| Author |
new phone for Verizon
|
|
|
| In today's Best Buy weekly circular that comes with the Sunday paper, they
advertised the Samsung A970 for VZW. It's a new 2 megapixel camera phone
that can record up to an hour of video. Strange though that the Verizon
website doesn't list it and even more strange that the Samsung website
doesn't even have this phone listed there. What's the deal?
| |
|
|
"J" <J@J.com> wrote in message news:fKCZe.5324$w74.4891@trndny05...
> In today's Best Buy weekly circular that comes with the Sunday paper, they
> advertised the Samsung A970 for VZW. It's a new 2 megapixel camera phone
> that can record up to an hour of video. Strange though that the Verizon
> website doesn't list it and even more strange that the Samsung website
> doesn't even have this phone listed there. What's the deal?
>
Was there any small print that said, "when available" or anything like that?
| |
| Bob the Printer 2005-09-25, 11:48 pm |
|
"J" <J@J.com> wrote in message news:fKCZe.5324$w74.4891@trndny05...
> In today's Best Buy weekly circular that comes with the Sunday paper, they
> advertised the Samsung A970 for VZW. It's a new 2 megapixel camera phone
> that can record up to an hour of video. Strange though that the Verizon
> website doesn't list it and even more strange that the Samsung website
> doesn't even have this phone listed there. What's the deal?
That phone looks way too fragile! Especially the swivel joint between the
bottom and the top.
| |
| michael e dziatkowicz 2005-09-26, 2:48 am |
| It says in the best buy ad that it's a best buy exclusive. Does this mean
that verizon will only be selling it through best buy or is it just a best
buy exclusive for this week only?
"J" <J@J.com> wrote in message news:fKCZe.5324$w74.4891@trndny05...
> In today's Best Buy weekly circular that comes with the Sunday paper, they
> advertised the Samsung A970 for VZW. It's a new 2 megapixel camera phone
> that can record up to an hour of video. Strange though that the Verizon
> website doesn't list it and even more strange that the Samsung website
> doesn't even have this phone listed there. What's the deal?
>
| |
| Steve Johnson 2005-09-26, 2:48 am |
| On 9/25/05 9:01 PM, in article mOGdnTAmBsMe-areRVn-rQ@comcast.com, "michael
e dziatkowicz" <mnmma@comcast.net> wrote:
> It says in the best buy ad that it's a best buy exclusive. Does this mean
> that verizon will only be selling it through best buy or is it just a best
> buy exclusive for this week only?
> "J" <J@J.com> wrote in message news:fKCZe.5324$w74.4891@trndny05...
>
>
From what I've read it's a Best Buy exclusive until Oct 18th. See
http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=724 for more info. Someone
there posted that it'll be available elsewhere on 10/18. Looks pretty nice.
Steve
| |
|
| It says it has an internal antenna. Nice. Other companies are finally
catching onto what Nokia already knows. So far the best phone to take pics
with it's built in camera is the LG VX8000 (at least, according to reviews).
Wonder how the pics come out on this one?
"Steve Johnson" <sjohnson29@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF5CD1BE. 1D976%sjohnson29@hot
mail.com...
> On 9/25/05 9:01 PM, in article mOGdnTAmBsMe-areRVn-rQ@comcast.com,
> "michael
> e dziatkowicz" <mnmma@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> From what I've read it's a Best Buy exclusive until Oct 18th. See
> http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=724 for more info. Someone
> there posted that it'll be available elsewhere on 10/18. Looks pretty
> nice.
>
> Steve
>
| |
|
| J wrote:
> It says it has an internal antenna. Nice. Other
> companies are finally catching onto what Nokia already
> knows.
No. Not nice (unless it's a really long phone).
Nokia is focused on GSM phones in the 1900 range
(upper frequencies). VZW is CDMA in the 800 band.
Lower frequencies require longer antennas. A quarter
wave length 800 antenna does not fit in a currently
common sized phone. A quarter wave length 1900
antenna will. I'm fortunate to have a Kyocera 7135
which employs an extendable 1/2 wave 800 antenna.
It makes a difference. Of course if your primary
concern is the camera it may not matter so much to you.
-Quick
| |
| TeddeLI 2005-09-27, 5:48 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:30:23 GMT, "Quick"
<quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>J wrote:
>
>No. Not nice (unless it's a really long phone).
>Nokia is focused on GSM phones in the 1900 range
>(upper frequencies). VZW is CDMA in the 800 band.
>Lower frequencies require longer antennas. A quarter
>wave length 800 antenna does not fit in a currently
>common sized phone. A quarter wave length 1900
>antenna will. I'm fortunate to have a Kyocera 7135
>which employs an extendable 1/2 wave 800 antenna.
>It makes a difference. Of course if your primary
>concern is the camera it may not matter so much to you.
>
>-Quick
>
I agree and would not buy a phone that did not have an extendable
antenna.
Here is some supporting information
http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/antenna.html
| |
| TeddeLI 2005-09-27, 5:48 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:20:14 GMT, "J" <J@J.com> wrote:
>It says it has an internal antenna. Nice. Other companies are finally
>catching onto what Nokia already knows. So far the best phone to take pics
>with it's built in camera is the LG VX8000 (at least, according to reviews).
>Wonder how the pics come out on this one?
>
While Nokia may know this for GSM, Nokia knows that for Verizon's CDMA
system the longer the antenna the better. The best performing Nokias
on Verizon had extendable antennas.
My guess is that this phone will perform no better than the LGs that
had stub antennas. They had nice features, great screens, but poor
reception.
| |
|
| Guess I stand corrected on the antenna issue.
"TeddeLI" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:v3oij1l0oj73vf8
ulsavkmjfmuvpljf9bo@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:20:14 GMT, "J" <J@J.com> wrote:
>
>
> While Nokia may know this for GSM, Nokia knows that for Verizon's CDMA
> system the longer the antenna the better. The best performing Nokias
> on Verizon had extendable antennas.
>
> My guess is that this phone will perform no better than the LGs that
> had stub antennas. They had nice features, great screens, but poor
> reception.
|
|
|
|