08-15-11 06:34 PM
75 123
tools
  1. waterfrontmgmt's Avatar
    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 AM
  2. pythons's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    08-13-11 11:41 AM
  3. Masahiro's Avatar
    thin mean thinner battery, which to me, makes it a lot easier to carry around an extra battery in my other pocket.
    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? :P
    08-13-11 11:42 AM
  4. terreos's Avatar
    It wouldn't be a problem for me either way because i would get used to whatever thickness it was. But, I normally appreciate a thinner devices. Makes it less bulky when you put it in a case.
    08-13-11 11:48 AM
  5. olblueyez's Avatar
    The 9000 is thin, competing with iPhone and Android is more important.
    08-13-11 11:59 AM
  6. JUSTQUAN2's Avatar
    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 PM
  7. c_86's Avatar
    ppl need to give the camera thing a break already... anyone ******** about the playbook camera? no... its the same damn camera!!!
    ericlc2 likes this.
    08-13-11 02:21 PM
  8. ratchetjaw#AC's Avatar
    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.
    WP7 is lacking. Have beta mango on my Venue Pro. That's not the reason easier. Takes faster pics and better for video. That's what we users complained about that's what they fixed. This is still the phone for many of us. Not for the diehard macroshot shooters
    08-13-11 02:28 PM
  9. pythons's Avatar
    ppl need to give the camera thing a break already... anyone ******** about the playbook camera? no... its the same damn camera!!!
    It's not practical to carry around a tablet like it was a smartphone - it has totally different rubrics...
    ...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 PM
  10. sivan's Avatar
    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.
    I want to use the camera myself before passing judgment. I understand the problem for those who need macro and in general want to use the phone as their daily camera. I 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 04:04 PM
  11. kelton's Avatar
    I'd take the phone 3x as thick!

    We are applying more and more of our lives into these phones. For that, I can tolerate a much thicker phone if that's what it takes to avoid all the quirks of uber-miniaturization.
    08-13-11 05:18 PM
  12. pythons's Avatar
    I want to use the camera myself before passing judgment. I understand the problem for those who need macro and in general want to use the phone as their daily camera.
    I want to test it as well, I should get the 9930 by Wed next week according to the Store mgr I spoke with in person today. I will give it a hard 3 or 4 day test and report as to what I find out. Early this next week I will also get an iphone 4 from AT&T to test out.

    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.


    I 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.
    That's smart man, if I get my seed device soon enough I will take more than enough pictures to settle anyones question as to the camera quality.
    08-13-11 08:36 PM
  13. pythons's Avatar
    I'd take the phone 3x as thick!

    We are applying more and more of our lives into these phones. For that, I can tolerate a much thicker phone if that's what it takes to avoid all the quirks of uber-miniaturization.
    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.

    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 PM
  14. sivan's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    08-13-11 08:56 PM
  15. Sharke's Avatar
    i carry my phone in my pants pocket so I like the thinner form factor. Would it matter to me if it was thicker? not really. it is not one of the features that make it a must have
    Please don't carry your phone in your pants pocket. You'll sterilize yourself.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    08-13-11 08:58 PM
  16. PagerRocka's Avatar
    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.
    And the iPhone also has a non-removable battery, and no micro sd slot, so I don't think it's fair to say other manufacturer can make a thinner phones with AF camera when you're comparing different form factors

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    08-13-11 09:08 PM
  17. pythons's Avatar
    And the iPhone also has a non-removable battery, and no micro sd slot, so I don't think it's fair to say other manufacturer can make a thinner phones with AF camera when you're comparing different form factors

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    The fact is that iphone is thinner than the Berry and what sense is there in being so obsessed with how thin the iphone 4 is that blackberry would take a solid ability it already had and make it not functional - just so it could say it's almost as thin as an iphone?

    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 PM
  18. sportline's Avatar
    Sgs2 is 8.9mm thin with af camera.
    08-13-11 09:14 PM
  19. T
    And the iPhone also has a non-removable battery, and no micro sd slot, so I don't think it's fair to say other manufacturer can make a thinner phones with AF camera when you're comparing different form factors

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Great points. The non-removable battery and no micro sd slot are major drawbacks as far as I'm concerned. Does it even have a removable SIM card? I talked to someone recently who just took a trip to Italy, and he said he had AT&T enable its international plan, but I forgot to ask him if he could have removed his SIM and used a local provider.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by Tnis; 08-13-11 at 09:57 PM.
    08-13-11 09:54 PM
  20. sivan's Avatar
    The fact is that iphone is thinner than the Berry and what sense is there in being so obsessed with how thin the iphone 4 is that blackberry would take a solid ability it already had and make it not functional - just so it could say it's almost as thin as an iphone?
    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?
    08-13-11 11:12 PM
  21. Broly's Avatar
    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 PM
  22. c_86's Avatar
    Please don't carry your phone in your pants pocket. You'll sterilize yourself.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    you have got to be kidding me....
    08-14-11 12:39 PM
  23. c_86's Avatar
    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?
    BOOM! exactly... this is why the camera has to be smaller... yes the SGS2 and ip4 have AF, but both of these cameras arent under or behind a screen... so they can be a bit thicker... make sense?

    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...

    anyways
    08-14-11 12:42 PM
  24. BlackBerry Guy's Avatar
    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 PM
  25. pythons's Avatar
    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.
    Unfortunately the only thing it demonstrates is that Apple is renting space in RIM's head...
    ...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 PM
75 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD