Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Chinese Telecom Company Launches 'RedBerry'

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Apr 11, 2006 04:43 PM
from the friends-in-your-corner dept.
Handhelds Hardware IT
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Chinese Telecom Company Launches 'RedBerry' 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I guess the rise in wealth in China and India due to outsourcing is now going to bite us in the ass if this product is alot cheaper than the blackberry because its %100 made in China.
    • China was making products that were competitive with First-World versions long before the recent increases in the relative wealth of the inhabitants of Shanghai. (Almost none of which is attributed to outsourcing, the booming economy of China is a little more involved than that.) If a tiny proportion more of the people in India and China are now able to afford luxury items that increases the demand for such items for all manufacturers, including First-World ones. Manufacturers in China would be crazy to ne

      • No copycat hardware (Score:5, Informative)

        by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:35PM (#15109515)
        RTFA. Redberry uses an existing cellphone as the device and does not require special Blackberry-style hardware. All this does is mail forwarding to an existing cell phone. All this is involved is a small incremental service cost. No need for the huge Blackberry costs.

        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.

  • Leave it to China (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 42Penguins (861511) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:48PM (#15109199)
    I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the name "RedBerry." Does the "awakening dragon" suddenly have a sense of humor??
    It sounds like something a college kid would make up as a prank and try to sell.
    There's gotta be some marketing exec in Beijing reading the paper and going "ROFL" over this...

  • Why is blackberry so unique? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jimmyhat3939 (931746) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:51PM (#15109222) Homepage
    What I don't understand is the pervasiveness of the Blackberry product for email. Email is an extremely simple application for a client to do, requiring just a simple TCP/IP stack and the ability to do either POP3 or IMAP. I believe that most cellphones now have some email capability built into them. Also, there exist plenty of WAP web-based email platforms out there.

    That leaves just the mini-keyboard interface as the big deal in the space. Personally, I'm not all that impressed by that as an input mechanism. But, if people like it, why isn't it copied all over the place? Is the concept of a little QWERTY keyboard seriously patented? Also, what about all those other ideas like having two letters assigned to each keyboard button and then having the phone sort it out based on what it thinks you're probably trying to type? Or something like a chording keyboard (though that would require learning)?

    So anyway, what's the big deal with Blackberry in particular. Why is this stuff so hard/interesting/compelling?

    • I used to wonder the same thing. The closest I've ever heard to an explanation is that Blackberry's "product" is less the little handsets but the infrastructure that the cellular carriers use to provide email service. Apparently BB is very easy to deploy, and they have patents on some rather vague concepts regarding (don't quote me on this exactly) where the email is cached. I think the crux of it is that when a cell carrier deploys a BB system, they don't have to dick around with actually running the mailservers or anything else; it's a very holistic/'total package' type solution from their perspective.

      Now why somebody else doesn't just make a similar network and market it to the cell carriers, I'm not sure. That's where I'm betting the patents come in. But I think BB has sold itself to the cell carriers as being easier to implement and maintain than a roll-your-own solution, and their handsets and all-you-can-eat pricing (versus SMS) have gotten them a good userbase and the associated name recognition.

      If anyone can elaborate on exactly how the BB system works, I would be interested.

    • Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rude Turnip (49495) <valuationNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:00PM (#15109299)
      "Also, what about all those other ideas like having two letters assigned to each keyboard button and then having the phone sort it out based on what it thinks you're probably trying to type? Or something like a chording keyboard (though that would require learning)?"

      The only types of people I know with crackberries are attorneys, hedge fund managers and accountants that would have zero patience for learning a new way to type. They don't want to fiddle with T9 when most of the stuff they type is very specialized and wouldn't show up automatically. A mini-QWERTY kbd is quick and good enough for their needs.
      • The only types of people I know with crackberries are attorneys, hedge fund managers and accountants that would have zero patience for learning a new way to type.
        All of the management types where I work have corporate sponsored BBs so that everyone can keep in touch with them no matter where they are.
        IT is also perfectly willing to set up your personal BB so that the company can reach you anywhere as well. Of course, the company won't pay for grunt level BBs, but they will at least pay for the time for a

    • Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (Score:5, Informative)

      by nvrrobx (71970) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:04PM (#15109328) Homepage
      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.

    • Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oGMo (379) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:45PM (#15109580)
      So anyway, what's the big deal with Blackberry in particular. Why is this stuff so hard/interesting/compelling?

      Don't look for a "killer feature", because there's not a specific killer feature. In fact, each of the Blackberry's features alone is pretty mediocre. This may be hard to understand, but it happens sometimes.

      The trick is that, taken as a whole, it has just the right amount of everything to make it a "killer device". Email works well enough. Web works well enough. Calendar is decent. Everything integrates with Exchange. The phone interface is really nice, and the address book is good and can do directory lookups. Companies can run their own internal servers and keep the devices behind the company firewall (big difference between general cell phones). The screen is big enough to read and the full keyboard (or half keyboard with uncannily good predictive text for the more phone-like models) is a must. Connectivity is constant wherever you have cell coverage. For a regular work day, this addresses just about everything.

      Finally, you can charge it, and it'll remain connected and on the data network at all times for days before you have to recharge it. And it charges over USB. It will even work offline (i.e. no cell/data network). I can't remember the last time I actually turned mine off, though I have turned off wireless to save battery or switched off work email.

      There are other neat features, as well, like the holster functionality. (Unlike any cell phone I've seen, when it's in the holster it will be silent/vibrate, and when it's out it will ring. Nice for never worrying if your phone will embarrass you in a meeting.)

      These features taken as a whole, without being loaded down by stuff like cameras and other useless trinkets, make it a very useful device. No, nothing is particularly outstanding. But it's the right combination of ingredients.

  • that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vykor (700819) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:54PM (#15109247)
    Hm. Is there a reason why the United States is just letting the Chinese practice their blatantly economic-nationalist trade policy, all the while sitting under the pretenses of free trade? How that particular "regulatory tangle" not constituting a barrier to free trade? Where are the retaliatory sanctions?
    • Interesting - I thought the Blackberry was made by a Canadian corporation.
    • After God-knows-how-many years of "most favoured nation" trade status, a freakishly large amount of production takes place in China; they also have a lot of our foreign debt.

      Now imagine either of two scenarios:

      1) China ceases production for the US market. (They could easily turn to produce for their own domestic market, and at not too dissimilar revenue levels.)
      2) China calls in our tab.

      Sleep tight.

    • Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (Score:4, Funny)

      by geobeck (924637) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:29PM (#15109473) Homepage
      Where are the retaliatory sanctions?

      The US has fired off a bunch of trade sanctions. Unfortunately, they've got terrible aim, so they all hit Canada instead.

    • Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grumpyman (849537) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:56PM (#15109645)
      Talking about "sitting under the pretenses of free trade", Canada and US has actually signed something called free-trade agreement, yet Canada keep iron-fisted by the US government in so many fronts - softwood lumber, wheat, beef... For one moment if you think China is the only country practising 'blatantly economic-nationalist trade policy', think again.

    • Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cLive ;-) (132299) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @07:30PM (#15110135) Homepage Journal
      Oh please. Like the US believes in free trade. EU steel trade tariffs? Farmers?

      The day a country doesn't use it's regulatory network to preserve its own trade is the day it gets pwned by every other damn country out there.

      • It's a little different in this instance.

        Though yes, the Chinese are subsidising the American way of life....

        If I was to stop paying on debts, then I'd find big burly men coming to my house to take my stuff back, called repo men. There really isn't an international equivalent.

        As Pierre Elliott Trudeau said once, "you can't foreclose on a country."

        • Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (Score:5, Interesting)

          by rainman_bc (735332) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:53PM (#15109627)
          If a country were to stop paying their debts, they would find themselves unable to borrow because of a loss of credibility.

          Would you borrow from a nation that isn't repaying their debts?

          Look, you're willing to accept money in lieu of your services because it has a fiat value. You can exchange that currency for goods or services in trade. That currency is only valuable because it is universally accepted. Ask someone who survived ww2 in Germany about currency confidence.

          Similarly with government bonds you purchase them on the promise your money will be returned, and while they have your money you earn interest. You are more than happy to buy tresury notes in the US because you know you'll get your money back. If there was ever any doubt, you'd be less inclined to give up your money in exchange for this interest bearing bond.

          Certainly you cannot foreclose, but the market in general can.
      • That doesn't quite make sense. If anything, the debt should make China more dependent on the US than the other way around, since they traded a whole lot of hard currency for some pieces of paper that are only worth anything because the US Treasury says so. If the US defaulted (not bloody likely, but speaking theoretically), they would be the ones left holding the bag. At that point it would become a question of what they'd do to make the US pay up -- they can't exactly send someone over to break our kneecap
        • there are a lot of countries that pull the free-trade card when it comes to having access to US markets, but are still staunchly protectionist when it comes to their domestic markets and industries.

          Wow, that's really funny. Many countries in free trade relationships with the US (like, say, Canada and Mexico), have the exact same complaint... about the US! Interesting how, when the tables turn, people suddenly get all uppity about free trade.

  • Why the fascination (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:54PM (#15109254) Journal
    I know that China is the "new world" and all but for every company to fall all over themselves to deal with them is a bit rediculous. A country that prides itself in constraining all markets, destroying their populace and basically giving the middle finger to rest of the planet is put on a pedestal by the countries that should be invading them to free their people? As all the "free" countries fall all over themselves to sell and buy from a country that is as close to slave labour as we have presently. Maybe we should just forget about them for a while and they may go away, just like Soviet Russia. Before you mod me to hell, think about when you purchase your Walmart crap that is produced by children that don't make enough to feed themselves.

    • Re:Why the fascination (Score:4, Funny)

      by fithmo (854772) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:10PM (#15109361)

      "A country that prides itself in constraining all markets, destroying their populace and basically giving the middle finger to rest of the planet is put on a pedestal by the countries that should be invading them to free their people?"

      HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT ABOUT AMERIC..... oh, you're talking about China? yeah, yeah, I agree!
      /me gives the middle finger to China

  • For the life of me, I cannot fathom why a Chinese company would name their device after an American folk & blues musician that was popular in the early part of the 20th century. Pencils down.

  • The REDberry... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ZSpade (812879) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:55PM (#15109261) Homepage
    "On the eve of its long-delayed China launch, BlackBerry is facing a sudden challenge from a cheaper Chinese rival called, unapologetically, RedBerry.

    Oh, that's not nice... China Unicom left no doubt that it is brazenly attempting to capitalize on BlackBerry's global fame.

    So they admit it!

    You know, maybe they're counting on Blackberry being too worn out with the courts to persue anything, and IANAL, but isn't this a pretty blatant rip-off? I wonder how long till we see Blackberry sues Redberry - Blueberry feels left out in the cold.
    • Sues them where? China's trademark laws are a little bit more lenient, particularly in cases of state owned companies.

        • Re:The REDberry... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Akaihiryuu (786040) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @06:56PM (#15109993)
          That's true...in order to sell the product in the US, they would have to create a US subsidiary, which would be subject to US laws. However, from what I see here, this is a product intended to be sold in China. I don't think they have any intention of selling it outside China.

  • In Ireland too! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Skadet (528657) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:59PM (#15109286) Homepage
    In other news, RIM has secured a contract for the Irish city of Dingle [wikipedia.org]. The headline?

    DingleBerry is the new RIM job.
  • ElderBerry BlueBerry CommieBerry
  • A Chinese company named RedTN has sued Redberry for violating one of its red patents.
  • OK, so the Chinese, unwilling to develop a worthy competitor to RIM, simply rip it off in a state-controlled game play. Apparently also, they do not care how this reflects on them as a people, and figure there will be no negative long-term consequences in the business world.

  • Berry Timely (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:16PM (#15109407) Homepage Journal
    China probably waited for the BlackBerry/RTP patent lawsuit to settle. So BlackBerry (RIM) would have the least cash, and maybe the case would reduce the risk China's corporation would be blocked by patents. While BlackBerry and the problems of a single supplier make all the headlines. The last couple of weeks since the settlement is just enough time to unleash the hounds, but too short for the timing to be merely coincidental.
      • I'm going to guess you're a young European who thinks taking the train once in a while, about as far as millions of commuters here in NYC travel every day to/from work, makes you cosmopolitan. Because not only am I considerably older than your feeble guess, I've lived in foreign countries, lived in several American states (around the continent), travelled to dozens of countries (probably including yours) on every continent where people outnumber penguins. Preferably to ones where I don't speak the language,
  • We export countless manufacturing jobs and import enough to make Chine one of the top five largest and richest economies, and this is how they treat the United States? I'm not even mentioning the devaluing of their currency and impact that has on our economy (actually I guess I just did). I think our administration (US) needs to take a hard look at China's obvious anti-competitive, and one sided global trade policies.
  • Why isn't Bush slapping China with a WTO "unfree trade" suit? They've got our oil, and compete with us with artificially lowered Commie wages!

    Besides, we opened our trade with Chinese corporations to open their markets for our advanced technology, manufactured there with their artifically lowered Commie wages for their Commie consumers to spend on our products. That's not fair!

  • Blackberry is canadian not american (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:25PM (#15109458)
    Just to set the records straight, Blackberry/RIM is based out of Ontario, Canada NOT USA.

  • Was it all competition? (Score:4, Funny)

    by SeaFox (739806) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:32PM (#15109501)
    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.

    You mispelled 'surveillance'.

  • Only one problem (Score:5, Funny)

    by dingbatdr (702519) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @05:38PM (#15109530) Homepage
    If you write anything on your device that says anything about Taiwan independence or
    Falun Gong, your phone tries to kill you.
  • on popular consumer electronics:

    iPod -> iMao

    XBox -> XBoxerRebellion

    Sony PlayStation Portable -> Lenovo CulturalRevolution Portable

    Canon PowerShot -> Canon GreatLeapForward

    etc.

  • Remember *Why* We Have a Trade Deficit (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hootenanny (966459) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @07:21PM (#15110096)
    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)

  • China's government is communist, right? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davek (18465) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:34PM (#15111262) Homepage Journal
    Why is this being treated with any surprise? The government of china is communist, and by definition that means a single group of party leaders control essentially every aspect of a citizen's life. It seems perfectly logical that they would conciously block the deployment of a foreign product until a domestic one is released to the market.

    The question becomes: why did they choose to be deceptive in their practices? I think its part of comnunist philosophy, that leaders have to deceive the public to a certain extent, because full knowledge of what's really going on is not benificial to progress or economic success. And if this is really the case, why can't this be part of the political conversation instead of how best to use military force?

    -dave
    • The parent is a bit of a troll, but according to the article part of the regulatory problem was that the Chinese government didn't like the strong encryption RIM uses for communications (suggesting that part of the reason for the delay was in fact that the government wanted to be able to snoop more easily). Of course, this came from an "Ontario government source", so it could just be speculation.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.