Old Motorola StarTAC - phones are for calling people, for taking pictures use a digital camera

In article <1182241652.083948.259400@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
<Thomasjbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

> Reason why I bought it is that I'm not impressed with available phones
> today. Most current phones try to integrate multiple features such as
> camera's, mp3 players etc. but do not succeed and you end up with a
> phone that can do a lot, but not well. I decided that if I want to
> take a picture I will use my 7.0 megapixel digital camera and if I
> want to make a phone call I will use my mobile phone. I don't need a
> camera in my phone to 'take pictures on the go'. As for mp3 players,
> most phones have so limited memory, I will use my ultra slim i-pod
> nano if I want to travel with music.

I guess you won't be standing in line for an iPhone next week.

---

› See More: Old Motorola StarTAC - phones are for calling people, for taking pictures use a digital camera

Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <1182241652.083948.259400@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> <Thomasjbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess you won't be standing in line for an iPhone next week.

I'll be joining him not standing in line, the iPhone seems as
completely useless to me as an iPod. As always, YMMV



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

<Thomasjbeck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182241652.083948.259400@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> Just bought a second hand motorola StarTAC from www.retrobrick.com.
> Phone works perfectly, and through another website I bought a brand
> new battery, so I have decent standby - and talk time.
>
> Reason why I bought it is that I'm not impressed with available phones
> today. Most current phones try to integrate multiple features such as
> camera's, mp3 players etc. but do not succeed and you end up with a
> phone that can do a lot, but not well. I decided that if I want to
> take a picture I will use my 7.0 megapixel digital camera and if I
> want to make a phone call I will use my mobile phone. I don't need a
> camera in my phone to 'take pictures on the go'. As for mp3 players,
> most phones have so limited memory, I will use my ultra slim i-pod
> nano if I want to travel with music.
>
> I only wish Motorola would revive the StarTAC in its original design,
> but with modern technology excluding any unnecessary features such as
> a camera and mp3 player, ok maybe add e-mail capability and a
> calendar. This would be the ultimate business phone.
>
> Rgrds,
>
> Wayne

I also liked the rugged reliability of the old StarTac phones. Although I've
gotten over the novelty of listening to music on my cell phone, memory is
limited only by the size of the card you install and they're dirt cheap
compared to only a couple of years ago. I don't get why iPods are still
selling when even the cheaper phones do the same thing. I also enjoy digital
photography, but I only carry my camera when I know I'm going to need it. I
wouldn't rely on my cell phone camera to take serious photos. However,
having a camera, even with the most modest capabilities built into a phone
is invaluable when you are in a situation where you wish you didn't leave
the real camera home or if you have to capture an image for the purposes of
legal documentation. Each to his own, I guess, but I'm not carrying three
gadgets around with me when one does the job. In addition to the functions
above my phone also handles e-mail, text messaging, GPS directions and a
myriad of other chores. I can't imagine carrying a dedicated device for each
thing I want my phone to do. That little phone clipped to my belt would turn
into a suitcase full of hardware.
>

Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <Xns99545847FF011xs11emailinatorcom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
> <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll be joining him not standing in line, the iPhone seems as
>> completely useless to me as an iPod. As always, YMMV
>
> I wouldn't say useless...it's extremely cool technology...just
> tied to a crappy carrier.

I said useless to me because the price includes a HUGE amount of stuff
I don't want and very little that I do want. The iPhone has already
been reported as a very mediocre phone and that's ALL I want, no tunes,
no camera, no web, no texting. I want to call people and have people
call me and nothing else so why would I pay hundreds for features I'll
not use? It's useless to me....

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

In message <Xns9954DC57ADCACxs11emailinatorcom@69.28.173.184> XS11E
<xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote:

>I said useless to me because the price includes a HUGE amount of stuff
>I don't want and very little that I do want. The iPhone has already
>been reported as a very mediocre phone and that's ALL I want, no tunes,
>no camera, no web, no texting. I want to call people and have people
>call me and nothing else so why would I pay hundreds for features I'll
>not use? It's useless to me....

So don't buy it. For those of us carrying several different toys most
of the time anyway, combination devices are great.

You wouldn't catch me with a fruity phone mind you, but still...

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

XS11E wrote:
> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns99545847FF011xs11emailinatorcom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
>> <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll be joining him not standing in line, the iPhone seems as
>>> completely useless to me as an iPod. As always, YMMV
>>
>> I wouldn't say useless...it's extremely cool technology...just
>> tied to a crappy carrier.
>
> I said useless to me because the price includes a HUGE amount of stuff
> I don't want and very little that I do want. The iPhone has already
> been reported as a very mediocre phone and that's ALL I want, no
> tunes, no camera, no web, no texting. I want to call people and have
> people call me and nothing else so why would I pay hundreds for
> features I'll not use? It's useless to me....

But why would you pay MORE for a ten year old phone when you could get a
v3 - which has little more than what you want - for less money. Even
though you don't care for the camera, you did mention you'd like email
capability which the StarTAC lacks and the radio quality in terms of
reception and digital codecs is superior to the 10 year old StarTAC.
That being said, I have some StarTAC chargers and batteries lying around
that you are welcome to for the cost of postage.

In article <Xns9954DC57ADCACxs11emailinatorcom@69.28.173.184>,
XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote:

> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns99545847FF011xs11emailinatorcom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
> > <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'll be joining him not standing in line, the iPhone seems as
> >> completely useless to me as an iPod. As always, YMMV
> >
> > I wouldn't say useless...it's extremely cool technology...just
> > tied to a crappy carrier.
>
> I said useless to me because the price includes a HUGE amount of stuff
> I don't want and very little that I do want. The iPhone has already
> been reported as a very mediocre phone and that's ALL I want, no tunes,
> no camera, no web, no texting.

Stupid.

The iphone is not out yet. How does anyone know it's a mediocre phone?
Who reported it was mediocre, and how would that person know, if there
was a problem with reception, that the problem wasn't with the other
phone it was connected to, or that the network in that particular area
sucked? Sure, blame the hardware that is not even released yet.

Good or bad, we understand you don't need it or want it, and that's
certainly fine, but don't be stupid enough to come on the net and say
that something is mediocre when it hasn't even come out yet.

In article <Xns9954DC57ADCACxs11emailinatorcom@69.28.173.184>, XS11E
<xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote:

> I said useless to me because the price includes a HUGE amount of stuff
> I don't want and very little that I do want. The iPhone has already
> been reported as a very mediocre phone and that's ALL I want, no tunes,
> no camera, no web, no texting. I want to call people and have people
> call me and nothing else so why would I pay hundreds for features I'll
> not use? It's useless to me....

I haven't seen any reviews saying it's a good phone or a bad one...it's
not out there yet.

In article <Steve-7F05B7.02423020062007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:

> The iphone is not out yet. How does anyone know it's a mediocre phone?
> Who reported it was mediocre, and how would that person know, if there
> was a problem with reception, that the problem wasn't with the other
> phone it was connected to, or that the network in that particular area
> sucked? Sure, blame the hardware that is not even released yet.

If the sound quality is bad, I'd blame AT&T. They're a crappy carrier.

"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:

> But why would you pay MORE for a ten year old phone

I wouldn't. You're confusing me with the OP in this thread.

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html