New Phone Advice Needed

Ok, I know this is the routine question, but I really need a new phone and
can't seem to narrow my options. If I want a camera phone and all the
latest and greatest, the options seem to be the following.

Samsung A600
Samsung VGA1000
Sanyo 8100
Sanyo 5300

All these phones seem very similar and are close in price. Is there an
obvious winner? Does anyone really use the camera on these phones or is it
just a gimmick?

I'm am also contemplating the idea of just skipping all the "toy" aspects of
this and getting the Nokia 3588i. I have had numerous flip phones that
lose their display after routine usage and am getting suspicious of whether
flip phone technology is ever going to be reliable. I would probably just
get the 3588i if I believed my Sprint sales person who told me SMS is within
the month and it will work on this phone. Who knows what to believe.

Thanks for your advice.

GBS

I own a 5300 and still really want a digital camera. Don't expect the
camera on any of these phones to produce quality photos. They are good
for fun, sending pics to friends on their phones etc, it's a neat and
fun feature. The screen on the 8100 is the lowest of the 4, then the
5300, and the two Samsung displays are far better... I like the A600
the best personally just because of the rotating screen.


"gbs" <gbs99@comcast.net> wrote in article
<nhWfb.691598$uu5.112802@sccrnsc04>:
> Ok, I know this is the routine question, but I really need a new phone and
> can't seem to narrow my options. If I want a camera phone and all the
> latest and greatest, the options seem to be the following.
>
> Samsung A600
> Samsung VGA1000
> Sanyo 8100
> Sanyo 5300
>
> All these phones seem very similar and are close in price. Is there an
> obvious winner? Does anyone really use the camera on these phones or is it
> just a gimmick?
>
> I'm am also contemplating the idea of just skipping all the "toy" aspects of
> this and getting the Nokia 3588i. I have had numerous flip phones that
> lose their display after routine usage and am getting suspicious of whether
> flip phone technology is ever going to be reliable. I would probably just
> get the 3588i if I believed my Sprint sales person who told me SMS is within
> the month and it will work on this phone. Who knows what to believe.
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> GBS
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

A few weeks ago I lost my LG5350 and needed to replace it. I decided I
wanted a camera phone and chose the 5300 over the Samsung phones because of
many reports that the 5300 does a better job of holding a signal and my
primary use of the phone is, well, to be a phone (besides, the speaker is
loud enough that I can actually hear it when someone calls). The camera is
adequate but a lot of fun and I use it all the time. This is my third flip
phone and I like it, though I miss the LG5350's small size. As for product
life, well, I really don't expect my phones to last more than a couple of
years because of technology changes.

"3G Geek" <rolling@stones.com> wrote in message
news:vo0deb45r2sh3b@corp.supernews.com...
> I own a 5300 and still really want a digital camera. Don't expect the
> camera on any of these phones to produce quality photos. They are good
> for fun, sending pics to friends on their phones etc, it's a neat and
> fun feature. The screen on the 8100 is the lowest of the 4, then the
> 5300, and the two Samsung displays are far better... I like the A600
> the best personally just because of the rotating screen.
>
>
> "gbs" <gbs99@comcast.net> wrote in article
> <nhWfb.691598$uu5.112802@sccrnsc04>:
> > Ok, I know this is the routine question, but I really need a new phone
and
> > can't seem to narrow my options. If I want a camera phone and all the
> > latest and greatest, the options seem to be the following.
> >
> > Samsung A600
> > Samsung VGA1000
> > Sanyo 8100
> > Sanyo 5300
> >
> > All these phones seem very similar and are close in price. Is there an
> > obvious winner? Does anyone really use the camera on these phones or is
it
> > just a gimmick?
> >
> > I'm am also contemplating the idea of just skipping all the "toy"
aspects of
> > this and getting the Nokia 3588i. I have had numerous flip phones that
> > lose their display after routine usage and am getting suspicious of
whether
> > flip phone technology is ever going to be reliable. I would probably
just
> > get the 3588i if I believed my Sprint sales person who told me SMS is
within
> > the month and it will work on this phone. Who knows what to believe.
> >
> > Thanks for your advice.
> >
> > GBS
> >
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

Well I have had a 5300 since they first came out, and my display is
perfect.. and havent had one problem with it yet.. Very durable phone.

"gbs" <gbs99@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nhWfb.691598$uu5.112802@sccrnsc04...
> Ok, I know this is the routine question, but I really need a new phone and
> can't seem to narrow my options. If I want a camera phone and all the
> latest and greatest, the options seem to be the following.
>
> Samsung A600
> Samsung VGA1000
> Sanyo 8100
> Sanyo 5300
>
> All these phones seem very similar and are close in price. Is there an
> obvious winner? Does anyone really use the camera on these phones or is
it
> just a gimmick?
>
> I'm am also contemplating the idea of just skipping all the "toy" aspects
of
> this and getting the Nokia 3588i. I have had numerous flip phones that
> lose their display after routine usage and am getting suspicious of
whether
> flip phone technology is ever going to be reliable. I would probably just
> get the 3588i if I believed my Sprint sales person who told me SMS is
within
> the month and it will work on this phone. Who knows what to believe.
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> GBS
>
>

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 14:55:15 GMT, "gbs" <gbs99@comcast.net> wrote:

>Ok, I know this is the routine question, but I really need a new phone and
>can't seem to narrow my options. If I want a camera phone and all the
>latest and greatest, the options seem to be the following.
>
>Samsung A600
>Samsung VGA1000
>Sanyo 8100
>Sanyo 5300
>
>All these phones seem very similar and are close in price. Is there an
>obvious winner? Does anyone really use the camera on these phones or is it
>just a gimmick?

My choice would be the Nokia. My opinions on this are prejudiced by
a few factors.

First, although many people like their Samsung phones (and I say
more power to them), Samsung is a company that is known _in general_ for
having serious quality control problems. So when they're criticized here,
you'll find some people agreeing and telling horror stories while others
are perfectly contented. Their stuff looks nice, but imo performance is
unacceptable.

There's no phone camera that's as good as (probably) the cheapest
digital camera out there from a company that _makes cameras_ for a living.
The camera phone is not for photography but for other types of uses. If
you're an insurance claims adjuster, or you sell real estate, or you scout
locations for a movie company, a phone camera can be a boon. Since I spend
a lot of time in Japan and with Japanese people visiting the US, most of my
friends have phones with camera capabilities (for a while you pretty much
couldn't buy a phone without it). When we walk around town and they see
something interesting in a shop window they snap it. Later, they look at it
again for the memory, and erase it. If they're serious about taking a
picture they use a camera.

Now, the reason that companies sell all these camera phones is that
they want to get you on a program that costs more than just using the phone
for calling. I've never used "Vision", but if you take a photo with your
SPCS camera phone, you can send it to another friend IF they're on Sprint,
and IF they also pay the extra cash for Vision. In my case that's no one I
know. So my choice would be to send the picture to a web site and to tell
my friend to look at it there. I don't need a phone for that.

I'm a curmudgeon in this area, so take that into account. But I
feel that the telecoms are distracting people from the fact that calls are
still hard to get through, drop frequently and are hard to hear with silly
gimmicks. I use a phone for voice communication. If there were a legitimate
way to send messages without thumbing enlessly "2 prduc msgs that look lk
ths" that mostly tell people to call so that you can explain things in full
sentences, I'd jump on it.

Thanks for letting me vent on several topics at once.

"David G. Imber" <imber@maniform.com> wrote in message
news:h6j0ovgpvr6roj6ppiqmtfqtk3ntq20ihq@4ax.com...

> Now, the reason that companies sell all these camera phones is that
> they want to get you on a program that costs more than just using the
phone
> for calling. I've never used "Vision", but if you take a photo with your
> SPCS camera phone, you can send it to another friend IF they're on Sprint,
> and IF they also pay the extra cash for Vision. In my case that's no one I
> know. So my choice would be to send the picture to a web site and to tell
> my friend to look at it there. I don't need a phone for that.

When I take pictures I usually send them to other people's email and it
doesn't cost them anything. On my Sanyo 5300 it's really easy as long as
the email address is already on the phone, and I used Datapilot to sync my
phone with my other systems.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 21:01:11 -0500, "mcg" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:


>When I take pictures I usually send them to other people's email and it
>doesn't cost them anything. On my Sanyo 5300 it's really easy as long as
>the email address is already on the phone, and I used Datapilot to sync my
>phone with my other systems.
>

You're absolutely right. Not using the system, I'd forgotten that
there's another alternative to sending the picture to a phone.

I'll also grant that there's a huge "fun factor" to doing things
like taking pictures when you're on vacation or whatever and sending them
directly, via the phone, to your coworkers slaving away at the office.

I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I still say it would be far
better for telecoms to get the simple matter of getting clear calls through
from wherever to wherever at all times nailed down thoroughly before
marketing the "fun factor".

"David G. Imber" <imber@maniform.com> wrote in message
news:mhr1ov8pbdlbvv3geu8fqkn4al2vsh11ah@4ax.com...
> I'll also grant that there's a huge "fun factor" to doing things
> like taking pictures when you're on vacation or whatever and sending them
> directly, via the phone, to your coworkers slaving away at the office.
>
> I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I still say it would be far
> better for telecoms to get the simple matter of getting clear calls
through
> from wherever to wherever at all times nailed down thoroughly before
> marketing the "fun factor".
>
Actually, I agree with you that basic functionality and service are most
important but I learned a long time ago that people buy "sizzle", and in a
competitive arena like cellular services the "pin drop" sales technique just
isn't enough. If the cellular companies waited until they had their network
and service problems all squared away before they started marketing "fun",
they'd go out of business because people would flock to their competitors.

I chose my particular phone (the Sanyo 5300) because of form factor (I like
flip phones because they're small), it was a camera phone, it has a good
display, and (most importantly) it is reported to do a good job of operating
in marginal signal conditions.

Oh, and I like Vision, but that's because I travel and it's really nice for
me to use my phone to get flight delays or connecting gate information or
weather forecasts. But obviously there are extreme limits, caused both by
the input medium (telephone keypad!!!) and rather small display.

In article <h6j0ovgpvr6roj6ppiqmtfqtk3ntq20ihq@4ax.com>,=20
imber@maniform.com says...
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 14:55:15 GMT, "gbs" <gbs99@comcast.net> wrote:
>=20
> >Ok, I know this is the routine question, but I really need a new phone a=
nd
> >can't seem to narrow my options. If I want a camera phone and all the
> >latest and greatest, the options seem to be the following.
> >
> >Samsung A600
> >Samsung VGA1000
> >Sanyo 8100
> >Sanyo 5300
> >
> >All these phones seem very similar and are close in price. Is there an
> >obvious winner? Does anyone really use the camera on these phones or is=
it
> >just a gimmick?
>=20
> =09My choice would be the Nokia. My opinions on this are prejudiced by
> a few factors.
>=20
> =09First, although many people like their Samsung phones (and I say
> more power to them), Samsung is a company that is known _in general_ for
> having serious quality control problems. So when they're criticized here,
> you'll find some people agreeing and telling horror stories while others
> are perfectly contented. Their stuff looks nice, but imo performance is
> unacceptable.

My N400 locks up maybe once every two weeks or so, and usually after a=20
voice call. Overall, I'm happy with it, but Samsungs *have* been large=20
call drivers. With the ability to request Vision provisioning from the=20
phone now enabled, we're hoping that will reduce the call volume=20
significantly. So far, it appears to be working.

>=20
> =09There's no phone camera that's as good as (probably) the cheapest
> digital camera out there from a company that _makes cameras_ for a living=
..
> The camera phone is not for photography but for other types of uses. If
> you're an insurance claims adjuster, or you sell real estate, or you scou=
t
> locations for a movie company, a phone camera can be a boon. Since I spen=
d
> a lot of time in Japan and with Japanese people visiting the US, most of =
my
> friends have phones with camera capabilities (for a while you pretty much
> couldn't buy a phone without it). When we walk around town and they see
> something interesting in a shop window they snap it. Later, they look at =
it
> again for the memory, and erase it. If they're serious about taking a
> picture they use a camera.

Agreed. Compare these phones with dedicated digital camera, even the=20
cheap ones, and they lose. But for on-the-go snapshots, it appears=20
they're extremely popular.

>=20
> =09Now, the reason that companies sell all these camera phones is that
> they want to get you on a program that costs more than just using the pho=
ne
> for calling. I've never used "Vision", but if you take a photo with your
> SPCS camera phone, you can send it to another friend IF they're on Sprint=
,
> and IF they also pay the extra cash for Vision. In my case that's no one =
I
> know. So my choice would be to send the picture to a web site and to tell
> my friend to look at it there. I don't need a phone for that.

Hmm... customers on our higher minute plans get those services for free,=20
so it's not necessarily about spending. But you may still have a point. =
=20
I think it's more about churn. The more services a customer utilizes,=20
the less likely they are to leave. Then again, it's hard to watch the=20
8100 sell at a rate of 10,000 per week as it did briefly and say it's=20
all the company's doing or effort. This was and is a desired service. =20
Just like SMS.

>=20
> =09I'm a curmudgeon in this area, so take that into account. But I
> feel that the telecoms are distracting people from the fact that calls ar=
e
> still hard to get through, drop frequently and are hard to hear with sill=
y
> gimmicks. I use a phone for voice communication. If there were a legitima=
te=20
> way to send messages without thumbing enlessly "2 prduc msgs that look lk=
ths"=20
> that mostly tell people to call so that you can explain things in full=20
> sentences, I'd jump on it.
>=20
> =09Thanks for letting me vent on several topics at once. --=20

LOL, I don't see much of a curmudgeon there at all. I'm curious,=20
though, what you'd consider adequate reductions in call dropping. No=20
criticism. Just wondering.

As for text messaging, I agree on that. I never use it except via the=20
SPCS web site, because that allows me to use a full keyboard. Either=20
way, though, you still have to login, and I think we totally=20
misunderstood the appeal of text messaging in setting it up like that. =20
Have you seen a phone AT&T sells, the Nokia 6800? If text messaging is=20
a desired service, that phone looks like it'll rock your world. If we=20
could get Nokia to make that phone CDMA compatible...

Oh well. Good points, all of them.


-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 08:58:59 GMT, O/Siris <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

>LOL, I don't see much of a curmudgeon there at all. I'm curious,
>though, what you'd consider adequate reductions in call dropping. No
>criticism. Just wondering.
>

Actually, I experience call dropping less than once a week (I would
call myself a very satisfied user, on average). I suspect that's more of a
problem in fringe areas.

My biggest problems, because I'm in Manhattan and travel to other
large cities, are calls going right to VM and call clarity. The former
problem is probably a matter of capacity, but there may be technological
enhancements that will improve that as well. I guess we all imagined that
the move to 3G would revolutionize things in this area. But while things
have gotten better, depending upon time and location, I generally see my
odds as somewhat better than 50-50 that I'll get through to another
instrument on my first try.

The matter of call clarity doesn't seem to be such a major topic
here, but when you're trying to communicate in the midst of bustling city
activity, the mushy, unarticulated voice quality of even the strongest
transmissions on the best phones makes that extremely tiresome and really
almost impossible at times. I'd say a quarter of my calls end in my saying
"I can't discuss this, I'm on my cell, wait till I can get to a land line".

Then of course there's reception inside buildings, but another time
for that.

DGI

In article <4pd3ovcu5jlfdr2dar5rhsh2b4n1kvmojg@4ax.com>, David G.=20
Imberimber@maniform.com says...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 08:58:59 GMT, O/Siris <robjvargas@spr=EEntpcs.com> wr=
ote:
>=20
> >LOL, I don't see much of a curmudgeon there at all. I'm curious,=20
> >though, what you'd consider adequate reductions in call dropping. No=20
> >criticism. Just wondering.
> >
>=20
> =09Actually, I experience call dropping less than once a week (I would
> call myself a very satisfied user, on average). I suspect that's more of =
a
> problem in fringe areas.

Gotcha. Thanks

>=20
> =09My biggest problems, because I'm in Manhattan and travel to other
> large cities, are calls going right to VM and call clarity. The former
> problem is probably a matter of capacity, but there may be technological
> enhancements that will improve that as well. I guess we all imagined that
> the move to 3G would revolutionize things in this area. But while things
> have gotten better, depending upon time and location, I generally see my
> odds as somewhat better than 50-50 that I'll get through to another
> instrument on my first try.

Hmm... We're always working on capacity. Always. I think it's over 1800=
=20
towers this year Unfortunately, in densely populated areas, it's never eas=
y to=20
keep up.

*Please* keep calling us to let us know of areas where it's consistent. =20
Obviously, by what happened to several people here alone, I can't promise i=
t'll=20
get better, but I *can* say not calling makes it that much less likely.

>=20
> =09The matter of call clarity doesn't seem to be such a major topic
> here, but when you're trying to communicate in the midst of bustling city
> activity, the mushy, unarticulated voice quality of even the strongest
> transmissions on the best phones makes that extremely tiresome and really
> almost impossible at times. I'd say a quarter of my calls end in my sayin=
g
> "I can't discuss this, I'm on my cell, wait till I can get to a land line=
".

I have to admit, I don't get much of that from the callers into us who are =
on=20
their phones. There's *enough* difference to tell, but not radical. And I=
=20
generally get at least one call a night from The Bronx (I know, that's not =
the=20
same burrough). Unfortunately, quality issues, like capacity ones, we need=
to=20
hear about them. If you have areas where it's consistent, again, let us kn=
ow. =20
Or let *me* know, and I'll see if I can't at least get the complaints into =
the=20
system.

>=20
> =09Then of course there's reception inside buildings, but another time
> for that.
>=20
> =09DGI

Oy vey! That a constant thorn in our side.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.