It'll be a good competitor. Email, in terms of push, features, integration with business, will be better on it. And RIM has a quite dominant position in a very resistant to change, and anti-Apple, corporate market. It will sell enough to be RIM's 4th kind of Blackberry (consumer/pro candy bar, the SureType candy bar, flip-phone and touchscreen).
Whether they really want to put the resources into it so that the software is truly entirely touch designed is another story.
I've so far read the screen's mechanical action is heavenly (Wired proffered that it is far more satisfying than iPhone - and with a shorter learning curve), but that the Verizon software negates all gains.
I've so far read the screen's mechanical action is heavenly (Wired proffered that it is far more satisfying than iPhone - and with a shorter learning curve), but that the Verizon software negates all gains.
Uhh, I didn't get that impression from many of the reviews (Engadget, BGR, Time, PCWorld, etc), but a lot of that is due to the OS being shipped at an early beta stage. The conclusion in Wired that the buggy software is somehow Verizon's fault is stretching it quite far. These are OS issues on the devices. It's equally the fault of RIM for being late/not ready and Verizon trying to maintain schedule when the device isn't ready. RIM's branding is the one that's really taking a hit here, too. So, double plus ungood for them in letting Verizon bully them around. This assumes RIM wasn't themselves trying to push the device out, and I bet they in fact were doing precisely that.
There are some inherent issues with the SurePress design. It's great for thumb presses on big buttons such as the phone dialer or SureType, but with pointer finger presses, it gets cumbersome. For the QWERTY keyboard and two thumbs, I haven't seen anyone say it's too good yet, and some people say it slows them down in comparison to thumb-boards.
Oh no its not The Storm is essentially a touch-based, large-screen version of the well-polished BlackBerry Bold. When you strike a key or icon on the Storm's screen, you feel a physical sensation, as if you were pressing down on a real key or button. The entire glass display is one large button but it doesn't, magically turn the Storm's touch interface and virtual keyboard into their physical counterparts. The new screen also replaces the side-mounted scroll wheel or track ball. When held vertically, the Storm will only display a "mashed-up keyboard -- not a full keyboard -- that has multiple letters on each key. No Wi-Fi capability. While the Storm's keyboard is 7% smaller than the iPhones, it offers about 13% higher resolution. "Photos and videos look beautiful on it. Better battery life for phone calls than either the iPhone or the Google G1. Battery is also removable. Storm comes with 9GB of memory and is expandable via flash cards. Much better camera than the iPhone. 3.2 megapixels compared to 2 megapixels and it does video too. Storm also has copy-and-paste, MMS, voice dialing and tethering capabilities. Better speaker and noise-canceling microphone than the iPhone. It's 5% thicker and 17% heavier than the iPhone.
From this review, it sounds like RIM and Verizon may have erred in rushing out a half finished product. Sure, things may improve with subsequent software updates, but if you're looking to make a big splash with an "iPhone killer" and then get a lot of negative press and returns right out of the gate, it's hard to win back hearts and minds later on.
I still maintain that, going forward, manufacturers like RIM are going to be at more and more of a disadvantage to Apple because they don't have anything like OS X as a shared code base for their handsets. As hardware gets more powerful Apple can simply leverage more and more of the full OS X experience, within the Cocoa Touch frameworks they've developed. The RIMs of the world are obliged to shim out existing software that was written for far more constrained hardware, or set about writing entirely new operating systems.
Writing an OS for a "phone" that makes the best possible use of anemic processors, constrained power consumption, and feeble memory resources is a very different order of business from porting a desktop OS to a handheld device, while developing UI conventions to make the most of limited screen space.
Apple has more OS than the hardware can handle, but hardware only ever gets more capable. RIM has less OS than the modern smart phone (as defined by Apple) needs, and has to keep bolting on more and more parts.
He cites the general UI as an exercise in frustration. He's not impressed with the pressure sensitive touch screen either, which he implies is almost unusable for typing.
I've used a couple of other touch screen based mobiles like the N95 and an LG Renoir. They all have pressure sensitive screens and they are a pain in the ass to use compared to the iPhone. They're sluggish and inaccurate. You never really know if a press has registered or not unless you really apply some force. When they don't respond because the OS is slow I just try again by pressing harder, so I never get a decent judgement of how much force to use.
He cites the general UI as an exercise in frustration. He's not impressed with the pressure sensitive touch screen either, which he implies is almost unusable for typing.
I've used a couple of other touch screen based mobiles like the N95 and an LG Renoir. They all have pressure sensitive screens and they are a pain in the ass to use compared to the iPhone. They're sluggish and inaccurate. You never really know if a press has registered or not unless you really apply some force. When they don't respond because the OS is slow I just try again by pressing harder, so I never get a decent judgement of how much force to use.
Exactly. Look, if the input device doesn't work well the entire phone is garbage.
My impression is that the iPhone uses a higher resolution touch panel. The resolution is both in x-y direction and pressure. Also it has a smart software to calculate the most likely intention of the user based on the whole pressure landscape.
I would bet that all the other phones just uses a threshold on/off touch sensor and a low resolution panel. It is all because of the beancounters wanting to sell a product that matches the iphone in "features", for the highest markup. In other words, the stuff these "iphone competitors" with a bunch of BS features that supposedly do the same but they are all crap.
It is like comparing a BMW to a Hyundai, they both have 4 wheels and an engine, but...
Exactly. Look, if the input device doesn't work well the entire phone is garbage.
My impression is that the iPhone uses a higher resolution touch panel. The resolution is both in x-y direction and pressure. Also it has a smart software to calculate the most likely intention of the user based on the whole pressure landscape.
I would bet that all the other phones just uses a threshold on/off touch sensor and a low resolution panel. It is all because of the beancounters wanting to sell a product that matches the iphone in "features", for the highest markup. In other words, the stuff these "iphone competitors" with a bunch of BS features that supposedly do the same but they are all crap.
It is like comparing a BMW to a Hyundai, they both have 4 wheels and an engine, but...
The dumbest, dumbest f*king thing, is that one thing that people like is the Crackberry keyboard. These users love it, and are commonly found in this "Blackberry Typing Prayer-Like position".
So, remove most of that and make it touchscreen... Sounds like a desperate ploy by RIM.
From this review, it sounds like RIM and Verizon may have erred in rushing out a half finished product. Sure, things may improve with subsequent software updates, but if you're looking to make a big splash with an "iPhone killer" and then get a lot of negative press and returns right out of the gate, it's hard to win back hearts and minds later on.
I still maintain that, going forward, manufacturers like RIM are going to be at more and more of a disadvantage to Apple because they don't have anything like OS X as a shared code base for their handsets. As hardware gets more powerful Apple can simply leverage more and more of the full OS X experience, within the Cocoa Touch frameworks they've developed. The RIMs of the world are obliged to shim out existing software that was written for far more constrained hardware, or set about writing entirely new operating systems.
Writing an OS for a "phone" that makes the best possible use of anemic processors, constrained power consumption, and feeble memory resources is a very different order of business from porting a desktop OS to a handheld device, while developing UI conventions to make the most of limited screen space.
Apple has more OS than the hardware can handle, but hardware only ever gets more capable. RIM has less OS than the modern smart phone (as defined by Apple) needs, and has to keep bolting on more and more parts.
Which would you rather be?
apple haven't defined the modern smartphone and probably never will...
apple haven't defined the modern smartphone and probably never will...
Nope. They've defined the modern, dead simple to use, always connected, pocketable computer.
In a few years, when Apple is selling a range of devices running a full version of OS X, devices that have enough graphics horsepower to unleash the potential of the touch UI that they've only begun to exploit, many of which will include the trivially simple "phone app", we'll see how the Nokias of the world are doing bolting ever more "functionality" onto their phone OSes.
"Cell phones" are a dead end, and their enthusiasts are blind to what's happening.
I've said this before, but the current situation is analogous to a world where "personal computing" started out wide-spread adoption of dedicated email stations. In such a world, email buffs would argue endlessly about who had the most refined spell checker or cleverest implementation of POP accounts or even such all important features as sophisticated sorting or smart folders.
Then someone comes along with a general purpose computer, and the email fans laugh because they have machines that can do more sophisticated email things. "Why", they say, "this so called 'computer' is a mediocre email machine, at best!" They keep laughing as the email machine manufacturers strike back with dedicated email machines that have more features.
Nope. They've defined the modern, dead simple to use, always connected, pocketable computer.
In a few years, when Apple is selling a range of devices running a full version of OS X, devices that have enough graphics horsepower to unleash the potential of the touch UI that they've only begun to exploit, many of which will include the trivially simple "phone app", we'll see how the Nokias of the world are doing bolting ever more "functionality" onto their phone OSes.
"Cell phones" are a dead end, and their enthusiasts are blind to what's happening.
I've said this before, but the current situation is analogous to a world where "personal computing" started out wide-spread adoption of dedicated email stations. In such a world, email buffs would argue endlessly about who had the most refined spell checker or cleverest implementation of POP accounts or even such all important features as sophisticated sorting or smart folders.
Then someone comes along with a general purpose computer, and the email fans laugh because they have machines that can do more sophisticated email things. "Why", they say, "this so called 'computer' is a mediocre email machine, at best!" They keep laughing as the email machine manufacturers strike back with dedicated email machines that have more features.
And then computers happen.
Look,
In the history of the word there has been two major platforms:
Windows
and
Mac
Now there is a third:
iPhone
It is that simple. For years the tech gurus of MIT and Stanford have been talking about "ubiquitous computing". Computer that are portable and some you don't even see: some you wear, some in your eyeglasses, others in the walls of your home, etc. Apple is the first to come up with one, the iPhone.
As regards the opening question, no it is not absolute garbage.
RIM has put a lot of thought into designing it, they seem to have taken into account features that have been left out of the iPhone.
Apple should be taking a good look at how well it sells and take this into consideration when deciding what functionality they need to improve in future iterations of the iPhone.
Edit:-
P.S. It doesn't run WinMo so can't possibly be "absolute" in terms of garbage!
As regards the opening question, no it is not absolute garbage.
RIM has put a lot of thought into designing it, they seem to have taken into account features that have been left out of the iPhone.
Apple should be taking a good look at how well it sells and take this into consideration when deciding what functionality they need to improve in future iterations of the iPhone.
Edit:-
P.S. It doesn't run WinMo so can't possibly be "absolute" in terms of garbage!
So maybe it is a little better than absolute garbage? Like almost complete excrement?
I actually like the phone, but hate the SW - it's just so slow. I'm pretty sure RIM has figured out how to do copy and paste though.
As far as other touch phones go, I have an LG Dare, and I like it just fine, even though the touch UI isn't as nice as my iPod Touch, but I don't care for the iPhone as a phone, and wanted to get away from AT&T
Comments
The storm will fade into the background, just like G1.
And Windows Mobile.
Whether they really want to put the resources into it so that the software is truly entirely touch designed is another story.
I've so far read the screen's mechanical action is heavenly (Wired proffered that it is far more satisfying than iPhone - and with a shorter learning curve), but that the Verizon software negates all gains.
Uhh, I didn't get that impression from many of the reviews (Engadget, BGR, Time, PCWorld, etc), but a lot of that is due to the OS being shipped at an early beta stage. The conclusion in Wired that the buggy software is somehow Verizon's fault is stretching it quite far. These are OS issues on the devices. It's equally the fault of RIM for being late/not ready and Verizon trying to maintain schedule when the device isn't ready. RIM's branding is the one that's really taking a hit here, too. So, double plus ungood for them in letting Verizon bully them around. This assumes RIM wasn't themselves trying to push the device out, and I bet they in fact were doing precisely that.
There are some inherent issues with the SurePress design. It's great for thumb presses on big buttons such as the phone dialer or SureType, but with pointer finger presses, it gets cumbersome. For the QWERTY keyboard and two thumbs, I haven't seen anyone say it's too good yet, and some people say it slows them down in comparison to thumb-boards.
this blogger agrees
From this review, it sounds like RIM and Verizon may have erred in rushing out a half finished product. Sure, things may improve with subsequent software updates, but if you're looking to make a big splash with an "iPhone killer" and then get a lot of negative press and returns right out of the gate, it's hard to win back hearts and minds later on.
I still maintain that, going forward, manufacturers like RIM are going to be at more and more of a disadvantage to Apple because they don't have anything like OS X as a shared code base for their handsets. As hardware gets more powerful Apple can simply leverage more and more of the full OS X experience, within the Cocoa Touch frameworks they've developed. The RIMs of the world are obliged to shim out existing software that was written for far more constrained hardware, or set about writing entirely new operating systems.
Writing an OS for a "phone" that makes the best possible use of anemic processors, constrained power consumption, and feeble memory resources is a very different order of business from porting a desktop OS to a handheld device, while developing UI conventions to make the most of limited screen space.
Apple has more OS than the hardware can handle, but hardware only ever gets more capable. RIM has less OS than the modern smart phone (as defined by Apple) needs, and has to keep bolting on more and more parts.
Which would you rather be?
He cites the general UI as an exercise in frustration. He's not impressed with the pressure sensitive touch screen either, which he implies is almost unusable for typing.
I've used a couple of other touch screen based mobiles like the N95 and an LG Renoir. They all have pressure sensitive screens and they are a pain in the ass to use compared to the iPhone. They're sluggish and inaccurate. You never really know if a press has registered or not unless you really apply some force. When they don't respond because the OS is slow I just try again by pressing harder, so I never get a decent judgement of how much force to use.
That review is absolutely hilarious!
He cites the general UI as an exercise in frustration. He's not impressed with the pressure sensitive touch screen either, which he implies is almost unusable for typing.
I've used a couple of other touch screen based mobiles like the N95 and an LG Renoir. They all have pressure sensitive screens and they are a pain in the ass to use compared to the iPhone. They're sluggish and inaccurate. You never really know if a press has registered or not unless you really apply some force. When they don't respond because the OS is slow I just try again by pressing harder, so I never get a decent judgement of how much force to use.
Exactly. Look, if the input device doesn't work well the entire phone is garbage.
My impression is that the iPhone uses a higher resolution touch panel. The resolution is both in x-y direction and pressure. Also it has a smart software to calculate the most likely intention of the user based on the whole pressure landscape.
I would bet that all the other phones just uses a threshold on/off touch sensor and a low resolution panel. It is all because of the beancounters wanting to sell a product that matches the iphone in "features", for the highest markup. In other words, the stuff these "iphone competitors" with a bunch of BS features that supposedly do the same but they are all crap.
It is like comparing a BMW to a Hyundai, they both have 4 wheels and an engine, but...
Exactly. Look, if the input device doesn't work well the entire phone is garbage.
My impression is that the iPhone uses a higher resolution touch panel. The resolution is both in x-y direction and pressure. Also it has a smart software to calculate the most likely intention of the user based on the whole pressure landscape.
I would bet that all the other phones just uses a threshold on/off touch sensor and a low resolution panel. It is all because of the beancounters wanting to sell a product that matches the iphone in "features", for the highest markup. In other words, the stuff these "iphone competitors" with a bunch of BS features that supposedly do the same but they are all crap.
It is like comparing a BMW to a Hyundai, they both have 4 wheels and an engine, but...
Exactly!
So, remove most of that and make it touchscreen... Sounds like a desperate ploy by RIM.
David Pogue just hates the thing.
From this review, it sounds like RIM and Verizon may have erred in rushing out a half finished product. Sure, things may improve with subsequent software updates, but if you're looking to make a big splash with an "iPhone killer" and then get a lot of negative press and returns right out of the gate, it's hard to win back hearts and minds later on.
I still maintain that, going forward, manufacturers like RIM are going to be at more and more of a disadvantage to Apple because they don't have anything like OS X as a shared code base for their handsets. As hardware gets more powerful Apple can simply leverage more and more of the full OS X experience, within the Cocoa Touch frameworks they've developed. The RIMs of the world are obliged to shim out existing software that was written for far more constrained hardware, or set about writing entirely new operating systems.
Writing an OS for a "phone" that makes the best possible use of anemic processors, constrained power consumption, and feeble memory resources is a very different order of business from porting a desktop OS to a handheld device, while developing UI conventions to make the most of limited screen space.
Apple has more OS than the hardware can handle, but hardware only ever gets more capable. RIM has less OS than the modern smart phone (as defined by Apple) needs, and has to keep bolting on more and more parts.
Which would you rather be?
apple haven't defined the modern smartphone and probably never will...
apple haven't defined the modern smartphone and probably never will...
Nope. They've defined the modern, dead simple to use, always connected, pocketable computer.
In a few years, when Apple is selling a range of devices running a full version of OS X, devices that have enough graphics horsepower to unleash the potential of the touch UI that they've only begun to exploit, many of which will include the trivially simple "phone app", we'll see how the Nokias of the world are doing bolting ever more "functionality" onto their phone OSes.
"Cell phones" are a dead end, and their enthusiasts are blind to what's happening.
I've said this before, but the current situation is analogous to a world where "personal computing" started out wide-spread adoption of dedicated email stations. In such a world, email buffs would argue endlessly about who had the most refined spell checker or cleverest implementation of POP accounts or even such all important features as sophisticated sorting or smart folders.
Then someone comes along with a general purpose computer, and the email fans laugh because they have machines that can do more sophisticated email things. "Why", they say, "this so called 'computer' is a mediocre email machine, at best!" They keep laughing as the email machine manufacturers strike back with dedicated email machines that have more features.
And then computers happen.
Nope. They've defined the modern, dead simple to use, always connected, pocketable computer.
In a few years, when Apple is selling a range of devices running a full version of OS X, devices that have enough graphics horsepower to unleash the potential of the touch UI that they've only begun to exploit, many of which will include the trivially simple "phone app", we'll see how the Nokias of the world are doing bolting ever more "functionality" onto their phone OSes.
"Cell phones" are a dead end, and their enthusiasts are blind to what's happening.
I've said this before, but the current situation is analogous to a world where "personal computing" started out wide-spread adoption of dedicated email stations. In such a world, email buffs would argue endlessly about who had the most refined spell checker or cleverest implementation of POP accounts or even such all important features as sophisticated sorting or smart folders.
Then someone comes along with a general purpose computer, and the email fans laugh because they have machines that can do more sophisticated email things. "Why", they say, "this so called 'computer' is a mediocre email machine, at best!" They keep laughing as the email machine manufacturers strike back with dedicated email machines that have more features.
And then computers happen.
Look,
In the history of the word there has been two major platforms:
Windows
and
Mac
Now there is a third:
iPhone
It is that simple. For years the tech gurus of MIT and Stanford have been talking about "ubiquitous computing". Computer that are portable and some you don't even see: some you wear, some in your eyeglasses, others in the walls of your home, etc. Apple is the first to come up with one, the iPhone.
RIM has put a lot of thought into designing it, they seem to have taken into account features that have been left out of the iPhone.
Apple should be taking a good look at how well it sells and take this into consideration when deciding what functionality they need to improve in future iterations of the iPhone.
Edit:-
P.S. It doesn't run WinMo so can't possibly be "absolute" in terms of garbage!
As regards the opening question, no it is not absolute garbage.
RIM has put a lot of thought into designing it, they seem to have taken into account features that have been left out of the iPhone.
Apple should be taking a good look at how well it sells and take this into consideration when deciding what functionality they need to improve in future iterations of the iPhone.
Edit:-
P.S. It doesn't run WinMo so can't possibly be "absolute" in terms of garbage!
So maybe it is a little better than absolute garbage? Like almost complete excrement?
As far as other touch phones go, I have an LG Dare, and I like it just fine, even though the touch UI isn't as nice as my iPod Touch, but I don't care for the iPhone as a phone, and wanted to get away from AT&T