Nickname: Luis

Review: Nokia's E61 looks better and stronger. Motorola always has quality issues.

Date reviewed: Oct 4, 2006 9:19 PM

Nickname: Shannon

Review: Personally I've been on the hunt for a phone that automatically syncs with my contacts and calendar on Outlook. I had a Treo and an XV6700 but they were bricks. The Q is perfect because it's not much larger than my Razr and I don't have to map fields and use weird software to transfer information. I have the data plan blocked because I just don't need it. I'm glad to have a nice phone that easily syncs with my computer for contacts and calendar since I'm a mom and life is busy enough. It really helps me out. I finally have the PDA and phone I've been looking for.

Date reviewed: Aug 2, 2006 6:36 PM

Nickname: Dean Borgman

Review: Does anyone know the status of being able to sync the Q to my iMac, as I can do with my BlackBerry and PC?

Date reviewed: Jul 23, 2006 8:44 PM

Nickname: hightech executive

Review: Who wants a high-tech phone that works just in the US (CDMA)? Wrong choice not supporting GSM. This is definitely not targeted for the business users, especially the ones who need to travel overseas often.

Date reviewed: Jul 23, 2006 6:17 PM

Nickname: Rico

Review: Motorola and Verizon probably plan to profit from the data plans. But it's still a big gambit--does the phone provide enough incentive for corporate clients? Reading your comments, I think not.

Date reviewed: Jul 22, 2006 3:40 AM

Nickname: Tom

Review: Apparently this device required no programming, even though it contains a copy of Windows Mobile. That's odd because programming usually accounts for quite a lot of embedded device costs.

Date reviewed: Jul 21, 2006 4:01 PM

Nickname: Aminorex

Review: This would be attractive if only it supported Wi-Fi, and if it weren't for the Windows operating system. As it is, I'm going for a Treo700p to replace my aged BlackBerry. With an SDIO card I get 2GB of audio and video storage, plus Wi-Fi connectivity for unlimited international VoIP.

Date reviewed: Jul 21, 2006 3:55 PM

Nickname: JimBob

Review: I believe the biggest ommision in the cost analysis is the licensing fees to Qualcomm. Sure, Microsoft will get some, but it will pale in comparison to the $70+/device Qualcomm charges to license its CDMA/WCDMA support. The BlackBerry 8700 does not have to pay any of this because it doesn't include any Qualcomm chips or technology, which isn't the case for the 8707.

Date reviewed: Jul 21, 2006 3:20 PM

Nickname: kulminaator

Review: Hence, why isn't Nokia e70 in this comparision? It is a smart phone, can do everything listed here as well (Wi-Fi, mail etc.), is more compact and has a qwerty keyboard. Camera is inside too with media players etc. attached.

Date reviewed: Jul 21, 2006 2:04 PM

Nickname: burt

Review: As background, I own both a Treo 650 and a Blackberry 7130e (both Sprint). The reviewer made a point of saying that the Q has a camera and can play videos/music. I can already do this with my Treo. However, the lack of a camera on the 7130e means that I can use it in environments where no cameras are allowed (government, gyms, etc.). RIM would be wise to continue to offer full-capability models, and possibly add the ability to play video/music to their current systems. However, they would also be wise to keep a slew of non-camera systems for those who work/visit places that disallow recording devices. It might seem a good move to start loading a phone with every option under the sun, but I put music on my iPod, use my BB for phone and e-mail (when on the road), and keep a small digital camera with spare AA batteries in the car. That way, if one device fails (say, the iPod) I'm not completely dead in the water.

Date reviewed: Jul 21, 2006 12:56 PM