Htc fans unite!! (read my manifesto)

[nrm5110]

Wait you want HTC to see this but you post here? I'm confused. Anyway marketing is MASSIVE in a fast paced field like this. People hear buzzwords and think oh that's cool, yes some will do more research but most are in fact that easy. You all can argue until the cows come home but thing is if you want change you need to write oem's stop buying from them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[StuartV]

Consumers don't care about sd cards and removable batteries. The reason Samsung is doing well is marketing. End of story.

It's not really about SD cards, per se. It's about having adequate local storage. So, the rebuttal to this is really simple. We are the 1%. If your statement is true, then 99% of the 30M GS3s that have been sold would have still been sold, even if the GS3 did not have more than 16GB of storage and did not have a swappable battery. Roughly, that still works out to 30M phones.

And I think that is a fantasy, and for 2 reasons: One, a bunch of that 30M would not have bought it, because it was limited to 16GB max, or because you can't swap the battery (or both). And, two, another big pile (the even less tech-savvy) would not have bought them because when they read ANY reviews or consumer reports they would not have said "the Samsung GS3 is the clear winner." Instead, they would have read reports that said "the HTC One X is the pretty clear winner here." We can never know how it really would have played out, but you'll never convince me that a GS3 with 16gig max and no swappable battery would have still sold anywhere near 30M phones in the same amount of time that it did.

 

[JHBThree]

It's not really about SD cards, per se. It's about having adequate local storage. So, the rebuttal to this is really simple. We are the 1%. If your statement is true, then 99% of the 30M GS3s that have been sold would have still been sold, even if the GS3 did not have more than 16GB of storage and did not have a swappable battery. Roughly, that still works out to 30M phones.

And I think that is a fantasy, and for 2 reasons: One, a bunch of that 30M would not have bought it, because it was limited to 16GB max, or because you can't swap the battery (or both). And, two, another big pile (the even less tech-savvy) would not have bought them because when they read ANY reviews or consumer reports they would not have said "the Samsung GS3 is the clear winner." Instead, they would have read reports that said "the HTC One X is the pretty clear winner here." We can never know how it really would have played out, but you'll never convince me that a GS3 with 16gig max and no swappable battery would have still sold anywhere near 30M phones in the sameness amount of time that it did.

None of the reviews identified those things as the reason for choosing an S3 over a one x. It's pretty clear that you really don't understand the impact samsungs marketing effort had. It really would not have mattered if it had any of those things, because the marketing is what sold it. The fact that the S3 is made out of cheap plastic and still sold in those numbers is proof enough of that.

 

[Prinny Mask]

The most correct stance would be that it was brand name, a universal branding across all carriers, and marketing that caused the GS3 to sell as it did.

Samsung is one of those brands that gets recognized more often than others because of their broad scope in products. If you where to ask any random person, "HTC (just for ex) or Samsung?" they most likely would choose Samsung because HTC is so small in comparison that you'd usually get the "Who?" response. People typically choose that which they are most familiar with. Having the GS3 across all carriers also helped as when you see it, or hear about it, you aren't limited in choice, and carriers aren't limited in customers any more than they usually are. Marketing is just a give in. You can't deny just how much of an impact extensive marketing really has. Even a horrible product with tons of marketing can sell unbelievably well.

That isn't to say that SD card, storage space, or removable batteries were not deciding factors. They were. They just weren't to the same level as the others. It's almost hierarchical; while the deciding factors 1, being storage and such, may cause the general public to sway a decision, deciding factors 2 is more often what brought them to the conclusion of getting that particular device in the first place. I stand that reviews are a form of marketing also. There are two kinds though; there's where substantial reviewers, such as AC, will get a device given to them for review, and where someone just decides to make their own on something they have. For the second case, it's free marketing (not the same as good marketing), but if it wasn't marketing then there would be no point to give out review models. I'm also against the idea that even the vast majority of people read reviews. Firstly, not everyone even has a computer and/or internet (I'm not trying to deny the amount of people who do, I'm just stating objectively), not everyone reads a paper (or Consumer Digest), and not everyone who does reads reviews (unless it is Consumer Digest they are reading). Many do, but that's also giving them too much stock. The average person is less likely to discern a bad review from a good one than many of the people in these forums (I didn't say all), and consequently can be moved by extravagant bias more easily.

Of course, I'm not saying my stance is correct, because it's an assumption, just like everyone else's. But, I do believe it is the most correct, as it takes the nature and psychological habits of the general public into the most consideration for every instance.

 

[Ry]

If I'm reading things correctly about the supposed history of the DNA, it started as a joint effort between HTC and Verizon, not HTC pitching something existing to Verizon. If that's true, HTC is far from this "manifesto".

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[edoublediz]

No. It was designed to Verizon's specifications and offered to the Japanese carriers after the fact.

you are wrong!!!!!

 

[osubeavs728]

you are wrong!!!!!

Actually you're wrong. Here's proof big guy

HTC amps up Verizon's Droid franchise with Droid DNA | Mobile - CNET News

 

[iLLusive]

Well technically it states that the phone was in MID development when it was offered to other non competing carriers so wasn't really developed for Vzw and then pawned off to others. Also they only state Vzw wanted high quality display and wireless charging which has been requested for a good handful of current and upcoming devices. So not like VZW controlled anything that ANYONE here has proof on battery size or SD card size. I mean if that is the case why does the Vzw version of SGS III have SD card if they big push is for cloud storage profit? People really need to stop assuming and looking through rose colored glasses, you really skew the truth in this still good quality forums.

 

[davey11]

I'm certainly not an HTC fan, but an observer from the outside. One phone has severely damaged HTC and that is none other than the Thunderbolt. That thing was a HUGE seller. A few months in and every owner and their mother knew how horrid (battery life) the phone was. Any one slightly interested in the smartphone market heard the loud cries of disgust. So the 'I will never buy an htc again' sentiment is very strong, and of course is reflected in the dismal sales. One screw up and its tough to recover. Good luck HTC

 

[JHBThree]

you are wrong!!!!!

Apparently you can't read.

 

[JHBThree]

Well technically it states that the phone was in MID development when it was offered to other non competing carriers so wasn't really developed for Vzw and then pawned off to others. Also they only state Vzw wanted high quality display and wireless charging which has been requested for a good handful of current and upcoming devices. So not like VZW controlled anything that ANYONE here has proof on battery size or SD card size. I mean if that is the case why does the Vzw version of SGS III have SD card if they big push is for cloud storage profit? People really need to stop assuming and looking through rose colored glasses, you really skew the truth in this still good quality forums.

Just stop already. Both Verizon and HTC have said point blank the device was designed according to Verizon's requirements. It was a project initiated by Verizon for HTC to build, and once the handset was far enough along Verizon allowed HTC to bring the design to KDDI.

 

[nrm5110]

Just stop already. Both Verizon and HTC have said point blank the device was designed according to Verizon's requirements. It was a project initiated by Verizon for HTC to build, and once the handset was far enough along Verizon allowed HTC to bring the design to KDDI.

These guys will fight to the end on this one bro no matter if you are right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[osubeavs728]

Well technically it states that the phone was in MID development when it was offered to other non competing carriers so wasn't really developed for Vzw and then pawned off to others. Also they only state Vzw wanted high quality display and wireless charging which has been requested for a good handful of current and upcoming devices. So not like VZW controlled anything that ANYONE here has proof on battery size or SD card size. I mean if that is the case why does the Vzw version of SGS III have SD card if they big push is for cloud storage profit? People really need to stop assuming and looking through rose colored glasses, you really skew the truth in this still good quality forums.

What are you talking about? It says clearly that this phone was a JOINT VENTURE. Also it says that HTC ASKED VERIZON if they could sell it to kddi. It also certainly does not say that's all they wanted. Read the article again, you'll see you're mistaken. Especially the part that says "droid DNA long in the works"

 

[iLLusive]

No where in my post did I say it was the only thing VZW requested I said it was only thing we had FACTS on they did. You folks get really hurt when you just vaguely state something and get pointed out you could of been more accurate.

Also he stated the device was put on to other carriers AFTER it was MID way completed but article obviously states he was wrong or should of better worded his statement. This is my point if you are going to make statements and try to claim them as facts word them CORRECTLY please.

So to say again I think both parts had lot of say in development of this phone but unless you have factual information from one or the other everything anyone claims is just hearsay. Can you really argue on that? I've only seen a few things that were requested by VZW and as much as some of you would love to prove it, none of those are indicated as low battery size or no SD card.

MacKenzie said that while HTC and Verizon had jointly developed the DNA, HTC had seen an opportunity to build a variant for KDDI midway through the development process. He said Verizon didn't have an issue with it, since the two carriers don't compete.

 

[bp3dots]

. The GS3 is different. It was pretty clear-cut as the best. At least, among the widely reported media. PLUS, the GS3 was being reported as The Best, period, NOT The Best on AT&T, but on Verizon The Best is XYZ. So, virtually no matter what news source you went to and no matter what carrier you were on, since the GS3 came out, if you asked (not read the marketing or watched the advertising), you would hear that the GS3 is The Best - or possibly you'd hear "one of the best". The One X has never had that.

Of course it wasn't "the best on X carrier," it's available on all of them.

More importantly, if you take the GS3 and remove the SD slot and glue the battery door shut, it's STILL arguably the best Android phone on the market right now.

 

[JHBThree]

Of course it wasn't "the best on X carrier," it's available on all of them.

More importantly, if you take the GS3 and remove the SD slot and glue the battery door shut, it's STILL arguably the best Android phone on the market right now.

Ehh. Given that constraint, the One X+ wipes the floor with it.

 

[klondike1024]

After skimming through this post, it seems that if we can make the J Butterfly work on the Verizon Wireless Network and have a way to obtain the device, we can make a LOT of people very happy.

 

[natenrb9]

After skimming through this post, it seems that if we can make the J Butterfly work on the Verizon Wireless Network and have a way to obtain the device, we can make a LOT of people very happy.

Almost...I would need it on AT&T.

 

[Ry]

After skimming through this post, it seems that if we can make the J Butterfly work on the Verizon Wireless Network and have a way to obtain the device, we can make a LOT of people very happy.

Nope. That's not good enough.

 

[dtvizer101]

Personally I'm content with my HTC one x

The storage through google drive / music nd dropbox is more than enough for me


And we are talking bout a college student that has all 4 kinds of angry birds and never opened the apps

I'm a tech enthusiast and this is my first smartphone but growing up kids always rubbed in HTC phones

Mom has a Samsung which is a headache and wishes she chose my phone


There's always room for improvement

But I haven't seen anyone mention the fact that HTC really only makes phones where

Apple and Samsung both have huge revenues from other sources

Plus Samsung Atleast produces a lot of their own components HTC depends on others to supply


Point being yea they could improve but there's plenty of us that are just content with how things are going

Like Atleast my phone has the chance to be banned cause of litigation (haha mom)

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums