Cell phones forum: Is It Smart to have a Smart Phone?

I did do a search for it (NOT on google!) and that is very scary in deed! What a slippery slope we are on!

That is precisely why my phone has never been and never will be allowed on the internet, amongst other reasons. I wonder, does that sort of logging go out over the cell towers like it does the internet? If so, we are all so scrood[sic].

I like this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsNXtEayCSY

Plenty of fun or meme ideas.
Bob

Good one, Bob!!

...on one hand... On the other, well, ...I just gotta shake my head in amazement .... but with a smirk on my face!

There is no clear evidence that an antivirus application is needed on a smartphone yet. It is a matter of user preference. In some cases it dramatically slows system performance.

I really need to add Symantec to my portfolio since folk are falling for this one.

!!!

Is the aforementioned roomy wearing parachute pants too(?) (Just kidding

No, he wouldn't be caught dead in parachute pants! And if you ever said something like that to him to his face you probably wouldn't like the outcome. 'nuff said

When you get a "new" phone from AT&T on warranty/insurance you do NOT get an upgrade. You get what you originally bought. And it NOT new, either. It's a reconditioned unit.

When did I state otherwise, btw? [....said while pointing over at pile of old ATT branded phones obtained as such.....] And why is this topic being bolted on to this particular thread(?)

However, just to partially correct what you've written above, FWIW you might not always get the same phone if inventories do not match what the customer is attempting to replace via warranty/insurance.

cheers

.....when making a warranty claim, you aren't returning a new phone. Technically a used phone is replaced with another "used phone". I am not sure why so many folks feel the deserve a new phone as a replacement.

I guess I never thought of it that way. Sounds reasonable to me.

When making a warranty claim on a brand new item that is defective one deserves a brand new item that is NOT defective back because a brand new item that is NOT defective is what one has PAID FOR!

What is beyond me is how companies have lost their sense of ethics ..... ..... .....and why people are willing to be brainwashed into thinking that this is the right thing to do! It is most definitely NOT!

If a phone is defective during the first 30 days it will be exchanged for a new device, after that period it is a used phone. Refurbished devices are not necessarily defective to begin with. Recently my Droid Razr was giving me troubles after 9 months and the refurbished phone sent to me looks brand new out of the box. Many refurbished devices are because the original owner returned within the allotted time frame for the consumer to exchange for another device and it cannot be resold as new.

RETURNED/DEFECTIVE PHONES ARE SENT TO THE MANUFACTURER.AND THEY ARE COMPLETELY RE-INSPECTED/REPAIRED AND CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER. THE CELLULAR CARRIER DOES NOT DO THE WARRANTY SERVICE THEMSELVES.

Don't confuse ethics with your sense of entitlement. You need to pick your battles more carefully because you have no idea what you are talking about.

...obtaining a device. There are pros and cons if you read the fine print. For those of us who swap out phones more frequently, the contracts/subsidized agreements are a good deal. Otherwise, I can see how buying extra insurance might meet one's expectations/use patterns. There's more involved in this scenario than simple 'ethics'.

That said, overall I think the subsidized phone model is a poor one, with somewhat unrealistic expectations by the consumer regarding how much the carriers pay for the devices, hence the sometimes poor assumption that the companies could easily replace defective phones at any time with a new model.

The current subsidized phone model is flawed. Problem is that the majority of consumers cannot or will not pay the full unsubsidized equipment price.

I suppose you two are both way too young to remember back when ALL telephones were owned by The Telephone Company (Ma Bell) before it was split up. So, therefore, to you kids this model is flawed when in reality the model we have today is the one with the most flaws. 'nuff said. buh-bye!

What Derek says is true enough.

But, ya know? In the end, it really doesn't matter a whole lot what kind of device you use to traverse the Internet and how "secure" it may be or how "secure" the device may be that it talks to at any one time when you think about how "secure" all the devices are that that particular information has to go through just to get from point A to point B. Just how "secure" are they??????

In addition to which, why should one become dependent upon devices when those devices can and will break down eventually and/or could get lost or stolen, etc. Just think about what can happen to all the personal information that people store in their devices. What would happen to that information when that device is lost or stolen?

And what if the infrastructure for these devices fails for whatever reason??? How many would be prepared to live without their favored devices when forced to do so for whatever reason?

Just some food for thought.