[palomartian]

ATT isn't scheduled to release it until 11/20, so you might want to wait just a bit longer.

[navels]

Wow, the outage has hit me today (I'm in Seattle) . . . that may be the last straw.

Lee

[ifarlow]

Well lucky for you iCloud will never have down time. Never. Ever. Cross my heart.

[ph03n1x]

Well lucky for you iCloud will never have down time. Never. Ever. Cross my heart.

yea sure all systems will have downtime because it is made by people and maintained by them too

[ifarlow]

You missed the sarcasm in my typing.

[ph03n1x]

lol apparently so im reading and typing half asleep it feels like lol

[3migo]

Your just putting stats out ther. Just because a phone has better number doesn't mean it can out perform the other.

Oh yes because Apple fanboyism is so much more reliable and informative than stats and facts?

[ADGrant]

Well lucky for you iCloud will never have down time. Never. Ever. Cross my heart.

Even if it does, it won't stop me accessing my gmail accounts.

[dyavrom]

just a thought...i think ill be doing this soon.
for those who have an upgrade att ATT... why not buy an iPhone 4s, sell it on ebay for $700+ (profit $500) and then buy a BB Bold on ebay for $500-$600. if it all works well, you can effectively get one for free.

[ifarlow]

Even if it does, it won't stop me accessing my gmail accounts.

You missed the point in that all services go down from time to time, including Gmail.

[djnick]

I thought CX said there was no hardware change and now there is a hardware change? Which one is it? Also I doubt they did another production run for ATT on the hardware. These have probably been sitting in the warehouse just waiting to be flashed on whatever approved firmware they have.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

I thought CX said there was no hardware change and now there is a hardware change? Which one is it? Also I doubt they did another production run for ATT on the hardware. These have probably been sitting in the warehouse just waiting to be flashed on whatever approved firmware they have.

Just as with the original Bold 9000 there has been a HW change for AT&T. There was talk of a 2nd HW change but it wasn't needed.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[djnick]

Just as with the original Bold 9000 there has been a HW change for AT&T. There was talk of a 2nd HW change but it wasn't needed.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Gotcha. It'll be interesting to see the feedback from ATT users compared to the rest.

[Aomar7]

Gotcha. It'll be interesting to see the feedback from ATT users compared to the rest.

+1, hope quality control issues are minimal

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[3migo]

+1, hope quality control issues are minimal

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

After all this waiting, we better get a damn near perfect product.

[data77]

After all this waiting, we better get a damn near perfect product.

I can't believe I have waited for this long..

This better work like a near perfect device.

CX/PG, bring this device to us quickly..we are the few loyal RIM/Candybar/AT&T customers left around.

[3migo]

I can't believe I have waited for this long..

This better work like a near perfect device.

CX/PG, bring this device to us quickly..we are the few loyal RIM/Candybar/AT&T customers left around.

I am going to be very upset if I wait until November for the 9900, and I get a defective device.

[claykin]

Well lucky for you iCloud will never have down time. Never. Ever. Cross my heart.

Yeah, and I also promise that Apple won't data mine the type of data you store on iCloud. Big brother is watching!!!!

[claykin]

Just as with the original Bold 9000 there has been a HW change for AT&T. There was talk of a 2nd HW change but it wasn't needed.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Sorry but I have a hard time believing its a textbook "hardware change". That would mean a board re-layout and/or component change. If they simply updated baseband firmware/microcode, this does not classify as a hardware change. All that is software. Lets see some backup to these claims please. I'm not challenging, just asking for backup to what seems to be solid statements you're making.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Sorry but I have a hard time believing its a textbook "hardware change". That would mean a board re-layout and/or component change. If they simply updated baseband firmware/microcode, this does not classify as a hardware change. All that is software. Lets see some backup to these claims please. I'm not challenging, just asking for backup to what seems to be solid statements you're making.

Look the exact same thing happened with the original Bold 9000. Why some of you just refuse to accept that AT&T required HW change is beyond me. Bottom line is the AT&T 9900 will have a different HW revision number than a 9900 from Rogers or T-Mobile. However I'm not going to go out of my way to prove anything to anyone much less someone who refuses to believe, even though the exact same thing has happened in the past, that AT&T needed a HW revision. You'll see for yourself when it's released and you compare revision numbers.

[claykin]

Look the exact same thing happened with the original Bold 9000. Why some of you just refuse to accept that AT&T required HW change is beyond me. Bottom line is the AT&T 9900 will have a different HW revision number than a 9900 from Rogers or T-Mobile. However I'm not going to go out of my way to prove anything to anyone much less someone who refuses to believe, even though the exact same thing has happened in the past, that AT&T needed a HW revision. You'll see for yourself when it's released and you compare revision numbers.

CX

Its not that I refuse to believe it, it just doesn't add up.

If RIM made an error and could not properly support AT&T's "complicated" (more like screwed up) network with the 9000, and this forced a hardware change, why would they repeat the same stupidity with the 9900? (Read..hardware engineers should now be looking for a new job!!!) "Hardware changes" as you call them are expensive. Trust me, I've built several circuit board designs in the past. Raw PCB re-layouts or even component changes come with a cost. And in RIM's case where they are manufacturing in several facilities worldwide, the cost is higher.

Revision numbers don't necessarily mean a new hardware revision in the true sense of the word. It could simply mean that the new revision is guaranteed to contain the new baseband code/microcode, etc...

Again, that same code update could be pushed in an OS upgrade and possibly OTA I suspect.

I would feel better if some more proof could be provided. I've lived through too many situations where "issues" are misclassified.

Don't take it personally. I love that you are on top of this for AT&T subscribers. Hopefully AT&T will get this going for people soon.

[psiclne]

If RIM made an error and could not properly support AT&T's "complicated" (more like screwed up) network with the 9000, and this forced a hardware change, why would they repeat the same stupidity with the 9900? (Read..hardware engineers should now be looking for a new job!!!)

My thoughts exactly. There have been many BB's out since the 9000, you would think they would've learned by now that at&t requires certain things.

[claykin]

at&t requires certain things.

Like a governmental break-up like they did in the 70s.

rant

AT&T stinks big time. I am in So. FL and ever since AT&T acquired Bellsouth, its been nothing but horrible service and horrible CS down here. For the first time in 20 years CS Agents are uninformed and sometimes obnoxious and trying to oversell. Repair of a dead landline takes up to 4 business days. Really pathetic and the fools running Florida's government abolished the Public Service Commission a few years back (probably a result of AT&T lobbying). The PSC was the last hope for consumers to get help from utilities that just don't give a crap about consumers (except to make sure they pay their bill timely). Now we're on our own.

The thought of AT&T buying TMo makes me sick. If that deal goes through I'm on to VZW or Sprint. I am not a CDMA fan, but will take it if I have to.

/rant

[psiclne]

Like a governmental break-up like they did in the 70s.

All they did was go in a big circle, broke em up and then they just ended up all back together again.

[YourMobileGuru]

CX

Its not that I refuse to believe it, it just doesn't add up.

If RIM made an error and could not properly support AT&T's "complicated" (more like screwed up) network with the 9000, and this forced a hardware change, why would they repeat the same stupidity with the 9900? (Read..hardware engineers should now be looking for a new job!!!) "Hardware changes" as you call them are expensive. Trust me, I've built several circuit board designs in the past. Raw PCB re-layouts or even component changes come with a cost. And in RIM's case where they are manufacturing in several facilities worldwide, the cost is higher.

Revision numbers don't necessarily mean a new hardware revision in the true sense of the word. It could simply mean that the new revision is guaranteed to contain the new baseband code/microcode, etc...

Again, that same code update could be pushed in an OS upgrade and possibly OTA I suspect.

I would feel better if some more proof could be provided. I've lived through too many situations where "issues" are misclassified.

Don't take it personally. I love that you are on top of this for AT&T subscribers. Hopefully AT&T will get this going for people soon.

What possible reason could he have to lie? He works for RIM not AT&T, and by telling us as much as he is he is technically violating an NDA (non disclosure agreement), risking his job; and if he produces "proof" (pics, internal documents, etc.) he would be further violating his NDA and since things like that tend to be restricted to only those who need to know, he would be taking an even further risk of being caught. Some of us might not always agree with his views on things or like the things he tells us because it is not what we want to hear, but factually CX has virtually always been accurate.

The AT&T Bold 9000 had a different HW rev than the Rogers one that is a fact (research the old forum threads from three years ago if you don't believe it), so the fact that it is happening again is completely plausible and probable. AT&T IS a hodgepodge of GSM and I believe TDMA networks acquired from the various small companies they have bought out over the years that have been "integrated" to work together but with vastly different hardware and firmware versions. Rogers does not have this problem.

I'm not defending AT&T, they should have made it a higher priority and devoted more resources to it than they have been so it could launch at roughly the same time as the other carriers but that's water under the bridge and we have to deal with the now. For NOW they are getting closer to having something they are comfortable releasing and people should be thanking CX for keeping us informed (he is by no means required to do so), not giving him the third degree.