Rumored HTC M7 may finally be an HTC device that launches on all major US carriers

Rumored HTC M7 may finally be an HTC device that launches on all major US carriers

Summary: HTC needs to turn things around in 2013 and broad carrier rollout of a single model, similar to what Samsung and Apple have done, may go a long ways to promoting the brand. The current rumored device, the M7, may be that first device.


I think everyone can agree that HTC makes some brilliant products, but 2012 was not kind to it and it needs to turn things around or risk ending up like Palm did a few years ago. One of the things I recently suggested is broad carrier support, and the current rumor surrounding the M7 Android device is that the major US carriers will all get the device. This was the hope with the HTC One X, but that did not happen, and HTC's planned One-series campaign appeared to fall flat in the US. The M7 looks promising and may be the first step to HTC getting back in the saddle again.

Rumored HTC M7 may finally be an HTC device that launches on all major US carriers
(Credit: HTC)

If the M7 is indeed a real device, then it is highly likely we will see details announced at Mobile World Congress (MWC) in February. Images that appear before then are likely the device in different prototype stages so I wouldn't put much faith into what we are seeing being the final shipping product. According to DroidDog the specs look just about perfect with a 4.7-inch 1080p display, quad-core processor, 2GB of RAM, 13-megapixel rear camera, and more. The 32GB storage is great as long as this is the minimum that appears on all carriers. I still wish for microSD, but if 32GB and 64GB variants are offered then I am fine with that. The Droid DNA is awesome, except for the lame 16GB integrated storage limitation that is just unacceptable for a high-end smartphone.

February should be exciting to see what HTC, Samsung, Nokia, LG, Motorola, and others have in store for the Android and Windows Phone platforms.

Related stories:

Topics: Mobility, HTC, Smartphones, AT&T, Verizon

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • In this day and age...

    ...why exactly would anyone need that much storage on a smartphone? I've had phones with only 8GB for the last 4 years and never even got close to filling them. Even if you think you "need" that much storage as a minimum, it only drives up the entry price for the normal user.
    • Improved cameras and music focus consume storage

      I use my phones to record video and the internal storage fills up fast. I have to dump video off every couple of days during sports seasons and having more storage would help. I actually have had to stop video recording twice in the last two weeks because of low storage warnings.

      Also, with things like Beats Audio and more focus on using your smartphone as your music player storage is important. Streaming is good too, but consumes data and you have to have a good data connection to enjoy.

      Storage is cheap and the cost is trivial to the consumer.
      palmsolo (aka Matthew Miller)
      • Cloud Much?

        Cloud services such as Google+ allow for photo and video to be synced in real time (or as soon as you're connected to WiFi depending on your settings). As for steaming, I don't know where you live, but even in my ~small Midwestern town, I am (mostly) only away from WiFi while I drive and 3-4GB of music is fine during those times. My Nexus 4 is my primary media device, even supplanting my PS3 and I still don't have any storage issues. Granted, I don't store retail movies on my phone as I have never needed to watch a movie on my phone when WiFi hasn't been available. But with WiFi, streaming services, Slimport and UPnP/DLNA my phone is my Media hub.

        Storage my be cheap (which is a relative term) wholesale, but from what I see in terms of pricing models, every 8gb equals an additional $50:
        Nexus 4 8gb - $299 vs. 16gb - $349
        iPhone 5 16gb - $199 vs 32gb - $299
    • That's nothing.

      I've had phones that don't do anything but make phone calls and text for 8 years and never even got close to filling them up. Clearly all you really need is a sim card. All this smart phone storage / data plan stuff is just driving up the cost of entry for the normal user.
    • Listening to lossless audio, for one

      Android and Apple phones both can play back audio from lossless compressed sources. These take lots of space.

      Movies too. If you record a ten minute video in 1080 or 720 you will see how fast 8 GB will fill up.
      Schoolboy Bob
      • I can understand that...

        ...but my issue is with requiring a minimum; which average users won't use (average users don't even know what lossless is) If you need that from a phone get one with an SD card.
        • You're missing the point!

          This article is about the HIGH-END!
          • HIGH-END != Massive Storage

            HIGH-END != Massive Storage
          • nearly no compromises = high-end

            It is compromising to have to depend on the cloud or removable storage. Do some research on having too many moving parts on devices like smartphones with small batteries and so many radios while having to pull data OTA or off removable storage vs. already having your data on a device's embedded storage.
    • Re: ...why exactly would anyone need that much storage on a smartphone?

      640K ought to be enough for anybody!

      Remember, these devices run Android: they're real computers, not just smartphones.
    • It was just last year....

      It took until mid-2012 for me to get a 64GB microsd card to add to my Galaxy SII so that I could *finally* carry with me all my photos and music. Forget the cloud. I'm not eager to share my world with Google, nor do I want to burn through my data plan to download what I could more readily store locally.

      Sure, not everyone needs a "cutting edge" smart phone, but if you don't need more than 8 GB on your phone, aren't there already a dozen models that will work for you?

      To me, flagship-type phones should now start at 16GB, with options of 32GB or 64GB, *plus* a microsd card slot that holds up to 64GB (128GB?).
      • SD card? Sure,

        but "aren't there already a dozen models" that have SD card slots? This is similar to the "Nexus 4 is crap because it doesn't have LTE" nonsense. HSPA+ in my area is faster than the best speeds my cable company can offer me.

        My overall point is this: a flagship phone doesn't need to have a huge minimum storage, yes an SD slot would be nice for those that need it but I currently don't know a single person that has an actual use case for carrying their entire music collection with them locally. WiFi might not be ubiquitous, but for me (and most people I know) WiFi is available at home, work, school, friend's houses, favorite bars, grocery stores and restaurants. Maybe you host raves in the middle of corn fields but most of the world doesn't need it so why should we have to pay for it. I

        Frankly I'm tired of paranoid hoarder techies tell the world what it needs.
        • hypocrite much?

          "Frankly I'm tired of paranoid hoarder techies tell the world what it needs."

          How is this different from you telling it what it doesn't need or shouldn't want? If you don't want it, don't buy it. If you do want it, it'd be nice to have the choice. That's where demand works into OEM's decision to deliver or not. There is demand by some for more local storage. Why is this so difficult for you? You don't HAVE to pay for it. It's your choice to buy or not.
          • Not at all.

            Demand the inclusion an SD slot on "High End" phones all you want. That way we both get what we want. I want the highest end for lowest cost. Insisting on 32GB minimums in phones just drives the price up for everyone.
          • full of it

            You should study a lot more on the advantages of embedded storage vs. removable. There is an effective argument for considering larger amounts of embedded storage a high-end attribute. In that studying, you will find reasons experts advise you not depend on removable storage for frequently-used files. In "normal" language, removable storage or the cloud are individually too many moving parts for truly high-end performance. That fact is likely a neglible concern for the "normal" user. And if that's the case, stick to your mid-level Samsung and LG burners if you want lowest cost. Let me know what size Gasoline™ thermals Beelzebub needs when you encounter in your world a scenario where you're getting the highest end smartphone for lowest cost. I'll send along a fresh set with matches. But when it comes to high-end, don't bullshyt yourself or others into thinking that high-end should be compromised by the cloud or, sad to say, low price. High-end is about specs as well as optimal performance of the sum of the parts. I'm not hoping to have to spend the most money on anything, but understand that the synergy of high-end of specs will cost more. It's ignorance to believe otherwise. I'd love to be able to have the highest end at lowest cost. But where on earth does that happen and stay that way? What industry?
    • You're confusing YOUR preferences with "normal" HIGH-END expectations ...

      In this day and age ... (re-using only for effect, but already the most despised phrase of the 2010s)

      There is no such thing as a “normal” user. You have choices. If you don't need much storage space, don't buy it. The problem you may not be acquainted with is there is demand for more embedded storage space AND expandable storage in HIGH-END devices. Bhytchin about others expecting reasonable storage space in a high-end device is like bhytchin about legislative powers being wielded by legislators who've been voted into office to legislate. If you don't need it, don't buy it. High-end devices should have a floor when it comes to storage. Otherwise, we could all just be "normal" like you and tether to our computers every freaking time we'd like a different musical selection that would tax the paltry 8GB limit, whose actual storage capacity accessible by the user is even less.

      Anyways, most “normal” people are going to want to reduce their recurring monthly costs for data, mostly used for media consumption, if carriers are going to continue with this data tier crap without proof of the need for caps to manage network congestion (I'M LOOKING DIRECTLY AT YOU, VERIZON). The end effect will lead to full retail prices on devices plummeting. However, the definition of the "normal" user is not the same in every locale, not even in the same city. The reasonable entry price for said "normal" user is completely different across NYC's different Burroughs and completely different in Seattle vs. Shanghai vs. Frankfurt vs. Mumbai vs. Johannesburg. Since you are worried about the entry price being driven up, it seems you are equating "normal" with "cheap." To me, in terms of monthly costs, there is nothing "cheap" or routine about even OWNING a SMARTPHONE (it's a luxury that goes beyond a landline or plain voice plan on a clamshell), so investing in one means a lot to the "normal" user, whether they are spending $199 on contract or paying full retail for the smartphone. For most "normal" users, they will be subject to data usage limits. Because of data caps, don't think the "normal" user always thinks "cheap" when it comes to the impact of embedded storage on the "entry price." The entry price is negligible. Some think about what they are actually going to encounter day-to-day. Some don't want to need to tether to their computer every time they want a different musical selection or pictures or movie files. And most of those same people will NOT want to poke their data allotment and risk data overage charges to pull in additional media they own when they could already have it on local storage. Paying extra towards data plans when you ALREADY paid for a $600-$800 device is NOT a desire of the “normal,” nor is it “normal” to ignore the convenience of not having to constantly tether to your computer to transfer files. Keep in mind this "day and age" is a time where people are increasingly using their mobile devices as their primary computing device. That dependency will increase the demand for local storage. This isn't 4 years ago where you began and continue to use devices limited to 8GB. Demands of the "normal" are changing. This article articulates that very well from the perspective of owning a HIGH-END device, not a device with 8GB, which is not considered high-end. There is plenty of room for "cheap," but the “normal” standard for the HIGH-END has and will always change.
      • Capitalizing words doesn't change their definition.

        Your definition of high end is different than mine. And I have never tethered my phone to get music, that's what the cloud is for. I would argue that Fast, Large Cloud, quad core, 2+ GB of Ram, Latest OS = "HIGH-END" with or without massive storage. Cloud is here, embrace it, because things are obviously moving in my direction.
        • I'll dumb it down for you in lower case ...

          Again, you are missing the point. People don't want to be raped by high data usage fees. In addition to no latency or lost packets that count against data allowances, that's the point of having a sufficient amount of local storage space (or at least a minimum of 16GB with the microSD options) is to avoid data overage risks. The cloud has it's advantages if and only if it is affordable for heavy data users (it's not and never will be).

          The rest of the world has already seen the peak of the cloud if data is capped over carriers' wireless RFs (this isn't about WiFi, mind you). Not everyone uses WiFi as heavily as you may and some desire the performance advantages LTE provides over WiFi. In my tests using Verizon and AT&T, LTE kicks WiFi's a s s up and down the IEEE hallways. LTE's indoor peformance is better than WiFi in my really old lead-like house. But since I have a life, I'm rarely at home and around WiFi, so I have to use my data plans to access web services on my devices for personal and professional usage scenarios. That being said, I'm not going to exhaust my data limits when I could have what media and other files I own stored locally instead of pulling it down OTA. The best fit for some people is counter to what you believe in your argument that "things are obviously moving in my direction." I have yet to witness anyone "normal" hoping to depend on the cloud for anything more than a nightly back-up of device settings and app data if data caps keep them scrambling every day to disable cellular connections for a certain time interval. The only thing obvious is your direction hasn't moved in four years. Lack of local capacity hampers things. Maybe that includes the elevator shaft in your tech-life story. If intelligence mitigated by incoherence is your direction, nice going. You've graduated with honors that capitalization does not change the meaning. Sadly, you do not understand the true measure of magnitude that dependence on the cloud is on the "normal" user. The cloud is not useless, but the sapient have already moved it utilizing it for specific reasons while not allowing to marginalize their interests. If the cloud works for you, good. No problem there. It doesn't work for everyone, though, and your own experience does not portend success in cloud dependence for other "normal" users. Get real.
          • rant much?

            For having a life you sure have ton of time to rant.
            Original story: "16GB integrated storage limitation that is just unacceptable".

            Me: "why exactly would anyone need that much storage on a smartphone?...Demand the inclusion an SD slot on "High End" phones all you want"

            You: "at least a minimum of 16GB with the microSD"

            Thank you for agreeing with me.
          • Really?

            Did you seriously just twist a minimally acceptable compromise (within parentheses!) into someone being in actual agreement with you? Your distortion reality field is worse than Lance Armstrong's. Enjoy every little bit of your small world. Good evenin