it is a wonderfull phone..and as far as the price is concerned it empties only 4300 Rs from ur wallet...wow...
Finally a nice looking clam shell with out a horde of unwanted features! So hard to find a good clam shell with basic features and no camera.
Hey gus's It shud have a camera, without that, it doesn't look like a completed one.
any way nice look like v3, But I don't know exact price in Indian Rs. can any one tell me wat's the cost of it as of now.
i agree nice model for price it is a shame good features are not motorola standard for all models. i personally adore my a1200
thank you to all readers from etoile mobile kid
Very good design, solid looking and smooth metal-like surfaces. But when it comes to what it has to offer, it's a complete disaster! 64 k screen colours, 128x128 pixel resolution (like my old 6230 that was launched in 2003!!), less than 1 MB user memory (lol), no bluetooth, no IR, no USB, no camera (oh, god!) and even no mp3.
Is this a 2006 model or it's a 2003 refurbished one that came on the market by mistake?
we are waiting for this model,b'cos of the features,but why motorola is not changing the design of v3.now almost all motorola models similar to v3. pls find new exciting designs
I Think its a good phone for the price (£45) seen as it has GPRS and WAP 2.0/XHTML browser and a good screena and FM radio, and good standby time and talk time. But motorola has copied Alcatel by using the symbols on front except for one symbol which they use a battery icon and alcatel is signal and that it only has 500kb of user memory which is rather poor. And also the bottom bit of the phone is abit fat.... Overall i'd give it a 6 out of 10 i guess....
this is a descent looking phone that is targeted at low-end user but SP is right, it should not cost more than $100 and since it does, it's too expensive and not worth it. there are phones with almost same price or are cheaper that have more features like camera as compared to this one.
I think you're missing the point with this phone. If it did have a camera and/or bluetooth, it'll be in direct competition with the RAZR, and I'm certain for a way cheaper price. I personally like this design more than RAZR too - looks more childish I guess, with the huge icons on the front. Targetted towards teens who are getting their very first phone but their parents don't wanna bust their wallet? I'm sure this is a reasonable compromise between style and affordability.
TO PREVIOUS POSTING:
Ok, it will be tough to argue with ignorance.
However, I hope that this junk phone will cost no more thana a $100 retail.
Well, it better not to be, otherwise I'll write a letter to Motorola to tell them what a bunch of morons they are!
Is it just me or does this look like a child's play phone constructed of plastic?
to the guy before me, know your cell phone history...motorola was not the first mobile phone manufacturer but ericsson...then after ericsson got bankrupt(i think) they merged with sony...
The american brands are grow up long time ago- do you know who invent firs mobile phone in the world...Motorola is the answer...so think again...the rest have to learn more
STUPIDITY AFTER STUPIDITY:
When will american brand grow up?
This is would be the best moto phone, if:
-Normal mature design
-No Junk camera!
-Color screen (+ low resolution?!) What for??! ANSWER: To drain battery life faster!
-No Bluetooth????!!!! WHY?????
ANSWER: So you will not able to hear people well ( + on such a thin phone!!!)
Motorola is hopeless, everytime I see a new product it seems to have stooped to an even lower level.
Can it get any worse than this? Most low-end phones these days are dirt cheap, with a camera to boot. So how much are retailers expecting for this phone, 5 bucks?
I'd go with either Nokia or Samsung phones, they're leading the market at the moment. Sony Ericsson is even getting to be pretty good. But Motorola has hit rock bottom - how disgraceful.
I have this for testing. It's quite plastic but much more handy than any huge razr (v3). Something nice from Motorola.