AT-T wireless service - Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"

Author

Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"

Dennis Ferguson

2008-01-22, 10:33 pm

On 2008-01-22, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
> No it isn't. When a major newspaper has a story that is negative to a
> major corporation you will always see a response if the story is untrue.
> In this case you would have seen denials from both Apple and AT&T if the
> story was false.

Boy, I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a losing
competitor attempting to diminish an announcement which had attracted
some interest by blabbing about talks that were certainly intended to
be kept private in an attempt to make the case that they'd been clever
not to take that deal (which really suggests to me that they were
motivated by worry that they'd been stupid not to pursue the deal).
This is a low class act that it speaks for itself and needs no
public response. In fact it demands no response; a response would
only suggest that you actually care what Verizon thinks, and wrestling
with pigs will only get you dirty too.

Of course, I could be wrong since I have no particular information
beyond the article itself, but then again, neither do you. To be
clear what the job of the Verizon VP quoted in that article (and
apparently its source) is, however, here's a quote from the same
guy on another, more recent, topic, in particular an article in
the Wall Street Journal that US carriers should be made to open
their networks to compatible phones:

The Journal makes an increasingly popular but mistaken assumption
that the European government-mandated model of unlocked handsets
means better consumer choices.

Let's start with the European experience. Viruses and Trojans are
part of the unlocked handset experience. Just imagine children's
mobile phones receiving some of the indecent messages that come
into e-mail boxes everyday. "Open" devices simply lower standards.

In contrast to Europe, handsets provided by U.S. carriers have
software that protects consumers from fraud and theft. [...]
Carriers customize handsets to optimize voice quality and data
services.

Contrary to the Journal's assertion, Europe's one-size fits all
portability comes at the expense of consumer choice and price.

This requires no response either (especially when I look at how high
Verizon's revenue and profit from handset sales is compared to its
GSM competitors). This was, of course, before Verizon decided an
open phone network was a good thing.

> With Sarbanes-Oxley, you no longer have executives of
> major corporations running around making up stories that are so easy to
> verify.

Oh my god, so it's true unlocked phones attract viruses and child
porn... Oh, never mind, I can't bring myself to respond to that.

> Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
^^^^^

So you are assuming not only that Apple spoke to Verizon, but also that
Apple kept Verizon up to date on who else they were talking to and how
that was going, so Verizon could know they were first? Doubt it, though
you never know.

> carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
> its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
> quality carrier?

Well, let's look at what the carriers we know Apple did deals with since
then (you can even throw in China Mobile if you want) have in common:
(1) they're the biggest carrier in their market by number of users; and
(2) GSM. So which carrier would Apple have preferred in 2005?

There is at least some hint that Apple must have been fairly close to
doing something with one of Verizon Wireless's parent companies since
they included Vodafone's logo with the original firmware. See, e.g.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2mpm39

So (noting that Vodafone and O2 have pretty near identical shares of the
UK market) do you think the sins of the child might have been visited
upon the parent? I have no idea but, since we're engaging in pure, idle
speculation about things we have absolutely no knowledge of, I'll just
point out that from my point of view this would have been a way more
appropriate response to the quite tacky Verizon-sourced article than
getting all tacky yourself by arguing about it in public would have
been. Who wants to talk business with people who will turn around and
do that?

In any case, I don't think we'll ever know anything more about this
until someone at Apple writes a book.

Dennis Ferguson

SMS

2008-01-23, 4:33 am

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Jan 2008 22:41:05 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>
> To be fair, the undue amount of press surrounding the AT&T iPhone deal
> probably prompted a response.

Apple has never hesitated in responding to news stories about the iPhone
that have no basis in fact. If the Verizon executive's statements had
been false then they would have responded.

Verizon isn't the only carrier in the world that decided that Apple's
requirements in terms of revenue sharing and distribution were not
something they were interested in. See
"http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9850498-7.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=NewsBlog".

It's pretty clear why Apple approached Verizon first. Verizon has more
retail customers than AT&T (and the iPhone isn't sold to MVNOs or to
prepaid customers), Verizon has a higher ARPU, Verizon has a better 3G
network, and Verizon has a _much_ better reputation in terms of coverage
and service.

SMS

2008-01-23, 4:33 am

Kevin Weaver wrote:

>
> Nonsense.

Apple has used the same approach in each region; approach the carrier
with the biggest potential for sales, and try to work out a deal. If it
doesn't work out, move on to the next best carrier. What some people
don't realize is that the carrier whose network has the most users is
not necessarily the carrier with the most retail subscribers. Verizon
passed AT&T in retail subscribers last year, even though the AT&T GSM
network has more users by virtue of wholesale and prepaid users, two
segments where Verizon is very weak. No doubt Apple understood the
difference, and they were looking for the greatest sales potential which
is why they approached Verizon first.

You can see a replay of what happened in the U.S. now happening in
China, with China Mobile turning down the opportunity to sell the
iPhone, and Apple approaching other carriers.

"http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb20080118_025613.htm? chan=top+news_top+ne
ws+index_global+busi
ness"
"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/15/china_mobile_iphone/"
"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9149361c-c30e-11dc-b617-0000779fd2ac.html"

I honestly don't understand what he is so upset about. AT&T ended up
with the iPhone, which they wanted, Verizon didn't end up with it
because they didn't think that it was financially advantageous to meet
the terms that Apple wanted. Is he that upset that AT&T was Apple's
second choice? I'm sure that he searched endlessly for something to
contradict the USA Today story, but was unsuccessful. He rarely posts
any references or citations because most of what he posts is untrue.
Looks like this is just one more case of him lying.

SMS

2008-01-23, 10:33 pm

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> That's what I said. I don't know how much I can trust the things Verizon
> (or anyone else) says in the promotion of their own interests, but the
> fact that they felt the need to say anything at all speaks volumes about
> the importance they must have attached to the iPhone. If it wasn't
> important they wouldn't have bothered.

They may have been compelled to say what transpired for their own
protection against shareholder lawsuits. They may have been concerned
that the facts would leak out and they wanted to put them out there
first. It may have been entirely self-serving sour grapes.

Whatever the case, one thing you can be certain of is that if the USA
Today story was a fabrication on the part of Verizon that AT&T and/or
Apple would have denied the story. Neither company has been shy about
responding to news stories about their products and services.

Look how Apple has responded to the stories about another Chinese
partner after China Mobile turned them down.

Business Week stated:

"China's largest mobile operator, China Mobile, stopped negotiation with
Apple due to a disagreement over revenue sharing."

No one has denied that this is true, not Apple, and not the China Mobile
competitors that are now reportedly being offered the iPhone.

Given what transpired in China, Is it really so hard for people to
believe that Apple didn't first approach Verizon, which has more retail
customers and a larger network than AT&T? Has anyone come up with
anything that contradicts the USA Today story?

'The U.S.'s largest mobile operator, Verizon, stopped negotiation with
Apple due to a disagreement over revenue sharing.'

LinkBot