I see a lot of hype in the ads about how thin the new Bold will be.
Just wondering: Is that really an important feature for you?
The thickness of the 9650 was okay with me. When I'm using a phone, I like to feel like I'm holding something important in my hands, not something that feels thin and fragile. Maybe it's just my personal preference.
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
But having played with one (a shop dummy), I am sold. It is a thing of beauty. Thin but weighty and solid. Unobtrusive when slid into a pants pocket, but substantial enough when fondled.
Oops, I mean handled. Man handled, even! Slip of the tongue there...
i like the 9900 thickness not as bulky as 9900 a lot more sleek. the design for me is perfect. i also have a OEM blackberry case with the hardshell backing and silicone sides and the phone still feels great.
But, because it's thin, it is a little difficult to pick the phone up off your desk/table.
And... while it feels solid, and the stainless band is awesome, it feels a little more difficult to hold onto vs the 9780.
I would trade a little more thickness for battery and upgraded camera (a better camera than any previous BlackBerry. This one is on par with 9780; missing the AF but has much better video).
thin in this case sacrificed the autofocus camera, and that's a no no
Sorry but they could have had an auto focus camera in the same thickness case as my Samsung Galaxy S2 has a 8mp camera with real auto focusing down to a few inches and is thinner than the 9900. Choosing the non-focusing camera was for other reasons.
I was never one who was sold on "thin" or "slim" devices, but I will say this: the new Bold is an elegant looking phone. It looks like it has some nice "weight" to it, too, probably due to the metal sides. (My 9650 has the metal trim also.)
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
thin in this case sacrificed the autofocus camera, and that's a no no
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.
I do care about the phone beening thin, it look betters that way but PLEASE stop using that as an excuse for the camera there are plenty of devices out there with better camera and thinner than the 9900 (iphone and samsung GSII) so it was NOT because of that, we are NOT stupid RIM
I see a lot of hype in the ads about how thin the new Bold will be.
Just wondering: Is that really an important feature for you?
The thickness of the 9650 was okay with me. When I'm using a phone, I like to feel like I'm holding something important in my hands, not something that feels thin and fragile. Maybe it's just my personal preference.
To me it's "cool" and "interesting" but it's NOT cool or interesting at the cost of a functional camera. As far as the weight goes I agree with you - one normally associates weight with quality and because I'm the mobile admin for the company I work for I've set up scores of iphone 4's and can say the weight of that phone screams quality.
I'm also a user of a Bold 9650 via Sprint and agree that the old Bold's feel like they are a high quality device. Like others I'm disgusted at RIM for doing what it did to the camera - it's like they gave the finger to everyone who was using their phone for work.
I could care less about an auto focus camera. I have a very nice Sony Dslr if I want good pictures. The phone pictures are just fun things for me
Exactly. Sometimes it's the only camera I have on my, but it does the job. If I want a truly stunning picture with an amazing depth of field I'll get my professional camera out.
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.
- Buy an extended battery from Seidio once they are released
- Duct tape it to a brick, or preferably to the back of a digital camera so people would stop complaining about auto-focus in every single freaking thread! Seriously, guys. There's more than enough threads on that topic!
- Buy an Otterbox or other thick case
- Boil the phone to expand the molecules
The point is, there's plenty of ways to make a phone thicker (ok, maybe two...). There's only so much you can do to make it thinner. The reason why I don't like the tropics too much is because I can only take off so many layers of clothing before I get arrested.
... Duct tape it to a brick, or preferably to the back of a digital camera so people would stop complaining about auto-focus in every single freaking thread! Seriously, guys. There's more than enough threads on that topic!...
