1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

Very sad to be in Radio Shack Yesterday

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by SMS, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:32:08 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
    wrote:

    >On 1/2/2013 3:30 PM, nobody@nada.com wrote:
    >
    >> It offers getting full value from the monthly costs you now pay for
    >> "service" which includes a significant portion to subsidize the cost
    >> of the phones. About 60% of the real cost of your phones is recaptured
    >> in the monthly charges, so if you don't upgrade you are "wasting" that
    >> money. At the very least, if you don't want to actually get a new
    >> phone to use, get the upgrade and resell th ephone for more than twice
    >> what the subsidized price is. Otherwise you ae simply leaving money on
    >> the table.

    >
    >While Richard is significantly over-paying for his present Verizon
    >service, paying the $35 upgrade fee for another dumb phone, then selling
    >the phone on eBay or Craigslist probably doesn't make sense anymore
    >because the resale value of a new dumb phone is not much more than $35.
    >It made sense back before Verizon instituted the $35 upgrade fee and
    >before the bottom fell out of the market for dumb phones.
    >
    >Not everyone cares about saving $20/month or so on each of their cell
    >phones, it's just not a priority. I've probably told fifty Verizon
    >customers that don't use a lot of minutes or data about Pageplus and
    >maybe 50% have switched. Some got dumb phones for their kids, some
    >wanted smart phones without a data plan, and some were like Richard,
    >happy with their dumb phone and with no desire for a smart phone, but
    >they didn't like paying $20-30/month per phone for a dumb phone.
    >
    >
    >“It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
    >you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is
    >fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.–
    >
    > Mark Crispin, Inventor of the IMAP e-Mail Protocol



    Something else you can do with a smartphone and Page Plus is buy a
    plan with as little voice and text as you need, and use the smartphone
    features on wifi only, even if the plan has a small data allowance. Or
    you could even do the same with the $80/12 month/voice card and get
    charged $.04 for each minute, and texts are charged at a similar rate.
    One of the complaints I see about Verizon (and some others) is having
    to buy a data paln to get a smartphone. Page Plus offers a pretty good
    solution.
     



    › See More: Very sad to be in Radio Shack Yesterday
  2. sms

    sms Guest

    On 1/5/2013 1:27 PM, nobody@nada.com wrote:

    > Something else you can do with a smartphone and Page Plus is buy a
    > plan with as little voice and text as you need, and use the smartphone
    > features on wifi only, even if the plan has a small data allowance. Or
    > you could even do the same with the $80/12 month/voice card and get
    > charged $.04 for each minute, and texts are charged at a similar rate.
    > One of the complaints I see about Verizon (and some others) is having
    > to buy a data paln to get a smartphone. Page Plus offers a pretty good
    > solution.


    Yes, one of the biggest attractions of Page Plus is being able to have a
    smart phone on Verizon's network without a huge data plan (or any data
    plan at all). With the continued expansion of free Wi-Fi it's not
    difficult to get by with significantly smaller amounts of 3G/4G data
    than in the past.

    The other big attraction of Page Plus is for customers that don't want a
    smart phone and that use only a few hundred minutes per month. "The 12"
    is an especially good deal for those that do a moderate amount of
    texting along with a moderate amount of calling.

    We were in Yosemite the past four days and we did a lot of texting
    because Yosemite's CDMA coverage is on Golden State Cellular so calling
    would have been 29¢/minute, but texting was included. That's one of the
    negatives of Page Plus for people that go outside major urban areas
    where Verizon isn't the CDMA carrier.
     
  3. Justin

    Justin Guest

    nobody@nada.com wrote on [Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:27:01 -0800]:
    > On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:32:08 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > One of the complaints I see about Verizon (and some others) is having
    > to buy a data paln to get a smartphone. Page Plus offers a pretty good
    > solution.


    Unless you want LTE
     
  4. AL

    AL Guest

    On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:10:46 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
    wrote:

    >if you're planning to stay with your carrier anyway
    >then not taking the subsidized phone is not all that smart. At least it
    >wasn't prior to the $35 upgrade fee.


    Verizon charged me $30 for an upgrade fee yesterday. But the various
    other local fees and taxes on the new iPhone 5 dwarfed that.

    >Richard simply doesn't care about saving $40-50 per month,


    Richard may be an eccentric millionaire for all you know. If he's
    happy where's the problem?

    >Not everyone is a cost sensitive customer, and it's a good thing because
    >these wealthy customers subsidize customers that are cost sensitive.


    I doubt that there are all that many customers who don't upgrade
    phones when they can.

    >“It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
    >you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is
    >fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.


    But you don't seem to follow your own advice. You told Richard some
    time ago about his bad deal. Yet you keep bringing him up and arguing
    about it... ;)
     
  5. SMS

    SMS Guest

    On 1/5/2013 3:32 PM, AL wrote:

    >> “It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
    >> you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is
    >> fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.

    >
    > But you don't seem to follow your own advice. You told Richard some
    > time ago about his bad deal. Yet you keep bringing him up and arguing
    > about it... ;)


    Yes, you are right, at least about the first part.
     
  6. On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 22:57:05 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
    wrote:

    >nobody@nada.com wrote on [Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:27:01 -0800]:
    >> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:32:08 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> One of the complaints I see about Verizon (and some others) is having
    >> to buy a data paln to get a smartphone. Page Plus offers a pretty good
    >> solution.

    >
    >Unless you want LTE


    And how many people really need LTE versus 3G? I think a big part of
    the difference is marketing.
     
  7. Justin

    Justin Guest

    nobody@nada.com wrote on [Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:50:31 -0800]:
    > On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 22:57:05 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>nobody@nada.com wrote on [Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:27:01 -0800]:
    >>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:32:08 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> One of the complaints I see about Verizon (and some others) is having
    >>> to buy a data paln to get a smartphone. Page Plus offers a pretty good
    >>> solution.

    >>
    >>Unless you want LTE

    >
    > And how many people really need LTE versus 3G? I think a big part of
    > the difference is marketing.


    3G is markedly slower, IME.
     
  8. AL

    AL Guest

    On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 02:04:31 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
    wrote:

    >nobody@nada.com wrote on [Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:50:31 -0800]:
    >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 22:57:05 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>nobody@nada.com wrote on [Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:27:01 -0800]:
    >>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:32:08 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> One of the complaints I see about Verizon (and some others) is having
    >>>> to buy a data paln to get a smartphone. Page Plus offers a pretty good
    >>>> solution.
    >>>
    >>>Unless you want LTE

    >>
    >> And how many people really need LTE versus 3G? I think a big part of
    >> the difference is marketing.

    >
    >3G is markedly slower, IME.


    Big difference between my 3G Droid and the new 4G iPhone 5. However
    that said, I wouldn't upgrade for that alone.
     
  9. AL

    AL Guest

    On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 05:30:05 -0500, "crkeehn" <carlkeehn@bellsouth.net>
    wrote:

    >"AL" <AL@AL4516.com> wrote in message


    >> As to phone screen size IMO around a 4" screen is best. It's big
    >> enough to read easily and still fits in your shirt pocket. Those
    >> monster phones (tablet phones?) that are out now have great screens
    >> but are likely hard to stow.
    >>
    >> Anyway check out the new crop or smartphones at the store and see what
    >> you like. If they still look bad to you, your next stop might be the
    >> optometrist... :)

    >
    >Older ones do/did. My LG Vortex came with a 3.2" screen and minimal memory.
    >The Motorola Citrus also had a small screen. It looks like the Blackberry
    >Devices have an even smaller screen at 2.4"


    Probably the best way to judge the sharpness of a screen is to get the
    PPI (pixel per inch) rating. IMO anything less than 200 PPI, though
    useable, would not be considered a good sharp screen.

    Your LG Vortex is rated at 179 PPI. For comparison the new iPhone 5 is
    326 PPI and my HTC Incredible is 252 PPI (about the same as the iPad 4
    Retina screen at 264 PPI).
     
  10. sms

    sms Guest

    On 1/7/2013 8:02 PM, AL wrote:

    <snip>

    > Probably the best way to judge the sharpness of a screen is to get the
    > PPI (pixel per inch) rating. IMO anything less than 200 PPI, though
    > useable, would not be considered a good sharp screen.
    >
    > Your LG Vortex is rated at 179 PPI. For comparison the new iPhone 5 is
    > 326 PPI and my HTC Incredible is 252 PPI (about the same as the iPad 4
    > Retina screen at 264 PPI).


    As long as you're not reading text articles, 179 PPI is okay. For
    something like a tablet used to read eBooks you don't want to be below
    200 PPI.
     
  11. AL

    AL Guest

    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    > On 1/7/2013 8:02 PM, AL wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> Probably the best way to judge the sharpness of a screen is to get the
    >> PPI (pixel per inch) rating. IMO anything less than 200 PPI, though
    >> useable, would not be considered a good sharp screen.
    >>
    >> Your LG Vortex is rated at 179 PPI. For comparison the new iPhone 5 is
    >> 326 PPI and my HTC Incredible is 252 PPI (about the same as the iPad 4
    >> Retina screen at 264 PPI).

    >
    > As long as you're not reading text articles, 179 PPI is okay. For
    > something like a tablet used to read eBooks you don't want to be below 200 PPI.


    That's why I included "IMO" in my minimum 200 PPI opinion. I wouldn't have
    agreed with myself until I got my 264 PPI iPad 3. Up to then I was happy
    with my Kindle Fire at 167 PPI. It was a similar experience to when I got
    my first pair of glasses. I had no idea the world looked so good... :)
     
  12. sms

    sms Guest

    On 1/8/2013 9:00 AM, AL wrote:
    > sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    >> On 1/7/2013 8:02 PM, AL wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>> Probably the best way to judge the sharpness of a screen is to get the
    >>> PPI (pixel per inch) rating. IMO anything less than 200 PPI, though
    >>> useable, would not be considered a good sharp screen.
    >>>
    >>> Your LG Vortex is rated at 179 PPI. For comparison the new iPhone 5 is
    >>> 326 PPI and my HTC Incredible is 252 PPI (about the same as the iPad 4
    >>> Retina screen at 264 PPI).

    >>
    >> As long as you're not reading text articles, 179 PPI is okay. For
    >> something like a tablet used to read eBooks you don't want to be below 200 PPI.

    >
    > That's why I included "IMO" in my minimum 200 PPI opinion. I wouldn't have
    > agreed with myself until I got my 264 PPI iPad 3. Up to then I was happy
    > with my Kindle Fire at 167 PPI. It was a similar experience to when I got
    > my first pair of glasses. I had no idea the world looked so good... :)


    I was betting that the iPad Mini would have a much higher resolution
    screen than it did. It's really not suitable as an eBook reader. I know
    the reasons that Apple likes their pixel counts to be integer multiples
    of each other, in both height and width, but this caused the iPad Mini
    to be a non-starter for many potential buyers.

    I got the Nexus 7 instead. Some drawbacks over the iPad Mini, but also
    some major advantages besides just the much higher resolution screen.

    I'm sure that there will be an iPad Mini 2 soon that does have a high
    resolution screen, but IMO Apple should never have gone back to the low
    resolution screens.
     
  13. Justin

    Justin Guest

    sms wrote on [Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:04:24 -0800]:
    >
    > I'm sure that there will be an iPad Mini 2 soon that does have a high
    > resolution screen, but IMO Apple should never have gone back to the low
    > resolution screens.


    Are you kidding? Of course they went with the lower resolution, so they
    can get people to buy them again with higher ppi next release cycle.
     
  14. Per sms:
    >I was betting that the iPad Mini would have a much higher resolution
    >screen than it did. It's really not suitable as an eBook reader.


    Is anybody willing to venture an opinion on how Samsung's Galaxy
    Note rates in that respect?
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
  15. AL

    AL Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:04:24 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
    wrote:

    >I was betting that the iPad Mini would have a much higher resolution
    >screen than it did. It's really not suitable as an eBook reader.


    IMO the iPad Mini should be just fine as an ebook reader. I've read
    several books on my Kindle Fire 1 which has about the same PPI (161)
    and it reads just fine. That said, after using my iPad 3 (264PPI)
    awhile I'll never go back to a lower PPI device in any future
    purchase. The 300 PPI Nexus 10 looks good (except for battery life).
    I'm sure even better devices are coming along as well...

    >I know
    >the reasons that Apple likes their pixel counts to be integer multiples
    >of each other, in both height and width, but this caused the iPad Mini
    >to be a non-starter for many potential buyers.


    Perhaps Apple will emulate Android's resolution independence in a
    future version of iOS.

    >I'm sure that there will be an iPad Mini 2 soon that does have a high
    >resolution screen, but IMO Apple should never have gone back to the low
    >resolution screens.


    There are always tradeoffs. A higher resolution screen would take more
    power. To keep up Apples reputation for good battery life that would
    likely require a bigger battery. That in turn would make the Mini a
    heavier fatter device, also a turnoff for many.

    http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple-ipad-ipad-mini-smoke-the-competitions-battery-life
     
  16. AL

    AL Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:17:59 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
    wrote:

    >Per sms:
    >>I was betting that the iPad Mini would have a much higher resolution
    >>screen than it did. It's really not suitable as an eBook reader.

    >
    >Is anybody willing to venture an opinion on how Samsung's Galaxy
    >Note rates in that respect?


    Either the original Note (285 PPI) or the Note 2 (265 PPI) should make
    an excellent ebook reader. (Compare those to the iPad Mini's 163 PPI.)
     
  17. XS11E

    XS11E Guest

    AL <AL@AL4516.com> wrote:

    > IMO the iPad Mini should be just fine as an ebook reader. I've
    > read several books on my Kindle Fire 1 which has about the same
    > PPI (161) and it reads just fine. That said, after using my iPad 3
    > (264PPI) awhile I'll never go back to a lower PPI device in any
    > future purchase.


    I have cataracts in both eyes that impact my vision but I've read
    several books on my old BlackBerry using the Kindle app and dozens on
    my current phone, a HTC Thunderbolt with the Kindle app and the Aldiko
    book reader, I've had no problems on any kind, the screen is as sharp
    and clear as my PC's monitor. A bigger screen and/or higher resolution
    is not necessary.


    --
    XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project:
    http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
     
  18. tlvp

    tlvp Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:59:32 -0700, XS11E wrote:

    > ... I've read
    > several books on my old BlackBerry using the Kindle app ...


    (OT) Help: where do you find the Kindle app for BlackBerry? I've been
    looking fruitlessly for over a year for that app for BB PlayBook, and just
    can't find one.

    Thanks and HNY, -- tlvp
    --
    Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
     
  19. AL

    AL Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:59:32 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >AL <AL@AL4516.com> wrote:
    >
    >> IMO the iPad Mini should be just fine as an ebook reader. I've
    >> read several books on my Kindle Fire 1 which has about the same
    >> PPI (161) and it reads just fine. That said, after using my iPad 3
    >> (264PPI) awhile I'll never go back to a lower PPI device in any
    >> future purchase.

    >
    >I have cataracts in both eyes that impact my vision


    Check on getting your cataracts fixed. I had mine removed from both
    eyes and now with my lens implants can see (and read) better than when
    I was young.

    >but I've read
    >several books on my old BlackBerry using the Kindle app and dozens on
    >my current phone, a HTC Thunderbolt with the Kindle app and the Aldiko
    >book reader, I've had no problems on any kind,


    The HTC Thunderbolt has 216 PPI which is not high as modern phones go
    but it will read just fine. It should show a clearer font than the
    common paperback and most people have no trouble reading them... :)

    >the screen is as sharp and clear as my PC's monitor.


    I would hope so. Most PC monitors of any size have an atrocious PPI
    rating. For example my 14" HP Pavilion dm4 laptop has a 131 PPI
    rating. Many HP's on this list have as low as 111 PPI... 8-O

    http://sortable.com/laptops/Highest-PPI-screen-HP-Single-core-full-size-laptops-3825577

    >A bigger screen and/or higher resolution
    >is not necessary.


    You forgot to add "for me"... (A common malady hereabouts... ;)
     
  20. On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:04:24 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
    wrote:

    >On 1/8/2013 9:00 AM, AL wrote:
    >> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    >>> On 1/7/2013 8:02 PM, AL wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>>> Probably the best way to judge the sharpness of a screen is to get the
    >>>> PPI (pixel per inch) rating. IMO anything less than 200 PPI, though
    >>>> useable, would not be considered a good sharp screen.
    >>>>
    >>>> Your LG Vortex is rated at 179 PPI. For comparison the new iPhone 5 is
    >>>> 326 PPI and my HTC Incredible is 252 PPI (about the same as the iPad 4
    >>>> Retina screen at 264 PPI).
    >>>
    >>> As long as you're not reading text articles, 179 PPI is okay. For
    >>> something like a tablet used to read eBooks you don't want to be below 200 PPI.

    >>
    >> That's why I included "IMO" in my minimum 200 PPI opinion. I wouldn't have
    >> agreed with myself until I got my 264 PPI iPad 3. Up to then I was happy
    >> with my Kindle Fire at 167 PPI. It was a similar experience to when I got
    >> my first pair of glasses. I had no idea the world looked so good... :)

    >
    >I was betting that the iPad Mini would have a much higher resolution
    >screen than it did. It's really not suitable as an eBook reader. I know
    >the reasons that Apple likes their pixel counts to be integer multiples
    >of each other, in both height and width, but this caused the iPad Mini
    >to be a non-starter for many potential buyers.
    >
    >I got the Nexus 7 instead. Some drawbacks over the iPad Mini, but also
    >some major advantages besides just the much higher resolution screen.


    Price not being one of the drawbacks. I got a Nexus 7 3G for $300. The
    comparable iPad mini is $560.
    >
    >I'm sure that there will be an iPad Mini 2 soon that does have a high
    >resolution screen, but IMO Apple should never have gone back to the low
    >resolution screens.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?