[3CISSBB]

Congrats on the 8900 purchase, and welcome to CB.

However........I'm so sorry for your AT&T choice.

[godzilla07]

Again I have to disagree. The 8900 clearly fills a niche as a non-3G device. The 3G device counter-part to the 8900 is the Bold. The problem in your situation is that T-mobile passed on the Bold.

I'm not trying to sound offensive here, but this is what GSMArena said on the 8900's lack of 3G. GSMArena is a large phone review site and I agree with them on this.

Connectivity: No 3G ruins the deal

Now this is the area where a second BlackBerry in a row fails to convince. While the Curve 8900 got the Wi-Fi thing right it fails big time with the lack of 3G. A BlackBerry handset without a BlackBerry data plan is as good as a 100-buck phone so you normally have one when you purchase it. So it is hardly a smart move by RIM to force you to use EDGE only.

The quad-band GSM/GPRS/EDGE support secures global roaming but lacks the 3G speed, not to mention HSDPA. While the Wi-Fi will certainly make up for the lack of it when a hot spot is around and is the far cheaper option when traveling abroad, it is by no means a complete alternative.

[aristile]

I'm not trying to sound offensive here, but this is what GSMArena said on the 8900's lack of 3G. GSMArena is a large phone review site and I agree with them on this.

I hear you but it is just an opinion on the situation. That review is clearly short-sighted and is not taking into account the things I am saying here. Once you do consider the points I was discussing here, it makes a lot of sense as to why the 8900 was released the way it was and the carriers it was with. If lack of 3G were so bad then the sales of the 8900 would reflect that. Instead, the sales are great so I think that speaks volumes.

[3CISSBB]

I log over 10,500 minutes a month for business and personal use over UMA (Wi-Fi).

Now...show me a 3G Curve with 10,500 minutes a month and let's compare bills.

3G is a battery hog while Wi-Fi is not. Speed is really of no concern between Wi-Fi and 3G.

I'll pick Wi-Fi over 3G any day.

[ClintRo]

to the OP... welcome to the crack!!!!

To the other boys in here.... :P

[godzilla07]

I log over 10,500 minutes a month for business and personal use over UMA (Wi-Fi).

Now...show me a 3G Curve with 10,500 minutes a month and let's compare bills.

3G is a battery hog while Wi-Fi is not. Speed is really of no concern between Wi-Fi and 3G.

I'll pick Wi-Fi over 3G any day.

Well really you're comparing UMA and 3G. I'll take 3G. I have to do work where I can't access Wi-Fi. EDGE can be painful when I tether. I have to disconnect to take a call and then reconnect when I'm done with a call. I'd be fine with EDGE if my battery could last 2 days with the stock battery through normal usage on my 8900. But the 8900 dies around noon even if I try to conserve battery. A topoff charge is required for my 8900 to make it through the day. I would have to charge a Bold at night and I have to charge my 8900 at night. I respect that you need UMA, but I'm representing the other side of the argument.

I hear you but it is just an opinion on the situation. That review is clearly short-sighted and is not taking into account the things I am saying here. Once you do consider the points I was discussing here, it makes a lot of sense as to why the 8900 was released the way it was and the carriers it was with. If lack of 3G were so bad then the sales of the 8900 would reflect that. Instead, the sales are great so I think that speaks volumes.

True, but that review is for Europe and Asia mostly. I know that that review is from somebody that doesn't really know the BlackBerry and the BlackBerry system. But it does have some points. The 8900's success is based off of T-Mobile USA customers. The thing with 3G is that you don't know what you don't have if you've never had it. Many people are fine with EDGE because they've never had 3G. T-Mobile's network is good, but the 3G coverage is pretty abysmal. UMA is great for most people but I've got excellent coverage around the city so it's unneeded for me.

[aristile]

Well really you're comparing UMA and 3G. I'll take 3G. I have to do work where I can't access Wi-Fi. EDGE can be painful when I tether. I have to disconnect to take a call and then reconnect when I'm done with a call. I'd be fine with EDGE if my battery could last 2 days with the stock battery through normal usage on my 8900. But the 8900 dies around noon even if I try to conserve battery. A topoff charge is required for my 8900 to make it through the day. I would have to charge a Bold at night and I have to charge my 8900 at night. I respect that you need UMA, but I'm representing the other side of the argument.



True, but that review is for Europe and Asia mostly. I know that that review is from somebody that doesn't really know the BlackBerry and the BlackBerry system. But it does have some points. The 8900's success is based off of T-Mobile USA customers. The thing with 3G is that you don't know what you don't have if you've never had it. Many people are fine with EDGE because they've never had 3G. T-Mobile's network is good, but the 3G coverage is pretty abysmal. UMA is great for most people but I've got excellent coverage around the city so it's unneeded for me.

I think the difference is that I do understand both sides of the argument very well and that is why I think the Bold and the 8900 (and now the Tour) are all great devices that just each serve different users. I do not bash the 8900 because it does not have 3G nor do I bash the Bold for not having UMA nor the Tour for its lack of WiFi. Each device fills a different niche in the market and to me, that is very clear to see. I still feel that your frustrations are not with the 8900 yet you are still taking them out on the device. T-mobile and AT&T are who you have your real beef with. T-mobile because they skipped on the Bold plus the 3G network is tiny and AT&T because their coverage is not great in your area and also their prices are higher. Think about it this way, if the 8900 didn't come along then you would still be using an 8320 - that should make things better for you.

[TgeekB]

Well really you're comparing UMA and 3G. I'll take 3G. I have to do work where I can't access Wi-Fi. EDGE can be painful when I tether. I have to disconnect to take a call and then reconnect when I'm done with a call. I'd be fine with EDGE if my battery could last 2 days with the stock battery through normal usage on my 8900. But the 8900 dies around noon even if I try to conserve battery. A topoff charge is required for my 8900 to make it through the day. I would have to charge a Bold at night and I have to charge my 8900 at night. I respect that you need UMA, but I'm representing the other side of the argument.



True, but that review is for Europe and Asia mostly. I know that that review is from somebody that doesn't really know the BlackBerry and the BlackBerry system. But it does have some points. The 8900's success is based off of T-Mobile USA customers. The thing with 3G is that you don't know what you don't have if you've never had it. Many people are fine with EDGE because they've never had 3G. T-Mobile's network is good, but the 3G coverage is pretty abysmal. UMA is great for most people but I've got excellent coverage around the city so it's unneeded for me.

But there are others, like myself, who HAVE used 3G and now realize that it is nothing special. All it did for me was require me to recharge my battery more often. EDGE does the job just fine, wifi is there if I need it.

Aristile is just making the point that, even if you seem to dislike the 8900, there is a place for it, as proven by it's mass success. Doesn't it make sense to have different devices for different needs? I'm not hating on the Bold just because I don't have one. I have what I need and Bold users do too. Best of both worlds.

[godzilla07]

I just wish the 8900 had 3G. If it did, that would be the end of my BlackBerry search. If the 8900 had 3G, it would be perfect. And for those that don't need it or don't have it, run it on 2G. Oh well, at least the Driftwood will have 3G.

[aristile]

I just wish the 8900 had 3G. If it did, that would be the end of my BlackBerry search. If the 8900 had 3G, it would be perfect. And for those that don't need it or don't have it, run it on 2G. Oh well, at least the Driftwood will have 3G.

Now from that statement, I can see where you are coming from. The problem I have is that on other occasions you go further than that and actually bash the 8900 for other reasons. If the 8900 would be perfect to you if it had 3G, then refrain from the other comments you have made against the device and your position would be much more consistent and much easier to understand.

[godzilla07]

Now from that statement, I can see where you are coming from. The problem I have is that on other occasions you go further than that and actually bash the 8900 for other reasons. If the 8900 would be perfect to you if it had 3G, then refrain from the other comments you have made against the device and your position would be much more consistent and much easier to understand.

The 8900's competitors have 3G and the 8900 does not. The phones I'm talking about are the iPhone, E71, Bold, maybe even the N97 and the upcoming E72. The 8900 should have had 3G but RIM decided to not put it in because they didn't want it to cannibalize the Bold sales.

E: The 8900 has some build quality problems that I've outlined but it may be a problem with my device. I've also heard reports from Bold owners and RIM's overall build quality is slipping. I wish RIM built devices like tanks but without the bulk of the tank (8700 anyone?).

[aristile]

The 8900's competitors have 3G and the 8900 does not. The phones I'm talking about are the iPhone, E71, Bold, maybe even the N97 and the upcoming E72. The 8900 should have had 3G but RIM decided to not put it in because they didn't want it to cannibalize the Bold sales.

E: The 8900 has some build quality problems that I've outlined but it may be a problem with my device. I've also heard reports from Bold owners and RIM's overall build quality is slipping. I wish RIM built devices like tanks but without the bulk of the tank (8700 anyone?).

Well, we were getting to some common ground but now we just took two steps back. I completely disagree that the 8900 "should have" 3G because the way it is now fills a niche in the market and it is an important device. The sales prove what I am talking about.

Just because your specific situation would have a useful need for 3G, that does not translate that your situation is the same for most of the T-mobile users. The reason for this is due to the fact that the T-mobile 3G network is so tiny and because of that, most T-mobile users benefit much more from EDGE with UMA instead of 3G. I do think you should have the option to purchase a separate device that would have 3G but that was a T-mobile decision to pass on the Bold, not a RIM decision. In fact, if you look at AT&T, they have both devices available in order to satisfy the most of their customer base as possible.

[godzilla07]

Well, we were getting to some common ground but now we just took two steps back. I completely disagree that the 8900 "should have" 3G because the way it is now fills a niche in the market and it is an important device. The sales prove what I am talking about.

Just because your specific situation would have a useful need for 3G, that does not translate that your situation is the same for most of the T-mobile users. The reason for this is due to the fact that the T-mobile 3G network is so tiny and because of that, most T-mobile users benefit much more from EDGE with UMA instead of 3G. I do think you should have the option to purchase a separate device that would have 3G but that was a T-mobile decision to pass on the Bold, not a RIM decision. In fact, if you look at AT&T, they have both devices available in order to satisfy the most of their customer base as possible.

I was looking at 8900 vs. other devices. Within the RIM device family, the 8900 does serve a purpose. For people that either hate the size of the Bold, or are on T-Mobile USA or need UMA and are on a carrier that supports it. RIM could have also made an 8900 with 3G and made it a 9xxx-series model, oh wait, that's the Driftwood/Onyx.

To address T-Mobile, they've always made decisions that made them look like their head was up their arse. I remember them passing on the TyTN and instead giving T-Mobile customers a blue piece of junk that was called the Wing. T-Mobile decided to give us the finger with that and they passed on the next 2 HTC flagship WM devices. By the time T-Mobile has a modern WM device which was a few days ago, I have the 8900. T-Mobile looks to not be offering the HTC Hero which is the best Android device yet until the Rachael from SE comes out. I hate my carrier's device selection but $20/month for unlimited data + tethering is enough to make me stay with them.

[aristile]

... RIM could have also made an 8900 with 3G and made it a 9xxx-series model, oh wait, that's the Driftwood/Onyx ...

And there you go, the device that fills your specific needs as a T-mobile customer is already in the works. If you look at the Driftwood/Onyx then you can easily see it is a combination of the Bold and the 8900. It seems to me that it is a clear progression in the technology and it took those two devices to be developed separately for RIM to then make the combined model.

[godzilla07]

And there you go, the device that fills your specific needs as a T-mobile customer is already in the works. If you look at the Driftwood/Onyx then you can easily see it is a combination of the Bold and the 8900. It seems to me that it is a clear progression in the technology and it took those two devices to be developed separately for RIM to then make the combined model.

But couldn't RIM have done the Onyx without UMA and released it when the 8900 was released? RIM could have made the 8900 for the people I listed that are served by this device and a 9xxx-series 8900 with 3G but without UMA for people that don't have a use for it. UMA and 3G couldn't have been at the time this theoretical device would have been released. The only reason RIM didn't do that is because they didn't want Bold sales to take a deep decline.

[aristile]

But couldn't RIM have done the Onyx without UMA and released it when the 8900 was released? RIM could have made the 8900 for the people I listed that are served by this device and a 9xxx-series 8900 with 3G but without UMA for people that don't have a use for it. UMA and 3G couldn't have been at the time this theoretical device would have been released. The only reason RIM didn't do that is because they didn't want Bold sales to take a deep decline.

There was no need for RIM to do this because that's what the Bold was for. Again, T-mobile passed on the Bold. Your beef is with them, not RIM.


Dead Horse, meet Stick ... Sick, Dead Horse.