Motorola throws back, unveils StarTac III MS900

Considering that Motorola has been yearning to duplicate the monumental success of the RAZR with, well, anything, we can't quite decide what to make of the firm's desperate / throw back attempt to conjure sales with an all new StarTac. Sure, the Moto mainstay holds a dear place in many of our hearts, and even the short-lived 2004 edition was appreciated for its nostalgic flair, but the 3.2-ounce StarTac III MS900 just seems a bit too vintage to actually enjoy in this millennium. Aside from such glaring omissions as a basic camera and external LCD, it does sport a very pocket-friendly design, simplistic style, MP3 playback, an electronic dictionary, questionable e-book functionality, GPS, and 128MB of built-in memory. Additionally, you'll find a two-inch QVGA display, mobile banking abilities, 160 minutes of talk time (300 hours in standby), and a mysterious "biorhythm" function to boot. As expected, there's no set price or release date for this blast from the past just yet, but with such niceties looming just around the corner, we've serious doubts about folks diving back into yesteryear with their new handsets.

[Via UnwiredView]

[Dixonij @ Feb 27th 2007 11:58AM]

Would it have killed Moto to put a basic display and camera in this?

[andy @ Feb 27th 2007 12:01PM]

that'll stop em buying an iphone!!!! :s

[akintz @ Feb 27th 2007 12:01PM]

I was going to comment on how something simple like this would have kept me with Verizon. A simple, clean phone design without too many crazy things that I don't care about. The no camera part doesn't bother me too much (i never use the one on my current phone) but the no external display is a killer for a flip phone these days, IMO.

[hesh @ Feb 27th 2007 12:15PM]

I completely agree. There's no point in releasing a flip that doesn't have an external display. Otherwise, the overall look is kinda nice (except for "Style" imprinted on the flip) for an update.

[BigD @ Feb 27th 2007 7:01PM]

It actually says "T-style" which is SK Telecom's big thing these days. All of SK's new phones carry that logo. It does appear to be Korea only, though. The "biorhythm" thing is a dead giveaway, as is the dictionary function.

[KazO @ Feb 27th 2007 12:12PM]

I know LOTS of people (not all my parents' age, even) who'd appreciate a simplified phone. The carriers will never promote them because they don't generate as much subscriber income from music/ringtone/pic messaging/etc.

[Richard @ Feb 27th 2007 12:19PM]

MOT are funny.

They set phone fashion for years with the StarTAC, then the RAZR but, they never understood that fashion is all about appearance and while they have made the RAZR better and better (I didn't say good) to the casual buyer the new ones look just like the old ones so why buy another?

Hopefully for MOT this StarTAC re-do will sell. Heck, I hear bell bottoms are coming back!

They had better get that banana phone thing with UIQ out soon!

[mrsalty @ Feb 27th 2007 4:38PM]

I love this phone if it is priced at $50 bucks or under I'll take 15 for my crew. Well hopefully it has PTP. No more broken external LCDs nice form factor, flips just seem to have beter reception. What is Tstyle? is that a new Tmobile brand?

[mrsalty @ Feb 27th 2007 4:38PM]

well, i guess I don't need the external LCD anyway. It looks like the phone lights up in different callers depending on personal, business, or unknown numbers. So, people I have called before or have called me may light up in green, those in my phonebook light up in blue, and those that light up in red are unknows, and can leave a damn message. Lot quicker looking at colors then numbers.

[Matt B @ Feb 27th 2007 1:19PM]

What? No flimsy antenna to break? That is no throw back my friends.

[stumpy @ Feb 27th 2007 4:48PM]

I want less phone. A phone that does one thing and does it extremely well, makes calls. No camera. No web browser. No mp3 playback. No ringtones. I don't care about a high resolution color display, datebook or office tools. Give me small, simple, durable, light, and makes calls with clarity when I need.

[Barfito @ Feb 27th 2007 1:50PM]

I personally perfer a more compact phone with no camera in it. I'm not a fan of the crappy phone pics.

[rcappo @ Feb 27th 2007 2:17PM]

There are plenty of government workers that aren't allowed to bring camera phones to work.

[akintz @ Feb 27th 2007 3:01PM]

It's not just government workers that can't have camera phones. My company doesn't allow them either and we have no affiliation to any government.

[Jake @ Feb 27th 2007 1:59PM]

The only thing stopping me from buying this is an external screen. Otherwise, I think it looks great, and I personally like the fact that it doesn't have a camera.

[anonymous @ Feb 27th 2007 2:02PM]

Other than all the new-techers, it is probably true that the majority of cell phone users would prefer fewer gadgets in their phone. If I want a total gadget phone, I'll buy a razr or blackberry. A phone should be able to store phone numbers and make phone calls. Anything else is beyond the scope of what a phone is for.

[Denzil @ Feb 27th 2007 2:04PM]

Looks like one of those samsung flip phones.

[pepik2000 @ Feb 27th 2007 2:23PM]

Isn't it a Korea release only with no plans for US release. There are many Motorola phones release all over the world that are never brought to US shores. A simple phone is what most people want anyway. The tech geeks are still the minority in the phone user community - I'm proud to be one, but don't want imagine some members of my family attempting to use a complex communications device.

[Jamar @ Feb 27th 2007 7:58PM]

You can still activate it in the US on Verizon (or maybe Alltel) because it's CDMA (places that will do such a thing are mainly found in cities with a large Korean population).

[Mr. B @ Feb 27th 2007 4:04PM]

A phone for... making calls? Absurd!

[Oktobr @ Feb 27th 2007 5:00PM]

I actually think it looks quite nice. I don't like thinness for thinness' sake. That said, the V3 is still the most beautiful phone I've seen. There's something about it's particular dimensions that's been lost in the 3G editions and the KRZR.

[chuck @ Feb 27th 2007 4:53PM]

160 minutes of talk time? Wtf? You'd think they could at least have improved the talk time from the old startac.

[Glenn @ Feb 27th 2007 6:11PM]

There are many work sites that allow cell phones but prohibit cameras and thus all cell phones that have cameras. This looks like a good replacement. Cingular - oops! AT&T has been nagging me to replace my old StarTac.

Any one have a read on how it compares, voice sound quality wise?

[Matthew M @ Feb 27th 2007 8:05PM]

One of the reasons for the success of the original startac was the fact that it was made out of ballistics plastics, you could drive over it with a 3/4-ton truck and it wouldn't lose a beat. My guess is that this phone did NOT replicate this very essential feature, otherwise it wouldn't fit in with the world of disposable cell phones we live in these days would it?

[interlard @ Feb 27th 2007 9:58PM]

Where's the tempting-looking button on the front that makes the battery fall off? I could never understand what people saw that in that old piece of crap. It was designed by people who had obviously never encountered a phone before.

Perhaps Moto is just trying to show us that they realized their glaring error with this "update"?

[Dev @ Mar 29th 2007 12:11AM]

What happened to this phone? Is it popular in Korea?