Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 264
  1.    #61  
    ^ That makes sense.
    I was just confused why Palm doesn't want to pick up the tab on this.
    If these guys were authorized, and missed the memo, they should still be able to send them back to Palm.
    Why wouldn't Palm let these Authorized dealers send them back to Palm?
    Just call me Berd.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    ^ That makes sense.
    I was just confused why Palm doesn't want to pick up the tab on this.
    If these guys were authorized, and missed the memo, they should still be able to send them back to Palm.
    Why wouldn't Palm let these Authorized dealers send them back to Palm?
    mystery within a mystery

    I have no idea why
    • There are 1.03s on the market
    • Why 1.03's are not warrantied
    • What the difference is with 1.03 and 1.04
    • Why they can't be reflashed/sent back

    the whole situation is baffling--all I know is the only people suffering are Palm's customers

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  3.    #63  
    A total frustrating joke either way.
    Shame on someone
    Just call me Berd.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by retropia View Post
    Monkeybiz was the seller who told me he didn't want to take the phone out of the box and run setup, because then it would no longer be "unopened." Why not ask him if he will give you the serial number? Then you could contact Palm and check with them.

    I've noticed over the last couple of days, Idreamofwireless has been running a bunch of Treo Pro auctions, maybe 8 to 10 at a time. They are short-run, also, like 12- to 24-hour auctions. It's been pushing prices down.
    I asked him to provide a S/N or confirm what firmware it is, he still has not done so and claims that he does not have the time for back and forth emails so at this time i haven't submitted any payments to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by ivhs72 View Post
    In a situation like you describe, the seller has the ability to file a dispute 7 days after the sale. At that time, if you haven't paid, it will be up to eBay decide what to do. The could supsend you, force you to honor your payment, and even suspend you for non-payment. In theory, you should not have bid and/or purchased the phone till you were sure what the software version was. Did you ask the seller these questions before the auction ended? The fine print of when you place a bid is that you are entering into a legal and binding contract. It would almost be easier to pay for the phone and see if it is a 1.03 or 1.04. If it is a 1.03, you can file a claim with PayPal for him selling an item that is not as described, ie, can't get warranty, mfg. won't service it, etc. My years of being on both ends of a PayPal dispute have told me that you would have a better chance of disputing it after paying than not paying for it at all. Another option is to just contact the seller and ask him to be released from you bid, and have him cancel the auction. I've done that for buyers in the past when they have accidentally purchased two of my items by mistake. Just my 2 cents worth. Good luck.



    Hey thanks for the tip, i'm not sure which route to go at this point. For the price i got it at i can take the chance on the pro regardless of the software however i still think he and the other sellers do have an obligation to state what firmware it is and i'm sure he is aware of the firmware recall issue as other's have stated that they have contacted him about it so its not like he doesn't know that the version with 1.03 is unsupported by the manufacturer. Your'e right i just might contact him and tell him release me from the bid. Hmm... Decisions..... decisions...
    Last edited by champagne609; 04/23/2009 at 05:07 PM.
    Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 700> Treo 755 >Treo 800w> HTC Diamond> Palm Treo Pro > HTC Touch Pro > Blackberry Bold > HTC Touch Pro 2 & Blackberry Tour
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    Most of these Treo Pro sales are coming from sellers who for the most part only sell cell phones, so they are most likely authorized resellers of such devices (as opposed to some individual just off loading a phone or 2).

    That's why I'm skeptical about the claim that these are "stolen". These guys are also selling Touch Pros, Moguls, Diamonds, Blackberries, etc. Why assume that this one model is "stolen" as opposed to just received shipment that was just never sent back to Palm? Maybe not everyone got the "BestBuy memo"...

    That seems a more plausible explanation than "they're stolen but the police are not involved at all". Either that or selling stolen Palm property is very easy and consequence free
    I think you are a 100% correct about this. The one thing i did investigate with these sellers is their ebay store and low and behold they do have a large inventory of other palm, blackberries, samsung etc phones so stolen is out of the question. Furthermore if they were stolen Sprint would not activate them due to the ESN's being flagged. Also i'm sure this would have been headline news if stolen as all publicity is good publicity and palm sure could use it right now.
    Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 700> Treo 755 >Treo 800w> HTC Diamond> Palm Treo Pro > HTC Touch Pro > Blackberry Bold > HTC Touch Pro 2 & Blackberry Tour
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post

    ...Second, why would Palm punish customers by not supporting individual phones but I dunno, let people on eBay sell stolen property with no interference or repercussions? Is Palm not aware of law enforcement? lol

    ...But if they are stolen, then Palm is still at fault here for taking out on the customer and not prosecuting or halting sales of stolen property. That's just bad business. I mean put out a friggin' press release or something and protect your customers--not that hard.
    It's no way Palms fault. If someone steals a new phone from your car and sells it to me on EBay for $200. I should somehow get support from Palm because I am now the customer? That doesn't make any sense to me.

    An investigation into any type of major theft could take months.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    It's no way Palms fault. If someone steals a new phone from your car and sells it to me on EBay for $200. I should somehow get support from Palm because I am now the customer? That doesn't make any sense to me.

    An investigation into any type of major theft could take months.
    Thats not true, because just as easily as they refuse warranty on the phone and can know based on S/N ESN# etc if it was stolen they would have contacted Sprint and flagged the account and customers would not be able to activate them at all. Believe if it was stolen no way you would be able to activate it and in this day and age of the internet nothing is a secret, this would be out there to the public to deter them from purchasing illegal products. Palm and Sprint could also be held liable for not notifying the public of this. But being that its not stolen and as long as you have TEP you should be covered under sprint.
    Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 700> Treo 755 >Treo 800w> HTC Diamond> Palm Treo Pro > HTC Touch Pro > Blackberry Bold > HTC Touch Pro 2 & Blackberry Tour
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by champagne609 View Post
    Thats not true, because just as easily as they refuse warranty on the phone and can know based on S/N ESN# etc if it was stolen they would have contacted Sprint and flagged the account and customers would not be able to activate them.
    They could still be sorting that out. There could be confusion on which were legitimately purchased and which ones weren't.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    They could still be sorting that out. There could be confusion on which were legitimately purchased and which ones weren't.
    I understand what you are saying but thats not true. I have dealt with situations like these before and every inventory has serial numbers so when you have an inventory check whichever item is missing and not in the receipts as sales would come up as stolen and they could flag those S/N for no activation.
    Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 700> Treo 755 >Treo 800w> HTC Diamond> Palm Treo Pro > HTC Touch Pro > Blackberry Bold > HTC Touch Pro 2 & Blackberry Tour
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by champagne609 View Post
    I understand what you are saying but thats not true. I have dealt with situations like these before and every inventory has serial numbers so when you have an inventory check whichever item is missing and not in the receipts as sales would come up as stolen and they could flag those S/N for no activation.
    that's a very good point: if they know the S/N for 1.03s are have flagged those for "no warranty" then they should very well know if a group of device have been stolen. And very true: Sprint will block an ESN from being activated if stolen, yet that has not happened.

    should Palm support "stolen" phones? I really don't think that is the case here and if you do have stolen property then the least Palm could do it tell you that! It seems though it is just a blanket "all 1.03s are not covered" type situation and even there...they don't have the decency to say why they won't support it or offer a remedy. if they won't offer support then they should not even allow you to activate the phone! that would cause some waves.

    that's just nonsense. most people here just want an explanation.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  11. #71  
    They may not be able to give an answer at this point in time due to legal reasons. Nobody knows, it maybe a criminal legal reason or maybe civil legal reason.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  12. #72  
    My Ebay 1.03 TP happens to be the best phone I have ever used.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by gordec View Post
    My Ebay 1.03 TP happens to be the best phone I have ever used.
    The pro is a nice phone. Nicest phone I have ever had.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by gordec View Post
    My Ebay 1.03 TP happens to be the best phone I have ever used.
    Well i'm glad to hear that as i'm making tough decision wether to get it. The one i won on ebay is more than likely a 1.03 version. Just deciding on whether to get it as i got it for a really great price. It's funny that there is this issue going on and the only real difference i the two mb of ram.
    Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 700> Treo 755 >Treo 800w> HTC Diamond> Palm Treo Pro > HTC Touch Pro > Blackberry Bold > HTC Touch Pro 2 & Blackberry Tour
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by gordec View Post
    My Ebay 1.03 TP happens to be the best phone I have ever used.
    I agree it's a great phone, the best I've used in years, and well worth the price. Hopefully you'll be able to get support/service when you need it. Have you registered it with Palm? If you do and they accept your registration, that should obligate them to supporting it.

    Phones: Sprint Blackberry Bold 9650, Sprint Blackberry Tour 9630, Nextel Blackberry 8350i Curve (Everything Plus Family Data 1600)



    "When I die bury me deep, put two speakers at my feet, a pair of ear phones on my head, and always play The Grateful Dead."
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by ivhs72 View Post
    First off, my experience on eBay started in December of 1995, and I registered in January 1996. I've suffered through their growing pains (I can remember when you could only post 20 items a month, and that was only when your feedback reached a certain level). I did know how to contact previous buyers, I just didn't feel that I needed to advertise my knowledge of how their system works. As for what eBay's intentions are, I suggest that you read their links that have been posted here regarding transaction interference and privacy, as well as reading the user agreement that you signed to buy and sell on their site.
    It is not some kind of secret on how to contract prior buyers, that is why I was shocked at your claim it could not be done. It is done, it can be done, and people do it. It is not a violation of ebay policy. You keep saying it is a violation yet have posted nothing that says it is. You are posting links that say nothing about it, in fact they list what is prohibited and exclude asking the questions and the type of discussion I mentioned.

    [QUOTE=ivhs72;1587815
    If you're concerned about the ethics of the sellers, why have you not contacted eBay about them? [/QUOTE]
    I don't need to, I have contacted Palm. They know more about this and the legality than ebay. I think some of the buyers of 1.03 that I contacted are also contacting Palm.

    A number of the sellers of course are lying since one large seller indicated to me that Palm will update the software.

    What I can say from what I have learned is that it is likely a big chunk of these are advocates models that never went to the stores.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by champagne609 View Post
    I have dealt with situations like these before and every inventory has serial numbers so when you have an inventory check whichever item is missing and not in the receipts as sales would come up as stolen and they could flag those S/N for no activation.
    I have dealt with situations like this as well and you don't have it exactly right. Investigating this kind of things takes a very long time. And there are many places where the inventory could have dropped out of the line into the gray market and several of them are not during Palm or Sprint possession.

    I think something else is going on, I think these are a big chunk destined to be reflashed and then dropped out of inventory and written off. If the owner or FOB holder took the write down or an insurance the claim they really don't want to follow it up
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    I have dealt with situations like this as well and you don't have it exactly right. Investigating this kind of things takes a very long time. And there are many places where the inventory could have dropped out of the line into the gray market and several of them are not during Palm or Sprint possession.

    I think something else is going on, I think these are a big chunk destined to be reflashed and then dropped out of inventory and written off. If the owner or FOB holder took the write down or an insurance the claim they really don't want to follow it up
    I think you missed my point. When dealing with a stolen phone or phones no matter what the quantity is, the length of an investigation is irrelevant in determining whether or not the phone is able to be activated. Once the item is reported as stolen by the owner or manufacturer or retailer it will under no circumstances be activated by Sprint. As a matter of fact it would immediately be flagged in the system and would not be able to be activated "Immediately". Once the buyer of that stolen phone calls with the ESN # to activate it they would be notified of the situation. If the 1.03 phones were truly stolen they would have first been to reported as stolen and the ESN's would be flagged and shown in the system as stolen and would never be activated. Then an investigation would begin in determining who, where, what and how this happened. The length of this investigation would have no bearing on whether these phones would be able to be activated by a third party. In the case of the 1.03 phones that is not what is happening. The phones are not coming up as stolen and are being activated by Sprint which means there is another issue at hand which is not serious enough to stop Sprint from activating them even though Palm claims that they will not provide warranty on them.
    Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 700> Treo 755 >Treo 800w> HTC Diamond> Palm Treo Pro > HTC Touch Pro > Blackberry Bold > HTC Touch Pro 2 & Blackberry Tour
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by champagne609 View Post
    I think you missed my point. When dealing with a stolen phone or phones no matter what the quantity is, the length of an investigation is irrelevant in determining whether or not the phone is able to be activated. .
    We know a million new Palm phones were stolen from a third party, most likely HTC or one of HTC distributors. It may take a very very long time to determine which were stolen, which got legitimately distributed etc. A million ESNs which may not be in series or in which series may include legit sold handsets is a heck of a thing to just throw into the database.

    We are talkign about a claim by Palm a few weeks back of $5 million dollars in handsets stolen from Palm when they were not under Palms control.
    Right now of course Palm doesn't own the stolen phones so they wold not be reporting the stolen numbers. the insurance company owns the srolen phones and they maybe trying to get them back.

    Again I am not saying these are the stolen ones, they may be another off channel acquisition of gray market product. I can tell you for certain the sellers are not authorized distributors. But the fact is there are one million new palm phones stolen and somewhere right now. and that is a highly unusual circumstance. given the timing of the theft and the delays in distributing the Pro -- it is very possible they are Palm Pros -- and if so they would have 1.03 software!

    I think another possibility is that these were a big chunk ( about 1000) destined to be sent for reflash that were not sent and may have been written off as loss outside of theft.

    Quote Originally Posted by champagne609 View Post
    The phones are not coming up as stolen and are being activated by Sprint which means there is another issue at hand which is not serious enough to stop Sprint from activating them even though Palm claims that they will not provide warranty on them.
    Again they might not be reported as stolen yet on the database. the owner, ie the insurance company, may not have gotten to that yet. Sprint doesn't care, they sell contracts. Palm would need a serious reason to deny warranty.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    We know a million new Palm phones were stolen from a third party, most likely HTC or one of HTC distributors...

    We are talkign about a claim by Palm a few weeks back of $5 million dollars in handsets stolen from Palm when they were not under Palms control.
    Right now of course Palm doesn't own the stolen phones so they wold not be reporting the stolen numbers. the insurance company owns the srolen phones and they maybe trying to get them back.

    ...But the fact is there are one million new palm phones stolen and somewhere right now. and that is a highly unusual circumstance. given the timing of the theft and the delays in distributing the Pro -- it is very possible they are Palm Pros -- and if so they would have 1.03 software!
    Aero, you have no evidence to back up your claims. All Palm said during the conference call was
    Our GAAP reporting also reflects a $5.0 million casualty loss in Q3 from a theft which occurred at one of our third-party operated warehouses.
    Nothing about "one million new palm phones stolen"--for all we know this could have been an accessory warehouse or a mix. Fact is, we just don't know the details and you're not helping by throwing out made up numbers with a dash of heavy speculation.

    Either way, it still doesn't make sense: why "flag" phones for no warranty support, but let them be activated? Why when you call Sprint or Palm with a 1.03 they don't even bother to ask where you got it from? Seems like a **** poor way to run an "investigation". They seem completely uninterested.

    Until Palm or Sprint say something diffinitive, I think it is better for the forums for people to not speculate on this issue.

    If people are concerned: don't buy a 1.03 and contact an eBay seller before the auction ends to verify. Nothing more to say on the issue really.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions