| Review of the Motorola i265 |
 |
The i265 caught my attention because it was the first candy bar style iDEN phone in quite some. I much prefer candy bar phones to clamshells personally, and so I was hopeful that it would be a fitting replacement for my i730.
The i265 is available on Telus Mike. Last Updated: 17-Jan-2005 |
Before reading this review, please read Some Thoughts on Phone Reviewing.
RF Performance
RF Sensitivity: Like virtually all of Motorola’s
iDEN models, the i265 was almost identical in this regard to every other iDEN
phone I’ve tested in the last couple of years. That’s good news, because the
current crop of iDEN models seem to be excellent at picking up extremely weak
signals and making good use of them.
Over-the-road Performance: I did a lot of testing
on this front, but there was definitely something amiss. The i265 would suffer
from audio-damaging frame errors far more often than my
i730 when tested over the same routes. I
checked to make sure that both phones were using the identical CODEC (one of the
Field Test screens covers this), and so the only way to explain the difference
was that the i265 just wasn’t as good as the i730 in this aspect. Of course, I
might have had a lemon, but I really had no way of knowing for certain.
Click on this link for a full description of
RF Performance, and how to interpret it.
Audio Performance
Tonal Balance: While generally quite good, the tone
of the internal earpiece on the i265 was decidedly HOLLOW. It wasn’t annoyingly
so, but it was quite noticeable in back-to-back comparisons with my i730. The
speakerphone sounded similar to the i730, but it was a bit peakier and therefore
rather annoying by comparison.
I ran a test using Direct Connect and the i730 sounded markedly richer and more
natural-sounding than the i265. To be fair, my i730 does suffer from a bit of
sympathetic vibration when the speaker is used, but during the Direct Connect
conversation the overall sound of my i730 was decidedly nicer.
Outgoing sound quality was excellent, and I’d have to say it is better than
either the i730 or i830 when the native
microphone is used. Sound quality when in speakerphone mode is about the same,
however.
Sound Reproduction: In this aspect the i265 did
quite well, and was on par with the i730. The sound reproduction of the current
crop of iDEN phones is extremely good, though not quite perfect. However, part
of sound reproduction is the presence of background noise generated by the
circuitry (or lack therefore). The i265 produced a lot more background noise
than the i730, which itself produces more than the i830. So in this particular
respect the i265 fails to live up to my expectations.
Earpiece Volume: Earpiece volume isn’t quite as
loud as the i730. The difference isn’t tremendous, and represents about 1 to 2
notches on the volume setting. This wouldn’t be such a bad thing if the i730 was
a super-loud phone to begin with, but it isn’t. For normal conversations this
slight lack of volume isn’t a huge deal, but under severe conditions is can be
annoying. The same applies to the speaker, which is also slightly lower in
volume than the i730 (though not as noticeably so as the earpiece).
Click on this link for a full description of
Audio Performance, and how to interpret it.
Support Features
Ringer Volume: Like the all of the current iDEN
models the ringer on this phone is about as loud as they come (especially if you
choose the right ringtone). The loudest one can be heard over a lawnmower, if
that gives you any idea of how loud this phone can ring.
Keypad Design: At first glance the keypad looks
quite nice, but after playing with it for a while I was really not that
impressed. When backlit you can see that the numbers are just painted on, and
the overall feel is cheap and plastic. While the keys pressed fine, they lacked
any real feel, and they were really quite bothersome over time.
Headset: When used with my excellent Samsung earbud
the phone sounded just as good as my i730, except not as loud. The volume
difference between the i730 and i265 on the headset was quite noticeable and
certainly far greater than with the earpiece or speaker. The background noise
was very prominent, and there was much more sidetone on the i265. That sidetone,
while not too bad, was enough to make the use of a headset nowhere near as great
as it is on the i730.
Display: The color screen on the i265 is identical
to the one used in the i730 and the i830. It displays 130 x 130 pixels, and it
produces reasonably nice color. It can be seen in direct sunlight, even without
the backlight on, though I’ve certainly tried better color phones when it comes
to this.
Phonebook: The phonebook is typical Motorola, which
is to say rather minimal. The phone does allow the storage of up to 5 numbers
per name, along with an email address (for what I can’t fathom), but that’s
about it. Search capabilities are limited to the standard approaches seen on
virtually all phones, such as scrolling through the list manually or pressing
the key corresponding to the first letter of the name.
Conclusions
As I noted at the beginning of this review, I’d hoped that the i265 would be a
great candy bar style alternative to the i730, but I just couldn’t warm up to
it. The cheap keypad, the lower earpiece volume, the hollow earpiece tonal
quality, the high level of background noise, and the worse over-the-road
performance just put me off of it completely.
I’d like to tell you that it’s a CHEAPER alternative to the i730, but at only
$50 less I it isn’t worth the pain and suffering. The only reason I’d recommend
anyone buying this over the i730 or i830 is because they absolutely have to get
a candy bar phone. Otherwise do yourself a favor and go with the i730 or i830
instead.
