Theme

Welcome · log in · join

AT&T Takes A Beating For iPhone Missteps → Re: iPhone buyers are not the brightest bulbs in the string.

uniqs
1

« don't need no stinking attws data plan

This is a sub-selection from iPhone buyers are not the brightest bulbs in the string.

tiger72 SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO	tiger72 to Chillin Premium Member 2009-Jun-10 3:30 pm to Chillin Re: iPhone buyers are not the brightest bulbs in the string. said by Chillin: You have a Sony, don't ya. Nope. But I'm open minded, and know a good phone when I see one. Most people, are not looking for super high quality photos out of their phone. Obviously this is true or the iPhone would not be popular. They're not looking for a quality camera phone because they make the same ASSumption you do: that all cameraphones are inferior to dedicated cameras. The links I posted have better quality photos than my old Fuji $99 camera ever gave me. And don't get me started on the pathetic Polaroid and Kodak boxes that pass as "digital cameras". I have a Canon 40d, I would never want to use ANY camera phone for ANY picture I care about. I suspect this is true of MOST users of MOST phones. This is a red-herring, but i'll bite. I have a Digital Rebel XT. I also have an HD camcorder which takes very nice photos. Neither of those is nearly as convenient as a camera phone. That is the entire reason to have a camera phone. You seem to be against the very idea of a camera phone, and if that's the case, just say so. I doubt ANY phone can touch the quality of MOST quality stand alone cameras. Ahh, a shifting target now. Metatron stated that even decent camera phones are worse than those practically disposable kodak/polaroid /budget (but dedicated!) cameras. Now you're raising the bar to the quality of a "quality" stand alone camera - something quite ambiguous indeed. Last I checked, most cameras sold are not D40's or any other SLR. They are simple point-and-shoot cameras, and the fact that you raise the bar concedes my very point: That there ARE quality camera phones which can replace your typical standard point-and-shoot camera (the device that camera-phones are intended to replace). The iPhone, and all of these other "multimedia" phones from the likes of Samsung/etc can do the same, but they keep it cheap because people's expectations are low. Congratulations on having low expectations and making the Death Star and its allies (Apple/Samsung/etc) happy! No really, pat yourself on the back for being perfectly happy to pay more to get less.
	· actions · 2009-Jun-10 3:30 pm ·
Chillin No i7, no care. Premium Member join:2002-04-22 Johnson City, TN	Chillin Premium Member 2009-Jun-10 4:39 pm said by tiger72: said by Chillin: You have a Sony, don't ya. Nope. But I'm open minded, and know a good phone when I see one. Most people, are not looking for super high quality photos out of their phone. Obviously this is true or the iPhone would not be popular. They're not looking for a quality camera phone because they make the same ASSumption you do: that all cameraphones are inferior to dedicated cameras. The links I posted have better quality photos than my old Fuji $99 camera ever gave me. And don't get me started on the pathetic Polaroid and Kodak boxes that pass as "digital cameras". I have a Canon 40d, I would never want to use ANY camera phone for ANY picture I care about. I suspect this is true of MOST users of MOST phones. This is a red-herring, but i'll bite. I have a Digital Rebel XT. I also have an HD camcorder which takes very nice photos. Neither of those is nearly as convenient as a camera phone. That is the entire reason to have a camera phone. You seem to be against the very idea of a camera phone, and if that's the case, just say so. I doubt ANY phone can touch the quality of MOST quality stand alone cameras. Ahh, a shifting target now. Metatron stated that even decent camera phones are worse than those practically disposable kodak/polaroid /budget (but dedicated!) cameras. Now you're raising the bar to the quality of a "quality" stand alone camera - something quite ambiguous indeed. Last I checked, most cameras sold are not D40's or any other SLR. They are simple point-and-shoot cameras, and the fact that you raise the bar concedes my very point: That there ARE quality camera phones which can replace your typical standard point-and-shoot camera (the device that camera-phones are intended to replace). The iPhone, and all of these other "multimedia" phones from the likes of Samsung/etc can do the same, but they keep it cheap because people's expectations are low. Congratulations on having low expectations and making the Death Star and its allies (Apple/Samsung/etc) happy! No really, pat yourself on the back for being perfectly happy to pay more to get less. I have a open mind. I have had Sonys/Nokias/Samsungs/Audiovox PPC 6700/and many others. So what can you say now? I used all of them, they do ok. They are NOT an iPhone. I am not loyal to the iPhone. I will buy the phone I feel does what i want it to do BEST. So far ive seen nothing that touches it. You are welcome to have a differening opinion but your opinion on what I should want out of a phone means squat. I dont buy a phone for its camera, I could care less what the quality of the camera is. I have a nice point and shoot sony and a Canon 40d. I would never use a phone to take an image I cared about so it is a non issue for me. If it is for you thats great, stop trying to make it one for others. Its CLEARLY not one based on the iPhones sales. My low expectations about phones were actually set with the many other brands I tried before the iPhone. It wasn't hard for the iPhone to win me over based on the poor quality of phones out there. As if Sony and other companies are not after the same thing Apple is. Just because Apple is better at it doesn't make any of those companies more/less evil than Apple. I hope you dont kid yourself with that crap. You actually think you could change anyones mind here? Everyone here had a phone before the iPhone, and they must have not been happy with it because they moved on. I have never met a person with a iPhone that didn't love it. Additionally many people here are power users and probably have had smart phones, pdas, and all sorts of phones. If these people have moved to the iPhone they probably did it for good reason.
	· actions · 2009-Jun-10 4:39 pm ·
Uncle Paul join:2003-02-04 USA	Uncle Paul to tiger72 Member 2009-Jun-10 4:42 pm to tiger72 said by tiger72: Most people, are not looking for super high quality photos out of their phone. Obviously this is true or the iPhone would not be popular. They're not looking for a quality camera phone because they make the same ASSumption you do: that all cameraphones are inferior to dedicated cameras. The links I posted have better quality photos than my old Fuji $99 camera ever gave me. And don't get me started on the pathetic Polaroid and Kodak boxes that pass as "digital cameras". I don't know.. is it perhaps people aren't looking for a good camera phone because having a camera in their phone simply isn't a priority to them over making a phone call, getting email, surfing the web, listening to music, watching video, working with their calendar, sending text messages, and the interface to do all those things?
	· actions · 2009-Jun-10 4:42 pm ·
Chillin No i7, no care. Premium Member join:2002-04-22 Johnson City, TN	Chillin Premium Member 2009-Jun-10 4:53 pm said by Uncle Paul: said by tiger72: Most people, are not looking for super high quality photos out of their phone. Obviously this is true or the iPhone would not be popular. They're not looking for a quality camera phone because they make the same ASSumption you do: that all cameraphones are inferior to dedicated cameras. The links I posted have better quality photos than my old Fuji $99 camera ever gave me. And don't get me started on the pathetic Polaroid and Kodak boxes that pass as "digital cameras". I don't know.. is it perhaps people aren't looking for a good camera phone because having a camera in their phone simply isn't a priority to them over making a phone call, getting email, surfing the web, listening to music, watching video, working with their calendar, sending text messages, and the interface to do all those things? Well said, to be honest the camera function is one of the least features I consider when looking at a phone. In fact the iPhone could be without one, I wouldn't care.
	· actions · 2009-Jun-10 4:53 pm ·
tiger72 SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO 2 edits	tiger72 to Chillin Premium Member 2009-Jun-11 3:37 pm to Chillin said by Chillin: I have a open mind. I have had Sonys/Nokias/Samsungs/Audiovox PPC 6700/and many others. So what can you say now? I used all of them, they do ok. They are NOT an iPhone. I am not loyal to the iPhone. I will buy the phone I feel does what i want it to do BEST. So far ive seen nothing that touches it. You are welcome to have a differening opinion but your opinion on what I should want out of a phone means squat. Seems fair to me. I dont buy a phone for its camera, I could care less what the quality of the camera is. I have a nice point and shoot sony and a Canon 40d. I would never use a phone to take an image I cared about so it is a non issue for me. If it is for you thats great, stop trying to make it one for others. Its CLEARLY not one based on the iPhones sales. Good for you. As for it being important for others, that doesn't seem to be the case. Camera Phone sales lead the market in phone sales AND in Camera sales. »www.digitalcamerareview. ··· sID=3612 If the iPhone didn't have a camera at all, do you think it would sell as well? Moreover, if you go to any of the 4 national network websites, they don't sell a single smartphone without a camera. If there's not much demand for camera phones, as you assert, then why do manufacturers waste extremely precious space on such a low-demand feature? My low expectations about phones were actually set with the many other brands I tried before the iPhone. It wasn't hard for the iPhone to win me over based on the poor quality of phones out there. I can mostly agree with that. That said, I don't know which Sonys and Nokias you used. Of course a free phone from one of those makers shouldn't be as good as a $200 iphone's. As if Sony and other companies are not after the same thing Apple is. Just because Apple is better at it doesn't make any of those companies more/less evil than Apple. I hope you dont kid yourself with that crap. I didn't say anything about evil. In fact, I applauded Apple for their marketing skills. You actually think you could change anyones mind here? Everyone here had a phone before the iPhone, and they must have not been happy with it because they moved on. I have never met a person with a iPhone that didn't love it. Additionally many people here are power users and probably have had smart phones, pdas, and all sorts of phones. If these people have moved to the iPhone they probably did it for good reason. Everyone here probably had a phone before the Razr, too. The v3 Razr sold extremely well. Does that make the Razr one of the best phones ever? Sells don't reflect quality or usefulness. Sells reflect popularity, and one of the best ways to increase popularity is through marketing. As for no complaints about iPhones - check out all of the people begging for new Android phones and the Pre. Check out the Engadget comments sections on the iphone 3gs stories. That place is usually bursting with apple love, but they have certainly turned on Apple. EDIT: You know what - i found this on DIGG »www.cio.com/article/4945 ··· rnatives
	· actions · 2009-Jun-11 3:37 pm ·
Chillin No i7, no care. Premium Member join:2002-04-22 Johnson City, TN	Chillin Premium Member 2009-Jun-12 7:45 am Of course if it didn't have a camera at all it wouldn't sell as well. I didn't say it wouldn't. I said it wouldn't matter to ME. I also said it must not be a deal breaker for many since the iPhone is a wet dream for every other phone maker today. They would love to have those sales numbers. Try keeping it in context. Imagine if you will for a second if the iPhone was available on multiple networks, youd probably have a heart attack at the numbers. The biggest down fall in my opinion for the iPhone is ATT, they have been fine for me but many people do not like ATT and wont get the phone based on that alone. I bet if the iPhone was available on multiple networks there would be no 10 phones sales added together that could touch the iPhone. I am not speaking of free phones, im speaking of phones like the PPC 6700 that I paid 500 bucks for, I dont buy cheap phones. I dont know the models of the others ive slept many times since then. But I didn't like them that much. I didn't say the iPhone had no complaints either. I think you have a issue with context. I said I personally know nobody that doesn't love their iPhone. I can tell you about many of my friends though with phones like The Storm, Razor, Samsung, Windows Mobile Phones, and others that all flat out hate their phones. But are locked in contracts and stuck with them now. Almost all of them say they will be on a iPhone when they end the contact. If you have a different experience great, googling for people that hate a product really doesn't do anything for me or this argument. You can find all sorts of things on the net.
	· actions · 2009-Jun-12 7:45 am ·

« don't need no stinking attws data plan

This is a sub-selection from iPhone buyers are not the brightest bulbs in the string.