Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 58 of 58
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Phone Diva View Post
    For Cadman: Control data costs? If you're on Sprint, the $15 all you can use data is actually a very good deal.
    Better than very good...$45 vs. $15 for same technology is called exceptional and Sprint has more EVDO markets than VZ, also @ 1900Mhz which results in more consistant broadband speeds and performance as apposed to VZ operating on their capped 800Mhz network. Less money with more bang for the buck. Just lacking on voice coverage in the land of deliverance.
    at&t iPhone3G
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by KStewart View Post
    Better than very good...$45 vs. $15 for same technology is called exceptional and Sprint has more EVDO markets than VZ, also @ 1900Mhz which results in more consistant broadband speeds and performance as apposed to VZ operating on their capped 800Mhz network. Less money with more bang for the buck. Just lacking on voice coverage in the land of deliverance.
    Thats why I stick with Verizon. In my area, it has superior coverage than sprint with voice.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by cadman View Post
    Thats why I stick with Verizon. In my area, it has superior coverage than sprint with voice.
    I have gotten so pissed with Sprint dropping calls around my house and in certain areas around my town cadman, I can't count how many times I have thought about going to Verizon but the pricing always stops me dead in my tracks and I never fallow thru. Sprint is so obsessed with investing in their future 4G network, they need to invest in expanding their quality network into rural areas. Whats the use in trying to corner the the market for data/broadband when cell companies are mostly about the voice end of things...the average person just needs a cell to talk on. WiMax and the future of 4G may be great but being able to hold a call anywhere on the planet would be a nice common denominator for a start.
    at&t iPhone3G
  4.    #44  
    Thats what puzzles me. People would rather save $$ on their data plan and sacrifice voice services. I mean the average user uses a cell phone for placing calls, not checking emails, etc. It would have been nice when Sprint and Nextel merged that one only offered smartphones and aggressive plans, and then the other could concentrate on the voice network.
  5. #45  
    Sprint seems to be banking on being a power house for the data market and for a good price. Don't get me wrong, my coverage isn't that bad...I just get pissy when I have days where I drop calls when I am in the middle of a nice discussion. Most of the time in my area Sprint is good and I only have dropped calls at home in the basement. Sprint's network is a quality network being that its an consistant all digital fiber optic 1900Mhz network built from the ground up which in a good coverage area gives you pin drop crystal clear calls and the best of EVDO over Verizon in comparison. Verizon is a bigger technologically inconsistant network. I like Sprint inspite of CS and voice coverage because their network to me represents top quality and the best CDMA has to offer and if 4G WiMax is a hit that will bring it full circle...I am just awaiting them to expand their voice coverage more and Sprint has some good plans that you get a lot of bite out of for the buck. And I think people would rather save on data because all in all Sprints network isn't all that bad, just some dead spots here and their with dropped calls but in some areas people have better coverage with Sprint than Verizon. Sprint isn't that bad when compared to ATT and Tmobile, etc. If you weigh everything out...you got good coverage and you utilize data, then you should go with Sprint in your area.
    at&t iPhone3G
  6. #46  
    All current Sprint voice plans include "unlimited" roaming, often on Verizon, so I'm sure that Sprint believes that it is addressing the worse native coverage in that way, at least for now. One of the original promises of the Nextel merger was that Sprint would be then able to co-locate CDMA equipment in the Nextel towers, improving coverage in that way. It doesn't seem like Sprint has been able to do that very much up til now, but hopefully in the near future, particularly as IDEN fades. Nevertheless, I agree that Sprint clearly has, on the average, worse coverage than Verizon and that roaming doesn't totally make up for it. But probably for many customers, and for myself, its coverage is "good enough" for most of my usage and the data (and VERY favorable retention) rates make Sprint a "bestbuy". Certainly the SERO plans are totally unbeatable.
  7.    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by neurocutie View Post
    All current Sprint voice plans include "unlimited" roaming, often on Verizon, so I'm sure that Sprint believes that it is addressing the worse native coverage in that way, at least for now. One of the original promises of the Nextel merger was that Sprint would be then able to co-locate CDMA equipment in the Nextel towers, improving coverage in that way. It doesn't seem like Sprint has been able to do that very much up til now, but hopefully in the near future, particularly as IDEN fades. Nevertheless, I agree that Sprint clearly has, on the average, worse coverage than Verizon and that roaming doesn't totally make up for it. But probably for many customers, and for myself, its coverage is "good enough" for most of my usage and the data (and VERY favorable retention) rates make Sprint a "bestbuy". Certainly the SERO plans are totally unbeatable.
    Good points.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by KStewart View Post
    Sprint isn't that bad when compared to ATT and Tmobile, etc. If you weigh everything out...you got good coverage and you utilize data, then you should go with Sprint in your area.
    Maybe for you, but ATT's reception is way better than Sprint in my area!! Unless something's changed. ATT 3G calls are the best!

    T-Mobile I agree is mediocre!!

    I would never have left Sprint if they didn't have constant billing errors and crappy CS. The low price wasn't worth it in the end. ATT has done some dumb things too, but their CS is very helpful. So far, knock on wood, LOL!
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by cadman View Post
    I am a heavy palm user, but do not use data for anything. Tried it, didn't like it.
    What if the only data allowed by the Centro was MMS? Maybe a modified version to allow big attachments. All I want is a palm device with a built in radio. I know cell carriers would lose out on this, but why not release a smartphone without data?
    I can never understand this kind of mentality...yes YOU may not need it, but why then would it make sense to remove a feature that's on every modern phone? The way I see it, it would probably be harder for Palm to make a device without data than it is to keep what's already there.

    If the only data allowed by the Centro was MMS, there'd be quite a few people who'd look at it say "Ok, it can do all this stuff, but I can't check my email like my old RAZR/A900/Other basic phone allowed me to do.

    Basically, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
  10. jazzdoc's Avatar
    Posts
    137 Posts
    Global Posts
    144 Global Posts
    #50  
    My son has a data capable phone with ATT, but no data plan. He simply cannot connect. No concerns for me as there is no possibility of an accidental (expensive) connection. On the other hand my daughter suddenly started sending messages instead of calling everyone on the planet. If you have a pay-per-message plan you can loose your shirt. I'm pretty sure you can choose a plan with no messaging as well and simply not worry about it...
    Casio BOSS->Palm Pilot Professional->Palm M500->Treo 600-> Treo 680->Treo Pro (TP) ->HP Veer<->HP TP<->Pre3<>HP TP 4G
    Conn 6H-> Bach 36->Bach 16L (high Bb plays really flat?(fixed thanks to **** Akright))-> New York Bach 6viii
    Scalpel->Scope->Aesop->Hermes->Sidne->Davinci S>Davinci Si
  11.    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Trevante View Post
    I can never understand this kind of mentality...yes YOU may not need it, but why then would it make sense to remove a feature that's on every modern phone? The way I see it, it would probably be harder for Palm to make a device without data than it is to keep what's already there.

    If the only data allowed by the Centro was MMS, there'd be quite a few people who'd look at it say "Ok, it can do all this stuff, but I can't check my email like my old RAZR/A900/Other basic phone allowed me to do.

    Basically, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
    Um MY mentality, is with a razr, etc. checking email is $15.00 on verizon as opposed to $47.00 +/- on Verizon with a smartphone. All I am saying is there a way to separate the two data usages. If I give my kids a treo or similar device down the road, I want him to have multimedia capabilities, but not a data plan that can connect without you realizing it.
    So you would buy a $2000.00 desktop computer because Dell makes it? Hey I may not need 4g of ram but why be without it? Same principle. If price is in fact lower than other treos, then why would you expect it to have the same features?
    But its MY mentality.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by cadman View Post
    Um MY mentality, is with a razr, etc. checking email is $15.00 on verizon as opposed to $47.00 +/- on Verizon with a smartphone. All I am saying is there a way to separate the two data usages. If I give my kids a treo or similar device down the road, I want him to have multimedia capabilities, but not a data plan that can connect without you realizing it.
    Sounds to me like your problem is with Verizon, not the Treo itself.
  13.    #53  
    Yes and no. I have no problem having the ability to have data on my phone. Do I believe its crazy to have data for consumer phones at a different price, yes. People are talking what apps to include, not to include at this price and I thought eliminating data was an even better way of introducing the younger crowd into the smartphone market and not worry about big fees. Thats all.
    Its just that every treo is the same thing. Lets remove an antenna, add a few apps for free improve BT and we have a new model. If its going after a different demographic, then really change the device, not just cosmetic.
    Last edited by cadman; 09/04/2007 at 08:56 PM.
  14. #54  
    You can disable data on the phone. Just change the settings so it cannot connect. Easiest fix I know of.
  15. #55  
    truly user/geographic specific. sprint has done a lot in my area to improve itself. it used to be that i couldn't make a call from any of my popular calling areas (home, work, places of play). verizon on the other hand (which i also have) was hands down the areas best coverage provider. i now have TMobile as well and I have been nothing but impressed with their coverage areas where i am. i can say the same about AT&T in my area given that we also own an iPhone. does this work for all of you? probably not but i bet that it's safe to say that verizon does offer the best coverage area across most metropolitan and suburban regions.
    Blackberry Pearl (AT&T), Apple 3G iPhone,
    owned and used: Treo 750 (WM5, Cingular)
    T680 unlocked (T-Mo), T700wx, T700w, T650, T600
    ppc6600, i730, htc mogul, BB Bold, Curve
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by cadman View Post
    Um MY mentality, is with a razr, etc. checking email is $15.00 on verizon as opposed to $47.00 +/- on Verizon with a smartphone. All I am saying is there a way to separate the two data usages. If I give my kids a treo or similar device down the road, I want him to have multimedia capabilities, but not a data plan that can connect without you realizing it.
    So you would buy a $2000.00 desktop computer because Dell makes it? Hey I may not need 4g of ram but why be without it? Same principle. If price is in fact lower than other treos, then why would you expect it to have the same features?
    But its MY mentality.
    1. Well that's a problem with Verizon. As a Sprint customer, checking my email costs me $15 regardless of what phone I have. There's no reason to think that because Verizon charges $50 for data that the Centro shouldn't have it. And if you're worried about it connecting accidentally, well I'm pretty sure my 650 can warn me before it connects to the internet, so it's not like your son wouldn't know before it connected.

    I think the logic behind Verizon's pricing is that they don't expect you to use as much bandwidth on a regular phone as you might on a smartphone that is designed especially for internet connectivity.

    2. I wouldn't be dumb enough to buy a $2000 Dell. Hell, I wouldn't be dumb enough to buy a Dell.

    Your analogy doesn't work at all. Firstly because your logic is wrong, and secondly because it's not the same type of comparison.

    The PalmOS is already built with data services in mind. Now if Palm were to try and disable or remove that, they would have to:

    • Remove or disable data from the hardware. This would require them to either buy CDMA/GSM radios that aren't capable of data, or to buy data enabled CDMA/GSM radios and then disable it in software. This of course would just lead to people trying to hack the Centro to enable data.
    • Remove it from the operating system. Once again, if it's already there, why have to take time to remove it and re-program the OS? Not to mention it would cause buggyness with applications....


    Doing all that would eventually cost Palm lots of time and money. And keep in mind, if the Centro is really meant to appeal to a younger crowd, then it would make even more sense to have data services. IM, audio/video streaming, and light web browsing are some of the things I could see an average teenager doing on a Centro.

    The difference between making a computer with 2GB of RAM (a good amount to have nowadays) and 4GB of RAM (only needed if you run RAM hungry apps like Photoshop) is simply how many memory sticks you put in the memory slot. It doesn't take 5 minutes to go from 4GB to 2GB to 4GB or to any other memory configuration you want. I'm pretty sure it'd take Palm more than 5 minutes to remove data from the Centro.

    Besides, no one makes you buy a Dell with 4GB of RAM, it's YOU who gets to choose how much RAM you want in your computer. But can you pick whether or not your device is capable of data services?

    And also, let's say that somehow Palm did manage to remove data from the Centro and save themselves some money on production costs....do you really think they'd pass those small savings down to the consumer, or that they'd reap the extra profits? Palm is a business and I'm quite positive they'd take the extra profits. The idea of huge savings coming from data removal is very unlikely.
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by Trevante View Post
    1. Well that's a problem with Verizon. As a Sprint customer, checking my email costs me $15 regardless of what phone I have. There's no reason to think that because Verizon charges $50 for data that the Centro shouldn't have it. And if you're worried about it connecting accidentally, well I'm pretty sure my 650 can warn me before it connects to the internet, so it's not like your son wouldn't know before it connected. Do a search and you will see many posts from about two years ago when the 650 came out that people were connected and didn't realize i.t

    I think the logic behind Verizon's pricing is that they don't expect you to use as much bandwidth on a regular phone as you might on a smartphone that is designed especially for internet connectivity. Agreed.

    2. I wouldn't be dumb enough to buy a $2000 Dell. Hell, I wouldn't be dumb enough to buy a Dell. I guess I am dumb because the Dell I bought is one of a select few machines approved to run programs I run exclusively- Autocad, Revit and Photoshop, with the min.requirement for ram is 1g.

    Your analogy doesn't work at all. Firstly because your logic is wrong, and secondly because it's not the same type of comparison.

    The PalmOS is already built with data services in mind. Now if Palm were to try and disable or remove that, they would have to:

    • Remove or disable data from the hardware. This would require them to either buy CDMA/GSM radios that aren't capable of data, or to buy data enabled CDMA/GSM radios and then disable it in software. This of course would just lead to people trying to hack the Centro to enable data.
    • Remove it from the operating system. Once again, if it's already there, why have to take time to remove it and re-program the OS? Not to mention it would cause buggyness with applications.... Agreed.


    Doing all that would eventually cost Palm lots of time and money. And keep in mind, if the Centro is really meant to appeal to a younger crowd, then it would make even more sense to have data services. IM, audio/video streaming, and light web browsing are some of the things I could see an average teenager doing on a Centro. Again good points.

    The difference between making a computer with 2GB of RAM (a good amount to have nowadays) and 4GB of RAM (only needed if you run RAM hungry apps like Photoshop) is simply how many memory sticks you put in the memory slot. It doesn't take 5 minutes to go from 4GB to 2GB to 4GB or to any other memory configuration you want. I'm pretty sure it'd take Palm more than 5 minutes to remove data from the Centro.

    Besides, no one makes you buy a Dell with 4GB of RAM, it's YOU who gets to choose how much RAM you want in your computer. But can you pick whether or not your device is capable of data services? Thats why I thought they have different tiered models. Wasn't that the intent with 680?

    And also, let's say that somehow Palm did manage to remove data from the Centro and save themselves some money on production costs....do you really think they'd pass those small savings down to the consumer, or that they'd reap the extra profits? Palm is a business and I'm quite positive they'd take the extra profits. The idea of huge savings coming from data removal is very unlikely.
    Good point. Everyone benefits/profits from the data usage.

    I just threw the idea out there if they were going after a lower price and different demographic. That is all.
    Last edited by cadman; 09/05/2007 at 06:52 AM.
  18. #58  
    The bottom line is, if you are with Verizon, most teenagers (and/or parents), will not want to pay $45 for data services. These teenagers (I have two, one who had a Treo but got rid of it because he couldn't send and receive picture messages), don't necessarily need the Internet, but they want MMS. So, few teenagers on Verizon will get the Centro because they aren't going to pay $45 and they can't get MMS. Of course, right now it is a mute point because the Centro is coming to Sprint first.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions