At 13 Sep 2006 16:44:27 -0500 Thurman wrote:
>
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> news:45084c8e$0$19747$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> > At 13 Sep 2006 15:19:07 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
> >> In article <RiTNg.1664$Yy1.1385@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> <snip>
> >> > Pardon me? I believe I said that it doesn't have a fabulous
> > reputation. I
> >> > did not say it was bad [although I would not buy one].
> >>
> >> Get REAL. It has sold 50,000,000 what's abetter reputation than
> > that????
> >
> > So did the Ford Pinto... ;-)
>
> As a matter of fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto reports
sales
> of 2 million over 9 years.
>
> Less you stretch editorial license too far, the Pinto was a bottom line
> product that courts statements was designed with the knowledge that
there
> could be "death and maiming" so Ford budgeted $70M for claims.
>
> The Razr, in a completely opposite strategy was designed as a high end
> device. I think it was introduced at around $500 five years ago, rather
> expensive for the time; today selling for as little as $65.
>
> I have had about eight cell phones over the last five years, prefer and
> recommend the Razr. It isn't perfect, but will suffice until a thin GSM
> Smartphone is released.
>
I know Ford never sold 50M Pintos, I was actually going to type "Mustang",
which would've been a better analogy, simply because like the RAZR, more
were sold for their style rather than their usefulness. (I'm not really
denegrating their feature set, I'm just saying the form factor was a
bigger factor in their popularity.)

My post was simply making the point to Mr. Zwick that number of units
sold doesn't necessarily indicate a quality product (nor does it mean
it's NOT a quality product, obviously!)

My opinion of the RAZR probably isn't particularly useful to anyone else,
since I only looked at it in stores when it was newish (and frankly
rejected it on a price/performance ratio- at least the GSM models)- I
thought it was an ok, albeit overpriced, phone with a wildly successful
marketing campaign. If they'd only called it the "V3", I doubt it
would've have been nearly as successful. Not to pick on older or more
professional users of the device, but the name "RAZR," at least to me,
seems to target the current generation of texters who tend to type in
abbreviations, if u no wot i mean... ;-)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com