Jeff Grossman wrote:
> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
> the Motorola Droid.
>
> http://droiddoes.com
LOL, I guess Verizon isn't getting the iPhone any time soon!
Now if Motorola had a clue about how to market a phone, the Droid might
have some success. Now if Google decided to help with the marketing that
would be a different story.
How is Verizon decontenting the Droid? I've seen conflicting reports on
whether or not they removed Wi-Fi. What about the GPS? Must you sign up
for their service or can it run real GPS applications?
Are Android phones going to be the "good enough" phones with an open
architecture like MS-DOS was the "good enough" O/S with an open
architecture?
>Jeff Grossman wrote:
>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>> the Motorola Droid.
>>
>> http://droiddoes.com
>
>LOL, I guess Verizon isn't getting the iPhone any time soon!
>
>Now if Motorola had a clue about how to market a phone, the Droid might
>have some success. Now if Google decided to help with the marketing that
>would be a different story.
>
>How is Verizon decontenting the Droid? I've seen conflicting reports on
>whether or not they removed Wi-Fi. What about the GPS? Must you sign up
>for their service or can it run real GPS applications?
>
>Are Android phones going to be the "good enough" phones with an open
>architecture like MS-DOS was the "good enough" O/S with an open
>architecture?
Verizon is changing their tune with crippling their smartphones.
Starting with the Touch Pro2 and now the Imagio (Diamond2) they are no
longer locking down GPS or limiting the original software at all. I
was going to get the Imagio, but I would prefer to get the HTC Hero
(which I am hoping Verizon gets).
I think Verizon finally realized they were missing the boat by not
getting some of the newer smartphones and by limiting the software on
them. I think we are in for some good smartphone releases from
Verizon in the coming months.
Jeff Grossman wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Grossman wrote:
>>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>>> the Motorola Droid.
>>>
>>> http://droiddoes.com
>> LOL, I guess Verizon isn't getting the iPhone any time soon!
>>
>> Now if Motorola had a clue about how to market a phone, the Droid might
>> have some success. Now if Google decided to help with the marketing that
>> would be a different story.
>>
>> How is Verizon decontenting the Droid? I've seen conflicting reports on
>> whether or not they removed Wi-Fi. What about the GPS? Must you sign up
>> for their service or can it run real GPS applications?
>>
>> Are Android phones going to be the "good enough" phones with an open
>> architecture like MS-DOS was the "good enough" O/S with an open
>> architecture?
>
> Verizon is changing their tune with crippling their smartphones.
> Starting with the Touch Pro2 and now the Imagio (Diamond2) they are no
> longer locking down GPS or limiting the original software at all. I
> was going to get the Imagio, but I would prefer to get the HTC Hero
> (which I am hoping Verizon gets).
They also "uncrippled" GPS on older smartphones with new firmware releases.
>
> I think Verizon finally realized they were missing the boat by not
> getting some of the newer smartphones and by limiting the software on
> them. I think we are in for some good smartphone releases from
> Verizon in the coming months.
The main problem with android is the cloud computing. I know marketing
tells us it supposed to be the super way to do things but I don't buy
it. Obviously it will capture mindshare on the teenagers and 20
somethings who have no concept of privacy etc.
>> I think Verizon finally realized they were missing the boat by not
>> getting some of the newer smartphones and by limiting the software on
>> them. I think we are in for some good smartphone releases from
>> Verizon in the coming months.
>
>The main problem with android is the cloud computing. I know marketing
>tells us it supposed to be the super way to do things but I don't buy
>it. Obviously it will capture mindshare on the teenagers and 20
>somethings who have no concept of privacy etc.
One issue with cloud computing was realized a few weeks ago with the
Sidekick/Danger/Microsoft issue. Their servers took a dump with a lot
of the users information. I guess they were able to restore most
users information but there are some who are just out of luck.
Can you explain some of the issues with cloud computing and Android?
Before I purchase a new phone I like to learn about all of the pros
and cons of the device.
> I think Verizon finally realized they were missing the boat by not
> getting some of the newer smartphones and by limiting the software on
> them. I think we are in for some good smartphone releases from
> Verizon in the coming months.
Good article in today's Washington Post about the Droid.
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101800621.html"
Looks like it's poised for success, unlike some of the other iPhone
would-be competitors, as long as Verizon can resist crippling it, and
resist pricing it at some ridiculous price. It certainly has a lot of
features that the iPhone lacks. Now it'll be all about how fast the
Android applications can be rolled out.
I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall in some of the marketing meetings
that took place at Verizon where the executives that have historically
favored crippling handsets, because they believed it would result in
additional revenue, were told to STFU.
"Jeff Grossman" <jeff.nospam@stikman.com> wrote in message
news:va7ld59gbendvcacblq57f4rur8mj0amkn@4ax.com...
> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
> the Motorola Droid.
>
> http://droiddoes.com
>
The link just takes me to a page where I have the opportunity to give them
my email address for future info.
To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a $40
per month data subscription.
QN wrote:
> "Jeff Grossman" <jeff.nospam@stikman.com> wrote in message
> news:va7ld59gbendvcacblq57f4rur8mj0amkn@4ax.com...
>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>> the Motorola Droid.
>>
>> http://droiddoes.com
>>
>
> The link just takes me to a page where I have the opportunity to give them
> my email address for future info.
>
> To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a $40
> per month data subscription.
>
>
I'm with you on that! I can't think of any data I'd want to subscribe
to. My phone is first for summoning help in an emergency, and second
for locating my wife in the Supermarket or other large stores.
> To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a $40
> per month data subscription.
There's no problem with that. Motorola or Verizon will be happy to sell
you an unsubsidized Droid (for much more than the $200 subsidized price)
and you can activate it on the PagePlus 1200 plan (1200 minutes, 1200
messages (text or MMS), 50MB of data ($0.60 for each MB over 50M) for
less than $25/month.
If you expect a phone with a huge subsidy to have no requirement for a
high cost plan then you're being unrealistic. It might be painful to pay
$600 up front for a Droid, but in less than a year you'd be net positive
if you're not a big data user. The Droid is estimated to be costing
Verizon $275-325 each (based on the component and manufacturing cost and
Motorola's margin), and they're selling it at a subsidized price of $200.
Does the Droid support QNC so you can use the free low speed data
services on PagePlus?
Actually, it may be cheaper to buy a Droid at the subsidized price, sign
up for service, then pay the $175 early termination fee, unless they up
the early termination fee.
> If you expect a phone with a huge subsidy to have no requirement for a
> high cost plan then you're being unrealistic. It might be painful to pay
> $600 up front for a Droid, but in less than a year you'd be net positive
> if you're not a big data user. The Droid is estimated to be costing
> Verizon $275-325 each (based on the component and manufacturing cost and
> Motorola's margin), and they're selling it at a subsidized price of $200.
But that's the problem- that isn't a "huge" subsidy- at least no more huge
than the subsidies they offered before all smartphones were required to
have a data plan.
> Does the Droid support QNC so you can use the free low speed data
> services on PagePlus?
No Verizon smartphone manufactured since 2005 supports QNC out of the box,
(which is why I use a Samsung i730- the last Verizon smartphone with both
WiFi and QNC support.)
A few more recent smartphones, like the Moto Q and the VX-6700 have been
able to be hacked to support QNC.
> Actually, it may be cheaper to buy a Droid at the subsidized price, sign
> up for service, then pay the $175 early termination fee, unless they up
> the early termination fee.
>
John wrote:
> Jeff Grossman wrote:
>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>> the Motorola Droid.
>>
>> http://droiddoes.com
>
> It has a physical keyboard. At least one strike against it for me.
What do you want as an input device? Graffiti with a stylus? Keyboard
on the screen and tap with a stylus? Voice recognition?
Personally, I can write in Graffiti with a stylus faster than I can type
on a miniature keyboard. The fact that special characters on a
miniature keyboard are not in their standard locations means I have to
search for things like parentheses, punctuation, numbers, etc.
I can't use most voice recognition devices. I think it's because I'm a
bass baritone and the VR devices are looking for tenors and sopranos.
>
>"Jeff Grossman" <jeff.nospam@stikman.com> wrote in message
>news:va7ld59gbendvcacblq57f4rur8mj0amkn@4ax.com.. .
>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>> the Motorola Droid.
>>
>> http://droiddoes.com
>>
>
>The link just takes me to a page where I have the opportunity to give them
>my email address for future info.
>
>To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a $40
>per month data subscription.
>
You are never going to find a smartphone anymore that does not require
an internet package. That is how the carriers are making their money.
You can download so many free apps for these phones they need to find
the revenue somewhere. The only thing they have access to nowadays is
the network.
>Jeff Grossman wrote:
>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>> the Motorola Droid.
>>
>> http://droiddoes.com
>
>It has a physical keyboard. At least one strike against it for me.
I am with you there. I currently have a 6700 and will be going to one
without a physical keyboard. The keyboards make the phones too thick
and bulky. I want a skinny phone and figure I can live with the on
screen keyboard.
>Looks like it's poised for success, unlike some of the other iPhone
>would-be competitors, as long as Verizon can resist crippling it, and
>resist pricing it at some ridiculous price. It certainly has a lot of
>features that the iPhone lacks. Now it'll be all about how fast the
>Android applications can be rolled out.
I don't see Verizon crippling their phones anymore. They got way too
much negative publicity over their older smartphones that were so
crippled you couldn't use many of the free available apps.
From what I understand the Android Market is full of free and pay
applications. I don't think there is any issue with rolling
applications out, there are a bunch out already.
Will be interesting to see how version 2.0 of the Android software
compares with the current offerings. I didn't even think version 2.0
was available yet, but I guess it will be included in this phone.
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> John wrote:
>> Jeff Grossman wrote:
>>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>>> the Motorola Droid.
>>>
>>> http://droiddoes.com
>>
>> It has a physical keyboard. At least one strike against it for me.
>
> What do you want as an input device?
Actually, an iPhone is what I want.
I've resisted leaving Verizon, but I think I'm now ready to.
John wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>> Jeff Grossman wrote:
>>>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>>>> the Motorola Droid.
>>>>
>>>> http://droiddoes.com
>>>
>>> It has a physical keyboard. At least one strike against it for me.
>>
>> What do you want as an input device?
>
> Actually, an iPhone is what I want.
>
> I've resisted leaving Verizon, but I think I'm now ready to.
Yeah, so you can send e-mails like the one I got some friends of ours
sent right after they moved to Lafayette in the east SF Bay Area:
Steve,
here are our numbers:
925-9xx-xxxx (Home)
510 9xx-xxxx (Xxxxxx's cell) - no AT&T reception at home
408 5xx-xxxx (Xxxxxx's cell) - no AT&T reception at home.
When we visited them a week later their doorbell/intercom wasn't working
yet, and their new house is so huge that they couldn't hear us knocking
so I called their home number from their driveway. When we went in there
were two Verizon phones, still in boxes, in the foyer.
Now to be fair, their house isn't in the urban area of town, but it's
only about 1.5 miles from the main part of town.
The iPhone is very nice, but I remember hearing an ad somewhere that
said "It's the Network."
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> QN wrote:
>> "Jeff Grossman" <jeff.nospam@stikman.com> wrote in message
>> news:va7ld59gbendvcacblq57f4rur8mj0amkn@4ax.com...
>>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>>> the Motorola Droid.
>>>
>>> http://droiddoes.com
>>>
>>
>> The link just takes me to a page where I have the opportunity to give
>> them my email address for future info.
>>
>> To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a
>> $40 per month data subscription.
>>
>
> I'm with you on that! I can't think of any data I'd want to subscribe
> to. My phone is first for summoning help in an emergency, and second
> for locating my wife in the Supermarket or other large stores.
Then you probably have little reason to want/need a smartphone?
SMS wrote:
> QN wrote:
>
>> To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a
>> $40 per month data subscription.
>
> There's no problem with that. Motorola or Verizon will be happy to sell
> you an unsubsidized Droid (for much more than the $200 subsidized price)
> and you can activate it on the PagePlus 1200 plan (1200 minutes, 1200
> messages (text or MMS), 50MB of data ($0.60 for each MB over 50M) for
> less than $25/month.
>
But if someone buys a "cloud based" smartphone such as one running
android 50 Mb might be just a few days of typical use.
> If you expect a phone with a huge subsidy to have no requirement for a
> high cost plan then you're being unrealistic. It might be painful to pay
> $600 up front for a Droid, but in less than a year you'd be net positive
> if you're not a big data user. The Droid is estimated to be costing
> Verizon $275-325 each (based on the component and manufacturing cost and
> Motorola's margin), and they're selling it at a subsidized price of $200.
>
> Does the Droid support QNC so you can use the free low speed data
> services on PagePlus?
>
> Actually, it may be cheaper to buy a Droid at the subsidized price, sign
> up for service, then pay the $175 early termination fee, unless they up
> the early termination fee.
Jeff Grossman wrote:
> "QN" <hidingfromyou@example.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jeff Grossman" <jeff.nospam@stikman.com> wrote in message
>> news:va7ld59gbendvcacblq57f4rur8mj0amkn@4ax.com...
>>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>>> the Motorola Droid.
>>>
>>> http://droiddoes.com
>>>
>> The link just takes me to a page where I have the opportunity to give them
>> my email address for future info.
>>
>> To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a $40
>> per month data subscription.
>>
> You are never going to find a smartphone anymore that does not require
> an internet package. That is how the carriers are making their money.
> You can download so many free apps for these phones they need to find
> the revenue somewhere. The only thing they have access to nowadays is
> the network.
>
> Jeff
I would say that is pretty accurate. The operators know at some point
they will likely be just selling wireless data.
George wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> QN wrote:
>>
>>> To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a
>>> $40 per month data subscription.
>>
>> There's no problem with that. Motorola or Verizon will be happy to
>> sell you an unsubsidized Droid (for much more than the $200 subsidized
>> price) and you can activate it on the PagePlus 1200 plan (1200
>> minutes, 1200 messages (text or MMS), 50MB of data ($0.60 for each MB
>> over 50M) for less than $25/month.
>>
> But if someone buys a "cloud based" smartphone such as one running
> android 50 Mb might be just a few days of typical use.
I agree, but the o.p. didn't want to pay for a large amount of data, so
presumably he's a very light data user; perhaps he uses WiFi or doesn't
use the phone for data when a regular computer is available (if iPhone
users in the U.S. we're using WiFi or a regular computer when it's
available, rather than always using W-CDMA, it'd reduce the network load
significantly).
You don't have to use the Android as a cloud based machine. It will ship
with a 16GB MicroSD card, and supports larger cards when available. It's
much more capable than the iPhone in terms of running stand-alone
applications that don't require a network connection; it's more like a a
multi-tasking PDA plus a phone. Memory card support is an extremely
useful feature, not only for expanding storage, but because now you can
do things like stick your card in a kiosk to get photos printed.
>> I'm with you on that! I can't think of any data I'd want to subscribe
>> to. My phone is first for summoning help in an emergency, and second
>> for locating my wife in the Supermarket or other large stores.
>
> Then you probably have little reason to want/need a smartphone?
I find a smart phone with web access to be useful on occasion, without
becoming addicted to constant web access (which is what's causing AT&T's
problems right now). Perhaps there are others that would like a device
that's a phone, music player, camera, PDA that can be used, if necessary
to write or edit documents when you don't want to take along a laptop,
and that runs many PDA applications, but that don't require large
amounts of 3G web access.
When they do need to do something web intensive they find some free
WiFi, which at least in urban areas is pretty easy to find (within one
mile of my house Jwire lists eight free WiFi sites and I know of three
more that they don't list and there are probably others as well).
YMMV, but don't assume that everyone that wants a smart phone is going
to be using multiple GB of data a month. The average iPhone user is
using 400MB, and much of that is probably being used in places where
there is a wireless or wired network available (home, work, hotel,
restaurant, library, bowling alley, government building) but it's not
worth the trouble to switch to WiFi when you have unlimited 3G access.
George wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> QN wrote:
>>> "Jeff Grossman" <jeff.nospam@stikman.com> wrote in message
>>> news:va7ld59gbendvcacblq57f4rur8mj0amkn@4ax.com...
>>>> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
>>>> the Motorola Droid.
>>>>
>>>> http://droiddoes.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> The link just takes me to a page where I have the opportunity to give
>>> them my email address for future info.
>>>
>>> To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a
>>> $40 per month data subscription.
>>>
>>
>> I'm with you on that! I can't think of any data I'd want to subscribe
>> to. My phone is first for summoning help in an emergency, and second
>> for locating my wife in the Supermarket or other large stores.
>
> Then you probably have little reason to want/need a smartphone?
But the "smart phones" have PDA/PIM features. A smart phone will not
only let me store your name and phone number but also your street
address, birth date, and title (if any). Most will offer an appointment
calendar, a memo pad, a calculator, maybe a time zone map, etc, etc.
Some will track repeating events like the Monday morning meeting. These
features are obviously of some value to some people.
I can compose a shopping list on my computer, download it to my phone,
and head for the supermarket. For that matter I could, with a little
more effort, compose the shopping list on my phone. Alright, a LOT more
effort! ;-) Punching the 2-ABC key four times to get a C is not my idea
of a good user interface.
A smart phone with a QWERTY keyboard takes care of the last objection.
I still won't have much, or any, interest in downloading music, videos,
or, in most cases, in web browsing on a 2.4" diagonal screen; my 21"
tube has spoiled me rotten.
At 19 Oct 2009 06:43:21 -0700 SMS wrote:
> George wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> >> QN wrote:
> >>
> >>> To me, the first requirement of a smartphone is that it not require a
$40 per month data subscription.
> >>
> >> There's no problem with that. Motorola or Verizon will be happy to
> >> sell you an unsubsidized Droid (for much more than the $200 subsidized
> >> price) and you can activate it on the PagePlus 1200 plan (1200
> >> minutes, 1200 messages (text or MMS), 50MB of data ($0.60 for each MB
> >> over 50M) for less than $25/month.
> >>
> > But if someone buys a "cloud based" smartphone such as one running
> > android 50 Mb might be just a few days of typical use.
>
> I agree, but the o.p. didn't want to pay for a large amount of data, so
> presumably he's a very light data user; perhaps he uses WiFi or doesn't
> use the phone for data when a regular computer is available (if iPhone
> users in the U.S. we're using WiFi or a regular computer when it's
> available, rather than always using W-CDMA, it'd reduce the network load
> significantly).
>
> You don't have to use the Android as a cloud based machine. It will ship
> with a 16GB MicroSD card, and supports larger cards when available. It's
> much more capable than the iPhone in terms of running stand-alone
> applications that don't require a network connection; it's more like a a
> multi-tasking PDA plus a phone. Memory card support is an extremely
> useful feature, not only for expanding storage, but because now you can
> do things like stick your card in a kiosk to get photos printed.
To be fair, though, out of the box, Android phones only sync PIM (Contacts,
Calendar) data with GMail/Google Calendar- there's no direct desktop sync
lie there is with Blackberry, WinMo, or even the iPhone, so "cloud based"
is a very fair description.
There are a few fairly pricey third party sync tools, but primarily, the
way to back up or sync your Android phone's data with your PC is via
Google's cloud services as an intermediary.
> There are a few fairly pricey third party sync tools, but primarily, the
> way to back up or sync your Android phone's data with your PC is via
> Google's cloud services as an intermediary.
This is true, but hopefully there will be freeware syncing programs
similar to Missing Sync available soon, or Mark/Space will decide to go
for higher volume sales and drop the price to $10 or so. For $10 I'd get
it, for $40 I'd sync via the cloud.
As long as it's not like the Sidekick that apparently made it very hard
to get the data to a desktop, even via a cloud.
Android phones are poised to be the Palm Pilots of the 21st century with
massive amounts of low cost or free applications available.
> One issue with cloud computing was realized a few weeks ago with the
> Sidekick/Danger/Microsoft issue. Their servers took a dump with a lot
> of the users information. I guess they were able to restore most
> users information but there are some who are just out of luck.
I've said before, and I'll say again here, that that wasn't a problem
with the cloud. That was a problem with a bunch of incompetent Microsoft
jackasses letting go of everyone with a clue at Danger, failing to
maintain proper backups, and then screwing themselves over (not to
mention screwing T-Mobile and a bunch of their customers) when the crap
hit the fan.
On Oct 18, 10:42*pm, Jeff Grossman <jeff.nos...@stikman.com> wrote:
> John <jhy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Jeff Grossman wrote:
> >> Verizon has released a commercial for their first android phone called
> >> the Motorola Droid.
>
> >>http://droiddoes.com
>
> >It has a physical keyboard. At least one strike against it for me.
>
> I am with you there. *I currently have a 6700 and will be going to one
> without a physical keyboard. *The keyboards make the phones too thick
> and bulky. *I want a skinny phone and figure I can live with the on
> screen keyboard.
rumoured dimensions of the droid: 115.8x60x13.7mm
dimensions of iphone: 115x61x11.6mm
Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article <67imd5dlb4e4lfthdrp2541qrjd3u07tal@4ax.com>,
> jeff.nospam@stikman.com says...
>
>
>> One issue with cloud computing was realized a few weeks ago with the
>> Sidekick/Danger/Microsoft issue. Their servers took a dump with a lot
>> of the users information. I guess they were able to restore most
>> users information but there are some who are just out of luck.
>
>
> I've said before, and I'll say again here, that that wasn't a problem
> with the cloud. That was a problem with a bunch of incompetent Microsoft
> jackasses letting go of everyone with a clue at Danger, failing to
> maintain proper backups, and then screwing themselves over (not to
> mention screwing T-Mobile and a bunch of their customers) when the crap
> hit the fan.
>
I think it is the problem with "the cloud". "The cloud" is marketed as
some magical happy place where the sun always shines and is just so much
better than mere mortals could do themselves. In reality you are asked
to entrust your data to *who* and exactly how are they caring for it?
This is just another example of a mega corp cheaping out. How is any
user supposed to know this? How can we and why should we trust "the cloud"?
George wrote:
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>> In article <67imd5dlb4e4lfthdrp2541qrjd3u07tal@4ax.com>,
>> jeff.nospam@stikman.com says...
>>
>>
>>> One issue with cloud computing was realized a few weeks ago with the
>>> Sidekick/Danger/Microsoft issue. Their servers took a dump with a lot
>>> of the users information. I guess they were able to restore most
>>> users information but there are some who are just out of luck.
>>
>>
>> I've said before, and I'll say again here, that that wasn't a problem
>> with the cloud. That was a problem with a bunch of incompetent
>> Microsoft jackasses letting go of everyone with a clue at Danger,
>> failing to maintain proper backups, and then screwing themselves over
>> (not to mention screwing T-Mobile and a bunch of their customers) when
>> the crap hit the fan.
>>
>
> I think it is the problem with "the cloud". "The cloud" is marketed as
> some magical happy place where the sun always shines and is just so much
> better than mere mortals could do themselves. In reality you are asked
> to entrust your data to *who* and exactly how are they caring for it?
> This is just another example of a mega corp cheaping out. How is any
> user supposed to know this? How can we and why should we trust "the cloud"?
When you take a close look at the "Cloud" I think you will find that
it's People+Procedures+Hardware+Software; IOW a system and one that was
none too well designed for the purposes for which it was used.
If you want something more I'm sure it's possible to arrange it. My
phone is backed up to my PC and my PC is backed up to a network drive.
It's good enough for me.
You may be able to back up your phone to a "Secure Digital Card". When
you buy a new phone, you might want to discuss with the salesperson,
just what facilities are available for backing up your contacts.
You may wish to have a copy in your home, one in your office, and one in
a safe deposit box. The value of your contacts database will govern how
much time, effort, and money you will devote to keeping your database
intact and available.
First Verizon Andoid Phone 
) for
Linear Mode
