XS11E wrote:
> "BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And just where is it advertised that Verizon Wireless sells
>>>> phones with less functionality than apparently identical phones
>>>> from other providers?
>>>
>>> Your phone has the functionality that is advertised here:
>>>
>>> http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/s...item=phoneFirs
>>> t&action=viewPhoneDetail&selectedPhoneId=2365
>>>
>>> It doesn't have less functionality, it has different
>>> functionality. If you'd look at other providers you'd see they
>>> *all* offer different functionality, very few Razrs are
>>> identical, it varies from carrier to carrier.
>>
>> I think you have to agree that "different" in this case also means
>> "more limited" than other carriers (TMo allows the full
>> functionality of BT as do ATT and, IIRC, Sprint.
>
> No, I wouldn't agree. Verizon phones do everything the others do but
> sometimes through different means.
>
> I'll stick with "different" as the correct term unless you'd agree
> "more limited" also applies to phones that can't get Vcast, GIN, etc.
> etc....
I would agree with you that VZW offers some features that may be unique
to them - I certainly don't have those things with TMo so perhaps TMo is
a "more limited" service than VZW. In turn, VZW, offers a "more limited"
version of the Bluetooth feature set on their phones. The difference
between the two, to me at least, is that TMo simply doesn't have Vcast &
GIN to offer yet. VZW does have the razr and could order it with BT
fully implemented out of the box but chooses not to to drive revenue
from other options. So whether you want to call the the VZW razr
"crippled" or "more limited" or just "different" is purly semantics. The
fact of the matter is that VZW has turned off some of the phone's
functionality.