"Amazing X-Ray Glasses from Sprint!"

Wow. Apparently Sprint is giving prominent bloggers free phones with
free Power Vision, and free downloads, in order to get some publicity.

Joel Spolsky's review is probably not the kind they were hoping for! :-)

Here it is:

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/19b.html>

--
--Tim Smith

---

› See More: "Amazing X-Ray Glasses from Sprint!"

Tim Smith wrote:

> Joel Spolsky's review is probably not the kind they were hoping for! :-)
>
> Here it is:
>
> <http://www.somedumbblogger.com>

While I'm no fan of Sprint, this guy is just outright petty in his
review. Clearly he had a chip on his shoulder because he felt that
Sprint's PR shouldn't be bossin' him around in exchange for free stuff
(because you know, every blogger is entitled to no-strings-attached free
stuff just because they're the Gods of the Blogosphere). And to show
'em, he found every little nit to pick, and even made up quite a few of
his own.


But, yeah, this marketing program run by Sprint was definitely
ill-conceived, as are a lot of things Sprint's doing lately.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:59:52 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> Joel Spolsky's review is probably not the kind they were hoping for! :-)
>>
>> Here it is:
>>
>> <http://www.somedumbblogger.com>
>
>While I'm no fan of Sprint, this guy is just outright petty in his
>review. Clearly he had a chip on his shoulder because he felt that
>Sprint's PR shouldn't be bossin' him around in exchange for free stuff
>(because you know, every blogger is entitled to no-strings-attached free
>stuff just because they're the Gods of the Blogosphere). And to show
>'em, he found every little nit to pick, and even made up quite a few of
>his own.

I don't know. The way I read it he makes a very legitimate
case that the product is really awfully designed. Sure he engages in a
little hyperbole, but that's why people read stuff. I had no trouble,
strictly from his literal descriptions, drawing the conclusion that
this is a simply terrible, stupid product.

I know this is an old, old chestnut, but anyone who spends
time in Japan gets to see all of these features done right. Gorgeous
hardware, totally intuitive, friendly interfaces, and reasonably
priced all-inclusive packages.

If even half of what this guy describes is literally true, the
Fusic is an embarrassment. I have never used it myself, so I must
reserve summary judgement.

In any case, the things he's writing about do not seem
picayune to me.

Just my op. DGI


PS: Compare and contrast. First read the Fusic description, then check
out KDDI's "Lismo" service:

http://www.kddi.com/lismo/ (Japanese)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LISMO (English)


http://www.mobilementalism.com/2006/...out-the-water/
(English)

David G. Imber wrote:

> I don't know. The way I read it he makes a very legitimate
> case that the product is really awfully designed.

I disagree. He's erring on two counts. First, he' equating the phone
with the service. Granted, an LG phone is probably a poor choice to
send to a reviewer, but because the phone's oeprations aren't up to
snuff does not mean that Sprint's service as a whole sucks.

Second, he's trying to draw unrealistic parallels between a a cell phone
that happens to play MP3s, and an iPod, which is the pinnacle in
portable media player design, and then proceeds to bash he phone based
on those parallels. By that same vein, he should be bashing Apple's
iPod because it doesn't make phone calls.


> Sure he engages in a
> little hyperbole, but that's why people read stuff.

Again I disagree. A good writer/reviewer can be both compelling and
accurate. This one was neither.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:06:36 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>David G. Imber wrote:
>
>> I don't know. The way I read it he makes a very legitimate
>> case that the product is really awfully designed.
>
>I disagree. He's erring on two counts. First, he' equating the phone
>with the service. Granted, an LG phone is probably a poor choice to
>send to a reviewer, but because the phone's oeprations aren't up to
>snuff does not mean that Sprint's service as a whole sucks.

I see your point on the whole, however I am assuming that
Sprint was involved in the interface design, even if only to contract
and approve it. In my view that puts the problems within the purview
of the service provider. I'm sure the manufacturer fabricates (or
contracts) interfaces for each individual provider according to their
specifications and with their approval.


>Second, he's trying to draw unrealistic parallels between a a cell phone
>that happens to play MP3s, and an iPod, which is the pinnacle in
>portable media player design, and then proceeds to bash he phone based
>on those parallels. By that same vein, he should be bashing Apple's
>iPod because it doesn't make phone calls.

Here I don't agree. If Apple built telephony into iPods and
did it poorly he might have grounds for bashing, but they don't. He's
comparing capabilities (again, services), not only hardware. This is a
device that promises to do several things, including what an iPod
does. A reviewer is compelled, I think, to draw comparisons with other
devices that do those things.


>> Sure he engages in a
>> little hyperbole, but that's why people read stuff.
>
>Again I disagree. A good writer/reviewer can be both compelling and
>accurate.

On this point we agree completely. I guess I was engaging in
hyperbole myself.

DGI