Pogue turns the screw on RIM's BlackBerry Storm

BB_Storm_Front_Left271x500.jpgDavid Pogue at the NYT was among the most blunt of those who slammed the Storm. The response, he writes, is denial from RIM itself and a hundred-ish letters in his mailbag from customers who agree with him. Here's just one:
"I too find it unbelievable that these are for sale. Verizon should just box all these Storms up and send them to Toys R Us, who can sell them in the Brainteaser section, right next to the Rubik's Cubes."

About a dozen wrote in to disagree.

"Having you comment on technology is like having Tom Cruise comment on religion,"
That is, it must be said, a spicy rejoinder.

Here's the interesting thing about all this: everyone has made touchscreen-only phones that would have seemed revolutionary were it not for the one they followed. But while the likes of Samsung's Instinct and T-Mobile's G1 can impress us by offering 80%, RIM can't. RIM's gear must always be more-or-less perfect, with only the slightest of give for price-range context. They are tools, and must perform the functions not just of a phone, but a BlackBerry, and anything less will only fail in sharper relief because of it.

MSNBC covers the situation in more traditional fashion.

Pogue's col [NYT]


Discussion

Take a look at this
#1 posted by Anonymous , December 4, 2008 1:33 PM

The issue here isn't that RIM only offered 80% and is held to a higher standard. The issue is that the Storm's "revolutionary innovation," the clickable screen, is a problem in search of a solution ... Or, rather, a solution that makes the problem worse. It's far easier to type on a normal touchscreen than it is to click this damn thing over and over again. That's the big issue with Storm, beyond of course the horrid (but fixable) firmware bugs.

Take a look at this

my friend works for verizon and he told us a few days prior to the release that these phones are garbage. Basically, he said, the phone was a scam and didn't live up to any of the purported expectations.

Take a look at this
#3 posted by mdh , December 5, 2008 2:00 PM

That is, it must be said, a spicy rejoinder.

That would be spicy if Scientology even HAD a market share to compare to Apple's.

just sayin'

Post a comment

Anonymous