HTC Mogul Sprint ROM - GPS and REV. A New info!

[willysp]

Originally Posted by aughsum

this is why its so tough to find things on the internet..

and fyi most of us barely paid anything for the phone either.. 288-265 sale of 6700. 17.42/month.

Huh ??? (I need a translation, I think)

[canospinach]

Originally Posted by willysp

Huh ??? (I need a translation, I think)

I believe he is saying that his 6700s resulting monthly cost was roughly just $17 per month.

just like the carriers...hide our total cost in a perceived low monthly payment

[ehanhan]

It makes no difference what people paid after selling an old phone or whatever. The point is that when we buy a phone, it should be as advertised. Not 6 months after you buy it.

Sprint owes us something along the line of how Apple repaid earlier Iphone adopters, with a 100 apple gift certificate after they released a much better model for alot cheaper soon after release

[tannis]

yea but Sprint didn't charge $800 for the mogul. And give us a 2G Phone... now thats criminal! DIE IPHONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[digiblur]

During my recent fun with the yo-yo's in advanced technical support trying to get EVDO fixed in this area, I was told that the Mogul is slated for RevA in February.

[sherv]

Originally Posted by tpmwr

and now for something just as off-topic as this entire derailed thread:

Post of the year, right here!

[canospinach]

Originally Posted by digiblur

During my recent fun with the yo-yo's in advanced technical support trying to get EVDO fixed in this area, I was told that the Mogul is slated for RevA in February.

Most of us are expecting to see the next ROM update shortly after CES the first week of January which would place it sometime late January, early February.

2 weeks until CES!!

Anybody else going? CES January 7-10th, Las Vegas Nevada. Largest Electronics show in the world.

[canospinach]

Originally Posted by ehanhan

It makes no difference what people paid after selling an old phone or whatever. The point is that when we buy a phone, it should be as advertised. Not 6 months after you buy it.

Sprint owes us something along the line of how Apple repaid earlier Iphone adopters, with a 100 apple gift certificate after they released a much better model for alot cheaper soon after release

"As Advertised" leaves a lot of room for interpretation and perspective. In my professional opinion the Mogul is exactly "as advertised", if it was not then there would be lawsuits against HTC and Sprint.

"buyer beware" is the term you take when you make a purchase. It is upto you to be sure you have done your research and are getting the product you are expecting. As consumers far too many blame the retailer/manufacturer for their unrealistic expectations.

its clearly a little childish to say that "Sprint owes us money because i made a purchase i am unhappy with".

Here is a simple solution, if you are unhappy with your handset or service, change it.

[ebmorgan]

Originally Posted by canospinach

"As Advertised" leaves a lot of room for interpretation and perspective. In my professional opinion the Mogul is exactly "as advertised", if it was not then there would be lawsuits against HTC and Sprint.

"buyer beware" is the term you take when you make a purchase. It is upto you to be sure you have done your research and are getting the product you are expecting. As consumers far too many blame the retailer/manufacturer for their unrealistic expectations.

its clearly a little childish to say that "Sprint owes us money because i made a purchase i am unhappy with".

Here is a simple solution, if you are unhappy with your handset or service, change it.

Actually, you're wrong. When a product is advertised with specific features, then it must provide the features upon sale unless otherwise stated. This is the basic fundemantals of the Consumer Protection Act.

If you buy a new car, wouldn't you expect it to drive? Have windsheild wipers that work? No exhaust leaks? Of course. And if any of those things are happening then they are fixed IMMEDIATELY.

If you buy a an HDTV with a card reader in it, wouldn't you expect the card reader to work?

Sprint has a documented and self-admittedly BROKEN device with many issues. Even the Washington State Attorney Generals Office thinks there is merit to the claim. My filed claim to the WA-AGO started an investigation. The AGO has dispatched an inquiry to Sprint in VA requesting full disclosure of the situation. Unfortuately, Sprint can refuse. They are only required to divulge the info if subpoenaed by a court. But if they offer resistence, I imaging that would only singnify to the AGO that something IS going on, and then they may take it further.

[canospinach]

Originally Posted by ebmorgan

Actually, you're wrong. When a product is advertised with specific features, then it must provide the features upon sale unless otherwise stated. This is the basic fundemantals of the Consumer Protection Act.

If you buy a new car, wouldn't you expect it to drive? Have windsheild wipers that work? No exhaust leaks? Of course. And if any of those things are happening then they are fixed IMMEDIATELY.

If you buy a an HDTV with a card reader in it, wouldn't you expect the card reader to work?

Sprint has a documented and self-admittedly BROKEN device with many issues. Even the Washington State Attorney Generals Office thinks there is merit to the claim. My filed claim to the WA-AGO started an investigation. The AGO has dispatched an inquiry to Sprint in VA requesting full disclosure of the situation. Unfortuately, Sprint can refuse. They are only required to divulge the info if subpoenaed by a court. But if they offer resistence, I imaging that would only singnify to the AGO that something IS going on, and then they may take it further.

So what exactly was advertised as functioning which is not and is different from any other handset out there?
Show me exactly, try not to quote comparables which dont compare.

You want to attack Sprint, but this is an HTC device.

So why would you sue a car dealership when the manufacturer would really carry the burden?

Although i respect your prespective, sounds to me like a frivolous lawsuit and another waste of good old taxpayer money. That case will go nowhere. Crazy to think that in some way people percieve that as an acceptable action when it clearly doesnt do much to positively impact the situation, nor is it likely to carry any wieght and go anywhere. If the Washington State Attorney General is legally advising this action doesnt sound like they are a very competent litigator, more like starstruck by a well branded company and the thoughts of media exposure.