motorola V265

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

any good/bad on the Motorola v265?

I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
screen prolly not bluetooth.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

Verizon Wireless does not like Bluetooth because they feel it's still not
secure enough. Remember that CDMA was developed by the Qualcomm and the US
Gov. and it's up to military specs and all that good stuff. They don't want
to create a big security loophole by widely implementing something like
Bluetooth.


"Dilbert Firestorm" <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote in
message news:cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com...
> any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>
> I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
> screen prolly not bluetooth.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

In article <cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com>,
Dilbert Firestorm <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote:
>any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>
>I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
>screen prolly not bluetooth.

According to phonescoop, the V265 has a camera but no Bluetooth. Since the
camera brings in $$ for picture messaging, but there are no extra-cost
features associated with Bluetooth, I suspect that it will be a while
before we see a non-camera phone with Bluetooth from VZW. :-(

BTW, what does "prolly" mean?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

CharlesH wrote:

>In article <cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com>,
>Dilbert Firestorm <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote:
>
>
>>any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>>
>>I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
>>screen prolly not bluetooth.
>>
>>
>
>According to phonescoop, the V265 has a camera but no Bluetooth. Since the
>camera brings in $$ for picture messaging, but there are no extra-cost
>features associated with Bluetooth, I suspect that it will be a while
>before we see a non-camera phone with Bluetooth from VZW. :-(
>
>BTW, what does "prolly" mean?
>
>
short for probably

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

Dilbert Firestorm wrote:
> any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>
> I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
> screen prolly not bluetooth.
>

See the reviews at phonescoop.com; they appear to indicate that the V265
is superior to the V710 (as long as you don't care about the camera).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

No offense, but that's nonsense.

In <ZJXnd.105807$kz3.27005@fed1read02> on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:47:12 -0800,
"Julie Ruin" <julieruin@mixmail.com> wrote:

>Verizon Wireless does not like Bluetooth because they feel it's still not
>secure enough. Remember that CDMA was developed by the Qualcomm and the US
>Gov. and it's up to military specs and all that good stuff. They don't want
>to create a big security loophole by widely implementing something like
>Bluetooth.
>
>"Dilbert Firestorm" <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote in
>message news:cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com...
>> any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>>
>> I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
>> screen prolly not bluetooth.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

CharlesH wrote:
>
> In article <cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com>,
> Dilbert Firestorm <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote:
> >any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
> >
> >I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
> >screen prolly not bluetooth.
>
> According to phonescoop, the V265 has a camera but no Bluetooth. Since the
> camera brings in $$ for picture messaging, but there are no extra-cost
> features associated with Bluetooth, I suspect that it will be a while
> before we see a non-camera phone with Bluetooth from VZW. :-(
>

Camera is better in 710. Price is higher for 710 (2X in NJ).

Had a 265 for 5 days. Like it. But not a heavy camera user.

It is tri-mode and reception seems pretty good.

LB

 

[Dean]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

Wife got a v265 about a week ago. Loves it.

I think the camera stinks, but have no experience with others to compare it
to. I'm of the "I'd rather have a remote car unlocker in my cellphone than a
camera" school, though....sorry.

One big advantage (for us) was not having to learn a new UI. The transition
from her v60 was really easy.

HTH,
Dean
_____________________________________________
"Dilbert Firestorm" <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote in
message news:cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com...
> any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>
> I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
> screen prolly not bluetooth.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

Dean wrote:
> Wife got a v265 about a week ago. Loves it.
>
> I think the camera stinks, but have no experience with others to compare it
> to. I'm of the "I'd rather have a remote car unlocker in my cellphone than a
> camera" school, though....sorry.
>
> One big advantage (for us) was not having to learn a new UI. The transition
> from her v60 was really easy.

I bought the 265 exactly because the camera is irrelevant to me AND the
reviews of the 710 were (almost uniformly) poor. Your stated advantage
is the same as mine. I like what I've seen thus far for 265 performance.

> HTH,
> Dean
> _____________________________________________
> "Dilbert Firestorm" <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote in
> message news:cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com...
>
>>any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>>
>>I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
>>screen prolly not bluetooth.
>>

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

LB@notmine.com wrote in message news:<41A0AC1F.8DC19787@optonline.net>...
> CharlesH wrote:
> >
> > In article <cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com>,
> > Dilbert Firestorm <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote:
> > >any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
> > >
> > >I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
> > >screen prolly not bluetooth.
> >
> > According to phonescoop, the V265 has a camera but no Bluetooth. Since the
> > camera brings in $$ for picture messaging, but there are no extra-cost
> > features associated with Bluetooth, I suspect that it will be a while
> > before we see a non-camera phone with Bluetooth from VZW. :-(
> >
>
> Camera is better in 710. Price is higher for 710 (2X in NJ).
>
> Had a 265 for 5 days. Like it. But not a heavy camera user.
>
> It is tri-mode and reception seems pretty good.
>
> LB

According to the VZW website, this phone does not support National
Access. Is this true? If so, It cannot be used as a modem with USB
cable and PC.

Ed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>I suspect that it will be a while
>>before we see a non-camera phone with Bluetooth from VZW

In the for whats its worth department, I was speaking to my phone guy last week
at a VZ store- and he said that it looked in January they would roll out 2 or 3
Motorlas and probably an LG and many of them would have bluetooth and there
would be non-camera/bluetooth option phones. In the 6 or so years I have dealt
with this guy he as been pretty much up front for a cell phone salesman, and
usually only "wrong" about timing of releases-- ie- he may miss by a month in
some cases-- anyway- thats for whats its worth--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

Dilbert Firestorm <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote in message news:<cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com>...
> any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>
> I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
> screen prolly not bluetooth.


I wonder if Motorola will bring out a version of this phone without a
camera? Anyone know?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

zwerl1 wrote:
> Dilbert Firestorm <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote in message news:<cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com>...
>
>>any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>>
>>I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
>>screen prolly not bluetooth.
>
>
>
> I wonder if Motorola will bring out a version of this phone without a
> camera? Anyone know?

The V260 is this phone without a camera. But VZW doesn't use it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

yes it will be the v260

"zwerl1" <zwerl1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1a3ee742.0411220439.28d8788a@posting.google.com...
> Dilbert Firestorm <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote in
> message news:<cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com>...
>> any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>>
>> I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
>> screen prolly not bluetooth.
>
>
> I wonder if Motorola will bring out a version of this phone without a
> camera? Anyone know?

 

[at]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

"RWEmerson" <foolish_consistency@hobgoblin.com> wrote in message
news:10q3un8idr0pq7f@corp.supernews.com...
> zwerl1 wrote:
>> Dilbert Firestorm <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote in
>> message news:<cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com>...
>>
>>>any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
>>>
>>>I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
>>>screen prolly not bluetooth.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if Motorola will bring out a version of this phone without a
>> camera? Anyone know?
>
> The V260 is this phone without a camera. But VZW doesn't use it.

The v260's release on Verizon is imminent. They already have the interactive
user guide for it up.

http://www.verizonwireless.com/multimedia/mim/mot_v260/V260mim.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

Not really. Phone vendors have different OS's, etc in their phones that
are potentially subject to worms or hacking, particularly PDA's. If your
phone was able to be hacked via Bluetooth, then started up a data sessions
pinging the entire Internet, what would you do when the bill came,
especially if you didn't have a data plan? Call VzW and demand a refund.
What if it started dialing long distance calls, or forwarding your number
somewhere else? Verizon has to protect itself and its customers from this
sort of thing, so they are moving very cautiously in these areas.

Mike Gorman

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
newsk_nd.6673$_3.83328@typhoon.sonic.net...
> No offense, but that's nonsense.
>
> In <ZJXnd.105807$kz3.27005@fed1read02> on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:47:12 -0800,
> "Julie Ruin" <julieruin@mixmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Verizon Wireless does not like Bluetooth because they feel it's still not
> >secure enough. Remember that CDMA was developed by the Qualcomm and the
US
> >Gov. and it's up to military specs and all that good stuff. They don't
want
> >to create a big security loophole by widely implementing something like
> >Bluetooth.
> >
> >"Dilbert Firestorm" <scanb_no_spam31@*no_spam*I-55*no_spam*.com> wrote in
> >message news:cnp8n5$vr4$1@news.datasync.com...
> >> any good/bad on the Motorola v265?
> >>
> >> I see that it is cheaper than the Motorola V710 with a smaller display
> >> screen prolly not bluetooth.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

I repeat: That's nonsense.

In <6qEod.8729$iI2.1181399@twister.southeast.rr.com> on Tue, 23 Nov 2004
10:37:54 GMT, "Mike Gorman" <mgorman1@carolina.rr.com> wrote:

>Not really. Phone vendors have different OS's, etc in their phones that
>are potentially subject to worms or hacking, particularly PDA's. If your
>phone was able to be hacked via Bluetooth, then started up a data sessions
>pinging the entire Internet, what would you do when the bill came,
>especially if you didn't have a data plan? Call VzW and demand a refund.
>What if it started dialing long distance calls, or forwarding your number
>somewhere else? Verizon has to protect itself and its customers from this
>sort of thing, so they are moving very cautiously in these areas.

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>newsk_nd.6673$_3.83328@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> No offense, but that's nonsense.
>>
>> In <ZJXnd.105807$kz3.27005@fed1read02> on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:47:12 -0800,
>> "Julie Ruin" <julieruin@mixmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Verizon Wireless does not like Bluetooth because they feel it's still not
>> >secure enough. Remember that CDMA was developed by the Qualcomm and the US
>> >Gov. and it's up to military specs and all that good stuff. They don't want
>> >to create a big security loophole by widely implementing something like
>> >Bluetooth.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.motorola (More info?)

> The V260 is this phone without a camera. But VZW doesn't use it.

Verizon approved the V260, otherwise Radio Shack wouldn't be selling
it with Verizon service. Verizon just hasn't launched it in their
stores or online yet. If it does well at Radio Shack, Verizon may
take it.