[ummie4]

This is not Verizon's version. This is the US Unlocked and possibly AT&T's. Updated title to avoid confusion.

Yes I know this will not work on VZW as no phones do from shopBB. I was speculating why BB might have left band 13 off of the STV100-1. In another year or 2 when VZW LTE is everywhere and voLTE is on every phone there would be nothing to stop STV100-1 from working on VZW if it had band 13. Remember Verizon can only turn down phones from entering its CDMA voice network. It's LTE is just as open as ATT's that why some were able to activate their passport as a "tablet" on VZW.

[ToniCipriani]

Yes I know this will not work on VZW as no phones do from shopBB. I was speculating why BB might have left band 13 off of the STV100-1. In another year or 2 when VZW LTE is everywhere and voLTE is on every phone there would be nothing to stop STV100-1 from working on VZW if it had band 13. Remember Verizon can only turn down phones from entering its CDMA voice network. It's LTE is just as open as ATT's that why some were able to activate their passport as a "tablet" on VZW.

Band 13 is on STV100-3. See the FCC thread.

[MTL_BB_user]

Due to the "sliding" of the phone the front part of the phone is probably too thin to have any other type of camera. Its probably the only camera thin enough to fit in the front.

[MTL_BB_user]

Everything looks great but that damn FFC. The specs for it are circa 2012 for smartphones.

Due to the "sliding" of the phone the front part of the phone is probably too thin to have any other type of camera. Its probably the only camera thin enough to fit in the front.

[Omnitech]

I wonder why BlackBerry never created a BB10 device with specs like this? Am I missing the big picture here? Why couldn't the Passport have specs like this, or even the Z30? Why did we have to wait for Android? I got a lot of questions for Mr Chen.

The answer is quite simple: when you produce your own unique platform and ecosystem, a large part of the value is in the unique technology and user experience that your platform provides that no other platform provides. This is a very important reason why Apple gets away with charging a lot of money for hardware that is not necessarily competitive in more "open" platforms: it only runs their OS, and you can't run their OS on any other hardware. (technically)

And I'm actually fine with all of that, assuming that the platform/ecosystem provide clear benefits over other options. Competition is good.

However with the Android marketplace, since the OS is given away "free" and you can be a "smartphone company" with 20 employees by using generic parts (Hello OnePlus), there is very little device-to-device differentiation, so the vendors try to compete with one or more of the following:

• Price
• Hardware specifications
• Android UI "skins" or bundled proprietary apps

In short, if you have an Android device that is not competitive with current hardware specifications, you probably won't get many sales. It's a far bigger deal with an Android device than it is for an iOS or BB10 device.

[Omnitech]

Yeah, but the biggest complaint about the BBRY selfies are how bad they are in low light and f2.8 is weak. The 2MP would be completely fine if it were an f/1.8 lens. If it's going to take bad pics why have the front camera at all? (Skype, I know...but that app is use much less frequently than Instagram, SnapChat, Dubsmash etc...)

Do you know what depth-of-field is?

That f/1.8 lens, if it's used at maximum aperture, may result in some disappointing pics after you discover that most of your picture is out of focus because of its shallow depth-of-field. (And the fact that almost all smartphone "front cams" have no autofocus - they are fixed focus)

Furthermore, assuming a similiar sensor technology, a 5MP sensor will have much less light sensitivity than a 2MP sensor, causing lousy pics in low light. (Which is a concern because very few if any smartphone "front cams" have a supplemental lighting source.) In fact, the 5MP sensor will cause the lens to open up to that "desirable" f/1.8 a lot more often, increasing the likelihood of blurry pics too. Sound good?

Oh - and if you stop to consider how many people blur the holy cr*p out of most of their selfie pics to hide their facial blemishes, skin tone, receding hairline, etc... it's kinda funny to watch people complain so bitterly that their front smartphone cam won't take pics that they can use for their dermatology classes.

[Omnitech]

I have many best videos with Passport front camera (mostly outdoor). Its ok!

I agree. The pics I've seen with the Passport front-cam were pretty darn good IMHO, way better than previous BlackBerry front-cams. (And better than a number of BlackBerry back-cams, for that matter.)

[Omnitech]

What about CDMA for Verizon? Did I miss something?

And Sprint too! Where?!

This is the StV100-1. There also appears to a STV100-3 and STV100-6 in the works.

Is there a listing for the band's that other STV100-? Models carry? Isn't here a 100-2,100-3,100-4,100-5,100-6 etc?

Or have they included every GSM band into one phone so it would be compatible with TMO, AT&T, Bell, Rogers, Telcel, and European carriers?

See post #35 here for a synopsis.

There are 2 main threads discussing this.

[Omnitech]

They could've at least done USB 3.0 no?

While I personally would have liked to see USB 3.x, I think there are 2 things possibly working against that:

1) If I'm not mistaken, SlimPort does not support USB3, only USB2.

2) USB 3.0 has issues with radiated noise interfering with WiFi signals, and can be a real challenge to shield adequately to solve this problem, particularly when in close proximity to a WiFi antenna.

I don't know if USB 3.1 suffers from the same issue in #2, but I suspect it does because it has to provide backwards-compatibility to USB 3.0.

[Bonsaibo]

Yes I know this will not work on VZW as no phones do from shopBB. I was speculating why BB might have left band 13 off of the STV100-1. In another year or 2 when VZW LTE is everywhere and voLTE is on every phone there would be nothing to stop STV100-1 from working on VZW if it had band 13. Remember Verizon can only turn down phones from entering its CDMA voice network. It's LTE is just as open as ATT's that why some were able to activate their passport as a "tablet" on VZW.

I wouldn't doubt that, if the STV100-1 is for AT&T, then they specifically didn't want band 13. When Verizon is all voLTE, those that have non-band 13 phones, can't jump ship.

[Omnitech]

I wouldn't doubt that, if the STV100-1 is for AT&T, then they specifically didn't want band 13. When Verizon is all voLTE, those that have non-band 13 phones, can't jump ship.

Apparently a perennial problem in the USA. Supposedly it's common when a vendor builds a cell-compatible device and markets it around the world, half of its regional/carrier variants are US models because of how stupid AT&T and Verizon are about making their devices crippled on other networks, even when the underlying network standard they use is otherwise compatible.

[TeaBoy]

Specs look pretty good to me
Front Facing Camera isn't a priority for me so the 2 MP don't bother me at all.
I use the rear Camera more than front.

[acovey]

Don't stand by the phone.

Posted via CB10

Well of course not, I will read it here, BB no longer has my number, maybe you can let me know?

[Plazmic Flame]

Wireless charging??!?!

Wow!!!!

[Preemptive]

I'm expecting a negative answer here (if anyone has a definitive answer at all).

I read the article on this site: "Here's how BlackBerry secured Android on the Priv".

Will this device have an unlocked or unlockable boot loader?

I think this will be of interest to those concerned about BB's future and are also looking to Marshmallow. It's an expensive buy if you then get stuck without updates and no chance to do your own updates or run alternative systems on it.

[ToniCipriani]

Wireless charging??!?!

Wow!!!!

Which is strangely missing from the Canadian model with the same model number.

[ToniCipriani]

I'm expecting a negative answer here (if anyone has a definitive answer at all).

I read the article on this site: "Here's how BlackBerry secured Android on the Priv".

Will this device have an unlocked or unlockable boot loader?

I think this will be of interest to those concerned about BB's future and are also looking to Marshmallow. It's an expensive buy if you then get stuck without updates and no chance to do your own updates or run alternative systems on it.

You just want to put LunaOS on it don't you.

[killarneygetaway]

Which is strangely missing from the Canadian model with the same model number.

Is there anybody "in the know" who can confirm if the lack of wireless charging on the Canadian specs is a typo or in fact true?

[snowsquirrel]

Same model #, two versions with different features? way to go blackberry.

[Omnitech]

Will this device have an unlocked or unlockable boot loader?

No.

[Preemptive]

You just want to put LunaOS on it don't you.

No, no... I mean, not right away...

...I'd wait for the firesale.

I was just posing the question in way that might interest this forum.

So there's the expected "No." above. Does anyone have a link or confirmation reference? My understanding is that locked boot loaders are less to do with security than customer lock in.

[Omnitech]

Same model #, two versions with different features? way to go blackberry.

This is common, and often imposed by carriers.

I never fail to be amazed at the things people come up with to complain and blame BlackBerry about.

[Omnitech]

So there's the expected "No." above. Does anyone have a link or confirmation reference? My understanding is that locked boot loaders are less to do with security than customer lock in.

There is no need to confirm. If you actually paid attention to what the company has said about the product and look at the entire philosophy of the product (and literally almost every product BlackBerry has produced since the company's founding 30 years ago), it would be patently absurd for it to have an unlockable bootloader, much less ship unlocked.

[snowsquirrel]

This is common, and often imposed by carriers.

I did not know this. In the past BB's carrier exclusive wireless charging has always been with Verizon, whom always had different model numbers from all the different carriers. In fact I thought the point of the different model numbers was to differentiate small hardware differences.

I never fail to be amazed at the things people come up with to complain and blame BlackBerry about.

I am not blaming anyone. It is just a bizarre revelation to me. I don't know of any other industry that has multiple model numbers (stv100-1, stv100-2, etc), yet has still has functional hardware variations within those model numbers. I don't think my assumption was too crazy. The closest I have seen to this would be 'hardware revisions' for the same model, but different h/w revisions are not produced in parallel.

Well I learn something new everday I guess.

[gizmo21]

Differences US (upper) to UK (lower) model:

@@ -95 +101 @@
- FD-LTE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 20, 29, 30
+ FD-LTE 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 17, 20, 28
@@ -99,2 +104,0 @@
-(Not compatible on Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular)
-
@@ -103 +107 @@
-$699.00
+�559.00 incl. VAT
@@ -127 +131 @@
-Model Number: STV100-1
+Model Number: STV100-4
@@ -220 +223,0 @@
-� Dual mode Wireless Charging capable for Powermat (PMA) and Qi
@@ -232 +235 @@
-� FD-LTE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 20, 29,30
+� FD-LTE1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 17, 20, 28

So also the UK model is missing the wireless charge option - that's really sad.