Tired of phones with gadgets

No vision. Not usable in my life.

Mike

---

› See More: Tired of phones with gadgets

I think it is just a matter of making different phones for different folks.
I agree, the priority should be reception. I don't want to pay for a camera
I won't ever use but I would like a good pda on my phone like the SGH-i500.
However, I'm sure less than 20% of the cell phone users out there would pay
for the PDA capabilities I want. Something I think should be standard
though since they add virtually no cost at this point.

External display

Voice dial ( and more than 10 or 30) If you have just 10 people for voice
dial, that is 30 numbers - home, work, and cell. I really think 50 should
be the minimum. I have 4mb on my year-old, non PDA cell phone and I'm using
about 1 MB with all my numbers, and voice dials and ringers.

Polyphonic ringers - let you download what you want to your phone for a
ringer.

More fields for syncing with outlook w/your address book. It really would
be nice if a physical address was included. Just about all phones have an
address book and most sync with outlook but how much more work would it be
to add just a few more fields?

Someone created a free software package for syncing my calendar with my
LG5350 - the field is only 38 characters though - they give you 4mb on the
phone but it is hard to use just 2mb of it because of all the limitations
they installed which serve no purpose. It seems a shame that the phone
manufacturers aren't including the software.


"Brad McNeely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I may be in the minority here, but I'm really not interested in phones
> with cameras or any other gadgets. My cell phone is just that, a phone.
> I've had my LG model TP5200. I considered buying a newer phone but I
> don't need a color screen and I own a nice camera so none of those
> features appeal to me. I want the next phone I buy to have longer
> reception range. I can't complain about the quality of the signal
> because it is clear. However, I travel to some rural areas in North
> Carolina and Virginia. If I'm lucky, I can barely get a signal and
> switch to analog roam. People who have service with the local provider
> have told me that they still use the old analog bag phones because they
> will bring in the signal better than hand held digital cell phones.
> Hopefully someone will spend some R&D funds on this.
>
> Regards,
> Brad
>

Drop Sprint service and get a satellite phone. These things are big and
ugly (the main downfall is the price and the battery life), but they
pretty much guarantee you a signal whenever and wherever. The plans
are expensive, but this will get you a no frills phone with an
unbeatable signal. I do agree also that the cameras are no more than
fluff in my opinion (and yes I do have 3 of these phones: (2) 8100's
and (1) A620..) I have really become accustomed to the vision though
and the camera is nice at times. I have these 2 phones though because
I like a color screen and they have excellent signal coverage. I would
say if you want a Sprint phone that gets excellent coverage and
reception avoid the Hitachi and the Nokia at all costs (yes they are
great phones, but only single band and limited in coverage area) and
get a good trimode dual band phone (the 5300, 8100, A600, and A620 are
all very good and wokr well in the Carolinas). I too live and travel
in the Carolinas and the boonies and these phones have all done me very
well. Yes a stronger signal would be nice, but these suffice for about
98% of my needs and the few times I am in an analog area only, they
hold up well and serve me fine for that short period of time (of course
I always have my car charger near as battery life doesn't last as long
and a backup HAM radio if things get really sticky), so getting a
useable signal and communication is always there for me. Oh well,
where did this tangent come from????

--
Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

"Brad McNeely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I may be in the minority here, but I'm really not interested in phones
> with cameras or any other gadgets. My cell phone is just that, a phone.
> I've had my LG model TP5200. I considered buying a newer phone but I
> don't need a color screen and I own a nice camera so none of those
> features appeal to me. I want the next phone I buy to have longer
> reception range.

That's where towers come into play, not phones.

> I can't complain about the quality of the signal
> because it is clear. However, I travel to some rural areas in North
> Carolina and Virginia. If I'm lucky, I can barely get a signal and
> switch to analog roam.

That's got nothing to do with phone features. Again ... it's moving out of
SPCS's coverage area.

> People who have service with the local provider
> have told me that they still use the old analog bag phones because they
> will bring in the signal better than hand held digital cell phones.
> Hopefully someone will spend some R&D funds on this.

It's not the R & D folks. It's the aquistion dept. or whatever they call it
....

Bob

On 21 Aug 2003 17:36:07 GMT, [email protected] (Globaldisc) wrote:

>hey fred flinstone....
>
>think out the box. some parents value the ability to check in visually on
>their 3yr, 4yr, or 5yr old child at pre-school or at the day care center.
>soon you'll be able to do that via your cell phone...and connect to the live
>camera at the daycare center.
>
>you sound like people who wanted personal computers to be word processors,
>spreadsheets, and fast calculators.....that's it.

[ASININE blather snipped]

I can't believe no one gave this person a clear, legitimate answer
to the question.

The answer is: get a Sanyo 4900 if you can still find one, or the
Nokia 3585i (which appears to be temporarily sold out on the site, but
again, some SPCS stores may have them).

Both of these phones are camera-less, have terrific signal and
voice capabilities and long battery life. There you go.

To the DOLT who wrote the above: Yes, some people have reasonable
applications for a camera in a phone. Some people have kids. Some don't,
and on the rare occasion that they need to photograph something and send it
to someone, there are MUCH easier and LESS COSTLY ways to do it than to use
"Vision" and just about any digital camera is better than the ones they
stick in phones.

Some people don't need "Vision" because they work at home or at an
office (or both) in front of a computer all day. Why do they need a VERY
BAD, costly version of what they have in front of them on their phone?

David G. Imber wrote:

>
> I can't believe no one gave this person a clear, legitimate answer
> to the question.
>
> The answer is: get a Sanyo 4900 if you can still find one, or the
> Nokia 3585i (which appears to be temporarily sold out on the site, but
> again, some SPCS stores may have them).

Very nice phones, both. Both on the verge of being discontinued. May
technically already be so. Unfortunately.

>
> Both of these phones are camera-less, have terrific signal and
> voice capabilities and long battery life. There you go.

Exactly.

>
> To the DOLT who wrote the above: Yes, some people have reasonable
> applications for a camera in a phone. Some people have kids. Some
> don't,
> and on the rare occasion that they need to photograph something and
> send it to someone, there are MUCH easier and LESS COSTLY ways to do
> it than to use "Vision" and just about any digital camera is better
> than the ones they stick in phones.

Costly? $15/month is costly? I disagree that it's easier, either. With
the newer phones, like the 8100, A600, and VGA1000, you share the picture,
create a voice memo if desired, a text one too, if desired, assign phone
numbers and/or email addresses, and off it goes.

That's not hard. it *is* different. And we only have 12 keys to work with,
so keying *will* be more difficult. Unless we opt for something like the
Nokia 6800, http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/6800/. Figure those odds,
though, eh?

>
> Some people don't need "Vision" because they work at home or at an
> office (or both) in front of a computer all day. Why do they need a
> VERY BAD, costly version of what they have in front of them on their
> phone?

It's certainly not flawless. I had to take all those Shortmail calls
earlier this year. And the rash of 3000 and 4000 errors west coasters
encountered for a time. And then there were problems in Florida...

I don't blame anyone for their opinions after all that. But costly? I
still don't see that.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Globaldisc) wrote:

> hey fred flinstone....
>
> think out the box. some parents value the ability to check in visually on
> their 3yr, 4yr, or 5yr old child at pre-school or at the day care center.
> soon you'll be able to do that via your cell phone...and connect to the live
> camera at the daycare center.
>
> you sound like people who wanted personal computers to be word processors,
> spreadsheets, and fast calculators.....that's it. i suppose you also want a
> basic Willy's 1944 Jeep, a vehicle that just drives....as opposed to a car
> with
> features like automatic transmission, powersteering, A/C, Stereo CD player,
> Airbags, god forbid you have a car with an actual computer on-board....

Oh, please, give us a break from the sarcasm. The guy made a legitimate
complaint. I love gadgets more than the average person, but I don't like
combinations that don't make a lot of sense to me and that I have no use
for, like a cell phone with a camera or a cell phone with an MP3 player.
A cell phone/PDA combination makes sense and would be useful (if they
could ever figure out how not to make them so large and unwieldy--the
way it is now, I would prefer to carry a Palm and a cell phone
separately).

Sometimes, the best technology is not the technology that tries to throw
in everything but the kitchen sink (in computer applicatons, the term is
"bloatware"), but rather technology that does one thing and does it very
elegantly and well. I'd rather have a cell phone that holds a signal
well in low signal areas has good voice quality, long battery life, an
elegant user interface, and an attractive case, than some bloated phone
combination with a million gadgets (PDA, camera, etc.) I'll never use.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:49:44 GMT, "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com>
wrote:

>David G. Imber wrote:
>
>>
>> I can't believe no one gave this person a clear, legitimate answer
>> to the question.
>>
>> The answer is: get a Sanyo 4900 if you can still find one, or the
>> Nokia 3585i (which appears to be temporarily sold out on the site, but
>> again, some SPCS stores may have them).
>
>Very nice phones, both. Both on the verge of being discontinued. May
>technically already be so. Unfortunately.

I didn't know about the Nokia. I know Sanyo will still have a good
showing in the lineup, but I tried the Nokia at a Sprint store yesterday
and it was excellent. It'll be too bad if it vanishes with nothing better
to replace it.


>Costly? $15/month is costly? I disagree that it's easier, either. With
>the newer phones, like the 8100, A600, and VGA1000, you share the picture,
>create a voice memo if desired, a text one too, if desired, assign phone
>numbers and/or email addresses, and off it goes.

Well it's nearly $200/year, so you have to ask yourself if you have
that much of a need to share pictures _with others on the system_. Most of
my family is in Japan. I can't send pictures from my "cameraphone" to them.

When I need to send a photo to someone, I send it as an e-mail
attachment or park it on a web page - it costs nothing (essentially), and
more importantly, it's universally accessible.

It's like Nextel's PTT. Interesting feature. I don't know how much
they charge for it. Maybe it's a penny a year. But not one person I know is
on Nextel. So if I spent that one penny it would be one wasted cent.
Perhaps $15/month is not costly when compared to the cost of health
insurance, etc., but it's such a cranky, rarified environment that it's
general usefulness is, imo, not worth almost any amount if you've got a
real, serious need to share real, serious images with a wide variety of
individuals.


>It's certainly not flawless. I had to take all those Shortmail calls
>earlier this year. And the rash of 3000 and 4000 errors west coasters
>encountered for a time. And then there were problems in Florida...
>
>I don't blame anyone for their opinions after all that. But costly? I
>still don't see that.

As I say, the term costly is misleading. One measures value in more
than cost, and by any measure I find camera phones to have extraordinarily
limited value.

Now, as I mentioned, most of my family is in Japan, where about a
year ago every new phone was a picture phone. The sociological tendency of
Japanese people to purchase new stuff all the time as a sort of pastime is
too much of a subject to get into now, but that, combined with the fact
that Japan is so unified and saturated in its cell use, meant that for a
while, sending pictures was all the rage. But I've got news for you: The
bloom is off the rose. People were thrilled with the novelty of being able
to send cute, funny pictures to their friends the first two dozen times,
then it began to show itself as being inessential to most lives. Today it's
just a yawn and the feature is no longer being used to sell any phones,
afaik.

DGI

All I can say is that the phone and all the gadgetry is ok. I do not
use it as much as I thought when I got it. Now I find it useless. I
would rather get a digital camera, even the cheaper one has better
quality then any camera phone. The vision is so so, mostly down and
slow. I have recetly used T-Mobile version of GPRS and was a text
based net, but is still more functional then VISION. I really liked
the old wireless web, way faster then now. I would like to buy a PDA
phone, but yes they are kind of big, and in case of the new Samsung
SPH-I500 is awsome, but 600 bucks, is twice my car payment. So yes I
rather get just a plain phone. I would always want REAL SMS

--
Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

David G. Imber wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:49:44 GMT, "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com>
> wrote:
>
>> David G. Imber wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I can't believe no one gave this person a clear, legitimate answer
>>> to the question.
>>>
>>> The answer is: get a Sanyo 4900 if you can still find one, or the
>>> Nokia 3585i (which appears to be temporarily sold out on the site,
>>> but again, some SPCS stores may have them).
>>
>> Very nice phones, both. Both on the verge of being discontinued.
>> May technically already be so. Unfortunately.
>
> I didn't know about the Nokia. I know Sanyo will still have a good
> showing in the lineup, but I tried the Nokia at a Sprint store
> yesterday and it was excellent. It'll be too bad if it vanishes with
> nothing better to replace it.
>

I agree. We like our bleeding edge phones, and I think they make a great
differentiator of Sprint from everyone else. Sometimes, though, we forget
the value of *just* a phone to some people.

>
>> Costly? $15/month is costly? I disagree that it's easier, either.
>> With the newer phones, like the 8100, A600, and VGA1000, you share
>> the picture, create a voice memo if desired, a text one too, if
>> desired, assign phone numbers and/or email addresses, and off it
>> goes.
>
> Well it's nearly $200/year, so you have to ask yourself if you have
> that much of a need to share pictures _with others on the system_.
> Most of my family is in Japan. I can't send pictures from my
> "cameraphone" to them.

That leaves out email, CNN, Weather Channel, E! Online, Hollywood.com,
Fidelity, AOL... As a mobile data solution, I don't think that's too
outrageous. Plus, on the Pictures or Premium pack, some of that comes back
in credit for premium downloads. It's all first generation stuff for what
it does. Still, I think it's pretty decent stuff.

BTW, you can't send it to their phones, but you *can* send pictures to their
email addresses.

>
> When I need to send a photo to someone, I send it as an e-mail
> attachment or park it on a web page - it costs nothing (essentially),
> and more importantly, it's universally accessible.

Which is exactly what Picturemail allows you to do. It saves the picture to
the Picturemail web site, and then sends an email to an email address (since
direct to their phones isn't possible in the example you provided). Now the
picture is embedded in the email, and available at a shared picture URL for
them to download at their will.

>
> It's like Nextel's PTT. Interesting feature. I don't know how much
> they charge for it. Maybe it's a penny a year. But not one person I
> know is on Nextel. So if I spent that one penny it would be one
> wasted cent. Perhaps $15/month is not costly when compared to the
> cost of health insurance, etc., but it's such a cranky, rarified
> environment that it's general usefulness is, imo, not worth almost
> any amount if you've got a real, serious need to share real, serious
> images with a wide variety of individuals.
>

If you compare it to dedicated digital cameras, sure. Do you think, though,
that it might have value to, say, an insurance adjuster out and about? I've
had real estate developers call in and rave because it lets them send
progress pictures right to clients as the action is happening. And be right
on the phone with the client as the picture arrives in email.

Obviously, that's not going to be a publication-quality image. But that
kind of near-real-time interaction has real value to quite a lot of people.
Do a Google search for "moblog" and you're liable to run into a *lot* of
people that agree. Some for important reasons, others for silly ones. To
them, though, it's not cranky, rarified, or expensive. And if you don't
agree, then you are more than welcome to your opinion *and* to act on it.
However, it's hard to stare at 10,000 units per week sales on the Sanyo 8100
and think your opinion is even approximately the final word.

>
>> It's certainly not flawless. I had to take all those Shortmail calls
>> earlier this year. And the rash of 3000 and 4000 errors west
>> coasters encountered for a time. And then there were problems in
>> Florida...
>>
>> I don't blame anyone for their opinions after all that. But costly?
>> I still don't see that.
>
> As I say, the term costly is misleading. One measures value in more
> than cost, and by any measure I find camera phones to have
> extraordinarily limited value.
>
> Now, as I mentioned, most of my family is in Japan, where about a
> year ago every new phone was a picture phone. The sociological
> tendency of Japanese people to purchase new stuff all the time as a
> sort of pastime is too much of a subject to get into now, but that,
> combined with the fact that Japan is so unified and saturated in its
> cell use, meant that for a while, sending pictures was all the rage.
> But I've got news for you: The bloom is off the rose. People were
> thrilled with the novelty of being able to send cute, funny pictures
> to their friends the first two dozen times, then it began to show
> itself as being inessential to most lives. Today it's just a yawn and
> the feature is no longer being used to sell any phones, afaik.
>
> DGI

http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/3940.html

Outstrips film sales? Especially this part:

"Camera phones have been available in Japan for three years, (Future Image's
editor Tony) Henning explained, adding that currently in that country, a
mobile phone without a camera is actually difficult to find. Japanese
consumers are carrying more than 30 million camera phones, he said, compared
with less than two million in the United States and Canada. "

There's too much evidence that these camera-enabled devices sell, and sell
very well. We'd be foolish to dismiss that.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:50:20 GMT, "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com>
wrote:

Well, the horse is dead, but I may as well crack the whip one last
time just for fun. Can't hurt.

I'm sure you know that I'm not just being contentious. I offer my
opinions with all respect.

>That leaves out email, CNN, Weather Channel, E! Online, Hollywood.com,
>Fidelity, AOL... As a mobile data solution, I don't think that's too
>outrageous.

This goes back to my original issue. Many people, like myself, work
in front of a computer all day long. Then they go home to a computer (in my
case I work out of my home). I don't think there's ever been a time when I
was so desperate to know what Pam Dawber is doing today that I needed E!
Online while in the street running errands. I'm not an investor, and I can
see a use there. Although on this NG many people have said that for stock
quotes, they stick with WW because it's easier, cheaper, faster.

When I travel and have to access the Internet I carry a subnotebook
or notebook. If I'm serious about e-mail or research while mobile, I'll use
a serious device to access these things, not something that requires me to
input text through a telephone keypad.

>BTW, you can't send it to their phones, but you *can* send pictures to their
>email addresses.

That's exactly what I do now, without messing with Vision or any
other intermediary system.


>
>If you compare it to dedicated digital cameras, sure. Do you think, though,
>that it might have value to, say, an insurance adjuster out and about?

Yes. Insurance adjuster, location scout, real estate agent...I can
think of a number of professions where a camera-phone would come in handy.
I do believe that someday they'll be ubitquitous, and I think that time
will come when you can share images from any device to any device --
easily. (EG: I snap a picture, I call anyone, anywhere, I click send, and
that picture shows up very quickly on their phone. In the present
environment, in the US, just getting a CALL through to anyone, anywhere on
their cell phone remains a fond dream) (That's another issue - should cell
companies be playing around with extraneous devices and gewgaws BEFORE the
matter of just getting calls through quickly and clearly is NAILED DOWN?
But let's not get started on that).


>>
>> Now, as I mentioned, most of my family is in Japan, where about a
>> year ago every new phone was a picture phone. The sociological
>> tendency of Japanese people to purchase new stuff all the time as a
>> sort of pastime is too much of a subject to get into now, but that,
>> combined with the fact that Japan is so unified and saturated in its
>> cell use, meant that for a while, sending pictures was all the rage.
>> But I've got news for you: The bloom is off the rose. People were
>> thrilled with the novelty of being able to send cute, funny pictures
>> to their friends the first two dozen times, then it began to show
>> itself as being inessential to most lives. Today it's just a yawn and
>> the feature is no longer being used to sell any phones, afaik.
>>
>> DGI
>
>http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/3940.html
>
>Outstrips film sales? Especially this part:
>
>"Camera phones have been available in Japan for three years, (Future Image's
>editor Tony) Henning explained, adding that currently in that country, a
>mobile phone without a camera is actually difficult to find. Japanese
>consumers are carrying more than 30 million camera phones, he said, compared
>with less than two million in the United States and Canada. "
>
>There's too much evidence that these camera-enabled devices sell, and sell
>very well. We'd be foolish to dismiss that.

I myself mentioned that, without getting into sociological issues
(if you go to a public dump in Japan you'll find it filled with appliances
that work perfectly and are less than a year old - it's a Japanese thing -
buying new stuff just to buy it is part of Japanese consciousness), at
least a year and a half ago you couldn't find a non-camera phone in Japan.
It was the new thing, it was touted everywhere, and since Japanese folks
will be inclined to buy a new phone periodically anyway, they got right
into people's hands. In Japan you buy the phone you like, not what a
specific carrier will LET you buy. But as I say, I spend a lot of time in
Japan and it's common knowledge that although people have these phones, the
current attitude is that the camera part has been determined to be
extraneous frou-frou that just comes with the device. I used the expression
"bloom is off the rose" advisedly. It's old news, and the novelty of
sending pictures of your pet to your friend at odd times of the day is
over.

You touched on another issue: "There's too much evidence that these
camera-enabled devices sell, and sell very well." Look at Sprint's phone
line-up. The best new phones have cameras in them. If I had to buy a phone
today, my 4900 has been discontinued and I have learned from experience
that Sprint's Sanyo phones offer the best quality and technology. So what
are my choices in the current line-up? 5300 (camera) or 8100 (camera). I'm
going to get a built-in camera whether I like it or not. That's marketing,
and there's a fairly vast breach between that and a highly motivated desire
to purchase a phone with a camera. On their own merits I doubt they'd be as
ubiquitous in the marketplace.

DGI

David G. Imber wrote:

> You touched on another issue: "There's too much evidence that these
> camera-enabled devices sell, and sell very well." Look at Sprint's
> phone line-up. The best new phones have cameras in them. If I had to
> buy a phone today, my 4900 has been discontinued and I have learned
> from experience
> that Sprint's Sanyo phones offer the best quality and technology. So
> what are my choices in the current line-up? 5300 (camera) or 8100
> (camera). I'm going to get a built-in camera whether I like it or
> not. That's marketing, and there's a fairly vast breach between that
> and a highly motivated desire to purchase a phone with a camera. On
> their own merits I doubt they'd be as ubiquitous in the marketplace.
>
> DGI

Two terms for you: Nokia 3585i, and LG 1200. Two "pure" phones in our
lineup, and the Nokia even has a good reputation for signal quality and
voice clarity. And yet neither even approximated the run on our stores, so
to speak, that the 8100 produced. I know that, at least in our phone
database, both devices have a very low instance of known issues. I can
appreciate your attitude, Dan. I truly do. But our experience just doesn't
show us that the market has the same attitude you express here. Quite the
opposite, in fact.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

If you believe that the market place is a fair judge of these questions,
then simply check the sales on ebay, you can look at completed
(historical sale prices) sales--seem like the sanyo's all do well,
especially w/ camera.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in article
<jtD2b.197163$cF.66149@rwcrnsc53>:
> David G. Imber wrote:
>
> > You touched on another issue: "There's too much evidence that these
> > camera-enabled devices sell, and sell very well." Look at Sprint's
> > phone line-up. The best new phones have cameras in them. If I had to
> > buy a phone today, my 4900 has been discontinued and I have learned
> > from experience
> > that Sprint's Sanyo phones offer the best quality and technology. So
> > what are my choices in the current line-up? 5300 (camera) or 8100
> > (camera). I'm going to get a built-in camera whether I like it or
> > not. That's marketing, and there's a fairly vast breach between that
> > and a highly motivated desire to purchase a phone with a camera. On
> > their own merits I doubt they'd be as ubiquitous in the marketplace.
> >
> > DGI
>
> Two terms for you: Nokia 3585i, and LG 1200. Two "pure" phones in our
> lineup, and the Nokia even has a good reputation for signal quality and
> voice clarity. And yet neither even approximated the run on our stores, so
> to speak, that the 8100 produced. I know that, at least in our phone
> database, both devices have a very low instance of known issues. I can
> appreciate your attitude, Dan. I truly do. But our experience just doesn't
> show us that the market has the same attitude you express here. Quite the
> opposite, in fact.
> --
> -+-
> RØß
> O/Siris
> I work for Sprint
> I *don't* speak for them
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

p lane wrote:
> If you believe that the market place is a fair judge of these
> questions,
> then simply check the sales on ebay, you can look at completed
> (historical sale prices) sales--seem like the sanyo's all do well,
> especially w/ camera.

Well, in some fairness to David, I'm not sure I'd call it a "fair judge."
But SPCS can't ignore what it says.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

hehe bad example.

It called convergence. some like it some are partial to it in some arena's

I like convergence in my computer. I do not like convergence in my phone. I
have the 6400

it has some nice features. 3g photo caller id call screen midi polyphonic
playback for ringers etc..

I do not want a camera in my phone etc.. I like my camera seperate. now if
they can add a camera without making my 6400 bigger. OK now you have me
interested :-) convergence in handheld units usually results in one of three
(many times all 3)

Bigger
Complexity
EXPENSIVE

as for the 1944 willy's

I would kill to ge tmy hands on one. so like I said bad example. :-) I have
a 96 Voyager that I plan to add everything to. Thermal forward vision and
lcd rear view etc.. dvd lcd's computers etc..

I also have a 74 VW Thing of which I want nothing added.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

"Globaldisc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> hey fred flinstone....
>
> think out the box. some parents value the ability to check in visually
on
> their 3yr, 4yr, or 5yr old child at pre-school or at the day care center.
> soon you'll be able to do that via your cell phone...and connect to the
live
> camera at the daycare center.
>
> you sound like people who wanted personal computers to be word processors,
> spreadsheets, and fast calculators.....that's it. i suppose you also want
a
> basic Willy's 1944 Jeep, a vehicle that just drives....as opposed to a car
with
> features like automatic transmission, powersteering, A/C, Stereo CD
player,
> Airbags, god forbid you have a car with an actual computer on-board....