Verizon wireless - NEWS: Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone

Author

NEWS: Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone

Todd Allcock

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

To Oxford, with love...

http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0918/FREE/7091=
80
08/1016/FREE

"Verizon Wireless: LG Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone

"Verizon Wireless said today that in the 12 months since it launched
the LG Chocolate in the United States it has sold more than 3.4
million units=97an obvious comparison to the one million units-per-
quarter performance of Apple Inc.=92s iPhone, which sells at rival
carrier AT&T Mobility." [MORE]

--=20

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures=20
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for=20
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with=20
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003=20

Nashton

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock wrote:
> To Oxford, with love...
>
>
> http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...918/FREE/709180
> 08/1016/FREE
>
>
> "Verizon Wireless: LG Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone
>
> "Verizon Wireless said today that in the 12 months since it launched
> the LG Chocolate in the United States it has sold more than 3.4
> million units—an obvious comparison to the one million units-per-
> quarter performance of Apple Inc.’s iPhone, which sells at rival
> carrier AT&T Mobility." [MORE]
>
>

Don't know about LG Chocolate (actually anything that I've owned
manufactured by LG was crap, especially the cellphones), but I got
myself a Samsung m620 with a 2 Gig micro SD card. I bet these phones
will outsell many other recent phones, including the iPhone.

iMojo

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

In article <qxhIi.18$k24.5@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> To Oxford, with love...
>
>
> http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...918/FREE/709180
> 08/1016/FREE
>
>
> "Verizon Wireless: LG Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone
>
> "Verizon Wireless said today that in the 12 months since it launched
> the LG Chocolate in the United States it has sold more than 3.4
> million units—an obvious comparison to the one million units-per-
> quarter performance of Apple Inc.’s iPhone, which sells at rival
> carrier AT&T Mobility." [MORE]

Who cares?

Edwin

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

On Sep 19, 6:09 pm, iMojo <iadvoc...@macs.net> wrote:
> In article <qxhIi.18$k2...@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
> Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Who cares?

You do.

Todd Allcock

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

At 19 Sep 2007 19:09:49 -0400 iMojo wrote:

>
> Who cares?

You mean on CSMA? Probably no one. That's roughly equal to the
number in the alt.cellular groups who care about the tripe Oxford
posts over there...

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Oxford

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...918/FREE/709180
> 08/1016/FREE
>
> "Verizon Wireless: LG Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone
>
> "Verizon Wireless said today that in the 12 months since it launched
> the LG Chocolate in the United States it has sold more than 3.4
> million units—an obvious comparison to the one million units-per-
> quarter performance of Apple Inc.’s iPhone, which sells at rival
> carrier AT&T Mobility." [MORE]

Thanks Todd... it's just too bad the Chocolate is so weak in terms of
what you get for the money.

The iPhone clearly is the better choice for 99% Chocolate buyers, too
bad LG can't design a phone for the life of them, but keep on trying!

There used to be iPod "Killers" out there too! So it's comical to watch
them fail, one by one.

-

here's info to get an iPhone with NO contract for $299...

enjoy!

just passing this along... if you want to try out the iPhone on the
cheap, here is your chance... go to the below link... then on the right
side, click on "special deals", then "clearance" .... not....
"iphone".... and there you will find the 4GB iPhones for $299.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...ects/AppleStore

Then, on the "cheap"... when you activate it through iTunes... choose...
999-99-9999 for your SSN number then you will be routed to "Go Phone"
mode... (no 2 year contract - and for sure on a minute to minute basis
more expensive) BUT if you are mainly going to use the WiFi surfing,
email, iPod, google maps etc it's going to be a more robust product than
the iPod Touch. (minus the extra 4-12GB memory of course)

so, something to ponder before apple runs out of them...

the specs:

iPhone, 4GB
Multi-touch display with full QWERTY soft keyboard
Safari web browser
Email access
Built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
Holds up to 1,000 songs
Up to 8 hours of talk time and 250 hours of standby time
2.0 megapixel camera
4.8 ounces
4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46 inches
Apple earphones with built-in microphone
USB 2.0 cable

Price: $299.00

Estimated Ship:
Within 24 hours
Free Shipping

Oxford

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Nashton <na@nana.ca> wrote:

> Don't know about LG Chocolate (actually anything that I've owned
> manufactured by LG was crap, especially the cellphones), but I got
> myself a Samsung m620 with a 2 Gig micro SD card. I bet these phones
> will outsell many other recent phones, including the iPhone.

yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line, plus the
Chocolate doesn't have an iPod inside last time I looked, so it's a
non-starter if it wants to become a Phone + Music device.

Basically, Apple has all cellphone companies locked out because they
don't have the product design skills, don't understand mass
manufacturing, nor have a 6 million song 99 cent library. You pay over
DOBULE ($1.99) to get a song onto a Chocolate.

How stupid can they be?

So consider the "Chocolate" discontinued after XMas.

-

Sandman

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

Sandman

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

In article <nqiIi.1595$7L1.1023@fe101.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> At 19 Sep 2007 19:09:49 -0400 iMojo wrote:
>
>
> You mean on CSMA? Probably no one. That's roughly equal to the
> number in the alt.cellular groups who care about the tripe Oxford
> posts over there...

Yeah, well, I don't think anyone in csma cares about what Oxford posts
here either.

--
Sandman[.net]

Todd Allcock

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

At 20 Sep 2007 07:21:04 +0200 Sandman wrote:

> I wonder if sales of the LG has slowed since the release of the
> iPhone? Not saying it has, but you really can't compare the two
> without knowing this.

Agreed.

> Other phones have sold well - no doubt about
> that.

Certainly. I think Verizon was simply trying to issue a press
release to put the "million iPhones" in context. The iPhonecertainly
has been a resounding success, but I suspect few journalists outside
the wireless industry have any idea how many cellphones are sold in
the US or around the world per quarter or per year. Of course these
press releases are largely ignored since they lack the "sexiness" of
yet another iPhone story. Nobody noticed that Nokia has sold over
1.5 million N95s this year- a high-end phone that costs quite a bit
more than the iPhone, so the iPhone certainly isn't the only high-end
phone selling in large numbers either.

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Sandman

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

In article <4GnIi.5129$Mu.2718@fe095.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> At 20 Sep 2007 07:21:04 +0200 Sandman wrote:
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> Certainly. I think Verizon was simply trying to issue a press
> release to put the "million iPhones" in context.

As they should. The iPhone hype is enormous even today.

> The iPhonecertainly
> has been a resounding success, but I suspect few journalists outside
> the wireless industry have any idea how many cellphones are sold in
> the US or around the world per quarter or per year.

Ah, the iPhone is a speck on a whale when all of that is taken into
consideration. At least for now :-D

> Of course these
> press releases are largely ignored since they lack the "sexiness" of
> yet another iPhone story. Nobody noticed that Nokia has sold over
> 1.5 million N95s this year- a high-end phone that costs quite a bit
> more than the iPhone, so the iPhone certainly isn't the only high-end
> phone selling in large numbers either.

No doubt about that. I have a Nokia N95. It's an ok phone :)

--
Sandman[.net]

jerryeveretts

2007-09-20, 10:33 am

> yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line

Lol... you do realize that Apple uses LG panels in it's 20" iMacs
don't you?

Of course you dont... silly me.

Carl

2007-09-20, 10:33 am

Edwin wrote:
> On Sep 19, 6:09 pm, iMojo <iadvoc...@macs.net> wrote:
>
> You do.

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but that's not the point to me. I'm not an
iPhone user nor an Apple fan. I am a Verizon user, but I don't see how you
can compare the LG Chocolate to the iPhone, unless you're looking only at
their respective music playing abilities. Are we talking about phones here
or .mp3/audio players?

The iPhone has outstanding web browsing/internet potential and an innovative
touch screen design, none of which the Chocolate can compare to. Other than
that they're both cell phones and are rectangular in shape. This is such a
cliched apples and oranges issue, I don't get why it has been brought up.

So the sales figures imply that the much cheaper Chocolate appeals to a lot
of kids looking for a toy. The iPhone will appeal more to the wealthier
adult looking for a toy, of which there are arguably fewer. So what? Why
not compare the iPhone to the Blackberry 8830 and at least keep the
comparison in similar markets?

M-M

2007-09-20, 10:33 am

In article <qxhIi.18$k24.5@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> "Verizon Wireless said today that in the 12 months since it launched
> the LG Chocolate in the United States it has sold more than 3.4
> million units—an obvious comparison to the one million units-per-
> quarter performance of Apple Inc.’s iPhone,

Lessee..

1 million iPhones in a month vs 3.4 million LG's in a year is nearly
equal??

--
m-m

2007-09-20, 10:33 am

On Sep 19, 8:00 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line, plus the
> Chocolate doesn't have an iPod inside last time I looked, so it's a
> non-starter if it wants to become a Phone + Music device.

the chocolate is actually QUITE good as a phone + music device.

<snip>

MuahMan

2007-09-20, 12:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-8AEDAB.21004019092007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net...
> Nashton <na@nana.ca> wrote:
>
>
> yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line, plus the
> Chocolate doesn't have an iPod inside last time I looked, so it's a
> non-starter if it wants to become a Phone + Music device.
>
> Basically, Apple has all cellphone companies locked out because they
> don't have the product design skills, don't understand mass
> manufacturing, nor have a 6 million song 99 cent library. You pay over
> DOBULE ($1.99) to get a song onto a Chocolate.
>
> How stupid can they be?
>
> So consider the "Chocolate" discontinued after XMas.
>
> -

LG makes all of Apples monitors. So yes, they are low end shit.

MuahMan

2007-09-20, 12:33 pm

"M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-2C07A2.11201320092007@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
> In article <qxhIi.18$k24.5@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Lessee..
>
> 1 million iPhones in a month vs 3.4 million LG's in a year is nearly
> equal??
>
> --
> m-m

Yep, because after the first month Apple couldn't sell anymore. All the
fanbois already had them... that's why they gutted the price 50% in 2nd
month.

Todd Allcock

2007-09-20, 3:33 pm

At 20 Sep 2007 11:20:14 -0400 M-M wrote:

> Lessee..
>
> 1 million iPhones in a month vs 3.4 million LG's in a year is
nearly
> equal??

Um, that's 1 million iPhones in the first QUARTER (actually about 2-
1/2 months) not one month.

Again, it's not diminishing the success of the iPhone- it's just some
perspective. The Chocolate isn't even close to being the year's best-
selling phone.

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Todd Allcock

2007-09-20, 3:33 pm

At 20 Sep 2007 10:38:28 -0400 Carl wrote:

> Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but that's not the point to me. I'm
> not an iPhone user nor an Apple fan. I am a Verizon user, but I
> don't see how you can compare the LG Chocolate to the iPhone, unless
> you're looking only at their respective music playing abilities. Are
> we talking about phones here or .mp3/audio players?

Verizon picked the phone to compare (it's their press release) so I
assume Verizon is lumping them together as "MP3 phones."

> The iPhone has outstanding web browsing/internet potential and an
> innovative touch screen design, none of which the Chocolate can
> compare to. Other than
> that they're both cell phones and are
> rectangular in shape. This is such a cliched apples and oranges
> issue, I don't get why it has been brought up.

I think while the iPhone does do so much more, the majority of it's
buyers were looking for an "iPod phone." Arguably, the Chocolate is
Verizon's closest equivalent in that category.

> Why not compare the iPhone to the Blackberry 8830 and at least keep
> the comparison in similar markets?

I don't agree that those are similar markets. Despite the iPhone's
many well-implemented features, a business phone it isn't. While the
iPhone's feature set is probably much closer to a Blackberry than a
Chocolate, the iPhone's lack of any enterprise e-mail solution
automatically removes it from the BB's main market and renders a
comparison pretty meaningless. Arguably, despite the wide disparity
of features, the iPhone and Chocolate share the same market- media
player phones for the consumer market. The iPhone is just at the much
higher-end of that market than the Chocolate is.

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

In article <1190295995.805705.95590@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifreeley@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Lol... you do realize that Apple uses LG panels in it's 20" iMacs
> don't you?
>
>
> Of course you dont... silly me.

Yes, silly you. The LCD panels in the lowest-end iMacs have ALWAYS been
way inferior to those in their larger cousins:

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/12/20-i...color-problems/

Quote:

Okay this one is a little shaky because my French is
non-existent. But in this post (Google translation) at the
French Mac site MacBidouille, they present evidence that the
LCD panel in the new 20" iMacs is not a 24bit color panel as
in the previous generation, but an 18bit panel instead.
Support for this includes the Kodawarisan take-apart photos
which appear to show the panel as a LG PHILIPS LM201WE3.
This panel seems to be a TN (twisted nematic) display most
of which, according to wikipedia, "...are unable to display
the full 16.7 million colors (24-bit truecolor) available
from modern graphics cards." Other discussions online seem
to support this conclusion.

Of course, we heard complaints before about color
reproduction on Apple LCD displays. If true, this is
consistent with the reviews (e.g. Macworld magazine) that
have complained about the quality of the 20" screen versus
that of the 24" iMac. If correct this would be a powerful
reason to prefer the 24" iMac, particularly if color
accuracy is very important to you (e.g. for working with
photos).

and:

http://www.appleswitcher.com/viewtopic.php?t=32149

(lots of information on TN vs. IPS technology)

Quote:

HERE'S HOW ALL OF THIS RELATES TO THE NEW iMACS:

The previous generation of 20" and 24" iMacs used the
superior IPS technology. The 17" used TN.

However, the 17" iMac has been discontinued, and the new
aluminum 20" iMacs have been downgraded to TN. As a result,
the new 20" iMacs have a far lesser quality display than the
previous generation of 20"s. So, if you intend to upgrade
your old 20" iMac to a new 20" iMac, you will effectively be
downgrading your display.

It took quite a bit of Googling to confirm this, but the the
new 24" iMacs still use the superior IPS technology. Long
story, short: if you're a graphics professional, or a person
who requires the utmost in display accuracy, you should NOT
get the new, aluminum iMac, but instead, opt for the 24".

BTW, Apple mentions NONE of this data on their website, and
I had to do a LOT of Googling to come to what I feel is a
conclusive, trustworthy finding _ there is a lot of
speculation occurring online about these new iMac screen
issues, and very little in the way of factual information.

Oxford

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

>
> the chocolate is actually QUITE good as a phone + music device.

it doesn't have iTunes integration, so buzzzzz... it can't be a good
music device. try again ed.

plus twice the price for a song? why? even .99 cents is too much, why do
you have to pay double on the LG?

Oxford

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

jerryeveretts <ifreeley@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Lol... you do realize that Apple uses LG panels in it's 20" iMacs
> don't you?
>
>
> Of course you dont... silly me.

yes, and they are getting horrible reviews. my point stands.

jerryeveretts

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

On Sep 20, 7:58 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> jerryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> yes, and they are getting horrible reviews. my point stands.

Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A
components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC
manufactures, now how can you claim that AND claim that they use
crappy monitors in the iMacs?

Todd Allcock

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

At 20 Sep 2007 17:18:17 -0700 jerryeveretts wrote:

> Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A
> components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC
> manufactures, now how can you claim that AND claim that they use
> crappy monitors in the iMacs?

He'll just claim it was Jobs' day off when Apple signed the purchase
order...

You can't have a religion without a deity...

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Todd Allcock

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

At 20 Sep 2007 17:57:54 -0600 Oxford wrote:

> plus twice the price for a song? why? even .99 cents is too much,
why do
> you have to pay double on the LG?

Maybe because you're allowed to download it over the cellular network
instead of waiting until you find a WiFi spot?

Either way, I suspect most users of either device just sideload them
from their own music collection.

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Oxford

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

jerryeveretts <ifreeley@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A
> components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC
> manufactures, now how can you claim that AND claim that they use
> crappy monitors in the iMacs?

perhaps apple is finally cheapening up their products to closer meet
consumers low expectations of pcs?

Oxford

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

>
> He'll just claim it was Jobs' day off when Apple signed the purchase
> order...
>
> You can't have a religion without a deity...

not sure what you mean, it's only the low end 20" imacs that used the
poorer LG screens the 24" imacs are fine.

jerryeveretts

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

On Sep 20, 9:41 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> jerryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> perhaps apple is finally cheapening up their products to closer meet
> consumers low expectations of pcs?

Maybe... I kind of liked the screen on my 20" iMac... Of course I am
poor, low class, blue collar, and I live in a poor, low tech part of
the country that has to get by with a seamless 3G blanket but hardly
any choices in free WiFi.. what would I know?

~.^

Oxford

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

jerryeveretts <ifreeley@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Maybe... I kind of liked the screen on my 20" iMac... Of course I am
> poor, low class, blue collar, and I live in a poor, low tech part of
> the country that has to get by with a seamless 3G blanket but hardly
> any choices in free WiFi.. what would I know?

yes, apple users are quality fanatics, but i understand if you don't
care about high level issues like these. i've used several of the new
iMac 20" screens, probably 4 hours in front of them total... and while
straight on they are quite clear. viewing them at an angle is poor.

you're too young to remember, but this used to be a major talking point
about the differences of a quality LCD screens compared to the cheapo
ones used 10-15 years ago or so. Apple always won the clarity contests,
and I'm sure they still do, but cheapening up the viewing angle is a sad
trend even though "straight" on... it's fine.

IMHO IIRC

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

In news:1190333897.965458.249150@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com,
jerryeveretts <ifreeley@gmail.com> typed:
> On Sep 20, 7:58 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A
> components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC
> manufactures, now how can you claim that AND claim that they use
> crappy monitors in the iMacs?

But Apple uses only the very best grade A crappy 20" monitors. lol

Walter Bushell

2007-09-21, 4:33 am

One would think the sale of smart phones would be trivial compared to
the sale of chocolate.

2007-09-21, 4:33 am

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-303EBA.17575420092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>
> it doesn't have iTunes integration, so buzzzzz... it can't be a good
> music device. try again ed.

hate to break it to ya, but not everyone even LIKES itunes, so not
integrating w/ itunes is hardly a deal breaker.

seriously, the chocolate is a VERY good music player- have you ever used it?

> plus twice the price for a song? why? even .99 cents is too much, why do
> you have to pay double on the LG?

i don't- why would i?

Steve Carroll

2007-09-21, 10:33 am

In article <colalovesmacs-6C9E59.19425620092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> not sure what you mean, it's only the low end 20" imacs that used the
> poorer LG screens the 24" imacs are fine.

Now the differences I'd been seeing when I look at these two makes sense.

--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
"People can *not* make their own ring tones without hacks or work-arounds".-Snit

Carl

2007-09-21, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 20 Sep 2007 10:38:28 -0400 Carl wrote:
>
>
>
> Verizon picked the phone to compare (it's their press release) so I
> assume Verizon is lumping them together as "MP3 phones."
>
>
> I think while the iPhone does do so much more, the majority of it's
> buyers were looking for an "iPod phone." Arguably, the Chocolate is
> Verizon's closest equivalent in that category.
>
>
> I don't agree that those are similar markets. Despite the iPhone's
> many well-implemented features, a business phone it isn't. While the
> iPhone's feature set is probably much closer to a Blackberry than a
> Chocolate, the iPhone's lack of any enterprise e-mail solution
> automatically removes it from the BB's main market and renders a
> comparison pretty meaningless. Arguably, despite the wide disparity
> of features, the iPhone and Chocolate share the same market- media
> player phones for the consumer market. The iPhone is just at the much
> higher-end of that market than the Chocolate is.

Ok, thanks. I see what you mean. I didn't catch that Verizon made the
comparison in a press release. A client of mine had a new Chocolate in my
office yesterday. I personally don't see any comparison unless the mp3/phone
aspects are the emphasis. Nor was I moved to run out and get a Chocolate
after seeing his.

I love new technological toys and have had a new cell phone every year or
two since my first Panasonic bag phone. But I can't find any new toy to
love currently in the cell phone market. In the case of cell phones, I think
I'm at the end of the internet with my Razr V3... :-)

LinkBot