[rambo47]

Originally Posted by BlueMonk7

As an average BB user, I have little concept of how the processor affects my BB experience. I never run into issues where I wish my 9700 would do something faster. What would I have to be doing to need a faster processor?

Exactly! No use getting all worked up about specs until we see hoe it performs in the real world.

Obviously, with it's touch screen the Torch is a consumer model with business capabilities. RIM has been pushing steadily into the consumer space for years but maintaining their heritage of producing business-grade devices.

[KOR]

Originally Posted by NJBlackBerry

Or he heard about it on the playground...

No doubt.

The thing people seem to be missing is that RIM's core market is business. My company doesn't give a sh** if the handheld can update multiple social networks, play movies, or bake a cake. We just need a rock solid platform, which RIM offers better than anyone else.

[the-economist]

Originally Posted by KOR

The thing people seem to be missing is that RIM's core market is business.

No it's NOT. How many times do we need to repeat the same things over and over again. The consumer market is tons orders of magnitude larger than the corporate one and the primary objective of a publicly traded corporation is to maximise profits for the stockholders.

Have you been missing all the RIM marketing campaigns in the last 6 years? They have little dogs running around, teenagers dancing or BBMing each other like mad, "all you need is love" corporate slogans, ballarinas dancing in three(3) of them, streetdancers, a teenager getting dumped in a restaurant over bbm or something and piano players. You'll struggle to spot someone in a suit or in an office.

I flew from London to Canada to Germany to Paris and ended up in Switzerland. Stations and airport walls were literally covered with RIM ads in all countries and the median age of the models was 12.

The corporate world is NOT RIM's primary market and rightfully so. And since what i think probably doesn't mean much to you maybe you should research what the people responsible for RIM's operations actually think.
Let me offer you the first link since i was bored enough to even quote the excerpts from the interviews.

http://www.blackberryforums.com/rumo...ml#post1590462

[KOR]

[QUOTE=the-economist;1638916]
The corporate world is NOT RIM's primary market and rightfully so.[QUOTE]

I disagree. Where has RIM performed the best? Corporate. What device is the quintessentially thought of when it comes to business use? BlackBerry. The Yahoo article refers to RIM's 'stodgy work image' (read --> business) Until these things change, yes, their primary market is the corporate world. And, never did I say or imply that that RIM isn't interested in taking a big piece of the end consumer market. However, they're not going to instantly change; it's a matter of transition and I believe that they'd rather meld the both of two worlds rather than replace one with the other.

On a related note, no one responsible for RIM's operations were quoted in the article; only industry wags.

On an unrelated note, your flight itinerary is certainly impressive; you must have tons of frequent flier miles.

[Roo Zilla]

The decision by RIM to use a 624Mhz XScale processor is not really a defensible position. The reason is that there are much better options available in today's mobile CPU world. Even in mobile CPUs, it's not just about Mhz because not all MHz is created equal. For example, moving to a Cortex-A8 and underclocking it would offer significantly better performance while at the same time using less power. Where is the down side to that? Since both cores are based on ARM architecture, the software could be very easily modified to run on the newer CPU, it might not even need modification. The only reason to do so would be to take advantage of additional SIMD instructions in the newer CPU.

The XSCale processor is not only 4-5 years old, it's two generations back. That's like comparing today's i3-i5-i7 CPUs to Pentium 4s. Today's CPUs offer better performance at the same clock speeds while using much less power. To put it in perspective, the XScale CPU in the 9800 is comparable in performance to the CPU in the ORIGINAL iPhone, clocked at 400Mhz. The CPU in the original iPhone is a generation ahead of the XScale.

The only reason I can see for RIM using this processor in their FLAGSHIP model is to save on costs. The difference in price is probably about .... $5, probably less. Another reason might be that they have a few million still in stock and they want to get rid of it. From a technological standpoint, it really doesn't make sense. It's almost like if Dell were to release a new laptop with a Pentium 4 processor in it.

Some of you guys might say, the 9800 doesn't NEED the more powerful CPU. Where's the harm though? It'll probably speed things up, especially in the browser, and extend battery life. Surely the 9800 doesn't need a 1Ghz Snapdragon, but a 500Mhz Cortex-A8 wouldn't hurt and surely worth the extra expense.

[the-economist]

Originally Posted by KOR

On a related note, no one responsible for RIM's operations were quoted in the article; only industry wags.

Industry wags? I linked to my other post where i quote word for word Lazarides, Balsillie and Morrison who are RIM's CEOs and COO respectively.
I never mentioned the yahoo speculation crap you've been reading.

On an unrelated note, your flight itinerary is certainly impressive; you must have tons of frequent flier miles.

It's a healthy sum. Sadly picking a flight on the spot is a pain, you need to plan way in advance. Works better with hotel upgrades.

[crboone]

I'm surprised that everyone isn't a little disappointed with the Torch, regardless of their loyalty to RIM/Blackberry. I've had Blackberry's (Blackberries) for several years and have always been happy with them. I still have my original Storm from Feb 2009, so I don't flip phones quickly, nor do I require the top-of-the-line of every feature as soon as it comes out.

Still -- I was a little taken aback that the Torch has the same screen size/resolution as my nearly 2-year old Storm, a "less-than-today's standard" processor, and marginal improvement in video capabilities when other phones have those basic features. Plus, I'm simply not going to switch to AT&T.

I don't believe RIM had to produce the largest screen with the highest resolution available, or that it needs to have HDMI out, etc. And OS 6 appears to be on par or better than the others. But the few things they didn't improve upon very much makes it appear like they compromised. And, they are just noticeable. In the competitive world, each new iteration raises the bar of people's expectations, so if you still have last year's screen, video and processing power (which are important and yet basic features) it leaves people feeling like corners were cut, regardless of the other capabilities. If I'm going to spend the same amount of money for a new phone I don't want to feel like I'm getting a partially outdated design. So even if you don't need these improved features yourself, at least it's understandable why many are less than enthusiastic about the Torch. It has the appearance of being behind regardless of its strengths, and appearances matter. I think that's why it's getting a bad rap when it otherwise might not.

That said, from what I can see BB is indeed losing corporate customers. At my previous IT job, most went over to the iPhone and were unimpressed when the Storm was released. In my present IT job, most have Androids and a few have iPhones. So Blackberry certainly isn't the exclusive corporate phone, at least in IT where security is important. And, the recently published figures demonstrate RIM is losing market share. If RIM's core business is business, then what market share are they losing? It's certainly not in the consumer realm. Thus, they cannot afford to lag behind even in the "wow" factor of a few features that many have come to expect -- corporate base or not.

Also, if you read the reviews of the Droid X on the Verizon website (for example), there is review after review of those who left Blackberry to purchase that phone and are pleased with the switch. This isn't to push that phone on this forum, it's just a reference to illustrate why their market share is dropping. RIM would do well to read some of these to prevent blind spots in their designs.

This is just my opinion -- and I know, if I don't like it, don't buy it. But I really wanted to stick with BB had an improved Storm III been released on Verizon with a current feature-set alongside of its other strengths. If that's still in the pipe, it would be good to know now in order to wait for it rather than thinking it's time to move on. But the Torch's release, I felt, was a discouragement in that respect.

[the-economist]

As for the rest of the posts about the CPU wars i don't really care what's in the handset. It can be a 16mhz 286 for what i care or Lazarides himself doing binary math on pen and paper inside my phone.
I really don't care.

What i DO care about is performance. And on that 14 minute hands on youtube clip the Torch took some seconds to even exit from a single menu. That means that the hardware specification is not powerful enough to support the featureset coming with the phone. It's noticeable laggy. Plain and simple. So as much as i love BB there is a rather obvious design fault.

And since the Vodafone account manager called up and confirmed that we're getting
them i will soon experience it first hand.

[Imcrackedout]

Originally Posted by BlueMonk7

As an average BB user, I have little concept of how the processor affects my BB experience. I never run into issues where I wish my 9700 would do something faster. What would I have to be doing to need a faster processor?

I hear you. I feel the same way as I have not been able to bog this thing down. Even the complaints of the browser! I really don't mind the browser at all, it searches and loads pages as fast as i need, maybe I don't expect much? I think it does a great job.

[VRaptor]

Originally Posted by the-economist

As for the rest of the posts about the CPU wars i don't really care what's in the handset. It can be a 16mhz 286 for what i care or Lazarides himself doing binary math on pen and paper inside my phone.
I really don't care.

What i DO care about is performance. And on that 14 minute hands on youtube clip the Torch took some seconds to even exit from a single menu. That means that the hardware specification is not powerful enough to support the featureset coming with the phone. It's noticeable laggy. Plain and simple. So as much as i love BB there is a rather obvious design fault.

And since the Vodafone account manager called up and confirmed that we're getting
them i will soon experience it first hand.

That's strange because I have played with one twice at an ATT store and it was noticeable nonlaggy. I believe my own personal experience more than a youtube video.

One bummer though. it doesn't come with Texas holdem. I'll have to remedy that.

[the-economist]

Originally Posted by VRaptor

That's strange because I have played with one twice at an ATT store and it was noticeable nonlaggy. I believe my own personal experience more than a youtube video.

I hear you. Bear in mind though that playing with demo handsets at store is not exactly a field test. Demo handsets are reseted and cleaned up daily, they seldom go for more than 8-10 hours of continuous operation and most stores are in areas with good reception and if they're not they operate signal boosters and directional antennas to the masts. People playing with ibrick4 in ATT stores never experienced the grip of death for the above reasons, that doesn't mean the problem wasn't there.

Use patterns is another issue. When my CFO gets a mail on his BB he needs 10 minutes to locate his glasses, another 10 to locate the handset, 10 more to locate the button and 6-7 more to read the mail and find the button again to exit. Even if we issue a 957 to him he'll never complain that he's using a last century BB, mainly because even a century old handset can keep up with his usage.
My clicking patterns are closer to what the guy in the clip is doing and i expect immediate feedback. Anything less is.. well.. slow. Your own usage patterns may be different.

One bummer though. it doesn't come with Texas holdem. I'll have to remedy that.

I don't play games on BB mainly because of the small screen. Haven't found any decent 2D game to play and 3D gives me headaches after a while even on non-bb screens. I use the chess client by Odesys though, the engine is alright and it even connects to FICS and challenges players remotely. Doesn't even need wifi, plays fine over GPRS/EDGE/3G. I recommend it.

[KOR]

Originally Posted by the-economist

Industry wags? I linked to my other post where i quote word for word Lazarides, Balsillie and Morrison who are RIM's CEOs and COO respectively.
I never mentioned the yahoo speculation crap you've been reading.



It's a healthy sum. Sadly picking a flight on the spot is a pain, you need to plan way in advance. Works better with hotel upgrades.

To be fair, your link took me to the top of the page, not to your later post. However, I'll stand corrected. But, reading the post you intended me to see only reinforces my point: Busines is RIM's primary market. They want to crack the consumer market, but have not, up to this point. Getting from point A to point B is not going to happen overnight, will probably be a painful (internally) transition, and may not even be successful. They're going to take baby steps (Torch), and I have no problem with their measured approach.

What I take issue with is people who like the OP who feel, somehow, slighted by RIM's move. If they have an employer-supplied BB, what do they have to gripe about. If they have a personal BB and are unhappy with future offerings, move to another platform. But, they should be careful of what they wish for...

First SMS-sending Android Trojan reported | InSecurity Complex - CNET News

[penguin3107]

Originally Posted by KOR

They want to crack the consumer market, but have not, up to this point. Getting from point A to point B is not going to happen overnight, will probably be a painful (internally) transition, and may not even be successful. They're going to take baby steps (Torch), and I have no problem with their measured approach.

You are way off the mark.
RIM began to enter the consumer market while ago, quite successfully, with the introduction of the Pearl.
Shortly after, they released the Curve which was an absolute success and I believe is still RIM's best selling handheld to date.
(Mostly to the consumer market.)

The Torch is only the latest addition to their lineup... certainly not the first device aimed at the consumer market.

[the-economist]

Originally Posted by KOR

They want to crack the consumer market, but have not, up to this point. Getting from point A to point B is not going to happen overnight, will probably be a painful (internally) transition, and may not even be successful. They're going to take baby steps (Torch), and I have no problem with their measured approach.

It started wayyy wayy back. That's what i was trying to tell you by using the marketing campaign examples. 5000 and 6000 series used to advertise as "take the office with you" and "your office is mobile, like you". When we reached the 72xx era and up until the 8700 the company still clearly targeted the corporate space. Ads with people in offices and tags along the "Take care of business" lines.

The first Curve opened up the product to the consumers and of course RIM like any other sensible publicly traded company jumped on the bandwagon.
So from "Take care of business" we leaped to "Always on" that came nicely timed with the explosion of social media, to teenagers on BBM, and streetdancers and music album campaigns by U2 and the quotes by Lazarides et al.

The Torch is by no means whatsoever the first attempt for RIM to enter the consumer market. They're already there. I believe it was the COO that said in a WSJ article that their consumer userbase has outgrown the corporate.

6 years ago RIM's primary objective was to get FIPS-140 validations for their transport, participate in the CAPS programme in the UK and get Common Criteria certified for secure transports in the rest of the world and the states. They pushed hard and for years to even extend the NATO access classification beyond Restricted, which was unsuccessful.

6 years down the line we got dancing ballarinas, smart apps and underage children. It's BEYOND clear that the primary market is the consumer and it's also clear that RIM is on it for years now.

My eyes bleed when i read those "BB is bizznez man, let the teenies do the ifonez, all biznez here" that pop right and left in the forum.

[NJBlackBerry]

My eyes bled reading the last post. You're off point and have lost the message.

What are you trying to say? If you don't like the Torch that you haven't used, fine. If you are a consumer and don't like enterprise class devices, fine.

But you are rambling.

[palomartian]

The 9800 is just another evolutionary step. Nothing risky, just solid improvements on a great platform. If my idea of fun involved holding something of my own in my hand, it would make sense to me.

[the-economist]

Originally Posted by NJBlackBerry

My eyes bled reading the last post. You're off point and have lost the message.

What are you trying to say? If you don't like the Torch that you haven't used, fine. If you are a consumer and don't like enterprise class devices, fine.

But you are rambling.

We stopped talking about the Torch some posts up NJ. We're talking about the shift towards the consumer market. As far as liking it is concerned i'll let you know in some days. I only have some youtube videos to go on for now and they're not enough to set a concrete opinion. Let's say im not impressed for now. It might change when i get mine shipped, might not.

[poolbizz]

We'll I will keep my 9000 , get the ole lady a 9700 ..... Maybe just maybe get the 9800 for the antenna and install it on the iphone 4 , Then use the 9800 as a bong ... LMFAO groovy man

[KOR]

Originally Posted by penguin3107

You are way off the mark.
RIM began to enter the consumer market while ago, quite successfully, with the introduction of the Pearl.
Shortly after, they released the Curve which was an absolute success and I believe is still RIM's best selling handheld to date.
(Mostly to the consumer market.)

The Torch is only the latest addition to their lineup... certainly not the first device aimed at the consumer market.

Having re-read my post, the choice of the word 'crack' was poor. I intended to convey that RIM is not a dominant player in the consumer market the way they are in business. However, in the interest of clarification...

• Nowhere did I say that RIM doesn't have an interest in the consumer market
• Nowhere did I say that they haven't released consumer oriented devices in the past
• Nowhere did I say that they haven't had success in the consumer space

The point I'm attempting to make is that, currently, the lion's share of their revenue is business driven. Would I be interested in a BB with features offered by Droids that retains the solid business related functionality I expect from RIM? Absolutely. But I don't think it going to happen overnight and consider the Torch (and Curve and Pearl) as I said ealier, an intermediary step.

[robertl594]

Just returned my 9800 for a refund. Could not deal with the 10 second freeze every time I unlocked the phone. I am sure that it results from the old processor designed for a trackball without a touch screen. Phone has real issues as well. Every time I put it to my ear, I would either mute, disconnect or hold the call with my ear as it touched the touch screen. Very poor result for what I would consider a half-baked developmental process to respond to its competition.

I have had every full keyboard BB since 2004 and this one just plane does not work.
RL