Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41
  1. iJITSU's Avatar
    Posts
    163 Posts
    Global Posts
    232 Global Posts
    #21  
    Originally posted by blondegoalie
    The contract says what i said it says. So stop preeching if you wanna build a church fine. No one is listening to what you have to say. Or do you always have to have the final word and cant let things go?
    From someone who stated that he had said his "last word" on the subject, but then responded again nevertheless, that's rich
  2. #22  
    Can we please get back to the Treo 610 issue, which is the whole point of this thread.

    Both the moderators and the participants are acting like a bunch of fools. I could care less about the morality issues. Get back on track.

    Either that or close the thread.

    Unreal....

    P.S. Don't agree with me. Don't disagree with me. Just move on.

    P.P.S. So I get the feeling that this is definitely coming to the VZW network. But is anyone out there who has contact with the carriers aware of whether or not the bluetooth rumors are true or is this likely to be part of a later product refresh?
  3. #23  
    I thought P1 would have said something by now. The rumors about the 610 have been floating around now for about 2 weeks - and no one from P1 has come forward to debunk it.

    IMO, the longer they keep quiet about it, the more credible it seems to become.
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by miradu
    Even though in my prediction article I said otherwise, I now believe (hint hint) that we will see only one new treo, and it will be available in fall. However, cellphones have to be certified by the FCC, and then it takes 6 months or so before the carriers allow them on their networks, so we may see it leaked/launched by PalmOne in march/april, but then wouldn't ship until fall. If I were PalmOne though I would try my best to keep it under wraps as long as possible.
    When Isaih Thomas took over as general manager of the Knicks, he told the press that in the future he was going to have to lie to them, concerning trade rumors. Mirandu is likely to have better access to more accurate answers than the rest of us, but because Plmo is a large advertiser, he also may have "damage control" responsibilities either directly or indirectly. He notes that Plmo should keep things under wraps as long as possible which may be like Isaih Thomas' disclaimer above. It does seem strange that having guessed almost exactly what the subsequent rumor predicted a short while earlier, that he does such a quick about face and guesses in the opposite direction hinting inside information. It may be that he is just passing on what he heard from above, and the misinformaton was occuring above in an attempt to "keep things under wraps".

    Mirandu's post doesn't fit with a few hints during the conference call that additions to the Treo family were their highest priority and being actively worked on and recent press release language that savings from the layoffs would be invested in the wireless division. Releasing one unit in the fall, doesn't fit these objectives. It seems likely that more units are in the works than just one and Palmone intends to bracket the wireless division at different price points, directed to different audiences in the same way they attacked the pda market.

    One doesn't find alot of people disgrunted at this thread, by the performance of the screen, or by the absense of bluetooth for the t 600. It really doesn't seem like the upgrade is that big a deal one way or the other. Clearly Plmo had to commit to a decision on this point a while ago and didn't have the luxury of reading this topic to figure out what the users thought. But if I worked for Plmo and read these posts to try and decide if it was worth a few million in extra expenses to modify the Treo 600 at this point, frankly it doesn't seem like it matters that much either way. There weren't that many disgruntled users waiting impatiently for Treo's with higher resolution screens or bluetooth.
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by blondegoalie
    The contract says what i said it says. So stop preeching if you wanna build a church fine. No one is listening to what you have to say. Or do you always have to have the final word and cant let things go?
    Actually I never responded to you after you said it was your last word.
  6. #26  
    Originally posted by SteveNYC
    I could care less about the morality issues.
    I hope you don't actually mean that.
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I hope you don't actually mean that.
    Kurt... not to beat a dead horse here, but would you feel differently if you knew for a fact that the unwritten policy of BB, CC, and the insurance companies was that the sales people should sell as many extended warranties as possible (however they have to do it), and if a small number of customers beat them at their own game, so be it? (I'm expecting a convoluted, evasive answer from you... but I'm hoping you'll surprise me )

    Again, I'm not taking a side. I just think your black and white view of this (from the business side of things) is a bit naive.
    Robert
    Please visit my moblog, Robert-O-Rama
  8. #28  
    p.s. To do my part in keeping this somewhat on topic....... I think the Treo 610 rumors are completely inaccurate. I'd be shocked to see a model that included hi-res and BT anytime before summer or fall........ if that soon.

    And I don't feel that way because I already have the Treo 600. If/when a hi-res version with BT comes out, I'll still get it on day one (and hope I can recoup a big chunk of it selling my T600).
    Robert
    Please visit my moblog, Robert-O-Rama
  9. #29  
    Not to nit a pick (Oh what the hell! Yeah, to nit a pick!) but the entire Insurance Industry is based on the idea that people won't collect as much as is brought in.

    Right?
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by SeldomVisitor
    [B]Not to nit a pick (Oh what the hell! Yeah, to nit a pick!) but the entire Insurance Industry is based on the idea that people won't collect as much as is brought in.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt that the idea behind a pyramid scheme too?
  11. #31  
    No, a pyramid scheme is where you convince someone else to give you money and they turn around and convince someone else to give them money - and possibly you, too.

    Eventually, one runs out of people to convince.

    The Guy At The Top wins.
  12. edmc's Avatar
    Posts
    120 Posts
    Global Posts
    128 Global Posts
    #32  
    SeldomVisitor> the entire Insurance Industry is based on the
    SeldomVisitor> idea that people won't collect as much as is
    SeldomVisitor> brought in. Right?

    You would be confusing Insurance companies with the Social Security Fund - er, oh that's right, there is no fund :-(

    Actually, Insurance companies take your premiums and invest them. Hopefully, the returns on those investments exceed the payouts for claims. If all they did was stick your premiums in a vault (paying no interest), I suspect they'd have to raise your premiums substantially...
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by SeldomVisitor
    Not to nit a pick (Oh what the hell! Yeah, to nit a pick!) but the entire Insurance Industry is based on the idea that people won't collect as much as is brought in.

    Right?
    In theory, yes. It all works because of averages. Though to each person, insurance will leave them poorer (one reason why giving people more health insurance will never lower the collective cost of health care) but better off. It works like this: say you have a hundred dollars, and a 10% of losing it all. You would rather pay a $10 premium to be insured for that loss because even though you are out $10, you can still be sure to pay for things like food and shelter (okay, to make this work with small numbers, imagine you live in the twenties). Now, bump that premium to $10.01 and the same idea holds. Of course, spread over N people, the insurance company now makes .01*N and everyone is better off. And it all works with full disclosure and consent. Amazing how without anyone "taking advantage" of anyone else, everyone wins.

    Above I say "in theory" because in practive insurance companies are free to invest their money and make a return on the float.
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by RWerksman


    Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt that the idea behind a pyramid scheme too?
    On a basic level, yes. That's the idea behind a lot of stuff (a deli, for instance). But the difference between the pyramid scheme and other ventures is that you are not creating utility. To a deli owner, a sandwich is worth, say $2. To a buyer, it is worth $3. If he sells it for $2.50 both are made better off. With a pyramid scheme you are working with dollars, which have the same value to everyone on a dollar basis.
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by Robert K.

    Kurt... not to beat a dead horse here, but would you feel differently if you knew for a fact that the unwritten policy of BB, CC, and the insurance companies was that the sales people should sell as many extended warranties as possible (however they have to do it), and if a small number of customers beat them at their own game, so be it? (I'm expecting a convoluted, evasive answer from you... but I'm hoping you'll surprise me )
    No. If someone doesn't put up a security camera in their jewelry store to save money, it still isn't right to take the jewels.
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    No. If someone doesn't put up a security camera in their jewelry store to save money, it still isn't right to take the jewels.
    How does that have anything to do with what I asked you? Unless you are implying that BB and CC pay low wages (to save money) and their employees aren't smart enough to follow the proper procedures when customers attempt to use their warranty.... and therefore the stores are being "robbed"??

    I was suggesting that the sales people selling the warranties are doing exactly as they are instructed to do (by their own "upper management")... both when selling them and when honoring them. It seems that everything you are saying is based strictly on the language in the warranty...... which I would think you would know is not how it is being sold by the store in many cases.
    Robert
    Please visit my moblog, Robert-O-Rama
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by Robert K.

    How does that have anything to do with what I asked you? Unless you are implying that BB and CC pay low wages (to save money) and their employees aren't smart enough to follow the proper procedures when customers attempt to use their warranty.... and therefore the stores are being "robbed"??

    I was suggesting that the sales people selling the warranties are doing exactly as they are instructed to do (by their own "upper management")... both when selling them and when honoring them. It seems that everything you are saying is based strictly on the language in the warranty...... which I would think you would know is not how it is being sold by the store in many cases.
    People still have a responsibility to act according to agreements they've previously agreed to, even if someone asks them to violate them and/or doesn't care if they do.
  18. #38  
    Originally posted by Robert K.

    I think that's pretty much just how places like BB and CC look at it. And I think that Kurt is choosing to ignore that side of the equation (I don't think he honestly believes that these stores and insurance companies are simply offering a valuable public service that is being abused... come on now).

    Regardless of what the fine print says, sales people often (verbally) sell these "warranties" as ways to upgrade your phone to newer models when they come out. Does anyone dispute that?

    I'm not really taking either side of the issue here... but it's hard to accept the premise that BB, CC, and these insurance companies are "victims". That's about the same as saying that people who (attempt to) count cards playing blackjack in Vegas are taking food off of those poor casino owner's dinner tables
    Very true! Sorry Kurt!!
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    People still have a responsibility to act according to agreements they've previously agreed to, even if someone asks them to violate them and/or doesn't care if they do.
    Ok... I think I now finally understand your position, although I don't agree with it. Lots of times with things like this there is legal gibberish that is there so they can cover themselves, but the "spirit" of it may be different... and it's the perogative of the business to enforce it stricty, or not to, as they see fit. Is it not?

    I don't see why it bothers you personally if BB and CC choose to claim that the warranties can be used for an "equipment upgrade" as an incentive to get customers to buy them (which they most certainly do). I just bought a 5 DVD changer at CompUSA a week ago (I had Christmas gift cards to use). The sales guy asked me if I wanted the extended warranty and the VERY FIRST thing he said was that I could exchange for a newer model when it came out. I said no, but I'm guessing that if I had read the legal language in what he was offering, it would've read just like what we've been talking about here. If I had taken him up on the warranty (which was $30... for only a $129 player), I most certainly would've held him to what he told me. And why shouldn't I? I'm sure he was only trying to do what he's been trained to do (sell sell sell).
    Robert
    Please visit my moblog, Robert-O-Rama
  20. #40  
    I agree with both Kurt and Robert.
    It is wrong of the companies to offer such a bogus warrenty (especially since they push it that hard)
    But it is also wrong to abuse that system..

    I was always tought 2 wrongs dont make a right...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions