I’m a longstanding BlackBerry user and fan. I mainly use my BlackBerry to send/receive e-mails and seldom phone/get phoned.

I always smiled about all the smart phones coming to market, without posing a threat to BlackBerry, for one reason only, namely all were always phones in the first place and e-mail devices in the second (or in some instances even fourth) place.

Put another way, they never took BlackBerry on on its strong point, namely its e-mail sending/receiving ability.

That was, to me, Blackberry’s strength and saving grace in an ever-more-competitive market.

When I heard about the Storm, I stormed down to the shop to “test-drive” the thing.

And then I couldn’t believe it, when I saw that BlackBerry voluntarily…on its own…did away with its only saving grace, its only strength, which is its e-mail sending/receiving ability.

This is to me a fatastic case study of “commercial suicide”. I’m sure the suicide of BlackBerry by its own volition will in future be study material at business schools.

Either way, it seems like the iPhone is loading the pages at a more reasonable rate and displaying the data as it gets it, while the storm is displaying it all the once.

Also, he claims the Storm is smart by loading the full version but it’s all up to the server whether it serves the full or mobile version.

Seems CNet has set up an iPhone optimized site but not a generic mobile site. Which is unfortunate.

And then of course vice-versa for the Engadget test.

Loading websites from bookmarks will probably activate some caching on the iPhone. Then there is a difference in mobile/non-mobile sites which absolutely cannot be compared in speed.

I’m not saying the Storm is so much better or worst, but this test is rather useless…

Though the NY Times article does make sense.