Dear Lord...
* Please don't let cellular companies put fashion before data speeds.
[added to]
* Grant me the ability to punch someone in the face over standard TCP/IP.
"To me, it's what it looks like," said Albert, a 53-year-old campaign
fundraiser from suburban Powell. "I want a good design. Period."
Albert represents a fashion trend marketers are tapping into as they offer
mobile phones with sleeker designs and in more colors, such as blue and
pink, and accessories ranging from charms and stickers to crystals and tiny
designer purses.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:18:13 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
<nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
>I need to add this to my bedtime prayer...
>
>Dear Lord...
>* Please don't let cellular companies put fashion before data speeds.
>[added to]
>* Grant me the ability to punch someone in the face over standard TCP/IP.
I didn't read the entire article, but the cellular companies
needn't put fashion _before_ data speeds or any other phone function.
And the word fashion is misleading.
Good design is worth striving for. It's possible for a phone
to be functional, ergonomic, and pleasing in appearance. The
cost-intensive part is functionality, because it involves R&D, lab
testing, etc. The other two qualities require only the services of a
good designer, and as the article points out, the results of the
investment may pay for it many times over. Only the will to
incorporate all these qualities is required by the manufacturers, and
that would be instilled by increased profit. Just look at the
astounding array of phones available in Japan. They work as well as
any on earth, and many are near works of art (and in fact several
phones from Japan's au/KDDI have won int'l. design awards).
People may _buy_ phones for whatever reason they wish.
Manufacturers should try to make them appeal on every level. There's
absolutely nothing wrong with that. You needn't punch anyone out over
it.
David G. Imber wrote:
> I didn't read the entire article, but the cellular companies
> needn't put fashion _before_ data speeds or any other phone function.
> And the word fashion is misleading.
A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion statement.
"St. John Smythe" wrote:
>
> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> > A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
> > statement.
>
> So, how do you feel about wristwatches?
Personally, I use mine to tell time. It's a $100 watch that I've been
wearing for ~5 years.
Ask the same question to a Rolex wearer, and I'd imagine you'd get a
*very* different answer!
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message news:ei2ing$8sb$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com...
> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
>> statement.
>
> So, how do you feel about wristwatches?
I quit wearing a wristwatch when I got a cellphone. Why does one
need more than one device with the correct time?
In article <tD51h.23313$e66.14623@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ,
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
> news:ei2ing$8sb$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com...
> > decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> >> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
> >> statement.
> >
> > So, how do you feel about wristwatches?
>
> I quit wearing a wristwatch when I got a cellphone. Why does one
> need more than one device with the correct time?
I second that! Well, fashion and design goes hand in hand, just imagine
we are still using motorola brick.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:35:21 GMT, "John Richards"
<jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message news:ei2ing$8sb$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com...
>> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>>> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
>>> statement.
>>
>> So, how do you feel about wristwatches?
>
>I quit wearing a wristwatch when I got a cellphone. Why does one
>need more than one device with the correct time?
Some of us use subways, and Sprint, at least, hasn't put forth
the effort to see to it that the phone retains a timekeeping function
when it's not connected to any network. Actually, my old Nokia 6185
kept telling the time.
Someone should tell that to the millions of teenage girls the comprise a
very large portion of the cellular phone customer base.
"decaturtxcowboy" <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in message
news:Gh21h.23215$e66.2552@newssvr13.news.prodigy.c om...
> David G. Imber wrote:
>> I didn't read the entire article, but the cellular companies
>> needn't put fashion _before_ data speeds or any other phone function.
>> And the word fashion is misleading.
>
> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
> statement.
Watches are fashion. Males are very limited in expression of fashion and
therfore a wristwatch is one fashion accessory that men should have. Just
like having good shoes.
"sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-6996DF.13130129102006@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
> In article <tD51h.23313$e66.14623@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ,
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
>> news:ei2ing$8sb$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com...
>> > decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>> >> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
>> >> statement.
>> >
>> > So, how do you feel about wristwatches?
>>
>> I quit wearing a wristwatch when I got a cellphone. Why does one
>> need more than one device with the correct time?
>
>
> I second that! Well, fashion and design goes hand in hand, just imagine
> we are still using motorola brick.
Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
> Watches are fashion. Males are very limited in expression of fashion and
> therfore a wristwatch is one fashion accessory that men should have. Just
> like having good shoes.
>
> <snip>
Huh?
Again, I use my watch for telling time. Nothing more, nothing less.
In article <elmop-8BD233.15460829102006@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <Ea81h.51014$Ry4.9924@newsfe10.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:
>
> > Watches are fashion. Males are very limited in expression of fashion and
> > therfore a wristwatch is one fashion accessory that men should have. Just
> > like having good shoes.
>
> John, I didn't know you swung that way.
>
> Doesn't surprise me, though.
>
Some people are slaves to fashion. I prefer comfort, and would
rather not have a clammy thing hanging from my wrist.
--
John Richards
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote in message news:Ea81h.51014$Ry4.9924@newsfe10.phx...
> Watches are fashion. Males are very limited in expression of fashion and
> therfore a wristwatch is one fashion accessory that men should have. Just
> like having good shoes.
>
> "sw" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-6996DF.13130129102006@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
>> In article <tD51h.23313$e66.14623@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ,
>> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ei2ing$8sb$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com...
>>> > decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>>> >> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
>>> >> statement.
>>> >
>>> > So, how do you feel about wristwatches?
>>>
>>> I quit wearing a wristwatch when I got a cellphone. Why does one
>>> need more than one device with the correct time?
>>
>>
>> I second that! Well, fashion and design goes hand in hand, just imagine
>> we are still using motorola brick.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:28:08 GMT, "John Richards"
<jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>Some people are slaves to fashion. I prefer comfort, and would
>rather not have a clammy thing hanging from my wrist.
Again, in my original reply I said that the word "fashion" is
misleading. It's design we're talking about, and that includes
functionality, ergonomic suitability, and aesthetic appeal. The
article was mostly about one aspect of design, but if anyone says that
they simply don't exercise any choice in the matter of the appearance
of what they wear, drive, sit on, live in, etc., I don't believe them.
I know at least that I have nothing at all to say to anyone who makes
that claim, and probably wouldn't want to sit next to them on a long
bus ride.
Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> At 29 Oct 2006 13:47:18 +0000 decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
> > A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
> statement.
>
> Watches used to be meant to be timekeeping devices. Clothes were once
> meant to be protection from the elements.
>
> Times change.
Not for everyone, fashion boy! <g>
While I certainly like the way my clothes look, I've *never* been one
to follow any type of fashion trend.
David G. Imber wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:52:16 -0500, "St. John Smythe"
> <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote:
>
>> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>>> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
>>> statement.
>> So, how do you feel about wristwatches?
>
> And cars. And I suppose he lives in a quonset hut and goes to
> work every day in a grey jumpsuit.
House: 3,000 sq. ft. all steel frame construction with minimal walls
(Martha Stewart - eat yer heart out) on forty acres.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:03:55 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
<nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
>David G. Imber wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:52:16 -0500, "St. John Smythe"
>> <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>>>> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
>>>> statement.
>>> So, how do you feel about wristwatches?
>>
>> And cars. And I suppose he lives in a quonset hut and goes to
>> work every day in a grey jumpsuit.
>
>House: 3,000 sq. ft. all steel frame construction with minimal walls
>(Martha Stewart - eat yer heart out) on forty acres.
Sounds very nice, and it certainly sounds like you made a
choice. All kidding aside, that's what I'm getting at. Looking good
does not have to take precedence over functioning well, and if unique
colors and shapes rev one's engine, that's fine.
The original post seemed to imply that phones that looked a
certain way were inferior to plainly functional instruments. That just
doesn't have to be true, and for many, looking good and being built in
an organic way with an awareness of how the human body works is of
great importance.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:18:13 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
<nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in
<FbU0h.16966$GR.7239@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> :
>I need to add this to my bedtime prayer...
>
>Dear Lord...
>* Please don't let cellular companies put fashion before data speeds.
>[added to]
>* Grant me the ability to punch someone in the face over standard TCP/IP.
You'd rather have what, Token Ring? LOL!
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Tell that to Heir Head Paris Hilton. I agree with you though 100%,
functionality is a lot more important than how the darn thing looks, at
least to me.
"decaturtxcowboy" <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in message
news:Gh21h.23215$e66.2552@newssvr13.news.prodigy.c om...
> David G. Imber wrote:
> > I didn't read the entire article, but the cellular companies
> > needn't put fashion _before_ data speeds or any other phone function.
> > And the word fashion is misleading.
>
> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
statement.
Well, for me, I can't really take out my cell phone to look at the time when
I'm riding 65 mph on the highway on my motorcycle. I'm sure people do it but
not me.
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:tD51h.23313$e66.14623@newssvr13.news.prodigy. com...
> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
news:ei2ing$8sb$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com...
> > decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> >> A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
> >> statement.
> >
> > So, how do you feel about wristwatches?
>
> I quit wearing a wristwatch when I got a cellphone. Why does one
> need more than one device with the correct time?
>
> --
> John Richards
Mine not only tells time but also compass directions in degrees,
temperature, barometric pressure and altitude, and some of the more common
watch functions like a stop watch, alarm and date.
"Notan" <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> wrote in message
news:454512A9.76ED3E96@ddress.thatcanbespammed...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
> >
> > Watches are fashion. Males are very limited in expression of fashion and
> > therfore a wristwatch is one fashion accessory that men should have.
Just
> > like having good shoes.
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Huh?
>
> Again, I use my watch for telling time. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Notan
Well, some bible thumpers might agree that anyone who purchases any kind of
article other than that of it being 'functional' is committing one of the
seven deadly sins, pride.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:45455f94$0$12149$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> At 29 Oct 2006 13:47:18 +0000 decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>
> > A cellphone is meant to be a communications device, not a fashion
> statement.
>
> Watches used to be meant to be timekeeping devices. Clothes were once
> meant to be protection from the elements.
>
> Times change.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
At 30 Oct 2006 01:45:46 -0600 Native NYer in Texas wrote:
> Well, some bible thumpers might agree that anyone who purchases any
kind of
> article other than that of it being 'functional' is committing one of
the
> seven deadly sins, pride.
That might explain the lack of pink RAZRs in Amish country...
At 29 Oct 2006 17:35:21 +0000 John Richards wrote:
> I quit wearing a wristwatch when I got a cellphone. Why does one
> need more than one device with the correct time?
Because they don't make a wrist strap for my PPC Phone?
(Kidding aside, I stopped wearing a watch when I started carrying phones
with clocks built-in. My first three cellphones- all analog Nokias-
didn't have a clock!)
At 30 Oct 2006 01:41:46 -0600 Native NYer in Texas wrote:
> Mine not only tells time but also compass directions in degrees,
> temperature, barometric pressure and altitude, and some of the more
common
> watch functions like a stop watch, alarm and date.
So, essentially, your fashion statement is "I'm a geek!" ;-)
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 30 Oct 2006 01:45:46 -0600 Native NYer in Texas wrote:
>> Well, some bible thumpers might agree that anyone who purchases any
> kind of
>> article other than that of it being 'functional' is committing one of
> the
>> seven deadly sins, pride.
>
> That might explain the lack of pink RAZRs in Amish country...
Coming from an Amish family, cellphones would be considered essential items
for commerce (but indoor toilets are not - unless you "delivered" a product
that crossed a state line [Federal Transportation R&R addressing interstate
commerce]), just as having a wagon for your horses to pull goods from the
farm to the market; of course said wagon is required to have proper
lighting for use on the public roads (but indoor electric lighting is not
permittted), however cannot have a Jack-In-Box antenna ball...but then, you
can't have a radio in aforementioned wagon. However a radio antenna is
permitted as it could be considered an emergency buggy whip.
Fashion drives cellphone design 
Linear Mode
