|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > February 2007 > Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal
|
|
| Billybobh3 2007-01-29, 10:33 pm |
| Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal
Updated 1/29/2007 9:50 AM ET
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
NEW YORK - Verizon Wireless, the No. 2 U.S. cellphone carrier, passed
on the chance to be the exclusive distributor of the iPhone almost two years
ago, balking at Apple's rich financial terms and other demands.
Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone
fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the
relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice
president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone.
We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."
Verizon's decision to pull the plug on talks sent Apple into the
waiting arms of Cingular, which will be the exclusive U.S. carrier for the
iPhone. The multifunction device is expected to ship in June and cost about
$500.
Apple and Cingular (which now is solely owned by AT&T and adopting
that brand name) have declined to discuss terms of their alliance. But the
Apple-Verizon talks offer a peek into the computer giant's thinking.
According to Verizon, Apple CEO Steve Jobs insisted that he have hard
control over iPhone distribution.
The problem? While Apple and Verizon stores would have it, Wal-Mart,
Best Buy and other Verizon distributors could have been left out. "That
would have put our own distribution partners at a disadvantage" to Apple and
Verizon stores, Gerace said.
Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where
we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and service
support," Gerace says.
Cingular won't talk about the financial terms or say how long its
iPhone exclusivity lasts, but two people with direct knowledge of the deal
say it's a five-year contract. The exclusive is USA-only, leaving Apple free
to market its iPhone globally.
Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman, declined to comment on any
aspect of this story.
Mark Siegel, a Cingular spokesman, said, "We think this is a win for
Apple, and it is a win for Cingular."
Siegel declined to comment on customer care plans but said Cingular
would field calls related to the wireless service. "I don't want to leave
the impression that these (iPhone) customers are not ours. They are."
Siegel would not say whether Cingular distributors, which include
Wal-Mart and RadioShack, would get the iPhone. The deal announcement
referred only to Cingular and Apple stores and their websites.
| |
|
| Billybobh3 wrote:
<snip>
> Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
> wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
> would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where
> we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and service
> support," Gerace says.
LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
| |
| Billybobh3 2007-01-29, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45be9bb1$0$6894
9$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Billybobh3 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via USB,
> Bluetooth, or WiFi.
Let me know how you make out with EDGE.... :)
| |
|
| Billybobh3 wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45be9bb1$0$6894
9$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> Let me know how you make out with EDGE.... :)
Hey, the iPhone is not something I'd ever buy, it's too de-featured for
the price. It's a consumer product for people that don't need full PDA
functionality. That's not to say future versions of it are not going to
be better.
What I'd like in a phone is:
-VOIP Application for WiFi calling
-HSDPA or EV-DO with tethering, not just low speed EDGE.
-Full PDA with third-party applications, akin to what's available for
phone running WinCE or Palm OS.
-MP3 Player that does not support DRM formats
-Slide out keyboard for text input
-USB, Bluetooth, Consumer IR and IrDA IR
I think that Apple/Cingular went with EDGE because they want to offer
less expensive plans than they would offer with high speed data. I read
that they will be offering monthly plans in the $80 range. With HSDPA
and tethering, they'd be over $100/month.
| |
|
| In article < 45be9bb1$0$68949$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Billybobh3 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
> USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
And I'm glad Apple would handle repairs. I've always had Macs and always
had great (though rare) repair experiences. I shudder to think what
Cingular would do if left to their own devices...
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-29, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:08:12 -0500, "Billybobh3"
<billybobh3@comcast.net> wrote in
< hqGdndPE0O7qByPYnZ2d
nUVZ_tOmnZ2d@comcast
.com>:
>[SNIP]
Yeah, right. Can you say, "Sour grapes?" ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-29, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:04:58 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-F60EA6.19045029012007@news.giganews.com>:
>And I'm glad Apple would handle repairs. I've always had Macs and always
>had great (though rare) repair experiences.
You've been lucky to miss out on warranty problems.
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...G=Google+Search>
>I shudder to think what
>Cingular would do if left to their own devices...
Toss the phone and give you a refurb. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2007-01-29, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:t3etr2187g0fm8j
gajl9tnfo48bbbvf1m0@
4ax.com:
>
> Yeah, right. Can you say, "Sour grapes?" ;)
>
Yeah, right. Can you say, "blinded by ignorance?"
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:t3etr2187g0fm8j
gajl9tnfo48bbbvf1m0@
4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, right. Can you say, "blinded by ignorance?"
Whether or not Verizon made the right decision in no acceding to Apple's
demands remains to be seen. The key question is how many new subscribers
the iPhone brings to Cingular, that would have gone elsewhere if not for
the iPhone. Verizon is doing so much better than Cingular right now in
terms of new post-paid subscribers, that maybe they just decided that
they didn't have to give away the store to Apple.
It is very interesting that Apple first tried to do a deal with Verizon.
Clearly they saw the value of partnering with the carrier that has the
best network in the U.S..
| |
|
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:45be9bb1$0$6894
9
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
> USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
>
>
Do you suppose Steve Jobs had a VZW hobbled-up phone, before, and didn't
wanna get blamed for VZW turning it into a PoS?....hee hee...
Larry
--
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-30, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:57:35 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45bed047$0$69038$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>Whether or not Verizon made the right decision in no acceding to Apple's
>demands remains to be seen. The key question is how many new subscribers
>the iPhone brings to Cingular, that would have gone elsewhere if not for
>the iPhone. Verizon is doing so much better than Cingular right now in
>terms of new post-paid subscribers, that maybe they just decided that
>they didn't have to give away the store to Apple.
>
>It is very interesting that Apple first tried to do a deal with Verizon.
>Clearly they saw the value of partnering with the carrier that has the
>best network in the U.S..
"First" is another of your inventions -- the actual story (rumor)
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2...on-iphone_x.htm>
just says Verizon turned Apple down. If true (there is no independent
corroboration), that might well mean that Apple approached _both_
Cingular and Verizon (hint: that's a common practice, called a "bidding
war"); Cingular won the bidding; and Verizon is now trying to put a good
face on losing and the likely adverse impact on its market share.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| In article < nhetr2573p1ue7hmqu27
oglmp7e02qvcsu@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:04:58 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-F60EA6.19045029012007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> You've been lucky to miss out on warranty problems.
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...tnG=Google+Sear
> ch>
>
>
> Toss the phone and give you a refurb. ;)
or not, depending on the mood of the CSA.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Remove This 2007-01-30, 12:33 pm |
| My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
would've loved to have
VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had to
be made...
Like I said, only a guess....
--
I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98C8F30D96F8
noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:45be9bb1$0$6894
9
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> Do you suppose Steve Jobs had a VZW hobbled-up phone, before, and didn't
> wanna get blamed for VZW turning it into a PoS?....hee hee...
>
> Larry
> --
> Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
> Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-30, 12:33 pm |
| There is _no_ evidence that negotiations with Verizon took place
_before_ negotiations with Cingular, and they almost certainly took
place at the same time as part of a "bidding war". Since Apple is a
worldwide company, and since GSM/UMTS dominates the worldwide market,
GSM is a much better opportunity for the iPhone than CDMA2000, and thus
Cingular is the logical choice for Apple, especially given that it's the
largest US carrier.
p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
-- it's confusing. Thanks.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:09:57 GMT, "Remove This"
< spamdumpster@verizon
.net> wrote in <VRLvh.4454$Pk5.2367@trndny04>:
>My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
>would've loved to have
>VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had to
>be made...
>
>Like I said, only a guess....
[color=darkred]
>"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98C8F30D96F8
noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Remove This wrote:
> My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
> would've loved to have
> VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just
> had to be made...
I doubt it. The part of the iPhone that would be CDMA or GSM is a very
small part of the total product. There are a great many phones that are
available in both GSM and CDMA.
| |
| SlobbyDon 2007-01-30, 3:33 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
>=20
> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
> -- it's confusing. Thanks.
>=20
Strange comment from a top-poster, who should rather excuse himself for =
bucking USENET convention.
--=20
SlobbyDon
| |
| Remove This 2007-01-30, 3:33 pm |
| Replied inline...
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:7v2vr2ddbqsbvq3
tnf2hie5hvo08tntktb@
4ax.com...
> There is _no_ evidence that negotiations with Verizon took place
> _before_ negotiations with Cingular,
....and I never made that SPECIFIC claim....
....and I DID say "only a guess".
> and they almost certainly took
> place at the same time as part of a "bidding war".
Sure, possible...
> Since Apple is a
> worldwide company, and since GSM/UMTS dominates the worldwide market,
> GSM is a much better opportunity for the iPhone than CDMA2000, and thus
> Cingular is the logical choice for Apple, especially given that it's the
> largest US carrier.
>
> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
> -- it's confusing. Thanks.
I'm too old to change, It's obvious you'll read it no matter which way it's
posted..
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:09:57 GMT, "Remove This"
> < spamdumpster@verizon
.net> wrote in <VRLvh.4454$Pk5.2367@trndny04>:
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Remove This 2007-01-30, 3:33 pm |
|
True.. (And that's the kind of reply to a post I can appreciate.)
--
I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45bf9534$0$6900
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Remove This wrote:
>
> I doubt it. The part of the iPhone that would be CDMA or GSM is a very
> small part of the total product. There are a great many phones that are
> available in both GSM and CDMA.
| |
|
| In article <w2Nvh.20820$X72.1771@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"SlobbyDon" < slobby_NIXSPAMdon@ma
il.ru> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> Strange comment from a top-poster, who should rather excuse himself for
> bucking USENET convention.
Th Miscrosoft support groups love top-posting. I got yelled at by one of
the moderators for bottom posting in the Mac Office group.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:31:40 GMT, "SlobbyDon"
< slobby_NIXSPAMdon@ma
il.ru> wrote in
<w2Nvh.20820$X72.1771@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>Strange comment from a top-poster, who should rather excuse himself for bucking USENET convention.
I'm actually a bottom poster (as you would find with even the tiniest
bit of checking), but switching posting styles in mid-thread is rude no
matter which style you believe in, so I stick with top posting when
responding to a top posting.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3af38b333e92cd1abd0d
fcf3e4786506
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1170196355 3af38b333e92cd1abd0d
fcf3e4786506 (Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:32:35 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:32:35 GMT
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:32:35 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.verizon:216931 alt.cellular.cingular:76202
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:13:43 GMT, "Remove This"
< spamdumpster@verizon
.net> wrote in <XFNvh.20811$Mx4.14113@trndny07>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:7v2vr2ddbqsbvq3
tnf2hie5hvo08tntktb@
4ax.com...
>
>I'm too old to change,
Just plain stubborn? Or deliberately rude?
>It's obvious you'll read it no matter which way it's
>posted..
I actually tend to just skip over top postings on the assumption that
the author is too clueless to be worth the time.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| There's actually quite a bit of difference between GSM and CDMA2000
which results in a substantial amount of additional engineering,
certification, manufacturing, and marketing costs, substantial
commonality notwithstanding. (Even apparently dissimilar phones can
have a great deal of commonality as they tend to be built on standard
platforms.) If it were really that cheap and easy, Nokia wouldn't have
abandoned the CDMA2000 market. (Steven argues both sides of an issue
depending on how it best fits his pro-CDMA2000, anti-GSM agenda.)
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:15:01 GMT, "Remove This"
< spamdumpster@verizon
.net> wrote in <9HNvh.2418$Xf4.2367@trndny09>:
>True.. (And that's the kind of reply to a post I can appreciate.)
[color=darkred]
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45bf9534$0$6900
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| SlobbyDon 2007-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
>=20
> I actually tend to just skip over top postings on the assumption that
> the author is too clueless to be worth the time.
I read the top postings if they make sense without the quoted text which =
is seldom cut down to the essentials.
--=20
SlobbyDon
| |
| Scott 2007-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:7v2vr2ddbqsbvq3
tnf2hie5hvo08tntktb@
4ax.com:
> There is _no_ evidence that negotiations with Verizon took place
> _before_ negotiations with Cingular,
And there is no evidence to the contrary, either.
> and they almost certainly took
> place at the same time as part of a "bidding war".
There is no evidence to support this claim.
> Since Apple is a
> worldwide company, and since GSM/UMTS dominates the worldwide market,
> GSM is a much better opportunity for the iPhone than CDMA2000, and
> thus Cingular is the logical choice for Apple, especially given that
> it's the largest US carrier.
Then why go to Verizon at all? Another case where your circular logic
doesn't support the facts.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> There is no evidence to support this claim.
In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
out of character. Jobs is, above all, a businessman. He looked at which
carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
and went to them first. It'd be one thing if the two top carriers were
fairly close in terms of new contract customers, but they're not.
Verizon consistently tops Cingular by more than a two to one margin for
new post-paid customers, the most valuable kind.
Personally I think Verizon was probably foolish for turning Apple down,
because the iPhone customers will be very high ARPU customers. Yes,
Apple is a demanding partner, but think of an iPhone with EV-DO as
opposed to EDGE.
| |
| Charles 2007-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 45bff73d$0$68962$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
> out of character. Jobs is, above all, a businessman. He looked at which
> carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
> and went to them first. It'd be one thing if the two top carriers were
> fairly close in terms of new contract customers, but they're not.
> Verizon consistently tops Cingular by more than a two to one margin for
> new post-paid customers, the most valuable kind.
Most likely he went to both carriers in the beginning to see which ones
he could work with. Both are in the same ballpark size-wise. But if he
were going to pick one it is more likely he would have went to Cingular
first because of the GSM and it's bigger global footprint.
I wish they could have worked out a deal with Verizon because Cingular
does not cut it for my needs here, and I would like an iPhone. I still
might get it and become a Cingular customer and keep Verizon too. I
know many with both services because Verizon is the best here but they
need GSM for International use.
--
Charles
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:56:11 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45bff73d$0$68962$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
>out of character.
It's actually standard practice at Apple, as its partners and suppliers
know.
>Jobs is, above all, a businessman.
Which is why he would play one carrier off against the other. To do
otherwise would be leaving money on the table.
>He looked at which
>carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
>and went to them first. ...
No evidence of that, and what actually matters most is the size of the
subscriber base, the source of upgrades, not new sign-ups.
>Personally I think Verizon was probably foolish for turning Apple down,
>because the iPhone customers will be very high ARPU customers. Yes,
>Apple is a demanding partner, but think of an iPhone with EV-DO as
>opposed to EDGE.
At least we agree on something -- getting outbid by Cingular on the
iPhone may well prove to be the dumbest move Verizon has made in a long
time.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:18:38 -0500, Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote in
< 300120072118389796%f
ort514@mac.com>:
>In article < 45bff73d$0$68962$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Most likely he went to both carriers in the beginning to see which ones
>he could work with. Both are in the same ballpark size-wise. But if he
>were going to pick one it is more likely he would have went to Cingular
>first because of the GSM and it's bigger global footprint.
Yep.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2007-01-30, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:u400s2hptu92b36
6m4rmtq124h50d3hti1@
4ax.com:
>
> Which is why he would play one carrier off against the other. To do
> otherwise would be leaving money on the table.
What money is he leaving on the table. He is producing a phone, not
getting a cut of revenue. A $500 phone on the Cingular network will earn
Apple as much money as a $500 phone on the Verizon network.
>
>
> No evidence of that, and what actually matters most is the size of the
> subscriber base, the source of upgrades, not new sign-ups.
The world acording to John Novice.
>
>
> At least we agree on something -- getting outbid by Cingular on the
> iPhone may well prove to be the dumbest move Verizon has made in a long
> time.
>
Where is it referenced that any bidding occurred? Could it be more likely
that Verizon passed on the technology because it really isn't as cutting
edge as Apple would like people to think it is?
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-01-31, 7:33 am |
| On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:51:49 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article < nhetr2573p1ue7hmqu27
oglmp7e02qvcsu@4ax.com> ):
> Subject: Re: Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal
> From: John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com>
> Date: Monday 10:51 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cingular
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:04:58 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-F60EA6.19045029012007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> You've been lucky to miss out on warranty problems.
>
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...tnG=Google+Sear
> ch>
I can't complain. I had one machine swapped out for a brand new (not refirb
one). Even better: I bought a computer off of e-bay (iMac). It was dead on
arrival. I went to a CompUSA who kept it for 3 weeks and still didn't fix
it. So, I called Apple. They not only sent me a new machine, but they
upgraded me to a later model. I had it less than 24 hours after my phone
call.
That's one of the reasons I stick with Macs now. It's a far better consumer
experience than buying a machine from one of the "you really should take an
extended warrantee with that from our personal warrantee department" houses.
| |
| Cubit 2007-01-31, 10:33 am |
| Silly me, but the idea of a $500 phone seems absurd.
"Billybobh3" <billybobh3@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hqGdndPE0O7qByP
YnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal
> Updated 1/29/2007 9:50 AM ET
>
>
>
> By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
> NEW YORK - Verizon Wireless, the No. 2 U.S. cellphone carrier, passed
> on the chance to be the exclusive distributor of the iPhone almost two
> years ago, balking at Apple's rich financial terms and other demands.
> Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly
> cellphone fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control
> of the relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon
> Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the
> Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."
>
> Verizon's decision to pull the plug on talks sent Apple into the
> waiting arms of Cingular, which will be the exclusive U.S. carrier for the
> iPhone. The multifunction device is expected to ship in June and cost
> about $500.
>
> Apple and Cingular (which now is solely owned by AT&T and adopting
> that brand name) have declined to discuss terms of their alliance. But the
> Apple-Verizon talks offer a peek into the computer giant's thinking.
>
> According to Verizon, Apple CEO Steve Jobs insisted that he have hard
> control over iPhone distribution.
>
> The problem? While Apple and Verizon stores would have it, Wal-Mart,
> Best Buy and other Verizon distributors could have been left out. "That
> would have put our own distribution partners at a disadvantage" to Apple
> and Verizon stores, Gerace said.
>
> Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
> wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
> would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point
> where we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and
> service support," Gerace says.
>
> Cingular won't talk about the financial terms or say how long its
> iPhone exclusivity lasts, but two people with direct knowledge of the deal
> say it's a five-year contract. The exclusive is USA-only, leaving Apple
> free to market its iPhone globally.
>
> Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman, declined to comment on any
> aspect of this story.
>
> Mark Siegel, a Cingular spokesman, said, "We think this is a win for
> Apple, and it is a win for Cingular."
>
> Siegel declined to comment on customer care plans but said Cingular
> would field calls related to the wireless service. "I don't want to leave
> the impression that these (iPhone) customers are not ours. They are."
>
> Siegel would not say whether Cingular distributors, which include
> Wal-Mart and RadioShack, would get the iPhone. The deal announcement
> referred only to Cingular and Apple stores and their websites.
>
>
>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-31, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:12:54 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote in <0001HW. C1E5F1F60000FC9AF020
3648@news.giganews.com>:
><http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...tnG=Google+Sear
>
>
>I can't complain. I had one machine swapped out for a brand new (not refirb
>one). Even better: I bought a computer off of e-bay (iMac). It was dead on
>arrival. I went to a CompUSA who kept it for 3 weeks and still didn't fix
>it. So, I called Apple. They not only sent me a new machine, but they
>upgraded me to a later model. I had it less than 24 hours after my phone
>call.
>
>That's one of the reasons I stick with Macs now. It's a far better consumer
>experience than buying a machine from one of the "you really should take an
>extended warrantee with that from our personal warrantee department" houses.
My own experience is that warranty support for ThinkPads is quite a bit
better than for Macs.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Cubit wrote:
> Silly me, but the idea of a $500 phone seems absurd.
Or $600.
But that wasn't the sticking point according to the article. Verizon
wouldn't have cared about the handset cost, but giving monthly revenue
to the handset maker is unprecedented. Having Apple handle distribution
and repairs would seem to be a good thing, not a bad thing.
In a few months, there will be other similar handsets released, and the
hoopla over the iPhone will give way to the reality that it costs $600
and that it lacks a lot of PDA functionality. The gadget freaks will buy
it, or those that were going to buy a video iPod and that have Cingular
already, but it's not going to cause a lot of Verizon customers to jump
ship. Look at how poor the Cingular network was rated in most U.S. metro
areas, and think about how many people will give up coverage for
watching movies on a small screen.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-31, 10:33 am |
| Wasn't so long ago that $500 was a good price for any phone, and it's
still a good price for a high-end smart phone.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:36:05 GMT, "Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote in
<pP1wh.67341$qO4.6627@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>:
>Silly me, but the idea of a $500 phone seems absurd.
>
>
>"Billybobh3" <billybobh3@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hqGdndPE0O7qByP
YnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-31, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:09:36 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c0b132$0$69002$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Cubit wrote:
>
>Or $600.
>
>But that wasn't the sticking point according to the article. Verizon
>wouldn't have cared about the handset cost, but giving monthly revenue
>to the handset maker is unprecedented. Having Apple handle distribution
>and repairs would seem to be a good thing, not a bad thing.
>
>In a few months, there will be other similar handsets released, and the
>hoopla over the iPhone will give way to the reality that it costs $600
>and that it lacks a lot of PDA functionality. ...
That's like saying there are lots of MP3 players, so the iPod isn't a
big deal. LOL
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| In article < oab1s254963266lt4tct
6gsgsfdhhe17pf@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> My own experience is that warranty support for ThinkPads is quite a bit
> better than for Macs.
When and what exactly was your Mac warranty support experience? I've had
nothing but decent, prompt support (though rarely needed).
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-01-31, 12:33 pm |
| On 2007-01-31, Cubit <no@not.not> wrote:
> Silly me, but the idea of a $500 phone seems absurd.
That's the first-phone-shipped price. An analyst quoted in a New York
Times business section article yesterday expected the price to drop to
about $115 within a year or two. I don't know if that is correct, but
it is typical for mobile phones to be introduced at a high price and
then drop from there.
I first saw a Motorola V3 RAZR phone in Hong Kong about 9 months before
anyone began selling them in the US. It was priced at a bit over US$1000.
It dropped quick once the volumes went up.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:13:10 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-7996B2.08131031012007@news.giganews.com>:
>In article < oab1s254963266lt4tct
6gsgsfdhhe17pf@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>When and what exactly was your Mac warranty support experience? I've had
>nothing but decent, prompt support (though rarely needed).
Several of my friends and colleagues have complained to me about Mac
warranty problems (e.g., Apple denying there is any problem).
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| ru2b12 2007-01-31, 3:33 pm |
| In article < 45c0b132$0$69002$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Cubit wrote:
>
> Or $600.
>
> But that wasn't the sticking point according to the article. Verizon
> wouldn't have cared about the handset cost, but giving monthly revenue
> to the handset maker is unprecedented. Having Apple handle distribution
> and repairs would seem to be a good thing, not a bad thing.
>
Not from verizons viewpoint? I'm not sure how verizon handles these
things when it comes to high end phones but i imagine they want
customers using minutes and if justified would simply replace a
malfunctioning unit, where as apple would prefer to repair it which
obviously could take a few days to a week or more thus customers aren't
racking up minutes. Not surprising verizon wouldn't agree to this.
I'm sure they'd prefer to replace it immediately and send the
malfunctioning units back to apple themselves, which is how it should be.
> In a few months, there will be other similar handsets released, and the
> hoopla over the iPhone will give way to the reality that it costs $600
> and that it lacks a lot of PDA functionality. The gadget freaks will buy
> it, or those that were going to buy a video iPod and that have Cingular
> already, but it's not going to cause a lot of Verizon customers to jump
> ship. Look at how poor the Cingular network was rated in most U.S. metro
> areas, and think about how many people will give up coverage for
> watching movies on a small screen.
| |
| Charles 2007-02-01, 4:33 am |
| In article < uus1s2lvtb6nedk3e4ut
7576p3iocq043a@4ax.com>, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:13:10 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-7996B2.08131031012007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> Several of my friends and colleagues have complained to me about Mac
> warranty problems (e.g., Apple denying there is any problem).
In other words you have no Mac warranty support experience.
--
Charles
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-01, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:20:34 -0500, Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote in
< 310120071820340757%f
ort514@mac.com>:
>In article < uus1s2lvtb6nedk3e4ut
7576p3iocq043a@4ax.com>, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>In other words you have no Mac warranty support experience.
I think that both speaks for itself and is sufficient. I know these
people well, and am quite familiar with their issues.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:f492s2pip3ikqtj
lofh448ec86nid7m8uu@
4ax.com:
>
> I think that both speaks for itself and is sufficient. I know these
> people well, and am quite familiar with their issues.
>
Sorry- this is nothing more than secondhand anecdotal ramblings and does
not even meet your own well-documented standard for usenet 'authoritative
fact' (based on your own dismissal of the same kind of information- see
Google archives if you don't believe it).
Either practice what you preach or shut the hell up. Personally, I vote
for option #2.
| |
|
| In article < uus1s2lvtb6nedk3e4ut
7576p3iocq043a@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:13:10 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-7996B2.08131031012007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> Several of my friends and colleagues have complained to me about Mac
> warranty problems (e.g., Apple denying there is any problem).
But not you.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article < 4v2dnVXrH7FbqFzYnZ2d
nUVZ_s2vnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:f492s2pip3ikqtj
lofh448ec86nid7m8uu@
4ax.com:
>
>
>
> Sorry- this is nothing more than secondhand anecdotal ramblings and does
> not even meet your own well-documented standard for usenet 'authoritative
> fact' (based on your own dismissal of the same kind of information- see
> Google archives if you don't believe it).
>
> Either practice what you preach or shut the hell up. Personally, I vote
> for option #2.
I've always owned Macs, and the Mac design community is quite demanding
about what they expect from their machines. I've rarely heard of a
problem that wasn't taken care of efficiently.
I speak from direct experience.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| Charles wrote:
>
> In other words you have no Mac warranty support experience.
"Why is this night different from all other nights?"
| |
|
| Kurt wrote:
> I've always owned Macs, and the Mac design community is quite demanding
> about what they expect from their machines. I've rarely heard of a
> problem that wasn't taken care of efficiently.
> I speak from direct experience.
I help out in the school's computer lab, and everything is Apple. The
warranty support (and out of warranty support for that matter) has been
outstanding. They are very lenient with warranty dates, and the
turnaround for repairs is measured in days, not weeks.
I would much rather have the manufacturer of the device provide the
warranty support than the reseller. When I had a problem with a Motorola
handset, I wouldn't let Verizon touch it, I sent it back to Motorola for
repair.
It's true that IBM provided excellent Thinkpad support, though the
quality of the Thinkpads varied greatly by model. The T30 and T40 had a
lot of problems.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-01, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:45:34 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c16260$0$68960$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>It's true that IBM provided excellent Thinkpad support, though the
>quality of the Thinkpads varied greatly by model. The T30 and T40 had a
>lot of problems.
Both are actually excellent, easily the class of the field.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-01, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:39:15 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c160e5$0$68993$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Charles wrote:
>
>
>"Why is this night different from all other nights?"
You forgot your shoes?
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net 2007-02-01, 4:33 am |
| Charles wrote:
> In article < uus1s2lvtb6nedk3e4ut
7576p3iocq043a@4ax.com>, John Navas
> < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> In other words you have no Mac warranty support experience.
>
I have had so many problems with mine. New Macbook.
Shutdowns,Overheatin
g, ETC. After 34 days I called the Mac store In
town. They won't take it back. I then called my credit card company and
told them all about it. They gave me a full credit and there going to
deal with it. I still have it sitting in the box and it's been sitting
here for 2 months now.
I called apple. They told me to send it in and they will fix it. The
problem is they cant fix it. All there so called fixes are just
Band-aid's. This was my *1st* and *my last* one I'll ever buy.
I can't wait to see how many software and firmware fixes there going to
have for this phone. I'm sure its going to be plenty.
| |
| test@test.com 2007-02-03, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:08:43 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
wrote:
>In article < 4v2dnVXrH7FbqFzYnZ2d
nUVZ_s2vnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>I've always owned Macs, and the Mac design community is quite demanding
>about what they expect from their machines. I've rarely heard of a
>problem that wasn't taken care of efficiently.
>I speak from direct experience.
Should we be looking at repair experience for the Macs or at the
iPods? It seems to me that the iPhone will be much similar to the
iPod in terms of support.
I have heard of plenty of problems with Apple's support of the
iPod's, including a very hard-nosed approach to the length of the
warranty.
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-02-04, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:53:58 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article < oab1s254963266lt4tct
6gsgsfdhhe17pf@4ax.com> ):
>
> My own experience is that warranty support for ThinkPads is quite a bit
> better than for Macs.
IBM used to have FANTASTIC service for their Thinkpads. I only hope that
Lonovo has continued this.
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-02-04, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:57:11 -0500, test@test.com wrote
(in article < th4as25ok5k25cksciot
u0id0rnpr5moeb@4ax.com> ):
>
> Should we be looking at repair experience for the Macs or at the
> iPods? It seems to me that the iPhone will be much similar to the
> iPod in terms of support.
> I have heard of plenty of problems with Apple's support of the
> iPod's, including a very hard-nosed approach to the length of the
> warranty.
I've never had an iPod problem that wasn't fixed same-day (in-store) or less
than 48 hours (by mail).
Granted, I've only needed warrantee service twice on these units. (Well,
four times if you count the two times that I broke the headphones ... which
they also swapped without question. I wouldn't have replaced them since
those two were clearly my fault.)
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-02-04, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:45:44 -0500, kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net wrote
(in article <s0gwh.5222$zH1.4110@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> ):
> I have had so many problems with mine. New Macbook.
> Shutdowns,Overheatin
g, ETC. After 34 days I called the Mac store In
> town. They won't take it back. I then called my credit card company and
> told them all about it. They gave me a full credit and there going to
> deal with it. I still have it sitting in the box and it's been sitting
> here for 2 months now.
>
> I called apple. They told me to send it in and they will fix it. The
> problem is they cant fix it. All there so called fixes are just
> Band-aid's. This was my *1st* and *my last* one I'll ever buy.
>
> I can't wait to see how many software and firmware fixes there going to
> have for this phone. I'm sure its going to be plenty.
Why did you wait 34 days before complaining about it?
4 days sooner and you would have gotten your money back.
Why are you so sure they can't fix it that you won't even let them try?
| |
| rocxspam 2007-02-05, 4:33 am |
| SinghaLvr wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:53:58 -0500, John Navas wrote
> (in article < oab1s254963266lt4tct
6gsgsfdhhe17pf@4ax.com> ):
>
>
>
>
> IBM used to have FANTASTIC service for their Thinkpads. I only hope that
> Lonovo has continued this.
>
Ed Foster's InfoWorld Gripeline column seems to indicate that the
Commies are applying good ol' capitalist
bottomline-focus-on-the-next-quarter's-results mentality all too well.
One of Lenovo's objects with the IBM PC purchase was to get IBM's
"business expertise" along with the name and technology - the "new IBM"
that is.
Hanging on to my IBM X30 as long as possible - runs Linux quite nicely,
and no need by me for the Vista Virus, nor an iPod with a phone added on
- I find an FM radio in my Nokia 6236i is quite enough "entertainment"
mixed in with a phone - my Zire 72 takes care of the rest (MP3's,
Scrabble, and PIM) quite nicely, and without any drain on my battery for
talk-time, the object of my phone (not seeing the radio use impacting it
to any degree for the little bit I use it).
That Gripeline also had an interesting "feature" on how resistant Apple
has been on replacing their LCD monitors with something less than about
7 or 10 or 12, or some aribtrary number of bad pixels.
FWIW - a few more "anecdotes" for the grist mill...
ROC
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-02-10, 3:33 pm |
| On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 23:43:08 -0500, rocxspam wrote
(in article < 45c6b5dc$0$4915$4c36
8faf@roadrunner.com> ):
> That Gripeline also had an interesting "feature" on how resistant Apple
> has been on replacing their LCD monitors with something less than about
> 7 or 10 or 12, or some aribtrary number of bad pixels.
Isn't this the policy of everyone? I remember Dell telling me they needed at
least a total of 15 bad pixels, or 7 within an inch of each other to qualify
for replacement.
|
|
|
|
|