Guest Thermostat9 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 After reading a pretty good write up of the phone in Paul Ockenden's 'Mobile and Wireless' section of Real World Computing this month (and the reason I got the phone) as well as a positive mention in Dick Pountain's Idalog at the front of the magazine, I didn't really expect such a negative review to appear on their website. Seems a little harsh don't you think...?
Guest cartierv Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Design is not the strong point of the SF. It does look like a VCR controller. But the Motorola Defy is hardly 'identical price' it's 169 more. And if you want design then Apple are the only way to go. Every Android phone is junk compared iPhone in that respect. I think the SF is great value and it should be judged on that basis.
Guest gameSTICKER Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) How about we add a couple of comments in there :unsure: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/smartphones...ncisco/comments Edited January 3, 2011 by gameSTICKER
Guest Carlos Abel Chavez Slim Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 "Alternatively, the identically priced Motorola Defy" :unsure:
Guest jurrasstoil Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 "Alternatively, the identically priced Motorola Defy" :unsure: Well, i guess they bought it with a contract: Price when reviewed: Free, on a £20.00 per month, 24 months contract. i think you can get a pretty nice phone for a £20/mo 24months contract...
Guest Simon O Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I left a comment. The review is way too short. And given the strange issues he had I absolutely guarantee that this is a review phone sent to many journalists that he simple didn't bother to restore to factory settings.
Guest tdodd Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Well, i guess they bought it with a contract: i think you can get a pretty nice phone for a £20/mo 24months contract... You can get a Defy free on a £15 per month contract over 24 months including 1GB internet. That's the deal my girlfriend has. For anyone to be charging a minimum of £20 per month for the San Fran is, IMHO, a bit of a p-take. An unlocked San Fran and a giffgaff SIM is my chosen route and it's proving to be a bargaintastic deal. £85 for the unlocked phone and a current credit balance of £36 (and a further £30 payback yet to come) against a total outlay of £20 so far.
Guest PF62 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 And given the strange issues he had I absolutely guarantee that this is a review phone sent to many journalists that he simple didn't bother to restore to factory settings. Provided that the phone he received was the same as you get when you buy it from Orange, that is reasonable. I know it is hard for people here to believe, but most people who buy the phone will just use it as it comes out of the box, and not "restore to factory settings", let alone do anything like install a custom ROM.
Guest jamidodger1 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) What A load Of Rubbish ¬¬ Edited January 3, 2011 by jamidodger1
Guest Thermostat9 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 review is total rubbish Indeed. What is really odd is that their 'Mobile and Wireless' writer gave around a ¼ of his column over this month to the San Francisco and gave it a pretty positive write up. I do wonder if other mobile phone suppliers or network operators have asked them to slag it off a bit.....
Guest zerosignull Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I left a comment. The review is way too short. And given the strange issues he had I absolutely guarantee that this is a review phone sent to many journalists that he simple didn't bother to restore to factory settings. I read ure comment on pcpro website and it make me chuckle. Well played. Not to sure what phone they are reviewing but ive not seen any of these issues and compared to the original HTC desire it does lag that much. £20 / Month contract is a ripp off for this phone though
Guest Simon O Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Provided that the phone he received was the same as you get when you buy it from Orange, that is reasonable. I know it is hard for people here to believe, but most people who buy the phone will just use it as it comes out of the box, and not "restore to factory settings", let alone do anything like install a custom ROM. What I mean is that the phone out of the box doesn't have the issues he reported in the review. And review units should always be reset before reviewing.. just sounds like he rushed the review. Edited January 3, 2011 by flibblesan
Guest Arr Too Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Perhaps the reviewer forgot to check the poll: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=865004 We're getting strong competition from the Galaxy now.
Guest rjm2k Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Yes very poor review, the guy doesn't know what he's comparing with what, is it a review of the mobile network at the place he did his tests, a review of the BBC website at the time he did the tests? None of his comments really reflect the SanFran so it must be something else he is reviewing. Even the look of the device is subjective, I think it looks pretty good for the money, it's slim and feels ok in the hand, compared to some other devices such as the HTC hero with it's silly chin, the SanFran is way ahead. It even survided my accidental drop test and is now protected by a £1.50 case.
Guest uptime Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Provided that the phone he received was the same as you get when you buy it from Orange, that is reasonable. I know it is hard for people here to believe, but most people who buy the phone will just use it as it comes out of the box, and not "restore to factory settings", let alone do anything like install a custom ROM. Which makes you wonder why they recommend the Defy which comes with preinstalled "Motoblur" crap et al.
Guest Magnets Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Review seems very biased, they just focus on the negatives and completely ignore the value for money and tbh it's just 9 very short paragraphs, hardly an in-depth review. I think many people would be put off by the stock launcher and all the orange junk bundled on it, it really does make the phone seem sluggish, launcher pro feels like a whole new device. Alternatively, the identically priced Motorola Defy adds a much better camera, good build quality and weather proofing to the mix. It's no contest. £250 on amazon It's all about perspective, I would imagine the reviewer has been using an iphone or new HTC device each year for the past few years and just been handed the san fran review unit and asked his thoughts. Edited January 3, 2011 by Magnets
Guest PF62 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 What I mean is that the phone out of the box doesn't have the issues he reported in the review. And review units should always be reset before reviewing.. just sounds like he rushed the review. I cannot believe that Orange would send a reviewer anything other than a brand new unused phone the same as any other customer would receive. If so, why would the phone need to be reset before reviewing, after all, that is what the customer is going to receive.
Guest 90180360 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 You shouldn't even link to that "review", just boosts the google ranking.
Guest majnu Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 pc pro is crap, i never trust reviews from major tabloids. I always go to specialist forums to get the most impartial review.
Guest Thermostat9 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 pc pro is crap, i never trust reviews from major tabloids. I always go to specialist forums to get the most impartial review. PCPro is not a tabloid and the one thing you are sure not to get on a specialist forum is an 'impartial' review!
Guest rayraven Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Quite possibly the first negative review i've seen, feels like these guys have no experience reviewing android mobiles at all.
Guest neologan Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I cannot believe that Orange would send a reviewer anything other than a brand new unused phone the same as any other customer would receive. If so, why would the phone need to be reset before reviewing, after all, that is what the customer is going to receive. Ha, as a reviewer of hardware, many items are sent on from one reviewer at company A to another reviewer at company B. You'd be surprised how much they don't care most of the time - flibblesan is correct, it could easily have happened that way.
Guest wbaw Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) I think it's a fair review, if it's being compared to other handsets available for £20/month on contract. I know it's available for £15/month now, but my mum only pays £20/month (£2.50 of that is for the orange data addon, she could've got it for £17.50/month) for her htc desire & it is a much better phone. If they were comparing it to other phones for £99 on payg, the review would be different. If you're on contract then you can get much better phones for a similar price. Most of the criticisms are valid, it's just the slow web browsing I've not seen. Sounds like they got one with a dodgy screen too. All the other problems happen out of the box on the stock rom. Edited January 3, 2011 by wbaw
Guest Stuart_f Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 The basic flaw is that they are viewing this as a £20 contract phone. It's at the very low end of the price range on PAYG and that's where it shines and where PC Pro has totally missed the point.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now