Re: Sprint shows off iPhone lookalike

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:47f31381$0$36337$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Dutch wrote:
>> "Sprint Nextel showed off a new iPhone look-alike from Samsung on
>> Tuesday at the CTIA conference in Las Vegas that the operator says
>> allows much faster data access then the Apple phone."
>>
>> "The Instinct, co-developed by Sprint and Samsung, looks similar to the
>> iPhone, including a touch screen. Unlike the iPhone, however, it
>> includes GPS (Global Positioning System) and runs on Sprint¢s high-speed
>> EV-DO (Evolution-Data Optimized) Revision A network. Sprint¢s network
>> offers an average data download rate as high as 1.4Mbps. By contrast,
>> EDGE (Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution), which the iPhone operates
>> on via AT&T¢s network, usually offers less than 200k bps throughput."
>
> It appears as if Sprint forgot to include WiFi.
>
> It's very useful to have WiFi when traveling, and the data rates are
> higher. One reason so many iPhones have been unlocked is because a lot
> of users just want to use them on WiFi networks (partly because Edge is
> so slow, but also because they don't want to sign up for an expensive
> data plan).
>
> I hope Sprint survives, but at this juncture they have one of the worst
> networks (only T-Mobile is worse) and the worst selection of handsets.
> This is what's causing their incredibly high churn, not customer service
> problems.
>

That's what we need- the "professional" (not) opinion of a sales man. Your
dislike of anything non-Verizon is well documented and your ability to be
objective is non-existent.

And please provide us with the independent source of your claim to their
churn. Or is this another case of where you are more intelligent than
everybody else in the industry?

"The Bob" <nospam@bob.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A74B53F5E984bob@216.196.97.136...
>> A few years ago, people were complaining more about Verizon's handset
>> selection, and praising Sprint's selection.
>
> Um- no. That was never the case. Sprint has always been a late adopter
> of technology.

I don't know if it was "never" the case- they offered digital handsets
before back when Cingular and Verizon were still analog! ;-)


..

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:L4VIj.24484$XA.21916@fe107.usenetserver.com:

>
> "The Bob" <nospam@bob.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A74B53F5E984bob@216.196.97.136...
>>> A few years ago, people were complaining more about Verizon's handset
>>> selection, and praising Sprint's selection.
>>
>> Um- no. That was never the case. Sprint has always been a late adopter
>> of technology.
>
> I don't know if it was "never" the case- they offered digital handsets
> before back when Cingular and Verizon were still analog! ;-)
>
>
> .
>
>

Point taken, but that would have been the only time. And Stevie's
reference was that up until a few years ago they were known for handsets.
The days you speak of were more than a few years ago.

On 2008-04-02, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> Then explain T-Mo's success? They have a worse network than Sprint, a piss-
> poor handset selection, and they're not bleeding customers.

I'll concede that Sprint has a much better network (still no
nationwide T-mo 3G network, dammit!) but their handset selection isn't
all that horrible. AT&T's is much better, yes, Sprint's may be
somewhat better, but T-Mo's isn't horrible.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

At 03 Apr 2008 04:59:34 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:

> I'll concede that Sprint has a much better network (still no
> nationwide T-mo 3G network, dammit!)

Patience, grasshopper... ;-)

> but their handset selection isn't
> all that horrible. AT&T's is much better, yes, Sprint's may be
> somewhat better, but T-Mo's isn't horrible.


The problem w/T-Mo's selection, IMO, is their reluctance to offer 3G
handsets prior to launching 3G. This really limits their selection of high-
end handsets.


The fact that by virtue of the not-fully compatible 3G Band they're stuck
with, using high-end non-T-Mo branded handsets will likely be an
undesirable option going forward.

On Apr 1, 11:19 pm, "Jar-Jar Binks" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Sprint is the BOMB! They have the best phones and the best network. That is
> really fast data especially if you use the phone as a modem.
>
Gizmodo Guy: iPhone Clone Innovation is 'Positively Listles'
Today, April 03, 2008, 19 hours ago
Despite next-gen networks and haptics tech continuing to break on
through to the realistic side, the year's big cellphone trade show
disappointed Gizmodo's man on the floor because, well, the iPhone's
still just too good.

http://digg.com/apple/Gizmodo_Guy_iP...tively_Listles

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 02 Apr 2008 09:26:16 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> T-Mobile has never tried to market themselves as a carrier for those
>> that are concerned about coverage.
>
> Because they don't have te coverage to back up such a claim.
>
> It's not like they advertise lack of coverage either! Sprint never
> pushed the coverage card in their ads either- they pushed call quality
> ("pin drop.")

Sprint used to advertise that they had the largest all-digital network.
This was actually true. Of course they had one of the smallest digital
networks, and still do, but since they had no AMPS they were all
digital, while Cingular, AT&T, and Verizon could not claim to be
all-digital.

> You're correct that international travelers would be less interested, but
> those folks that travel that often quite possibly aren't interested in a
> phone service that only works domestically anyhow.

Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon
can? The number of countries with both CDMA and GSM networks is growing,
including India, China, Taiwan, and Israel. In Korea there is no GSM,
only CDMA.

>> Sprint is a non-player to me. They don't have coverage where I live
>> in Northern California, and in all the independent surveys show that
>> their California coverage, north and south, is much worse than other
>> carriers, which has also been the experience of every Sprint customer
>> in California that I know personally. Of course these customers didn't
>> know enough to force their handsets to roam onto Verizon, assuming
>> their handsets had the capability.
>
> But you know better WRT the forced roaming, and know of the SERO plans, so
> why is Sprint a "non-player" for you?

Because you can't always be roaming onto Verizon without them getting
upset and possibly canceling your service. That and because even SERO
would be more expensive than what I'm paying on Verizon.

At 03 Apr 2008 16:44:27 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon can?

Yeah, they have high-priced international roaming- my point was the
phone can't be used with local SIMs like a GSM phone.

> > But you know better WRT the forced roaming, and know of the SERO plans,
so
> > why is Sprint a "non-player" for you?
>
> Because you can't always be roaming onto Verizon without them getting
> upset and possibly canceling your service.

You get to use 800 roaming minutes/month according to the current ToS.

> That and because even SERO would be more expensive than what I'm
> paying on Verizon.

You're paying less than $30/month?

No wonder you're so thrilled with Verizon- you have a cheap rate plan no
one can currently get anymore, with extended coverage no one can get
anymore either. You're not constantly telling us how great Verizon IS-
you're telling us how great it WAS! ;-)

On 2008-04-04, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 03 Apr 2008 16:44:27 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon can?
>
> Yeah, they have high-priced international roaming- my point was the
> phone can't be used with local SIMs like a GSM phone.

What? Sprint phones CAN roam on other US CDMA networks. He wasn't
talking about international roaming.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

At 04 Apr 2008 14:01:26 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:

> >> Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon
can?
> >
> > Yeah, they have high-priced international roaming- my point was the
> > phone can't be used with local SIMs like a GSM phone.
>
> What? Sprint phones CAN roam on other US CDMA networks. He wasn't
> talking about international roaming.


We got off on a tangent- we were discussing the "flaws" of the new non-WiFi
Sprint iPhone ripoff vs. a WiFi-capable iPhone. SMS' position is that not
having WiFi is a handicap in places where there's no Sprint 3G, like
overseas, (he just got back from Asia recently) and I suggested that most
Sprint users probably don't take their Sprint phones overseas like many GSM
users do/would.

I conceded that there's more international CDMA roaming available today
than in the past, but without the ability to use local service (i.e. a
local prepaid GSM SIM) an unlocked GSM phone is more desirable when
traveling internationally, ergo frequent overseas travelers likely wouldn't
have Sprint or their new phone, anyway.

Again, I'd easily trade the WiFi on my WiFi/EDGE PPC phone for the ability
to use 3G but not WiFi- my mobile phone is primarily used when I'm, well,
mobile. While WiFi+ 3G would certainly be the most desirable option, I'd
personally take 3G + 2G (like the new Sprint device) over WiFi + 2G (like
my T-Mobile MDA or the current iPhone.)

If only I wasn't such a G** D****d cheapskate, that is... ;-) My $6/month
unlimited data keeps me on T-Mo's slow GPRS/EDGE network. I'm considering
a switch to a Sprint SERO plan now that just looked at the SERO site again
and saw the Mogul's down to $200 after rebate. I just need to convince
myself to jump from the industry's BEST customer service organization to
it's worst...

T-Mo needs to roll out 3G quickly, or st least bring out a decent 3G-ready
WinMo phone (like AT&T's Tilt, which they already sell in every _other_
country they operate in!) if they want to keep me.

On 2008-04-03, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> You're correct that international travelers would be less interested, but
>> those folks that travel that often quite possibly aren't interested in a
>> phone service that only works domestically anyhow.
>
> Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon
> can? The number of countries with both CDMA and GSM networks is growing,
> including India, China, Taiwan, and Israel. In Korea there is no GSM,
> only CDMA.

That last sentence is very carefully worded, so let me make one
of my own. The phone I use with AT&T GSM service also works in
just about every country I've been to, including Japan and Korea,
and lets me choose between using (usually) expensive roaming and
cheaper local service, while the phone I use with Verizon CDMA service
probably works in no more than a quarter of the countries I've been
to and can be used only for expensive roaming (Canada and Mexico
excepted).

If I had to pick just one of these I think I'd keep the AT&T service
for international travel.

Dennis Ferguson

Todd Allcock wrote:

> You're paying less than $30/month?
>
> No wonder you're so thrilled with Verizon- you have a cheap rate plan no
> one can currently get anymore, with extended coverage no one can get
> anymore either. You're not constantly telling us how great Verizon IS-
> you're telling us how great it WAS! ;-)

I just got a letter from Verizon lowering my rate (increasing my
discount to 21%). So I'm right around $30 including all fees and taxes,
but it's only 300 peak minutes per month. SERO is more expensive, but
it's 500 minutes per month. OTOH, nearly everyone I know or work with is
on Verizon, so the MTM more than makes up the difference. In California
it's rare to find anyone on Sprint or T-Mobile.

Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> "The Bob" <nospam@bob.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A74B53F5E984bob@216.196.97.136...
>>> A few years ago, people were complaining more about Verizon's handset
>>> selection, and praising Sprint's selection.
>>
>> Um- no. That was never the case. Sprint has always been a late adopter
>> of technology.
>
> I don't know if it was "never" the case- they offered digital handsets
> before back when Cingular and Verizon were still analog! ;-)

Around 2003-2005, Sprint had some smart phone models that had people
dumping Verizon for Sprint, as well as "regular phones" that Verizon had
no competing models for. Verizon was taking an agonizingly long time to
"approve" new handsets, with the real reason being that they needed time
to cripple the firmware to prevent subscribers from doing such horrible
things as transferring pictures to their computer, or uploading
ringtones to the phone.

Remember when Verizon rushed out the T720, desperate to have a model to
compete against Sprint's color phones? It was a disastrous piece of junk.

You can go back and read threads on Google Groups about Verizon's poor
phone selection.

I.e.
"http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.verizon/browse_thread/thread/71b0fe6c709cb847/19c114c28b4baa36?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#19c114c28b4baa36" .

One good post in that thread:

"Verizon's lack of an exciting phone selection is quite bothersome,
especially to someone who values a flip model. With the v60 out of
stock, there is not a good non-color flip choice, and all of the cheaper
phones are candy bar. Sprint's Samsung a500 offers a TFT screen (which
the a530 will lack) and is amazingly thin. The color LG model also
seems thinner and sleeker than the chunky 4400 on Verizon. As you
mentioned, the Sanyo is another nice phone for Sprint.

Because Verizon offers the best reception, it does not need to woo
customers with cutting edge handsets. However, with the largest
subscribership, I would think Verizon would be in a position to make
deals with manufacturers like Sanyo and Samsung to receive their
best-designed products. Better phones will also cause more people to
upgrade at full retail price (as most I expect sign up for two year
deals).

I, for one, hope for a better selection in the near future. I'm sick of
hearing people defend Verizon's rigorous testing process. If Verizon
thought it could increase profits with more desirable phones, we would
see them."

Those of us with long memories remember the days when Sprint was the
CDMA carrier of choice in terms of handsets. "The Bob" is simply incorrect.