Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Telecom Company Launches 'RedBerry'
Ubergrendle writes "The Globe&Mail is reporting that Chinese telecom company China Unicom Ltd. is launching a new wireless device unapologetically named 'Redberry'. This comes in the wake of an almost 2 year regulatory delay blocking the introduction of RIM's Blackberries to mainland China. Certainly this delay was convenient to China Unicom, if not deliberately staged to allow for domestic competition."
From one of the articles I read, the Redberry name is just a nickname for the "Uni Pushmail" software running on the phones.
The first wave of Daxian CU-928 Pocket PC phones
bundled with Uni PushMail software has started pouring into the market. Not
to be outdone by the internationally renowned Blackberry, the Redberry, as
Uni PushMail is nicknamed, flourishes in the Chinese telecom value-added
service sector.
see previous post for link to full article.
liqbase
From a users perspective, here's the reasons I was almost inseperable from my old RIM 950 (I'm pretty sure 950 was the model - this was prior to them becoming cell phones also):
* Push email. I ran an agent on my Outlook at work and email appeared on my Blackberry, subject to the filtering rules I put in place. This is better than IMAP and POP3, I literally only saw emails I care about on the device. I'd much rather design my filters in an Outlook-like interface than on a small device.
* The scroll wheel. It seems lame, but it's dead simple to navigate around the device with just your thumb.
* Small, efficient keyboard. Writing email was simple. A lot easier than T9.
Just to set the records straight, Blackberry/RIM is based out of Ontario, Canada NOT USA.
The branding copycatting charge is a bit thin. Most people should be easily able to tell the difference between the two. It's certainly less confusing than Lindows.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
In light of the understandable comments incited by the RedBerry, with the tune of "Commie bastards, ripping off our ideas and mass producing them," let's take a different look at our trade relations with China.
A wise man once told me, "When a business deal is being made, the buyer is in control. The buyer brings $$$$ to the table. Nothing happens in a business deal unless $$$$ changes hands. Therefore, nothing will happen unless the buyer allows it to happen."
To relate that to the China situation, the reason we have a trade deficit is because Americans, on an individual basis, want to buy cheap mass-produced goods. This is in stark contrast with Americans as a whole, who want our economy to be strong and trade deficits to lessen. (Both of these assertions are made on a generalized basis and may not hold true in all specific instances. But let it be sufficient to make my point.)
To loosely paraphrase V in "V for Vendetta" - "to find the origin of your problems, you only need to look in the mirror." Remember this when buying Chinese imports at Walmart, or purchasing Lenovo laptops.
Before modding me all to hell, realize that this is a classic problem of Nash game theory. We have a trade deficit with China because individual Americans have trouble simulaneously 1) buying what they want, and 2) doing what is best for the nation.
This line of reasoning is tangential to the introduction of the "RedBerry", but necessary (I felt) in light of all of the economic nationalist posts that Slashdotters are furiously typing. 8)