Hideous.
Have ad-blocked the 'Hero' bar and the 'top stories' grid, as well as some of the sidebar but it doesn't fix it unfortunately.

And who the hell chose the fonts?
Sans-serif for story titles and serif for the main body of the articles? Then back to sans-serif for the comments, with serif usernames?
Were you drunk or something?

I've been eyeing up a Tenori-On since seeing one used by Bill Bailey in one of his shows.

The original version can be had for about £700, so I fail to see how this is really much of an improvement.
If they got it down to the £3-400 range, then it would be worth making the changes but for an extra £50, I'd rather take the premium model.

For the majority of people in Europe (or the UK at the very least), the carrier does determine which phones you can have as a lot of handsets are tied up in exclusive deals with one or the other.

True, you could always buy an unlocked handset and use it with any SIM you want but most people can't and/or don't want the up-front cost associated with purchasing that way. Or, obviously, there's always the option of switching carriers to get the phone you want.
However, either of those courses of action are just as easily achievable in the US as they are over here.

Regarding the CPU, Toshiba on the TG01 were able to get a rated battery performance not far off of the Droid's using a Snapdragon CPU and a 1000mAh battery, as opposed to the 1400mAh one in the Droid.
If SE go ahead and stick a 1500mAh one into Rachael and make sure they get all the software optimised, there's no reason that the battery performance shouldn't at least rival, if not exceed that of the Droid - especially since, as you seem to have forgotten, SE have a history of producing handsets with better-than-average battery life and that the Snapdragon CPUs have the ability to lower the clock speed to preserve battery life when the phone isn't being used.


As for the hardware, yes, I ask what's with the hype.

Who cares that the display is better than the iPhones, that still doesn't make it better than a lot of other phones on the market. Pointing out that it happens to be superior to one particular rival handset does not somehow make it the best one the market.
It's the thinnest phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard? Even if that's true, read the article, the keyboard's a disaster, they should've made it a little thicker and focused on actually making it usable as opposed to focusing one something less important like the thickness of the phone.
And the OS, again, like the screen, it's not the only handset on the market that runs Android so it's not something this phone somehow deserves praise for. Also, the majority of smartphones used one th face on the planet run Symbian and a lot of people are perfectly happy with it, so to say it's dead in the water seems a little far-fetched.

Even if we look at the handset as a complete package and don't compare individual features, compared to other Android handsets, it doesn't have all that much to offer - compared to the SE X10/Rachael, all it has to show for itself is the keyboard which has be so maligned be people who have used it.
So really, the question is who would want to buy this handset when the one thing it can offer is so poor?



And, go ahead, rank me down again for pointing out the things that you don't want to accept are true.
It's really pathetic that a number of people who have dared to suggest that the Droid is not all that have been ranked low. It's almost as bad as iPhone owners.

Further to what I've already said, I understand that when you read the terms the way O2 have written them on their website that it leads you to believe it's an unlimited FUP but, honestly, if you dig around you find a lot of conflicting information from reliable sources.
Also, technically, if we look at things from a very pessimistic view-point, O2 have written the terms in such a way that allows them to cut people off at any time, no matter how low their usage, if they deem it unacceptable - you don't get any guaranteed amount like you do with other networks.

But that's an aside, not what I was here to talk about at all.

Basically, what I wanted to say was if you don't want to believe me, that's fine. In fact, that's brilliant (with no hint of sarcasm). It's your God-given, legally-protected right to think what you want.
If you'd read what I have, you might not hold the same opinion. Then again, you might.

Either way though, I was merely sharing the information I have seen with my own two eyes to help other people and, in the nicest possible sense, I have no urge to get into an extended debate with yourself as it'll achieve nothing.
Peace and goodnight.

And what do you think the 'network protection controls' entail?
Limiting you to the afore-mentioned 200MB.

The way O2 choose to market their 'unlimited' web bundle may have changed but they still retain the right to limit you if 'use them [the web or wi-fi bolt-ons] in such a way that adversely impacts the service to other O2 customers', which will include very heavy usage.

Once again, if the web-bundle was truly unlimited, they would not have those caveats in place.


Also, if O2's web-bundle is truly unlimited, why do they keep telling their retail partners that it's a 200MB/month FUP?

If it were unlimited, then it wouldn't be a fair use policy, it would genuinely be unlimited.

It is still 200MB, they just don't tell you.
But the point is it's an FUP, not a limit, the two are very different things.

Anyway, tethering's an entirely separate matter, they have different bundles.

Don't hold your breath.
If it's like O2, then there won't be any loyalty discounts.

Actually, it did/does apply to contracts.
At the time O2 didn't offer 'unlimited' monthly web bundles on PAYG.

And all O2 did was re-word things to hide the value that they will limit you to if they deem your usage excessive but it is still 200MB - that's the figure they still tell their official retail partners.
If you read, for example, a Carphone Warehouse catalogue, on the page where it details all the different network's tariffs it also makes mention of the size of 'unlimited' web bundles and it still states 200MB. That information has to be correct otherwise they'd fall foul of advertising laws.

And it wouldn't be the first time that a network was deliberately vague whilst a retail partner had the correct information available to them.
I have a mate who's on Vodafone. He was told by Voda that he had a truly unlimited web bundle when he upgraded hos contract, he later read on (I think) P4U's website that the bundle was only 500MB and when he called Voda to check they confirmed it was actually just the half a gig.


As I've said though, the precise value is not important as these aren't limits, they're just nominal values quoted in the small print by the networks to cover themselves legally.
Plenty of people go over their FUP values and are never charged.

You've kinda answered your own question.