Time was, the price of a data plan was pretty level across carriers. There were some variables to consider, but at least in America it came out roughly equal. Now there are some real chances to find a better deal. Here’s what you’ll find from America’s top four carriers.

AT&T

AT&T was actually the first major US carrier to implement tiered data. While heavy users cried foul — AT&T has no plan with a cap above 2.5GB — it actually works out very well for lighter users. In fact, it works exceedingly well for BlackBerry users. Your BlackBerry compresses data in an efficient manner. Combine that with a relative lack of streaming services — no Hulu, no Netflix, etc. — and it makes for low data consumption. That means a lower cell bill.

Previously AT&T had an unlimited data plan for $30. Now they have a 200MB data plan for half that. Users can pay just $15 per month to enjoy an eminently reasonable level of BlackBerry data. Heck, I know iPhone users who don’t cross that point. Combine that with a $40 voice plan and the $20 unlimited messaging plan (there is no lower tier) and it works out to $75 per month before taxes.

T-Mobile

A T-Mobile data plan isn’t really a data plan, but rather a package of minutes, messages, and data. T-Mobile also provides a range of options, so users will have no shortage of plans to choose from. As with AT&T we’ll look at the lowest-level minute plan, since unlimited mobile-to-mobile and unlimited nights and weekends often means we can get away with it. A T-Mobile customer actually pays only $59.99 per month for those same 200MB as AT&T. \

It gets better with T-Mobile, too. The 2GB plan costs just $69.99 per month, so it’s still cheaper than AT&T. In fact, that provides the same amount of data as AT&T’s $25 per month data plan ($85 per month total). To take this further, if you’re spending $85 on AT&T’s 2GB plan, you can spend $79.99 on T-Mobile’s 5GB plan.

Sprint

As with T-Mobile, Sprint deals with package plans rather than separate data plans. Also as with T-Mobile, the plan is cheaper than AT&T. That is, 450 minutes plus unlimited messaging and data is just $69.99 per month. The difference, of course, is that Sprint actually allows for unlimited data. T-Mobile does, but in name only. Once you cross your cap you get slower speeds, which are, in truth, slower than those old dial-up connections. That doesn’t really make for functional browsing.

Sprint does have two other options that beat the competition, too. The plan with 900 minutes is $90 per month, and unlimited is $100. Again, with all of the free calling windows, it’s easier than ever to get by with the minimum minute plans. But for those who need more, Sprint might be the best option.

Verizon

Verizon surely takes advantage of its status as America’s largest wireless carrier. Like AT&T, Verizon implemented tiered data. Only they didn’t give a break to the lighter users. Instead, they capped the same $30 plan that was once unlimited, and they added higher tiers for larger data consumers. It makes for the most expensive plans out of the Big Four. They do, thankfully, have a 1,000-message plan, which is more than adequate for most users. That helps mitigate the issue, but it’s still more expensive.

The 450 minute plan plus 1,000 message plus 2GB of data with Verizon costs $79.99 per month. That might be only $5 more expensive than AT&T, and it might have a higher data cap, but it doesn’t include as many messages — and with AT&T the unlimited message plan also provides unlimited calling to any mobile phone. Additionally, as we discussed, the 2GB of data isn’t as big an issue for BlackBerry users. It can be downright hard to use 2GB a month on your BlackBerry.

As is often the case, the smaller carriers win the day. They might not have as robust coverage as AT&T and Verizon, but they have far better deals — especially for BlackBerry users.

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

Finding the cheapest data plan for your BlackBerry: USA Edition

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

Finding the cheapest data plan for your BlackBerry: USA Edition

BlackBerry Curve 9330

This might be the best option of the bunch. That might seem like an odd statement regarding the Curve, since it is not considered the top of the BlackBerry line. But it has always been a value model. On Sprint it is a tremendous value: $0.00. That’s after a $100 mail-in rebate, of course, but you’re responsible enough to mail that in the minute you get home, right? Good. Then you can enjoy a free BlackBerry and get a $125 credit on your bill.

If you don’t need to pay a carrier early termination fee, you’ll be in great shape. Sprint offers a 450-minute plan — which includes unlimited messaging, data, and calls to mobile numbers — for $69.99 per month. That means your $125 credit will cover your entire first month and then part of the second. That makes the total two-year cost of ownership $1,554.76 plus tax. You’re not going to find many smartphone deals better than that.

Also: The Curve 8530, which is basically the same, but with less memory, costs $49.99 after rebate. Just something to ponder.

BlackBerry Style 9670

It’s been almost six month since Sprint picked up the Style, and I’ve yet to see more than a handful while riding the subway. That’s no definitive measure of the device’s popularity, but considering the initial reaction and the lack of positive reviews, I presume it hasn’t sold very well. Of course, it becomes a bit more attractive if you have a $125 credit to go against the device’s $49.99 cost. That’s $75 you get to put towards your bill, so if you sign up for the 450-minute plan — and with mobile-to-mobile calling that’s all most people need — you basically get one month free.

I’d consider this a far better deal than the BlackBerry Tour 9630, which, for some reason, is still for sale at Sprint for $99.99. To boot, it’s the camera-less version. I wonder why they’re still listing that when they also have the 9650, also in non-camera form.

BlackBerry Bold 9650

As a Bold 9650 owner, albeit on Verizon, I can say that this is my favorite BlackBerry device to date. It’s the basic straightforward design you’re used to, but with a few small improvements that give it an edge over the Tour and the Curve. It contains more memory than the Tour, and it has the trackpad, which eliminates the myriad trackball issues I and others have had with the Tour. The additional memory allows it to run BlackBerry OS 6, which, while it’s not the best smartphone OS, is better than OS 5 by a large margin. Think of it in these terms: OS 6 >>>>> OS 5 > OS 4.5 >>> OS 4.2.

The drawback is that the $125 credit won’t cover the cost of the phone. That stands at $199.99, which seems a bit expensive for a BlackBerry at this point. Of course, that means you’re really spending only $75 on the phone, which is a quality enough deal considering the original price.

Early termination fee

As mentioned before, that $125 credit can also help you offset an early termination fee from your previous carrier. Now that they’re pro-rated, as long as you’ve had your service for at least a year chances are that $125 will cover most, if not all, of your remaining fee. You’ll still have to pay your old carrier up front, but the credit on your bill will offset the fee. That means you won’t essentially get a free month’s of service, but it will help you get out of your current contract without it hitting your wallet too hard.

There appears to be a decent selection, relatively, of BlackBerry devices available on Sprint. Now that they’re offering $125 for ported customers, are you going to make the switch?

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

Switch to a Sprint BlackBerry, get $125

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

Switch to a Sprint BlackBerry, get $125

We’ll take a look at the Style as it compares to the two other new BlackBerry models, the Bold 9780 and the Torch 9800.

Size

The Style, of course, has two different sizes. Open it measures 175.5mm x 60mm x 18.5 mm. That’s considerably larger than the Bold, obviously, and it is actually quite a deal thicker than the Torch. The Bold and the Torch, in fact, are just 0.6mm apart, while the Torch and the Style are 1.9mm apart.

The Style, at 4.6 oz., is actually a bit lighter than the Torch, which weighs 5.7 oz. The Bold, obviously, is lighter than both.

Screen

You might think that the Style screen would resemble the Torch screen, sans the touch capabilities. But the internal screen size is actually closer to the Bold than the Torch. The Style’s internal display measures 2.7 inches, while the Bold is at 2.44 inches and the Torch is 3.2 inches. In terms of resolution the Style appears a bit lacking, too:

Style: 360 x 400
Torch: 360 x 480
Bold: 480 x 360

The Style, of course, has that external screen. It measures 2 inches and is of the same type as the internal screen (QVGA). It has a resolution of 240 x 320 pixels, or the same as the Curve series.

Processor

Here’s an important point. RIM devices have typically lagged behind the rest of the market in terms of processor speed. It is, in fact, one of the biggest complaints I’ve heard about the Torch. While many new smartphones features 1GHz processors, the Torch clocks at just 624MHz. Both the Style and the Bold do as well, so there’s not much to compare here.

Memory and storage

The Bold 9780, the Style, and the Torch all feature 512MB of RAM. Where they differ is with internal storage. I haven’t seen a solid number on internal storage for the Style or Bold, but they figure to be either 254 or 512MB, meaning that most storage goes to the memory card. Thankfully, with BlackBerry 6 that means expansion up to 32GB. The Torch, of course, reigns supreme with 4GB of internal storage.

Camera

All three models appear to have the same 5 megapixel camera with 2X zoom.

Worth a look?

It’s pretty clear that RIM was going for form factor over everything else with this device. Functionally it doesn’t offer any advantages over the Torch or the Bold. It is bigger than both models, which will certainly turn off some potential customers. The external display is nice. I suppose I’ll have to get a hands on with that before I make any further judgements on the Style.

But, as it stands, the Style offers little that you can’t get on other devices. If you already weren’t a fan of the form factor, there’s nothing present that will change your mind. I can’t imagine this device selling even half as well as the Torch.

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

Should you get the BlackBerry Style?

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

Should you get the BlackBerry Style?

 

It is immediately clear that there are no significant differences in the devices’ appearances. The 9330 has a chrome bezel, but that’s not much. It’s like the difference between the Sprint and Verizon versions of the 8330. The keyboard, trackpad, and screen size all stay the same.

Display

Both the 9330 and the 8530 have 320 x 240 pixel displays. This is actually the same as the 8330. Apparently keeping the lower-res screen is a way of keeping the Curve series under $100 on contract.

Size and weight

The two Curves measure exactly the same, too: 4.29″ x 2.36″ x 0.55″. They both weigh 3.7 ounces. They are marginally lighter than the 8330.

Camera

Once again the Curve camera has not been upgraded since the 8330. All CDMA Curve models feature a 2 megapixel camera with 5X digital zoom and video recording.

The upgrades: Processor and memory

It does appear that the 9330 improve on the 8530 in two ways. First is the processor speed. The 8530 featured a 528MHz processor, which was an upgrade to the 312MHz processor in the 8330. The 9330 makes a further upgrade to 624MHz. This is the same processor used in the 9300. I’m not sure what kind of difference that makes, but any additional speed is welcome.

The 9330 also has more on-board memory than the 8530. At first this came as a surprise. The 9300 comes with 256MB of on-board memory, the same as the 8520 and 8530, so I assumed that the 9330 would have the same. Apparently RIM decided to give that one a boost, though, as the 9330 has 512MB of on-board memory. That does mean that it has a leg up on its predecessor.

Worth the upgrade?

If you got an 8530, you probably have to wait a while for an upgrade. Sure, Verizon sometimes will offer customers an upgrade after one year of service, so you could conceivably upgrade to the 9330. It will cost just $30 on contract, so it’s not that big an outlay. If you do get the early upgrade then you will essentially be paying $30 and committing to one extra year for a slightly better processor and a little more RAM. I’d personally hold off for a better device, but each user has different needs and wants in a smartphone.

Sprint will also get the device, though they will release theirs on October 10. It will cost $20 more than the Verizon version. I’m not sure how Sprint handles early upgrades, but if they do it’s the same deal as Verizon. It’s not exactly a bad deal, but I’d like to see more of an upgrade on the new offering.

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

Comparing the Curves 9330 and 8530

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

Comparing the Curves 9330 and 8530

Pearl 9100

We’re not far from the release of the BlackBerry Pearl 9100, RIM’s first Pearl model in quite a while. The device upgrades in all the right ways. While you could get either WiFi or GPS on the original Pearl line, the new version provides both. It’s also the first 3G GSM Pearl, so that’s another major upgrade from the previous incarnations.

Reasons to upgrade:

• Better display. The 9100 features a 360×400 pixel screen, while the old generation was at 240×260.
• 3G connection, compared to EDGE for old devices (EVDO, though, for the 8130).
• Better operating system. The older generation Pearls top out at OS 4.5. The 9100 will start with 5.0, and will almost certainly get a 6.0 upgrade.
• Faster processor. The 9100 has a 624 MHz processor, while the older generation runs about about half that clock speed.
• Tons more internal memory, 256MB. Because of the better OS it can also support larger SD cards.
• WiFi and GPS, as opposed to WiFi or GPS, was were the options with the 8110, 8120, and 8130.
• Trackpad over the trackball. Fewer moving parts means the pad should last longer.
• Better camera. It won’t take professional quality photos, but you’ll surely get better snapshots from the 9100′s 3.2 megapixel camera than the original Pearl’s 2 megapixel one. It improves the resolution to 2048×1536, as opposed to 1600×1200 on the original.

With all of these upgrades, and with such a gap between releases, it seems like a no-brainer to get the 9100 if you 1) like the original and 2) are eligible for the subsidy. The 9100 is superior in just about every way, which is exactly what a new model should be.

BlackBerry Bold 9650

For a while, RIM appeared to be a bit slower than once a year with its major CDMA devices. The 8830 World Edition hit shelves in 2007, but we didn’t see the next upgrade, the Tour, until mid-2009. This was good news for 8830 users, who wouldn’t have to wait long, if at all, to upgrade. But by the time the Tour hit Verizon and Sprint, RIM already had an upgrade in the works. Rumor was we’d see the 9650 as soon as February 2010, a mere seven months after the original. That got pushed back, though. Sprint was the first to release the 9650, just about 10 months after the original Tour.

This presents a few problems that the Pearl didn’t face. For instance, much between the Tour and Bold 9650 didn’t change. It got a few upgrades, but it’s not such an overwhelming case that hardcore users must upgrade. Mostly, it’s an annoyance to Tour owners who aren’t eligible for an upgrade (apparently both Verizon and Sprint have programs whereby you can upgrade every year), because it presents a tough case. To spend the extra money or to stick with a slightly inferior device?

Reasons to upgrade:

• Inclusion of WiFi. It has become standard fare on most modern smartphones, and the CDMA carriers have just started adding it to their devices. The Tour lacked it, but the Bold 9650 has it.
• Trackpad over trackball. The Tour was unique in that you couldn’t remove the trackball in order to clean it. You can use paper strips to clean your Tour trackball, but even that won’t help if the trackball malfunctions mechanically. The trackpad is the superior option.
• Slightly faster processor. The 9630 clocked at 528 MHz, while the 9650 is at 624 MHz. That’s not quite as fast as the GSM Bolds, but still faster than the Tour.
• Double the internal memory. The Tour has 256MB, while the 9650 has 512MB.

Yet many of the features have stayed the same, including:

• Operating system. The Tour has a 5.0 upgrade available, while the 9650 figures to ship with that OS installed. Both will almost certainly be eligible for OS 6.0.
• Same camera, 3.2 MP.
• Same 480×320 pixel display.
• Similar battery consumption.

There are certainly some substantial upgrades, ones that will benefit many BlackBerry users. But is it enough to warrant an early upgrade?

Is it worth it?

Again, this is not for me to answer. Each BlackBerry user has his or her set of needs, and a new device might better satisfy them than an old one, even the old one was released less than a year ago. Other users might be completely content with an older model. That allows them to wait for the right model, at which point they can use the carrier subsidy to make it a bit cheaper. We’ll keep running these comparisons as new models come out. Hopefully it helps make the decision a bit easier.

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

The advantage of upgrading your BlackBerry

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

The advantage of upgrading your BlackBerry

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