Regional : Americas : SE : Please make good phones (e.g T610 or T630 with no inbuilt camreas) without cameras! Argh....
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Regional >
Americas
> SE : Please make good phones (e.g T610 or T630 with no inbuilt camreas) without cameras! Argh....
Bookmark topic
there are more and more places that doesn't accept cam phones.....schools, hotels, companies, etc.
I think a lot of business men doesn't want/need a cam.
I would still pay the same amount for the P900 even if it didn't have a cam but as said earlier it probably cost more for SE NOT to include the cam.
--
Posted: 2004-02-07 09:34:35
Edit :
Quote
Why would the cost be high? They can just plug that hole with something solid. It ain't going to cost them. It just whether they want to do it. I don't mind paying the same price for the Z600, T610, or T630 without a camera. Cos its simply worth it.
Quote:
On 2004-02-06 13:33:30, hawklord2112 wrote:
unfortunately i havee to agree with the sentiment of the originator; i have friends who work in the local dockyard (military) and they are stuck with old handset 'cause they arent allowed to take camphones in to work... and doint want to be sim swapping every day...
--
Posted: 2004-02-07 10:59:15
Edit :
Quote
I agree with Elbrus_Joe
Some work places has a ban on camera phones.
I'd like to see a "Medium to top of the range"
phone with no camera as well.
Why should only "low end" phones be without camera?
--
Posted: 2004-02-07 11:18:02
Edit :
Quote
My theory is that it might have to do with pressure from the suppliers. Just like "big oil" supports the production of fast, heavy, gas guzzling cars I think the phone manufacturers benefit from including cams in their phones....buying more of a part means cheaper parts. Standardizing a model to one design saves on production as well. Selling one phone model instead of two is cheaper for SE. Having the customer choose between cam or no cam makes it harder for the phone manufacturer to estimate their sales.
--
Posted: 2004-02-07 12:27:39
Edit :
Quote
Hey that makes sense amagab
Or could it be that the Telcos are responsible? Lets assume that the phone manufacturers dont really give a crap about what phones they make as long as they generate profit and please their shareholders blah blah blah. Lets also assume that most phones are sold through Telcos through plans, phone subsidies etc and the amount of people purchasing phones outright (ahem stupid ppl like me) are not sufficent to sway the demand of a particular phone. And as always the ppl are price sensitive.
This situation places a significant power in which the Telcos have in determining what handset should be subsidized and consequently what the phone manufacturers profit and loss statements will look like at the end of the financial year. If phone manufacturers decide to produce something which is not considered suitable for these telcos, they won't subsidise them, ppl who go on plans will decide to purchase other phones and the original phone manufacturer will lose out in the end.
If this is all true, and with the telcos intentions to push the average revenue per user, then it makes sense for telcos to heavily subsidise phones which have wap, cameras and bluetooth because they provide alternate revenue streams other than voice calls to the telco such as GRPS data, MMS, Email etc. If they decide to heavily promote these camera phones it sends out several msgs
- they will only promote camera phones so non cameras will not be subsidised and phone manufacturers who produce them will lose out in the end
- if they only promote/subsidise these camera phones it sends out a message to the consumer that they can get a camera phone for the same or lesser price to that of the non camera ones.
Oh dear - can you tell that Ive been drinking. I will go now and sit and nod happily in the corner
--
Posted: 2004-02-07 13:29:58
Edit :
Quote
I do agree that the Telcos got a hand in this. But can't they learn that MMS is not going to huge and neither will 3G/4G/5G/etc...will be successful? The Telcos are now 'begging' people to use this. Imagine that you buy a 3G phone but your friends are still in 2G or 2.5G or whatever they call it.
One thing the Telcos underestimated is that we are humans, we can think and count. We aren't that stupid to send thousands of MMS or video calls for a dollar or per minute.
Subsidy or not, I always get my phone without any line or contract (so called at some countries). A phone doesn't really cost much. The subsidy is only marginal. Come on....
The only useful thing I find in SE phones are as followed :
1. Bluetooth
2. 65K color (I can see true color pictures or anything that got colors)
3. Easy to use menu
4. Polyringtones
5. SMS
6. IrDa (if any)
Other then that, the rest are just gimmicks.
Quote:
On 2004-02-07 13:29:58, morbodestroys wrote:
Hey that makes sense amagab
Or could it be that the Telcos are responsible? Lets assume that the phone manufacturers dont really give a crap about what phones they make as long as they generate profit and please their shareholders blah blah blah. Lets also assume that most phones are sold through Telcos through plans, phone subsidies etc and the amount of people purchasing phones outright (ahem stupid ppl like me) are not sufficent to sway the demand of a particular phone. And as always the ppl are price sensitive.
This situation places a significant power in which the Telcos have in determining what handset should be subsidized and consequently what the phone manufacturers profit and loss statements will look like at the end of the financial year. If phone manufacturers decide to produce something which is not considered suitable for these telcos, they won't subsidise them, ppl who go on plans will decide to purchase other phones and the original phone manufacturer will lose out in the end.
If this is all true, and with the telcos intentions to push the average revenue per user, then it makes sense for telcos to heavily subsidise phones which have wap, cameras and bluetooth because they provide alternate revenue streams other than voice calls to the telco such as GRPS data, MMS, Email etc. If they decide to heavily promote these camera phones it sends out several msgs
- they will only promote camera phones so non cameras will not be subsidised and phone manufacturers who produce them will lose out in the end
- if they only promote/subsidise these camera phones it sends out a message to the consumer that they can get a camera phone for the same or lesser price to that of the non camera ones.
Oh dear - can you tell that Ive been drinking. I will go now and sit and nod happily in the corner
--
Posted: 2004-02-07 15:16:51
Edit :
Quote
The trend is for more mega pixel camera phones. That is what the people want.
--
Posted: 2004-02-15 05:57:47
Edit :
Quote
By the end of the year, I am sure that we r gonna have 2-3 MP cams embedded in the phones.
This message was posted from a WAP device
--
Posted: 2004-02-15 06:09:42
Edit :
Quote
Yes,i can understand why you want a high end market phone without a camera.... but, I have a T68i, I love it,
, IrDa and loads of features + small... But the screen is crap and there are no poly tones...
But all of you here saying that there isn't a novelty in the phone camera... you know, when your out with your mates (you normally dont carry around your 3 MP camera) and one of them does something silly and you just want to capture it on the 'spur of the moment'? Also, both me and my mate are car fanatics, when I see a done up car out of this world, I snap on my cam, and e-mail or mms it to him.... its a way of keeping in touch.
Just my 2 pence..
--
Posted: 2004-02-15 13:10:19
Edit :
Quote
I agree with u.
This message was posted from a WAP device
--
Posted: 2004-02-15 13:20:31
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
