Cingular - dropped calls - replaced SIM now the RAZR...

In article <[email protected]>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jackzwick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> And it sure looks like a troll post touting an LG phone. Did you buy
> >> one, and now you have to justify it to your wife?
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I own an LG VX8300, and so does my Wife. But, I wasn't pushing the
> >> 8300
> >> on anybody here, what's the point, it is a Verizon phone, not a Cingular
> >> phone.
> >
> > Truth comes out. You're trying to convince yourself.
> >
>
> Yeah ... alright.
>
> > So why are you trolling that fact in the Cingular newsgroup? Try tolling
> > it in the Sprint newsgroup and see the feedback you'll get.
>


Amazing you want to generalize to 50,000,000 V3 phones cause you had a
bad experience cause you insisted on holding your hand over the internal
antenna?

---

› See More: Cingular - dropped calls - replaced SIM now the RAZR...

In article <[email protected]>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jackzwick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> And it sure looks like a troll post touting an LG phone. Did you buy
> >> one, and now you have to justify it to your wife?
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I own an LG VX8300, and so does my Wife. But, I wasn't pushing the
> >> 8300
> >> on anybody here, what's the point, it is a Verizon phone, not a Cingular
> >> phone.
> >
> > Truth comes out. You're trying to convince yourself.
> >
>
> Yeah ... alright.
>
> > So why are you trolling that fact in the Cingular newsgroup? Try tolling
> > it in the Sprint newsgroup and see the feedback you'll get.
>

>
> Anyway, I am through with you

Just like Navas. Lose an argument, walk away.

At 13 Sep 2006 15:19:07 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jackzwick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I wasn't posting about the VX8300. I was posting about the fact
> > >> that the V3 doesn't have a fabulous reputation as you tout.
> > >
> > > Keep saying the V3 is bad and you may believe it. The V3 HAS sold
> > > 50,000,000
> > >
> >
> > Pardon me? I believe I said that it doesn't have a fabulous
reputation. I
> > did not say it was bad [although I would not buy one].
>
> Get REAL. It has sold 50,000,000 what's abetter reputation than
that????

So did the Ford Pinto... ;-)

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

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 13 Sep 2006 15:19:07 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
<snip>
>> > Pardon me? I believe I said that it doesn't have a fabulous
> reputation. I
>> > did not say it was bad [although I would not buy one].
>>
>> Get REAL. It has sold 50,000,000 what's abetter reputation than
> that????
>
> So did the Ford Pinto... ;-)

As a matter of fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto reports sales
of 2 million over 9 years.

Less you stretch editorial license too far, the Pinto was a bottom line
product that courts statements was designed with the knowledge that there
could be "death and maiming" so Ford budgeted $70M for claims.

The Razr, in a completely opposite strategy was designed as a high end
device. I think it was introduced at around $500 five years ago, rather
expensive for the time; today selling for as little as $65.

I have had about eight cell phones over the last five years, prefer and
recommend the Razr. It isn't perfect, but will suffice until a thin GSM
Smartphone is released.

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> At 13 Sep 2006 15:19:07 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jackzwick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I wasn't posting about the VX8300. I was posting about the fact
> > > >> that the V3 doesn't have a fabulous reputation as you tout.
> > > >
> > > > Keep saying the V3 is bad and you may believe it. The V3 HAS sold
> > > > 50,000,000
> > > >
> > >
> > > Pardon me? I believe I said that it doesn't have a fabulous
> reputation. I
> > > did not say it was bad [although I would not buy one].
> >
> > Get REAL. It has sold 50,000,000 what's abetter reputation than
> that????
>
> So did the Ford Pinto... ;-)

Not quite so many, and it sold cause it was cheap, not the reason the V3
sells.

At 13 Sep 2006 16:44:27 -0500 Thurman wrote:
>
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > At 13 Sep 2006 15:19:07 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> <snip>
> >> > Pardon me? I believe I said that it doesn't have a fabulous
> > reputation. I
> >> > did not say it was bad [although I would not buy one].
> >>
> >> Get REAL. It has sold 50,000,000 what's abetter reputation than
> > that????
> >
> > So did the Ford Pinto... ;-)
>
> As a matter of fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto reports
sales
> of 2 million over 9 years.
>
> Less you stretch editorial license too far, the Pinto was a bottom line
> product that courts statements was designed with the knowledge that
there
> could be "death and maiming" so Ford budgeted $70M for claims.
>
> The Razr, in a completely opposite strategy was designed as a high end
> device. I think it was introduced at around $500 five years ago, rather
> expensive for the time; today selling for as little as $65.
>
> I have had about eight cell phones over the last five years, prefer and
> recommend the Razr. It isn't perfect, but will suffice until a thin GSM
> Smartphone is released.
>
I know Ford never sold 50M Pintos, I was actually going to type "Mustang",
which would've been a better analogy, simply because like the RAZR, more
were sold for their style rather than their usefulness. (I'm not really
denegrating their feature set, I'm just saying the form factor was a
bigger factor in their popularity.)

My post was simply making the point to Mr. Zwick that number of units
sold doesn't necessarily indicate a quality product (nor does it mean
it's NOT a quality product, obviously!)

My opinion of the RAZR probably isn't particularly useful to anyone else,
since I only looked at it in stores when it was newish (and frankly
rejected it on a price/performance ratio- at least the GSM models)- I
thought it was an ok, albeit overpriced, phone with a wildly successful
marketing campaign. If they'd only called it the "V3", I doubt it
would've have been nearly as successful. Not to pick on older or more
professional users of the device, but the name "RAZR," at least to me,
seems to target the current generation of texters who tend to type in
abbreviations, if u no wot i mean... ;-)



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

At 13 Sep 2006 16:44:27 -0500 Thurman wrote:
>
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > At 13 Sep 2006 15:19:07 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> <snip>
> >> > Pardon me? I believe I said that it doesn't have a fabulous
> > reputation. I
> >> > did not say it was bad [although I would not buy one].
> >>
> >> Get REAL. It has sold 50,000,000 what's abetter reputation than
> > that????
> >
> > So did the Ford Pinto... ;-)
>
> As a matter of fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto reports
sales
> of 2 million over 9 years.
>
> Less you stretch editorial license too far, the Pinto was a bottom line
> product that courts statements was designed with the knowledge that
there
> could be "death and maiming" so Ford budgeted $70M for claims.
>
> The Razr, in a completely opposite strategy was designed as a high end
> device. I think it was introduced at around $500 five years ago, rather
> expensive for the time; today selling for as little as $65.
>
> I have had about eight cell phones over the last five years, prefer and
> recommend the Razr. It isn't perfect, but will suffice until a thin GSM
> Smartphone is released.
>
I know Ford never sold 50M Pintos, I was actually going to type "Mustang",
which would've been a better analogy, simply because like the RAZR, more
were sold for their style rather than their usefulness. (I'm not really
denegrating their feature set, I'm just saying the form factor was a
bigger factor in their popularity.)

My post was simply making the point to Mr. Zwick that number of units
sold doesn't necessarily indicate a quality product (nor does it mean
it's NOT a quality product, obviously!)

My opinion of the RAZR probably isn't particularly useful to anyone else,
since I only looked at it in stores when it was newish (and frankly
rejected it on a price/performance ratio- at least the GSM models)- I
thought it was an ok, albeit overpriced, phone with a wildly successful
marketing campaign. If they'd only called it the "V3", I doubt it
would've have been nearly as successful. Not to pick on older or more
professional users of the device, but the name "RAZR," at least to me,
seems to target the current generation of texters who tend to type in
abbreviations, if u no wot i mean... ;-)



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

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I know Ford never sold 50M Pintos, I was actually going to type
> "Mustang",
> which would've been a better analogy, simply because like the RAZR, more
> were sold for their style rather than their usefulness. (I'm not really
> denegrating their feature set, I'm just saying the form factor was a
> bigger factor in their popularity.)

I agree, it's a better example.

> My post was simply making the point to Mr. Zwick that number of units
> sold doesn't necessarily indicate a quality product (nor does it mean
> it's NOT a quality product, obviously!)

Best example I know of is VHS.

> My opinion of the RAZR probably isn't particularly useful to anyone else,
> since I only looked at it in stores when it was newish (and frankly
> rejected it on a price/performance ratio- at least the GSM models)- I
> thought it was an ok, albeit overpriced, phone with a wildly successful
> marketing campaign.

At the original price, it was a vanity buy, but the market needs that. In a
marketing course I took a long time ago, it was interesting that poorer
people purchase to differentiate themselves, wealthier people purchase to
blend with the crowd.

As a guy from New Orleans once said "Cocaine is God's way of telling you
'You have too much money' ".

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I know Ford never sold 50M Pintos, I was actually going to type
> "Mustang",
> which would've been a better analogy, simply because like the RAZR, more
> were sold for their style rather than their usefulness. (I'm not really
> denegrating their feature set, I'm just saying the form factor was a
> bigger factor in their popularity.)

I agree, it's a better example.

> My post was simply making the point to Mr. Zwick that number of units
> sold doesn't necessarily indicate a quality product (nor does it mean
> it's NOT a quality product, obviously!)

Best example I know of is VHS.

> My opinion of the RAZR probably isn't particularly useful to anyone else,
> since I only looked at it in stores when it was newish (and frankly
> rejected it on a price/performance ratio- at least the GSM models)- I
> thought it was an ok, albeit overpriced, phone with a wildly successful
> marketing campaign.

At the original price, it was a vanity buy, but the market needs that. In a
marketing course I took a long time ago, it was interesting that poorer
people purchase to differentiate themselves, wealthier people purchase to
blend with the crowd.

As a guy from New Orleans once said "Cocaine is God's way of telling you
'You have too much money' ".

At 14 Sep 2006 07:53:08 -0500 Thurman wrote:
>
> Best example I know of is VHS.

Very true, but unlike the RAZR or the Ford Mustang, VHS wasn't a "status"
buy. (At least as to brand or type- in the early days of the VHS/Beta
wars, I suppose owning any VCR conferred some status, since the device
was around a grand in 1970's dollars.
>
>
> At the original price, it was a vanity buy, but the market needs that.
In a
> marketing course I took a long time ago, it was interesting that poorer
> people purchase to differentiate themselves, wealthier people purchase
to
> blend with the crowd.

A recent thread on Howard Forums (an informative cellphone forum site
unfortunately overrun by teenagers!) had a guy complaining that
Motorola's newer cheaper RAZR models were "devaluing" his RAZR, because
now anyone could own one!
> As a guy from New Orleans once said "Cocaine is God's way of telling
you
> 'You have too much money' ".

That's one I'm going to remember! Thanks!


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

At 14 Sep 2006 07:53:08 -0500 Thurman wrote:
>
> Best example I know of is VHS.

Very true, but unlike the RAZR or the Ford Mustang, VHS wasn't a "status"
buy. (At least as to brand or type- in the early days of the VHS/Beta
wars, I suppose owning any VCR conferred some status, since the device
was around a grand in 1970's dollars.
>
>
> At the original price, it was a vanity buy, but the market needs that.
In a
> marketing course I took a long time ago, it was interesting that poorer
> people purchase to differentiate themselves, wealthier people purchase
to
> blend with the crowd.

A recent thread on Howard Forums (an informative cellphone forum site
unfortunately overrun by teenagers!) had a guy complaining that
Motorola's newer cheaper RAZR models were "devaluing" his RAZR, because
now anyone could own one!
> As a guy from New Orleans once said "Cocaine is God's way of telling
you
> 'You have too much money' ".

That's one I'm going to remember! Thanks!


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