View Poll Results: Do you care that your Treo 800w (or Treo Pro) is WiFi Certified?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 15.00%
  • No

    34 85.00%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 67
  1.    #21  
    Malatesta, why don't you tell all the Treo 800w owners using Cricket wireless, to go to a Sprint store when they have a problem with their device?

    I recommend you read this and put all your efforts to paint me as being childish to rest. Maybe act actual case will prove to you that Palm, not the carrier, is the responsible party.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Malatesta, why don't you tell all the Treo 800w owners using Cricket wireless, to go to a Sprint store when they have a problem with their device?
    You kill me.

    So you think Palm will serive your re-flashed Cricket 800w?

    Cricket does not sell nor support the 800w. And Palm won't support a 3rd party re-flashed device either. Using any custom ROM invalidates your warranty on any phone; same with modifying it to work on another CDMA service.
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    I recommend you read this and put all your efforts to paint me as being childish to rest. Maybe act actual case will prove to you that Palm, not the carrier, is the responsible party.
    Yes, Palm has a warranty and yes, they are responsible for some of this (where have I said otherwise?) but to suggest that Sprint has no role in this and is not responsible is silly too.

    Like I said: Sprint contracted the device, has their logo on it, sells it, advertises it, services it, offers tech support and can tell Palm to fix and change things.

    That is fact.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  3.    #23  
    And when all the SMOKE clears, the party holding the bag if PALM does not repair something like say for instance, THE GPS ISSUE IF SOME CUSTOMERS MADE MORE OF AN ISSUE ABOUT THAT, is Palm.

    Ultimately, Palm is the responsible party.

    What was Sprint's role in that class action lawsuit regarding repairs for Treo 600 and 650s?
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    And when all the SMOKE clears, the party holding the bag if PALM does not repair something like say for instance, THE GPS ISSUE IF SOME CUSTOMERS MADE MORE OF AN ISSUE ABOUT THAT, is Palm.

    Ultimately, Palm is the responsible party.

    What was Sprint's role in that class action lawsuit regarding repairs for Treo 600 and 650s?
    So bring a class action lawsuit already and see how far it gets you.

    If Palm is overcharging for repairs or they shouldn't be charging, that is a direct transaction with them. Carriers have nothing to do with that.

    Sprint is selling you a device that is not advertised as such. They have not pulled or recalled the device. So sue everyone and see what happens.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  5.    #25  
    Perhaps if you cite for me where customers successfully went after Sprint instead of the device maker.

    I'm not really initiating such, but if we're going to lay blame, it should be laid on the responsible party, Palm.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Can you show us where the WiFi alliance has botched a WiFi certification?
    Show me where the WiFi alliance saved a device (or the consumers from said horrible device) by a good Wifi cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Are you kidding in terms of poll vote numbers? You're talking about polls that have been up for months verses a new one that has been up for days. The fact most in this poll disagree with me is fine, it does not change my opinion regarding GPS. This poll was about WiFi .
    Boy, you're good at not reading, aren't ya?

    First off, my point was that people actually cared about GPS and battery life. They obviously don't about WiFi. So that actually would be in line with your opinion regarding GPS.

    Secondly, your right about the numbers. And since I posted about the numbers two additional people have answered the poll, both with "don't care".

    It's just not going your way, is it?

    When 84.62% (and counting) care less about a certification, that's a clear and obvious message that the certification ultimately means nothing.




    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Malatesta, why don't you tell all the Treo 800w owners using Cricket wireless, to go to a Sprint store when they have a problem with their device?
    If I slam a V8 into my 'cruiser, then roll up to Toyota and expect them to service it under warranty, should I get mad when they charge me?

    Come on, that's got to be one of the silliest statements you've ever made.


    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    I recommend you read this and put all your efforts to paint me as being childish to rest. Maybe act actual case will prove to you that Palm, not the carrier, is the responsible party.
    Perhaps you missed this crucial part of the settlement:

    WHAT CAN YOU GET FROM THE SETTLEMENT?
    Palm, Inc. has agreed to provide a cash rebate to Class Members who experienced two or more repairs or replacements in lieu of repair, who purchase a new Palm smartphone within a defined time period, and who send in a valid claim form.
    (Emphasis mine.)

    Remember what I said earlier about lawsuits and their costs being passed up and down the chain? You know the statement, the one you mocked me for and said I should talk to a law student about, because I clearly was wrong.

    Oh...wait...this settlement shows exactly that. Because now Palm is including the price of the settlement into purchasing a new phone. So they're passing the price of the settlement onto you. Yup, you get your $50 or $75 bucks, but only after you pay Sprint (who pays Palm) more money. Even if you're outside your 2 year agreement (which many people won't be), Palm still is doing just fine because Sprint/Verizon is the company that takes the loss on the phone. So instead of making money on the new phone you just purchased, they either take a small loss or no loss (and might even still make a bit of money, depending on how much a markup they have on the phone that you buy).

    If you ignore the expenses that Palm spent in court, they're actually getting *MORE* marketing out of this settlement (and probably more sales since lots of people will rush to buy a new phone and get their $50/$75 back) than they do with a manufacturers rebate. And--as they already state--the manufacturers rebate is not valid with any other offer/rebate (which is why I emphasized that they call the settlement a rebate above). So they hand you your $50 or $75, and reject your $100+ rebate.

    Clever, eh?

    So lets see here, Palm's actually making more money off the settlement (per phone), while you and Sprint are left footing the bill.

    And of course the lawyers all got rich off the thing, which is the only place Palm actually lost money.


    To put this into a real life example, I did not take advantage of this settlement for several reasons (one of which I thought it was a crock). The other reason was that I was only eligible for a 1 year discount ($75), not 2.

    So I go out and buy a $500 phone, get my $75 instant discount, get my $50 (I had a Treo 650) rebate from Palm, for a final price of $375. I'm not exactly saving any money here.


    Lets say I was outside of two years. Again, $500 phone, $150 instant discount, and my $50. Palm rejects the $100 mail in rebate because I already got another rebate, which legally is correct. I'm still paying $300.


    What I did in actuality was to wait a couple months until my 2 years was up. $500 phone, $150 instant rebate, $100 mail in rebate, for a grand total of $250.

    So I actually save the most money by *NOT* getting the settlement. Funny how that works.


    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Ultimately, Palm is the responsible party.
    That's true. But usually they will pass the costs on, either up or down the chain. See your own lawsuit for a perfect real life example of how that works.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Perhaps if you cite for me where customers successfully went after Sprint instead of the device maker.
    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...ca_sprint.html

    10 seconds of Google searching.


    There are a lot of funny things about that lawsuit.

    • The device manufacturers flash the phones for Sprint with Sprints "lock" in place (so it's actually the device manufacturer who's doing the locking).
    • Sprint would already willingly give you the information you needed to "unlock" your phone (provisioning information, MSL, etc).
    • No other (major) carrier will accept your unlocked phone, so "unlocking" it is meaningless.


    Yet another frivolous (and plain stupid) lawsuit.
  8.    #28  
    Yea, so if some disgruntled customers sue Palm for not doing right by the advertised GPS claims, it costs customers in the end. The added expense of my fictitious pre-sale GPS certification has been justified.

    Thanks Ebag333 .
  9.    #29  
    Ebag333, we're speaking about litigation in regards to product defects and repairs, not carrier network locks. But hey, it that works for you, it will work for you, not me. Keep searching and let me know if you come up with better, OK?
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Yea, so if some disgruntled customers sue Palm for not doing right by the advertised GPS claims, it costs customers in the end. The added expense of my fictitious pre-sale GPS certification has been justified.

    Thanks Ebag333 .
    Either way it costs consumers.

    Your pre-sales board will increase the cost of the device.

    You have *ZERO* evidence that your pre-sales board will do anything to solve the problem that came up with the 800w.


    So lets sum up your statements here:

    • You said that it was impossible for the chipset used in the 800w to do standalone GPS (despite the fact that Qualcomms own documentation states exactly that). (The *CHIPSET*. NOT the 800w.)
    • You said that Palm cannot "pass the buck" (my phrase) to Qualcomm if there is a problem (but it's okay for Sprint to pass the buck to Palm).
    • Because Mal stated that Sprint is the one who is supposed to service the phone's first (and Palm only if it falls under a warranty issue), you think that Cricket users should be able to have their phones serviced by Sprint.
    • You implied that a consumer lawsuit against Palm will solve issues (but your only "proof" towards that showed that Palm just sells more phones and probably makes more money in the process, and the consumers--you--pay more).
    • You claimed that people care about the WiFi certification, while over 85% of people (on your own poll) state they do not.
    • You claim that a pre-sale certification would have solved the issue with the GPS, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. (And not one single point of which you've addressed, instead ignoring it to focus on some other minor point.)
    • You assume correlation implies causation (one of many examples: The 800w's WiFi did not have problems. The 800w's WiFi was certified. Therefore the certification fixed all the problems.)



    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta
    Darnell, you have a lot to learn. Conversations with you are tedious and boring. I'm out.
    QFT
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Either way it costs consumers.

    Your pre-sales board will increase the cost of the device.

    You have *ZERO* evidence that your pre-sales board will do anything to solve the problem that came up with the 800w.
    At least the GPS might be working as advertised.


    [*]You said that it was impossible for the chipset used in the 800w to do standalone GPS (despite the fact that Qualcomms own documentation states exactly that). (The *CHIPSET*. NOT the 800w.)
    I said I think it's probably not doable. (The reason could be technical, legal or both.) I'm not holding my breath for Palm to prove me wrong. With each passing day they fail to. If they fix it, it would be a pleasant surprise. But so far, all they've done is provide a lame statement and deny customers a return under the 1 year warranty if they complain about GPS after 30 days.

    [*]You said that Palm cannot "pass the buck" (my phrase) to Qualcomm if there is a problem (but it's okay for Sprint to pass the buck to Palm).
    Yes, I've said Palm is the manufacturer and it falls on them. I've also provided proof where Palm was stuck with the legal hassle for product defects.

    [*]Because Mal stated that Sprint is the one who is supposed to service the phone's first (and Palm only if it falls under a warranty issue), you think that Cricket users should be able to have their phones serviced by Sprint.
    I asked Mal a question regarding his view of things. I never said I think such.

    [*]You implied that a consumer lawsuit against Palm will solve issues (but your only "proof" towards that showed that Palm just sells more phones and probably makes more money in the process, and the consumers--you--pay more).
    I've never suggested or implied a lawsuit would actually "solve" the issue, because if there was a lawsuit, I'd probably get a gift certificate and still have no stand alone GPS option. The device would not be "fixed", so it would not actually "solve" the issue. I've mentioned Palm's lack of dealing with the issue could result in something such as a lawsuit by some disgruntled customer. With my pre-sale GPS certification proposal, it's possible the device would have come out the door working as many of us felt it was advertised to perform.

    [*]You claimed that people care about the WiFi certification, while over 85% of people (on your own poll) state they do not.
    Right. And the WiFi works. The burden of proof is on you to show that the WiFi certification did nothing to help.

    [*]You claim that a pre-sale certification would have solved the issue with the GPS, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. (And not one single point of which you've addressed, instead ignoring it to focus on some other minor point.)
    I certainly think it likely would have helped. It might have resulted in a Treo 800w that was properly branded for the abilities of its GPS. The device does work within the scope of its WiFi certification.

    [*]You assume correlation implies causation (one of many examples: The 800w's WiFi did not have problems. The 800w's WiFi was certified. Therefore the certification fixed all the problems.)
    Could Palm have made a Treo 800w with working WiFi without a WiFi certification process, yes. Still I think it's beneficial. And they've flopped on the GPS in the Treo 800w. So I would not mind if a group that specialized in GPS was looking over their shoulder.

    I sure would like to take a peek at those pre-release user forums. There might be indications there that Palm was warned and ignored the warnings.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    [*]You said that it was impossible for the chipset used in the 800w to do standalone GPS (despite the fact that Qualcomms own documentation states exactly that). (The *CHIPSET*. NOT the 800w.)
    Statement pointless. a) Qualcomm's documentation does not constitute an advertising to consumers, Palms advertising brochure does. b) you and I are not privy to any agreement between Palm and Qualcomm as to what heir chip can be used for, so you have no idea whether Palm agreed to be constrained in its use; c) Certain Qualcomm chipsets are in fact constrained from certain uses despite documentation due to its settlement with Broadcom. The agreement is not public, but the one FACT reported is that the same chip used in device that was approved by the FCC before the settlement is not constrained. The 800w was designed before, beta before, but FCC approved after the settlement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    [*]You said that Palm cannot "pass the buck" (my phrase) to Qualcomm if there is a problem (but it's okay for Sprint to pass the buck to Palm).
    Complete nonsense. Palm cannot legally pass the buck to Qualcome any more than toyota tell a customer that the consumer needs to talk to a head gasket maker in Malaysia on a catastrophic engine failure on one week old car. In every state in the Union it is Toyota's responsibility.

    Sprint in this case is legally is a retailer of the device. They are not a maker. In the US makers are responsible for missing functions. Not retailers, especially retailers which did not advertise the functional, and certainly not parts vendors to the maker.

    No one is passing the buck. Darnell is explaining how product responsibility legally works in the United States.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    [*]Because Mal stated that Sprint is the one who is supposed to service the phone's first (and Palm only if it falls under a warranty issue), you think that Cricket users should be able to have their phones serviced by Sprint.
    False and Pointless argument. Sprint will service the device first if you have their third party insurance and extended warranty. Palm is responsible for service units, and is 100% responsible for missing function.

    Secondly since you can buy the device direct from Palm and not use it on Sprint, what about those buyers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    [*]You implied that a consumer lawsuit against Palm will solve issues (but your only "proof" towards that showed that Palm just sells more phones and probably makes more money in the process, and the consumers--you--pay more).
    Absurd. We are all owners. We already paid and paid for functions not present. Your argument is as if you go to a deli to buy a Ham and Cheese sandwich, and get just ham, that the deli should not give you a discount, refund or slice of ham, because that will cost you more as a consumer in the future. Specious.

    Analogy to your position: your company underpays this month. Your view is you are quibbling and hurting not just the company -- but yourself for asking for the amount owed? If they don't pay and you sue, you are "engaging in another frivolous lawsuit?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    [*]You claimed that people care about the WiFi certification, while over 85% of people (on your own poll) state they do not.
    False logic, and you missed the heart of the question. They don't care because 800W WIFI functions. If the 800w Wifi would not connect without first acquiring a tower signal each time, then people would be very concerned with certification! This is exactly the type of failure on the 800W "standalone GPS."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    [*]You claim that a pre-sale certification would have solved the issue with the GPS, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. (And not one single point of which you've addressed, instead ignoring it to focus on some other minor point.)
    Bizarre conclusion. There is ZERO evidence to the contrary. Not one iota. Palm simply would not have falsely advertised the feature if it didn;t pass as standalone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    [*]You assume correlation implies causation (one of many examples: The 800w's WiFi did not have problems. The 800w's WiFi was certified. Therefore the certification fixed all the problems.)[/LIST]
    Straw man. Darnell's position was not one of correlation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Yea and apparently Zero seconds of you reading it. it is on another subject altogether -- subsidy locks. Makers don't subsidy lock, providers do. The failure for the Standalone GPS to work on the 800w has zero to do with the service provider.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    Yes, Palm has a warranty and yes, they are responsible for some of this (where have I said otherwise?) but to suggest that Sprint has no role in this and is not responsible is silly too.

    Like I said: Sprint contracted the device, has their logo on it, sells it, advertises it, services it, offers tech support and can tell Palm to fix and change things.
    That is fact.
    You are wroing as well and it is wrong of you to call darnell "silly."

    Palm direct sells the device. Customers do buy the 800w with no pass though with sprint, and absolutely no responsibly of sprint to service the device one iota even if they use it on the sprint network.

    I had this exact case happen with a 700P I bought directly from Palm for use on Sprint that was DOA.

    There is a pressure point with Sprint, and owners should be insisting to Sprint that they pressure palm or any maker that markets and device without a feature.

    But you are wrong in assuming and asserting Sprint has any legal responsibility for a non network feature advertised by Palm, and notably not advertised by Sprint . They don't.

    Indeed Sprint told me they left the standalone GPS off of their advertising since it didn't pass their tests for it. They have no idea why Palm not only kept the descriptor but put it all the way near the top of their features in advertising direct to consumers.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    But you are wrong in assuming and asserting Sprint has any legal responsibility for a non network feature advertised by Palm, and notably not advertised by Sprint . They don't.

    Indeed Sprint told me they left the standalone GPS off of their advertising since it didn't pass their tests for it. They have no idea why Palm not only kept the descriptor but put it all the way near the top of their features in advertising direct to consumers.
    Wrong, wrong wrong...

    Guess what? Sprint lied to you and/or were blowing you off. But don't actually check up on their assertions! No no no...

    Sprint says: Autonomous GPS

    Palm says: Standalone GPS

    Everyone who knows about GPS knows Autonomous = Standalone

    Autonomous or Stand Alone

    The method involves using a GPS on its own with no additional correction information other that what is broadcast by the GPS system. Prior to May 2, 2000 accuracies obtained using this method weren't usually much better than 100m due to a US Department of Defense induced error called Selective Availability (SA). On May 2 SA was turned off and now accuracies are usually better than 10m.

    Autonomous receivers will attempt to correct the Ionospheric and Tropospheric errors bases on mathematical models which are very limited in their accuracy. They have no way of correcting for orbit errors, multipath or receiver noise.
    Sprint never even say their devices do "standalone". In fact, they only mention "GPS"...even on HTC devices which we know do standalone.

    Except the 800w which gets "autonomous" (standalone) actually mentioned in Sprint's marketing.

    Explain.

    From Sprint's Info Page on the 800w
    Last edited by Malatesta; 10/31/2008 at 01:31 AM.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    Sprint never even say their devices do "standalone". In fact, they only mention "GPS"...even on HTC devices which we know do standalone.

    Except the 800w which gets "autonomous" (standalone) actually mentioned in Sprint's marketing.

    Explain.
    Oops.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    Wrong, wrong wrong...

    Guess what? Sprint lied to you and/or were blowing you off. But don't actually check up on their assertions! No no no...
    You are bit confused. Nowhere does it say standalone, and it says autonomous as part of a sentence directly referring to their software and Sprint Navigation package

    What it says is: "Autonomous and simultaneous GPS using Sprint Navigation..."

    Again someone wrongly said Sprint claimed the device was "standalone." I pointed out the fact that Sprint does not use that term, Palm does. You point to a different term, which while similar can have many meanings, one does not find typically.

    Again the basic point is makers hold legal responsibility for the functioning of features on a device.

    Mal, I want to ask you two direct questions:

    1) do you support ebags thesis that it is standalone despite requiring priming by a CDMA satellite?

    2) Do you really think legally the retailer has more responsibility than the maker (you would be wrong to think this)?
    Last edited by aero; 10/31/2008 at 02:24 PM.
  17.    #37  
    Palm says:
    GPS Built-in GPS (standalone and assisted); Sprint NavigationSM; GPS-powered local search, maps, and navigation from the Today screen
    Sprint says: (click the "Full Feature List" tab)
    GPS Capable

    Autonomous and simultaneous GPS using Sprint Navigation for turn by turn directions, and points of interest searches.
    While Palm's statement is more direct about it, I also feel Sprint is making a claim to stand alone GPS, but I've debated how Sprint worded it in the past. I personally do see "autonomous" as "stand alone" or what's the point of Sprint mentioning the term "autonomous" with "simultaneous"?

    But regardless, the point still stands, that Palm is ultimately the party accountable when there are product defects and I'm the only one who has backed my claim up with an honestly applicable court case, that Palm settled out of court.

    Newegg.com sells the Treo 800w too. And their product specifications tab says the following:
    GPS Integrated - Built-in GPS (standalone and assisted); Sprint Navigation; GPS-powered local search, maps, and navigation from the Today screen
    Newegg.com pretty much copied Palm's spec statement on the feature.

    In the end, neither Newegg.com or Sprint are liable for the GPS defect, Palm is!
  18.    #38  
    Sprint services the products they sell as a convenience to customers, so the customer might stick with Sprint.

    Palm services the products THEY MAKE, because they are the agent that manufactured and warrants the device against defects.

    So when it comes to actual liability, the maker of the device who warrants against defects is accountable, Palm.

    And anyone who disagrees with anything I said above, please show me the Sprint Treo 800w warranty paperwork. I seem to have not received such documentation from Sprint.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Sprint services the products they sell as a convenience to customers, so the customer might stick with Sprint.

    Palm services the products THEY MAKE, because they are the agent that manufactured and warrants the device against defects.

    So when it comes to actual liability, the maker of the device who warrants against defects is accountable, Palm.

    And anyone who disagrees with anything I said above, please show me the Sprint Treo 800w warranty paperwork. I seem to have not received such documentation from Sprint.
    You have it exactly right.

    The confusion derives from statements like Malatesta's on Sprint being "the customer." I want to say that from a general point of view, from the point of view of its CDMA functionality, and from the point of view of Palms expectations as to sales this is 100% TRUE. So when Mal has made this point when it comes to handsets and their sales viability he has pointed out an important and accurate way to see it.

    But this is very different from the legal responsibility for warranty, etc. In that sense you bought a Palm product. What Sprint's logo on the product shows is that it will work with Sprint's CDMA network.
  20. #40  
    Doesn't matter really to me...
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions