These are the most recent forum messages posted by Zpike:
And who will hold them in check
YOU???? Don't make me laugh.
I know who the head of the FBI reports to
and if he protected Attorney General Eric Holder, you can bet James Comey has nothing to fear. This country is run by a dictator with no regard for the rule of law or the needs of American citizens. And an astoundingly huge crowd of cowards, otherwise known as the American people, voted him into two terms. The American people are losing their rights because they would prefer a free handout from the government to the uncertainty of living free.
It already is
>>so much more than personal information would be at stake. It already is.
More of this from you
and less of the AT&T apologetics please. :D
I know right
I'm on the same bus.
I really hope
this product line takes off. And that ASUS nails the next one of these and brings it to someone other than AT&T. I love the concept and ultimately could see myself owning a device like this... if ASUS ever gets it right.
You should just stop
presenting facts to people who don't comprehend them.
Whoa Brad stop it there
These guys don't like facts. Nor do they pay any attention to them.
Put up or shut up
>>Please tell me, explain to me, if contracts are so wonderful for the carriers, then why are all the carriers trying to GET RID of them? Why are they so aggressive about trying to get customers off contract if contracts are working out so well for them? Why? The number of articles from reputable financial institutions over the last 20 years citing in one form or another that contract customers are the golden cash cows of cellular carriers is astounding. And I ...
Re: Oh bull crap... this is hilarious
>> they offer phones because It's the way it first started and it's hard to get people off of a die hard way. Your proof is where? >>They approve them on their networks and put logos on them, because people are idiots, so that's to answer your question Which people are the idiots? The ones using the devices offered to them, or the ones approving them for use on the network, or the ones making ridiculous statements about carriers. >>they test ...
I agree completely.
Thanks for once again making this very important point so coherently.
Oh bull crap... this is hilarious
>>They want people off contracts because contracts are costly and increase churn, AT&T had 72.6 million postpaid subscribers in Q4 of 2013 with churn of 1.11 percent. >>Carriers don't want to sell phones, they want to sell SIM cards. Is that why AT&T sold 1.2 million smartphones in Q4 of 2013 alone? >>Carriers are sick and tired of taking the blame for every crappy, second rate phone that OEM's spew out, Then why do they approve them on their networks? >>they are tired ...
kind of like
It's kind of like, "Preach it, brother!," "AMEN!," or "Sho nuff!".
Thanks for making my point for me
Though I believe my sarcasm may have eluded you.
I was surprised
At how big the footprint is considering the screen size, and how ugly the red model is. The blue model in the first article you guys posted was much more attractive. But if this phones sells at mid-tier prices it will be a phenomenal buy.
I was agreeing with you
I was agreeing with you.
I certainly like the feature set, design, and screen resolution of this phone over the iPhone 6. It eclipses the iPhone in my mind. It's not my fault Apple makes inferior, bendy, crap that can't compete with middle of the road devices. But don't worry, the iPhone will still sell like hotcakes. It always cracks me up that Apple fans are more worried about Apple making a profit than they are about getting a great device, lol.
device that will eclipse the iPhone and still lose to it in sales.
Not sure what to think.
It seems like a really slick device, but also it's kind of redundant given that most phones already take stunning photos. I'd be interested to see if this catches on.
I heard that.
Well you know
AT&T's customers are all pond scum and sewer slime anyway. They probably deserved it for being such crappy customers and almost bankrupting AT&T with their unprofitable contracts. AT&T needed that money just to stay afloat and their customers should have been more than proud to have been defrauded by AT&T.
Re: Au contraire mon frère
>>I'm sorry but there is simply no such thing as a network 'being completely paid for' to the point where they never have to spend another dollar on it ever. That's not what I'm trying to say and you know it. I can only assume you have read the rest of the thread with Brad K. So, it's a little dishonest for you to misrepresent what I'm trying to say. If I asked you if your car was paid for would ...
Re: Au contraire mon frère
Regardless, it's hard to argue that a company sitting on over $50 Billion in cash reserves hasn't already paid for its network.
Re: Au contraire mon frère
>> In the real world a company pays out anywhere from 30% to 50% of their gross sales in just payroll. I doubt that's true of wireless carriers. >> There is no way you can put enough cash reserves away to indefinitely cover that and all other operating expenses. That's certainly true of small business. >>I have actually ran a business before and believe me, there is much more to it than you think. I have too. So, I know what's involved. My example ...
Re: That's not how it worked for me
The commission was good when we were able to get it, but it was a lot of headache. And even worse is the fact that we would do all the work to enter the customer data into the carrier's system and explain the devices and the services to the customer. Then the carrier's system would ask for a $500 deposit and the customer would leave. A month or so later the customer would get a letter in the mail ...
That's not how it worked for me
When I was in cell phone sales we bought the device at pretty much whatever the retail price was. If a customer had great credit, the carrier would sometimes reimburse us for a discount of $20 or $30 or whatever discount they qualified for. But they never reimbursed us for the actual device. The way it worked for us was that we either broke even or took a small loss on the device in order to make the commission. ...
Re: Au contraire mon frère
>>How do you figure monthly service fees paid to a carrier are pure profit? You know how a business is run? It's simple economics really. I decide I want to open a lemonade stand. So, I go to the local government and convince them how awesome it would be for the community to have my lemonade stand. I secure a bunch of tax incentives and government subsidies and then I build my lemonade stand for cheap. My business takes ...
Re: THIS IS WHY PHONE UNLOCKING AND ETF's ARE A SCAM
>>The carriers are not assuming zero risk. In the case of third party vendors, they are. And that is what I stated in my previous post. >>Most new activations and upgrades still go through the carrier, either at the stores or over the phone or website ordering I'm not willing to accept that statement without some factual numbers to back them up. I find it hard to believe that Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Amazon, New Egg, Tiger Direct, and a plethora of ...
Au contraire mon frère
>>Contracts don't make money in the short run, they only make money in the long run I'm pretty sure their networks are paid for... many times over. Every monthly service fee paid to a carrier is pure profit. So, they make money right away. In this statement you can only be referring to the loss taken BY THE CARRIER on a subsidized device. But we all know that a substantially large number of new activations happen through 3rd party vendors, in ...
THIS IS WHY PHONE UNLOCKING AND ETF's ARE A SCAM
Because the carriers never owned most of the devices on their network in the first place. Third party vendors pony up all the risk on the subsidized devices, while the carriers hold them over the barrel. And since the carriers are assuming little to no risk with the devices, they have ZERO right to charge ETF's and ZERO right to lock consumer devices running on their networks. The only reason they get away with it is because the socialists ...
Relative Privation fallacy
I love arguments like these. You want to suppose that because someone thinks one thing is bad that they necessarily don't care about some other bad thing. And then you go on to suggest that everyone abandon their stance against the one bad thing because it's much more important to concentrate on how bad whatever you're talking about is. Ridiculous rubbish. Both things can be bad at the same time. And someone can have a stance against both things ...
There has never been an instance of prices being higher with competition than they were with a monopoly. Keep dreaming.
Then obviously (by your logic) we should be building bridges out of porcelain, because cement will crack under enough pressure too. So, (by your logic) porcelain is just as good as concrete.
Re: Not sure what you're arguing but you're making my point
>>This is exactly what I am trying to argue. That the problem isn't with the monopoly But it is. The idea of a monopoly is evil in and of itself. Even well meaning businesses will fall into the pit falls of a monopoly if they are allowed to have one. >> it's with how difficult it is for a competitor to jump into the market. Yes, because monopolies are inherently bad and they need competitors so that they are not monopolies. >>Instead ...
>>i just dont get how they let it happen every time i go to an apple store theres employess everywhere "I just don't get how they let it happen. Apple is supposed to make premium, high-quality devices."
Versions 5 & 6
They didn't really skip versions 5 and 6. Windows 95/98/ME were basically the same OS with service packs and can be considered version 4 Windows NT was a different OS and doesn't apply. Windows 2000 and XP are essentially the same OS and constitute version 5. Windows Vista is version 6. So, there you have it. As far as actually skipping version 9 is concerned, my guess would be that they developed it to be too much like Windows 8. After all the Windows 8 ...
I'm not taking the bait. Go troll somewhere else.
Not sure what you're arguing but you're making my point
>>I don't think Monopolies alone are inherently bad. Yes, they are, >>what about when TV broadcasting was brand new and only one company offered it because they were first to market? Should we not let new companies with new services be created because there would be no competition? No one said new industries were a problem. New industry is always good. But to allow one company to dominate that industry is bad. As long as other companies are free to start ...
I'm gonna call bull crap on that one
There's a difference between bending and flexing. Bending is a property of metals, but it isn't really a property of plastic. Your phone may a have flexed, but I don't believe it bent.
(older messages not shown)