http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/ Engadget Comments for The Motorola Q Smartphone http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
i don't think you followed--this is the razrberry.

boss,

i've used winmo powered devices for a while now--2003 se is very stable. i expect 5.0 will be even better.

best,
ryan]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
granted, sprint has the ugliest blue version in the world, but their internet plan is tops. plus i'm happy with the os. i've never used the windows mobile software, but i can assume it won't be super-compatible with my mac. not that i am one of those mac users who blasts microsoft or anything, i'm just a firm believer in "if it ain't broke..."

well, until something prettier comes out.

fishes,
narco.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/how do you and peter think this stacks up against the hp hw6515? feature wise, the hp rules and it's only 1/4 inch thicker, so is sleakness that big of a factor for you, or most people? and where are the prices going to end up compartively?]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
but i am a bit skeptical of windows mobile. i guess i will buy it only if i see good review or if i am able to load some mobile linux on it.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
both microsoft and motorola are missing the major reason why blackberries are popular and trying to pick up on gadget freaks that want the "uber l33t hax0r phonez".

blackberries are useful because their os is simplistic and easy to navigate with only the track wheel

they're useful because their push email technology is completely transparent to the user and requires virtually no setup on the device.

they are thriving in fortune 500 companies because they do not have "intellectual property theft" written all over them with 1.3mpx cameras and sd card slots

they are thriving in it because the blackberry enterprise server is the most comprehensive push email/device administration solution for handheld devices in existence.

they are also cheaper and offer a lower tco, easier to maintain, and the os, hardware, and server software are all maintained by the same developer which offers very comprehensive support for their products and takes care of their customers as much as humanly possible.

that is why this will flop... moto, nor ms have the capability of providing half the features/support/services that rim can.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
as for those gadget hounds who love these loaded smartphones, i just can't see this as being superior to the treo. it's too little too late.

if this had wifi, then it becomes something to consider. if this has some form of 3g service, like evdo or hspda built in, then it is something special.

but it's just moto's attempt to replicate the treo. by the time this phone hits, their may be a treo with wifi or evdo.

so try again, moto...give us something better than a treo, not a treo clone with windows mobile...]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
that being said, it's a nice looking item. i'd consider one if it isn't prohibitively expensive.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
windows mobile 5.0 has been optimized for one-hand operation.

i don't think this device itself would hurt the bb too much, but i think we'll see a lot more devices capable of competing with the bb... so maybe all together they'll put a dent in bb sales. we'll see.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
who ever said this was a blackberry-killer? youre right about the reasons why bb is so successful but you fail to realize that the treo 650 (which is similar in concept and features as the q) is still a huge success despite the strong presence of blackberry in the business field. flop is such a strong word for a sexy device like this, try going into treocentral.com and telling the members that their treo is a flop.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/moto_2005_07/img_0286/q/p1030196_605.jpg]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
-- elias]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
think about your corporate it department, when they're deciding whether to deploy blackberries (which require extra proprietary servers and/or subscriptions), or these, which run directly off of their existing outlook servers.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/you should think of q phone as an upgrade alternative to the blackberry. i have a blackberry and my main problem is that they haven't done anything innovative in the last 2 years aka no photo,no media player,no wifi,bluetooth (kinda)and it's still too large.blackberry users like the simplicity/size/speed we just want a little bit more. we don't want all the extra functionality of the treo/samsung i730/htc.
you want to know why? because they are buggy, huge, or not available.
maybe the q phone won't be.
-i'macomputa]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/i disagree about this not doing well against the blackberries....

think about your corporate it department, when they're deciding whether to deploy blackberries (which require extra proprietary servers and/or subscriptions), or these, which run directly off of their existing outlook servers.

you assume they are running exchange 2003...last time i checked bes was significantly less expensive. despite mobile services and activesynch, we still install several be servers every month. end users hate the ms os unless they are the type who like to fiddle with and baby the os. it's been said dozens of times but i will say it again - the blackberry just works. what happens to the data on an ms pda if the battery runs out? (though i hear version 5.0 addresses this failure) nothing is lost on the blackberry.

i'm no blackberry fan-boy, but i do know what my customers like.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
i don't think they're really in the same league right now. one runs smartphone (winmo 5.0), the other pocketpc (2003 se). one is very thin and svelte, the other is fatter but features an sdio slot and gps. they are definitely in the same space (winmo-based qwerty smartphone) but i don't really think they'll compete to heavily against one another.

best,
ryan]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/i am so tired of people calling me from there pockets when they don't hang up there treo's blackberries and the like...30seconds is a looong time...i've gotten some great gossip...however why i would never own one...
we want our flips please!!!!!]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/It will be perfect when Spectec launch it's mini-Sd WIFI.
This is going to replace my DELL PPC & Phone, anytime !]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/how much is it ??]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/
We have a huge deployment of Blackberries, but you can't manipulate attachments, can't attach anything from the Blackberry, etc ... It's good for email and that's about it.

These devices offer true MS Office compatibility/functionality, as well as terminal services, which can be invaluable for a remote admin who gets called to fix a problem at any hour anywhere.

Cost is also an issue with the BB's as it's minimum $5k to implement a new server, and dedicated BB support can be 10's of thousands depending on the level of response you want ... having push email automatically in Exchange 2003 is a blessing ...

RIM and Palm both are feeling the heat as demonstrated by their recent consolidation of efforts to combat MS. It'll be an interesting 2006 and 2007 for sure ... especially with Goodlink rivaling both MS and RIM ...]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/the-motorola-q-smartphone/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM