[cgavula]

I've heard this basic answer from them in a couple of places.

The bottom line, though, is that they have taken a step backward. They should have chose, going forward, to support, at minimum, ALL 4 2G bands and then add 3G bands that were regionalized, expanding support for more bands as they could. Then, at the very least, the basic phone services would work world wide.

Even here in the U.S., geographically speaking, MOST of the country is not 3G, so limiting ANY 2G bands is a bad idea.

I, for one, was interested in the Diamond before I realized they were going this way with their new devices so now, I'm not so interested. Unfortunate, but I understand that they think they need to make compromises, even if, they are, in my opinion, the wrong ones.

[cgavula]

I've heard this basic answer from them in a couple of places.

The bottom line, though, is that they have taken a step backward. They should have chose, going forward, to support, at minimum, ALL 4 2G bands and then add 3G bands that were regionalized, expanding support for more bands as they could. Then, at the very least, the basic phone services would work world wide.

Even here in the U.S., geographically speaking, MOST of the country is not 3G, so limiting ANY 2G bands is a bad idea.

I, for one, was interested in the Diamond before I realized they were going this way with their new devices so now, I'm not so interested. Unfortunate, but I understand that they think they need to make compromises, even if, they are, in my opinion, the wrong ones.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by cgavula

Then, at the very least, the basic phone services would work world wide.

Let me play devil's advocate here for a moment: do you travel the world, and need your phone to work everywhere? I hear people say they want a "world phone", but realistically speaking only a small percentage of buyers are world-travellers and really need something that works everywhere. So do people want a world phone just "because", or is it a legitimate need?

[Jason Lee]

For me i think it is more like, "I just payed close to $1000 for this phone. It had better damned well work anywhere in the world just incase I vacation there some day. For that much money I had beter not have to buy another phone just for vacation. I mean come on! The free Motorola you get with the contract will work everywhere."

But in the same respect... no, I do not plan on traveling to Europe anytime soon nor very often. But I DO plan to go some day.

I may not need it often but i will need it some day. It is kinda like buying a car without head lights... Yeah, I heardly ever drive after dark but i am bound to eventually so my car sure better have headlights. I better not have to buy a car with headlights just to drive at night. (maybe i should have said spare tire or trunk/boot. A little less ridiculous. hehehe)

To me it is definetly a step back. New technology shouldn't loose features in my mind.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Jason Lee

To me it is definitely a step back. New technology shouldn't lose features...

I agree. They talk about trends, and yes, thinner is nice, but who honestly cares if a phone is shaved of one or two measly mm of thickness? (According to HTC's website, the Diamond Pro is only 1mm thinner than the Tytn II). The idea behind these types of phones is to have them as feature-rich and functionally flexible as possible.

I mean, you can't simply look at trends that cover an entire industry; you have to take a close look at the people who buy these specific types of phones. They're not the RAZR crowd. They're the "I-want-it-all" crowd, otherwise, they'd buy something else.

And if battery life is a concern - and I know there's a balance - well, you could achieve better results with a phone that's a bit thicker, because slightly more room could possibly allow for a larger, higher capacity battery. But since the battery capacity is the same in both the D-Pro and the Tytn II, then I wonder if both batteries are exactly the same size? If so, then they didn't apply the "thinner trend" to the battery. Instead, they sacrificed bands to shave off barely 1mm. But because the battery capacities are the same, battery life couldn't have been too much of an issue in the D-Pro when considering the Tytn II with its seven bands and other features along with its battery life. And if that's not good enough, someone can always utilize a car charger and/or slap in another battery (they're thin and small) which is easy enough to do; but a user can't slap in more bands.

With all that in mind, if you MUST choose between features/capability vs. 1mm less of plastic, what would you, as the buyer of this type of device, really choose? Naturally, you're going to choose the features. That's what we spend $700-$1000 for, plus whatever else on top of that to customize it with software and accessories.

Perhaps a good portion of people won't travel overseas, but for those who do, as nice as the Diamonds may be in other ways, they won't be an option. That will equate to lost sales for HTC.

So let's simplify this even more. This is not just a do-it-all-device. This is a phone, first and foremost. That's what we buy these things for, to begin with. We need to communicate, and the cellular spectrum is growing. So that part of the phone is where manufacturer's need to focus, primarily. More bands, please. You don't know where I'll be even a day from now, and I need to keep in touch with people. If I take my phone somewhere and it doesn't work, then what good is everything else it offers?

And the following is fascinating to me:

Originally Posted by efjay

As posted on another forum, the SE Xperia has quad-band GSM and tri-band 3G and is slimmer than the touch pro. And its made by HTC with the same Qualcomm chipset. So how did they manage to do it on the X1 but not on their own flagship phone?

On the Sony Ericsson website, the X1 is 1mm thinner than HTC's D-Pro, and they indeed show it to have quad-GSM. But according to the specs, the X1 doesn't just have three bands of 3.5G, but four bands. That's eight bands total. Along with WiFi, BT, GPS, and everything else.

Hmmm... So is HTC being entirely forthright, or just making some excuses for something? All things considered above, one has to wonder a little.

So as it stands, I suppose I'll either stick with my 7-band Tytn II or go buy a Sony X1. At least I know those have-it-all-phones will work no matter where I go.

[randalllewis]

Am I missing something in this discussion about the Diamond being limited in band availability because of its size. Some folks have questioned this argument because the HTC made, SonyErickson branded Xperia has more bands and is nearly the same size as the new keyboard version of the Diamond, the Touch Pro
From PDAdb:
the Diamond is 51 x 102 x 11.5 millimetres
the Xperia is 52.6 x 110.5 x 17 millimetres
the Touch Pro is 51 x 102 x 18.05 millimetres

There seems to be quite a bit more room in the Xperia.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by randalllewis

There seems to be quite a bit more room in the Xperia.

Can anyone explain what the exact difference is between the cellular components in the X1 and the Diamond Pro, from a physical perspective? I mean, are there dimensional differences between a radio that's tri-GSM/dual-3.5G as opposed to quad-GSM/quad-3.5G? And can anyone really provide these differences in dimensions if they do indeed exist? Can anyone specify how they're arranged inside to determine whether the X1 is better off (at least based on the specs) because of its slight extra volume over the Diamond Pro?

Probably not.

To be honest, I was focusing on the thickness only, so I see what you're pointing out; but even with a slight difference in height and even less in width, the dimensions are so close that there doesn't seem to me to be a truly valid reason why HTC went the direction it did with the cellular radios inside the Diamond series.

I'm not accusing HTC of being dishonest, but I am asking, and often do ask, questions. Naturally, if HTC had made a decision that wasn't the best choice, they aren't going to admit to it right before they release the product. At this point, the deal is done and they're committed and would never suggest they made a mistake or a poor decision - that would hurt sales.

I just realize that since we're not in the labs while these things are being designed, sure, it may contribute to why we're unclear about design decisions that are made; but it also means that we sometimes too quickly and blindly accept a lot that companies feed to us about their decisions, which is more the case if the company in question is one we like. But of course, no company is perfect, and sometimes if we more closely examine things, we may discover that things aren't always as they're claimed to be. Naturally, a company is going to protect it's own interests, regardless of the reasons.

I like HTC and their products, which is why I own their Tytn II. The Diamond Pro looks fantastic and I wouldn't hesitate buying one, but if the cellular will indeed be as they claim, then I'm afraid it would probably be a no go for me and who knows how many others.

Eliminating or shaving size is great, but not at the expense of features. Not with a device like this. Otherwise, as Jason Lee said, they're taking steps in the wrong direction. Companies need to be more aware.

[Dyvim]

Looks like Apple managed to squeeze all the relevant 2G and 3G bands into the iPhone 3G to make it a world phone - and for under $200 as well. Of course, it still doesn't have cut & paste (Steve Jobs must never use cut & paste on his Mac) so YMMV. Still the bar has been raised- this time on the price front if not on the feature front.

Edit: ok, so maybe not ALL the 3G bands. They don't have 1700 MHz (T-Mobile 3G since they're AT&T exclusive in the U.S.) and 900 MHz (new European band) but they have tri-band 3G and more importantly quad-band 2G, so at least you can talk well everywhere.

[Paundskumm]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

Let me play devil's advocate here for a moment: do you travel the world, and need your phone to work everywhere? I hear people say they want a "world phone", but realistically speaking only a small percentage of buyers are world-travellers and really need something that works everywhere. So do people want a world phone just "because", or is it a legitimate need?

Actually, my travels take me through Asia/Europe and North America at least several time every year. In the past, Japan and Korea were blackspots (along with Minnesota for GSM... don't ask me why). In the past four months, I have been to Japan twice, Europe (UK, Sweden, holland, France, Germany, Switzerland), the US, Canada, Singapore, India, China, Taiwan. I have not had connection problems with my HTC in any country both for voice and for e-mail via blackberry connect. I think losing one frequency is not generally a big concern as usually there is at least another carrier on another frequency and as you are roaming in any case, who really cares who you roam onto. On the minus side, I had to answer e-mails from the ski-slopes of Hokkaido...