Guest Thermostat9 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. Which was the point I was making about their other contributors who, in print in this months issue, are pretty positive about the phone specifically as it is a hackable PAYG handset. One is going to use it in Italy, the other suggests how to get a good data contract from T-mobile and use that SIM in it! Still seems odd to be reviewing a handset that is related to a £20/month contract - they don't review PC's based on how internet providers operate do they?
Guest neologan Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I think it's a fair review... Why? They justify ripping on it because in it's bs benchmarks they get terrible times, which has been pointed out has nothing to do with the phone, but the network. It's a terrible review, and they reviewed it on contract, which shows just how much research they did on this phone. Terrible, but then PC Pro is pretty terrible anyway...
Guest wbaw Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Why? They justify ripping on it because in it's bs benchmarks they get terrible times, which has been pointed out has nothing to do with the phone, but the network. It's a terrible review, and they reviewed it on contract, which shows just how much research they did on this phone. Terrible, but then PC Pro is pretty terrible anyway... They justify ripping into it as a £20 a month contract phone, which is fair, except at the time of publishing it was £15/month in an orange shop. It was a terrible review, but you should expect that kind of review from pc pro. I don't think it was intentionally biased, just badly done. The fact is, for the average person that wants a £20/month phone & isn't going to try hacking it, they could do much better than an orange san francisco.
Guest Chrisund123 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 He hits the nail on the head when he speaks about the cam and quality. If the camera and build quality were better I'd ditch my wildfire for an OSF - but I won't, as there's just too many areas where the OSF is questionable.
Guest AndyHibberd Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I made a lengthy corrective reply but it hasn't been posted yet, they might be censoring the comments quite heavily on this one...
Guest scoobydoo99 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 as there's just too many areas where the OSF is questionable. These being?
Guest isambard Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 the review is also riddled with factual errors.
Guest xzyk Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I don't get the comment of not getting the best reviews from specialist forums (as someone commented above). That's like saying if you had a really nasty illness don't go to a specialist but see your G.P, which will refer you to a specialist anyway. The thing to remember is this guy is a reviewer not a specialist. What he thinks he knows about mobile phones is probably limited, just because you use different gadgets doesn't make you an expert, it simply makes you a 'user'. All i know is I'm looking at buying another smartphone and I have scoured the earth for a similarly priced smartphone with all the features that the SF offers; good luck with that one. 20pm for 24 months comes to 480pounds, you can buy 4xSF for that!
Guest Chrisund123 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 These being? Aside from the previously mentioned camera and the obvious low build quality, you can add sketchy WiFi issues and lower signal strength compared to the other phones in the household. Don't get me wrong i think the OSF is great for the money, it makes a fantastic entry level smartphone for.ky missus, who wouldnt know a good smartphone if it bit her on the ass, but for me it's wanting in too many areas for me to be woo'd by its superior screen and better hardware when compared to my wildfire.
Guest Thermostat9 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I don't get the comment of not getting the best reviews from specialist forums (as someone commented above). That's like saying if you had a really nasty illness don't go to a specialist but see your G.P, which will refer you to a specialist anyway. No it isn't and that is not quite what I wrote either. majnu stated that they 'go to specialist forums to get the most impartial review'. I wrote that 'the one thing you are sure not to get on a specialist forum is an 'impartial' review'. The point being that while most specialist forums will certainly have the most complete information about their specialist subject but you are unlikely to get impartial advice. Doubt it? Try a post asking the benefits of the HTC Wildfire over the San Francisco on here and see what 'impartial' advice you get....
Guest _dg Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) What an idiot. He compares the SF to the "identically priced" Moto Defy and yet the moto is at least £140 more He says the HTC Wildfire is "better value" due to software and build quality. How does he work that one out - £80 more worth of better value? A clear case of a tech reviewer who does not seem to know anything about the market he is reviewing, and drawing inaccurate comparisons. No mention of a phone that has a higher resolution screen than its peers, can be unlocked for free (ie effectively SIM free), can be updated and rooted etc, and with an established user base ... and all for £100. Where is the better value than that? Can anyone get a better value, better spec'd Android phone for the same money? Does anyone care about a squeaky volume button used once or twice a week, more than staring at lower resolution screen frequently during every day? Someone should link that poxy reviewer to this thread ... and then he might want to reconsider his comments. I subscribe to PC Pro and frequently read poor reviews of stuff I have or have used and think "Hang on, is he reviewing the same thing?" Even within the magazine you get conflicting comments on the same item. Edited January 3, 2011 by _dg
Guest kheegong 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. As a long time subscriber to PC Pro, I don't agree that its crap or 'tabloid'(eh?) but I did think it was a poorly written review & tbh rushed, as if the reviewer banged it out at the last minute before his Christmas break.
Guest Chrisund123 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 What an idiot. He compares the SF to the "identically priced" Moto Defy and yet the moto is at least £140 more He says the HTC Wildfire is "better value" due to software and build quality. How does he work that one out - £80 more worth of better value? A clear case of a tech reviewer who does not seem to know anything about the market he is reviewing, and drawing inaccurate comparisons. No mention of a phone that has a higher resolution screen than its peers, can be unlocked for free (ie effectively SIM free), can be updated and rooted etc, and with an established user base ... and all for £100. Where is the better value than that? Can anyone get a better value, better spec'd Android phone for the same money? Does anyone care about a squeaky volume button used once or twice a week, more than staring at lower resolution screen frequently during every day? Someone should link that poxy reviewer to this thread ... and then he might want to reconsider his comments. I subscribe to PC Pro and frequently read poor reviews of stuff I have or have used and think "Hang on, is he reviewing the same thing?" Even within the magazine you get conflicting comments on the same item. The wildfire isn't £80 more - the OSF is £100, the Wildfire is £130.
Guest Raspa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) And if you want design then Apple are the only way to go. Hardly. If you want design then you don't get a smartphone. They are practical items, not well designed pieces of high-fashion. I don't get the comment of not getting the best reviews from specialist forums They didn't say about getting the best reviews (as in most in-depth), they commented about not getting the most impartial review. "Specialist" sites are keen to keep the flow of review hardware/software coming and will often "touch up" a review to ensure that it does. The best place for reviews they are, the least impartial they aren't. EDIT: Just read Thermostats reply, guess he didn't mean it the way I did. As others have said, it seems like it is being reviewed as a contract phone - this is oranges fault for supplying it as such for review. Most of the points made are valid for a £20 pcm contract. At the £110 that it costs on PAYG it is a very different matter. Orange shouldn't be offering this on such an expensive contract. Edited January 4, 2011 by Raspa
Guest Thermostat9 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) The wildfire isn't £80 more - the OSF is £100, the Wildfire is £130. I don't know much about the Wildfire. Can you unlock it for free and does it come with 2Mb of removable storage? Edited January 4, 2011 by Thermostat9
Guest Carlos Abel Chavez Slim Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 As others have said, it seems like it is being reviewed as a contract phone - this is oranges fault for supplying it as such for review. Or rather it's the reviewer's fault for not doing any research.
Guest Raspa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Or rather it's the reviewer's fault for not doing any research. Not really - they will be reviewing it as supplied, and it will have been supplied with the brief that it was coming on a £20pcm contract. Orange should've supplied it as a PAYG handset.
Guest Thermostat9 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Not really - they will be reviewing it as supplied, and it will have been supplied with the brief that it was coming on a £20pcm contract. Orange should've supplied it as a PAYG handset. But this is nuts. PCPro are essentially reviewing a handset and the title is even 'Orange San Francisco review' not 'Orange £20 contract phone' review. People will be searching out a phone review in 'Smartphones' and not the benefits (or not) of a particular contract. As such the phone gets a really negative review - which is in direct contrast with the broadly positive comments by two of their regular columnists in the printed journal in the same month. I hope the columns become available on the website in due course and can be shown to balance out that dire 'review'.
Guest Raspa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) I don't disagree with you, but orange are to blame here (for how they supplied the review brief and for putting this phone on such a contract in the first place). Hopefully they will amend their review brief and get PCPro to update the review. Some of the comments are as crazy as the original review, especially the one talking about battery life and comparing it to the desire which has 70% remaining after 24hours, and the Blade "only" has 30% less. only? Is that guy on drugs, there are lots of places he could defend te blade, but that isn't one of them and it just comes across as fanboyish. The same as the people who suggested spamming xda developers to get a Blade section over there. It's a great device, but some of its evangelical users make me cringe. Edited January 4, 2011 by Raspa
Guest Thermostat9 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 I don't disagree with you, but orange are to blame here (for how they supplied the review brief and for putting this phone on such a contract in the first place). Hopefully they will amend their review brief and get PCPro to update the review. I hope so, as it just looks bad on there currently. If I was trying to recommend a smartphone I'd not link to that 'independent' review for support! We know that the phone is pretty damn good for the money but it would be good to see a positive review about it in the press (there was one in the Sunday Times a few weeks back but I expect that is only visible behind their pay-wall and so is not much use to the rest of the world.....) It's a great device, but some of its evangelical users make me cringe. But this is always the case and the reason why I pointed out that 'specialist' websites are certainly NOT the place to find unbiased reviews! :unsure:
Guest elastico Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 I think that Jonathan Bray, who wrote the review, has a Wildfire and therefore is a bit grumpy that the Blade is cheaper and much better
Guest Ash_P Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Not really - they will be reviewing it as supplied, and it will have been supplied with the brief that it was coming on a £20pcm contract. Orange should've supplied it as a PAYG handset. Interestly though if you go to http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/smartphones...46/htc-desire-z in the Latest Smartphones Reviews it says "Orange San Francisco Category: Smartphones Rating: 3 out of 6 Price: £99"
Guest Raspa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 It seems to have changed, I'm not getting that now. That is odd, but even more odd is: "Google Nexus S Category: Smartphones Rating: 5 out of 6 Price: £6 " £6? I'll take ten! :unsure:
Guest Thermostat9 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 It seems to have changed, I'm not getting that now. Still there for me....
Guest Raspa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Yeah it is there for me now, I just went back to take a screenshot.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now