The analysis of David Pogue’s review of new model of Blackberry fails to provide a fair assessment because it focuses mainly on negative critique. In particular, the author criticizes the concept, introduction of clicking sounds for the touch screen board, and software design in general.
Despite the dominance of negative comments, Pogue still manages to introduce some positive insights to the article. The favorable review has been dedicated to the analysis of touch screen effect, particularly to the click sounds, which seems to be an advantage of Blackberry Storm.
However, these positive comments are intertwined with ironic remarks concerning the practical side of this novelty. Two types of touchiness are applicable to register the click. Positive connotation is also presented at the end of the article, when the author refers to specific function and overall design of the device. Thus, the author notes, “I you’re one of the few remaining rich people in this county, you can even use this phone overseas…the phone features are excellent; calls are loud and clear” (Pogue, n.p.).
There are also many other extensive features which allow the phone producers to gain a competitive advantage over other smartphones. The positive features discussed at the end do not contribute to the overall negative evaluation because readers have already received the author’s overall perception of the new model.
The positive comments cover only one fifth of the entire reviews. Moreover, these comments are endowed with hues of sarcasm and irony. The rest of the critique is dedicated to negative representation of device’s features. Similes, metaphorical constructions, repetitions, and interrogative sentences create a full picture of Pogue’s negative attitude toward launching of the product.
At the very beginning, the author refers to Bleackberry Storm as “Dud”, the unnecessary and useful devices that can be replaced by other much more effective tools of communication.
Further, the critic makes a number of successful comparisons concerning the absence of physical keyboard, which he identifies with “iPhone without a school wheel…Prius with terrible mileage…Cracker Jack without prize inside” (Pogue n. p.) All these comparisons are persuasive enough to understand that this feature is the essence of Blackberry concept and design.
Use of interrogative sentences is also among the approaches that Pogue uses to emphasize the disadvantages of the new model. The interrogative intonation is also presented in the article title and in the body. While explaining the pitfalls of Blackberry Storm, the author refers to such words as “trouble”, “issue”, and “problem”. There are rare occasions that Pogue introduce explicit and heavy criticism of the model.
Such an approach makes the negative comments even more convincing and persuasive. Using simple descriptions that start with questioning and comparisons provides a satirical view on the new function of Blackberry. While resorting to these assumptions, positive comments lose their value due to the inappropriate use of functions, as well as lack conformity between software design and the corresponding tasks.
While reviewing the new production, the author relies on personal experience in employing these functions. Hence, when he describes the pitfalls of touch screen key board the author writes, “to type “get” you press the GH, ER and TY keys. Unfortunately, that’s also “hey”” (Pogue n. p.). Hence, typing by means of tine keyboard creates serious problems and diminishes the practical value and usability of the device. Removing physical keyboard, the producers failed to meet the requirements of the standard virtual keyboard.
Works Cited
Pogue, David. “No Keyboard? And You Call This a Blackberry?” The New York Times. 2008. Web. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/technology/personaltech/27pogue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0