curve.
In your post, you also fan Mac a lot, the iPhone will not be familiar to users who use Windows or Linux.
Also, the iPhone is not very friendly with Windows or Linux.

Ever heard of the BlackBerry Pearl or Curve.
Got to http://forums.crackberry.com and you will know how much BlackBerry users use the BlackBerry's for multimedia.
AS I said, the Pearl and Curve are eons ahead of the iPhone.
they have WiFi, and a better Camera, that takes Video, has a flash, and a self-portrait mirror.

Maybe fair enough on the Curve, it was released a couple months before iPhone. The charge is definitely not realistic the Pearl. This article was written in July. Pearl was introduced in September.

But a micro trackball? Are you kidding? How is that going to help something be easier?


iPhone doesn't use the Mac UI. The Blackberries aren't like the Windows UI either. These aren't mystery devices.


Windows? That's not true. Linux desktop users aren't Apple's target market. Looking up the sync tutirials, it doesn't look like Blackberries are Linux-friendly either.

I happen to think that both the Pearl and the curve are terrible phones. Both break the purpose of a Blackberry, that is, making typing very easy, and quick. RIM went for easy sales with these, figuring that the general population would want a more normally shaped phone. But, they then found that they had to give up the very essence of a Blackberry to produce them. They are hardly worth buying, if what you really want is a great e-mail experience both ways. The new screens don't help either.

Oh yeah, who cares about Linux?

I care about Linux.
Have you ever heard of the 7100 series?
The Pearl series?
All of them are the same width as the iPhone.
And you can scroll in all four directions
I agree, I am not as comfortable with the trackball, s I was with the earlier trackwheel, but I still find it better than the iPhone.
What kind of Smartphone/Multimedia phone released in the second half of 2007, comes with a 2MP camera, without flash, or video recording?
In short, the iPhone has more cons than pros.

That would never happen. Its a chance to bring out a new phone so why would any phone company update the OS on an existing model. And before you say you had it with SE, SE have neverupdated the UIQ version on an exisiting phone.

Why would any phone company give a rebate back when we all went into it knowing the price up front?

I think traditionally you are correct but with the iPhone I would like to think we get an upgrade in software up until the hardware can't accommodate.

When I said, "Who cares about Linux?", I meant from a marketshare concern. Linux is at 0.57% marketshare, and I'm not sure if that's domestic, where currently that's the highest usage, or worldwide.

Sure, I know all of their models. There's no secret about them. For those I've not tried, I've seen on Phone Scoop, a site I visit regularly:

http://www.phonescoop.com/

But, I was commenting on the particular models you mentioned as examples.

I think even less of the 7100 series. It doesn't even have an alphanumeric keyboard. That's two steps backwards, it's like the Pearls. The curve looks as though it's a clone of my Treo 700p which is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but both the Curve and the Treo are bitches to type on, and the 320 x 240 is noticeably worse than the 320 x 320 screen of my Treo.

There's no question that the iPhone is a better phone, even though it currently lacks some features. The reason is because while the features will be added, and can be added, in many cases, by software, while others will require hardware upgraded models, the form factor, the OS, and much else is much superior from the start, and RIM doesn't even come close. They would have to redesign from scratch.

By the time they do, from what I'm seeing reported from business publications, Apple will have much of their market.

That's been true in the Past. The iPhone changes everything. I've never been able to update any of my Palm phones with anything other than point updates.

But, of course, the iPhone is totally different. It's built around the OS. As long as the hardware supports the features, I feel confident that Apple will update the OS further than it has already, possibly even with a full v. 2.

The iPhone still will not capture the market share that the BlackBerry has captured.
Also, melgrross is wrong, there are more Linux users in this world than Mac users.
You say tat the Pearl and Curve suck, I say the iphone sucks.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Source?

There is absolutely no way that the number of Linux users even APPROACHES the number of Mac users. no way at all. The percentage wasn't my number.

Somehow, Linux users have a very inflated idea of how well Linux has been doing over the years. Every year for the past five or six years has been called The Year When Linux Use On The Desktop Would Break Out. But it hasn't happened yet, and it may never happen. In fact, I've seen more Linux users at the Linux convention here in NYC every year using MacBooks and MBP's then ever before.

And while at first, most (but not all) were running Linux on them, and the earlier iBooks and Powerbooks, most, these days, are running OS X from the terminal.

All of these sales of Linux machines we read about in the Far East, or other developing countries has been proven to be false. What happens is that computers are sold with Linux, so the stores, and manufacturers can't be sued by MS for selling unlicensed copies of Windows.

But, right outside of the store, people selling disks with both Windows and Office for a buck or two are doing a great business. The Linux machines are taken to home or office, the drives are reformatted, and then Windows and Office are installed, unlicensed, of course.

All we actually do know of, are a few installs of Linux here and there . These number in the thousands, or tens of thousands, hardly a landslide. And most of those installations have been delayed due to problems.

Even IBM, one of the stronger Linux supporters, ended their much publicized push a few years ago to replace all of their Windows desktops with Linux because of both deployment problems, and user resistance.

Why don't you come up with some estimates of Linux desktop numbers not written by a Linux fan site, but some independent authority?

Because, right now, this is one of the better indicators of usage:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=106

And this article, partly using those numbers, is interesting as well:

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/ent...le.php/3716486

The other thing one would do well to realize, is that in the server area, esp Linux's stronghold, with Apache, MS is killing Linux.

If anything, long-term, Linux may cease to be of any consequence.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

While not all of Apache servers are run from Linux, the vast majority are.

By the way, an opinion is based on facts. What you have is a "feeling", and a "desire". They don't have to be based on facts.

I believe the poster to be a troll.

Right now, that's true only if you're counting servers and networked appliances. I'm a Linux user if you count my router, but Windows and Mac are my desktops. Linux on the corporate or home desktop is exceedingly small. If you go by what hits the Internet with a web browser like Firefox and such, Linux is about 1%. Worldwide, even Macs have at least three times that. In developed countries, the Mac numbers are higher.

Going by the Netcraft numbers, Mac use there is over 6%, and linux is at 0.57%. That's only six times the numbers for web use posted by iPhone users! And at least half of the iPhones weren't sold yet when that was put up.

Same way, why is it that all the sites that boast taht apple products are better than their claims are aplle fansites?
I made a big mistake by posting here.
I tyhought this wsas a decent reveiw site, now I know it is just another crappy Apple fanboy forum.

I'm pretty sure you thought it was an Apple "cool-aid" fanboy site before you made your first post.

Nope. Often claimed, never been true.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

I thought it was a decent site, now I know that it is an Apple only site.

In your opinion would this have been a decent site if every one admitted there are more Linux users than Mac users, even if that isn't true?

If it helps every one here does agree that there are more Windows users than Mac users.