Cingular cell phone service - Cingular - dropped calls

Author

Cingular - dropped calls - replaced SIM now the RAZR...

LiRM

2006-09-07, 7:33 am

I've got a Moto RAZR and have been having so many problems with
dropped calls, it made the phone practically non usable.

Cingular suggested replacing the SIM. Did that. No improvement.

Then they sent me a new RAZR. Am still in testing mode (have had it a
day), but it still seems to be dropping calls.

Bottom line: I haven't heard or read these kinds of reports from
other RAZR users, so I can only assume it's a Cingular issue.

I am new to Cingular (dropped Verizon because they had disabled the BT
function of using the RAZR as a modem) - is there network this bad
that I literally can't use this damn phone for more then 2 or 3
minutes without it dropping a call?

I can't imagine a carrier being this bad. Verizon had great network
service, but I just couldn't go with their brand of the RAZR with the
modem disabled - an incredibly stupid move on their part if you ask me
(or maybe just a money making scheme or more likely to get people to
use their crappy web services).

I'm almost sorry I left Verizon if the service on Cingular is this
bad.

Is it just me - or my phone - or my area - or is Cingular that bad a
service provider?

marka2k

2006-09-07, 10:33 am

Which area are you in?

"LiRM" <LiRM@unicomp.com> wrote in message
news:1120g25sp02i1tq
0r4hn72uapfiohirqou@
4ax.com...
> I've got a Moto RAZR and have been having so many problems with
> dropped calls, it made the phone practically non usable.
>
> Cingular suggested replacing the SIM. Did that. No improvement.
>
> Then they sent me a new RAZR. Am still in testing mode (have had it a
> day), but it still seems to be dropping calls.
>
> Bottom line: I haven't heard or read these kinds of reports from
> other RAZR users, so I can only assume it's a Cingular issue.
>
> I am new to Cingular (dropped Verizon because they had disabled the BT
> function of using the RAZR as a modem) - is there network this bad
> that I literally can't use this damn phone for more then 2 or 3
> minutes without it dropping a call?
>
> I can't imagine a carrier being this bad. Verizon had great network
> service, but I just couldn't go with their brand of the RAZR with the
> modem disabled - an incredibly stupid move on their part if you ask me
> (or maybe just a money making scheme or more likely to get people to
> use their crappy web services).
>
> I'm almost sorry I left Verizon if the service on Cingular is this
> bad.
>
> Is it just me - or my phone - or my area - or is Cingular that bad a
> service provider?
>

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-07, 10:33 am

LiRM <LiRM@unicomp.com> wrote:
> I've got a Moto RAZR and have been having so many problems with
> dropped calls, it made the phone practically non usable.
>
> Cingular suggested replacing the SIM. Did that. No improvement.
>
> Then they sent me a new RAZR. Am still in testing mode (have had it a
> day), but it still seems to be dropping calls.
>
> Bottom line: I haven't heard or read these kinds of reports from
> other RAZR users, so I can only assume it's a Cingular issue.

I think it is a RAZR issue, combined with environment to some degree ... but
mostly a RAZR issue. My daughters friend has a RAZR and she told me she has
trouble getting a signal in many places, she often has the call just drop and
that often she is forced to power cycle the phone to get signal and to place a
call again. I had a Nokia 3595 that I carried around for testing and had no
such problems, so I am sure it is not the network.

>
> I am new to Cingular (dropped Verizon because they had disabled the BT
> function of using the RAZR as a modem) - is there network this bad
> that I literally can't use this damn phone for more then 2 or 3
> minutes without it dropping a call?
>

No, the phone is that bad. Anytime you use an internal antenna and surround
it with aluminum, and couple it with bad software, and I think you are asking
for trouble on all counts.

> I can't imagine a carrier being this bad. Verizon had great network
> service, but I just couldn't go with their brand of the RAZR with the
> modem disabled - an incredibly stupid move on their part if you ask me
> (or maybe just a money making scheme or more likely to get people to
> use their crappy web services).
>

Perhaps you gave up Verizon for the wrong reasons? Trying to get something
[tethered broadband on your laptop] for nothing is bound to end in
disappointment.

> I'm almost sorry I left Verizon if the service on Cingular is this
> bad.
>

:-)

> Is it just me - or my phone - or my area - or is Cingular that bad a
> service provider?
>

Phone. Area may amplify the issue, but I doubt it highly. Might I suggest
that you try a better phone?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Todd H.

2006-09-07, 10:33 am

LiRM <LiRM@unicomp.com> writes:

> Is it just me - or my phone - or my area - or is Cingular that bad a
> service provider?

Possibly in your area, but then again you never told us where you
are. Coverage does vary by geography. It could be worse coverage
than Verizon has in your area. Hard to say.

In Chicagoland, I enjoy pretty solid coverage with my Nokia phone with
hardly ever a drop.

My V400 Motorola phone is not as solid unfortunately, but when I do
get dropped, it's in areas that were quite solid with my Nokia (before
I literally dropped it, to its peril).

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Jackzwick

2006-09-07, 12:33 pm

In article <W5WLg.1557$Yy1.636@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> LiRM <LiRM@unicomp.com> wrote:

>
> No, the phone is that bad. Anytime you use an internal antenna and surround
> it with aluminum, and couple it with bad software, and I think you are asking
> for trouble on all counts.

Not at all. My son switched from his bad coverage and no signal indoors
in Culver City, California area with Sprint and three different brands
of phones, to now excellent coverage and no dropped calls with his
Cingular Motorola Black V3.

It's more a function of signal strength where you are, and how saturated
the cell is.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-07, 12:33 pm

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <W5WLg.1557$Yy1.636@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Not at all. My son switched from his bad coverage and no signal indoors
> in Culver City, California area with Sprint and three different brands
> of phones, to now excellent coverage and no dropped calls with his
> Cingular Motorola Black V3.
>
> It's more a function of signal strength where you are, and how saturated
> the cell is.

As you know, "saturated" has very little to do with it. Signal stregth does.
The problem with the Razr phones, especially early models, is that there is a
lot of metal on them and the antennas are internal. They essentially appear
to resist some of the signal by default, so they perform poorly. You son
probably lives in an extremely well covered area, as much of urban California
is known to be. As you know from living in the midwest, things are different
here ... whether in the southern plains or the northern plains.

You might wonder why I say "saturated" has nothing to do with it. CDMA
suffers greatly when there is a large number of users due to the decreased SNR
and thus the effective shrinking of the cell. GSM does not. The only issue
with GSM is if channels are available, and thus whether capacity has been
reached. Saturation does not matter unless it is 100%. As I said, my little
toy test phone did fabulously in these same areas.

I personally have not met a really happy Razr owner. I have met a
V3M user [on Verizon] that are willing to suffer through until his next NE2
comes up.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

LiRM

2006-09-08, 7:33 am

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 08:28:25 -0500, "marka2k" <marka_2k@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Which area are you in?
>

South Florida - Fort Lauderdale in particular.

>
>"LiRM" <LiRM@unicomp.com> wrote in message
> news:1120g25sp02i1tq
0r4hn72uapfiohirqou@
4ax.com...
>

LiRM

2006-09-08, 7:33 am

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:34:30 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>LiRM <LiRM@unicomp.com> wrote:
>
>I think it is a RAZR issue, combined with environment to some degree ... but
>mostly a RAZR issue. My daughters friend has a RAZR and she told me she has
>trouble getting a signal in many places, she often has the call just drop and
>that often she is forced to power cycle the phone to get signal and to place a
>call again. I had a Nokia 3595 that I carried around for testing and had no
>such problems, so I am sure it is not the network.
>
>
>No, the phone is that bad. Anytime you use an internal antenna and surround
>it with aluminum, and couple it with bad software, and I think you are asking
>for trouble on all counts.
>
>
>Perhaps you gave up Verizon for the wrong reasons? Trying to get something
>[tethered broadband on your laptop] for nothing is bound to end in
>disappointment.
>
>
>:-)
>
>
>Phone. Area may amplify the issue, but I doubt it highly. Might I suggest
>that you try a better phone?

Thank you, first of all, for your comments and suggestions.

If this problem doesn't clear up, then a new phone may be in order as
you suggest. I'm just trying to get some input from others as to
whether or not my problem is a Cingular problem and from what people
have said so far, it appears that is not the case.

I did make some calls yesterday that actually worked for 10 minutes or
longer - FAR longer then anything I was able to do with the old phone.
So perhaps more testing is in order as well.

Thanks again. I appreciate your help and the help of all who
responded.

Regards,

LiRM

Jackzwick

2006-09-08, 10:33 am

In article <89YLg.1563$Yy1.681@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I personally have not met a really happy Razr owner. I have met a
> V3M user [on Verizon] that are willing to suffer through until his next NE2
> comes up.

Sorry your circle of friends is so small.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-08, 10:33 am

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <89YLg.1563$Yy1.681@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry your circle of friends is so small.

It is large enough for me ... I won't be buying a Razr for myself or my family
members. I don't recommend them to friends either. Nothing wrong with
Motorola though; my daughter loves her V325.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Jackzwick

2006-09-08, 12:33 pm

In article <PZfMg.1580$Yy1.369@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It is large enough for me ... I won't be buying a Razr for myself or my family
> members. I don't recommend them to friends either. Nothing wrong with
> Motorola though; my daughter loves her V325.

My Motorola v600 started dropping calls, but my new Sony/Ericsson W600i
doesn't.

And I'd be happy to recommend the V3 (GSM version) to anyone. 50 million
people can't be wrong.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Motorola-...igins&id=266763

"By July 2006 Motorola were happy to announce that they had the
50,000,000 Razr, which now made it the most popular of any cell phone
available today."

You don't sell 50,000,000 of any model if it has 1/10 of the problems
Veldhouse thinks it has.

Todd H.

2006-09-08, 3:33 pm

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> writes:

> And I'd be happy to recommend the V3 (GSM version) to anyone. 50 million
> people can't be wrong.

Well, Michael Jackson's album Thriller is alleged to have sold 50
million copies. Wrap your head around that one!

But 50 million phones... holy crap. That's pretty incredible now that
you mention it.

http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter..._
6980_23

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Dennis Ferguson

2006-09-08, 3:33 pm

On 2006-09-08, LiRM <LiRM@unicomp.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:34:30 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
>
> Thank you, first of all, for your comments and suggestions.
>
> If this problem doesn't clear up, then a new phone may be in order as
> you suggest. I'm just trying to get some input from others as to
> whether or not my problem is a Cingular problem and from what people
> have said so far, it appears that is not the case.
>
> I did make some calls yesterday that actually worked for 10 minutes or
> longer - FAR longer then anything I was able to do with the old phone.
> So perhaps more testing is in order as well.

Does the phone do anything odd when it drops the call?

When I first got it my V3 would often reset itself during calls. When
the call dropped the screen would blank and stay that way for a few
seconds, then the screen would turn back on with no service, then
it would find service again. This would happen even with a 5 bar
signal.

Getting the software on the phone replaced fixed this for me. Note
that this is a Hong Kong phone, so its software bugs might be unique
to it, but if the phone behaves oddly it might benefit from new
software.

Dennis Ferguson

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-08, 3:33 pm

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <PZfMg.1580$Yy1.369@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> My Motorola v600 started dropping calls, but my new Sony/Ericsson W600i
> doesn't.
>
> And I'd be happy to recommend the V3 (GSM version) to anyone. 50 million
> people can't be wrong.

50 million people can easily be wrong. They bought the phone because it is
"cool" and not because it is good.

>
> http://ezinearticles.com/?Motorola-...igins&id=266763
>
> "By July 2006 Motorola were happy to announce that they had the
> 50,000,000 Razr, which now made it the most popular of any cell phone
> available today."
>
> You don't sell 50,000,000 of any model if it has 1/10 of the problems
> Veldhouse thinks it has.

No? I am glad you like yours. Phonescoop certainly is full of critics.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-08, 3:33 pm

Todd H. <t@toddh.net> wrote:
> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> Well, Michael Jackson's album Thriller is alleged to have sold 50
> million copies. Wrap your head around that one!
>
> But 50 million phones... holy crap. That's pretty incredible now that
> you mention it.

Nah ... that is 16.3 million users, each with two replacements ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Jackzwick

2006-09-08, 10:33 pm

In article <47kMg.1592$Yy1.605@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 50 million people can easily be wrong. They bought the phone because it is
> "cool" and not because it is good.
>
>

Which Phonescoop are you reading? The overwhelming majority are raving
about it the Motorola v3 that Cingular uses. A few rave at it.

http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/us...s.php?phone=547

Jackzwick

2006-09-09, 7:33 am

In article <i8kMg.1593$Yy1.838@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Todd H. <t@toddh.net> wrote:
>
> Nah ... that is 16.3 million users, each with two replacements ;-)

Nice try you troll.

Pacbell

2006-09-09, 10:33 pm

The antenna in the razor is in the bulge below the keyboard. It is not
surounded by aluminin, but may get covered by your hand when you are on a
call.
Keep the phone face out when on your body or in your pocket. Try not to
cover the antenna when using.

"Jackzwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jackzwick-AA1EDD.23364508092006@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <i8kMg.1593$Yy1.838@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nice try you troll.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-12, 3:33 pm

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Nice try you troll.

You idiot ... it was clearly a joke.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-12, 3:33 pm

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Which Phonescoop are you reading? The overwhelming majority are raving
> about it the Motorola v3 that Cingular uses. A few rave at it.
>

3.45 is hardly an overwhelming majority ... and not a very good rating for
phonescoop phones.

> http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/us...s.php?phone=547

Consider the excellent LG VX8300 that Verizon sells. Now that is a highly
rated phone.

http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/us...s.php?phone=905

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Todd Allcock

2006-09-12, 3:33 pm

At 12 Sep 2006 17:49:15 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You idiot ... it was clearly a joke.
>
And, frankly, a pretty funny one! Thanks for the laugh (and I have no
particular axe to grind against Moto or their Razrs- funny is funny,
regardless of the target. Lighten up a bit, Jack!)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jackzwick

2006-09-12, 3:33 pm

In article <ktCNg.1637$Yy1.671@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 3.45 is hardly an overwhelming majority ... and not a very good rating for
> phonescoop phones.
>
>
> Consider the excellent LG VX8300 that Verizon sells. Now that is a highly
> rated phone.
>
> http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/us...s.php?phone=000

Troll. A biodegradable Verizon LG is hardly a substitute for the world's
best seller, the V3.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-12, 3:33 pm

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Troll. A biodegradable Verizon LG is hardly a substitute for the world's
> best seller, the V3.

You are pretty free with the word troll, especially with your history
Phillip. In any event, the LG works fine for me ... and is apparently more
liked than the V3 according to Phonescoop users.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Jackzwick

2006-09-13, 4:33 am

In article <UjENg.1645$Yy1.1515@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> the LG works fine for me ... and is apparently more
> liked than the V3 according to Phonescoop users.

Lets see, the V3 has sold 50,000,000, and the LG you're pimping has sold
how many? The OP was asking about Cingular so posting about a Verizon
phone is Trolling, Troll.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-13, 10:33 am

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <UjENg.1645$Yy1.1515@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Lets see, the V3 has sold 50,000,000, and the LG you're pimping has sold
> how many? The OP was asking about Cingular so posting about a Verizon
> phone is Trolling, Troll.

I wasn't posting about the VX8300 you fool. I was posting about the fact that
the V3 doesn't have a fabulous reputation as you tout.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Jackzwick

2006-09-13, 10:33 am

In article <V2TNg.1660$Yy1.1346@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I wasn't posting about the VX8300. I was posting about the fact
> that the V3 doesn't have a fabulous reputation as you tout.

Keep saying the V3 is bad and you may believe it. The V3 HAS sold
50,000,000

And it sure looks like a troll post touting an LG phone. Did you buy
one, and now you have to justify it to your wife?

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-13, 10:33 am

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Keep saying the V3 is bad and you may believe it. The V3 HAS sold
> 50,000,000
>

Pardon me? I believe I said that it doesn't have a fabulous reputation. I
did not say it was bad [although I would not buy one].

> And it sure looks like a troll post touting an LG phone. Did you buy
> one, and now you have to justify it to your wife?

Yes, I own an LG VX8300, and so does my Wife. But, I wasn't pushing the 8300
on anybody here, what's the point, it is a Verizon phone, not a Cingular
phone.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Jackzwick

2006-09-13, 10:33 am

In article <RiTNg.1664$Yy1.1385@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Pardon me? I believe I said that it doesn't have a fabulous reputation. I
> did not say it was bad [although I would not buy one].

Get REAL. It has sold 50,000,000 what's abetter reputation than that????

Jackzwick

2006-09-13, 10:33 am

> And it sure looks like a troll post touting an LG phone. Did you buy
> one, and now you have to justify it to your wife?

In article <RiTNg.1664$Yy1.1385@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, I own an LG VX8300, and so does my Wife. But, I wasn't pushing the 8300
> on anybody here, what's the point, it is a Verizon phone, not a Cingular
> phone.

Truth comes out. You're trying to convince yourself.

So why are you trolling that fact in the Cingular newsgroup? Try tolling
it in the Sprint newsgroup and see the feedback you'll get.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-09-13, 12:33 pm

Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In article <RiTNg.1664$Yy1.1385@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Truth comes out. You're trying to convince yourself.
>

Yeah ... alright.

> So why are you trolling that fact in the Cingular newsgroup? Try tolling
> it in the Sprint newsgroup and see the feedback you'll get.

You have a lot of experience with that ... Troll Phillip.

Anyway, you are an XXX and I am through with you [unless you start changing
your ID again like the old days].

Plonk!

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Jackzwick

2006-09-13, 12:33 pm

In article <8IVNg.1668$Yy1.1185@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah ... alright.
>
>

Amazing you want to generalize to 50,000,000 V3 phones cause you had a
bad experience cause you insisted on holding your hand over the internal
antenna?

Jackzwick

2006-09-13, 12:33 pm

In article <8IVNg.1668$Yy1.1185@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jackzwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah ... alright.
>
>

>
> Anyway, I am through with you

Just like Navas. Lose an argument, walk away.

Todd Allcock

2006-09-13, 3:33 pm

At 13 Sep 2006 15:19:07 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
> In article <RiTNg.1664$Yy1.1385@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
reputation. I[color=darkred]
>
> Get REAL. It has sold 50,000,000 what's abetter reputation than
that????

So did the Ford Pinto... ;-)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Thurman

2006-09-13, 10:33 pm

"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:45084c8e$0$1974
7$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> At 13 Sep 2006 15:19:07 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
<snip>[color=darkred]
> reputation. I
> that????
>
> So did the Ford Pinto... ;-)

As a matter of fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto reports sales
of 2 million over 9 years.

Less you stretch editorial license too far, the Pinto was a bottom line
product that courts statements was designed with the knowledge that there
could be "death and maiming" so Ford budgeted $70M for claims.

The Razr, in a completely opposite strategy was designed as a high end
device. I think it was introduced at around $500 five years ago, rather
expensive for the time; today selling for as little as $65.

I have had about eight cell phones over the last five years, prefer and
recommend the Razr. It isn't perfect, but will suffice until a thin GSM
Smartphone is released.

Jackzwick

2006-09-13, 10:33 pm

In article < 45084c8e$0$19747$882
60bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> At 13 Sep 2006 15:19:07 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
> reputation. I
> that????
>
> So did the Ford Pinto... ;-)

Not quite so many, and it sold cause it was cheap, not the reason the V3
sells.

Todd Allcock

2006-09-13, 10:33 pm

At 13 Sep 2006 16:44:27 -0500 Thurman wrote:
>
> "Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
> news:45084c8e$0$1974
7$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> <snip>
>
> As a matter of fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto reports
sales

> of 2 million over 9 years.
>
> Less you stretch editorial license too far, the Pinto was a bottom line
> product that courts statements was designed with the knowledge that
there

> could be "death and maiming" so Ford budgeted $70M for claims.
>
> The Razr, in a completely opposite strategy was designed as a high end
> device. I think it was introduced at around $500 five years ago, rather
> expensive for the time; today selling for as little as $65.
>
> I have had about eight cell phones over the last five years, prefer and
> recommend the Razr. It isn't perfect, but will suffice until a thin GSM
> Smartphone is released.
>
I know Ford never sold 50M Pintos, I was actually going to type "Mustang",
which would've been a better analogy, simply because like the RAZR, more
were sold for their style rather than their usefulness. (I'm not really
denegrating their feature set, I'm just saying the form factor was a
bigger factor in their popularity.)

My post was simply making the point to Mr. Zwick that number of units
sold doesn't necessarily indicate a quality product (nor does it mean
it's NOT a quality product, obviously!)

My opinion of the RAZR probably isn't particularly useful to anyone else,
since I only looked at it in stores when it was newish (and frankly
rejected it on a price/performance ratio- at least the GSM models)- I
thought it was an ok, albeit overpriced, phone with a wildly successful
marketing campaign. If they'd only called it the "V3", I doubt it
would've have been nearly as successful. Not to pick on older or more
professional users of the device, but the name "RAZR," at least to me,
seems to target the current generation of texters who tend to type in
abbreviations, if u no wot i mean... ;-)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Thurman

2006-09-14, 10:33 am

"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:4508a99b$0$1974
0$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> I know Ford never sold 50M Pintos, I was actually going to type
> "Mustang",
> which would've been a better analogy, simply because like the RAZR, more
> were sold for their style rather than their usefulness. (I'm not really
> denegrating their feature set, I'm just saying the form factor was a
> bigger factor in their popularity.)

I agree, it's a better example.

> My post was simply making the point to Mr. Zwick that number of units
> sold doesn't necessarily indicate a quality product (nor does it mean
> it's NOT a quality product, obviously!)

Best example I know of is VHS.

> My opinion of the RAZR probably isn't particularly useful to anyone else,
> since I only looked at it in stores when it was newish (and frankly
> rejected it on a price/performance ratio- at least the GSM models)- I
> thought it was an ok, albeit overpriced, phone with a wildly successful
> marketing campaign.

At the original price, it was a vanity buy, but the market needs that. In a
marketing course I took a long time ago, it was interesting that poorer
people purchase to differentiate themselves, wealthier people purchase to
blend with the crowd.

As a guy from New Orleans once said "Cocaine is God's way of telling you
'You have too much money' ".

Todd Allcock

2006-09-14, 12:33 pm

At 14 Sep 2006 07:53:08 -0500 Thurman wrote:
>
> Best example I know of is VHS.

Very true, but unlike the RAZR or the Ford Mustang, VHS wasn't a "status"
buy. (At least as to brand or type- in the early days of the VHS/Beta
wars, I suppose owning any VCR conferred some status, since the device
was around a grand in 1970's dollars.
>
>
> At the original price, it was a vanity buy, but the market needs that.
In a
> marketing course I took a long time ago, it was interesting that poorer
> people purchase to differentiate themselves, wealthier people purchase
to
> blend with the crowd.

A recent thread on Howard Forums (an informative cellphone forum site
unfortunately overrun by teenagers!) had a guy complaining that
Motorola's newer cheaper RAZR models were "devaluing" his RAZR, because
now anyone could own one!
> As a guy from New Orleans once said "Cocaine is God's way of telling
you
> 'You have too much money' ".

That's one I'm going to remember! Thanks!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

LinkBot