Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 00:20 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:57:40 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:41:21 -0400, in ><m0mv26dqgsohl1hkoga5r55de2sn56ne7c(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> >>wrote: > >>>But my phone cost me less than my P&S. >> >>Is that really correct? The cost of your phone was subsidized by the >>requirement to subscribe to a provider. The real cost of your phone >>is the amount you paid for the phone itself *plus* the monthly connect >>fees for the term of your contract. Your P&S was a one-time cost. > >But it's nonetheless a sunk cost, and the incremental cost of the camera >is close to zero. > >That said, I paid $180 for my Android phone with no contract or subsidy, >considerably more for my compact digital camera. Your phone is no more than a paperweight if you do not have - and pay for - a carrier. You will pay someone something to use that phone. Every month. There is no recurring charge after the initial outlay for a camera. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 00:24 On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 22:18:20 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:m0mv26dqgsohl1hkoga5r55de2sn56ne7c(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Jul 2, 7:42 am, Vance <vance.l...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On 02 Jul 2010 05:25:38 GMT, Stuffed Crust <pi...(a)spam.shaftnet.org> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> > >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Barry <bfeinst...(a)spamblocked.com> >>>> > >wrote: >>>> > >> Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, >>>> > >> amateur >>>> > >> and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more >>>> > >> cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly >>>> > >> accepted, and >>>> > >> more important than DSLRs today? >>>> >>>> > >Bzzt, wrong. >>>> >>>> > >The majority of photographers now use cell phone cameras. More >>>> > >cost-effective, portable, adaptable, and definitely more publically >>>> > >accepted. >>>> >>>> > >As you like to point out, sales figures don't lie. >>>> >>>> > > - Solomon >>>> >>>> > Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the >>>> > sales of >>>> > microwave-ovens as clocks. >>>> >>>> A point for the Troll! Always give credit where and when due. >>>> >>>> Vance >>> >>>But my phone cost me less than my P&S. >> >> Is that really correct? The cost of your phone was subsidized by the >> requirement to subscribe to a provider. The real cost of your phone >> is the amount you paid for the phone itself *plus* the monthly connect >> fees for the term of your contract. Your P&S was a one-time cost. >> > > >You would be correct if you were analyzing the total cost of telephone >service, including the phone. to figure the true cost of just the phone, >factor in the cost of the service, if no subsidy was given. You have to factor in the service. The phone has no function without the service. A camera has function without a service requirement. > In a supermarket >are placement incentives income or a cost reduction. I have no idea what you mean here. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 00:33 In article <8i2036daaj5pqc78j3abbrpu1n9kjpuhje(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >That said, I paid $180 for my Android phone with no contract or subsidy, > >considerably more for my compact digital camera. > > Your phone is no more than a paperweight if you do not have - and pay > for - a carrier. You will pay someone something to use that phone. > Every month. it depends on the phone. some are very functional without service, they just can't make or receive calls. for example, an iphone without service is basically an ipod with a camera and gps.
From: Savageduck on 4 Jul 2010 00:44 On 2010-07-03 21:34:35 -0700, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> said: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:17 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >> In article <8i2036daaj5pqc78j3abbrpu1n9kjpuhje(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>> That said, I paid $180 for my Android phone with no contract or subsidy, >>>> considerably more for my compact digital camera. >>> >>> Your phone is no more than a paperweight if you do not have - and pay >>> for - a carrier. You will pay someone something to use that phone. >>> Every month. >> >> it depends on the phone. some are very functional without service, they >> just can't make or receive calls. >> >> for example, an iphone without service is basically an ipod with a >> camera and gps. > > Aren't there some phones that can do VOIP via WIFI? Yup, I can use Skype with my Android via WiFi or (for now)3G with Verizon. GPS, Email, web browser, all work without issue. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 01:33
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:17 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <8i2036daaj5pqc78j3abbrpu1n9kjpuhje(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >That said, I paid $180 for my Android phone with no contract or subsidy, >> >considerably more for my compact digital camera. >> >> Your phone is no more than a paperweight if you do not have - and pay >> for - a carrier. You will pay someone something to use that phone. >> Every month. > >it depends on the phone. some are very functional without service, they >just can't make or receive calls. I would consider a phone that doesn't make or to receive calls to be somewhat limited in function. > Of course, my phone - an old Nokia - *only* receives and places calls. No camera, no internet connections, no gps. I don't think it has games, but I've never checked. Just checked. Nope, it doesn't. It sends texts, supposedly, but I've never done it. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |