Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
You might get away with it at first, but that doesn't entitle you to use it forever. You might pay taxes for road work, or pay a monthly fee for XBL, but the use of those is a privilege, not a right.
Furthermore, the road to hell is paved with "good intentions". MS can't discern the pirate from the casual modder, and it would be pretty ridiculous to expect them to.
11/20/09
Sure, I may be one of the few exceptions to this rule - but when my sister knocked over my Xbox for the first time after getting a brand new copy of Forza 2 about 2 years ago I was heart broken that I just lost $60 in a blink of an eye. Ever since then I've made LEGAL back ups of all of my games and kept the original discs stowed away out of harms reach so that I never have to worry about losing my $60 investment into a disc.
Ever since modifying my console I've lost many of burned games - either from the Xbox being tipped over or just from normal wear and tear - but whenever that happens I just pull out the original and re-rip it and make another copy.
I think that sure this class-action lawsuit is a little over the line but I think Microsoft should at least hear out the legit people in the modding scene. :(
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
In the end you are using a service they provide and if you don't like the way they run it you can go somewhere else. I guess buy two xboxes and use one for online and mod the other?
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
To even try to declare that Live's contract terms were illegal in respect to modding would be an impossibly uphill battle for the plaintiffs.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
#tips
11/20/09
11/20/09
I do not own an Xbox, nor do I use (or have ever used) any Microsoft online gaming services. I am therefor not aware if only upgrading the HDD will result in getting you banned from Microsoft online gaming. If it does then that seems unnecessarily heavyhanded... nevertheless, it's spelled out clearly to not do it. So... to do it, and then complain about unfairness smacks of stupidity and entitlement, regardless of the intent. Hence the no sympathy for the dumb. If I'm wrong, then my apologies to people who are both not dumb and are being banned, even though they did absolutely nothing wrong, and are entitled to upgrade the HDD themselves with no consequence.
#tips
11/17/09
They refuse to evena cknowledge that the error is real when I walk up and show them mine, and cases of many other people. Been going on for over 2 months. #verizonatt
11/17/09
11/16/09
11/17/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/17/09
11/16/09
When reached for comment, A Verizon Legal Team Member responded, "Does too, infinity!"
A judge is expected to rule tomorrow on a motion filed by AT & T which contends that Verizon broke legal protocol by not issuing a "Double Dog" dare, and are also "Poopy-smelly-heads".
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/12/09
Which, if you look at the maps and the commercials from the point of view of someone who doesn't read tech mumbo jumbo everyday like us, would lead you to believe that Verizon provides coverage in those areas, and ATT does not. Which in terms of basic coverage is not true.
Not everyone knows what 3G is, and to many, the commercials are simply depicting where coverage is.
I have worked in the wireless industry for over 2 years, most of that at Best Buy Mobile, and now for T-Mobile. And everyone in the wireless industry can agree, when you are selling a phone, many times a week, if not day, people as you the question "What is 3g?" Selling a phone, I sometimes spout features like a shopping list, assuming the customer knows as much as I. This is not the case all the time.
Many customers are too timid, or embarassed to admit they don't know what your saying...and it is very realistic to believe people will be misled by these commercials.
Kudos to Verizon on doing such a great job, but At&t makes a very valid point. Verizon should keep running it, but they should be specific in depecting total coverage and then highlight specific 3g coverage and explain how it relates to phones/what it does. (i.e "Here is our maps vs theirs, but you can see here *highlight new areas* that Verizon offers you more 3g coverage which lets you surf the web 10 times faster than these other areas! Do you basically want dialup on the go? Didn't think so...get verizon!") or whatever.... #3g
11/12/09
There is a certain expectation of the customers to know what certain terms mean. Or at the very least, that advertisements are not required to perform those definitions for the customer. They can research on their own/ask store employees. Additionally, a customer being "too timid/embarrassed to admit they don't know what you're saying" is the farthest thing from Verizon's fault.
The fact is, 3G is a common term that means "data coverage". Most major mobile networks use this term freely, and with little to no qualification of "this is not a voice network". If Verizon shows two maps, calls them both "3G coverage" and then expects the end user to know what 3G coverage means, they're not doing anything different than any other mobile operator.
The only reason AT&T's upset is because Verizon's publicly broadcasting "Hey, everyone! AT&T's got a tiny dick!" and AT&T feels a need to prove themselves. As always, the dick measuring contest has nothing to do with measuring actual dicks. #3g
11/12/09
The way some of these customers are learning is coming and talking to the wireless industry folks like me in the brick and mortar stores. And hopefully they talk to an impartial, and informed guy who doesn't lie to get a commission..
But honestly, does every customer go out and research everything all the time?I understand a certain responsibility falls on the customer to do a little research in what they buy. From violent games for kids, to a car, but in an industry like wireless, that is always changing. Do you honestly expect a 58 year old man who doesn't own a computer, who needs to buy a phone to do this? "Oh yes, I just need a phone for emergencies and nothing else...wait whats this? Verizon provides more "3g coverage" in idaho? Not sure what that is, but it sounds like they mean "it will work here and wont work here" It doesn't show any att coverage there, and I go there a lot. Soo... Looks like I need to get verizon because an att and phone wont work...alalala"
Verizon just got a customer that could have possibly used Net10. It might sound ridiculous, but you look closely at those who are buying phones, a good number of them are not 21 year old hip techno nerds... There are many first time buys, phone first type people that this can influence.#3g
11/12/09
"Or at the very least, that advertisements are not required to perform those definitions for the customer. They can research on their own/ask store employees. Additionally, a customer being "too timid/embarrassed to admit they don't know what you're saying" is the farthest thing from Verizon's fault."
To ask the general public to research outside of a commercial about something is ludicrous, have you ever noticed how commercials are easy to understand and have big labels on everything? That's because a lot of people in this country with a TV are complete morons. When they hear something they don't understand on a commercial it goes in one ear and comes out the other.
I'm of a opinion more similar to Incoherent, which is that verizon was quite misleading with these commercials, and I believe they were intentionally misleading. To be honest, Verizon has a couple good reasons to be misleading; they don't have an iphone, and AT&T seems to be a bit more popular. Now based off these, Verizon will not have an iPhone anytime soon, and the only way they can secure the public image is to make it seem like they have the better network (to be honest again, they do have the better network).
AT&T is justified in going after Verizon though, it has become a trend of companies to publicly slander the other in a commercial, and to be honest, bashing another company in a commercial is not cool. When they have to outright state that their contender is worse they stop saying "hey our product is good" and start saying "hey, their product is worse than ours" (*cough* Apple bashing on PC's customer service because Win7 has nothing wrong with it and Macs still aren't the public favorite *cough*)
In short, Verizon went the jackass douche route by bashing AT&T directly, and now AT&T is going after them with the legal ban hammer. #3g
11/12/09
That's where the rub is. We're not arguing whether or not "everyone knows what 3G is". I'll openly admit they don't. But what's the responsibility of a 30-second advertisement that' targeted to everyone, not just the lowest common denominator, to inform people of what 3G is? How long does a term have to be in the mainstream before it doesn't have to be defined anymore? I note we're no longer getting up in arms over defining "cell phone" versus a regular phone.
And most importantly, if Verizon is expected to explain to the least-knowledgeable of their viewers what a 3G network is in every ad, shouldn't everyone else be as well? I don't see AT&T going the extra mile to distinguish between 3G coverage and voice. (Disclaimer: I don't watch much straight TV. If I've simply missed those ads, feel free to correct.)
Frankly, how cell phone technology works is far too complex to explain in a single 30-second spot. To place the requirement on any telco to explain how it all works in that time frame would not only be ludicrous, but unhelpful to boot. The best time to get those questions answered? The long, grueling process it takes to sign up for a phone. You don't just walk up to a car lot and buy the first car that looks good. Why treat cell phones, which require their own two-year contracts to be treated like they're impulse buys? #3g
11/12/09
11/12/09
As for this claim that Verizon is bashing AT&T for comparing the networks: it is well known that one of Verizon's greatest strengths is their network. How would you prefer they play to that strength? With a simple slogan "America's most reliable network"? If that were the extent of their info, wouldn't you demand more information, more solid proof of this superior reliability.
Look, there's going to be a bias in every ad. Yeah, Verizon's competing with AT&T. That doesn't mean they were incorrect or misleading.
What it boils down to is Verizon made an ad that compared their 3G network, accurately, to AT&T's 3G network. The ad was clearly labeled as such. AT&T is suing Verizon because they claim people are too stupid to figure out what 3G means, and moreover, that they're too arrogant to know that they don't know what 3G means.
I am less than comfortable living in a world where ignorance and arrogance combined are defended as justifiable. #3g
11/12/09
Are we going to sue DirectTV for saying they have the most HD channels because some people might assume that they actually have the most programming?
Due we want to sue car companies who tout their horsepower compared to another makers' without talking about the power/weight ratio?
It's a risky precedent to arbitrarilly draw a line where you think that a consumer's level of savy regarding a product should be. #3g
11/12/09
@everyone who is disagreeing with OCE: If you actually see a point in arguing, go ahead. But be reasonable. #3g
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09