- thin mean thinner battery, which to me, makes it a lot easier to carry around an extra battery in my other pocket.08-13-11 11:40 AMLike 0
- It needs to be thinner because it's wider and taller than current devices and it would be too bulky to keep it at the same thickness. Thin devices are usually just flattened revisions of previously thick ones. In the end the hardware needs to fit somewhere.
That said, the issue with the 9900 is more the shape of its back. The bulk of the device is centered and tapered toward the bezel. RIM thus confined itself to a relatively small space. Unlike in other devices, the camera on the 9900 is under the screen, so it needs to be very compact. On the iPhone the camera is in the top corner, spreading the full depth of the device. On the the touchscreen Torch 9850/60, the AF camera is on the "grip" edge of the device, which is thicker than the middle. This stuff has to fit somewhere.
I personally think the design goes a bit too far in sacrificing battery size, and potentially offering a worse camera. It's true that Apple keeps the pressure to make thinner and thinner devices, but Apple doesn't cater to ergonomics at all. RIM tried to be thin and ergonomic, and something has to give.
It's not that RIM is having problems competing with Droid or iphone - this "flagship device" failed to compete with it's own Patriarchs in it's own historical bloodline.
What gave was functionality and that RIM sold functionality for style is alien waters for it to be in IMHO.08-13-11 11:41 AMLike 0 - This is true. The 9900 battery is ridiculously thin and tasty-looking. One can easily buy a spare and stuff it in their wallet for emergencies. By the way, you're a Rogers employee, but you're on Telus? :P08-13-11 11:42 AMLike 0
- Thin to compete with iPhone and ratchet samsung devices for one, but also I'm sure they had in mind that most of go to those weekly/monthly super boring *** much to do about nothing meetings and we have that super excited ****head coordinator who doesn't want any cellular devices in the meetings. So he is trying to eye your pockets for said devices.
Or is it just me who thinks that was a reason behind the thin build??08-13-11 12:09 PMLike 0 - They didn't sacrifice auto focus for thinness, it's called they didn't want to spend an extra 10-15$$$$ a unit for AF... THEY got cheap and short sheeted us. I'm looking forward to the future WM7 devices. Especially the nokia and samsungs. SGS II running wm7 is gonna be nice.08-13-11 02:28 PMLike 0
-
...In any event this is a shibboleth apologetic.
From the other threads about this issue all the evidence directs one to the concrete conclusion...
...That RIM was forced to choose between functionality & style.
When a company is forced into an either / OR determination of it's Flagship product being functional OR in style THAT company should know when it's had a good run and "tap out" of making that product.
I'm sure the phone could have been even thinner without the EDOF camera ( as in not putting a camera in it at all )...
...The reviews we will see in the near future would have treated RIM's flagship much better had this been the case.
...Not because it would have been thinner but because there wasn't a junk camera in a flagship device.08-13-11 02:48 PMLike 0 - Excellent points synthmole! Only it's not "potentially" a worse camera, it simply is a worse camera from what RIM was producing 2+ years ago in their own devices.
It's not that RIM is having problems competing with Droid or iphone - this "flagship device" failed to compete with it's own Patriarchs in it's own historical bloodline.
What gave was functionality and that RIM sold functionality for style is alien waters for it to be in IMHO.
On the other hand, if I can snap a picture quickly, that would be something relevant to my use. I usually take photos of stuff to remember, like where I parked or who might knock my bike over and often I find the camera too slow to respond and not worth the hassle. Being able to snap pictures without delay is a big deal that camera manufacturers try to improve all the time.
I recognize that the quality of stills is worse, but want to see the video and response time before deciding if it works for me.08-13-11 04:04 PMLike 0 -
In the iphon 4's case I already know it has a very solid camera - I'm just concerned about reception where I live and battery life using the phone like I use one. Verizon is OUT OF THE QUESTION - it's the worst coverage I've ever experienced, period.
Originally Posted by synthmoleI have rarely used it this way, mostly because I wasn't happy with the quality anyway, and the UI was too cumbersome (I belatedly found that I could use the convenience key as a shutter in the camera even if it was assigned to something else, it overrides the setting, which is a nice surprise).
On the other hand, if I can snap a picture quickly, that would be something relevant to my use. I usually take photos of stuff to remember, like where I parked or who might knock my bike over and often I find the camera too slow to respond and not worth the hassle. Being able to snap pictures without delay is a big deal that camera manufacturers try to improve all the time.
I recognize that the quality of stills is worse, but want to see the video and response time before deciding if it works for me.08-13-11 08:36 PMLike 0 -
RIM simply wanted to be more like Apple iphone 4 but lacked the abilities to produce a phone that thin while still keeping even the quality of a camera RIM was producing three years ago in it.
Like the overweight short kid who slaps a ball up and down on the sidewalk having a fantasy he is like Michael Jordan - this type of self worship only lasts as long as one can keep reality away from them.
I'm afraid reality is on it's way.08-13-11 08:41 PMLike 0 - In the case of the 99xx being thin isn't the issue. The iphone 4 is actually thinner than the 99xx and it has an outstanding camera WITH 'AF'.
RIM simply wanted to be more like Apple iphone 4 but lacked the abilities to produce a phone that thin while still keeping even the quality of a camera RIM was producing three years ago in it.
The placement of the camera is important.08-13-11 08:56 PMLike 0 -
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com08-13-11 08:58 PMLike 0 - If you look at the back of the two devices, the difference is that the Blackberry has tapered edges, and its camera is under the screen. On the iPhone the camera is not under the screen but near the edge where it can take the full depth of the device.
The placement of the camera is important.
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com08-13-11 09:08 PMLike 0 -
This is bizarre reasoning.
It would be like one nation getting so obsessed with another nations battleship because it had more armor on it....
...So the other nation loads more armor on their own battleship to the point it's so heavy it can't have an engine.
....So they just put wooden oars on it.
When people start complaining that their battleship isn't functional any longer the apologists for the new boat....
...Try to pour in a new and alien definition of what a battleship really is.Last edited by pythons; 08-13-11 at 09:17 PM.
08-13-11 09:13 PMLike 0 -
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.comLast edited by T�nis; 08-13-11 at 09:57 PM.
08-13-11 09:54 PMLike 0 -
The iPhone is slightly thinner but the back is not ergonomic, it's completely flat. The 9900 fits better in the hand, which is very important, but it also takes away some precious volume and the camera has to be placed under the screen and the battery has to be smaller.
As I said, I worry about the battery size and camera quality, but these are not arbitrary shortcomings.
The Torch 9810 does have AF. Would that be a viable choice?08-13-11 11:12 PMLike 0 - Seriously, I loved the thinness. It wasn't the main reason to buy the phone, which was the amount of power it packed in the formfactor.
Having a bold 2, and not minding that size, I really enjoyed the fact that rim shaved dimensions nearly everywhere while packing the hottest single core processor out there, and 768MB ram.
That spec is current, only surpassed by dual cores that I don't care for. I'm not looking to watch HD movies, take HD pics with autofocus. Who cares about that stuff? I just need *a* decent rez camera that can take a pic within a second or two of me hitting the button.
The spec of this phone is to be a straight up communicating device that had enough "other" stuff that would suit the needs of the market. This phone is marketed to a variety of professionals because of how much work you can do on the go. I can write full emails like I'm at my office. This phone did exactly that. I'd have issues with too many messages, search lagging my entire phone, all because of the POS Xscale processor in the previous phones.
RIM hit the head on with this phone.OS7 from OS6 is akin to windows 7 and vista.
The browser is a very pleasant surprise, even though I'm not a huge surfer. But now when someone asks me about phones (I get asked all the time), I don't find it hard to recommend the 9900 over an Android/iPhone4s. Sure their hardware spec is way better, but do you honestly *need* that for a phone. As long as its current-gen, and the architecture isn't going to change radically anytime soon (its not going to. A9 is better but its like i7 vs i5), then embrace it!
Jeez man, "autofocus camera". Sigh. As a proud blackberry person, I always was proud that my device was "slightly more ghetto" than the iPhone people. Looks like I can't do that when our own army is disappointed with the camera.Last edited by Broly; 08-13-11 at 11:29 PM.
08-13-11 11:13 PMLike 0 - Again, the 9900 is wider and taller than previous models. It has to be thinner, I don't think many would want another 9000 form factor in 2011.
The iPhone is slightly thinner but the back is not ergonomic, it's completely flat. The 9900 fits better in the hand, which is very important, but it also takes away some precious volume and the camera has to be placed under the screen and the battery has to be smaller.
As I said, I worry about the battery size and camera quality, but these are not arbitrary shortcomings.
The Torch 9810 does have AF. Would that be a viable choice?
but as i said in the previous post of mine... who cares... it takes good pictures, it records HD... its a PHONE first, not a camera... yes it would have been nice to have AF... but really is it the end of the world, no...
anyways08-14-11 12:42 PMLike 0 - I never had a problem with the thickness of the 96, 97, or 98 series devices. But I guess when every year during their events, Apple is saying the incoming iPhone or iPod touch is the thinnest ever, it becomes a selling point for consumers.08-14-11 01:18 PMLike 0
-
...RIM would be better served if it just focused on making a functional business smartphone.
...The rest of it would come naturally.08-14-11 02:36 PMLike 0
- Forum
- BlackBerry OS Phone Forums
- BlackBerry Bold Series
Who cares if it's thin?
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD