Does CDMA mean that it will work on the Verizon EVDO network? Or is CDMA slow? Sorry for the dumb question..

Yeah, it's basically a code phrase for "Verizon EVDO," with the other statements and leaks we've seen. But they can't say Verizon flat out because Verizon prohibits them from doing so. I notice Engadget got the story right, by the way. And some site called qusers.com that I'd never seen before. An odd site, as there aren't any actual Q users yet.

This thing looks huge. I'll stick with my treo and it's edge now that i think about it i'm gonna get that wifi tray and start saving money. EVDO prices are gonna go thru the roof just cause it's faster! Come on. Verizon is a ripoff. How can respectively charge their customers an extra $45.00 a month in addition to their phone plan just to surf the net faster whenit's on such a small ass screen.

And to think I was going to shoot off an email from my trusty Sidekick asking about whether or not this was true. This is the device (with that sweet new Linux OS Moto announced, of course) I really want... Good to know we can now communicate through an open-air forum... xo N.

Yeah some people DO need to use the net on their phone.. even if its a small sad screen.. just to get their mail and stuff... and check up on other things... EVDO works for them... it saves them time which=more money..

I just got the Treo 700w it is fantasic. The windows platform is great and snyc up is great no problems. The 700w is the total package. I work construction and all the features really help me do my job. From the camera, to being able to see my word, excel documents, to task and calenders, e-mail, the mp3 player, and oh yeah the phone.

Motorola phones remind me of Radioshack quality electonics. Flimsy, unreliable, and glitchy knock-offs...American engineering at its finest. The Q will make a better paperweight than a phone, trust me on this one.

Noah - You'll be left waiting if you want the Q to have Linux. It's a Microsoft Smartphone device. Jason - It's not huge at all. I remember it as being about the same width and height as the Treo, and thinner. I don't have one right here to compare, of course. As regards that last response ... the smashing success of the V3 and the E815 show that Motorola can build winning products. Don't hate the player, hate the game ...

I have to agree with I know fo sho... Motorola is walking a fine line... great design/mediocre quality. Even though this formula works well for iPod I think it's going to bite moto in the but. In all regards, my old Sanyo SCP-6400 outclasses my Moto v551 (mediocre receptiveness/mediocre firmware). I do have to give their design department Kudos, though: their incredible aesthetics are TOTALLY carrying moto's lame electronics dept.

This is not a Microsoft Smartphone. It's a Window Mobile 5.0 device. It's a full fledged PDA albeit with a small screen. There a Q users out there - I have one in my hands right now. Very thin - cool Blackberry-like dial on the side. Not bad and not too big.

I managed to land a Q in my hands...nothing but bugs!!! Im sure thats why the phone has been delayed. But much better to carry around that than a treo when the damn bugs ever get fixed. I really have not had a chance to use it yet, but the design of the phone is amazing. Hopefully the person that got me the phone will switch it out so i can really see how this phone works!

In my opinion, the Q phone concept is ugly. I fail to see how "design aesthetics" could carry the previously mentioned mediocre electronics. There is no beauty involved in this phone at all. It looks as though it has been designed from the bottom up with function over form. Form and function should work in harmony. An understanding of ergonomics would create designs of a much more natural and organic nature. This latest phone from Motorola is square, slab like, and somewhat industrial looking. If Motorola are so keen to promote the RAZR design, why not use a keypad with RAZR keypad elements? The thin, touch sensitive, metallic approach looks great. I can appreciate that it takes a lot of effort to fit so much technology in ever smaller, more compact devices, but this looks as though different parts of the phone were designed by different departments. The oval shape of the keys doesn't fit in with the square elements of the rest of the chassis. The extended area below the keyboard looks like an add-on. It as though someone forget to include a battery in the original design and they've had to include it as an afterthought.

a) The Q concept is beautiful for a QWERTY device. No sliding, Blackberry-form factor, now if they would just offer a version without a camera for us working around sensitive data. "Industrial looking"? Maybe it was designed primarily for business, and not some hip teenager who wants the newest device on the block. You want something cool? Go buy a Sidekick. b) Sorry, function over form (you said it). Using a keyboard with non-beveled buttons would require a period to warm up to it. People are willing to do that with 0-9, *, and #, but not 26 letters of the alphabet. c) I guess the oval keys are something to complain about about, but I'd rather have them than square keys. And if you mention something stupid along the lines of "why not an oval chassis?", please refer back to a: Go buy a Sidekick. d) Maybe it was an afterthought, but I can see myself using that small 'bridge' to rest the inner base of my thumbs on as I'm punching out e-mails without cramping up or mistakenly depressing other keys. I'm sorry but this is a business device, where function RULES over form. Feel free to start your own mobile phone company/partnership developing pretty devices that can withstand falls and still get the job done. Maybe then I'll take you seriously.

I think you missed one of my fundamental points. Form is important, even with business devices. We recently upgraded most of our employees from standard phones to Blackberry devices. We gave them a choice between the QWERTY keyboard and the slimmer version with 2 letters on each key. Everyone chose the slimmer phone. The deciding factor was that it looked better, looked more like a phone, and you don't look as though you have a paving slab stuck to the side of your head when making phonecalls. The functionality is the same. At the end of the day both devices allow for voice, text and email communications, but in my experience, people will choose the prettier option. It is possible to include an element of cool in a phone regardless of its intended market. I beleive that Motorola missed out on the opportunity to capitalise on the success of the RAZR design when creating the Q.

The functionality is not the same between a Blackberry 7100t and it's QWERTY counterparts primarily because of its keyboard. The double key concept is horrible in my opinion. We recently just did the BB dance as well, and our team opted for the 7290 and 8700. Our BB devices are used primarily for e-mail, remote access to our network applications, and customer support. Our seasoned CEO (who you'd think would pick form over function) also selected the 7290. I guess you can say the 8700 wins over the 72xx series when it comes to form while maintaining function, but it is still ahead of the 7100. Yes, the mobile brick to the side of your face is a downer, but that is easily solved with a BT headset. Motorola is capitalizing on the success of the RAZR design by making the Q thin. Not as bulky as a Treo, iPAQ, or other Windows Mobile phones and/or PDAs. While I agree that most of us would like to have a phone that resembles a phone, we will still opt for the compromise that allows us to get the job done in the best and quickest possible option.

Our company tried the 7100 and while it looks nice it stinks for real email use. We ended up with the 7290. The problem with the BB is its a lousy phone. Bluetooth makes is usable but it is till a very poor phone. If Motorola can give me BB capability with a decent phone they will have our business.