Htc fans unite!! (read my manifesto)

[StuartV]

HTC needs to stop investing in things like OnLive and Beats.

Really? How many sales do you think that cost them? Beats and the included earbuds were one (just one) of the things that attracted me to the Rezound. How many people do you think "would've bought that phone if it didn't have Beats and included earbuds"?

HTC needs to better market their devices.

Sure do.

I don't know anyone that bought an Galaxy S3 because it has SD card slot and a user-replaceable battery. They bought the Galaxy S3 because it was well-marketed to them.

Well-marketed AND a really good, feature-rich product! So many bought them because they didn't know much about them, AND there were no (or very few) tech geek friends of theirs out there telling them "no, don't buy that phone. It doesn't have XYZ feature that you'll really want." And no tech blogs or websites telling them that, either. Much unlike the DNA.

When I replace my Rezound, I would definitely go to an S3 or a Note 2 precisely because they DO have those features and the DNA does not.

 

[dsignori]

..The S3 just happens to be not only the best selling android phone, but also the best selling smartphone, and this is just because of marketing? No, I am pretty sure the fact that it has an SD card slot, removable battery, and 2gb of ram have helped it to completely swamp the One X.
..

No way. This is the tiniest of factors in their overall sales. Now if you look at sales to tech savvy folks, it sways people. However, other than tech geeks like us and folks in these forums, few regular folks are or even know about about SD slots, removable batteries, or RAM. Go into a mall and ask a random person how much RAM their phone has. See what answers you get

 

[Ry]

There we go Ry, there is some constructive feedback! Yes, I fully agree HTC needs to market better, but along with giving the consumers what they want. Many keep pointing it Samsung's marketing, but that isn't all they have, if their phone was crap it wouldn't sell. The S3 just happens to be not only the best selling android phone, but also the best selling smartphone, and this is just because of marketing? No, I am pretty sure the fact that it has an SD card slot, removable battery, and 2gb of ram have helped it to completely swamp the One X.

http://forums.androidcentral.com/ve...fans-unite-read-my-manifesto.html#post2324911

I already talked about marketing.

The Galaxy S III is heavily marketed. That's why it's selling. Regular customers don't care that much about the specs. If you believe that, you're really kidding yourself. The One X was hardly mentioned. Regular consumers didn't even know about it.

This makes no sense: "I don't know anyone that bought an Galaxy S3 because it has SD card slot and a user-replaceable battery. They bought the Galaxy S3 because it was well-marketed to them." Everyone I know who has an S3 bought it with these things heavily on mind. These are some of the main advantages over an iphone, among other things of course.

For the supposed "tech savvy", it doesn't make sense. But for REGULAR customers - it does. Because of marketing, regular people knew about this phone. My sister didn't care about the specs. Nor did any of my non-"tech savvy" friends who also went out and bought a Galaxy S III.

Now, why do I keep cheering for HTC. HTC has far superior: screens (One X and DNA), Sense (easily bests touchwiz and other competitors, although LG's Optimus G version is looking pretty good), and their phone build quality is far superior. These other problems seem like easy fixes to me...just put in enough ram, memory space (or sd card slot), and a removable or big enough battery. Of course the carrier problem is a bit more difficult...

Who makes the screens for HTC? Is HTC in the business of manufacturing their own screens or can anyone else source the same screens HTC is using?

Sense vs. TouchWiz. If anything, Motorola's latest Blur wins on being lightweight - near stock Android without being stock Android. What does Sense have going for it? Better camera software?

My thing is - regular consumers don't see 1 GB RAM, only 16GB of internal memory, lack of an SD card slot, or lack of a removable battery as problems. If it works, it works.

You'll probably point to the multitasking issue on the One X. I pointed to Alex Dobie's comments on the Android Central podcast about the One X+. Will the DROID DNA have supposed multitasking issues? Or will it be like the One X+?

Do we have enough evidence that a 2020 mAh battery is going to suck? How many people have reviewed the DROID DNA?

Bottom line: it's about getting more eyeballs looking at HTC. It's about putting the marketing effort behind your products. Not specs.

 

[DarkScythe]

The basic fact is that us tech-savvy people, and fans of a particular product or technology will be the most riled up about things being "wrong", "missing", or "ignored."
However, no matter what it is, the enthusiast population that exist on various boards, although the most vocal, will always be the <1% minority in the grand scheme of things.

Everyone on these boards share a common interest, and precisely because of that, we all know basic stuff about phones. However, even the 1 million of us on AC pales in comparison to the number of people actually buying phones.
Average people are swayed much more heavily by marketing, and marketing is all about spinning what you have, not what you don't have.

Edit:
To provide an example, I was at an event a few months ago with some friends, as a photographer. I carry around my SLR. One guy walks up to me and starts trying to talk about camera stuff for whatever reason, and starts off by asking me "What graphics does that have?"
Umm.. wtf? This thing isn't a computer.
It's obvious to any camera enthusiast, but clearly the average person has no clue.

 

[dsignori]

...

Bottom line: it's about getting more eyeballs looking at HTC. It's about putting the marketing effort behind your products. Not specs.

Yup, exactly.

This, a good product, and good carrier support/placement = high sales.

 

[Optimus Nexus]

I agree with you. Only one thing that makes HTC, and by extension Android, different than Apple. Carriers, such as Verizon, subsidize the costs for a lot of the Android phones. So, when they pay for a big chunk of the phone, they're going to ask for exclusivity and put their bloatware, logo, etc, on their phone; which is their right.

This is why especially HTC, which is struggling financially now, can't really be like Apple, which pays for all their parts and carriers don't subsidize the phone costs, and Apple is really famous so this gives Apple a lot of clout and ability to dictate terms unlike HTC.

 

[natenrb9]

Yup, exactly.

This, a good product, and good carrier support/placement = high sales.

Your statement makes no sense. You are saying "exactly" to Ry's statement, but in actuality are agreeing completely with with my original manifesto...see beginning of the thread.
Good product = good specs
Carrier support/placement = on all carriers

Ry must not have seen this when he thanked and like it.

 

[dsignori]

Your statement makes no sense. You are saying "exactly" to Ry's statement, but in actuality are agreeing completely with with my original manifesto...see beginning of the thread.
Good product = good specs
Carrier support/placement = on all carriers

Ry must not have seen this when he thanked and like it.

Uh no. Good product does NOT necessarily = good specs. It means a good product, period. Also, good carrier support might include getting it on all carriers, but again your "manifesto" is silly because HTC CAN'T get it on all carriers, though we all agree they would want to ...

 

[Ry]

Uh no. Good product does NOT necessarily = good specs. It means a good product, period. Also, good carrier support might include getting it on all carriers, but again your "manifesto" is silly because HTC CAN'T get it on all carriers, though we all agree they would want to ...

Bingo.

It would be great if HTC could break from the shackles that are the US carrier system. But a lot of us understand why they can't.

If I made a silly manifesto for Motorola, I'd call for Verizon to lose exclusivity on the RAZR brand in the US. Motorola would then take the RAZR M/i, RAZR HD, and RAZR MAXX HD to every carrier.

It took three iterations of the Galaxy S for Samsung to do it.

 

[FishPharm]

I don't agree that marketing is everything. At least where I live (Tampa, Fl) I don't see that many phone commercials etc that would make someone become a zombie and walk into a store and purchase a phone. Marketing does play a role but I see people spend lots of time looking at the different phones, comparing specs, listening to their friends etc. I just don't give in to this "its all marketing" crap. If it was then every commercial on tv would be of a cell phone. I also believe that most smart phone shoppers understand the basics enough to make a decent decision. People on other threads were pointing out the S3 as an example of marketing. But the S3 is on pretty much every carrier......it has great reviews.....it has one of the biggest screens out....it 32 gigs.....it has SD and removable battery......you dont need much marketing for a phone like that to sell...especially being on every carrier. People have very valid points coming on here being ticked about no SD...battery etc. If HTC would have included an SD slot and a bigger removable battery on the DNA and made it available to all the carriers like the S3 you would see a good competition involving sales.

 

[Ry]

I don't agree that marketing is everything. At least where I live (Tampa, Fl) I don't see that many phone commercials etc that would make someone become a zombie and walk into a store and purchase a phone. Marketing does play a role but I see people spend lots of time looking at the different phones, comparing specs, listening to their friends etc. I just don't give in to this "its all marketing" crap. If it was then every commercial on tv would be of a cell phone. I also believe that most smart phone shoppers understand the basics enough to make a decent decision. People on other threads were pointing out the S3 as an example of marketing. But the S3 is on pretty much every carrier......it has great reviews.....it has one of the biggest screens out....it 32 gigs.....it has SD and removable battery......you dont need much marketing for a phone like that to sell...especially being on every carrier. People have very valid points coming on here being ticked about no SD...battery etc. If HTC would have included an SD slot and a bigger removable battery on the DNA and made it available to all the carriers like the S3 you would see a good competition involving sales.

It's more marketing than pure specs.

Of the mid- to high- end, can you say that Samsung, Motorola, LG, or HTC launched a truly crappy product in 2012?

 

[osubeavs728]

To think that the 1 million members' opinions on this site can be used to infer anything about the entire smartphone user population is ridiculous. For all of you who are claiming that Samsung sells so many s3's because of a removeable battery and an SD slot (which is absurd as well) answer this. How in the hell was the iPhone the market DOMINATOR for so many years? Because as far as I'm aware, this phone has never had a remove able battery or an SD card slot.

 

[Ry]

To think that the 1 million members' opinions on this site can be used to infer anything about the entire smartphone user population is ridiculous. For all of you who are claiming that Samsung sells so many s3's because of a removeable battery and an SD slot (which is absurd as well) answer this. How in the hell was the iPhone the market DOMINATOR for so many years? Because as far as I'm aware, this phone has never had a remove able battery or an SD card slot.

Insert the ridiculous Android fanboy reference to "iSheep" here.

 

[natenrb9]

It's more marketing than pure specs.

Of the mid- to high- end, can you say that Samsung, Motorola, LG, or HTC launched a truly crappy product in 2012?

The HTC One X+ having only 1gb of ram is pretty pathetic. This is a very easy thing to see even for the stupidest customer, they can see slow performance. It greatly impacts speed as you add on more apps that use backend services.

 

[Ry]

The HTC One X+ having only 1gb of ram is pretty pathetic. This is a very easy thing to see even for the stupidest customer, they can see slow performance. It greatly impacts speed as you add on more apps that use backend services.

I'm sorry but LOL.

The Nexus 7, DROID RAZR M, and DROID RAZR HD must all be slouches.

 

[natenrb9]

It's more marketing than pure specs.

Of the mid- to high- end, can you say that Samsung, Motorola, LG, or HTC launched a truly crappy product in 2012?

So Ry, osubeavs728, and dsignori, as far a you guys are concerned HTC need only market more to reclaim sales and profitability? It has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the specs/features the newest HTC phones are lacking? Nor the branding segmentation by having a different HTC phone on every carrier?

 

[dsignori]

So Ry, osubeavs728, and dsignori, as far a you guys are concerned HTC need only market more to reclaim sales and profitability? It has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the specs/features the newest HTC phones are lacking? Nor the branding segmentation by having a different HTC phone on every carrier?

I am not saying that. I am saying specs BARELY MATTER to most customers. They matter to us, to tech geeks who make up a small small percentage of overall phone sales. Normal customers like certain things, are swayed by marketing and product placement. I think making a great phone is important, but not necessarily having the best specs.

No one is arguing that HTC would not do better if their phones were on every carrier, why do responses keep inferring this? Everyone here agrees they would do better. Where we disagree is HOW they can pull that off. It is not in their control. There are nuances to the carrier game and HTC simply does not have the sway of Apple or Samsung at this point in time. Period. They can't will their way onto every carrier. No manifesto is going to change this.

 

[osubeavs728]

So Ry, osubeavs728, and dsignori, as far a you guys are concerned HTC need only market more to reclaim sales and profitability? It has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the specs/features the newest HTC phones are lacking? Nor the branding segmentation by having a different HTC phone on every carrier?

Segmentation is a completely different can of worms. Their product line needs to be streamlined and unified through all carriers. But that's a whole different thread.

However, as far as the specs are concerned it's pretty simple. The things that some people view as lacking, can be easily overcome. You show people that the amazing camera, screen and w.e. else is more important than being able to take out a battery, which I'm guessing majority of users rarely think about. You have to show people why they can't live without your product. Samsung does a hell of a job with that, if you notice they never mention anything about an SD card slot or heir battery in an ad. They emphasize that with this phone you will never miss a moment, you'll be connected with your friends, yada yada.

Do specs matter? To us yes, and other people who like to frequent forums and tech sites. However we are the minority. Tweens don't care about an SD slot, they just want to be able to take a sweet mirror pic to post on facebook. You can make anyone believe they need anything. I mean there used to be a pet rock for gods sake, that thing sold millions.

 

[StuartV]

Some of you guys are really cracking me up. Are you REALLY asserting the "REGULAR consumers" don't read reviews or solicit input from more tech-savvy friends? They make their smartphone purchasing decisions based ONLY on the ads they saw? I just don't buy that. It's hard for me to believe that there is even any significant number of people who buy smartphones ONLY based on "marketing".

The fact is, virtually ALL the places any consumer would go for advice on a smartphone purchase - from AndroidCentral to the more mainstream tech blog websites like engadget to the even more mainstream ones like CNet, to the industry print periodicals to the regular newspaper tech columns right on to the "regular" mainstream media have ALL been saying that all these phones are nice but the Galaxy S III is The Best Android Smartphone - and many say The Best Smartphone, period.

Are you suggesting that all that Press is the result of all those reviewers being swayed that way by Marketing?! Hogwash! They're all saying it because THEY have looked at the phones and evaluated the specs and come to the same conclusions many of us would come to. The "REGULAR consumers" you keep talking about don't have to read the specs or care about them. That's what all that press is for. They aren't buying GS3s (solely) because of marketing. They're buying them because "They" (the experts) all agree that the GS3 is The Best and that's really all they need to know.

If HTC had made the DNA with bigger built-in storage options, a microSD slot, and a swappable battery, it might have been (I'll be generous here) 2mm thicker. And all that press would now be (mostly) printing that the DNA is the new Best Smartphone. That's not Marketing. That is having the Best Product. And all those "REGULAR consumers" would get that from all those industry and mainstream (who get it from industry) sources and from their tech geek friends and THEN HTC would have a chance at selling as many DNAs as Samsung sold GS3s.

 

[Ry]

Some of you guys are really cracking me up. Are you REALLY asserting the "REGULAR consumers" don't read reviews or solicit input from more tech-savvy friends? They make their smartphone purchasing decisions based ONLY on the ads they saw? I just don't buy that. It's hard for me to believe that there is even any significant number of people who buy smartphones ONLY based on "marketing".

The fact is, virtually ALL the places any consumer would go for advice on a smartphone purchase - from AndroidCentral to the more mainstream tech blog websites like engadget to the even more mainstream ones like CNet, to the industry print periodicals to the regular newspaper tech columns right on to the "regular" mainstream media have ALL been saying that all these phones are nice but the Galaxy S3 is The Best Android Smartphone - and many say The Best Smartphone, period.

Are you suggesting that all that Press is the result of all those reviewers being swayed that way by Marketing?! Hogwash! They're all saying it because THEY have looked at the phones and evaluated the specs and come to the same conclusions many of us would come to. The "REGULAR consumers" you keep talking about don't have to read the specs or care about them. That's what all that press is for. They aren't buying GS3s (solely) because of marketing. They're buying them because "They" (the experts) all agree that the GS3 is The Best and that's really all they need to know.

If HTC had made the DNA with bigger built-in storage options, a microSD slot, and a swappable battery, it might have been (I'll be generous here) 2mm thicker. And all that press would now be (mostly) printing that the DNA is the new Best Smartphone. That's not Marketing. That is having the Best Product. And all those "REGULAR consumers" would get that from all those industry and mainstream (who get it from industry) sources and from their tech geek friends and THEN HTC would have a chance at selling as many DNAs as Samsung sold GS3s.

Didn't the One X have that "best Android phone" crown from the reviewers before the S3 came out? Didn't help much.

Look at the DROID RAZR/RAZR MAXX. It was selling like gangbusters over at Verizon for a good time. Many of you would here would say that phones like the Rezound out-classed it. But the DROID RAZR line was marketed heavily. The Rezound, while a perfectly good phone, was just a blip in smartphone history.

Fact is, regular customers care little about raw specs. They're not thinking about it as much as you think they are.