X
Business

RIM's second Storm: Not enough to erase memories of the first

RIM's second version of the Storm is available and the device fixes a lot of flaws of the first one. The big question: Is that enough to erase bad memories of the first Storm.
Written by Larry Dignan, Contributor

I lug around the Research in Motion's BlackBerry Storm and find it to be a device that can be useful but generally annoys you a little bit every day. The touch screen doesn't quite work right, the browser is iffy and there are numerous little flaws that bum you out over time. So after checking out a review copy of the Storm 2 I really only had one question: Could the Storm 2 erase the taste the first Storm left in my mouth?

The short answer: No.

I've made my decision about the Storm before I took Storm 2 for a spin. There's little chance that I'll get a BlackBerry the next go round with Verizon Wireless. I'm all about the latest iteration of the Droid when it comes around. But the second version of the Storm, which is available today, was at least worth a look and I was open to going another round. If RIM hit a home run maybe I'd forget the first flawed version.

Andrew Nusca: With BlackBerry Storm2, RIM wins the battle but loses the smartphone war [review]

Rest assured, RIM improved a lot with the Storm 2. The display is nicer, the virtual keyboard works well and overall it feels snappier (review).

What I liked:

  • The keyboard was much better.
  • The Wi-Fi option was nice to have.
  • Overall, the OS seemed more tuned.

Simply put, if I was new to the Storm the latest incarnation would be a worthwhile device. But here's the rub with smartphones: You don't often get a second chance. If the first rollout is flawed you never quite get over the experience. Add it up and the Storm 2 not only faces competition from the iPhone but the bevy of Android devices lining up at Verizon Wireless.

Also: RIM BlackBerry Storm2 coming to Verizon on Oct. 28; $179

Verizon preps fourth quarter device barrage; Droid will 'stimulate demand'

Editorial standards