Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 21:05 In article <0jb236dj2psp20e9k8kdfd3jt48hg80bj9(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>>There ya go! > >>>If I agree to take the phone & 3G service Verizon will subsidize the phone > >>>cost. > >> > >> It's effectively a time payment agreement, not a subsidy per se. > > > >Not at all. the price for the service is that same, regardless of which > >phone I use. > > That's because the carrier is overcharging you for service without a > bundled phone. Suggest you consider a more customer friendly carrier > like T-Mobile. unfortunately, t-mobile's coverage and plans are not necessarily the best. you get what you pay for.
From: Peter on 4 Jul 2010 21:12 >> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 20:56:48 -0400, in >> <4c312dfa$2$5542$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>> news:doa2369qrchpuhirc4ekf6h1ccql46828n(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:53:07 -0400, in >>>> <4c311690$1$5500$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" >>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:gs2236t9l6h3oq0fsvq4mj4qi1vf5o5cmi(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>>> I can't get my mind around this. Your "phone" has WiFi, GPS, >>>>>> music, and camera functions. A phone should have phone >>>>>> functions. Without the phone functions, it's an electronic >>>>>> device but it's not a phone. >>>>> >>>>> There ya go! >>>>> If I agree to take the phone & 3G service Verizon will subsidize >>>>> the phone >>>>> cost. >>>> >>>> It's effectively a time payment agreement, not a subsidy per se. >>> >>> Not at all. the price for the service is that same, regardless of >>> which phone I use. >> >> That's because the carrier is overcharging you for service without a >> bundled phone. Suggest you consider a more customer friendly carrier >> like T-Mobile. > > > > > Barf on T-Mobile coverage and service. It may be fine for you, but > would not work for me. You see I am not as expert at using phones as you. > > Explain your points. Neither makes any accounting sense.
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 21:20 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 21:12:48 -0400, in <4c3131ad$0$5557$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> That's because the carrier is overcharging you for service without a >>> bundled phone. Suggest you consider a more customer friendly carrier >>> like T-Mobile. > Barf on T-Mobile coverage and service. It may be fine for you, but > would not work for me. You see I am not as expert at using phones as you. That explains it then. ;) > Explain your points. Neither makes any accounting sense. Check out T-Mobile USA pricing, and you will see a price difference between service without a bundled phone and service with a bundled phone. If you own carrier isn't doing that, then it's pocketing the difference. Elementary, my dear Peter. ;) -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 21:27 In article <mmc236tm7phe02fl8a8nirsb252hv20qg9(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > Check out T-Mobile USA pricing, and you will see a price difference > between service without a bundled phone and service with a bundled > phone. If you own carrier isn't doing that, then it's pocketing the > difference. Elementary, my dear Peter. ;) it depends how long you keep a phone. most people buy a new phone every couple of years, which means it may actually be less expensive to get a subsidized phone. and then there's the coverage issue.
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 21:29
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:42:55 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:46:09 -0400, in ><p73236t9p46tecv44c0o3p6qpf8vtji90n(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>I am particularly uninterested in a phone that uses one of those >>things about the size of a banana that clips on the ear. > >That's a shame, because Bluetooth can be quite handy. I can't imagine how. People wear that banana thing all day and stand there and talk into space when they get a call. I think that's rude. When I get a phone call I move away from other people. I've never thought it much trouble to pull out my phone. I find it really annoying to be standing in line and being forced to listen to the person next to you yammering away about their personal business. The worst is those Nextel things where you have to listen to *both* sides the conversation. > >>As far as I'm concerned, the telephone peaked in ergometric design >>when the single handset replaced the "candlestick". Phones could then >>be held in one hand as one walked around within the limited range of >>the cord. > >I think ergometrics have continued to improve: > * smaller > * lighter Inconsequential advances in my opinion. I never found handsets to be particularly burdensome to lift. Well, one of my early mobiles - the Motorola brick - was a problem. Ergometrically, smaller and lighter is no particular advantage over the old t-bone wired handset unless you have a physical problem. Smaller and lighter can be more difficult to grasp. Smaller and lighter is a benefit when it comes to being able to carry the phone in your pocket, but that is not ergometrics. > * much better displays Again, inconsequential. The idea is to speak to the other party, not to watch the screen. > * Caller ID Unimportant. I always answer. If it's someone I don't want to talk to, I hang up. It solves the problem. > * complete address books That's actually a bit negative. I don't know my son or my daughter's telephone number because I rely on the address book. If I had to call them from a landline I wouldn't know the number. > * call logs One of those features that has very little use. I don't need a log to tell me that I called my wife or the dentist this morning. > * speed dialing So you save punching a few digits and you save a second or two. Can you honestly say you've improved your life by doing so? Without it will your finger tire by the end of the day? Will you have done anything worthwhile with those seconds? > * voice dialing Vide ut supra. >etc. I do use the calendar etc. >>The cordless phone was a welcome improvement, but it only >>encouraged longer phone conversations. I don't like long phone >>conversations. > >Sounds like you don't like phone conversations much at all. ;) Phone conversations are fine. Long phone conversations are unnecessary. Especially unnecessary are the conversations that run long because the other person is driving, bored, and makes calls just alleviate the boredom of being in traffic. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |