Opera Mini

For years, BlackBerry users have turned to Opera’s mobile browser to do what the native browser cannot. Launched worldwide in 2006, Opera started as a basic web page browser, but quickly expanded to include more features. Shortly after release it added the ability to download files, and later that year it added RSS feeds and secure browsing. More and more features followed, leaving Opera Mini as one of the most comprehensive browsers on the market. The latest build, version 5.0 (beta), came out this past September.

The difference for Opera Mini is the speed. Instead of delivering full-featured web pages straight to users, Opera sends requests through its own servers, which compress the page and deliver it quickly to the end user. Though there is an extra step involved, it does speed up the browsing experience. For some sites this creates a desktop-like experience, and for others it creates a more mobile-friendly interface.

Bolt

With few third-party browser options on the BlackBerry market, Bolt set itself up for success with its first beta launch in January of this year. The consortium of BlackBerry blogs was all over the browser, critiquing it and noting how, if improved in the right ways, it could be a viable alternative to the native browser. Bitstream, the developers of Bolt, responded quickly, releasing an update just a few weeks after the initial launch. It featured, among other upgrades, smoother and faster scrolling, including the use of the space bar to page down.

Bolt shed the beta tag earlier this month, and again offered a ton of new features. These include streaming video capabilities, caching for faster browsing, and a download manager. Bolt’s best feature is its ability to render webpages like the desktop, without ridiculous load times.

Page rendering

These two browsers take a different approach on how to render a page. As mentioned in the intro, Opera compresses the page and sends it to you full, unzoomed. On many webpages it is impossible to read the text right away. Instead, you move a box around the screen using the cursor, which allows you to zoom in on one section. From there you can scroll around the entire page in zoomed-in mode, or you can back out to the zoomed-out view with the Escape key.

If the page exists in mobile format — that is, has a m. address — Opera will automatically load that version, rather than the normal desktop web version. After playing around for a little bit, I didn’t see a way to change this. It looks like you’re stuck with the mobile version on Opera whether you like it or not.

Bolt, on the other hand, renders web pages as you see them on the desktop. They are slightly zoomed out, as to fit more on the screen. There is some horizontal scrolling involved, which is natural in this type of setting. This can be a disadvantage sometimes, as in some cases the mobile version works better on the smaller screen. For instance, NJ Transit’s site renders better in mobile form when on the small display. Users can, of course, just enter the m. address if they want to view the mobile version in Bolt.

Speed

The speed of the browser will depend mainly on three factors. First, your device’s processor speed. Second, the type of network it works on. Third, the strength of signal in your particular area. I can only comment from my own experience, which is with an 8330 running on Verizon’s EVDO network in New York City with full signal strength.

Under these conditions, Opera launched slightly faster, though hardly noticeable. Opera also loaded pages faster. The speed depended on the page, of course, but when loading the same page Opera did it a little faster. When it was an issue of loading a page with a mobile version, Opera was much faster because there was less data to load.

Again, this is only from personal experience, which consists of my particular device, network, and location. You might find slightly different results. From what I’ve been reading from other BlackBerry users, though, these results seem to be typical. Opera is slightly faster, but Bolt loads pages more thoroughly.

Navigation

Bolt and Opera have similar start pages, featuring an address bar, a search box, and then a list of bookmarks. The difference is that Bolt employs three tabs in its start screen, allowing you to browse your favorites, history, and feeds. With Opera, your bookmarks and history are listed in a vertical list.

Both feature a feature to enter URLs, of course, but Bolt has the superior navigation in this aspect for one reason: you can use the space bar as a period. There are no spaces in web addresses, yet if you enter one in Opera, it will record a space. Hit the space bar in Bolt and you’ll get the dot. This can save you a keystroke or two per address.

Other than that, page navigation appears similar in both. The Escape button returns you to the previous page. Both save your web history, so you can enter in the first few letters of an address and then scroll down to select it. Both also feature in-page search options.

Streaming video

Here’s one area where Bolt reigns supreme, almost unquestionably. To make sure you have the best in-browser video experience, Bolt runs new users through a video wizard. This determines the optimal settings for your device. Bolt will automatically prompt you to run the video wizard the first time you try to view a streaming video. Then, when you visit a site like YouTube, you can go right to a video and it will play right inside the browser.

That’s not to say that Bolt’s system is without flaw. On YouTube I had a few issues, ranging from the inability to load a video, to the wrong video loading, to a chopping and unwatchable stream. In theory they have it right, but it might take another build or two before this system works.

It is, however, better than the Opera solution. First, YouTube only loads the mobile site, though that’s fine if you just want to search around. The problem, however, is in how it launches and plays videos. When you click on a YouTube video, Opera launches the native BlackBerry browser. You’ll then see a link that says Start Stream, which launches the media player when you click on it. In other words, viewing video with Opera is the same as on the native BB browser.

It’s a preference-based choice

Neither browser is radically better than the other, so the usage of Opera or Bolt will depend on your web surfing preferences. If you like full page loads and can handle the slightly longer wait times, Bolt is the way. If you like quick rendering, including mobile pages, it’s Opera. There are other aspects that separate them, but again that’s all based on personal preference.

You can download Opera Mini at http://www.opera.com/mini/download/blackberry/. You can also visit mini.opera.com from your browser for version 4.2, or for version 5 beta. Bolt is available at http://boltbrowser.com/download.html.

Is there anything else you want to know about Opera or Bolt? Is there a major point you think we haven’t addressed? Leave it in the comments.

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

BlackBerry Browser Choice: Opera or Bolt?

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

BlackBerry Browser Choice: Opera or Bolt?

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

Comparing BlackBerry models, Curve through the Tour

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

Comparing BlackBerry models, Curve through the Tour

Thanks to BerryReporter for the link.

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

Displaying the history of the BlackBerry

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

Displaying the history of the BlackBerry

We’ll base our rankings on three criteria: Relevancy of results, Speed, and User interface. Of course, each of these criteria comprises a set of standards. Relevancy, for instance, will cover not only the relevancy of the results to the query, but also of the number of mobile-friendly links. Speed will mean quickness in loading the search page, and the speed of the search itself. User interface will cover the search box on the page, the listing of the results, and even a mobile application, if applicable.

To make things fair, we’re going to do the same search on all engines. For some reason, I just thought: “2008 baseball winter meetings.” They were held in Las Vegas last week, so there will be plenty of relevant content to find. Plus, many of the outlets covering the event have mobile sites, which should help us determine something about the results.

Google

The grand poo-bah of the search engines. It seems like everything search revolves around Google. They’ve recently made some headway into the mobile space with their Android operating system. Even beyond that, though, they’ve introduced a ton of mobile applications this year. Most, if not all of these are available for your BlackBerry. Yet, but how does their search fare?

Relevancy

Google’s algorithm is supposed to deliver the most relevant results for your particular query. Whether that’s absolutely true or only true by reputation, they’re still the most popular out there.

       

The results you see initially are not necessarily for mobile. That’s not a great way to start off. However, there’s a link right up top that allows you to view the search in terms of mobile sites. Unfortunately, there appear to be no mobile sites found for this query. I had similar problems with other strings. However, it appears that the results do direct you to mobile sites if one exits. A query for “major league baseball” directed me to wap.mlb.com, and further down there was a link to m.espn.com.

So when there is a mobile site, it appears Google points you there. However, this has little affect, as evidenced by the winter meetings search, on the overall results. In other words, it won’t push up mobile content just because it’s mobile. That can be taken as both a positive and a negative, of course. On one hand you’re getting the most relevant results. On the other, you might be getting something you can’t view well on your Berry.

Just as a bump to Google, they do have a section of news results in the middle of the SERP, so that adds a bit of relevancy. As another lowlight, the results of my particular query did not find perfectly relevant links. I was looking for information about what happened at the winter meetings, just one week past, and I got a press release about it as the first link.

Speed

On the initial load, Google was almost instantaneous. This is a bit strange to me, since they sell their mobile search application by saying how it’s faster than loading Google.com on your mobile. That’s funny, since it takes about the same time to load the application as it does to load the Web page. Both were fast, though, so there aren’t any complaints on this end. The search results load quickly on both ends as well.

User interface

Yes, as stated above, Google has a mobile application, and it works great. It might not run quicker, but for some it’s easier to just launch an application than open the browser and navigate to Google (though you could always just set it as your home page).

The search box is prominent, as I would expect it to be on all mobile search sites. The results are listed in a fairly intuitive manner. Perhaps it’s just because I’m so used to searching Google that it seems perfectly natural. As mentioned above, they add news results when relevant, so that’s another plus in their column. A new-ish feature is adding links within a certain site, usually the first site on your results page.

Some might have qualms with the Google interface, but they have to be in the minority. Everything is as straight-forward as you can ask for.

Yahoo!

Before Google, Yahoo! was the king of search. Even after Google started taking over, many stuck with their trusty Yahoo!, and with good reason. However, does Yahoo’s mobile search cut it?

First, though, a minor gripe. When you go to Yahoo.com from your mobile browser, it takes you to a landing page asking if you want to download Yahoo! Go. There’s an option to make it never appear again, but it’s still a bit annoying. As I said, minor gripe.

Relevancy

The results themselves seem similar to Google’s, though they’re certainly not the same. Yahoo! points me to a few press releases and minor league websites, but nothing about coverage. Perhaps it’s a failing of the search? There were megabytes, possibly gigabytes of information filed regarding last week’s meetings, and it’s a shame none of it comes up with a simple search.

       

Yahoo displays results as they would through a computer search, which is a bit disheartening. Ah, but there’s a plus here. Scroll down and you’ll see a separate section for mobile sites. Click on “All Mobile Website” and you’ll head to mobile friendly listings. As you can see by the date in the screenshot to the right, though, these aren’t the most relevant links. That one is from 2007, and there is even one further down the page from 2006.

So Yahoo! gets a plus for their separate, and working, mobile site listings. However, that’s almost completely negated by the lack of relevancy of the results themselves. It’s not like I neglected to preface the entire string with the year. A search for the 2008 winter meetings should not bring me results from years past.

Speed

The mobile application, Yahoo! Go, clearly takes a bit longer to load than the website because it contains many features. The website loads quickly enough, though the prompt to download Go is bothersome. As I said above, a minor gripe, though I clicked the “No, thanks” option and it took me back there a second time when accessing Yahoo.com. Not cool.

As for the results, it’s about the same speed as Google. If there’s a difference, it’s not one worth noting. I expect this will be true of the next two engines as well, since I’m using the same device in the same area for all searches, which as you can see are all the same.

User interface

The main page on Yahoo.com is a bit crowded, though there is no mistaking the search box. The text in the box says oneSearch, which might leave some unfamiliar users asking where the Yahoo search box is. Fret not; Yahoo just uses oneSearch now. In case you didn’t know already…

I do dig the Yahoo! Go interface. No, I didn’t try it out with their voice search. It certainly beats the ad-crammed Yahoo.com main page.

MSN

It’s tough to discuss a computing topic and not have Microsoft come up. Their MSN search feature is rather popular — we see a number of daily visitors at BBGeeks from them, so there has to be some level of popularity. However, I don’t know many people personally who use it. Maybe running this test will strip away some of my bias.

Relevancy

I had the same relevancy issue as with the other two: a couple minor league links, and that’s about it. It makes me feel bad for choosing this query, since it doesn’t seem to yield acceptable results from any engine. Still, it’s something that should give me something relevant, given the specific string and the timeliness of the query.

Microsoft cuts off their results, it seems, after two when you search through your mobile. It does give you a quick link up top to an options page where you can change up settings as you see fit on your phone. This includes filtering sexually explicit content and allowing you to filter content to fit on your mobile phone.

       

The change of settings yielded the same results. MSN does add image results to the SERP. In this instance it was Greg Maddux’s retirement speech, which is 100 percent relevant. So that’s a plus. Otherwise, all I got were the two minor league links. You can look for more results, and you can filter it for news results, which it appears you’ll have to do for a string like this.

Speed

MSN is just a bit slower than Yahoo! and Google. The first search I performed had my browser constantly switching between Loading and Requesting. I figured that was a one-off thing, but on the whole it seems to be Requesting for longer than the other two. This is after multiple queries of the same string. I don’t want to be unfair, but it appears that speed-wise, MSN just isn’t as quick.

User interface

The interface of mobile.msn.com is rather user-friendly, in that I didn’t have any trouble figuring out what to do. That should be a given for all search engines. The box is front and center, and there’s no question of it being an internal search or external search. The results page could use a spiffying, and I’d appreciate more than two results listed. Other than that, the UI works for me.

There is, alas, no mobile application for an MSN search. Their mobile site, mobile.MSN.com, though, works just fine. Yeah, it’s a small extra step to type that in, but all in all it’s just as good as any of the stand-alone applications as far as search goes.

Ask.com

I work on the Internet every day, for eight to 12 hours a day, and yet I never, ever use Ask.com for my searches. Am I missing out there? Or is it just another outdated search engine? I suppose I’ll find out while I go through the test here. So let’s fire it up on the ol’ BlackBerry browser and see how it fares.

Relevancy

I had hoped beyond hopes that the search engine I never use brought back the best results. However, that just wasn’t in the cards. Strangely enough, an announcement of the winter meetings in Las Vegas appears on top, as it has in the past searches, but this one is from findarticles.com, rather than the original source. Strange indeed.

       

I was happy to see a Winter Meetings Roundup post as an early result, but alas it was from 2007. This disappoints me because not only is the date included in the query, it is right up front. First thing. 2008. I would think that would help return results from this year’s affair. Apparently not.

Unfortunately, there is no place to filter for just mobile results. It does say up top, though: “Coming Soon: Mobile Optimized Index.” Sorry, Ask. You didn’t get that done in time for this review. Of course, that just means another test when they do roll out the feature.

Speed

Ask was a little slower than Yahoo! and Google. Probably on the same level as MSN. Once again, it’s not like this is a huge difference, like between dial-up and cable speeds. It’s a matter of seconds. So unless you need to know something right now, this will do just as well as the rest.

User interface

Search box front and center? Check. Options to search Web, images, news, and local material? Check. Settings, so you can filter adult content? Check. Formatting option between graphical and text? Check. So Ask.com certainly passes the user interface check. Not only that, but I personally find it nicer looking than Google, MSN, and especially Yahoo!.

No there is no Ask application for search. They do have a GPS application, however. Problem is, that costs you a bit of scratch on a monthly basis. While I’m sure the application is worth the dough, you can always get Google Maps for free.

Conclusion

This is Mobile Search Wars, so I can’t leave here without handing out a winner. All four are fine search engines, and will return you relevant results. Well, that is, as long as those results can be found. In the end, I’m glad I picked a string that didn’t sit well with most engines. Had I picked, say, BlackBerry applications, we would have gotten relevant results for sure. However, this search string brought into view other parts of the engine, like news results, which can help separate the pack.

That said, the winner is Google, and I don’t consider it particularly close. The other engines have their ups, but it seems that Google has everything they have and more. They direct you to mobile sites when applicable, and still return all the results that give them the reputation for being the best.

This isn’t the last time we’ll be comparing these searches, though. As the late Mr. Shaw predicted, mobile search still pretty much does suck. There’s plenty of room for improvement.

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

Mobile Search Wars: Google, Yahoo, Ask, MSN

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

Mobile Search Wars: Google, Yahoo, Ask, MSN

I’m clearly biased in this regard. I’ve had a Curve for about two months now, and I absolutely love it. It’s easily the best phone I’ve ever used, and there’s no way I would trade it in for an iPhone — which, of course, ranked No. 2 on the list. I know many Curve users feel the same. As I noted back in May, when walking around WES I saw more Curves, by far, than any other model. It rocks that much.

RIM also made the list with the Pearl, which clocked in at No. 6. This was one spot ahead of the HTC G1, a/k/a the first Android phone. Sandwiched between the Pearl and the iPhone were the LG Voyager, the Samsung Instinct, and the LG Dare. I’ve played with the first two, and like the Pearl a ton better. I haven’t used the Dare yet, though, so have no basis of comparison.

Good to see that BlackBerry remains on top. It’ll be interesting to see November’s list, which will include the Bold and the Storm.

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

BlackBerry Curve tops the handset charts

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

BlackBerry Curve tops the handset charts

BlackBerry Bold

Although RIM announced the BlackBerry Bold in May, we didn’t see the device in the U.S. until nearly a half year later. It’s officially out, though, and is without a doubt the best AT&T BlackBerry out there. So if you’re looking to pick one up from the nation’s No. 1 provider, this is the one to get. Let’s take a look at their service plans, though, to get a better idea of how much this will cost you in the long run.

The Bold runs at $399.99, an astronomical price for a phone in the age of subsidies, but AT&T knocks $100 off that with a mail-in rebate. They do this knowing that some people will just forget to send it in, meaning the Bold device could end up costing you $400. We’ll assume you’re smart and remember to do this, so the device will run you $300 right up front. But what about the data plan?

A la carte, the data plan will run you $35 per month, $65 if you want tethering. The tethering plan includes up to 5GB of data. This, of course, includes no voice minutes. You can knock $5 per month of each of those plans by signing up for a voice plan with AT&T. These all include unlimited mobile to mobile and either unlimited nights and weekends or 5,000 minutes. So this can run you from $40 per month for 450 minutes to $100 per month for unlimited.

It doesn’t stop there, though. What about a messaging plan? With the way text messages are bandied about these days, it’s almost essential to get the unlimited plan for $20 per month. If you think you’ll send and receive more than 200 (and they add up quick) but under 1,500 (I’d say this is true of most non-teenage users), you can squeak by with the $15 plan. Another option, especially if you’re on the 450 minute plan, is to add early nights and weekends for $9 per month. This starts your N&W click at 7 p.m.

So let’s look at this on a two-year basis, since that’s the contract you’ll need to sign to get the price on the device. If you go with the 450 minutes, data plan, and 1,500 messages, you’re looking at $85 per month. Over two years that’s $2,040. Add the device and you’ve got a total of $2,350 over two years.

Of course, that all changes if you’re going corporate. To utilize BES services, the add-on price goes up to $45 per month. Tack that onto the voice and messaging plans, and you’re looking at $100 per month. That’s $2,400 over the contract, $2,700 with the device.

BlackBerry Storm

The Storm has received a ton more hype than the Bold because it has the glitzy touchscreen. It’s also the first BlackBerry model to hit a CDMA carrier before it hit GSM. Oh, and Verizon/RIM pulled off a remarkable marketing scheme, making sure that everything hit the public. This is in stark contrast to the Bold marketing, which was hampered by delay after delay.

Like the Bold is to AT&T, the Storm is the best Verizon BlackBerry on the market. Well, that is, if you don’t mind the lack of a physical keyboard, which has rubbed more than one person the wrong way. As you can tell in the Bold analysis above, this can be applied basically to any BlackBerry. You just have to adjust the device price for the one you want.

The Storm will run you $250, but you can knock $50 off that with a mail-in rebate, which again we’ll assume you’re smart enough to send in. Like AT&T, Verizon offers personal BlackBerry service for $30 more than your voice plan, $60 more for tethering (with the same 5GB cap). You can also get the unlimited messaging plan for $20 on top of that, but again we’ll look for a cheaper option. I get by fine with the $10 plan, which gives you 500 inbound and outbound messages. The 1,500 message bundle is $15 per month, so let’s do that to be fair.

Over the course of a two-year contract, at $70 per month plus the $15 for messaging, you’re looking at the same $2,040 as AT&T, though it is $2,240 with the device. So on a personal level, the Storm is $100 cheaper over two years, or $4.17 per month. On the corporate front, though, Verizon has an edge. You can get a packaged voice/data deal for $80 per month, $5 cheaper than AT&T’s combined $85. If AT&T has a package deal I missed, let me know. I didn’t see one, and went back to check a few times. Anyway, that means on a corporate level, the Storm comes out to $2,280 over two years, $2,480 with the device. That’s a savings of $220 over AT&T.

Comparable costs

Of course, there are plenty of other ways you can configure the cost of your BlackBerry device. Remember when you’re choosing your device that not only are you paying for it up front, you’re also essentially committing to two years of the carrier’s service. This comes into play in the example above. The Storm might be $100 cheaper than the Bold, but the real difference isn’t seen until you add up the respective services over two years. The difference becomes even larger when you take it to the corporate level.

In other words, it ain’t cheap.

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

A tale of two BlackBerry providers

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

A tale of two BlackBerry providers

The most-cited list comes from Al Sacco at CIO. While you should definitely read the whole article — he also talks about where the BlackBerry Storm is superior — here are the reasons:

8. Stereo Bluetooth
7. Removable battery
6. Expandable memory
5. Digital camera, video recording
4. Storm works as a tethered modem
3. Touch screen provides tactile feedback
2. Cut-and-paste
1. Multitasking champ

Next we turn to Andrew Hickey of ChannelWeb. He hits some of the same things, but notes BlackBerry’s “gold standard” status for corporate email, the ability it offers to edit corporate documents, and the forthcoming application store. Like Sacco, he likes the camera and the tactile feedback.

Finally, Rob Waugh at Mail Online judges both devices by various criteria, including price, which is clearly in favor of the Storm — it’s free with Vodafone. He gives the Storm the advantage in email, GPS, camera, and typing, with the iPhone coming out on top for connection and Web browser.

Really, all this does is make me want a Storm to play with it myself. We’re still a few weeks away, though…

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

BlackBerry Storm vs. the iPhone, Round 1

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

BlackBerry Storm vs. the iPhone, Round 1

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

Unsurprisingly, analysts differ on BlackBerry, iPhone

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

Unsurprisingly, analysts differ on BlackBerry, iPhone

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

EVDO BlackBerrys have longer battery life than iPhone 3G

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

EVDO BlackBerrys have longer battery life than iPhone 3G

During the holiday rush, BlackBerry comprised 35.1 percent of the market. During the first quarter of 2008, they took 44.5 percent of the market. Apple took home 26.7 percent of smartphone sales during the fourth quarter of 2007, and dropped to 19.2 percent last quarter.

Obviously, Apple did better at a more lucrative time of year. The 26.7 percent they took during the holidays was immensely valuable, so I’m sure they’re not complaining about a drop-off during the retail lull that typically follows the holiday season. Plus, the 3G iPhone rumors started really heating up during Q1, which I’m sure led people to hold off on iPhone purchases.

I’ll be interested to see what the second quarter looks like. There’s a possibility that the 3G iPhone will be released during the final days of June, which could boost Apple’s market share. RIM, though, has two more devices heavily rumored to be released this year, plus the BlackBerry Bold, which could be out late second or early third quarter. Plus, they released the CDMA Curve during this quarter.

What will be more interesting is to see how the holiday season will unfold, with a new iPhone and a slew of new BlackBerry devices.

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

RIM cuts into Apple’s smartphone market share

This post originated at BBGeeks.com - home to all things Blackberry! Also a great source of info about AT&T BlackBerry.

RIM cuts into Apple’s smartphone market share