Recent Comments:
Banned Xbox modders get a class-action lawsuit to call their own {Engadget}
Nov 20th 2009 11:04AM @sam
Legitimate question: Besides piracy and cheating, why would you mod? I really don't know the answer to this so it is an honest question.
Also, I think the vast majority of modding is to pirate and cheat, and MS is well within their rights to ban people, right or wrong.
Welcome to the next Engadget {Engadget}
Nov 19th 2009 11:11AM The comment font is far too small. Please at least give a size option if not just increasing the size all together. It is really tiny.
Other than that, after the initial shock, I love it! Very refreshing.
Microsoft leaks a screenshot of Windows Mobile... something {Engadget}
Nov 18th 2009 6:14PM Here is my issue. If, and it is a big if, this is a WM7 screen shot, it means they still have not really designed the OS to be touch centric and still are relying on a stylus. That alone makes this a non-starter, and we haven't even begun to find out if they actually designed as a mobile OS from the ground up instead of a shrunk-down desktop OS. Start menus and deep menu structure have no place on a phone.
DirecTV exclusive Sunday Ticket is 'in the consumers' best interest' {Engadget HD}
Nov 13th 2009 10:45AM Hashim is right. Here in Fresno we get the Raiders and 49ers on CBS 47 and Fox 26 both out of Fresno. If everyone was able to get Sunday Ticket and the local games (Raiders and 49ers are considered local here, as are the all the Bay Area teams) were not blacked out, those affiliates would be in serious trouble.
Walmart's $30 deal vaults Pixi from 'meh' to 'sure, I'll take three' {Engadget}
Nov 12th 2009 7:42PM I understand what you guys are saying, and I don't disagree that it can be cheaper to buy a phone off-contract, however, it is not the gigantic gulf that people make out in these posts sometimes. Usually they act like you are not paying a monthly fee.
James, in your Sprint comparison you forgot to subtract the value of the subsidy from your $480 savings. That brings it down considerably, to $260. Nothing to sneeze at for sure, but also not as much as people are led to believe from the majority of posts above. You also assume that no one needs more than 450 minutes of talk time which may not be the case for everyone. Again, I agree that there are plenty of situations, maybe even the majority, where buying off contract may be the right way to go, but it is clearly not as cut and dry as people make out and the savings is often not nearly as much as implied. Also, don't forget that this is a relatively small subsidy for a smartphone. The Pre for instance seems to be $549 off contract, a difference of $400. The iPhone is similar. There are advantages to buying off-contract, namely no contract, but to act like you always end up ahead by a ton of money is plain false.
Walmart's $30 deal vaults Pixi from 'meh' to 'sure, I'll take three' {Engadget}
Nov 12th 2009 2:14PM Ok $10/month savings over 24 months is $240. According to Sprint, the off contract price of the Pixi is $249. So, in this case at Wal-Mart the difference between your old plan and signing a contract for a new plan is a whopping $20. Am I missing something?
Walmart's $30 deal vaults Pixi from 'meh' to 'sure, I'll take three' {Engadget}
Nov 12th 2009 2:03PM I see. It was my understanding though that most of these new phones, especially with Sprint, required you to get a new plan anyway. I know for myself, if anything AT&T is offering cheaper plans now than when I signed up with them in 2007. Just seems a little sensationalistic when people post the total cost when you are going to have to pay some sort of monthly rate irregardless. Come to think of it, how much cheaper over the long haul are most people's current plans than any new plan they may sign up for to get the subsidy? Does it significantly outweigh the subsidy on the phone, near $400 in some cases? Serious question.
Walmart's $30 deal vaults Pixi from 'meh' to 'sure, I'll take three' {Engadget}
Nov 12th 2009 2:01PM I see. It was my understanding though that most of these new phones, especially with Sprint, required you to get a new plan anyway. I know for myself, if anything AT&T is offering cheaper plans now than when I signed up with them in 2007. Just seems a little sensationalistic when people post the total cost when you are going to have to pay some sort of monthly rate irregardless. Come to think of it, how much cheaper over the long haul are most people's current plans than any new plan they may sign up for to get the subsidy? Does it significantly outweigh the subsidy on the phone, near $400 in some cases? Serious question.
Walmart's $30 deal vaults Pixi from 'meh' to 'sure, I'll take three' {Engadget}
Nov 12th 2009 1:48PM Question for all of you "total cost" folks. Do you not have to pay the plan anyway? And don't most cell companies require you to sign a contract on any plan anyway (except the new T-Mo stuff)? So, regardless of subsidy, aren't you going to pay anyway?
Facebook app developer rejects App Store, irony ensues {Engadget}
Nov 12th 2009 12:19PM No, I do. You see, back in 2007, Apple was kind of the underdog still and people loved the iPhone and Apple. Now that Apple is more successful than ever, that does not jibe with the "I want to be different for the sake of being different" crowd that seems to populate Engadget these days, so everyone becomes Apple-haters. Objectivity and reason are sorely lacking in the majority of posters here.
