09-23-2011 6:20 AM - edited 09-23-2011 6:21 AM
I did not know ATT made them? I thought in most cases, ATT had HTC and other make them with the ATT brand.
As for being better, I do not think that is the case that they are better or worse, they are just options to choose from.
09-23-2011 1:03 PM
09-26-2011 1:50 PM
I don't think at&t has ever actually made a phone. They have had other manufacturers make them (sometimes with a few changes from the manufacturer's lineup) and slapped thier names on them. Some have been good phones, some not so good. It depended on the manufacturer and model.
09-27-2011 4:21 AM
can u provide me the proof related to your comment.............
You asking for proof that ATT does not manufacture their own devices but instead, tack their logos and bloat on devices produced by manufacturers?
Right! Said Fred, is correct, and you are probably holding such device now. as far as i know too, Att never (or havent recently) manufactured their own cell phone devices. They subsidize devices builted from manufactures such as HTC, Samsung, Sony, motorola etc, sticking their logo and some apps onto the device, 'branding' the unit as an ATT network phone.
Do you have any info on an ATT-manufactured phone you can share?
09-28-2011 9:13 AM
I think the OP is talking about phones like the at&t Tilt, 8125, and 3125 (built by HTC), at&t Quickfire (built by UTStarcom) , at&t F160, Z221 and R225 (built by some company called ZTE), and others. At&t might make a few cosmetic or other minor changes to make it a little different, but at&t did not manufacture the phone.
09-28-2011 9:25 AM
09-28-2011 1:53 PM
Said, Rico. I guess it could be cheaper, but I doubt the savings would be passed on. You could cut out the manufacturer's profit, but I doubt the manufacturer makes more than $20 or $30 per device anyway. Maybe a little more on a few smartphones. Not a lot of money, really, on the consumer side. And at&t knows they will make a lot more on service than they will make on phones anyway.
09-28-2011 1:57 PM