George wrote:
> Pegleg wrote:
>> I realize this is a rhetorical question but....why does Verizon have
>> such crappy phones??????????????????????????????????
>
> Mine seem to make and receive calls OK. What problem are you having?
George wrote:
> Pegleg wrote:
>> I realize this is a rhetorical question but....why does Verizon have
>> such crappy phones??????????????????????????????????
>
> Mine seem to make and receive calls OK. What problem are you having?
Being presumtuous enough to try and speak for him, I think he's
(over)stating his disappointment in that Verizon (of which I am a customer)
seems to often be behind in offering new and unique cell phone technology,
I myself have written to Verizon and have 'complained' about this.
An older example is the Motorola Razr, a phone which was introduced to the
public a full two years or more before it was made available to verizon. And
then, when the other providers were offering the Razr as a free phone,
Verizon was charging $300 with a contract.
You can see the same thing happening right now. T-Mobile, for example, has
the unique, compact, consumer-friendly Blackberry Pearl. The best Verizon
could do was come up with the much more business oriented Blackberry 8830.
T-Mobile got the iPhone. Verizon didn't. I believe there are other examples.
So, yes, from a purely practical viewpoint, VZ's phones work. But some of us
are into the latest technology, and/or the latest craze. For us, VZ
consistently disappoints.
If Pegleg meant something else, well, then mark me down as having spoken for
myself! :-)
On 2007-08-07, Carl <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> An older example is the Motorola Razr, a phone which was introduced to the
> public a full two years or more before it was made available to verizon. And
> then, when the other providers were offering the Razr as a free phone,
> Verizon was charging $300 with a contract.
It's not VZW's fault they couldn't get the RAZR, for which Cingular was under
exclusive contract with Motorola for a couple years. It IS stupid that they
were charging $300 with a contract when they finally got it.
On 2007-08-07, Carl <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> George wrote:
>> Pegleg wrote:
>>> I realize this is a rhetorical question but....why does Verizon have
>>> such crappy phones??????????????????????????????????
>>
>> Mine seem to make and receive calls OK. What problem are you having?
[...]
> You can see the same thing happening right now. T-Mobile, for example, has
> the unique, compact, consumer-friendly Blackberry Pearl. The best Verizon
> could do was come up with the much more business oriented Blackberry 8830.
> T-Mobile got the iPhone. Verizon didn't. I believe there are other examples.
>
> So, yes, from a purely practical viewpoint, VZ's phones work. But some of us
> are into the latest technology, and/or the latest craze. For us, VZ
> consistently disappoints.
All of this makes perfect sense. Mobile phone manufacturers build for
a global market in which the US is, if anything, a shrinking fraction
due to things like European currency strength and the size and growth
rate of Asian countries. On a world-wide basis GSM/UMTS handsets
outsell CDMA2000 handsets by a huge margin, so a lot of manufacturers'
R&D is spent serving the bigger market first. Worse, while you can
often sell a single GSM hardware platform worldwide, providing localization
support in software only, CDMA2000 hardware often needs to be specialized
to the North American market (for example, Asian CDMA phones often
support different frequency bands than the US, and almost always have
SIM cards; they need to change this to sell in North America). Since
GSM/UMTS phones don't need to be bought from an operator, a really
innovative model can sell itself even if operators don't initially
pick it up; with Verizon you can only use the phones Verizon thinks
are a good idea, or can sell at a good margin. The fact that there's
essentially a single source for the basic technology used by CDMA
phones (and that single source is having patent problems in the US
at that) doesn't help either.
Essentially, selling CDMA phones through Verizon is a niche market. The
vendors that play it in may make money, but are better off directing
their best R&D efforts at the bigger market with a potentially bigger
payoff. It is kind of too bad since CDMA2000 really does seem to me to
be better technology (as can maybe be seen in the number of niches it
is found in worldwide despite the dominance of GSM). There just isn't
enough of it to keep it at the leading edge of handset technology.
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-08-07, Carl <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>> Pegleg wrote:
>>>> I realize this is a rhetorical question but....why does Verizon
>>>> have such crappy phones??????????????????????????????????
>>>
>>> Mine seem to make and receive calls OK. What problem are you having?
> [...]
>> You can see the same thing happening right now. T-Mobile, for
>> example, has the unique, compact, consumer-friendly Blackberry
>> Pearl. The best Verizon could do was come up with the much more
>> business oriented Blackberry 8830. T-Mobile got the iPhone. Verizon
>> didn't. I believe there are other examples.
>>
>> So, yes, from a purely practical viewpoint, VZ's phones work. But
>> some of us are into the latest technology, and/or the latest craze.
>> For us, VZ consistently disappoints.
>
> All of this makes perfect sense. Mobile phone manufacturers build for
> a global market in which the US is, if anything, a shrinking fraction
> due to things like European currency strength and the size and growth
> rate of Asian countries. On a world-wide basis GSM/UMTS handsets
> outsell CDMA2000 handsets by a huge margin, so a lot of manufacturers'
> R&D is spent serving the bigger market first. Worse, while you can
> often sell a single GSM hardware platform worldwide, providing
> localization support in software only, CDMA2000 hardware often needs
> to be specialized to the North American market (for example, Asian
> CDMA phones often
> support different frequency bands than the US, and almost always have
> SIM cards; they need to change this to sell in North America). Since
> GSM/UMTS phones don't need to be bought from an operator, a really
> innovative model can sell itself even if operators don't initially
> pick it up; with Verizon you can only use the phones Verizon thinks
> are a good idea, or can sell at a good margin. The fact that there's
> essentially a single source for the basic technology used by CDMA
> phones (and that single source is having patent problems in the US
> at that) doesn't help either.
>
> Essentially, selling CDMA phones through Verizon is a niche market.
> The vendors that play it in may make money, but are better off
> directing
> their best R&D efforts at the bigger market with a potentially bigger
> payoff. It is kind of too bad since CDMA2000 really does seem to me
> to
> be better technology (as can maybe be seen in the number of niches it
> is found in worldwide despite the dominance of GSM). There just isn't
> enough of it to keep it at the leading edge of handset technology.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
I sort of knew much of this (though not in the excellent detail you've
provided). However, I believe that a company with the reach and power of
Verizon can certainly get phones of its choice made for itself and that they
are just looking out for their own bottom line. For example, I am aware
that Verizon had the first crack at iPhone but wouldn't deal with Apple's
demand for control (not that I necessarily blame them for that).
But, if my info is accurate, it does imply that what is now a GSM phone
could just as easily have been a CDMA phone which might blow your market
forces theory out of the water.
"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfbhk9q.8k.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
> On 2007-08-07, Carl <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>> Pegleg wrote:
>>>> I realize this is a rhetorical question but....why does Verizon have
>>>> such crappy phones??????????????????????????????????
>>>
>>> Mine seem to make and receive calls OK. What problem are you having?
> [...]
>> You can see the same thing happening right now. T-Mobile, for example,
>> has
>> the unique, compact, consumer-friendly Blackberry Pearl. The best Verizon
>> could do was come up with the much more business oriented Blackberry
>> 8830.
>> T-Mobile got the iPhone. Verizon didn't. I believe there are other
>> examples.
>>
>> So, yes, from a purely practical viewpoint, VZ's phones work. But some of
>> us
>> are into the latest technology, and/or the latest craze. For us, VZ
>> consistently disappoints.
>
> All of this makes perfect sense. Mobile phone manufacturers build for
> a global market in which the US is, if anything, a shrinking fraction
> due to things like European currency strength and the size and growth
> rate of Asian countries. On a world-wide basis GSM/UMTS handsets
> outsell CDMA2000 handsets by a huge margin, so a lot of manufacturers'
> R&D is spent serving the bigger market first. Worse, while you can
> often sell a single GSM hardware platform worldwide, providing
> localization
> support in software only, CDMA2000 hardware often needs to be specialized
> to the North American market (for example, Asian CDMA phones often
> support different frequency bands than the US, and almost always have
> SIM cards; they need to change this to sell in North America). Since
> GSM/UMTS phones don't need to be bought from an operator, a really
> innovative model can sell itself even if operators don't initially
> pick it up; with Verizon you can only use the phones Verizon thinks
> are a good idea, or can sell at a good margin. The fact that there's
> essentially a single source for the basic technology used by CDMA
> phones (and that single source is having patent problems in the US
> at that) doesn't help either.
>
> Essentially, selling CDMA phones through Verizon is a niche market. The
> vendors that play it in may make money, but are better off directing
> their best R&D efforts at the bigger market with a potentially bigger
> payoff. It is kind of too bad since CDMA2000 really does seem to me to
> be better technology (as can maybe be seen in the number of niches it
> is found in worldwide despite the dominance of GSM). There just isn't
> enough of it to keep it at the leading edge of handset technology.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
While all of the above may be accurate(it certainly is informative), it
sounds like a Verizon press relaese. If Verizon wanted to offer more
phone, with better functions and lower prices, they would be in the stores
today.
Most people are tone deaf and can't tell the difference between music played
on an ipod and an LP on a good stereo.
For those of us that can tell the difference, 99% of the phones these days
suck.
Same goes with the new movie theaters. Watch a movie in an old theater, and
then the same one in a new one. I can't watch a movie in most theaters cause
it hurts my ears. But the mindless masses still flock to them.
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:xpSdnb46fdpsAyXbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Pegleg wrote:
>> I realize this is a rhetorical question but....why does Verizon have
>> such crappy phones??????????????????????????????????
>
> Mine seem to make and receive calls OK. What problem are you having?
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:38:13 -0700, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil>
wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:39:21 -0700, "stevev" <stevev@addlebrain.com>
>wrote:
>
>>If Verizon wanted to offer more
>>phone, with better functions and lower prices, they would be in the stores
>>today.
>>
>
>You hit the nail on the head!
Agreed! And verizon dose NOTHING for LONG time users of there
service. NOT SHIT!
-- --
Re: Verizon Phones!!!! 
Linear Mode
