Verizon deletes features

jgmankos@gmail.com wrote:

>
>>
>> I don't like some of the features of my new car. I am going out
>> tomorrow and drive it into a tree.
>
> What if your new car had air conditioning...but the manufacturer of
> the vehicle decided you didn't need it....

Irrelevent, Verizon shows features for each phone on it's website.

If you didn't research in advance or mod the phone to activate all the
features, well, that's your problem, isn't it?

Evan Platt wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:27:19 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>Why do people who would be outraged and tell Valley Honda where to put
>>their crippled cars....go out and buy a crippled cellphone from a
>>crippled company like Verizon? It's crazy!
>
> No.. It's like "Let's buy a car that doesn't advertise it comes with
> power windows and power door locks, but get pissed off that it doesnt.

Seems to me it's more like "let's buy a car that doesn't advertise that it
comes without a steering wheel or transmission, and then complain that
it comes without a steering wheel or transmission."

--
Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast.
That's why stereo has two channels.

At 30 Apr 2007 16:30:17 -0700 XS11E wrote:

> Irrelevent, Verizon shows features for each phone on it's website.
>
> If you didn't research in advance or mod the phone to activate all the
> features, well, that's your problem, isn't it?

Yes and no. A "newbie" who isn't familiar with "crippling" might assume
you should be able to see the features of, say, a RAZR, on the Motorola
website, and not have to also cross-reverence the Verizon site to
determine what's been removed!

If Verizon wants to cripple a RAZR and call it a "VAZR" fine- caveat
emptor- but if a "RAZR" is supposed to, for example, act as a modem via
bluetooth according to the manufacturer (Motorola) and Verizon's version
has that feature removed, it's hardly the consumer's fault for "not doing
their homework" if they rely on the manufacturer's specs.

Finding the keyboard operational
clifto entered:

> Evan Platt wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:27:19 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>> Why do people who would be outraged and tell Valley Honda where to
>>> put their crippled cars....go out and buy a crippled cellphone from
>>> a crippled company like Verizon? It's crazy!
>>
>> No.. It's like "Let's buy a car that doesn't advertise it comes with
>> power windows and power door locks, but get pissed off that it
>> doesnt.
>
> Seems to me it's more like "let's buy a car that doesn't advertise
> that it comes without a steering wheel or transmission, and then
> complain that
> it comes without a steering wheel or transmission."
Nope. You are equating articles of basic operation to accessories. It's a
cell phone for Pete's sake. Despite which features Verizon choses not to
support, it still makes and recieves calls.
Bob

--�
--�
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

Finding the keyboard operational
Todd Allcock entered:

> At 30 Apr 2007 16:30:17 -0700 XS11E wrote:
>
>> Irrelevent, Verizon shows features for each phone on it's website.
>>
>> If you didn't research in advance or mod the phone to activate all
>> the features, well, that's your problem, isn't it?
>
> Yes and no. A "newbie" who isn't familiar with "crippling" might
> assume you should be able to see the features of, say, a RAZR, on the
> Motorola website, and not have to also cross-reverence the Verizon
> site to determine what's been removed!
>
> If Verizon wants to cripple a RAZR and call it a "VAZR" fine- caveat
> emptor- but if a "RAZR" is supposed to, for example, act as a modem
> via bluetooth according to the manufacturer (Motorola) and Verizon's
> version has that feature removed, it's hardly the consumer's fault
> for "not doing their homework" if they rely on the manufacturer's
> specs.

It's still cavet emptor because Motorola states very clearly that all
features may not be available on every carrier. See
http://www.store.motorola.com/mot/en...tProductDetail
In particular
NOTE: Certain mobile phone features may not be available throughout the
entire network or their functionality may be limited. All features,
functionality and other product specifications are subject to change without
notice or obligation.

Also," Contact your wireless carrier about feature availability and
functionality."
Bob



--�
--�
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

"clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b1jg4-r0n.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> Evan Platt wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:27:19 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>>Why do people who would be outraged and tell Valley Honda where to put
>>>their crippled cars....go out and buy a crippled cellphone from a
>>>crippled company like Verizon? It's crazy!
>>
>> No.. It's like "Let's buy a car that doesn't advertise it comes with
>> power windows and power door locks, but get pissed off that it doesnt.
>


> Seems to me it's more like "let's buy a car that doesn't advertise that it
> comes without a steering wheel or transmission, and then complain that
> it comes without a steering wheel or transmission."
>

The real issue is that the crippling yields a product that is counter to
people's expectations and experience. You wouldn't expect a car to be
missing the steering wheel and transmission, would you? Even if the fine
print in the sales contract said it was, it's still deceptive. And that's
the problem with what VZW is doing-- it's disingenuous.

At 01 May 2007 12:04:05 +0000 The Other Funk wrote:

> It's still cavet emptor because Motorola states very clearly that all
> features may not be available on every carrier. See
http://www.store.motorola.com/mot/en...ssionid=F363C5
CFEA2D8390DF58D3B18EE75311.mot4?cmd=catProductDeta il

> In particular
> NOTE: Certain mobile phone features may
> not be available throughout the entire network or their functionality
> may be limited.


To me, that sounds like I GET the feature but sometimes it won't work
depending on LOCATION, not carrier- like EVDO data which only works where
available.

> All features, functionality and other product specifications are
> subject to change without notice or obligation.

That's standard boilerplate- still a stretch.

> Also," Contact your wireless carrier about feature availability and
> functionality."

I'll give you that one, but I still don't think it's explicit enough, and
as far as I could see only applied to bluetooth- (you conveniently
trimmed that portion- the disclaimer in full is: "Certain Bluetooth
features including those listed may not be supported by all compatible
Bluetooth-enabled devices, and/or the functionality of such features may
be limited in certain devices, or by certain wireless carriers. Contact
your wireless carrier about feature availability and functionality."

That covers the bluetooth crippling anyway, but the disabling of file
transfer via cable, etc.

Look, I'm not saying Verizon doesn't have the right to dumb down phones
on their network, or that the information isn't out there, if you look
for it. I'm just saying it's not exactly obvious to the newer user.

Why any of you DEFEND this ridiculous practice, or actually blame the
consumer for not knowing about it amazes me!

Finding the keyboard operational
Todd Allcock entered:

> At 01 May 2007 12:04:05 +0000 The Other Funk wrote:
>
>> It's still cavet emptor because Motorola states very clearly that all
>> features may not be available on every carrier. See
> http://www.store.motorola.com/mot/en...ssionid=F363C5
> CFEA2D8390DF58D3B18EE75311.mot4?cmd=catProductDeta il
>
>> In particular
>> NOTE: Certain mobile phone features may
>> not be available throughout the entire network or their functionality
>> may be limited.

Ambigious, I'll grant you. If could be read as "Certain mobile features
won't work anywhere on the network" Depends on which lawyer you talk to and
how much you are paying.

> To me, that sounds like I GET the feature but sometimes it won't work
> depending on LOCATION, not carrier- like EVDO data which only works
> where available.
>
>> All features, functionality and other product specifications are
>> subject to change without notice or obligation.
>
> That's standard boilerplate- still a stretch.

Standard boilerplate is in there or a reason. Lawyer talk for "It's not our
fault."

>> Also," Contact your wireless carrier about feature availability and
>> functionality."
>
> I'll give you that one, but I still don't think it's explicit enough,
> and as far as I could see only applied to bluetooth- (you conveniently
> trimmed that portion- the disclaimer in full is: "Certain Bluetooth
> features including those listed may not be supported by all compatible
> Bluetooth-enabled devices, and/or the functionality of such features
> may be limited in certain devices, or by certain wireless carriers.
> Contact your wireless carrier about feature availability and
> functionality."

I didn't mean to mislead anyone with the quote but you have a point. The
usual rant is about bluetooth functions and if I had been more careful, it
would have been more appropriate.

> That covers the bluetooth crippling anyway, but the disabling of file
> transfer via cable, etc.
>
> Look, I'm not saying Verizon doesn't have the right to dumb down
> phones on their network, or that the information isn't out there, if
> you look for it. I'm just saying it's not exactly obvious to the
> newer user.
>
> Why any of you DEFEND this ridiculous practice, or actually blame the
> consumer for not knowing about it amazes me!

Well I don't see it as a ridiculous practice. It is a business decision made
by Verizon to not support functions that other carriers do. One reason is
that by limiting certain high use functions such as modem traffic, more
voice traffic can be handled.
As for blaming the consumer... Well I knew where and what to look for but I
don't expect everyone to know that. In fact I expect a lot of confusion
comes from the"My friends phone does that. Why can't mine?" I DO expect the
verion sales people to know what works and what doesn't and I hope, but
don't believe, that 3rd party vendors would also know.
IIRC, there is a 15 day return policy without penalty fees. I do think that
ensuring that things you are paying for are something that you would test.
Bob

--�
--�
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

"The Other Funk" <bobbie@moondoggie.com> wrote in
news:nWKZh.3834$%f7.2969@trndny03:

> Well I don't see it as a ridiculous practice. It is a business
> decision made by Verizon to not support functions that other carriers
> do. One reason is that by limiting certain high use functions such as
> modem traffic, more voice traffic can be handled.
>

Hmm....Am I the only one finding in this thread that "disingenuous", as
someone pointed out, seems to be worth defending the company over?

Am I the only one wondering WHY some are defending it?

Larry
--

Finding the keyboard operational
Larry entered:

> "The Other Funk" <bobbie@moondoggie.com> wrote in
> news:nWKZh.3834$%f7.2969@trndny03:
>
>> Well I don't see it as a ridiculous practice. It is a business
>> decision made by Verizon to not support functions that other carriers
>> do. One reason is that by limiting certain high use functions such as
>> modem traffic, more voice traffic can be handled.
>>
>
> Hmm....Am I the only one finding in this thread that "disingenuous",
> as someone pointed out, seems to be worth defending the company over?
>
> Am I the only one wondering WHY some are defending it?
>
> Larry

If you are refering to me, rest assured that I am not defending Verizon. Far
from it. I am trying to point out what their practices are so that no one
gets surprised.
I don't see the non-support of features as ridiculous but as a hard cold
dollars and cents decision that Verizon made. If any consumer wants the
features that Verizon doesn't support I hope that they have another carrier
that they can get service from with the features they want. Sadly, they
might find that there is a trade off in coverage that makes Verizon the
better choice in their area.
Bob
--�
--�
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> Hmm....Am I the only one finding in this thread that
> "disingenuous", as someone pointed out, seems to be worth
> defending the company over?
>
> Am I the only one wondering WHY some are defending it?

Sorry, Larry, you misunderstand. I'm not defending the company, I'm
commenting on a bunch of immature whiners who didn't do their homework.

Please do continue your whining if it makes you feel better.

Morons!

At 01 May 2007 17:38:27 +0000 The Other Funk wrote:

> Ambigious, I'll grant you. If could be read as "Certain mobile features
> won't work anywhere on the network" Depends on which lawyer you talk to
and how much you are paying.

Agreed.


> > That's standard boilerplate- still a stretch.
>
> Standard boilerplate is in there or a reason. Lawyer talk for "It's not
> our fault."

Agreed again. I'm not in any way suggesting Verizon is doing anything
illegal.

> I didn't mean to mislead anyone with the quote but you have a point.
The usual rant is about bluetooth functions and if I had been more careful,
it would have been more appropriate.

True- bluetooth crippling is the major complaint.

> Well I don't see it as a ridiculous practice. It is a business decision
> made by Verizon to not support functions that other carriers do. One
> reason is that by limiting certain high use functions such as modem
> traffic, more voice traffic can be handled.

Agreed- and some might make sense- i.e. disallowing phone-as-modem use to
prevent tethering a laptop on the network without paying the
"appropriate" rate. It would be much harder to defend crippling a
feature that lets you transfer camera pictures to your PC without sending
them to yourself via Verizon's network. That's just a money grab, plain
and simple, and while perfectly legal, is crummy for a company like
Verizon.


> As for blaming the consumer... Well I knew where and what to look for
> but I don't expect everyone to know that. In fact I expect a lot of
> confusion comes from the"My friends phone does that. Why can't mine?"

Fair enough. What frosts me, I guess, is comparing the situation to the
GSM world- GSM carriers are equally guilty of crippling handets, but they
don't restrict what handset I can use- if a T-Mobile RAZR doesn't allow
bluetooth transfer of pictures to my PC, I can spend $200 for an unlocked
un-carrier customized RAZR that will.

Verizon gets their cake and gets to eat it too- they restrict what models
of handset you can use to the few they carry, and then can cripple each
an every one any way they see fit.

Again, nothing illegal about it- it just a constant reminder that "It's
The Network" is THEIR network- not yours! ;-)

> I DO expect the verion sales people to know what works and what doesn't
> and I hope, but don't believe, that 3rd party vendors would also know.


True, but they should if they're selling the product.

> IIRC, there is a 15 day return policy without penalty fees. I do think
> that ensuring that things you are paying for are something that you
> would test.

Agreed, but unless you switch carriers, you might not find ANY handset
that supports the features you want.

Again, not illegal, just sad.
[This discussion just reminded me of when I was at a children's museum
with my kids a month or two ago and a woman ther was taking snapshots of
her kids climbing on a fire-engine with her RAZR (a Sprint-branded one,
IIRC.) She looked over at me and said "I don't know why I bother- I've
never been able to get a picture OUT of this phone yet!"]



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

"The Other Funk" <bobbie@moondoggie.com> wrote in
news:05MZh.3428$YQ1.1289@trndny02:

> I don't see the non-support of features as ridiculous but as a hard
> cold dollars and cents decision that Verizon made. If any consumer
> wants the features that Verizon doesn't support I hope that they have
> another carrier that they can get service from with the features they
> want. Sadly, they might find that there is a trade off in coverage
> that makes Verizon the better choice in their area.
>

"non support"? What's that mean in Newspeak? If you are referring to
the operational menu choices like "Move" or "Copy" or "Change Storage
Device" or "Apply As Ringtone" that Motorola normally supplies with every
phone and Verizon turns off to force their customers to pay for something
that is, normally, free to use to the rest of us.....I don't call that
"support". I call it "Denial of Service" or "Denial of Access" to
STANDARD features the phone model, like my new E815, were designed with.

No, I think FTC should force them to list STANDARD features in every
product they sell that have been REMOVED to promote profits. Something
like:

"This phone has has these standard features removed by Verizon Wireless:

-- The ability to copy pictures from internal memory to memory cards.
-- The ability to copy MP3 files from memory cards to internal memory.
-- The ability to make MP3 files copied from memory cards to internal
memory into ringtones.
-- The ability to take pictures straight to memory cards that any
computer can read without sending them.
-- The ability to play MP3 files directly from the computer on memory
cards.

These features have been deleted by Verizon Wireless as a business
decision."

Let's force them to list them in the SAME typeface and font as the damned
advertising on every webpage each particular phone is advertised on, and
on every printed sheet selling them to consumers.

It's called "Fair Business Practice" and the Federal Trade Commission is
tasked with its implementation and enforcement.

Just not mentioning that the new Ford Focus doesn't include window
winders and a transmission isn't quite enough. Anything all the other
cars come with, like a transmission and windows that roll down, should be
LISTED as not available on this model.

"This car does not come with tires or wheels, which are available at
additional cost." - The ad would state on the FRONT of it.

Larry
--

XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns99237A42BCA6xs11eyahoocom@
69.28.173.184:

> Sorry, Larry, you misunderstand. I'm not defending the company, I'm
> commenting on a bunch of immature whiners who didn't do their homework.
>
> Please do continue your whining if it makes you feel better.
>
> Morons!
>
>
>

See my other reply. Humans expect all cars to come with certain
"standard features", like tires, wheels, engine, transmission, windows
that roll up and down, headlights, taillights, seats, bumpers, etc. They
shouldn't have to search through company bullshit to find that no, this
model doesn't come with a transmissions, rear seats or windshield wipers.

By the same token, they shouldn't have to expect that if a phone comes
with a camera, then they are not allowed to offload the pictures from
that camera without paying 25c/picture to transfer that picture to the
computer the phone is sitting next to. The phone should come with a
CABLE to copy them, like every OTHER digital camera they can buy. If the
phone comes with an MP3 player, they should expect to be able to LOAD
that MP3 player from the computer it's sitting next to.....

......all without "doing their homework to find out if these devices have
been disabled unless they pay-per-view".

Bullshit....

Larry
--

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:46379014$0
$16397$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

> Agreed- and some might make sense- i.e. disallowing phone-as-modem use
to
> prevent tethering a laptop on the network without paying the
> "appropriate" rate. It would be much harder to defend crippling a
> feature that lets you transfer camera pictures to your PC without
sending
> them to yourself via Verizon's network. That's just a money grab,
plain
> and simple, and while perfectly legal, is crummy for a company like
> Verizon.
>
>

I'm not sure that couldn't be tested under my favorite 15USC50 2304(a)
(4):

"(4) if the product (or a component part thereof) contains a defect or
malfunction after a reasonable number of attempts by the warrantor to
remedy defects or malfunctions in such product, such warrantor must
permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement without
charge of, such product or part (as the case may be). The Commission may
by rule specify for purposes of this paragraph, what constitutes a
reasonable number of attempts to remedy particular kinds of defects or
malfunctions under different circumstances. If the warrantor replaces a
component part of a consumer product, such replacement shall include
installing the part in the product without charge."

Defect - "My phone won't copy pictures to my computer."

"permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement without
charge of, such product or part"

You have 30 days or 3 attempts to get my phone to copy the pictures to my
computer, just like Motorola says it should on:
(quote Motorola's webpage here).

Obviously, the phone is defective as I can't get the pictures on my
computer by moving the memory card or by a cable. It's under WARRANTY,
so IS covered by Magnusson-Moss (15USC50 2300 et.al.)

Fix it or refund....not much of a no-brainer at all, is it?


Larry
--
Any lawyers out there willing to test it reading this?

I bet I'd know what a JURY would say....(c;

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> news:Xns99237A42BCA6xs11eyahoocom@ 69.28.173.184:
>
>> Sorry, Larry, you misunderstand. I'm not defending the company,
>> I'm commenting on a bunch of immature whiners who didn't do their
>> homework.
>>
>> Please do continue your whining if it makes you feel better.
>>
>> Morons!

<FUD snipped>

> Bullshit....

Right, bullshit.

Finding the keyboard operational
Larry entered:

> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:46379014$0
> $16397$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
>
>> Agreed- and some might make sense- i.e. disallowing phone-as-modem
>> use to prevent tethering a laptop on the network without paying the
>> "appropriate" rate. It would be much harder to defend crippling a
>> feature that lets you transfer camera pictures to your PC without
>> sending them to yourself via Verizon's network. That's just a money
>> grab, plain and simple, and while perfectly legal, is crummy for a
>> company like Verizon.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure that couldn't be tested under my favorite 15USC50 2304(a)
> (4):
>
> Larry

I'm sure that the laughing will go on for a long time if you try.
There is no "defect" and for the record, nothing has been "removed" because
it was never there. Verizon contracts with Motorola to provide a phone to
their specs. You don't like the specs, go elsewhere.
I do know that in about 40 minutes I am going to regret trying to reason
with Larry but I just couldn't help myself.
Bob
--�
--�
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

Larry formulated on Tuesday :
> "The Other Funk" <bobbie@moondoggie.com> wrote in
> news:nWKZh.3834$%f7.2969@trndny03:
>
>> Well I don't see it as a ridiculous practice. It is a business
>> decision made by Verizon to not support functions that other carriers
>> do. One reason is that by limiting certain high use functions such as
>> modem traffic, more voice traffic can be handled.
>>
>
> Hmm....Am I the only one finding in this thread that "disingenuous", as
> someone pointed out, seems to be worth defending the company over?
>
> Am I the only one wondering WHY some are defending it?
>
> Larry

ER, AH, Larry this is a Verizon newsgroup. Wouldn't you expect to find
defenders here? Since you are not a Verizon user any more Verizon
should be of little interest to you. I would expect you to monitor
groups you have more association with and defend them if necessary.

All I know is I pick up the phone, I have coverage, and at a price I'm
willing to pay. I don't lie awake all night pissed off at the other
features. If I did, I would switch.

The Other Funk used his keyboard to write :
> Finding the keyboard operational
> Larry entered:
>
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:46379014$0
>> $16397$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
>>
>>> Agreed- and some might make sense- i.e. disallowing phone-as-modem
>>> use to prevent tethering a laptop on the network without paying the
>>> "appropriate" rate. It would be much harder to defend crippling a
>>> feature that lets you transfer camera pictures to your PC without
>>> sending them to yourself via Verizon's network. That's just a money
>>> grab, plain and simple, and while perfectly legal, is crummy for a
>>> company like Verizon.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that couldn't be tested under my favorite 15USC50 2304(a)
>> (4):
>>
>> Larry
>
> I'm sure that the laughing will go on for a long time if you try.
> There is no "defect" and for the record, nothing has been "removed" because
> it was never there. Verizon contracts with Motorola to provide a phone to
> their specs. You don't like the specs, go elsewhere.
> I do know that in about 40 minutes I am going to regret trying to reason
> with Larry but I just couldn't help myself.
> Bob
> --�
> --�
> Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
> www.moondoggiecoffee.com

Why would it take you 40 minutes to regret arguing with Larry? You
should regret it instantly. ;-)

TeddeLI <Spam@nospam.neat> wrote in news:mn.0cc17d758affdd56.69402
@nospam.neat:

> ER, AH, Larry this is a Verizon newsgroup. Wouldn't you expect to find
> defenders here? Since you are not a Verizon user any more Verizon
> should be of little interest to you. I would expect you to monitor
> groups you have more association with and defend them if necessary.
>
>

Why would any customer of any corporation defend that corporation?

What purpose does it serve to the customer?

It's a fascinating phenomenon, brand loyalty. There must be some
fascinating psychology behind it. (brainwashing?)

Larry
--

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> Why would any customer of any corporation defend that corporation?

You still don't understand, do you, Larry?

We're NOT "defending that corporation", we're saying you're an
imbecile.

OK? Got it now?

Now go live in my killfile.

At 01 May 2007 21:23:37 +0000 Larry wrote:

> I'm not sure that couldn't be tested under my favorite 15USC50 2304(a)
> (4):
>
> "(4) if the product (or a component part thereof) contains a defect or
> malfunction after a reasonable number of attempts by the warrantor to
> remedy defects or malfunctions in such product, such warrantor must
> permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement
without
> charge of, such product or part (as the case may be).
>
> Defect - "My phone won't copy pictures to my computer."


And under what broad definition of "phone" would that be considered a
defect? Even under the definition of "camera" that's not necessarily a
defect- my old Poloroid Land Camera can't transfer images to my PC via USB.
(For those under 50 years old, it's an ancient instant film camera.)

In fact, one could very easily argue that the "natural" way for a phone
to transfer information- even pictures- would be... (you guessed it...)
over the telephone! (Which is how the cripplephones do it.)


Certainly you know I'm not defending crippling, but even I think that
argument is pretty weak! ;-)



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

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:4637ef33$0$5951$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

> And under what broad definition of "phone" would that be considered a
> defect? Even under the definition of "camera" that's not necessarily
> a defect- my old Poloroid Land Camera can't transfer images to my PC
> via USB.
> (For those under 50 years old, it's an ancient instant film camera.)
>
>

Oops...better go read the adverts, again, closer. The ads say the phone
has a "Digital Camera", a modern device the public has grown to expect
connects to a COMPUTER to store, display and print its images. It was
never advertised as a Polaroid Land Camera.....well, yet.

It was also advertised as an MP3 or digital music player, another modern
device the public has grown to expect connects to a COMPUTER to send and
receive files to and from it for the player to play....

Is that a good point, Your Honor? Madam Jury Foreman?

Larry
--
Hmm...we're gonna have to look hard to find 12 jurors who remember
Polaroid Land Cameras....

Eye In The Sky wrote:
> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote...
>> Evan Platt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:27:19 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>Why do people who would be outraged and tell Valley Honda where to put
>>>>their crippled cars....go out and buy a crippled cellphone from a
>>>>crippled company like Verizon? It's crazy!
>>>
>>> No.. It's like "Let's buy a car that doesn't advertise it comes with
>>> power windows and power door locks, but get pissed off that it doesnt.
>>
>> Seems to me it's more like "let's buy a car that doesn't advertise that it
>> comes without a steering wheel or transmission, and then complain that
>> it comes without a steering wheel or transmission."
>
> The real issue is that the crippling yields a product that is counter to
> people's expectations and experience. You wouldn't expect a car to be
> missing the steering wheel and transmission, would you?

I thought I said that.

--
Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast.
That's why stereo has two channels.

The Other Funk wrote:
> clifto entered:
>> Evan Platt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:27:19 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>>> Why do people who would be outraged and tell Valley Honda where to
>>>> put their crippled cars....go out and buy a crippled cellphone from
>>>> a crippled company like Verizon? It's crazy!
>>>
>>> No.. It's like "Let's buy a car that doesn't advertise it comes with
>>> power windows and power door locks, but get pissed off that it
>>> doesnt.
>>
>> Seems to me it's more like "let's buy a car that doesn't advertise
>> that it comes without a steering wheel or transmission, and then
>> complain that
>> it comes without a steering wheel or transmission."
> Nope. You are equating articles of basic operation to accessories. It's a
> cell phone for Pete's sake. Despite which features Verizon choses not to
> support, it still makes and recieves calls.

Fine. Then make it a windshield and a dashboard. Then each story has the
purchaser buying an item which doesn't have features the item could
reasonably be expected to have.

--
Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast.
That's why stereo has two channels.

Finding the keyboard operational
TeddeLI entered:

> The Other Funk used his keyboard to write :
>> I do know that in about 40 minutes I am going to regret trying to
>> reason with Larry but I just couldn't help myself.
>> Bob
>> --�
>> --�
>> Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
>> www.moondoggiecoffee.com
>
> Why would it take you 40 minutes to regret arguing with Larry? You
> should regret it instantly. ;-)

I figured it would take him that long to respond.
Bpb
--�
--�
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 01 May 2007 21:23:37 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that couldn't be tested under my favorite 15USC50 2304(a)
>> (4):
>>
>> "(4) if the product (or a component part thereof) contains a defect or
>> malfunction after a reasonable number of attempts by the warrantor to
>> remedy defects or malfunctions in such product, such warrantor must
>> permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement
> without
>> charge of, such product or part (as the case may be).
>>
>> Defect - "My phone won't copy pictures to my computer."
>
>
> And under what broad definition of "phone" would that be considered a
> defect? Even under the definition of "camera" that's not necessarily a
> defect- my old Poloroid Land Camera can't transfer images to my PC via USB.
> (For those under 50 years old, it's an ancient instant film camera.)
>
> In fact, one could very easily argue that the "natural" way for a phone
> to transfer information- even pictures- would be... (you guessed it...)
> over the telephone! (Which is how the cripplephones do it.)
>

Actually a good argument. Many people don't want to know or care about
transfers or filesystems and just want to be able to take a picture of
something and send it to someone else.


>
> Certainly you know I'm not defending crippling, but even I think that
> argument is pretty weak! ;-)
>
>
>

Larry formulated on Tuesday :
> TeddeLI <Spam@nospam.neat> wrote in news:mn.0cc17d758affdd56.69402
> @nospam.neat:
>
>> ER, AH, Larry this is a Verizon newsgroup. Wouldn't you expect to find
>> defenders here? Since you are not a Verizon user any more Verizon
>> should be of little interest to you. I would expect you to monitor
>> groups you have more association with and defend them if necessary.
>>
>>
>
> Why would any customer of any corporation defend that corporation?
>
> What purpose does it serve to the customer?
>
> It's a fascinating phenomenon, brand loyalty. There must be some
> fascinating psychology behind it. (brainwashing?)
>
> Larry

IMHO most people are not defending the corporation here. They are just
trying to point out that they don't really care about the the deleted
features.

People mostly care about the coverage they get. If ringtones and file
transfer were that important a lot of people would switch to a carrier
that has them. Since Verizon's churn rate is very low that has not
happened.

I don't think its brainwashing. My theory is that there are full sized
peapod like plants placed in homes at night. When you are sleeping you
are replaced with with the beings in the pods. Your body has been
snatched. It is only then you defend corporations. Those old enough to
understand my reference will remember that Kevin McCarthy escaped the
pods.

Now if you really want to attack a corporation how about switching to
EXXON MOBILE. I could get into that.

At 02 May 2007 04:38:25 +0000 Larry wrote:

> Oops...better go read the adverts, again, closer. The ads say the
phone
> has a "Digital Camera", a modern device the public has grown to expect
> connects to a COMPUTER to store, display and print its images. It was
> never advertised as a Polaroid Land Camera.....well, yet.

It connects just fine to your PC... via Verizon's data $ervice$! ;-)


> It was also advertised as an MP3 or digital music player, another
modern
> device the public has grown to expect connects to a COMPUTER to send
and
> receive files to and from it for the player to play....
>
> Is that a good point, Your Honor? Madam Jury Foreman?

Hey, I'm on your side, but in their defense, Verizon already offers a 30-
day return policy. That's plenty of time to discover a phone's "defects."



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

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 02 May 2007 04:38:25 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>> Oops...better go read the adverts, again, closer. The ads say
>> the phone has a "Digital Camera", a modern device the public has
>> grown to expect connects to a COMPUTER to store, display and
>> print its images. It was never advertised as a Polaroid Land
>> Camera.....well, yet.
>
> It connects just fine to your PC... via Verizon's data $ervice$!
> ;-)

It also connects just fine to your PC... via a usb cable. If your
phone uses a data card you can save pictures there, if not Motorola
Phone Tools and slight seem mod are required.

>> It was also advertised as an MP3 or digital music player, another
>> modern device the public has grown to expect connects to a
>> COMPUTER to send and receive files to and from it for the player
>> to play....

See above.
>>
>> Is that a good point, Your Honor? Madam Jury Foreman?
>
> Hey, I'm on your side, but in their defense, Verizon already
> offers a 30- day return policy. That's plenty of time to discover
> a phone's "defects."

and correct them. It took me about 30 minutes to make my phone connect
with the USB cable.