Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cingular no longer sells V600 phones ??

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 9:25:41 PM

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

I spoke to a customer service rep and was told that as of one week ago, due
to major problems on the 850 Mhz mode, the Motorola V600 is no longer being
sold by Cingular.

I just went on the cingular website, and it seems like it is no longer
listed.

So, is this TRUE?
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 9:25:42 PM

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

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:25:41 GMT, "M. B."
<REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net> wrote:

>I spoke to a customer service rep and was told that as of one week ago, due
>to major problems on the 850 Mhz mode, the Motorola V600 is no longer being
>sold by Cingular.
>
>I just went on the cingular website, and it seems like it is no longer
>listed.
>
>So, is this TRUE?
>

I was told this is being discussed in the Howard Forums. You might want to
venture there. Only 5% of the V600's sold have a problem but guess that was
enough to stop their production.


~jack_
August 5, 2004 11:11:25 PM

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

"M. B." <REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p 4uQc.3223$E12.1125@trndny09...
> I spoke to a customer service rep and was told that as of one week ago,
due
> to major problems on the 850 Mhz mode, the Motorola V600 is no longer
being
> sold by Cingular.
>
> I just went on the cingular website, and it seems like it is no longer
> listed.
>
> So, is this TRUE?
>
>

Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem phones,
and they are no longer being offered.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 1:31:12 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <xDvQc.1549$nx2.411@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004
19:11:25 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>"M. B." <REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:p 4uQc.3223$E12.1125@trndny09...
>> I spoke to a customer service rep and was told that as of one week ago, due
>> to major problems on the 850 Mhz mode, the Motorola V600 is no longer being
>> sold by Cingular.
>>
>> I just went on the cingular website, and it seems like it is no longer
>> listed.
>>
>> So, is this TRUE?
>
>Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem phones,

I seriously doubt that.

>and they are no longer being offered.

For whatever reason.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 6, 2004 1:31:13 AM

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

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <xDvQc.1549$nx2.411@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004
> 19:11:25 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"M. B." <REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:p 4uQc.3223$E12.1125@trndny09...
>>
>>>I spoke to a customer service rep and was told that as of one week ago, due
>>>to major problems on the 850 Mhz mode, the Motorola V600 is no longer being
>>>sold by Cingular.
>>>
>>>I just went on the cingular website, and it seems like it is no longer
>>>listed.
>>>
>>>So, is this TRUE?
>>
>>Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem phones,
>
>
> I seriously doubt that.

Why John? Assuming the 5% figure is close, and the thin margins
carriers have with phone subsidies, I'd think if Motorola refuses to
honour the chargebacks, a carrier would be completely reasonable to kiss
a particular model out of the "free" house. The carrier's internal cost
of handling equipment returns isn't included in the chargeback, and it
wouldn't take much to get sick of that diet. But what do I know, it's
been a while since I sprung for lunch with my Cingular pal.

>
>
>>and they are no longer being offered.
>
>
> For whatever reason.
>


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 9:16:12 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <ceul3o$750@library2.airnews.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004 19:59:04 -0500, Jer
<gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> In <xDvQc.1549$nx2.411@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004
>> 19:11:25 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>>>Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem phones,

>> I seriously doubt that.

>Why John?

Because (1) Moto is required by law to honor its warranties, and (2) Moto is a
responsible company that seriously cares about relationships with it
customers.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 6, 2004 10:04:02 AM

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

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <ceul3o$750@library2.airnews.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004 19:59:04 -0500, Jer
> <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>In <xDvQc.1549$nx2.411@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004
>>>19:11:25 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem phones,
>
>
>>>I seriously doubt that.
>
>
>>Why John?
>
>
> Because (1) Moto is required by law to honor its warranties,

Assuming Moto agrees it's a warranty issue.

> and (2) Moto is a
> responsible company that seriously cares about relationships with it
> customers.

I don't doubt that for a moment.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 4:59:34 PM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <cevoi2$7i4@library2.airnews.net> on Fri, 06 Aug 2004 06:04:02 -0500, Jer
<gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> In <ceul3o$750@library2.airnews.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004 19:59:04 -0500, Jer
>> <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>>In <xDvQc.1549$nx2.411@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004
>>>>19:11:25 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem phones,
>>
>>>>I seriously doubt that.
>>
>>>Why John?
>>
>> Because (1) Moto is required by law to honor its warranties,
>
>Assuming Moto agrees it's a warranty issue.

If it's really a "problem" that shouldn't be an issue.

>> and (2) Moto is a
>> responsible company that seriously cares about relationships with it
>> customers.
>
>I don't doubt that for a moment.

Which relates back to (1).

No equipment manf planning to stay in business is going to piss off a major
customer by refusing to honor warranties. It's probably just the carrier
thinking the phone was more trouble than it was worth. The local ATTWS store
doesn't sell many V600s, primarily because of price.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 4:59:35 PM

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

Being hardware/software test engineer, I will offer a explanation.
I'll bet there were hardware problems with the phones that simply
could not be solved with firmware. This is where the real expense of
of fixing a cellphone would be. These days, the phone integrated
circuits have to come out of the foundry perfect. If there is any
problems with them that cant be fixed with programming, that chip is
dead because the time to fix the problem and get the chip back into
production is the life of the phone.

So, I would bet that there was something electrically wrong with the
phone that could NOT be solved with firmware.

IMHO


Chip



John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <cevoi2$7i4@library2.airnews.net> on Fri, 06 Aug 2004 06:04:02 -0500, Jer
> <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In <ceul3o$750@library2.airnews.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004 19:59:04 -0500, Jer
>>><gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In <xDvQc.1549$nx2.411@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004
>>>>>19:11:25 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem phones,
>>>
>>>>>I seriously doubt that.
>>>
>>>>Why John?
>>>
>>>Because (1) Moto is required by law to honor its warranties,
>>
>>Assuming Moto agrees it's a warranty issue.
>
>
> If it's really a "problem" that shouldn't be an issue.
>
>
>>>and (2) Moto is a
>>>responsible company that seriously cares about relationships with it
>>>customers.
>>
>>I don't doubt that for a moment.
>
>
> Which relates back to (1).
>
> No equipment manf planning to stay in business is going to piss off a major
> customer by refusing to honor warranties. It's probably just the carrier
> thinking the phone was more trouble than it was worth. The local ATTWS store
> doesn't sell many V600s, primarily because of price.
>
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 6:54:05 PM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

I would bet that, if anything, it's simply a quality control problem, which is
not uncommon with worldwide manf of cellular. IMHO.

In <10h728tb0oq2d09@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:35:27 -0400,
Ralph Blach <rblach@NOSPAMintrex..XXXnet> wrote:

>Being hardware/software test engineer, I will offer a explanation.
> I'll bet there were hardware problems with the phones that simply
> could not be solved with firmware. This is where the real expense of
> of fixing a cellphone would be. These days, the phone integrated
> circuits have to come out of the foundry perfect. If there is any
> problems with them that cant be fixed with programming, that chip is
> dead because the time to fix the problem and get the chip back into
> production is the life of the phone.
>
> So, I would bet that there was something electrically wrong with the
> phone that could NOT be solved with firmware.
>
> IMHO

>John Navas wrote:
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <cevoi2$7i4@library2.airnews.net> on Fri, 06 Aug 2004 06:04:02 -0500, Jer
>> <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In <ceul3o$750@library2.airnews.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004 19:59:04 -0500, Jer
>>>><gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>In <xDvQc.1549$nx2.411@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004
>>>>>>19:11:25 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem phones,
>>>>
>>>>>>I seriously doubt that.
>>>>
>>>>>Why John?
>>>>
>>>>Because (1) Moto is required by law to honor its warranties,
>>>
>>>Assuming Moto agrees it's a warranty issue.
>>
>>
>> If it's really a "problem" that shouldn't be an issue.
>>
>>
>>>>and (2) Moto is a
>>>>responsible company that seriously cares about relationships with it
>>>>customers.
>>>
>>>I don't doubt that for a moment.
>>
>>
>> Which relates back to (1).
>>
>> No equipment manf planning to stay in business is going to piss off a major
>> customer by refusing to honor warranties. It's probably just the carrier
>> thinking the phone was more trouble than it was worth. The local ATTWS store
>> doesn't sell many V600s, primarily because of price.
>>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 6, 2004 9:25:18 PM

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

John Navas wrote:
>
> >
> >>>I seriously doubt that.
> >

The question that was posed was whether CIngular is no longer selling those
phones, not whether anyone "doubted it."

Here is the text of the article I saw on a web site, that confirms that the
phones have, indeed, been taken out of distribution by Cingular:

______________________________
"Cingular Discontinues Motorola V600

Earlier this month, Motorola contacted Cingular alerting them to a problem
with the RF Performance of the Motorola V600, though they categorized it as
minor in nature. Cingular responded by halting all V600 orders until
Motorola presented them with a plan to have all V600s updated.

Apparently, Motorola is unwilling to promote a product-wide recall, and
considers this a warranty/firmware update issue. In addition, Cingular saw
having to restock the V600 as dragging into the product's end-of-life stage.
So, as of today, Cingular simply discontinued the V600. They plan to replace
it with the V551, identical in features to the V600, it adds EDGE and video
camera support.

This is yet another example of a product being discontinued and existing
customers left to pay large amounts of money to have a "free" firmware
update installed. Cingular, like all other GSM carriers in the United
States, does not offer firmware updates in-store. GSM carriers in the United
States consider firmware issues solely a manufacturer concern, and in the
end, all sides agree, the customer loses out. "
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 11:28:31 PM

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

John,

you could be correct. I have seen the gamet, from a bad manufacturing
line, bad components, bad design, and bad IC design.

Bad QC controls on a manufacturing line, I have solved. ( I was a
manufacturing engineer, and I can remember that kind of pain)

Much harder to solve, is when a vendor cannot or will not supply a part
to a specification which he promised. It is not so bad if you can test
for the specificaiton that is bad, but sometime you cant.

Much harder to overcome is a bad design of overall product or bad
design of critial part. I have been there to, and in some of these
cases, a complete redesign was needed. (I was on a product where we had
the time and money to do this)

If the V600 haw a bad overal design, or a critial component was badly
designed,
then, it is game over( sooner or later, this will happen). Mot will
just kill the phone and move the next design. The market place just
will not wait.

Any of these could be the problem.

Just no way to tell.

All these have happend to me, all were very painful.

Chip








John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> I would bet that, if anything, it's simply a quality control problem, which is
> not uncommon with worldwide manf of cellular. IMHO.
>
> In <10h728tb0oq2d09@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:35:27 -0400,
> Ralph Blach <rblach@NOSPAMintrex..XXXnet> wrote:
>
>
>>Being hardware/software test engineer, I will offer a explanation.
>> I'll bet there were hardware problems with the phones that simply
>> could not be solved with firmware. This is where the real expense of
>> of fixing a cellphone would be. These days, the phone integrated
>> circuits have to come out of the foundry perfect. If there is any
>> problems with them that cant be fixed with programming, that chip is
>> dead because the time to fix the problem and get the chip back into
>> production is the life of the phone.
>>
>> So, I would bet that there was something electrically wrong with the
>> phone that could NOT be solved with firmware.
>>
>> IMHO
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>
>>>In <cevoi2$7i4@library2.airnews.net> on Fri, 06 Aug 2004 06:04:02 -0500, Jer
>>><gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In <ceul3o$750@library2.airnews.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004 19:59:04 -0500, Jer
>>>>><gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In <xDvQc.1549$nx2.411@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Thu, 05 Aug 2004
>>>>>>>19:11:25 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem phones,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I seriously doubt that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why John?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because (1) Moto is required by law to honor its warranties,
>>>>
>>>>Assuming Moto agrees it's a warranty issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>If it's really a "problem" that shouldn't be an issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and (2) Moto is a
>>>>>responsible company that seriously cares about relationships with it
>>>>>customers.
>>>>
>>>>I don't doubt that for a moment.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which relates back to (1).
>>>
>>>No equipment manf planning to stay in business is going to piss off a major
>>>customer by refusing to honor warranties. It's probably just the carrier
>>>thinking the phone was more trouble than it was worth. The local ATTWS store
>>>doesn't sell many V600s, primarily because of price.
>>>
>
>
August 9, 2004 12:40:13 AM

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >>>Yes. Motorola has apparently declined to make good on the problem
phones,
>
> >> I seriously doubt that.
>
> >Why John?
>
> Because (1) Moto is required by law to honor its warranties, and (2) Moto
is a
> responsible company that seriously cares about relationships with it
> customers.

Here's the scoop from a rep in the store closest to me:

Motorola found a problem at 850 MHz on the V600 and notified Cingular. A
fix would apparently take too long to wait for, considering a replacement
V6__ will be launched in a few months. So Cingular stopped selling it
immediately and shipped all phones back to Motorola. The rep threw in a
comment that there is a return rate of less than 1% on the Cingular V600.

It looks like we have two "honorable" parties in this particular
situation....

---
MD
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 5:14:49 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <2aPQc.13149$Jp6.4074@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 06 Aug 2004
17:25:18 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>>I seriously doubt that.
>> >
>
>The question that was posed was whether CIngular is no longer selling those
>phones, not whether anyone "doubted it."

With all due respect, the question was the *reason*.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 5:16:45 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <2aPQc.13149$Jp6.4074@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 06 Aug 2004
17:25:18 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>Here is the text of the article I saw on a web site, that confirms ...

p.s. What you may have seen on an unidentified web site "confirms" nothing.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
September 29, 2004 10:51:22 PM

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

I just spoke to Cingular customer service AGAIN and they have never had
a reponse on this issue until now. They said that sometime in October
they will be replacing the phone with a V551. Guess we will see how
that works.. Here are the specs I found so far on this phone...
Motorola V551 announced
The Motorola V551 is a new handset from Motorola that sports EDGE and a
thin case. It’s also a quad-band phone so it will be available in North
America, Europe and Asia. Other notables are:

176 x 220 color display with 65K colors
MP3 ringtones
Speakerphone
Bluetooth
This phone is an update to the V500. Look for the Motorola V551
starting in Q4 2004. It will be marketed as the V555 in Europe and
Asia.


--
Techie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t144105.html
!