voice dialing is useless? No one uses it? It makes more sense to have to wait till you stop so you can hit 3 keys to make a call? Can you share what you're smoking please?
No voice dialing renders Bluetooth useless for me and many others.
Maore people will use Voice dialing in conjunction with BT than HSDPA data.
No voice dialing renders Bluetooth useless for me and many others.
Maore people will use Voice dialing in conjunction with BT than HSDPA data.
I don't think so. The majority of cell phone users, soccer moms, dads, teenagers, don't use a bluetooth headset let alone voice dial. Business people yes, regardless of gender. So how do you explain how usefull voice dial would or will be to them. I think they would rather have a better camera or a nicer screen or a faster data to down load their MP3's or video clips. I don't think the majority of cell phone users would give a damn about voicedial. really. Like it or not the day is coming and MP3 players will be a thing of the past. Phones are headed the way of convergence devices. Phone, MP3 player, camera, data, etc.
How does voice dial make up for Motorola's lack of features or new technology in their GSM phones in the US or north america for that matter. Explain that please, actually I am still waiting for someone to explain that one, but all anyone can come up with is the lack of voice dial. I think i explained it very clearly here which everyone chooses to ignore. Yeah ok. So you are telling since a RAZR has voice dial that makes up for the lack of EDGE or a Megapixel camera. The V3i has a megapixel camera but still GPRS. Most of the features on Moto phones in North America are comparable to entry level phones. This is a fact. How do you explain that. The majority of their phones have VGA cameras and GPRS. No matter how you slice it, those features are low class. Period.
Consultants have credibility because they are not dumb enough to work at your company.
Managers are like cats in a litter box. They instinctively shuffle things around to conceal what they've done.
If you give a man a fish he will eat for a day. But if you teach a man to fish he will buy an ugly hat. And if you talk about fish to a starving man then you are a consultant.
I am going to sum up my points so we can move on and not further hijack this thread.
CDMA is cheaper than WCDMA
Quote:"Motorola handset chief Ron Garriques told Reuters on Monday he hesitated to use Qualcomm's WCDMA chips, although the U.S. firm often is the first out of the door with such products, because the chips and license fees are expensive and consumers are not willing to pay a premium."
Basically Moto does not want to invest in quallcomm chips and hurt their profit margin when they can basically make different color phones and shapes and add gimmicks like itunes. This is the jist of the article. Why Moto doesn't have to be leading anymore:
QUOTE" "Do I really want to launch a WCDMA (3G) phone with a Qualcomm chip that drives up my bill of materials by $40, but which I can't sell for a higher price, and give up my profit margin?" he said."
Now that 3g is more wide spread Moto is going to start to release handsets, espically since Quallcomm has released a chip that is cheaper and smaller. Since Moto did not want to hurt their profit margin before, now they wouldn't have to.
November 13, 2006 is the release date of this news.
On the same day, it is announced that Moto has collaborated with Quallcomm to provide Moto with Quallcomm chips. Now Moto is going to start to release 3G phones. Their profit margin will not take a hit. As told in the first interview.
QUOTE" "Do I really want to launch a WCDMA (3G) phone with a Qualcomm chip that drives up my bill of materials by $40, but which I can't sell for a higher price, and give up my profit margin?" he said."
In the meantime, the lack of features on Moto handsets before the above transpired and what he said in the above article:
QUOTE:"Do I really want to launch a WCDMA (3G) phone with a Qualcomm chip that drives up my bill of materials by $40, but which I can't sell for a higher price, and give up my profit margin?" he said.
He admits this is a relatively new approach for Motorola, which always prided itself in bringing the latest technology to consumers--it made the smallest first-generation analog phones in the 1990s, it was leading with second-generation GSM world phones around 2000 and pioneered in 3G handsets.
"In the past we had to launch every product and chase every market, because we needed every opportunity. People weren't expecting great designs from us anyway," Garriques said.
In this article he is stating he does not care if another competitor releases new technology before them. They got cool phones that sell. Why hurt their profit margin if they don't have to. Makes perfect sense and I agree with him. Smart man. But that doesn't mean it is better for the consumer.
Sorry to inform you people who are defending Moto, they are going to increase their profit margin by producing trendy phones, with weak features. He states as much in the article. They are going to increase their lower end phone production and increase their profits with more volume.
"Large volumes help Motorola be more profitable, and that is also the reason why the company is active in the ultra-low end of the market, making phones for emerging markets which operators can purchase for less than $30.
"We're driving the cost. You cannot generate healthy profits if you don't get the volume in the low end," Garriques said."
And lesser features in their higher end phones to increase profits, this has happened and is happening.
"In the higher end of the market the secret is not to cram the most sophisticated technology in a mobile phone, but to create a sophisticated image. For instance by painting the Razr pink or gold and co-branding it with the likes of fashion icons Dolce & Gabbana, as Motorola has done over recent months.
"The Razr is good for three years. We've had a year, and it's good for another two years," said Garriques.
Three years is at least one year longer than the average lifespan of a mobile phone model.
Motorola also will do more co-branding in the future, he said.""
So how what I am pointing out isn't true about Moto? Their lineup of GSM phones in North America is exactly what he said in the above article. More colors, i-tunes, and more lower end phones.
Sorry the Moto we knew and love is gone. Replaced by a company enthralled and driven by profit margin only. This is sad. Really. In reality the RAZR changed the company, for the worse in my opinion, for the consumer anyway, not Moto.
"He admits this is a relatively new approach for Motorola, which always prided itself in bringing the latest technology to consumers--it made the smallest first-generation analog phones in the 1990s, it was leading with second-generation GSM world phones around 2000 and pioneered in 3G handsets."
Last edited by iamthedudeman; 12-05-2006 at 04:01 PM.
I hate to say it guys but you're wasting your time; iamthedudeman will not see what you are saying.
We've been down this road before and it never gets resolved.
K
Don't worry, I am done ranting. This thread has been hijacked enough.
On a more important note. Where did you get the RIZR? I was looking at adding it to my collection. Quad band right? With EDGE and 2.0 megapixel camera?
Don't worry, I am done ranting. This thread has been hijacked enough.
On a more important note. Where did you get the RIZR? I was looking at adding it to my collection. Quad band right? With EDGE and 2.0 megapixel camera?
I bought mine from CTI-Miami. Very nice people or Kahrlos.com; if you go with Kahrlos though email the owner for a great HoFo discount.
Sony Ericsson T68i (retired), Nokia 8890 (retired)
Carrier
AT&T Wireless
Feedback Score
0
Wow, haven't looked at this thread in a while (recently got an 8525, been spending a lot of tim ein the pda forum). When did this phoen go from testing to approved?
Originally Posted by troyboy30
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks