Re: screen durability on high-priced phones

In article <6ct783tonicvqtp5g25i6ntvkjku2cjci9@4ax.com>, Cyrus Afzali
<pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

> It seems baffling to me that they can't do any better than this and/or
> won't when, by the time you account for carrier subsidies and what the
> user pays, they're getting $400-$500 a pop for these things.

If this is an iPhone slam, the screen is glass and not plastic.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]
On 2007-06-29, Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <6ct783tonicvqtp5g25i6ntvkjku2cjci9@4ax.com>, Cyrus Afzali
><pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>
>> It seems baffling to me that they can't do any better than this and/or
>> won't when, by the time you account for carrier subsidies and what the
>> user pays, they're getting $400-$500 a pop for these things.
>
> If this is an iPhone slam, the screen is glass and not plastic.

Ain't just the iPhone.

I love my Motorola PEBL, but the screen is a fingerprint and dust magnet.