How Much Is RIM To Blame For No CDMA CameraBerrys?

Elise
#1. July 27th, 2007, at 11:01 AM.

I think that the lack of CDMA Blackberries is a good thing. GSM is really the worldwide standard, and RIM, by putting out GSM Blackberries regularly, is helping the GSM carriers build their network and expand existing infrastructure (based on subscribership). Every GSM Blackberry released puts a lot of money from carriers the world over in RIM’s pocket. CDMA users only put a couple of drops in the bucket due to its limited worldwide infrastructure. It only makes sense to cater to the GSM crowd.

Every Verizon Blackberry user I know is pissed off by how Verizon cripples Blackberry features (namely GPS) whenever they want to regardless the feelings of RIM or the needs of the customer. Why would RIM pander to a company that cripples functionality of their product?

Sprint is kind of a joke, especially after they canned 1200 “problem” customers. I don’t think that Sprint is showing RIM that there are enough subscribers to warrant new CDMA Blackberries for them.

It just doesn’t seem like the CDMA carriers are really making RIM or their subscribers happy in general. Why bother continuing to make handsets for them?

BlackBerry Cool Douglas
#2. July 27th, 2007, at 11:14 AM.

Hey Robb!

Two things:

They skipped on the Pearl 1 in favor of Pearl 2 for later this year (I’d say fall for GSM, winter for CDMA).

RIM only has so many hardware divisions. Making a CDMA Peal is akin to starting from scratch, and takes a really long time to do. Also, there are concerns that they couldn’t make a CDMA Pearl as slim as its GSM counterpart (see 7130g vs. 7130e). So would you spend all that time working on a CDMA device that you can only roll out in North America, or on new GSM devices that can go worldwide?

We discussed this in our last podcast (http://blackberrycool.com/2007/06/11/004812/)

Ned
#3. July 27th, 2007, at 11:57 AM.

I, and many of the other people who are stuck with me on Verizon, have not switched to a GSM phone b/c Verizon is correct that their network is better (overall, not necessarily in all locations). The CDMA technology is more reliable and more “true” (meaning calls sound like land line calls without the “tinny-ness” often associated with a GSM phone). This is the reason to continue making CDMA blackberry’s — there is a strong market of customers who want the network to be as good as the handset. Plus, Verizon is the largest business blackberry carrier in the US (Verizon has only abdicated the consumer blackberry market). To just give up on CDMA blackberries would forfeit this market.

As to the difficulty in making a cdma pearl and the time it takes, I seem to recall an article on here or BGR or Engadget with an interview with a RIM C-level officer who said that it was only a matter of months (if not shorter) to install the CDMA technology. Anyone else remember that?

gquaglia
#5. July 27th, 2007, at 5:39 PM.

Also, there are concerns that they couldn’t make a CDMA Pearl as slim as its GSM counterpart

Really? Then how come my Sprint 8830 World Phone with both GSM and CDMA radios in it is as thin as the GSM ONLY 8800?

gquaglia
#6. July 27th, 2007, at 5:42 PM.

I think that the lack of CDMA Blackberries is a good thing. GSM is really the worldwide standard

Too bad both GSM carriers in the US suck. I wouldn’t use either one of them. Maybe you should move to Europe with all the other GSM snobs.

hellno
#7. July 27th, 2007, at 9:09 PM.

As a Loyal RIM consumer I don’t want, need, or expect RIM to work with qualcomm. Manufactures and service providers HATE dealing with qualcomm.

As a Loyal RIM consumer I don’t want, need, or expect RIM to work with verizon. Whats the point? RIM comes up with a state of the art BB only to have verizon cripple it, brand it, and then tells the customers to blame RIM .

As a Loyal RIM consumer I don’t want, need, or expect RIM to work with verizon, qualcomm or cdma. In each case it’s a waste of RIM’s time and money.

Whats funny is those which doubt GSM (The GLOBAL SYSTEM for MOBILE Communication), GSM technology, GSM service providers in the US dont’ have GSM, nor understand that GSM providers are as good if not better than cdma providers.

Stacy
#8. July 27th, 2007, at 10:21 PM.

Douglas,
How do you know Verizon is getting the pearl 2? When are they getting it?
STacy

Matthew
#9. July 27th, 2007, at 10:28 PM.

Hellno: I’ve had the opportunity to use both a CDMA and GSM BlackBerry. The CDMA walked all over GSM. Not to mention, CDMA’s high speed network is coming here (my hometown) before GSM. CDMA has been and still is the best choice for your network in America.

Thought
#10. July 27th, 2007, at 11:10 PM.

Robb: for FY 2006 64.7% of RIM’s revenues were derived from the US market. Let’s be conservative and say a little less than half of that is from the CDMA carriers, and so estimate that about 30% of RIM’s revenues come from CDMA carriers in the US. Want to be more conservative…then let’s say 25%. Either way that is huge.

If a company makes at least a quarter of its money from one type of market, I don’t see how it can be so neglected. It would be truly fascinating to understand the decision making process that produces this outcome.

hellno
#11. July 28th, 2007, at 12:21 AM.

Matthew your incorrect on many points for one:

cdma’s “highspeed” network makes little difference when we’re talking about the Blackberry and Blackberry service. The Blackberry and the iPhone work perfectly well on EDGE, GSM technology.

cdma Blackberry’s WISH they were as technologicaly advanced as the GSM BB models. The GSM BB’s put the cdma BB’s to shame, and what GSM doesn’t put to shame cdma providers like verizon cripple.

Your in fantasy land, GSM networks are as good if not better than cdma networks. GSM BB’s wipe the floor with cdma technologies. It’s not a secret that the cdma BB’s are not even close to the GSM BB’s.

Dream on….

Thought
#12. July 28th, 2007, at 12:41 AM.

At some point one has to believe that the CDMA carriers will have to migrate over to GSM…the numerical advantage worldwide for GSM is staggering. Some vendors, like Sony, only support GSM. Others, like Nokia, only release a few low end models for CDMA, and they are built by outsourced vendors, like Pantech.

As the world economy becomes even more globalized, I just don’t see how CDMA carriers can survive in the long term. At some point they almost have to merge into GSM.

hellno
#13. July 28th, 2007, at 12:59 AM.

RIM like every other service provider that matters or device manufacture that matters understands the cdma market is a dead end, a pain in the ass, costs alot more to deal with, and that cdma providers playing with firmware gives manufactures a black eye in the eyes of it’s customers. The answers WHY RIM is not focused on cdma are all around all you have to do is look.

Vodafone CEO Arun Sarin “CDMA is like spaghetti. There are too many parts to it. Why do you need it when you have such a clean global standard as GSM?”

Om Malik “CDMA is losing friends faster than me losing my pounds.”

Nokia “In addition to an already financially prohibitive CDMA ecosystem in general, recent developments may indicate that the CDMA emerging markets business case is looking more challenging.” “Nokia plans to ramp down its own CDMA R&D and manufacturing by April 2007.” “The Finnish company said on it would pull out of CDMA phone manufacturing, which it sees as a shrinking market in the longer term.”

Nokia “Qualcomm’s market position makes it virtually impossible for any other chipmaker to enjoy commercial success in CDMA; and that the CDMA market is in decline anyway, with second generation CDMA operators likely to switch to UMTS, and new providers in emerging economies turning increasingly to GSM. Kai Oistamo, head of Nokia Mobile Phones, said the high cost of making CDMA handsets, partly a result of Qualcomm’s patents grip, makes the platform too expensive for emerging markets. “In this fragmented [emerging economy] market, making money with low end CDMA handsets is very difficult,” he said. Nokia claims low end GSM phones have a 25 per cent price advantage over CDMA equivalents.”

Nokia “We couldn’t make it in this market because the market is dying, and that’s partly because Qualcomm has made it commercially non-viable”

Broadcom “Our goal is simply to ensure fair competition and a level playing field, not just for Broadcom, but for the entire cellular industry,” said Scott McGregor, CEO at Broadcom. “Qualcomm’s practices prevent that. Their monopoly in CDMA technology has increased the price of cell phones in the U.S., and we are hoping that the courts will prevent the same thing from happening with the next generation ‘3G’ cell phones. Qualcomm’s monopolistic activities limit competition, stifle innovation, and ultimately harm consumers and service providers.”

MarketWatch “Verizon Communication Inc.’s licensing agreement with Broadcom Corp. is a serious blow to Qualcomm Inc. in its patent dispute with wireless chip rival Broadcom.”

Siemens, “CDMA is on its way out in North America.”

Apple/at&t “No CDMA-comptable iPhone for at least 5 years”

“the iPhone will gradually push CDMA out”
http://wireless.seekingalpha.com/article/35109

Face it cdma is in decline, the 8830 is a hybrid phone to bridge the cdma coverage gap with Global Standard GSM.

gquaglia
#14. July 28th, 2007, at 7:58 AM.

cdma’s “highspeed” network makes little difference when we’re talking about the Blackberry and Blackberry service. The Blackberry and the iPhone work perfectly well on EDGE, GSM technology.

This statement alone show you have absolutely no knowledge or expertise when it comes to cell phone tech. Work perfectly fine on EDGE?, you must be kidding. The rest of your post is also dribble with this comment:

GSM BB’s wipe the floor with cdma technologies. It’s not a secret that the cdma BB’s are not even close to the GSM BB’s.

CDMA with EVDO is faster then anything GSM has widely deployed right now. The only thing GSM has going for it is numbers. Other then that, CDMA is a superior technology.

Thought
#15. July 28th, 2007, at 12:37 PM.

Regardless of their relative technical merits, there is no doubt that GSM is the technology that dominates the worldwide market, and at this point is the one that will win out. Eventually there has to be a unified standard, and that will be GSM.

I wonder how many discussions there are at Verizon that focus on this? I wonder what Verizon’s roadmap is for converting over to GSM? They have to have one; it is almost inevitable. Perhaps that is one reason why they charge so much; they know they are going to need a load of dollars to convert over their infrastructure someday.

hellno
#16. July 28th, 2007, at 12:49 PM.

gquaglia,

Been reading the cheerleading, showing you have no-idea what your talking about. cdma might be a more advanced technology but that certainly DOES NOT make it a better technology, or a technology RIM should focus any resources on. Like the many of the other top tier device manufactures, RIM focus’s it’s resources on the technology which is open, global, and has 2.4 billion plus customers, in over 170 countries.

The BB does work perfectly on EDGE and GSM the proof of this is also out there as more than 3/4’s of the BB’s out there are GSM technology.

What on a Blackberry BIS or BES requires EVDO? NOTHING. The statement is completely TRUE that the BB does work perfectly fine on GSM/EDGE. EVDO speed is not required when it comes to the Blackberry.

The information is all around, please read, understand, and learn before posting your opinions while trying to make yourself look smarter (with wrong information) while calling others out for posting the truth.

gquaglia
#17. July 28th, 2007, at 7:52 PM.

hellno, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are the ultimate GSM cheerleader, or should I say snob. The type that feels GSM is god’s gift to man and that everything else sucks. Get over it please or move to Europe. Like it or not, there are more CDMA users in this country then GSM users. And if what you said was true, then RIM would be like the 2 other large GSM snob companies, Sony Erricison and Nokia and not make any CDMA equipment. i guess you don’t know that the Feds are some of RIMs biggest customers and they aren’t running GSM. Fact is CDMA is more popular here in the States, hands down. Worldwide the opposite is true, but in some of those countries they crap in the same stream they drink from, so go figure.

hellno
#18. July 28th, 2007, at 9:37 PM.

gquaglia your posts speak for themselves, although the cheerleading, name calling, and FUD doesn’t quite work though. On the other hand true, proven, facts speak for themselves, posting facts is not cheerleading. Nothing you say will make RIM make any more effort into a declining cdma market.

“In the 12 months from 1Q 2005 to 1Q 2006, the GSM family of technologies showed continued growth throughout the Western Hemisphere, adding nearly 95 million new customers - 3.5 times as many as CDMA - and approaching a quarter of a billion customers in this region alone. CDMA’s customer base in the region grew to a total of 169 million in the same time period with 27 million new customers and market share declining to 34.6%, along with TDMA to 11.6%. By contrast, the growing market share for GSM reached 47.8%. Latin America and the Caribbean once again nearly doubled their GSM customer base in these 12 months, growing from 77 million customers in March 2005 to 150 million by March 2006. In this region, more than 19 million GSM users were added, versus 2 million for CDMA. GSM now has nearly 150 million customers in Latin America and the Caribbean and over a 58% share of market, by far the #1 technology for wireless mobile services. In the U.S. and Canada, GSM operators reported exceptional growth, with 4.8 million new customers added in the 1Q 2006 for a customer base of 84 million.”

” i guess you don’t know that the Feds are some of RIMs biggest customers and they aren’t running GSM.” REALLY? hmmmm again the facts say different.

“A distinct advantage—our unmatched record of service
AT&T’s Proven Expertise
AT&T serves tens of thousands of government users in over 1,200 agencies, many of which have been using AT&T government solutions for years. With the GSA/FSS 132-53 (modification #13), contract #GS-35F-0297K, Special Item #132-53, federal agencies can purchase wireless products and services directly, without hassles or long lead times.”

“AT&T is a leading provider of security capabilities to keep information private. We have joined forces with industry-leading software and hardware providers to deliver mobile solutions for:

Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Transportation and Security Administration
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Secret Service
U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement”

“T&T provides telecommunications services to multiple federal defense and civilian agencies under the FTS2001 Crossover contract. The company has signed IP network contracts with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. AT&T Government Solutions has more than 4,000 employees solely dedicated to serving the needs of the federal government, 85 percent of whom hold government-sponsored accesses and clearances, and 75 percent of whom are based in the D.C. area.”

“AT&T wireless GSM Circuit Switched Data Service provides U.S. government and private sector employees with encrypted voice and encrypted data to satisfy their secure communications needs.”

“The news of the Iraqi GSM contract follows recent news that the U.S military is to make a substantial commitment to the standard by purchasing a number of complete GSM systems that will be deployed at a number of its establishments.”

AGAIN:

The information is all around, please read, understand, and learn before posting your opinions while trying to make yourself look smarter (with wrong information) while calling others out for posting the truth. With each post you lose more and more credibility and class you didn’t have in the fist place.

Abhorredlife
#19. July 29th, 2007, at 3:17 AM.

I am a loyal CDMA user. I am also open to new ideas and opinions. The fact that you guys are moaning and groaning about benefits, or lack thereof, of GSM over CDMA. So back to it. I have been with Verizon ever since I had a cell phone. But when I decided to grow up and get a BlackBerry I heard that ATT and T-mo are the best for Berries. So I switched.

I had the 8800 on ATT. It was REDUCULOUSLY SLOW. My grandmother’s earthlink dial-up was faster (FACT). Furthermore, I live RIGHT by a FREAKING ATT CELL TOWER!!!! I had 5 bars and still was slow as hell. Then I dropped them after a long argument with their reps (who were very ignorant and severely pressured by their highers to make and keep the sale) they finally took it back. After charging me all this nonsense which I got reversed after cussing out the manager.

I got the same Berry from T-mo and I got the same slow slow slow slow speed. Some of my sms were not delivered, and on top of that I had NO reception anywhere. I live in the SF bay area by the way. So I dropped them after 3 days (they actually were nice to me). So I went back to Verizon and got the 8830 and the speed is fast like dsl. No problems with tethering. No problems with call reception (which I found to be superior compared to all other carriers. Sure they screwed me over with the GPS but I don’t need it I have a Garmin. And best of all I have 5 bars all over the bay area from San Francisco to San Jose I get 5 bars and the high speed and reliability which I need.

So regardless of what you say and quote; which to me unless you show me a reference or an official article showing me these quotes and information are correct, I’m going to tell you to take your ranting and stick it where the sun don’t shine along with your GSM. I had GSM it sucked big time. I’m sticking with my CDMA which in my personal experience is FAR superior to your outdated GSM. Can you say REV. A upgraded network???

That’s what I thought. Get a life and stop being a complete narrow minded moron. My CDMA Berry will destroy your GSM in a speed test any day of the week. AND THAT IS A MOTHER F***IN FACT!!!!!

gquaglia
#20. July 29th, 2007, at 9:06 AM.

@Abhorredlife

Yup, I agree, but there are some who have drunk too much of the GSM koolaid to realize that. Anyone who uses their BB for anything else other then email would know the difference in speed between EDGE and EVDO. Try tethering a laptop with EDGE, you’ll pull your hair out. Newsflash for all you GSM fans, BB is becoming more then just email. Customers want speed and sorry, GSM doesn’t provide what EVDO can. So hellno you can quote all of the ATT press releases you want, because that’s is all you did, it doesn’t change the fact that head to head CDMA wins every time.

abhorredlife
#21. July 29th, 2007, at 9:19 AM.

Amen! And these “quotes” are not substantial unless you have a source and provide that source. That’s like me saying. Lindsay Lohan said to Kate Moss “Let’s do some lines.” Unless I show you where this “quote” originated from how am I supposed to inquire the validity of it? Your “quotes” were probably taken from other “quotes,” and they from other “quotes,” and so on and so on. Ever play telephone as a child? The same progressive deterioration of the truth can be said for your “quotes”. So either show me some OFFICIAL proof. Or stop “quoting” the hell outa us.

Thought
#22. July 29th, 2007, at 12:01 PM.

Just to kind of get this discussion back on track: first, it’s not a question of GSM vs CDMA technology. Most differences in performance are due more to the carrier than whether its GSM or CDMA.

Both technologies are sufficiently advanced to meet our needs. It is true that in the US Verizon generally has the best coverage, but again, that’s more a matter of the company than the technology. It’s also true that Verizon is ahead in terms of overall 3G deployment, using EVDO, but I have seen AT&T’s version of 3G, HSDPA, in action, and it is quite impressive as well, just as good as EVDO and in some places it seems even faster. So it’s not a matter of which 3G technology is used, it’s a matter of network deployment.

An interesting sidenote: all forms of 3G, whether EVDO, UMTS, HSDPA, etc…are all forms of CDMA technology. Just check the Qualcomm website if you don’t believe this. This is one reason why I believe that eventually the CDMA carriers will be forced to transition to a type of GSM technology in order to remain competitive. They will be able to do so by overlaying the 3G GSM technology over their existing networks. It almost has to happen, because the whole world is going GSM.

hellno
#23. July 29th, 2007, at 1:40 PM.

RIght you are Thought, thankfully some here can read and understand and don’t just take whatever the cdma providers say or do as real. Sadly some just will never get it, and FUD their way into irrelevance. As a loyal RIM customer, RIM’s focus on the GSM market is the right thing for RIM to do. GSM, the open, standard, global system for mobile communication with over 2.4 billion customers is the right focus, and the right technology for RIM to put it’s resources in. AT&T and Rogers are North America’s biggest providers of Blackberries. Both are GSM operators which have global service coverage and neither one cripples or removes functions from or raises the walled garden around our Blackberries. There is so many reasons for RIM to focus on GSM while throwing the scraps to the cdma market.

Verizon Wireless Again Accused Of Crippling Handset Features
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070723/104637.shtml

‘‘CDMA is dying by the day. Even in Korea and the US, there is a steady shift to GSM,’’
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/7122.html

“Why CDMA will die!”
http://windia.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-cdma-will-die.html

CDMA Victims Seek Relief
http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/15975

The information is all around, please read, understand, and learn before posting your opinions while trying to make yourself look smarter (with wrong information) while calling others out for posting the truth.

hellno
#24. July 29th, 2007, at 4:10 PM.

Hold the cool-aid, GSM has also taken a majority share of North America, there is no question why RIM and other top tier manufactures are focused on GSM technology.

August 31, 2006:
GSM has taken a majority share in North America, according to data released Thursday by industry group 3G Americas. As of the end of the second quarter of 2006, GSM had added 100 million new customers over the past year to end the period with a 51 percent share.
http://www.betanews.com/article/GSM_Expands_Lead_in_Americas/1157052101

5th March , 2007
In the United States and Canada during 2006, the GSM family added the largest percentage of customers, resulting in over 19 million customers added in 2006 compared to 13 million CDMA users. GSM’s North American growth rate of 24% was double the CDMA growth rate of 12% in that region for the year.
http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/March07/4405.htm

July 4, 2006
the Global mobile Suppliers Association, confirms that a number of CDMA operators are facing falling market share and responding by switching to the GSM family (GSM/EDGE, WCDMA-HSPA) for business growth. Some operators choose a dual system strategy, but most prefer to migrate their whole customer base to GSM, which is the global standard for mobile communications.
http://press.xtvworld.com/article12517.html

The facts always points out the fud and the lies

gquaglia
#25. July 29th, 2007, at 4:35 PM.

@hellno, make your mind, is GSM so great because its just as fast as CDMA or because there are more users of it. History has taught us that just because something is popular, doesn’t make it better. Plus its funny how most of your sources are overseas websites. Gee, you don’t think they’re biased do you.
I’m really glad you worship GSM.

SigmaMason
#26. July 29th, 2007, at 5:34 PM.

Hellno,

This is a CDMA user site that likes Blackberries. Posting the relative merits of GSM over CDMA or vice versa is a useless position.

As evidenced by the guys who cuss you out and call you a moron for having your position, then do the best thing for yourself and your sanity…let it go.
Use whatever standard that works for you…

SigmaMason
#27. July 29th, 2007, at 5:48 PM.

PS. I use GSM, but I learned a long time ago that arguing the relative merits of technologies or handset makers is an exercise in futility…

If you have a slow phone, could actually be a defective phone, but some people just blame the sevice provider, even though clearly they didn’t make the phone.

Better to not waste time with people that are convinced otherwise as all you get are the responses that you have received…

hellno
#28. July 29th, 2007, at 6:32 PM.

SigmaMason

“This is a cdma user site that likes Blackberries. Posting the relative merits of GSM over cdma or vice versa is a useless position.”

First, not sure this is a “cdma user site” It’s a Blackberry user site, and through the posts made the answer is clear (and on thread) why RIM puts little effort into cdma berry’s and focus’s most resources on GSM Blackberry’s.

Sure think being RIM loyal is also being truthful about the technologies being used, and the way the service providers do business. The constant FUD, BS’ing, and pining away about why cdma Berries are not on par with GSM Berries is too bad, but there are so many reasons why to support thi reality. All one needs to do is drop the kool-aid glass and do some un-bias looking around to see reality. As said before as a loyal RIM Blackberry customer I don’t want, nor expect RIM to waste resources on devices for proprietary communication technologies which come with a large royalty price tag, and less than 1/8th the potential consumers and dropping, while service providers are quickly updating their technologies to the global standard GSM.

gquaglia
#29. July 29th, 2007, at 7:52 PM.

First, not sure this is a “cdma user site” It’s a Blackberry user site, and through the posts made the answer is clear (and on thread) why RIM puts little effort into cdma berry’s and focus’s most resources on GSM Blackberry’s.

Dude, you’re wrong again! The post was not why RIM puts little effort into CDMA, but why there hasn’t been a camera BB yet for CDMA. And you accuse me of not reading. And if RIM was so apathetic toward CDMA then why is the CDMA 8830 a better phone then the GSM 8800?? RIM always follows up their GSM model with a CDMA version. If what you said was true, then why would they bother. They could go the Nokia route and just not offer them at all. I guess there must be a market for them.

Keith
#30. July 29th, 2007, at 10:05 PM.

So let’s just leave it that eventually, the technologies will merge globally, and enjoy our new toys

abhorredlife
#31. July 30th, 2007, at 6:11 AM.

Ok I did some research on the subject. CDMA is the superior technology for data transfer PERIOD there is no reason for RIM to limit its production and development of BlackBerries due to the fact that BlackBerries are MADE FOR DATA TRANSFER!!!! The key difference between the two technologies is that GSM compresses their signal into “narowband.” While CDMA does not compress the signal to run on its frequencies it just ads a tag to the signal so it can be distinguished. This is like compressing and uncompressing a video it looses some detail and adds too many steps to get it from point a to b. CDMA uses the frequencies more efficiently and more securely than GSM which is what BlackBerries are about; efficiency and security. Also this efficiency allows for more traffic and more speed. The ONLY advantage GSM has over CDMA is the international aspect. But this gap is being bridged by devices like the 8830 which is a GSM/CDMA hybrid. I use the high speed CDMA data transfersing that I need everyday to carry on my work, and the ability to use it overseas. Hellno’s comment about the government using GSM is the biggest amount of bulls*** I’ve ever heard in my life!!! GSM is not secure compared to CDMA due to its dependency on SIM cards. My uncle works for the DOD they all use CDMA. So there should be, and is, no reason for RIM to not make as many BlackBerries for CDMA as for GSM. PLUS this post is about CAMERA BlackBerries and not BlackBerries in general. And the reason is because CDMA is more secure and made for data transfer. Therefore attracting businesses to the CDMA world. Businesses and government do not want cameras on their Berries for security reasons. FURTHER PROVING CDMA’S SUPREMACY TO GSM. THE PROOF IS IN THE PUODING. CDMA=security=business=no cameras. There is your answer. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

hellno
#33. July 30th, 2007, at 10:31 AM.

Nice try on the excuses abhorredlife. All Wrong but nice try to justify your intake of cdma kool-aid. Not enough time in the day to go point by point to show you the error’s of your thinking, it’s up to you to read, learn and understand the truth, then it’s your choice to continue posting all jacked up and cdma kool-aid, while making yourself look foolish or post the truth.

There are many many reasons why RIM does not put much into it’s cdma offerings when compared with it’s GSM offerings and when one has clear knowledge of the truth it’s not only understandable, but also completely the right business move for RIM.

Recent, current Blackberry’s made for GSM in North America:
1-BlackBerry 8300 “CameraBerry”
2-BlackBerry 8800
3-BlackBerry 8820
4-BlackBerry Pearl “CameraBerry”
5-Red BlackBerry Pearl “CameraBerry”
6-White Blackberry Pearl “CameraBerry”
7-Blackberry 8707g
8-Blackberry 8705g
9-BlackBerry 8700c
10-BlackBerry 8700g
11-Blackberry 8700r
12-BlackBerry 7130c
13-Blackberry 7130g
14-BlackBerry 7100g
15-BlackBerry 7290

Recent, current Blackberry’s made for cdma:
1-Blackberry 8830
2-BlackBerry 8703e
3-BlackBerry 7130e
4-BlackBerry 7250

There is the truth and then there is cdma kool-aid. There is being a loyal RIM customer and then there is pining for RIM to spend resources on devices for service providers with less than a 1/8 the customers, using proprietary technology, that also cripple and remove functions. RIM is much better off continuing down the proven path of putting most R&D money into the Global Standard GSM devices with advanced features, while yearly throwing a bone to cdma customers with a hybrid cdma/GSM device (a trojan horse), which will make travel and the eventual upgrade to GSM much less jarring to those jacked up on cdma kool-aid.

gquaglia
#34. July 30th, 2007, at 11:47 AM.

@hellno
You make me laugh. Its no longer worth arguing with such a zealot.

Ned
#35. July 30th, 2007, at 11:48 AM.

To those who have sounded the death toll for Verizon and CDMA networks, Verizon announced today that it was acquiring “Rural Cellular, a regional network operator covering parts of New England, the Mid West, the South and the Pacific Northwest, for $2.67 billion. Rural Cellular operates both CDMA and GSM networks to cover its 716,000 subscribers in those regions. Verizon has said that it will switch Rural’s GSM customers to CDMA technology, though it will keep the GSM networks up and running to help provide roaming coverage to other GSM carriers. Verizon also reported its second quarter earnings. It increased its ranks by 1.3 million net adds, boosting its total to 62.1 million. Of note, its data revenues (non-voice) surged 70.3%.” Source of the information: Verizon via Phonescoop.com

If VZ were really ever thinking of switching to GSM, this would be an ideal opportunity to start. Nonetheless, VZ is moving GSM subscribers to CDMA technology. Interesting.

hellno
#36. July 30th, 2007, at 11:52 AM.

by the way….. NEXT excuse to be debunked

National Security Agency (NSA) Goes Secure GSM
http://www.gsm-security.net/news/NSA_Goes_Secure_GSM.shtml

The security methods standardized for the GSM System make it the most secure cellular telecommunications standard currently available.
http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/cell/gsm/gsm-secur/gsm-secur.html

hellno
#37. July 30th, 2007, at 11:54 AM.

good to see your starting to read, understand and learn showing the error of your previous posts gquaglia

hellno
#38. July 30th, 2007, at 12:05 PM.

Ned,

Might be also of interest to you that Alltel also has alot of GSM coverage it maintains and even expands from time to time.

What you forgot to mention is verizon claims to be buying Rural to “save more than $1 billion through reduced roaming and operational expenses”, that Rural Cellular uses both CDMA and GSM technology separately across its five regional markets.

“Verizon Wireless plans to deploy CDMA service in Rural Cellular’s existing GSM markets and convert the GSM customers to CDMA service. Verizon Wireless, however, said it expects to maintain Rural Cellular’s existing GSM networks to continue serving roaming needs of other GSM carriers’ customers.”

Some GSM customers might drink the verizon kool-aid, others in the area will stay with GSM

“Rural Cellular reported a loss of $116 million in 2006″

Ripe for the pickin

Venugopal
#40. April 20th, 2008, at 12:41 AM.

GSM is an open standard. CDMA is a proprietary one. The difference in the two standards stems from the difference in cultures of Europe and USA. Europe always believes in the public good over individual. In USA, its always I, me, myself.
Come to think of it Europeans are pretty smart becasue this culture of theirs always pays rich dividents - you can see it by the stupendous success of GSM world-wide and the rise of the Euro.

Tyler Beckett
#41. October 11th, 2008, at 10:13 PM.

While I agree with no one and everyone, the name calling is ridiculous here. Here’s the way I see it:

@hellno - While GSM may or may not be better, is not necessarily going to make it more popular. Look at the similar war between VHS and BetaMAX. VHS won out, not because it was a better technology, but because the big players (movie studios, et al) backed it with advertising and products which used the format. Saying that something is better by showing that more people are using it, is not fact finding and proof of anything except that people have widely adopted something.

@gquaglia - I have used both CDMA and GSM technologies in my cell phones. I started with CDMA/TDMA and switched to GSM. I notice very little quality differences between the two and the only major difference, up till now, was the speed of data. Data provided by CDMA (EVDO) networks was far faster than the GSM (EDGE) equivalent. However, with the advent of 3G, I have noticed a significant improvement in speeds on my GSM BlackBerry 9000 (Bold).

@both - I am living in Canada, so maybe the difference is in our home countries providers. Nevertheless, I don’t see bickering on here as changing anyone’s minds and is doing really nothing more than making both of you out to look like the person who thinks they are the rocket scientist who should be running the phone companies. Have an open mind people, bickering anonymously online doesn’t change anyone’s opinion.