Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1142

Presumably for Verizon...
--
Charles C. Shyu
http://home.earthlink.net/~shyuc/shyu.html

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Charles C. Shyu wrote:
> http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1142
>
> Presumably for Verizon...

The best practice is to take the advertised list of functions, mark them
all out, and as info is available, add back the one or two that will
actually work. The v3 will be another v710 debacle when Moto acceeds to
Verizon's slash and burn policy denying users the phone's functionality.

Q

Q

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Charles C. Shyu wrote:
> http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1142
>
> Presumably for Verizon...

End of '05 to early '06. That's like getting the latest CPU for your
computer, but having to wait 18 months to install it. I wonder how
"cool" the phone is going to look in another 12 months. probably won't
at all...

I would like to see a replacement for the well-aged Samsung i600
Smartphone that for some reason, despite all reasonable predictions, is
still $400 after being on the market close to 2 years.




--
David G.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a phone that are not
compatible with verizon's services?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a phone that are not
> compatible with verizon's services?

It has nothing to do with compatibility. It has everything to do with
limiting user access to Verizons for-$$ conduits. Vz pays Moto to
*remove* access to basic phone functions that are available to users of
the same phone on other services. Review the Moto v710 threads.

Q

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a phone that are not
> compatible with verizon's services?

You designed a phone that has nifty features, including an electrolysis
attachment, gumball wrapper recognition and a camera with naked women
alert. Someone calls you and says, "We'll take 100,000 if you disable
the naked women alert." What do you do?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

clifto wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>> Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a
>> phone that are not compatible with verizon's services?
>
> You designed a phone that has nifty features, including
> an electrolysis attachment, gumball wrapper recognition
> and a camera with naked women alert. Someone calls you
> and says, "We'll take 100,000 if you disable the naked
> women alert." What do you do?

Well. I'd first ask: "If I refuse to do that will it effect the
future sales of the 7 million other phones with custom
firmware that I'm selling you each year?".

-Quick

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Quick wrote:
| clifto wrote:
|| Jerome Zelinske wrote:
||| Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a
||| phone that are not compatible with verizon's services?
||
|| You designed a phone that has nifty features, including
|| an electrolysis attachment, gumball wrapper recognition
|| and a camera with naked women alert. Someone calls you
|| and says, "We'll take 100,000 if you disable the naked
|| women alert." What do you do?
|
| Well. I'd first ask: "If I refuse to do that will it effect the
| future sales of the 7 million other phones with custom
| firmware that I'm selling you each year?".

Waste of time - the market is driven by focusing on the target market,
thirteen year old girls. As I've said before, if you aren't a thirteen year
old girl, you most likely find the "gadget laden" phones less than
compatible with your tastes and less than responsive to your needs.....

Such is the nature of the way the market is approached and managed.......

PC

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a phone that are
> not compatible with verizon's services?

Because Verizon does not pay Motorola to develop handsets. However,
when Verizon chooses to purchase handsets from Motorola, it may choose
to have some features disabled for whatever reason, and those features
should be available when you purchase the handset directly from Motorola.

TH

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Charles C. Shyu" <charles_shyu@nymc.edu> wrote in news:4B5_d.5731$qW.1976
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1142
>
> Presumably for Verizon...

Motorola has not made good CDMA phones like Nokia has not as well. They
don't want to buy Qualcomm chips and pay royalties to Qualcomm so they wind
up with a louse CDMA phone IMHO.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

They are not basic to verizon's service. 'Vz pays Moto' to make phones
that work with their services. Again, why would verizon pay Motorola to
put in circuitry that is not part of their services. It would be a
blatant waste of money. verizon does not pay Motorola to '*remove*'
access to gsm functions, or java functions, or any other functions that
are not part of verizon's services. They are just not put in in the
first place.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Ah, but as far as I know, you can not purchase verizon phones directly
from the manufacturer.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Sure it does. You can't say a razr is a razr is a razr. Even if you
were able to activate a CDMA carrier A phone on CDMA carrier B, all the
services from carrier B may not be accessible, and vice-versa. That is
certainly true between the two major CDMA carriers. If you want
services that one carrier does not offer, then switch carriers.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

That is just the generic design. The phones actually made, are made
with only the components/features that the customer (the carrier) wants
included. If you want a feature/capability that the your carrier does
not support, switch to a carrier that does.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Ah, but as far as I know, you can not purchase verizon phones
> directly from the manufacturer.

I believe it depends on the manufacturer.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> They are not basic to verizon's service. 'Vz pays Moto' to make
> phones that work with their services. Again, why would verizon pay
> Motorola to put in circuitry that is not part of their services. It
> would be a blatant waste of money. verizon does not pay Motorola to
> '*remove*' access to gsm functions, or java functions, or any other
> functions that are not part of verizon's services. They are just not
> put in in the first place.

There is no "circuitry" involved. It's all done through software
switches. As an example, again of the v710, v265, there is one switch
for prohibiting upload/download of pix and tones. There is presumably
another for the new prohibited access to pix and tones via the
transflash card. "Presumably" because the recent software flash removed
the ability in the original v710 release. If all the user wants is the
visual style of the phone for the price, then that's a consumer choice.
I believe that one of the attractions of the v3, for example, is its
bluetooth connectivity that is disabled except for the headset on the
v710 and likely will be similarly disabled on the v3. It would be nice
if Vz detailed the capabilities of its phone releases so the consumer
has that information up front when purchasing the phone. Vz, however,
is on record that the consumer has 15 days to return the phone and there
is no need to be honest about the capabilities at the time of purchase.
This is not being up-front about their practices with regard to
restricted access. It's a form of opt-out rather than opt-in. Again,
perhaps most people don't care if the phone they buy from Vz is crippled
at the same price as a fully-capable model.

If you are happy without the ability to move your own pix and tones via
cable or bluetooth, synchronizing your phonebook, etc, then nothing more
needs to be said. The consumer should be aware at time of purchase that
Vz restricts users to their own for-$$ services. The consumer will not
get that information from Vz.

Q