Verizon's version of Samsungs new Galaxy S line, Fascinate, is due to hit the streets running on Sept 9th, so why isn't there any information about it on Verizon's website?? I'm super psyched about this phone being that my contract is up on the 8th, so I'll be first in line to pick one up on the 9th. Just can't understand why Verizon won't at least post any "upcoming info" on this phone on their website. Even Best Buy allowed you to start pre-ordering this phone last week, so what's the delay with Verizon? I've been reading about Samsung's new Galaxy S series for months now as their putting out a Galaxy S model for every major wireless provider. Verizon just happens to be the last one to put their model on the market. There just doesn't seem to be any hype regarding this phone and I don't know why. Sure, it's no Droid 2/X/Incredible "killer", but it's an awesome phone with some awesome specs, just don't know why Verizon refuses to say anything about it, when it's launch date it only a week away. Regardless.....I can't wait!!! Is anyone else looking forward to this awesome smartphone from Samsung??
because vzn has some type of "attached at the hip" relationship with motorola. i'm an incredible owner. it was only dumb luck that i found out about it right before buying a moto droid back in april. no adds, commercials, or anything, for a device, that at the time, was the BEST available. i too like the looks of the new line of galaxies. but guess what....no adds, etc. however, you can't turn on the tv w/o seeing X and droid II ads every other commercial break. oh yeah....don't hold your breath for support or accessories either. if you own a moto, then sure. but htc inc owners still don't have a true dock and NO case exists if you want an extended battery (yes you can get a holster....but i'm talkin about an actual case). so it's not just vzn that ignores the incredible....it's 3rd party accessory manufacturers as well. i see ads for moto, htc evo, and the galaxy models for other carriers ALL NIGHT....but nothin from vzn. also....the moto droid got 2.1 and 2.2 updates long before other models. all i can figure is that vzn and moto have a pretty good deal between the 2????????
I'm most definitely NOT a VZW employee. If a post answered your question, please mark it as the answer.
exactly. and when the eris had a few issues, they just threw in the towel. that device had A LOT of potential, only to be ignored completely by vzn. i didn't even know what an eris was for months until i saw one next to the droid at a store. i had gone in and asked to look at a droid and the guy asked "which one?" to which i replied "i din't know there were options?" lol....i thought it looked sweet but didn't have an upgrade (was just killin time at the mall). so then i was looking into getting a droid and by dumb luck found out the inc was about to be released. just odd to me? they could've sold TWICE the incs that they did if they would have made any type of marketing effort. it was the first of all the new devices this summer. if i were htc, i'd make my own commercials.
exactly. and when the eris had a few issues, they just threw in the towel. that device had A LOT of potential, only to be ignored completely by vzn.
That's actually not Verizon's fault--HTC is the one that codes the maintenance updates and decides when to release them. They're the ones who gave up.
As an ex-Eris owner (my Eris problem was fixed...by a Droid 2), I'd also point out that HTC's final update broke a chunk of MMS functionality on the Eris, and instead of fixing it, they told users to go get a 3rd party app if we didn't like that they broke it. O_o
HTC is a bad business, and their D- BBB rating bears that out. It's certainly in Verizon's best interest to not put HTC's shoddy products in the spotlight.
Perhaps things will be different with Samsung, and Verizon will have a second Droid manufacturer worth advertising.
yeah....i'd have to agree as it seems like all of us who bought the htc inc are just the next generation of eris users. mine has worked perfectly from day one and i love it. but i suppose the issues others have could be htc's fault and not verizon? i guess i would be hesitiant to advertise the inc, knowing all of the issues they had with the eris. but why not samsung? they have a good track record and the other carriers REALLY puch the samsung. you can barely get info on verizon's version from blogs.
That sounds about right, in regard to the Incredible. HTC makes poor quality products, and their customer service is terrible at dealing with problems that come up. When I contacted them about the last major issue I had with the Eris, they gave me 3 completely different stories from 3 reps! "The phone always did that," "Yes, that changed with our MR4 update, but it's intentional," and, "Don't blame us, Google did it, they changed it in 2.1 and we have no idea why your phone didn't work that way until you got MR4."
Despite them all saying that the problematic function was "intentional," and thus had nothing to be fixed...one rep described what the proper function was supposed to be--which is the functionality I was asking to get back--before saying it was working right. O_o It also looks pretty bad for them to claim the problem was intentional: after MR4, pictures in text messages auto-close after 5 seconds. To claim that's intentional is to claim that their coders, and the managers who approved the functionality, are inept.
Personally, I try to push people away from buying HTC products after this experience. Verizon, however, is usually exceptional when it comes to customer service--but because they're the ones who roll out the updates that manufacturers send to them, and since they're probably the first ones we go to for support before contacting the manufacturer, they sometimes get faulted for problems that aren't theirs.
In regards to the Fascinate, I can think of a couple reasons. The one that jumps to mind first is exactly what you said: they've been a success everywhere else. Perhaps Verizon doesn't want to follow their competitors, they want to be different to set themselves apart.
Another possibility is that they don't want to confuse their customers. Android is certainly growing fast, but it's still pretty new. If you advertise too many Android devices, it'll probably confuse those who haven't given it a try yet--when I initially got the Eris, my grandparents asked me, "is that that Google phone thing?" lol
It's probably also simpler to choose a flagship model and stick with it for advertising. The thing about advertising is that you can't possibly advertise everything you've got. I'm a videographer and one of the companies I work for does a lot of local advertising--if you notice local ads, you'll see that many businesses don't realize this. They try to cram all they can into an ad, and it can leave you feeling bored because you just had a ton of info you don't want thrown at you. Ads like these usually don't work very well because most people don't like them.
Advertising is also very expensive. Each device could theoretically have its own ad, so that the issue of cramming too much into an ad won't be a problem. That's why, for example, they highlight different ideas in their variety of Android ads, and never advertise those Android highlights in their device-specific ads. But on the level I work in, the costs aren't low--the company I work for averages about $800 for a simple ad, and starts at $1,200 for the same ad in HD--and we're on the low side, we stay competitive with Comcast's rates! Throw in the cost of an animator (which would start about $200 for a simple talking mascot on top of live video for a 30 second ad) and special effects, and the cost of the ad itself continues to climb.
And once you have an ad, you have to pay for air time. Comcast and Cablevision both recommend that to be effective, an advertiser should expect to spend about $10,000 on the campaign--and this is to people who are advertising in just one or two cable zones within the state of NJ. Magnify that across the country and the cost certainly becomes significant to a company like Verizon.
I think all of those factors add up to create an advertising atmosphere that will favor one, maybe two models. If the Fascinate ends up selling well and being a strong product overall, then maybe Verizon will spotlight Samsung devices in the future.
I also forgot to mention something else that may factor into this: co-op.
Co-op is an advertising concept where one company pas a percentage of another's advertising cost. The most obvious example is when a local car dealer advertises their cars--if they use the Hyundai, Toyota, Gm, etc, etc name in the ad, the manufacturer will pay for a pre-determined percentage of the ad. The catch is that the advertiser has to meet certain criteria--for Hyundai, for example, they must state that they offer the Hyundai Advantage and explain the 10 year, 10,000 mile warranty. For a furniture ad, some furniture manufacturers will offer co-op if their name is spoken a certain number of times, and appears on screen a certain number of times. Some even require the use of a specific voice-over actor, or script pre-approval, or...pretty much any level of creative control you can think of.
With the nature of phones--and I don't know this for sure, I'm speculating--it could be the other way around. Verizon is trying to have a consistent Droid campaign. Perhaps they offered co-op dollars to manufacturers, but have strict guidelines on what those ads must entail. Take this Droid ad, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w83UQkiuNZQ Can you tell whether Verizon or Motorola paid for this ad? It does say, "we built this phone," so it could be Motorola. But of course you've got the signature Verizon logo at the end. s another example, this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnaAQwGcBks most likely came from Motorola because it mentions a keyboard, which the Droid Eris didn't have either.
So it's a possibility that Verizon offered co-op dollars for advertising, and Motorola is the only one that was willing to meet the requirements. Or the only one willing to spend the money (co-op money could cover only a small percent, a high percent, or maybe even just a percent of airtime--the rest of the tab is picked up by the one doing the advertising) needed for a good campaign.
maybe it's the co-op deal? like i said earlier...they've got some type of tight relationship with motorola because it's the ONLY droid they advertise. i get everything that you're saying. it just seems odd to me. i'm still conviced they could have sold another couple hundred thousand incredible's. it's been a great phone (doesn't have anywhere CLOSE to the eris issues). and if it weren't for blogs and forums...i wouldn't even know vzn had an alternative to motorola (which i've never been a fan of....but the droids have definitely brought them back to relevancy!!). i understnad not wanting to follow another carrier....but if a device is a success, why hide it, just because your competitors have it??? to me, that's all the more reason to start advertising. the samsung commercials are nice....and i gotta think they've been effective. heck...i want one just from watching them....lol. but if i didn't know any better, i'd assume that i better to to a tmobile or at&t store to get one. and i guess right now you still do. again...just seems odd. i see at&t advertise different devices but not vzn. heck...even the ally....that may be the best droid for your dollar if your lookin for a cheaper device. depending on where or how you purchase it, you can get it for $50! $50 for a pretty decent droid....but nobody would ever know...lol.
Co-op seems to make the most sense to me as I think about it. If it is, the reason we don't see many phones advertised is because the manufacturers have decided the co-op rules aren't right for them. But, it is just speculation, so who knows?
Another thing worth noting is that Samsung Galaxy S, which Verizon is getting as the Fascinate, has had some big bugs, too. In particular, it has a problem where its GPS wasn't working. I believe it's been at least partially fixed, but a quick Google search of "Galaxy S GPS" will bring up quite a bit of info. So it's also possible that Verizon feels advertising a buggy phone might not be the best move at the moment.
When it comes to phones, it's also not necessarily smart to follow the success of others. Keep in mind that Verizon uses a different chipset for their network than, say, AT&T. That means when a phone is made to be compatible with a new network, the hardware has to change at least a little bit. It could be a smoothe change...or it could cause bugs and hardware conflicts. A phone redesigned for another carrier isn't always a safe bet, regardless of past success on other carriers.
It should also be mentioned that Motorola is the one putting out the high-end phones--the Droid line is the top of the line. Until Samsung's entrance, there really hasn't been anything else to compare with. It could be as simple as putting their best foot forward--Verizon's showing off the best of the best. Which...is what a lot of advertising is. Do you notice how many restaurant advertisements tend to show off a bunch of items on their menu, but they don't advertise everything on the menu? They're usually very specific to choose their best items to entice you, and once you're in the door, then you get to see what else they have to offer. For Verizon, the Motorola Droid is the advertised special, so to speak.