Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are there any good new phones without cameras?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 3:20:07 AM

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

Having completed a 2 yr contract with VZW, I get $100 off on a new phone.
I am considering replacing my trusty LG VX 4400 with a nice, high-end, new
model phone, but I am disappointed that every high-end phone seems to have
a camera on it. I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone with one
on it. Bluetooth would be nice but it looks like the Moto v710 and forthcoming
e815 both have cameras so that's a deal-breaker. I think VZW cripples the BT
functionality anyway so they can hit you with a fee for every piece of data you
might want to move on or off the phone (ok I digress).

I wanted to shoot my $100 credit on a really nice new flip phone and now I can't
find one I like without a camera!

What new flip phone are the camera-haters like myself using and recommending?

Phil

More about : good phones cameras

Anonymous
June 16, 2005 3:20:08 AM

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

"Philip K" <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> wrote in message news:D 8qr5b$20ea$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> What new flip phone are the camera-haters like myself using and recommending?

The VX4400 and VX4500 :-)

Do make sure you tell VZW about your issues since they may eventually
pay attention.

Roger
June 16, 2005 1:43:38 PM

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

Get a Samsung a650. Its a nice phone without a camera and its trimode.

"Philip K" <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> wrote in message
news:D 8qr5b$20ea$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Having completed a 2 yr contract with VZW, I get $100 off on a new phone.
> I am considering replacing my trusty LG VX 4400 with a nice, high-end, new
> model phone, but I am disappointed that every high-end phone seems to have
> a camera on it. I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone with
> one
> on it. Bluetooth would be nice but it looks like the Moto v710 and
> forthcoming
> e815 both have cameras so that's a deal-breaker. I think VZW cripples the
> BT
> functionality anyway so they can hit you with a fee for every piece of
> data you
> might want to move on or off the phone (ok I digress).
>
> I wanted to shoot my $100 credit on a really nice new flip phone and now I
> can't
> find one I like without a camera!
>
> What new flip phone are the camera-haters like myself using and
> recommending?
>
> Phil
>
>
Related resources
June 16, 2005 2:47:11 PM

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

Do they still make the 4400?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cherconnection.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote in message
news:vha7o2-8ua.ln1@home.rogerbinns.com...
> "Philip K" <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> wrote in message
> news:D 8qr5b$20ea$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
>> What new flip phone are the camera-haters like myself using and
>> recommending?
>
> The VX4400 and VX4500 :-)
>
> Do make sure you tell VZW about your issues since they may eventually
> pay attention.
>
> Roger
>
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 2:47:12 PM

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

"susan" <susanl@penn.com> wrote in message news:p Mcse.5169$jX6.4651@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Do they still make the 4400?

No. Mine from a week after they came out is still going strong. VZW do
sell new VX4500's which are very similar to the 4400. (See earlier thread
about the differences).

Roger
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 3:19:20 PM

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

Philip K <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> spewed:
> I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone
> with one on it.

I find this statement interesting. A person that refuses to buy a product
that they would otherwise want, because of an added feature that they have
no intention of using. I can't get the logic in that. If you like
everything about the phone, is it really impossible for you to just ignore
the camera feature?

It's like my latest DVD player... it has component video outputs. I don't
want or need them, but I still bought the DVD player anyway because of the
other features that it has. I don't deprive myself of a nice DVD player
just because it has something extra that I don't want.

I dunno... just thinking out loud... don't mind me...

--
Visit My Site: http://www.rubbertoe.com
June 16, 2005 3:19:21 PM

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

Robert J Batina wrote:
> Philip K <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> spewed:
>
>>I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone
>>with one on it.
>
>
> I find this statement interesting. A person that refuses to buy a product
> that they would otherwise want, because of an added feature that they have
> no intention of using. I can't get the logic in that. If you like
> everything about the phone, is it really impossible for you to just ignore
> the camera feature?


For some people (like me) a camera might be nifty but it would require
that on many days I couldn't have my phone with me. Many facilities I
visit do not allow cameras. If the phone has a camera the guards will
require you to surrender it on the way in and it will spend the day in a
plastic box and you will get it back when you leave.

A nifty (but more expensive) way to address this if the carriers want to
push camera phones would be to offer models where the camera is a
removable module. Then if you didn't want it you could pop it off and
leave it in the drawer.


>
> It's like my latest DVD player... it has component video outputs. I don't
> want or need them, but I still bought the DVD player anyway because of the
> other features that it has. I don't deprive myself of a nice DVD player
> just because it has something extra that I don't want.
>
> I dunno... just thinking out loud... don't mind me...
>
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 3:19:21 PM

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

"Robert J Batina" <rbatina@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>I find this statement interesting. A person that refuses to buy a product
>that they would otherwise want, because of an added feature that they have
>no intention of using. I can't get the logic in that. If you like
>everything about the phone, is it really impossible for you to just ignore
>the camera feature?

Yes, it is. Many people visit or work in semi-secure or secure facilities, where
cameras of any type are prohibited. If your phone has a camera, you have to
surrender it while you are in that facility.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 3:33:29 PM

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

I just replaced my VX4400 because it began to be unreliable. It would
alternate from full signal to no service and back. I really liked it. I
got the Moto V710 because of reports here and elsewhere indicating it was
very good at holding a usable signal. So far, it has the best plain old
telephone ability of anything I have used. The user interface is a lot
different and it has a camera. As a phone, however, it performs very well.
(I do miss the LG interface but I am getting used to the Moto.)

PoD




"Philip K" <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> wrote in message
news:D 8qr5b$20ea$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Having completed a 2 yr contract with VZW, I get $100 off on a new phone.
> I am considering replacing my trusty LG VX 4400 with a nice, high-end, new
> model phone, but I am disappointed that every high-end phone seems to have
> a camera on it. I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone with
> one
> on it. Bluetooth would be nice but it looks like the Moto v710 and
> forthcoming
> e815 both have cameras so that's a deal-breaker. I think VZW cripples the
> BT
> functionality anyway so they can hit you with a fee for every piece of
> data you
> might want to move on or off the phone (ok I digress).
>
> I wanted to shoot my $100 credit on a really nice new flip phone and now I
> can't
> find one I like without a camera!
>
> What new flip phone are the camera-haters like myself using and
> recommending?
>
> Phil
>
>
June 16, 2005 3:46:27 PM

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

In article <Yedse.45619$XA6.3741@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
rbatina@columbus.rr.com says...
>
> Philip K <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> spewed:
> > I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone
> > with one on it.
>
> I find this statement interesting. A person that refuses to buy a product
> that they would otherwise want, because of an added feature that they have
> no intention of using. I can't get the logic in that. If you like
> everything about the phone, is it really impossible for you to just ignore
> the camera feature?
>
> It's like my latest DVD player... it has component video outputs. I don't
> want or need them, but I still bought the DVD player anyway because of the
> other features that it has. I don't deprive myself of a nice DVD player
> just because it has something extra that I don't want.
>
> I dunno... just thinking out loud... don't mind me...
>
>
I think the comparison is flawed. There is no practical downside to
having extra outputs on the DVD player. A camera on a cell phone is
different. To date there is no truly good quality camera on a cell
phone. The main purpose seems to be for me-too marketing and to provide
another profit center in data services for the carrier.

Adding a camera on a cell phone adds cost, reduces battery life, and
increases weight and bulk. But perhaps the biggest downside is that
there are many places where one is simply not allowed to carry a camera
- including gyms, one's own workplace, and customer facilities. So,
those in this position are left with either a low end bar phone or a
high end Treo type of PDA phone.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 3:51:56 PM

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

> > I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone
> > with one on it.
>
> I find this statement interesting. A person that refuses to buy a product
> that they would otherwise want, because of an added feature that they have
> no intention of using. I can't get the logic in that. If you like
> everything about the phone, is it really impossible for you to just ignore
> the camera feature?

I don't want the camera for several reasons, but primarily it is an issue of privacy.
Suppose you were to telephone someone and they insist you send them a picture
of where you are to prove your location? I know people may read much more
into that statement than is necessary -- but the privacy angle for me is real.
Also suppose I am located within a business or government location that disallows
cameras of any kind. I may have to surrender the phone or not make/take calls, etc.
Also it is just another superfluous component that may break or drain the battery
needlessly.

Why would I want a component that has the potential to inconvenience me?

Phil
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 11:22:29 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:51:56 -0400, "Philip K"
<wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> wrote:

>> I find this statement interesting. A person that refuses to buy a product
>> that they would otherwise want, because of an added feature that they have
>> no intention of using. I can't get the logic in that....
>
>I don't want the camera for several reasons, but primarily it is an issue of privacy.
>Suppose you were to telephone someone and they insist you send them a picture
>of where you are to prove your location? I know people may read much more
>into that statement than is necessary -- but the privacy angle for me is real.
>Also suppose I am located within a business or government location that disallows
>cameras of any kind. I may have to surrender the phone or not make/take calls, etc.
>Also it is just another superfluous component that may break or drain the battery
>needlessly.
>
>Why would I want a component that has the potential to inconvenience me?

Bingo! Right on! Now why can't cellular providers and phone manufacturers grasp
those simple points?

I've got digital cameras up to 12MP, broadband computers in every room where I
spend significant time, and wireless laptops of several sizes with GPS
capability. I don't want inferior capabilities in any of those areas built into
a telephone -- not even text messaging. All I want is an effective GSM phone
usable here and in Europe. There must be a substantial number of people who feel
that way, since I run into them all the time...

-- Larry
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 3:46:11 AM

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

George <george@nospam.invalid> spewed:
> For some people (like me) a camera might be nifty but it would require
> that on many days I couldn't have my phone with me. Many facilities I
> visit do not allow cameras. If the phone has a camera the guards will
> require you to surrender it on the way in and it will spend the day
> in a plastic box and you will get it back when you leave.

Ahh. Now that makes sense.

> A nifty (but more expensive) way to address this if the carriers want
> to push camera phones would be to offer models where the camera is a
> removable module. Then if you didn't want it you could pop it off and
> leave it in the drawer.

I think I saw one of those at one of the kiosks in the mall a few years
back. Looked like it was sort of an afterthought for a phone already on the
market, and it just jacked in to the port on the bottom of the phone. I'd
lose that thing in a matter of a few hours. *laugh*

--
Visit My Site: http://www.rubbertoe.com
June 17, 2005 4:18:51 AM

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

Richard wrote:

> Get a Samsung a650. Its a nice phone without a camera and its trimode.
>

How about this ... I would like a new phone that is 1x (and EVDO?)
capable; is trimode and has bluetooth to exchange phone lists with
my laptop. Is there any such animal.. I can't trust the sales geeks...

Jim
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:26:22 AM

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

Some places don't allow cameras, but that said: we have people in the store
who say the same thing. We ask them if their car has an AM radio, and do
they listen to it. If they say yes, <darn> but if they say no: how come you
bought the car if it has a feature you wouldn't use? Similar parallel:
unless you are restricted by law from having a camera, it shouldn't hurt.
On the other hand, if you recognize that more features in the phone, may
make it more prone to failure.... you may be right. dr.

More complex phones, may have more complex problems.
If you really don't want the camera phone, may I suggest the LG4500, an
awesome phone!
--
dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you are
used to)
If I can help: dr.news@better-price.biz.nospam or thru this notes forum.
home of the better priced phone and service:
http://free.better-price.biz

"Robert J Batina" <rbatina@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Yedse.45619$XA6.3741@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>
> Philip K <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> spewed:
>> I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone
>> with one on it.
>
> I find this statement interesting. A person that refuses to buy a product
> that they would otherwise want, because of an added feature that they have
> no intention of using. I can't get the logic in that. If you like
> everything about the phone, is it really impossible for you to just ignore
> the camera feature?
>
> It's like my latest DVD player... it has component video outputs. I
> don't want or need them, but I still bought the DVD player anyway because
> of the other features that it has. I don't deprive myself of a nice DVD
> player just because it has something extra that I don't want.
>
> I dunno... just thinking out loud... don't mind me...
>
> --
> Visit My Site: http://www.rubbertoe.com
>
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:26:23 AM

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

"dr.news@

| Some places don't allow cameras, but that said: we have people in the
store
| who say the same thing. We ask them if their car has an AM radio, and do
| they listen to it. If they say yes, <darn> but if they say no: how come
you
| bought the car if it has a feature you wouldn't use? Similar parallel:
| unless you are restricted by law from having a camera, it shouldn't hurt.
| On the other hand, if you recognize that more features in the phone, may
| make it more prone to failure.... you may be right. dr.
|
| More complex phones, may have more complex problems.
| If you really don't want the camera phone, may I suggest the LG4500, an
| awesome phone!

AM capability is mandated by Federal Law, no such law apples to cell phones.
Likewise there is no place that prohibits AM radios .. except the airlines
and I've never been able to drive directly onto my fight in my VW.

By the same measure the buyer can order a car without a radio. I have
friends who can't hear and have no need for any radio.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 6:15:00 AM

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

Motorola V260 and the V60S.

"Philip K" <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> wrote in message
news:D 8qr5b$20ea$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Having completed a 2 yr contract with VZW, I get $100 off on a new phone.
> I am considering replacing my trusty LG VX 4400 with a nice, high-end, new
> model phone, but I am disappointed that every high-end phone seems to have
> a camera on it. I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone with
> one
> on it. Bluetooth would be nice but it looks like the Moto v710 and
> forthcoming
> e815 both have cameras so that's a deal-breaker. I think VZW cripples the
> BT
> functionality anyway so they can hit you with a fee for every piece of
> data you
> might want to move on or off the phone (ok I digress).
>
> I wanted to shoot my $100 credit on a really nice new flip phone and now I
> can't
> find one I like without a camera!
>
> What new flip phone are the camera-haters like myself using and
> recommending?
>
> Phil
>
>
June 18, 2005 9:03:35 AM

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

In article <dsdse.729$q%7.549@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
F_and_P@NOSPAMameritech.net says...
> I just replaced my VX4400 because it began to be unreliable. It would
> alternate from full signal to no service and back. I really liked it. I
> got the Moto V710 because of reports here and elsewhere indicating it was
> very good at holding a usable signal. So far, it has the best plain old
> telephone ability of anything I have used. The user interface is a lot
> different and it has a camera. As a phone, however, it performs very well.
> (I do miss the LG interface but I am getting used to the Moto.)
>
> PoD
>
>
>
>
> "Philip K" <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> wrote in message
> news:D 8qr5b$20ea$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > Having completed a 2 yr contract with VZW, I get $100 off on a new phone.
> > I am considering replacing my trusty LG VX 4400 with a nice, high-end, new
> > model phone, but I am disappointed that every high-end phone seems to have
> > a camera on it. I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone with
> > one
> > on it. Bluetooth would be nice but it looks like the Moto v710 and
> > forthcoming
> > e815 both have cameras so that's a deal-breaker. I think VZW cripples the
> > BT
> > functionality anyway so they can hit you with a fee for every piece of
> > data you
> > might want to move on or off the phone (ok I digress).
> >
> > I wanted to shoot my $100 credit on a really nice new flip phone and now I
> > can't
> > find one I like without a camera!
> >
> > What new flip phone are the camera-haters like myself using and
> > recommending?
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
>
>
>
I had the exact same experience with the 4400. And I too, because of RF
ability, purchased the V710 - wishing it didn't have a camera, but it
does.

I'm in a difficult/low signal area. I discovered that the V710 is at
least as good as my old StarTac - and that means, it's really excellent.
I've also had the 710 go from digital to analog to digital without
dropping the call. The only way I knew was that when on analog there
was noise.

Everytime I think about how many nifty features of the 710 were
completely destroyed by Verizon so that I could use theirs, I get angry
- so I try not to think about it.

Anybody up to creating a web page where those of us who want phone, NOT
cameras, could sign a petition?

Louise
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 12:19:37 PM

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

George wrote:
> Robert J Batina wrote:
>
>> Philip K <wryboy@y-a-h-o-o-REMOVE-DASHES.com> spewed:
>>
>>> I do not want a camera and I refuse to buy a phone
>>> with one on it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I find this statement interesting. A person that refuses to buy a
>> product that they would otherwise want, because of an added feature
>> that they have no intention of using. I can't get the logic in that.
>> If you like everything about the phone, is it really impossible for
>> you to just ignore the camera feature?
>
>
>
> For some people (like me) a camera might be nifty but it would require
> that on many days I couldn't have my phone with me. Many facilities I
> visit do not allow cameras. If the phone has a camera the guards will
> require you to surrender it on the way in and it will spend the day in a
> plastic box and you will get it back when you leave.
>
> A nifty (but more expensive) way to address this if the carriers want to
> push camera phones would be to offer models where the camera is a
> removable module. Then if you didn't want it you could pop it off and
> leave it in the drawer.
>
>
>>
>> It's like my latest DVD player... it has component video outputs. I
>> don't want or need them, but I still bought the DVD player anyway
>> because of the other features that it has. I don't deprive myself of
>> a nice DVD player just because it has something extra that I don't want.
>>
>> I dunno... just thinking out loud... don't mind me...
>>

Good point. I guess people don't realize that every place does not
welcome cameras. I work in a facility of a major company that says you
are not supposed to have camera phones in their facilities. If they
really looked closely and saw my phone they'd probably act upon it.
However, if I don't go around flaunting it, I won't bring attention to
it. I'm not about to deprive myself of a phone I like to use away from
work just because my employer doesn't allow it. I'll find other
employment first. ;-)
__________________________________________
Just remove my socks to reply by e-mail
www.hackmansworld.com
June 18, 2005 1:02:46 PM

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

Louise wrote:

> Anybody up to creating a web page where those of us who want phone, NOT
> cameras, could sign a petition?
>
> Louise

You could start here and spread the word:

http://www.petitiononline.com/
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:27:09 PM

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

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:37 GMT, Hackman <MYSOCKSjkh68@yahoo.comMYSOCKS>
wrote:
>Good point. I guess people don't realize that every place does not
>welcome cameras. I work in a facility of a major company that says you
>are not supposed to have camera phones in their facilities. If they
>really looked closely and saw my phone they'd probably act upon it.
>However, if I don't go around flaunting it, I won't bring attention to
>it. I'm not about to deprive myself of a phone I like to use away from
>work just because my employer doesn't allow it. I'll find other
>employment first. ;-)

My employer doesn't allow cellular phones of any type to be brought into
the building.

--
Bob Scheurle | "There's nobody getting
njtbob@X-verizon-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X's and dashes | -- Bill Gates, March 1980
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:27:10 PM

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

Bob Scheurle <njtbob@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in
news:u518b15e02jdglisjqnoba428qilhcp6t4@4ax.com:

> My employer doesn't allow cellular phones of any type to be brought into
> the building.
>

That's not true. I saw the other McDonald's employees with their phones in
the building.....hee hee...(c;

Sorry, Bob, I just couldn't help it...(c;

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 8:17:28 AM

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

Like my job, we can bring phones into the building. We just can't have
them on us when we are working. They must be locked in our lockers.

Bob Scheurle wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:37 GMT, Hackman <MYSOCKSjkh68@yahoo.comMYSOCKS>
> wrote:
>
>>Good point. I guess people don't realize that every place does not
>>welcome cameras. I work in a facility of a major company that says you
>>are not supposed to have camera phones in their facilities. If they
>>really looked closely and saw my phone they'd probably act upon it.
>>However, if I don't go around flaunting it, I won't bring attention to
>>it. I'm not about to deprive myself of a phone I like to use away from
>>work just because my employer doesn't allow it. I'll find other
>>employment first. ;-)
>
>
> My employer doesn't allow cellular phones of any type to be brought into
> the building.
>
!