My review

edited March 2010 in enV Touch Reviews
Hello to all. I'm new here and have lurked for a couple weeks. I recently 'upgraded' to this phone. We went to Verizon a year ago after Verizon bought out Unicell. We got two LG Dare's and two LG EnV 2's. The Dare's absolutely sucked. I tried to make it a year and a half to get the free upgrade but couldn't take it anymore so I paid $80 for the EnV Touch. I must say, I really like it compared to the Dare.

My biggest complaint on the Dare was the virtual keyboard. I was surprised to find out that despite my age (48), I love to text. And when it comes to texting, the Dare is just an awful phone. I never did get used to it and would constantly have to back and fix errors no matter how often I calibrated the keyboard.

I really need a real keyboard for texting and the Touch is perfect. It has the best sized, spaced, and feel for it's keyboard. I also like the look of the layout of everything much better than the Dare. The surfing is marginal but I don't a whole lot of surfing anyway. I am running V07 and look forward to getting V08 and seeing just how much better the Polaris7 browser is.

The other thing I need in a phone (besides it being a good phone!) is a good music player. I do subscription music. I was on Napster for a couple years but just switched to Rhapsody so I could use my phone as my MP3 player. It's been a good experience. I've got an 8 gig card in my phone and now I can carry a good selection of music on it as well. My only complaint about the music player is while you can make playlists on the phone, you cannot put them in a specific order which is a pain.

One other complaint I have is with the games. I had chess on my last phone and when I went to put it on this phone, it would not play on the outside touch screen but only on the inside screen. For a game like chess this was ridiculous, so I called Verizon and had them credit my account and I deleted it off. I'm hoping once I get V08 and the new browser I can find a decent chess game online to play.

Battery life has been pretty good for me. If I'm using it a ton (listening to music, surfing, texting) all night at work I'll lose a bar or two but it generally easily goes a couple days. It's no better or worse than the Dare was.

I recommend this phone if you are looking for an upgrade from something like the awful Dare. I like Verizon as a company as well. Every time I call with a question or problem I get a person I can understand and they are always very knowledgeable and helpful and take care of my problems quickly.
«1

Comments

  • im 47 and find myself texting a lot. id rather, talk. but 3 kids and all, everybody else wants to text..would have a hard time doing it w/o this phone
  • That's the funny part for me - I'd actually rather text! I really don't know why, but I do.
  • My only dispute with your review, is your rhapsodic assessment of Rhapsody. What you'll discover, soon enough, is that the music you download, from there, is only accessible for as long as you remain a faithful subscriber. Once your membership lapses, those files - on computer and 'phone - will be locked. (Go back thirty years, and imagine belonging to a record club that shows up, at your door, to seize your LP collection, because you eventually had the nerve to cancel your subscription!)


    The problem with iTunes? Every time you throw them a crumb, by purchasing off of their site, they clandestinely assume control over your computer's media-player defaults.


    Instead, give me Amazon.com, at ninety-nine cents a whack; after that, the file is mine, to save on my computer, my cell, and Carbonite (for safekeeping).


    You mention that you "need" Rhapsody, in order to use your 'phone as a music-player, when, in fact, all you require is a memory-card, a USB cable, and a computer connection. Lose the hostage-taking subscription, unless you feel an overwhelming urge to pay $14.95/mo. ransom, in perpetuity, for the privilege of continuing to listen to music you've already downloaded.
  • i dont understand why people pay for music..just get an sd card. use utorrent or go to kickass torrents, download them, then tranfer them to your card. voila! free music forever
  • Here, in Boston, a high-profile court case just resulted in a $750,000 judgment against a torrent-happy BU grad student. All things considered, I think I'll get my jollies either transferring my bought-'n'-paid-for LP/CD library, or dutifully shelling out .99/download.


    I have no quarrel with paying for someone else's intellectual property . . . ONCE!
  • how could he get sued? that seems impossible. the music i download is stuff i paid for in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. yeah. im old. i bought the albums and cds and cassettes etc. i dont feel guilty. like you said, once. thats fair. verizon gets most of the money anyway
  • @v94: Copyright law. It doesn't matter (in the eyes of the law) if you've paid for it in the past or not, digital media is a different format which 'requires' purchasing if you're going to download. That's the argument the record companies make, at least; it's not one that I agree with (or follow, for that matter). I'd suggest reading up on the DMCA.
  • but how do people get caught? it should be the source that gets sued..seems like he was targeted for a reason
  • they have the money to fight it..
  • Unlike the poorer-but-wiser B-Screwed student - who probably purchased NO portion of his musical collection (and now sports the Scarlet IP Address, to prove it) - I DO buy/download new material, while toiling away over the conversion of my physical backlog to digital format.


    Furthermore, I'm such a fossil, I remember (and own) 78's! Never could justify purchasing junky pre-recorded cassettes, though; I preferred LP's, for the elaborate packaging and superior sound, and would transfer EQ-adjusted, Walkman-suitable tracks onto premium-grade blanks. Only grudgingly, after vinyl all-but-vanished, did I yield to the CD market. Even today, if I know I'll want the entire album - rather than an isolated song or two - I go out of my way to look for an audiophile edition on 180g virgin vinyl.


    But will I settle for the quick-'n'-dirty download, when the rest of the album promises to be mere ballast? Hell, yeah!



    And, indeed, "Torrence" WAS targeted, . . . for the same reason johns are hauled in, together with their streetwalking "acquaintances," and "clients" get busted alongside their dealers.
  • guess they have to make an example out of someone. poor saps
  • Well, I don't know how this simple review of my new EnV Touch turned into a discussion of subscription music, but it has. And while I'm usually loathe to feed these types of sidebars, I will this one time since it have strong feelings on the subject. On the matter of subscription music, thanks for the 'heads up' on what will happen when 'I soon discover' the music only keeps working if I keep my subscription current. As I said in my original post, I had been on Napster for over two years so I obviously completely understand the concept of subscription music. As someone who grew up in the 60s and '70s and cut his teeth on vinyl I am a big fan of listening to a band's whole album vs. just buying a single song. It drives me crazy that my kids (who also use the subscription service) just download single songs onto their MP3 players and never get to make those rare gem discoveries that you get when you listen to a whole album.

    I used to own several thousand LPs and still own a couple thousand CDs - the very best of which I've ripped to digital media. The stuff I grew up with I own and put on every piece of digital media player I own. But there is SO much great stuff out there. And with subscription services, I basically get to sample 10 million songs, a number that increases every day. Yes, I pay $14.95 a month. That's the cost of one CD a month. For that price I get to hook up three computers and three mobile devices and download all the music I could possibly want. I get to experiment and listen to stuff I would never, ever get to check out. When I find new stuff I love, I download it. If it stands the test of time, I buy it and keep it. How many times have you bought a song only to tire of it later and never listen to it again?

    As for downloading music for free from the net, well I'm also a musician. I know how hard it is for musicians to make a living today. Downloading their music for free is stealing. Every time I see an article of some college student thief getting hammered in court I stand up and cheer. If you love music, then you shouldn't steal their music. You might just as well steal their equipment. The outcome will be the same. They will soon not be able to make that music you love to steal so much.

    That's all I got. You want to buy it, buy it. You want to rent it, rent it. Please don't steal it. Now, can we get back to the review of the phone?
  • dont know why it gets so out of hand here. didnt see where anyone faulted you. anyhow, to each his own. everyone needs to chill and not read into things that arent there.
  • Uallach faulted me with his statements: "What you'll discover, soon enough, is that the music you download, from there, is only accessible for as long as you remain a faithful subscriber. Once your membership lapses, those files - on computer and 'phone - will be locked." That made me need to clarify my position, and educate people on the benefits of subscription music. Then you faulted yourself with your admittance of a felony crime: "i dont understand why people pay for music..just get an sd card. use utorrent or go to kickass torrents, download them, then tranfer them to your card. voila! free music forever" something I don't agree with, and something I don't think we should be so blaze about. So I clarified my opinion on both. I'm as chill as I can be dude. I'm just trying to set a good example for the young people today. Rhapsody lets me and my two kids run around with all the music we want. If they find a song that want to own, they buy it. They don't steal it.
  • but it was nothing against you...i dont see the stealing part if someone shares it with you. may i have one of your 10 albums of jethro tull? see my point? but no one said you were wrong!
  • Just my two cents worth gentlemen. First, very good postings Methos. The stealing part is this,....If Methos lets you borrow his Jethro Tull album, that's fine. It's not stealing the music because he has already paid for it. Just like if I let V9 borrow my Aerosmith CD. I have already paid for the music,(ie; bought the CD). Therefore, he is not stealing it. If someone "shares" it with you, they are simply sharing the music they stole. Did the person "sharing" it pay for his copy?
  • we dont know they stole it for certain. someone had to buy it sometime...
  • i have morals and ethics. its been an ethical question since napster came out. ive paid for plenty of music. the few songs i have i my phone i probably paid for twice. they are just there. i rarely listen to them anyway
  • People cannot share their music with you by providing you a copy. Unlike years ago when you borrowed a physical record (I'm talking vinyl here) or CD to play at your house, sharing your digital music with someone is no different than stealing. Even if you legally own an original copy of the music, (in any form analog or digital) you are bound by the copyright stipulations of your original purchase. Some allow you to make digital copies for your own use, sometimes across multiple platforms, i.e., your computer, your IPod, your phone. This does not mean you can provide everyone with copies because somewhere along the line someone bought it once.
    If you want to share your music with friends, play it on your speakers loud enough for them to hear it. Don't rip off the artists who created it by giving it away.
  • so somehow, if its digital it matters cuz record company lawyers said so? to me its more of opinion. read again what i said before.
  • v94 says:
    "we dont know they stole it for certain. someone had to buy it sometime... "

    So does that mean when the next U2 album gets released, one person should buy the CD and then digitally share it with the rest of the world?
  • didnt say that. i said i have paid for what is on my phone in the past. how many times do i have to pay for it? just cuz a new format comes i have to pay each time?
  • V94: How can you say you didn't say something that I pulled right from your comment above?

    No one is saying you have to pay for the same music again. I rip all of my CDs to digital, I almost never listen to them on a CD player. I've also converted all of my old vinyl to digital format. I do not buy MP3 versions of stuff I already have in another format.
    What is at issue is when you haven't paid for the music in any way. Napster in its original format was organized piracy, and downloading from other music "sharing" sites that do not compensate the artists is just stealing, period!
  • i told you i did pay. also we cant say for sure it was stolen. its old music that i have and it was the easiest way to get it
  • maybe you work for a record co.
  • edited March 2010
    If it is not in the public domain, and a person did not pay for it himself, it's stolen.

    And no, I don't work for a record company, and I'm not a musician, although I have several friends who are.
    How would you feel if your livelyhood depended on selling something and people continually took it for free?
  • i get it! i said i paid for what i have. probably more than once. i do pro bono all the time
  • Pro bono is donating your time, it is not the same as having your work stolen from you without your permission. And I did not imply that you personally stole the music you have, I was merely commenting on your statement above.
  • i donate my time all the time. i know what it means! you keep reading me wrong
  • Haha funny stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.