screen durability on high-priced phones

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:09:09 -0400, -= Hawk =-
<Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:42:03 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>scribbled:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:09:21 GMT, "Tom J" <tomnews@earthlink.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>>>> Why is it that in so many cases, you pay a good price for a phone
>>>> and,
>>>> while it performs as advertised, in no time flat, the screen gets
>>>> scratched though no fault of anyone?
>>>
>>>My phone is over 5 years old and still looks like new. There are
>>>static cling plastic covers for the screen, plus I have the phone in a
>>>leather case, so it seems to me "someone" is at fault..
>>
>>You may believe that, and that's your prerogative. I don't damage my
>>stuff and always made things last. The fact that your phone is five
>>years old and still looks like new is anecdotal. People that have
>>business-class devices that cost hundreds with subsidies have a right
>>to expect them not to get tiny scratches on them from wiping away
>>perspiration that comes from one's face.
>
>Don't wipe delicate devices with abrasive cloth. That includes most
>paper towels and napkins. If you don't damage your stuff and no one else
>is borrowing it to use as a hockey puck or door stop then the only
>possible thing is you've got gremlins.... or you're damaging your stuff
>and denying it...


Oh, for the love of God, people aren't always going to have a cheese
cloth to wipe a screen with. If they can't make the things to be
durable enough to be wiped with a shirt or something similar, then
that's making crap.

I love how there are always those that try to explain away things that
shouldn't exist in the first place. If you put all your innovation in
the guts and neglect stupid little things like having a durable
screen, that shows poor planning. That would be like having a speedy
roadster whose tires were built to disintegrate once the car hit 80.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:41:54 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
scribbled:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:09:09 -0400, -= Hawk =-
><Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:42:03 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>>scribbled:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:09:21 GMT, "Tom J" <tomnews@earthlink.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>>>>> Why is it that in so many cases, you pay a good price for a phone
>>>>> and,
>>>>> while it performs as advertised, in no time flat, the screen gets
>>>>> scratched though no fault of anyone?
>>>>
>>>>My phone is over 5 years old and still looks like new. There are
>>>>static cling plastic covers for the screen, plus I have the phone in a
>>>>leather case, so it seems to me "someone" is at fault..
>>>
>>>You may believe that, and that's your prerogative. I don't damage my
>>>stuff and always made things last. The fact that your phone is five
>>>years old and still looks like new is anecdotal. People that have
>>>business-class devices that cost hundreds with subsidies have a right
>>>to expect them not to get tiny scratches on them from wiping away
>>>perspiration that comes from one's face.
>>
>>Don't wipe delicate devices with abrasive cloth. That includes most
>>paper towels and napkins. If you don't damage your stuff and no one else
>>is borrowing it to use as a hockey puck or door stop then the only
>>possible thing is you've got gremlins.... or you're damaging your stuff
>>and denying it...
>
>
>Oh, for the love of God, people aren't always going to have a cheese
>cloth to wipe a screen with. If they can't make the things to be
>durable enough to be wiped with a shirt or something similar, then
>that's making crap.

No, that's irresponsible handling of your possessions. If you know or
think what you're about to clean your screen off with will scratch it,
free hint, don't use that and wait until you can use something you won't
damage your phone with.

>I love how there are always those that try to explain away things that
>shouldn't exist in the first place. If you put all your innovation in

I love how people refuse to take personal responsibility for their
actions. "It's the manufacturer's fault *I* scratched my screen!"

>the guts and neglect stupid little things like having a durable
>screen, that shows poor planning. That would be like having a speedy
>roadster whose tires were built to disintegrate once the car hit 80.

No, it'd be nothing like that at all.

-= Hawk =- wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:41:54 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
> scribbled:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:09:09 -0400, -= Hawk =-
>> <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:42:03 -0400, Cyrus Afzali
>>> <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>>> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:09:21 GMT, "Tom J"
>>>> <tomnews@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>>>>>> Why is it that in so many cases, you pay a good price for a
>>>>>> phone
>>>>>> and,
>>>>>> while it performs as advertised, in no time flat, the screen
>>>>>> gets
>>>>>> scratched though no fault of anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>> My phone is over 5 years old and still looks like new. There are
>>>>> static cling plastic covers for the screen, plus I have the
>>>>> phone
>>>>> in a leather case, so it seems to me "someone" is at fault..
>>>>
>>>> You may believe that, and that's your prerogative. I don't damage
>>>> my stuff and always made things last. The fact that your phone is
>>>> five years old and still looks like new is anecdotal. People that
>>>> have business-class devices that cost hundreds with subsidies
>>>> have
>>>> a right to expect them not to get tiny scratches on them from
>>>> wiping away perspiration that comes from one's face.
>>>
>>> Don't wipe delicate devices with abrasive cloth. That includes
>>> most
>>> paper towels and napkins. If you don't damage your stuff and no
>>> one
>>> else is borrowing it to use as a hockey puck or door stop then the
>>> only possible thing is you've got gremlins.... or you're damaging
>>> your stuff and denying it...
>>
>>
>> Oh, for the love of God, people aren't always going to have a
>> cheese
>> cloth to wipe a screen with. If they can't make the things to be
>> durable enough to be wiped with a shirt or something similar, then
>> that's making crap.
>
> No, that's irresponsible handling of your possessions. If you know
> or
> think what you're about to clean your screen off with will scratch
> it,
> free hint, don't use that and wait until you can use something you
> won't damage your phone with.
>
>> I love how there are always those that try to explain away things
>> that shouldn't exist in the first place. If you put all your
>> innovation in
>
> I love how people refuse to take personal responsibility for their
> actions. "It's the manufacturer's fault *I* scratched my screen!"
>
>> the guts and neglect stupid little things like having a durable
>> screen, that shows poor planning. That would be like having a
>> speedy
>> roadster whose tires were built to disintegrate once the car hit
>> 80.
>
> No, it'd be nothing like that at all.

It's rather amusing that he mentioned the speedy roadster. He'll be
complaining about it sooner or later, when he doesn't keep those
plastic headlamp & tail lamp lens polished and they start discoloring
and cracking. :-(
My neighbor has that very complaint, because his vehicle is 1/2 the
age of mine and his headlight lens are cloudy and mine are still
crystal clear.

Tom J

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:28:48 -0400, -= Hawk =-
<Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:41:54 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>scribbled:

>>>Don't wipe delicate devices with abrasive cloth. That includes most
>>>paper towels and napkins. If you don't damage your stuff and no one else
>>>is borrowing it to use as a hockey puck or door stop then the only
>>>possible thing is you've got gremlins.... or you're damaging your stuff
>>>and denying it...
>>
>>
>>Oh, for the love of God, people aren't always going to have a cheese
>>cloth to wipe a screen with. If they can't make the things to be
>>durable enough to be wiped with a shirt or something similar, then
>>that's making crap.
>
>No, that's irresponsible handling of your possessions. If you know or
>think what you're about to clean your screen off with will scratch it,
>free hint, don't use that and wait until you can use something you won't
>damage your phone with.

If I thought it was going to scratch it, I wouldn't have done it. That
said, a cotton shirt shouldn't scratch a screen.
>
>>I love how there are always those that try to explain away things that
>>shouldn't exist in the first place. If you put all your innovation in
>
>I love how people refuse to take personal responsibility for their
>actions. "It's the manufacturer's fault *I* scratched my screen!"

Look, you can disagree all you want. I spent the first ten years of my
career as a tech journalist evaluating lots of products and trends for
papers ranging from a biz weekly in Nashville to CNN. I've seen first
hand how it's all too common for companies to cut corners in stupid
ways until they get their asses kicked, and then they go back and do
what they should have done in the first place, only at a higher cost.

Motorola was the initial darling of the cell phone industry, with its
StarTac line of phones, but soon they found they were getting their
ass kicked by Nokia because they had a bad user interface and lower
quality. I love RIM's product design as a rule, although I think
overall the Treo line is a better product if they could get their
reliability issues resolved.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:50:00 GMT, "Tom J" <tomnews@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>-= Hawk =- wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:41:54 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>> scribbled:
>
>>
>> I love how people refuse to take personal responsibility for their
>> actions. "It's the manufacturer's fault *I* scratched my screen!"
>>
>>> the guts and neglect stupid little things like having a durable
>>> screen, that shows poor planning. That would be like having a
>>> speedy
>>> roadster whose tires were built to disintegrate once the car hit
>>> 80.
>>
>> No, it'd be nothing like that at all.
>
>It's rather amusing that he mentioned the speedy roadster. He'll be
>complaining about it sooner or later, when he doesn't keep those
>plastic headlamp & tail lamp lens polished and they start discoloring
>and cracking. :-(
>My neighbor has that very complaint, because his vehicle is 1/2 the
>age of mine and his headlight lens are cloudy and mine are still
>crystal clear.

I just can't believe how much we put up with poor design and
implementation and think we're getting gold. But then the U.S. hasn't
truly innovated, outside of the personal computer sector and telecom
sector, in decades. We milk a cow until it falls over and dies and
then panic, wondering what will replace our now dead cow.

If a cotton shirt scratches a screen, that's poor manufacturing.
Others may apologize, blame, etc., but that's my opinion and based on
HowardForums and other venues, I'm not alone.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:19:15 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
scribbled:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:50:00 GMT, "Tom J" <tomnews@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>-= Hawk =- wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:41:54 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>>> scribbled:
>>
>>>
>>> I love how people refuse to take personal responsibility for their
>>> actions. "It's the manufacturer's fault *I* scratched my screen!"
>>>
>>>> the guts and neglect stupid little things like having a durable
>>>> screen, that shows poor planning. That would be like having a
>>>> speedy
>>>> roadster whose tires were built to disintegrate once the car hit
>>>> 80.
>>>
>>> No, it'd be nothing like that at all.
>>
>>It's rather amusing that he mentioned the speedy roadster. He'll be
>>complaining about it sooner or later, when he doesn't keep those
>>plastic headlamp & tail lamp lens polished and they start discoloring
>>and cracking. :-(
>>My neighbor has that very complaint, because his vehicle is 1/2 the
>>age of mine and his headlight lens are cloudy and mine are still
>>crystal clear.
>
>I just can't believe how much we put up with poor design and
>implementation and think we're getting gold. But then the U.S. hasn't

When I find a problem, an actual problem, with a product I complain to
the manufacturer. I'm rather good at it actually. However, I don't
complain that my mishandling of their product causes it to be damage.

>truly innovated, outside of the personal computer sector and telecom
>sector, in decades. We milk a cow until it falls over and dies and
>then panic, wondering what will replace our now dead cow.

I'd carve steaks.

>If a cotton shirt scratches a screen, that's poor manufacturing.
>Others may apologize, blame, etc., but that's my opinion and based on
>HowardForums and other venues, I'm not alone.

If YOU damage your phone then it's your responsbility to see you don't
in the future. You might as well blame the shingle manufacturer when the
hurricane blows your roof off.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]
On 2007-06-29, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

> I just can't believe how much we put up with poor design and
> implementation and think we're getting gold. But then the U.S. hasn't
> truly innovated, outside of the personal computer sector and telecom
> sector, in decades.

Or inside those sectors, either. At least not telecom

> We milk a cow until it falls over and dies and

**cough**telcos**cough**copper phone lines**cough** but that's veering way
offtopic :)

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:09:36 -0400, -= Hawk =-
<Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:19:15 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>scribbled:
>

>>I just can't believe how much we put up with poor design and
>>implementation and think we're getting gold. But then the U.S. hasn't
>
>When I find a problem, an actual problem, with a product I complain to
>the manufacturer. I'm rather good at it actually. However, I don't
>complain that my mishandling of their product causes it to be damage.
>
>>truly innovated, outside of the personal computer sector and telecom
>>sector, in decades. We milk a cow until it falls over and dies and
>>then panic, wondering what will replace our now dead cow.
>
>I'd carve steaks.
>
>>If a cotton shirt scratches a screen, that's poor manufacturing.
>>Others may apologize, blame, etc., but that's my opinion and based on
>>HowardForums and other venues, I'm not alone.
>
>If YOU damage your phone then it's your responsbility to see you don't
>in the future. You might as well blame the shingle manufacturer when the
>hurricane blows your roof off.

If wiping a screen with a cotton shirt damages it, then it's poorly
made. Again, you may wish to carry around something to specifically
clean the surface of a PDA, but I don't and I don't think I should
have to.

Comparing that kind of behavior with roof damage from a storm is so
beyond laughable, it's nuts. But then again, I'm not surprised.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:19:07 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
scribbled:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:09:36 -0400, -= Hawk =-
><Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:19:15 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>>scribbled:
>>
>
>>>I just can't believe how much we put up with poor design and
>>>implementation and think we're getting gold. But then the U.S. hasn't
>>
>>When I find a problem, an actual problem, with a product I complain to
>>the manufacturer. I'm rather good at it actually. However, I don't
>>complain that my mishandling of their product causes it to be damage.
>>
>>>truly innovated, outside of the personal computer sector and telecom
>>>sector, in decades. We milk a cow until it falls over and dies and
>>>then panic, wondering what will replace our now dead cow.
>>
>>I'd carve steaks.
>>
>>>If a cotton shirt scratches a screen, that's poor manufacturing.
>>>Others may apologize, blame, etc., but that's my opinion and based on
>>>HowardForums and other venues, I'm not alone.
>>
>>If YOU damage your phone then it's your responsbility to see you don't
>>in the future. You might as well blame the shingle manufacturer when the
>>hurricane blows your roof off.
>
>If wiping a screen with a cotton shirt damages it, then it's poorly
>made. Again, you may wish to carry around something to specifically
>clean the surface of a PDA, but I don't and I don't think I should
>have to.

You don't think you should have to take responsiblity for the way you
care for your possessions. We've established that. You want to blame
others for your problems. We've established that.

>Comparing that kind of behavior with roof damage from a storm is so
>beyond laughable, it's nuts. But then again, I'm not surprised.

As good as comparing it to a sports car who's tires fall off at 80
mph....

On Jun 29, 2007, Cyrus Afzali wrote:

> If wiping a screen with a cotton shirt damages it, then it's poorly
> made.

Fer cryin' out loud, guys. This is a valid point. Most "dedicated" (sorry: I
couldn't think of a better word) screen wipes are made of cotton anyway.
Maybe a really fine weave, but still...

It's a natural thing to do: You're out on the street on a call, you end the
call, the screen is moist from sweat, you wipe it - gently, of course - on
your sleeve or some other part of your cotton shirt, to dry.

I think a lot of people do this. (I said "I think," so don't ask for
documentation. :-)

To have the screen scratch as a result of this -- as opposed to a dedicated
screen wipe that is likely made of the same fabric -- is silly. Chances are,
the dedicated wipe will scratch the screen too, sooner or later.

Some screens are better at resisting scratches than others; my Treo does
pretty well in that regard, the T/X is even better, but I keep a screen
protector on them anyway because I drop them into my pocket sometimes.

It would just be nice if more thought went into the manufacture of those
screens that are more highly susceptible.

--
Joey Dee from NYC

Remember: It is To Laugh