 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / September 2007NEWS: Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone
To Oxford, with love... http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070918/FREE/709180 08/1016/FREE "Verizon Wireless: LG Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone "Verizon Wireless said today that in the 12 months since it launched the LG Chocolate in the United States it has sold more than 3.4 million unitsan obvious comparison to the one million units-per- quarter performance of Apple Inc.s iPhone, which sells at rival carrier AT&T Mobility." [MORE]  Signature"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003 > To Oxford, with love... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > quarter performance of Apple Inc.’s iPhone, which sells at rival > carrier AT&T Mobility." [MORE] Don't know about LG Chocolate (actually anything that I've owned manufactured by LG was crap, especially the cellphones), but I got myself a Samsung m620 with a 2 Gig micro SD card. I bet these phones will outsell many other recent phones, including the iPhone. > Don't know about LG Chocolate (actually anything that I've owned > manufactured by LG was crap, especially the cellphones), but I got > myself a Samsung m620 with a 2 Gig micro SD card. I bet these phones > will outsell many other recent phones, including the iPhone. yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line, plus the Chocolate doesn't have an iPod inside last time I looked, so it's a non-starter if it wants to become a Phone + Music device. Basically, Apple has all cellphone companies locked out because they don't have the product design skills, don't understand mass manufacturing, nor have a 6 million song 99 cent library. You pay over DOBULE ($1.99) to get a song onto a Chocolate. How stupid can they be? So consider the "Chocolate" discontinued after XMas. - > yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line Lol... you do realize that Apple uses LG panels in it's 20" iMacs don't you? Of course you dont... silly me. > > yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line > > Lol... you do realize that Apple uses LG panels in it's 20" iMacs > don't you? > > Of course you dont... silly me. Yes, silly you. The LCD panels in the lowest-end iMacs have ALWAYS been way inferior to those in their larger cousins: http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/12/20-imac-lcd-color-problems/ Quote: Okay this one is a little shaky because my French is non-existent. But in this post (Google translation) at the French Mac site MacBidouille, they present evidence that the LCD panel in the new 20" iMacs is not a 24bit color panel as in the previous generation, but an 18bit panel instead. Support for this includes the Kodawarisan take-apart photos which appear to show the panel as a LG PHILIPS LM201WE3. This panel seems to be a TN (twisted nematic) display most of which, according to wikipedia, "...are unable to display the full 16.7 million colors (24-bit truecolor) available from modern graphics cards." Other discussions online seem to support this conclusion. Of course, we heard complaints before about color reproduction on Apple LCD displays. If true, this is consistent with the reviews (e.g. Macworld magazine) that have complained about the quality of the 20" screen versus that of the 24" iMac. If correct this would be a powerful reason to prefer the 24" iMac, particularly if color accuracy is very important to you (e.g. for working with photos). and: http://www.appleswitcher.com/viewtopic.php?t=32149 (lots of information on TN vs. IPS technology) Quote: HERE'S HOW ALL OF THIS RELATES TO THE NEW iMACS: The previous generation of 20" and 24" iMacs used the superior IPS technology. The 17" used TN. However, the 17" iMac has been discontinued, and the new aluminum 20" iMacs have been downgraded to TN. As a result, the new 20" iMacs have a far lesser quality display than the previous generation of 20"s. So, if you intend to upgrade your old 20" iMac to a new 20" iMac, you will effectively be downgrading your display. It took quite a bit of Googling to confirm this, but the the new 24" iMacs still use the superior IPS technology. Long story, short: if you're a graphics professional, or a person who requires the utmost in display accuracy, you should NOT get the new, aluminum iMac, but instead, opt for the 24". BTW, Apple mentions NONE of this data on their website, and I had to do a LOT of Googling to come to what I feel is a conclusive, trustworthy finding there is a lot of speculation occurring online about these new iMac screen issues, and very little in the way of factual information. > > yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line > > Lol... you do realize that Apple uses LG panels in it's 20" iMacs > don't you? > > Of course you dont... silly me. yes, and they are getting horrible reviews. my point stands. > > > yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > yes, and they are getting horrible reviews. my point stands. Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC manufactures, now how can you claim that AND claim that they use crappy monitors in the iMacs? > Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A > components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC > manufactures, now how can you claim that AND claim that they use > crappy monitors in the iMacs? He'll just claim it was Jobs' day off when Apple signed the purchase order... You can't have a religion without a deity... Signature"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003 > > Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A > > components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You can't have a religion without a deity... not sure what you mean, it's only the low end 20" imacs that used the poorer LG screens the 24" imacs are fine. >> > Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A >> > components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >not sure what you mean, it's only the low end 20" imacs that used the >poorer LG screens the 24" imacs are fine. Hey Oxtard, Did a PC technician anally rape you when you were a child? That's the only explanation I can see for your rabid hatred of anything PC. If so, you should lock your bedroom door so daddy doesn't pay you any more late night visits. Cheers! > > > Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A > > > components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not sure what you mean, it's only the low end 20" imacs that used the > poorer LG screens the 24" imacs are fine. Now the differences I'd been seeing when I look at these two makes sense. Signature"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit "I do not KF people" - Snit "Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from the records".-Snit "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit "People can *not* make their own ring tones without hacks or work-arounds".-Snit > > > Of course you dont... silly me. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > manufactures, now how can you claim that AND claim that they use > crappy monitors in the iMacs? perhaps apple is finally cheapening up their products to closer meet consumers low expectations of pcs? > > > > Of course you dont... silly me. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > perhaps apple is finally cheapening up their products to closer meet > consumers low expectations of pcs? Maybe... I kind of liked the screen on my 20" iMac... Of course I am poor, low class, blue collar, and I live in a poor, low tech part of the country that has to get by with a seamless 3G blanket but hardly any choices in free WiFi.. what would I know? ~.^ > > > Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A > > > components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the country that has to get by with a seamless 3G blanket but hardly > any choices in free WiFi.. what would I know? yes, apple users are quality fanatics, but i understand if you don't care about high level issues like these. i've used several of the new iMac 20" screens, probably 4 hours in front of them total... and while straight on they are quite clear. viewing them at an angle is poor. you're too young to remember, but this used to be a major talking point about the differences of a quality LCD screens compared to the cheapo ones used 10-15 years ago or so. Apple always won the clarity contests, and I'm sure they still do, but cheapening up the viewing angle is a sad trend even though "straight" on... it's fine. >>>> yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > manufactures, now how can you claim that AND claim that they use > crappy monitors in the iMacs? But Apple uses only the very best grade A crappy 20" monitors. lol > > Don't know about LG Chocolate (actually anything that I've owned > > manufactured by LG was crap, especially the cellphones), but I got [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Chocolate doesn't have an iPod inside last time I looked, so it's a > non-starter if it wants to become a Phone + Music device. the chocolate is actually QUITE good as a phone + music device. <snip> > > yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line, plus the > > Chocolate doesn't have an iPod inside last time I looked, so it's a > > non-starter if it wants to become a Phone + Music device. > > the chocolate is actually QUITE good as a phone + music device. it doesn't have iTunes integration, so buzzzzz... it can't be a good music device. try again ed. plus twice the price for a song? why? even .99 cents is too much, why do you have to pay double on the LG? > plus twice the price for a song? why? even .99 cents is too much, why do > you have to pay double on the LG? Maybe because you're allowed to download it over the cellular network instead of waiting until you find a WiFi spot? Either way, I suspect most users of either device just sideload them from their own music collection. Signature"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003 One would think the sale of smart phones would be trivial compared to the sale of chocolate. >> > yes, LG produced products are generally bottom of the line, plus the >> > Chocolate doesn't have an iPod inside last time I looked, so it's a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it doesn't have iTunes integration, so buzzzzz... it can't be a good > music device. try again ed. hate to break it to ya, but not everyone even LIKES itunes, so not integrating w/ itunes is hardly a deal breaker. seriously, the chocolate is a VERY good music player- have you ever used it? > plus twice the price for a song? why? even .99 cents is too much, why do > you have to pay double on the LG? i don't- why would i? >> Don't know about LG Chocolate (actually anything that I've owned >> manufactured by LG was crap, especially the cellphones), but I got [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - LG makes all of Apples monitors. So yes, they are low end sh.t. > To Oxford, with love... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > quarter performance of Apple Inc.’s iPhone, which sells at rival > carrier AT&T Mobility." [MORE] Who cares? > In article <qxhIi.18$k2...@fe085.usenetserver.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Who cares? You do. >> In article <qxhIi.18$k2...@fe085.usenetserver.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You do. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but that's not the point to me. I'm not an iPhone user nor an Apple fan. I am a Verizon user, but I don't see how you can compare the LG Chocolate to the iPhone, unless you're looking only at their respective music playing abilities. Are we talking about phones here or .mp3/audio players? The iPhone has outstanding web browsing/internet potential and an innovative touch screen design, none of which the Chocolate can compare to. Other than that they're both cell phones and are rectangular in shape. This is such a cliched apples and oranges issue, I don't get why it has been brought up. So the sales figures imply that the much cheaper Chocolate appeals to a lot of kids looking for a toy. The iPhone will appeal more to the wealthier adult looking for a toy, of which there are arguably fewer. So what? Why not compare the iPhone to the Blackberry 8830 and at least keep the comparison in similar markets? > Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but that's not the point to me. I'm > not an iPhone user nor an Apple fan. I am a Verizon user, but I > don't see how you can compare the LG Chocolate to the iPhone, unless > you're looking only at their respective music playing abilities. Are > we talking about phones here or .mp3/audio players? Verizon picked the phone to compare (it's their press release) so I assume Verizon is lumping them together as "MP3 phones." > The iPhone has outstanding web browsing/internet potential and an > innovative touch screen design, none of which the Chocolate can > compare to. Other than > that they're both cell phones and are > rectangular in shape. This is such a cliched apples and oranges > issue, I don't get why it has been brought up. I think while the iPhone does do so much more, the majority of it's buyers were looking for an "iPod phone." Arguably, the Chocolate is Verizon's closest equivalent in that category. > Why not compare the iPhone to the Blackberry 8830 and at least keep > the comparison in similar markets? I don't agree that those are similar markets. Despite the iPhone's many well-implemented features, a business phone it isn't. While the iPhone's feature set is probably much closer to a Blackberry than a Chocolate, the iPhone's lack of any enterprise e-mail solution automatically removes it from the BB's main market and renders a comparison pretty meaningless. Arguably, despite the wide disparity of features, the iPhone and Chocolate share the same market- media player phones for the consumer market. The iPhone is just at the much higher-end of that market than the Chocolate is. Signature"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003 >> Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but that's not the point to me. I'm >> not an iPhone user nor an Apple fan. I am a Verizon user, but I [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > player phones for the consumer market. The iPhone is just at the much > higher-end of that market than the Chocolate is. Ok, thanks. I see what you mean. I didn't catch that Verizon made the comparison in a press release. A client of mine had a new Chocolate in my office yesterday. I personally don't see any comparison unless the mp3/phone aspects are the emphasis. Nor was I moved to run out and get a Chocolate after seeing his. I love new technological toys and have had a new cell phone every year or two since my first Panasonic bag phone. But I can't find any new toy to love currently in the cell phone market. In the case of cell phones, I think I'm at the end of the internet with my Razr V3... :-) > Who cares? You mean on CSMA? Probably no one. That's roughly equal to the number in the alt.cellular groups who care about the tripe Oxford posts over there... Signature"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003 > > Who cares? > > You mean on CSMA? Probably no one. That's roughly equal to the > number in the alt.cellular groups who care about the tripe Oxford > posts over there... Yeah, well, I don't think anyone in csma cares about what Oxford posts here either. SignatureSandman[.net] > http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070918/FREE/709180 > 08/1016/FREE [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > quarter performance of Apple Inc.’s iPhone, which sells at rival > carrier AT&T Mobility." [MORE] Thanks Todd... it's just too bad the Chocolate is so weak in terms of what you get for the money. The iPhone clearly is the better choice for 99% Chocolate buyers, too bad LG can't design a phone for the life of them, but keep on trying! There used to be iPod "Killers" out there too! So it's comical to watch them fail, one by one. - here's info to get an iPhone with NO contract for $299... enjoy! just passing this along... if you want to try out the iPhone on the cheap, here is your chance... go to the below link... then on the right side, click on "special deals", then "clearance" .... not.... "iphone".... and there you will find the 4GB iPhones for $299. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore Then, on the "cheap"... when you activate it through iTunes... choose... 999-99-9999 for your SSN number then you will be routed to "Go Phone" mode... (no 2 year contract - and for sure on a minute to minute basis more expensive) BUT if you are mainly going to use the WiFi surfing, email, iPod, google maps etc it's going to be a more robust product than the iPod Touch. (minus the extra 4-12GB memory of course) so, something to ponder before apple runs out of them... the specs: iPhone, 4GB Multi-touch display with full QWERTY soft keyboard Safari web browser Email access Built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Holds up to 1,000 songs Up to 8 hours of talk time and 250 hours of standby time 2.0 megapixel camera 4.8 ounces 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46 inches Apple earphones with built-in microphone USB 2.0 cable Price: $299.00 Estimated Ship: Within 24 hours Free Shipping > To Oxford, with love... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > quarter performance of Apple Inc.s iPhone, which sells at rival > carrier AT&T Mobility." [MORE] I wonder if sales of the LG has slowed since the release of the iPhone? Not saying it has, but you really can't compare the two without knowing this. Other phones have sold well - no doubt about that. SignatureSandman[.net] > I wonder if sales of the LG has slowed since the release of the > iPhone? Not saying it has, but you really can't compare the two > without knowing this. Agreed. > Other phones have sold well - no doubt about > that. Certainly. I think Verizon was simply trying to issue a press release to put the "million iPhones" in context. The iPhonecertainly has been a resounding success, but I suspect few journalists outside the wireless industry have any idea how many cellphones are sold in the US or around the world per quarter or per year. Of course these press releases are largely ignored since they lack the "sexiness" of yet another iPhone story. Nobody noticed that Nokia has sold over 1.5 million N95s this year- a high-end phone that costs quite a bit more than the iPhone, so the iPhone certainly isn't the only high-end phone selling in large numbers either. Signature"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003 > > I wonder if sales of the LG has slowed since the release of the > > iPhone? Not saying it has, but you really can't compare the two [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Certainly. I think Verizon was simply trying to issue a press > release to put the "million iPhones" in context. As they should. The iPhone hype is enormous even today. > The iPhonecertainly > has been a resounding success, but I suspect few journalists outside > the wireless industry have any idea how many cellphones are sold in > the US or around the world per quarter or per year. Ah, the iPhone is a speck on a whale when all of that is taken into consideration. At least for now :-D > Of course these > press releases are largely ignored since they lack the "sexiness" of > yet another iPhone story. Nobody noticed that Nokia has sold over > 1.5 million N95s this year- a high-end phone that costs quite a bit > more than the iPhone, so the iPhone certainly isn't the only high-end > phone selling in large numbers either. No doubt about that. I have a Nokia N95. It's an ok phone :) SignatureSandman[.net] > "Verizon Wireless said today that in the 12 months since it launched > the LG Chocolate in the United States it has sold more than 3.4 > million unitsan obvious comparison to the one million units-per- > quarter performance of Apple Inc.s iPhone, Lessee.. 1 million iPhones in a month vs 3.4 million LG's in a year is nearly equal?? Signaturem-m >> "Verizon Wireless said today that in the 12 months since it launched >> the LG Chocolate in the United States it has sold more than 3.4 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1 million iPhones in a month vs 3.4 million LG's in a year is nearly > equal?? Yep, because after the first month Apple couldn't sell anymore. All the fanbois already had them... that's why they gutted the price 50% in 2nd month. > Lessee.. > > 1 million iPhones in a month vs 3.4 million LG's in a year is nearly > equal?? Um, that's 1 million iPhones in the first QUARTER (actually about 2- 1/2 months) not one month. Again, it's not diminishing the success of the iPhone- it's just some perspective. The Chocolate isn't even close to being the year's best- selling phone. Signature"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.