Sony Reader Touch @ Best Buy $299.99
Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Verizon already has an App store
Verizon already has an App store
by B14ion - 7/14/09 3:39 PMI thought Verizon already has an app store. In my Chocolate 3, there's a menu option called "Media Center" or "Get it Now" in older phones. Once there, you can download apps directly to your phone.
However, the pricing for apps are subscription-based. Each app costs about $2-$5 a month to use, the data and airtime charges not included.
Looking at the Weather Channel app for the Chocolate 3, it costs $3.99 for a monthly Subscription and "Airtime or megabyte charges apply for sending and receiving data using Get It Now, depending on your plan. "
http://products.vzw.com/index.aspx?id=fnd_toolsapps_detail&appId=2033503
I haven't used any apps from Verizon for my phone, and I don't plan to anytime soon. Pricing structure is rather odd, but what do you think?
VZ Navigator is $9.99 per month!
by B14ion - 7/14/09 3:40 PM In reply to: Verizon already has an App store by B14ionYikes!
Monthly subscription?
by Nicholas Buenk - 7/14/09 6:05 PM In reply to: Verizon already has an App store by B14ionNo surprise nobody yaks about this store. What a total scam.
Carriers are so damn stupid, They can't even see that
by minimalist - 7/14/09 6:31 PM In reply to: Verizon already has an App store by B14ionthe the era in which they were able to control the flow through their pipes and demand absurd surcharges for every little thing is coming to an end.
They have been pulling this crap on people with basic feature phones for ages (T-mobile "media net" anyone?). Cable carriers aren't any better. Charter had me take a survey asking me how much I'd be willing to pay a month for a whole range of dinky things that you can already get for free. Stuff like widgets, streaming video of shows on regular channels, email on my cable box, Pandora streaming. They wanted to actually charge between 2 and 3 dollars a month. I've course I told them I would pay zero for all these features because I was already doing them on my TV for free without a cable subsciption at all (only broadband).
I'll be so happy when they are the dumb pipes they deserve to be. Just give me access to the data and get out of the way and let the companies who know how to do this stuff well, do it.
Apps listed now are only for Dumb phones
by B14ion - 7/14/09 7:03 PM In reply to: Verizon already has an App store by B14ionAfter looking around in the Verizon Wireless site, it seems that many of the apps are primarily for "Dumb" phones like my LG Chocolate 3. Of course, you have to check an app's system requirement because not all apps work with all "dumb" phones. Some apps like "Mobile Banking" and "Visual Voicemail" work on some Blackberry phones.
This "new" app store that Verizon wants will be for the smartphones in their network. Of course, the smartphone apps may also have a monthly subscription.
Hey, I found an app without a monthly subscription: Mobile IM! Of course, data charges still apply depending on your plan.
Verizon Rant. >:o >:o >:o >:o >:o
by robstak - 7/17/09 10:16 AM In reply to: Verizon already has an App store by B14ionok, here goes...
Verizon's GetItNow is the biggest POS joke ever. Not only are the features lame, but many of them have monthly fees for things that make NO SENSE for them to be monthly. Why? This is because Verizon is the biggest nickel and diming company in the world.
The only GOOD thing about GIN is that it's NOT available on smartphones! I have an HTC Touch, and thank god it's absent there. If it were im sure id get charged 5 dollars a month for access to the start menu and would have to pay 2 cents for every app i launched.
As it is Verizon charges you to ENABLE the GPS chip that you paid for when you bought your phone (until you hack it for free). And they (and everyone else for that matter now) charge you through the ears for tethering when you already pay for the stupid data.
I think crap like this needs to be controlled by the government, this kind of A-effing should be illegal. especially considering this: I've been told by customer care reps before whilst arguing with them that since verizon has the most customers, that they don't care if they lose one (aka me). SRLSY!?!? FAIL.
The only way to fight back is to switch carriers, but they all suck too (aka i could muster a similar rant about ATT or Sprint in a second), that's why the industry needs to be regulated, unfortuantely these companies are soo big that im sure their respective lobbies would never let such a thing happen. in fact, im totally shocked Ma Bell isn't still around... lol.
grrr!!! ok feel better now.
-dr. k
Not sure the government needs to "control" it but
by minimalist - 7/17/09 10:29 AM In reply to: Verizon Rant. >:o >:o >:o >:o >:o by robstaksome tougher FCC regulation is clearly needed since the market is unable to correct these issues itself. It's not like these carriers operate in the "free market" anyway. They lease their little airwave monopolies from the government (and hence the people) and then use that lock-in to do whatever the hell they want. I feel the same way about cable providers with their little monopololistic empires. These companies are utlities and should be treated as such. Open up the lines and let real competition in (a la the breakup of AT&T and the Bells) and I guarantee you that this raping of the consumer by Verizon would come to an end.
that's kinda what i meant...
by robstak - 7/17/09 3:39 PM In reply to: Not sure the government needs to "control" it but by minimalistbut its almost not like there's even competition everywhere because of patchy coverage... kinda like the cable companies...
What about phone exclusivity
by Nicholas Buenk - 7/17/09 10:07 PM In reply to: Not sure the government needs to "control" it but by minimalistIf there is a better example of collusion I don't know it.
Not sure phone exclusives are "collusion"
by minimalist - 7/18/09 7:10 AM In reply to: What about phone exclusivity by Nicholas Buenkbecause exclusives don't keep competitors from similar products on other networks. Now if the four major US networks and Apple made an agreement to not sell any RIM devices THAT would be collusion.
What does seem like collusion is the way all the carriers obscenely overcharge for SMS data. Not one has lowered their prices on the service to draw in more customers and that seems highly suspicious. And phone locking also. After you have finished your contract you arguably have paid for that phone in full. Yet many carriers refuse to unlock the phone even at this point (I'm looking at you Apple and AT&T). I'm just waiting for a class action lawsuit on that one.
(NT) from <i>offering</i> similar products...
by minimalist - 7/18/09 7:11 AM In reply to: Not sure phone exclusives are "collusion" by minimalistIt's obviously collusion
by Nicholas Buenk - 7/18/09 5:52 PM In reply to: Not sure phone exclusives are "collusion" by minimalistWhen you make a phone and have an exclusive deal with a single carrier, it's collusion to keep that price of that single phone up, that is the only reason to do it. If it was allowed on multiple carriers prices would be cheaper and service standard better due to competition.
"similar products on other networks."
People don't want similar products though, they want the phone they're after and they should be able to pick the carrier it runs on without having to deal with the collusion and price fixing that exists today.
Although in the US the problem is a little more complex as only really Sprint and Verizon have compatible networks. AT&T and T-Mobile's 3G operate on different frequencies and typically the same phone won't support both. Still at minimum I would expect phone makers to sell their phones in an unsubsidised unlocked state, contracts with phone companies that have exclusivity should be illegal.
The situation is ideal in Australia with the iPhone for example, Apple sells the iPhone unlocked at Apple stores. The phone is also available on every carrier, and carriers sell the phone locked to their networks on contracts, but it only takes a phone call to make an unlocking request, though some of the carriers will send you an unlocking bill for say $100. And the result of all this competition? You can get the iPhone for $0 on contract, and just $40 a month, although with data caps.
Look up the legal meaning of "collusion"
by minimalist - 7/18/09 8:07 PM In reply to: It's obviously collusion by Nicholas BuenkBecause this is not it.
Collusion involves illegal under the table deals between companies that are designed to corner the market or to edge out competition. There is plenty of competition for the iPhone. The iPhone is not a category unto itself. Regardless of how many people want the iphone there is no constitutional right to buy one and operate it on the on the carrier of your choice. Unless Apple has a monopoly on smart phones (and they don;t) there really is nothing illegal about the exclusivity agreements they sign.
The iPhone is to smart phones as OSX is to PC operating systems. You can not say either of these things has a monopoly on its respective market. And as long as there are alternatives that are freely available on other carriers there is no legal line that has been crossed.
I disagree
by Nicholas Buenk - 7/18/09 9:05 PM In reply to: Look up the legal meaning of "collusion" by minimalistOne company AT&T has total control of the market for iPhones because of a deal between the two companies. iPhone could perhaps be considered a category of it's own and it's competition is actually quite weak, aside from the Pre there is really nothing on par with it. But regardless of whether you say it's it own category or not, the end result is the same, which is inflated prices and lack of choice due to a deal between two companies and I do not think an example of the affects on the market of collusion could be any more clear than here.
No US court would agree that the iPhone is a market unto
by minimalist - 7/18/09 9:36 PM In reply to: I disagree by Nicholas Buenkitself anymore than they would agree that OSX or Ubuntu are market unto themselves. A "market" in legal terms is a much broader category than just a single product. Smartphones and PC's are markets. iPhones and OSX are competitors within those markets.
America is simply not like Australia or any other EU country in our attitudes to the marketplace. We are much more libertarian and believe the government only needs to become involved when the marketplace can not correct itself through natural forces of supply and demand.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
