Why does T-Mobile USA refuse to carry LG phones?
I used to work for T-Mobile between Early 2003 and Late 2005 in Customer Service/Tech support, now I am working for them again thru an indirect dealer.
I was wondering, why do they refuse to carry LG phones? AT&T has 'em, so does Verizon, even Sprint...heck, even T-Mobile UK and overseas carries some LG phones!
I just feel like the T is losing opportunities here since LG seems to blow a whole lot of phones out. Anybody else ever pondered this very question?
I was wondering, why do they refuse to carry LG phones? AT&T has 'em, so does Verizon, even Sprint...heck, even T-Mobile UK and overseas carries some LG phones!
I just feel like the T is losing opportunities here since LG seems to blow a whole lot of phones out. Anybody else ever pondered this very question?
...
Not so fast. I tend to agree. I've been using cell phones for 10+ years now. The only bad experiences I've had were all LG phones...and I've had several. Build quality/materials was apalling and signal reception was poor at best. I've had none of those issues with the Samsung, Motorola phones I've purchased or the generic no-names given out free by a provider.
...
I've never EVER had good luck with an LG phone. AT&T reps I know feel bad when a customer buys one. Am I missing something?
...
Because LGs are HORRIBLE.
Latest Garbage.
Low Grade.
Whatever name you want to give them, they all apply. The problem with LG is that 99% of their phones are horribly built. They do a great job of making absolutely beautiful phones. It suckers you into buying one, and then you realize everything about the phone is horrible. The software, the hardware, everything is garbage. Just ask anyone who bought a Chocolate. What a piece that is/was. And the Dare? The Voyagar? All horrible quality phones. Beautiful, but horrible quality.
Its the same reason T-Mobile ditched Palm a few years back. Why would they sign an agreement with a company that puts out such horrible phones. Even though the carrier doesn't make the phones, the carrier is the on...
(continues)
Latest Garbage.
Low Grade.
Whatever name you want to give them, they all apply. The problem with LG is that 99% of their phones are horribly built. They do a great job of making absolutely beautiful phones. It suckers you into buying one, and then you realize everything about the phone is horrible. The software, the hardware, everything is garbage. Just ask anyone who bought a Chocolate. What a piece that is/was. And the Dare? The Voyagar? All horrible quality phones. Beautiful, but horrible quality.
Its the same reason T-Mobile ditched Palm a few years back. Why would they sign an agreement with a company that puts out such horrible phones. Even though the carrier doesn't make the phones, the carrier is the on...
(continues)
...
8300
5400/5500
The ENV line
LG's made some really good phones as well. a good chunk of the issues with the Voyager/Dare were customers not understanding them. The biggest thing with touch screens is people putting them in their back pocket and wondering why the screen cracks.
I see more people with Faulty Glydes than I do anone with an LG that just stopped working for some unknown reason.
5400/5500
The ENV line
LG's made some really good phones as well. a good chunk of the issues with the Voyager/Dare were customers not understanding them. The biggest thing with touch screens is people putting them in their back pocket and wondering why the screen cracks.
I see more people with Faulty Glydes than I do anone with an LG that just stopped working for some unknown reason.
...
i think at one time lg phones were great i just sent back to lg en touch, both froze up , the touch screen was never able to be calibrated and for not being a smart phone, i was lucking if i had 2 bars on the battery left by afternoon. wont be buying lg anymore
...
The ENV line was quite successful, no doubting that. Were they exceptionally good phones? Eh, not really, they were just really popular because they were the best available at the time with a QWERTY keyboard w/o having to get a smartphone.
People putting phones in their back pocket and breaking them is not unique to touch screens. I had a customer yesterday who did that with a flip phone. Inherently you will find a large chunk of just plain stupid customers. I had a guy yesterday who snapped a T229 in half. His excuse? "Well it shouldn't." This guy was an idiot.
And the Glyde was a POS too. Every manufacturer puts a POS out every once in a while, but I think LG and Motorola take the blue ribbon for that. I'm not saying every phone they pu...
(continues)
People putting phones in their back pocket and breaking them is not unique to touch screens. I had a customer yesterday who did that with a flip phone. Inherently you will find a large chunk of just plain stupid customers. I had a guy yesterday who snapped a T229 in half. His excuse? "Well it shouldn't." This guy was an idiot.
And the Glyde was a POS too. Every manufacturer puts a POS out every once in a while, but I think LG and Motorola take the blue ribbon for that. I'm not saying every phone they pu...
(continues)
...
I think this is highly dependent on carriers.
I sell verizon, and even though a majority of phones I sell are LG (it is the brand my retailer seems to like the most) they are the brand least likely to be returned with issues.
The main exception being the 8350 (for cheap plastic) and of course the mistake known as the chocolate, but even the chocolate3 seems to work really well around here.
Motorola/Samsung phones seem to suffer from poor build quality, buggy software, and bad batteries far more often than the LG's we sell do.
Maybe it could just be this area, but in the NorthEast/Midwest LG's seem to work really well on Verizon's network. I do know that ATT struggles with them a lot more than we do.
I sell verizon, and even though a majority of phones I sell are LG (it is the brand my retailer seems to like the most) they are the brand least likely to be returned with issues.
The main exception being the 8350 (for cheap plastic) and of course the mistake known as the chocolate, but even the chocolate3 seems to work really well around here.
Motorola/Samsung phones seem to suffer from poor build quality, buggy software, and bad batteries far more often than the LG's we sell do.
Maybe it could just be this area, but in the NorthEast/Midwest LG's seem to work really well on Verizon's network. I do know that ATT struggles with them a lot more than we do.
...
It's actually quite the opposite for T-Mobile. Samsung is our biggest supplier and has high quality phones, even if they don't feel like it. Aside from stupid people, they don't really get returned all that often. the motorolas get returned more than anything. I used to work for an at&t retailer, and LG was a pretty sturdy phone back then. at least t-mo is finally getting back in to sony erricsons.
...
I have to agree with Samsungs w/ T-Mobile. Not that they're all great, I hated the Blast for example. Nokias tend to be tanks for us too, but they have gotten kinda plain w/ T-Mobile. I don't know if the lame handset choices w/ Nokia are a decision by the carrier or Nokia, but damn I wish they would release something truly great.
I can't vouch too much for LGs w/ Verizon, only a small number of models. I am more versed with AT&T's, which are garbage.
I can't vouch too much for LGs w/ Verizon, only a small number of models. I am more versed with AT&T's, which are garbage.
...
