Ah, those endearingly crazy Russians, eschewing good English and web page design in favour of sheer, unadulterated detail. Mobile Review has produced a long and exhaustive look at the new MOTORiZR Z8 smartphone, running a version of UIQ 3 on Symbian OS.
Read on in the full article.
Those guys from Mobile Review are always making nice and long reviews. Their site is my prefered review source - no offence to AAS, but they show alot of details, mostly graphic.
Well, their page eventually loads correctly (at least to Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.4), although - admittedly - it takes quite a lot of time. It also prints correctly (even the last ten letters of each line are printed), and it does not contain animations, unnecessary Java or javascript kludges, etc. Me thinks that already places them above average .. Their English may not be perfect, but it is understandable enough.
It probably seems churlish of me to complain about their English, considering that I can't speak a word of Russian, but - the English is so bad in places that it's hard to understand what they're trying to get across - very frustrating.
By bad page design, I mean having 2 million screenshots embedded in a single HTML page that's interminably long. Surely there comes a point where there's simply far too much detail. I agree that the Mobile Review pieces show everything you could ever want to see, but I'd contend that the point of a 'review' is to tell you whether the things worth buying and to concisely and clearly put forward the pros and cons. That's certainly where I aim my AAS reviews. 8-)
Rafe will probably be doing the Z8 review for AAS though - I'm sure he'll have his own ideas. We'll probably break the review into several chunks, as we did for the E90 recently, for example.
Steve
slitchfield wrote:It probably seems churlish of me to complain about their English, considering that I can't speak a word of Russian, but - the English is so bad in places that it's hard to understand what they're trying to get across - very frustrating.
I think they translate the site with a tool or something, very often they have alot of words messed around.
slitchfield wrote:
By bad page design, I mean having 2 million screenshots embedded in a single HTML page that's interminably long. Surely there comes a point where there's simply far too much detail. I agree that the Mobile Review pieces show everything you could ever want to see, but I'd contend that the point of a 'review' is to tell you whether the things worth buying and to concisely and clearly put forward the pros and cons. That's certainly where I aim my AAS reviews. 8-)
Agree to splitting in several parts, in GSM arena's style, but nevertheless details are pretty imoprtant and the more they are, the better image of the device reviewed (at least for me). Now honestly, if you're not smart enough to see the good and bad points by yourself, then why would you bother to buy something recommended by others if that device doesn't suite you? I never do this, but I know alot of guys who are buying their phones just to be on top of everyone, even if they have no ideea how to use them. Sometimes the points presented as being "bad" are "good" for others, so you should judge for yourself and not by others.
slitchfield wrote:
Rafe will probably be doing the Z8 review for AAS though - I'm sure he'll have his own ideas. We'll probably break the review into several chunks, as we did for the E90 recently, for example.Steve
We're waiting, AAS reviews are much more compressed and faster to read.
I must admit to being hugely interested in the Z8. For example, I'm keen to know whether or not Moto's UI customisations for non-touchscreen useage affect third party applications. How would the likes of Dream Connect 3 work without the stylus? However, I'm back at work in just four days and therefore I don't have time to read the Mobile Review piece ( 😊 ) so I'll wait on Rafe's review.
If you really want to have fun try reading the whole review while imagining a thick Russian accent. It really adds to the mobile-review experience. 😉
SE should have put UIQ 3.1 into the P1, not 3.
My gripe with Mobile-(p)review is that most of their "reviews" are actually just _p_reviews. Not to mention a pain in the butt to read, and with very weird "conclusions" (or Impressions as I think they call it) section. IMHO, AAS reviews are much better and professional. As are Mobileburn ones.
viipottaja wrote:My gripe with Mobile-(p)review is that most of their "reviews" are actually just _p_reviews. Not to mention a pain in the butt to read, and with very weird "conclusions" (or Impressions as I think they call it) section. IMHO, AAS reviews are much better and professional. As are Mobileburn ones.
Generally agree. The point about Mobile Review is about the way they see the Market. Usually a new Nokia phone, is also a new Bad one... Never a Great one and rare a good one... No always Nokia do the things right, but if they have greater market than others, maybe, because, they usually do well, or at least fair products. And Mobile Review, even if is detailed, the conclusion is always very negative to Nokia... And how they do to have a new phone before everyone else:con?
Do you meen they dont kiss nokia's a## like most? Really a shame! 😊 Seriously, m-r reviews or previews have to be read and analysed with special care, but they do have lots of interesting stuff, special indirect info about the companies strategy. They complement other reviews.
nj7 wrote:Generally agree. The point about Mobile Review is about the way they see the Market. Usually a new Nokia phone, is also a new Bad one... Never a Great one and rare a good one... No always Nokia do the things right, but if they have greater market than others, maybe, because, they usually do well, or at least fair products. And Mobile Review, even if is detailed, the conclusion is always very negative to Nokia... And how they do to have a new phone before everyone else:con?
I already mentioned that I don't give a damn about their impressions or conclusions. The point of the review is to show you the good and the bad parts of the device. YOU must be the one to take the conclusion. Do you really need someone to think instead of you? Yep, I was sure you don't.
Yeah most sites are Nokia's brown-nosers. I laughed my ass of on some N80 "reviews". "Decent video quality" was the most hilarious one.
Guess Who wrote:Yeah most sites are Nokia's brown-nosers. I laughed my ass of on some N80 "reviews". "Decent video quality" was the most hilarious one.
By "decent" they probably meant "watchable". Anyway, if the review was made when N80 was just getting out to light, then yes, the video was decent for that time. Now a VGA recording will be probably considered decent.
It's great to see enthusiasm for the Moto Z8. While the article is full of photos and information, just keep in mind that it is not a review of the product as it will ship. Motorola and other phone makers provide review units to journalists when our phones are reasonably close in performance, capability and stability to what buyers will see. We did not supply the unit to Mobile Review. It's a very early unit with very early software and hardware. AAS readers will know how quickly hw and sw change during phone development.
I hope that you�re enjoying the Moto Z8 ads running on UK TV. Look for the Z8 in Vodafone UK shops _very_ soon and not long after in other shops and countries.
The N80's video is pure shite except in bright sunshine. Looks like it Photoshop filtered with some RGB colourful noise effect. Calling this decent is ignorance or brown-nosing.