Posted by Aivar
In connection with the newly introduced models Cedar and Xperia X8 (but not only) I have some questions to ask concerning new models:
Is there a logical explanation to why SonyEricsson persistently does not add a second (frontal) camera for video calls?
Why does SonyEricsson offer more 3G frequencies for the mobile phones that are produced only for American market cutting down on frequencies for the rest of the world?
As a customer I dont understand this weird policy. The decisions SonyEricsson have made are extremely stupid, moreover, they are complete failures in my opinion.
Yes, I know, a video call is not the most popular function but now and then it is still used. Years ago SonyEricsson offered video calls with frontal camera, why cant it be continued as the technology is more advanced and cheaper nowadays. I think its a regression: a person should choose whether to see the other person he/she is talking to or show himself it is not very reasonable. In some cases the frontal camera for video calls is retained but there are not many phones with this function anymore.
About the frequencies. The 3G frequencies of America can also be used by people who are traveling there. It's called roaming... Why does SonyEricsson think that it's enough to use only GSM-roaming in America?
But as I said: at the same time SonyEricsson adds more 3G frequencies for phones sold in American market only, so American people can use 3G roaming in the whole world. Where is the logic here? Do only Americans travel around the world?
I have been a longterm user of SonyEricsson, but I am getting more and more disappointed in this company.
Posted by sranjanm2002
I support you. I am also unable to understand why 3G camera is removed.
Posted by jj03
well, my omnia hd has the front cam, but the function is disabled in hardware. Ain't that a bitch. Lol. Shoulda removed it altogether and made the screen bigger. Tho 3.7 inch is already good.
Posted by tranced
Some years ago I'd asked myself why
just put 3g frequencies for the other side of the world(me being in the Caribbean) and not to us. Now that they do offer tri and quardband hsdpa/hsupa/umts bands they've don't offer them to the rest of the world. It's like a balance that they have come into.
Then I realised they'd forgot putting tri and quadband 3g to you guys and then I asked myself why.
It's clear they are a bit weird when coming down to this. Can't find a simple reason why they can't have the same freqs for all of us.
Posted by Aivar
Tranced, thanks for the added info!
Posted by strauts
yeah, i think all phone must have a LED light, it pretty usefull.
Video call camera... One model have it, and 10 next models doesnt. So, in this way video call will not come popular.
And 3G frekqences... I need only that it works in my country.
Posted by buntoo
@Aivar,
I wish someone from SE Department could answer your questions..
I'm also very disappointed..
After W995 no
phone is having a front(video) call camera other than Satio,Yari,Hazel & X2
They shouldn't have removed it.
[ This Message was edited by: buntoo on 2010-06-18 17:00 ]
Posted by arcmhyke
Is there a logical explanation to why SonyEricsson persistently does not add a second (frontal) camera for video calls?
maybe in some countries it's restricted, if not its a part of their cost cutting strategy until now?
but honestly, it's a feature very seldom used and lots of requirements to use it like both parties must have a 3g connection? and a front camera atleast to enjoy the call
here in the philippines they restrict one network to another network for video calls and video calls is expensive or atleast same price with ordinary calls, and signal is not very good and video quality is below average in my experience
but it's very cool to use it though that you are holding phone in front of you and talking to it
well i guess they are reserving it until then, when the time comes that video calls is just as clear as voice calls quality, better and faster connections in a convenient and practical use
[ This Message was edited by: mhyke on 2010-06-18 17:21 ]
Posted by lazeeboy
the only reason why i have a 3G/HSDPA phone is for faster internet connection in places where wi-fi isn't readily available. i use it as a modem for my laptop.
the last 3G phone i owned that had a front camera was a K800i. and i only used its video calling feature less than 5 times.
couldn't care less about video calls. for me it's also like the phone's regular camera feature... more of a novelty. no offense to those that do use them, though. just my humble opinion.
Posted by Junz
same, 3G/HSDPA phone just for faster internet. never use that video call feature.
Posted by Run_dawn10
I never tried (or going to attempt) a video call as prices are ridiculously expensive.
Posted by TeenInvader
I think maybe based on some survey maybe smartphone people don't use this video calling ...
I think the whole video calling thing was not a success thats why its not so popular ...
And if I was manufactoring phones, I wouldn't waste any resource of unpopular phone features ...
Posted by jplacson
I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge:
Is there a logical explanation to why SonyEricsson persistently does not add a second (frontal) camera for video calls?
Yes, hardly used function... although sought after...current 3G vid call protocols are not ready for mass use yet... video compression and non-standardized network bandwidth and call pricing limited the spread. It was more a network interoperability issue than anything else. Cases of complaints of excess charges and customers complaining about video call charges that they were not informed of played a bigger role. This is why Apple decided to limit FaceTime use to Wifi... get rid of the problematic carriers and their inability to come to a universal standard for pricing. To be honest, I've owned about 6 3G video capable phones... from the K600 to the P1i... I used that function about 6 times total. As opposed to FaceTime, which I use 3-4x a day...EVERYDAY... using my X10 Mini Pro as a MiFi. The video compression protocol, stability, and ease of use of FaceTime far exceeds the streaming quality of Skype, even on it's best day. And this makes a huge difference in how many people actually want to use it.
I was struggling to find someone... ANYONE in my circle of friends who had video calling capabilities back then... and even now... not many of them know how to use it on their phones... meanwhile, I have more friends who I get FaceTime with than Yahoo or Skype combined.
Why does SonyEricsson offer more 3G frequencies for the mobile phones that are produced only for American market cutting down on frequencies for the rest of the world?
This one is a simple licensing issue. Different countries have different frequency licensing policies with regards to products sold in their respective countries. Much like the even dumber 100/110/220/240v AC power incompatibilities with some electronic products. This is a license/gov't policy issue.
Remember that from a manufacturing standpoint,
would greatly benefit form just having to produce one product for the whole world... but local licensing restricts that... for the same reason that Apple cannot sell unlocked iPhones OFFICIALLY within the US...but in the UK and Singapore, they are sold officially unlocked in Apple stores.
It all boils down to business/gov't deals... corruption, red tape, etc... all play a part on which manufacturer gets to roam free in a certain region or area.
For example, in the Philippines, only 3 carriers are allowed to have 3G operations... NO NEW PLAYERS..PERIOD. This is circumvented by just starting a "new" telco that piggybacks off an existing telco's network license. Some old, almost defunct telcos have been given new life simply because they had licenses to operate in certain frequencies that new companies want to use but no more slots are given out by the gov't.
Posted by jplacson
I think the more idiotic policy of
seems to be:
"Gee, let's lag behind in software development... even if the software is already developed outside and given away for free... let's stay 2 generations behind everyone else... and have bad software hold back our state-of-the-art hardware"
Posted by rikken
On 2010-11-06 12:06:44, jplacson wrote:
I think the more idiotic policy of
seems to be:
"Gee, let's lag behind in software development... even if the software is already developed outside and given away for free... let's stay 2 generations behind everyone else... and have bad software hold back our state-of-the-art hardware"
+1
Posted by TeenInvader
On 2010-11-06 12:03:02, jplacson wrote:
I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge:
Is there a logical explanation to why SonyEricsson persistently does not add a second (frontal) camera for video calls?
Yes, hardly used function... although sought after...current 3G vid call protocols are not ready for mass use yet... video compression and non-standardized network bandwidth and call pricing limited the spread. It was more a network interoperability issue than anything else. Cases of complaints of excess charges and customers complaining about video call charges that they were not informed of played a bigger role. This is why Apple decided to limit FaceTime use to Wifi... get rid of the problematic carriers and their inability to come to a universal standard for pricing. To be honest, I've owned about 6 3G video capable phones... from the K600 to the P1i... I used that function about 6 times total. As opposed to FaceTime, which I use 3-4x a day...EVERYDAY... using my X10 Mini Pro as a MiFi. The video compression protocol, stability, and ease of use of FaceTime far exceeds the streaming quality of Skype, even on it's best day. And this makes a huge difference in how many people actually want to use it.
I was struggling to find someone... ANYONE in my circle of friends who had video calling capabilities back then... and even now... not many of them know how to use it on their phones... meanwhile, I have more friends who I get FaceTime with than Yahoo or Skype combined.
Why does SonyEricsson offer more 3G frequencies for the mobile phones that are produced only for American market cutting down on frequencies for the rest of the world?
This one is a simple licensing issue. Different countries have different frequency licensing policies with regards to products sold in their respective countries. Much like the even dumber 100/110/220/240v AC power incompatibilities with some electronic products. This is a license/gov't policy issue.
Remember that from a manufacturing standpoint,
would greatly benefit form just having to produce one product for the whole world... but local licensing restricts that... for the same reason that Apple cannot sell unlocked iPhones OFFICIALLY within the US...but in the UK and Singapore, they are sold officially unlocked in Apple stores.
It all boils down to business/gov't deals... corruption, red tape, etc... all play a part on which manufacturer gets to roam free in a certain region or area.
For example, in the Philippines, only 3 carriers are allowed to have 3G operations... NO NEW PLAYERS..PERIOD. This is circumvented by just starting a "new" telco that piggybacks off an existing telco's network license. Some old, almost defunct telcos have been given new life simply because they had licenses to operate in certain frequencies that new companies want to use but no more slots are given out by the gov't.
perfect answer ...