Customer choice is apparently out the window these days when it comes to picking a cell phone. Imagine for example, if when you purchased a car, it was only allowed on certain roads. You’d have to figure out which roads you most travel, and then buy a car based on which one was allowed on most of those roads. Would you tolerate this?
I’m not sure how many times I’ve said it on this blog, but the three most important criteria when preparing to buy a cell phone are coverage, coverage, and coverage. I don’t care how cool some whizbang cell phone is. If it can’t get a signal from its network (or any network for that matter), most of the cool whizbang features won’t be worth a hill o’ beans to its owner.
This is why I tell people to shop for a carrier before shopping for a phone. Shopping for a carrier involves figuring out which of the four “majors” — T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon Wireless — offers the best signal in the places you most need signals; your house, your place of work, your commute, favorite watering hole, etc. Talk to your friends. Borrow their phones for a couple of hours (a real friend will make the sacrifice). It’s time well spent to figure this out because you don’t want to find out the hard way (after you’re locked into a two year contract).
I was reminded both yesterday and today of how stupid the idea of “shopping for a carrier first” sounds. It’s as if the idea really makes sense, is favorable to the consumer, and should be thought of as normal.
Yesterday, in response to various rants about the iPhone (and also partially in response to my great dissatisfaction with the Windows Mobile 5-based Motorola Q I carry with me), the public relations team for Windows Mobile 6 (WM6) reminded me that they’d like to put one of their newer devices in my hands. But of the ones that seem worthwhile (eg: the HTC Vox), none are compatible with the only network that meets the coverage, coverage, coverage rule for me: Verizon Wireless. According to the WM6 folks, something new for Verizon Wireless is sure to turn up later this year.
Today, I spent the majority of the day at a Samsung gadget fest (stay tuned for a ton of video) that took place in the West Village in NYC (boy, it’s friggin’ hot here). And, once again, I was reminded of how certain phones — especially the ones that I’m the most interested in — only work on certain networks (and not the one network that works best in the places I hang).
When there were a lot of complaints that the iPhone is only available for one of AT&T’s two networks (reminder: the slower of the two), I thought “normal.” Business as usual. When I realized the phones Microsoft was offering to me for testing only worked on certain networks, I thought “normal.” Today, while I was at the Samsung gadget fest in NYC and saw an array of phones, most of which were carrier-specific, I thought “normal.” But then I wondered, why are we letting them (the proverbial “them”) define normal. Or maybe it’s me. How did I come to blindly accept this status quo? This isn’t normal. This is anti-consumer choice. Maybe the network over there isn’t the best. But in Europe, at least you can easily interchange phones and providers without finding out that you have to give up on owning the one handset you’ve had your eyes on for six months.
This stinks. That’s the point I make in the video above (if you need a good rant to watch).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributed by Hasan Shrek, independence blogger. Also run online business , mlm coder, internet marketing solution , online store script .
Beside he is writing some others blogs for notebook computer , computer training , computer software and personal computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
