BlackBerry Torch 9800 Review: Keeping RIM's Flame Alive
by Brian Klug on September 1, 2010 7:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Torch
- BlackBerry
- Mobile
Conclusion
BlackBerry really struggled to get touchscreen right - look no further than the ill-fated BlackBerry storms as proof, and you’ll see just how stormy those waters are. If ironic names are anything, the Torch’s is even more telling - RIM hopes it got touch right this time, and I think they mostly have. The Torch is RIM’s comeback kid, and it admittedly does what it’s supposed to do very well. The BlackBerry DNA is still very much alive in the Torch despite a completely redesigned form factor, modified UI, and different screen aspect ratio.
Fire, it's a torch, get it?
But once again I have to return to a dramatic dichotomy in markets that RIM faces for BlackBerry shoppers. On one hand, for users that are required to use BlackBerry for enterprise support or security reasons, the Torch is a dramatic, almost paradigm shifting improvement over its predecessors. It’s literally the first BlackBerry I’ve used in years that feels like it’s from this decade. I think it’s fair to say that RIM has gone through OS 6 with a very fine tooth comb and removed all the 1990s-esque walls of text and labyrinthine menus that kept the platform feeling like it just couldn’t shake its utilitarian roots.
With the Torch, you’re finally getting a browser with a WebKit core that can render web pages properly, new multimedia support, an improved camera, and new form factor that does touch right. I’m impressed with how much the Torch has been able to remake itself without loosing all of its BlackBerry DNA. If you’re a BlackBerry person that can’t go 10 minutes without checking BBM, the Torch feels like a much needed and welcome improvement.
On the other hand, if you’re already spoiled with an iPhone 3GS, 4, or any number of Android 2.x devices, the Torch really isn’t going to impress. The browser is still slower on paper than the competition, the SoC isn’t as powerful as what’s already in either of those platforms, and frankly App World still doesn’t quite have the same level of variety as either of the two. I’ve described the Torch as anywhere from a quarter to a half generation behind - I think that’s the best way to describe performance.
That said, I rarely felt like the Torch was wanting for a faster SoC. Inspecting the applications manager and checking CPU load when waiting for a page to load often revealed that the device was waiting on the BIS link to send data than the browser to actually render. I guess therein lies the problem.
I feel like it’s time for RIM to grant users some liberty with just how much they want to be tied into BIS. Sending emails, BBM (PIN) messages, and other communiques over an encrypted link makes a lot of sense, but unless you’re out of the country and somewhere with carriers that regularly snoop on data, I don’t really see why most users need an encrypted tunnel for web browsing. As we’ve shown, it just slows the experience down when on 3G or WiFi connections. It made a lot of sense back when EDGE and 1xRTT were the only data connections in town, but now it feels like the overhead is more than it’s worth.
There’s been growing talk that RIM should open up its services for use on the other platforms - Android has been named directly a few times, and still others have said RIM should outright make an Android smartphone. Still others have waxed poetic on their love for RIM services like BBM and the encrypted link architecture. Many have conveniently forgotten that RIM actually has already tried this with BlackBerry Connect, which assigned PINs to Palm OS, Windows Mobile, and even Symbian devices. BlackBerry stopped talking about it a while ago, but it wouldn’t be the first time non RIM devices were assigned PINs and treated like BlackBerries. That aside, it’s hard to argue that an Android-running, RIM built, BBM and BIS enabled device wouldn’t be attractive. Point is that there’s still a lot of life still in the platform, should RIM choose to capitalize.
For now, RIM needs to get BlackBerry 6 rolled out to the three devices it’s promised updates for, and Torch-like devices out on the other carriers.
For BlackBerry diehards, BlackBerry 6 and the Torch are both dramatic improvements over BB OS 5 and RIM’s first attempts at touchscreens with the two Storms. If we lived in a perfect world, all BlackBerry Storms would’ve been rounded up, buried in the New Mexico desert under at least 10 meters of concrete and lifeless caliche soil - Atari ET videogame style - and the owners given Torches on launch date. The Torch is what RIM should have launched years ago in their stead.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
Kamen75 - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
Rim needs two different BB lines to meet the needs of the two different types of customers they are selling to. They should have a BlackBerry Professional version of there os for corporate clients and then a "fun" version to sell to the average consumer. These two os's only need differ on a few security points and each gets a different ui, one to look business like and one to look flashy and bright. Underneath they would be the same os and run the same apps. Their current middle of the road, one size fits all approach is turning all customers away.Add in some decent hardware and you would have a competitive BB again. Two year old hardware specs impress nobody.
Zensen - Thursday, September 2, 2010 - link
that's what themes are for...RIM just needs to work on better tools for developers since what they've managed to do on the business level is second to none and I feel the overall improvement of OS 6 has done just enough to grab enough of the spotlight to be fresh yet familiar without being burdened by the lower specs that have dogged it since the its release.
There are still quirks in the OS 6 model that needs addressing such as in the social feeds but nothing that can't be solved via updates and UI changes. OS 6 has thrown away utilitarian menus and brought it up to speed with the other Operating systems. It hasn't leaped over like a triple axel but it's more like a combination of moves that will culminate in a much more successful Blackberry phone in the eyes of the average consumer, hopefully dispelling some of the noise that RIM can't do a touchscreen phone to save themselves.
I'm glad anandtech have finally covered this phone. Good or bad you can rely on these guys for great technical review without putting in ridiculous remarks or bias towards a product that reviews like engadget have seemingly perfected.
zorxd - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
I am disapointed that Acanac fell into the Apple marketing trap which is PPI. Who cares about PPI? Do you really think that it's better to have a 1" 320x480 display than a 4" 480x800? The first one have higher PPI.Apple started to talk about PPI (even before pixel count) when they realized that the competition was going with larger displays. Larger display, with the same resolution, means lower PPI, even if it's better.
What looks sharp is not PPI. It's pixel count. Just hold your 4" 480x800 farther away if you think that pixels are too big. A 1x1 pixel 1000000000000 PPI display is useless.
So please, stop making graphs about the useless metric which is PPI and start comparing what we actually care about: brightness, size, resolution, etc.
raulr - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
Have you actually looked at the iPhone 4 display. It really is quite fantastic. And especially since this review is about the Torch, your display size argument is pointless since the torch is both physically smaller and lower resolution. The point they were making is that the Torch display, while not bad, really doesn't stack up with the current generation of devices.zorxd - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
The iPhone 4 display is one of the best, I agree. Why? Because it has the highest resolution. The PPI have nothing to do with that. The iPhone display would be even better if it was larger, even if that would mean lower PPI.Of course, the phone would probably get larger too, which is a downside.
What I mean is that the highest PPI is never, or at least should never be an priority for any consumer.
The iPhone display would suck if it was 2" instead of 3.5".
MacTheSpoon - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
He is right, though -- nobody cared about PPI before Apple started their marketing. Now suddenly it's the standard by which screens are judged. Weird.I have looked at the iPhone4 screen and while it's nice, it's nowhere near as nice as all the marketing and buzz make it out to be. I cannot read all that sharp yet incredibly tiny web page text without a magnifying glass. I'd say it's about 20% as nice as all the hype. A large screen that lets you see more of your web pages in an actually readable way is certainly nice, too, probably a little bit nicer -- and yet for some reason the iPhone4 gets a pass on this readability issue from all the reviewers, just as Apple hoped. Honestly, having seen the iPhone4 screen, its main benefit is in browsing photos, which look really smooth, but who uses their phone mainly for browsing photos? Not that many people, I'm sure.
I believe that the whole PPI thing came about because Steve Jobs realized his 320x480 screen was getting long in the tooth compared to other phones but a) didn't want to change the dimensions of the current iPhone and b) wanted to make the existing iPhone layout and apps easy to port by simply doubling the screen resolution. So he pushed the PPI angle hard and zombie reviewers got in line.
bplewis24 - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
Great post.Brandon
synaesthetic - Friday, September 3, 2010 - link
Lots of people care about PPI, just not so much on smartphones.I hope Apple's obsession with PPI and the Retina Display pushes the trend into *laptops,* so I can finally stop seeing 15.6" laptops with 1366x768 horrible LCDs.
Jabroni444 - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
I'm confused by conflicting statements in this review. Half way through the conclusion he says, "I’ve described the Torch as anywhere from a quarter to a half generation behind - I think that’s the best way to describe performance." But, the last sentence is, "The Torch is what RIM should have launched years ago in their stead."Combined with the fact that the Torch both statistically and measured performance wise is no better than the iPhone 3GS or other last-gen phones I don't get the quarter to half generation behind comment.
I'm not sure whether even hardcore RIM users are going to be able to accept weak attempt at getting up-to-date.
tech6 - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
A very balanced review. This device isn't for techno snobs or people who like to show off apps - it's still a business communication device. While anecdotal, I know a number of BB users which looked at Apple and Android but decided to go with the Torch instead. Without exception they are happy as it gives them the new functionality they wanted but without leaving the BB strengths and advantages behind.