|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > February 2007 > Verizon and Apple iPhone
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 and Apple iPhone
|
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-31, 7:33 am |
| When Apple and Cingular are raking in the bucks next fall, and Verizon
decides it wants a piece of the action, what Verizon VP will get
canned because the 5 year Cingular USA exclusivity contract precludes
it?
And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> When Apple and Cingular are raking in the bucks next fall, and Verizon
> decides it wants a piece of the action, what Verizon VP will get
> canned because the 5 year Cingular USA exclusivity contract precludes
> it?
>
> And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.
Presumably Verizon knew what they were giving up when they passed on the
iPhone. Perhaps their analysis showed that a $600 handset that lacked
basic PDA functions, and that didn't have high speed data, wouldn't sell
in sufficient quantities, even when promoted by a rock star, or that it
would be very successful for Apple, but not bring much revenue to Verizon.
It's not like there won't be other phones with similar functionality to
the iPhone available, we've already seen that some are coming.
Cingular was more willing to accede to Apple's demands because Cingular
lags Verizon by a huge margin in new post-paid customers. Cingular can
brag about having the most customers, but a lot of those customers are
low margin, low ARPU, prepaid customers.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-31, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< rf51s2pfc30hi28cvag5
nc3g2cqoncbgpl@4ax.com>:
>When Apple and Cingular are raking in the bucks next fall, and Verizon
>decides it wants a piece of the action, what Verizon VP will get
>canned because the 5 year Cingular USA exclusivity contract precludes
>it?
>
>And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.
No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
referred to as a "bidding war".
--
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 07:03:41 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c0afcf$0$69002$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>Presumably Verizon knew what they were giving up when they passed on the
>iPhone.
Translation: Outbid by Cingular.
>Perhaps their analysis showed that a $600 handset that lacked
>basic PDA functions, and that didn't have high speed data, wouldn't sell
>in sufficient quantities, even when promoted by a rock star, or that it
>would be very successful for Apple, but not bring much revenue to Verizon.
Perhaps Verizon just blew it.
>It's not like there won't be other phones with similar functionality to
>the iPhone available, we've already seen that some are coming.
That's like saying there are lots of MP3 players, so the iPod isn't a
big deal. :)
>Cingular was more willing to accede to Apple's demands because Cingular
>lags Verizon by a huge margin in new post-paid customers. Cingular can
>brag about having the most customers, but a lot of those customers are
>low margin, low ARPU, prepaid customers.
Irrelevant. What matters most is the size of the base, since that's the
source of all-important upgrades.
It's pretty hard to spin this as being anything but bad news for
Verizon, so I have to hand it to you. :)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-31, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< rf51s2pfc30hi28cvag5
nc3g2cqoncbgpl@4ax.com>:
>
>
>No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
>by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
>referred to as a "bidding war".
Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
When you live in an alternate universe, that doesn't work.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< lig1s2tckrm8lb1h67m7
39sta4re9dh8hf@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:50:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c0c8e5$0$69005$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>When you live in an alternate universe, that doesn't work.
You should know. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:40 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>X-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:56:40 EST (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< lig1s2tckrm8lb1h67m7
39sta4re9dh8hf@4ax.com>:
>
>
>I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
>carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.
I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.
| |
| John Navas 2007-01-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:45:19 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< buv1s29rvenuntiqjpqq
olptn4ju8fdhvr@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:40 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.
Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
And have a nice day.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-02-01, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
>And have a nice day.
Like the time you illegally put your ringtones online, and it took 2
weeks till you realised it was copyright infringement to do so.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-01, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:02:55 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< nv72s2hru969lf2b1t87
2otvc6gp5nesdm@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Like the time you illegally put your ringtones online, and it took 2
>weeks till you realised it was copyright infringement to do so.
Nothing of the sort.
--
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:4292s251e7b8rm1
k81p0lrorlo1j68ob7j@
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:02:55 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
> < nv72s2hru969lf2b1t87
2otvc6gp5nesdm@4ax.com>:
>
>
> Nothing of the sort.
>
Wow- I have to agree with Phillipe on this one. It is well documented in
multiple threads from two(?) years ago. You violated copyright law,
despite your best attempt to invoke the "Law According to Navas".
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2007-02-01, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< rf51s2pfc30hi28cvag5
nc3g2cqoncbgpl@4ax.com>:
>
>
>No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
>by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
>referred to as a "bidding war".
Hypocrit.
Right back at you: No real evidence of that.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-02-01, 7:33 am |
| On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:45:19 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< buv1s29rvenuntiqjpqq
olptn4ju8fdhvr@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
>Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
>And have a nice day.
I'll be awaiting your apology.
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/category/apple/
Verizon was Apple's first choice; then Verizon blew it.
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-02-01, 10:33 am |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2
bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
> < rf51s2pfc30hi28cvag5
nc3g2cqoncbgpl@4ax.com>:
>
>
> No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
> by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
> referred to as a "bidding war".
And there is no real evidence of a "bidding war" either, is there?
Don
| |
|
| Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2
bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@
4ax.com...
>
> And there is no real evidence of a "bidding war" either, is there?
All the evidence is that things occurred as the news reports state.
Apple first approached Verizon, but could not reach an agreement, then
they approached Cingular.
| |
| Tinman 2007-02-01, 10:33 am |
| < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
news:eoo3s257lgpqeph
5rpoded3uck56uhhiar@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'll be awaiting your apology.
>
> http://www.engadgetmobile.com/category/apple/
>
> Verizon was Apple's first choice; then Verizon blew it.
In fairness that Engadget piece appears to be based entirely on the same USA
Today article from 1/29/2007.
--
Mike
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
> news:eoo3s257lgpqeph
5rpoded3uck56uhhiar@
4ax.com...
>
> In fairness that Engadget piece appears to be based entirely on the same USA
> Today article from 1/29/2007.
Which no one from Apple or Cingular has disputed.
Let's face it, Navas is upset because Cingular was the second choice,
even though when you look at the quarterly results of both companies
it's crystal clear why Apple went to Verizon first. Would you rather
market a new handset to a carrier that signs up 2.1 million new contract
customer per quarter, or to a carrier that signs up well under 1 million
new contract customers per quarter? Do the math.
| |
| Tinman 2007-02-01, 12:33 pm |
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45c21fde$0$6899
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Tinman wrote:
>
> Which no one from Apple or Cingular has disputed.
>
> Let's face it, Navas is upset because Cingular was the second choice,
I don't personally care whom was first choice; that ship has sailed. But the
fact remains that the Engadget link provided nothing but more ammunition for
Navas to knock down. For *sure* it ain't gonna trigger an apology (just the
opposite--unless he reads this first <g> ).
> even though when you look at the quarterly results of both companies it's
> crystal clear why Apple went to Verizon first. Would you rather market a
> new handset to a carrier that signs up 2.1 million new contract customer
> per quarter, or to a carrier that signs up well under 1 million new
> contract customers per quarter? Do the math.
The math was done long before Q4 2006, don't you think? Not saying you're
incorrect, just pointing out that these discussions likely started back in
Q1/Q2 2005 (at least with Verizon).
--
Mike
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> The math was done long before Q4 2006, don't you think? Not saying you're
> incorrect, just pointing out that these discussions likely started back in
> Q1/Q2 2005 (at least with Verizon).
Of course, but the numbers have been similar for many quarters. Verizon
has been signing up far more new contract customers, the high value
customers that would be likely to buy an iPhone. When you launch a new
product, you go for the biggest TAM (total available market).
As one analyst put it, "Verizon continues to take significant market
share from Cingular in the retail postpaid market."
Maybe Apple also looked at the differences in quality of the network as
well, especially the much larger high speed data network. Maybe they
didn't include HSDPA in the iPhone because the HSDPA network coverage
lags EV-DO by so much.
Whatever the reasons, it's exceedingly amusing to see Navas come up with
all of his rationalizations...again.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-02-01, 3:33 pm |
| On 2007-02-01, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Of course, but the numbers have been similar for many quarters. Verizon
> has been signing up far more new contract customers, the high value
> customers that would be likely to buy an iPhone. When you launch a new
> product, you go for the biggest TAM (total available market).
Exactly. But Apple has worldwide selling power, and if they goal was
the biggest total addressable market with a single initial product then
a GSM product can't be topped. Any dalliance with Verizon would have
meant they'd need to develop a second model to put on the shelves in
Europe and Asia, so even if we accept that Verizon somehow has an advantage
in the US which might make up for its smaller subscriber numbers, it
certainly has no advantage that could pay for delaying product availability
in Europe and Asia.
> As one analyst put it, "Verizon continues to take significant market
> share from Cingular in the retail postpaid market."
But as another analyst put it, "GSM/UMTS market penetration worldwide is
up from 53% in 2000 to 82% in 2006".
> Maybe Apple also looked at the differences in quality of the network as
> well, especially the much larger high speed data network. Maybe they
> didn't include HSDPA in the iPhone because the HSDPA network coverage
> lags EV-DO by so much.
I'm curious about this too, though less because of anything to do with
Cingular and more because lack of 2100 MHz UMTS keeps them from selling
in Korea and Japan. I guess it could also be because a 4-band GSM/3-band
UMTS phone was too bleeding edge for a first product (I know of only 2
phones on the market that do this, and one doesn't do HSDPA), or because
support for wideband CDMA would have stressed a power budget that is
probably tight already. It could be anything.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-02-01, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Exactly. But Apple has worldwide selling power, and if they goal was
> the biggest total addressable market with a single initial product then
> a GSM product can't be topped.
It's pretty trivial to switch the radio portion of a design from CDMA to
GSM, there are many phones that are available in both technologies. If
Apple was worried about only doing one initial product, then they would
have approached Cingular and not bothered with going to Verizon first.
> Any dalliance with Verizon would have
> meant they'd need to develop a second model to put on the shelves in
> Europe and Asia, so even if we accept that Verizon somehow has an advantage
> in the US which might make up for its smaller subscriber numbers,
Verizon actually has more postpaid subscribers than Cingular, and
continues to sign up more than 2x as many new postpaid customers every
quarter. Clearly Apple looked at these numbers and it was part of the
reason that they went to Verizon first.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-02-02, 4:33 am |
| At 01 Feb 2007 10:10:24 -0500 Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> And there is no real evidence of a "bidding war" either, is there?
No, there isn't. More likely, since this was two years ago, I'm guessing
that Apple approached both carriers (and probably others) in the
"concept" phase of design to gauge the carriers receptiveness to Apple's
unconventional marketing ideas. Seemingly, Verizon all but slammed the
door on them, leaving Cingular as the carrier to negotiate seriously with.
I assume Apple only went the "exclusive" route as a bargaining chip to
getting their demands. They could have also sold it unlocked via their
existing sales channels, or else went the MVNO route a la Amp'd or Disney
Mobile. I'm assuming they considered those options as well.
People shouldn't forget that this was a pure business decision- it had
nothing to do with who's the "best" carrier or even the best "fit"
technologically. It was all about who gave Apple the best deal _for
Apple_, and that, apparently, was Cingular.
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-02-02, 7:33 am |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45c21fde$0$6899
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
*snip*
>Would you rather
> market a new handset to a carrier that signs up 2.1 million new contract
> customer per quarter, or to a carrier that signs up well under 1 million
> new contract customers per quarter? Do the math.
I think it's a little more complicated than who adds more new contracts a
month, although I'm fairly sure that would enter into it. I think I'd be
more interested in who was selling more high end phones. If the majority
of new customers are taking the free phone, it might be a strech for them to
spring for a $600 iphone. Get my drift? If I were Apple, I might be
interested in the company that was successfully moving PDA or other high end
phones. I don't know the answer to this. Who was more sucessfull moving the
high priced Razr when it first came out (to both new and existing
customers)? Who has more high end phones in their lineup? Who has a
customer base that tends to upgrade phones more? How's that for some math?
Don
| |
|
| Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45c21fde$0$6899
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> *snip*
>
> I think it's a little more complicated than who adds more new contracts a
> month, although I'm fairly sure that would enter into it. I think I'd be
> more interested in who was selling more high end phones.
Verizon has far more high-end corporate customers buying PDA phones, but
I'm not sure how material that is, since the iPhone really isn't
designed for that market. The iPhone is more of an entertainment device,
because it lacks a lot of PDA functionality, and the corporate
applications such as _Corporate Time_ won't run on it.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-02-02, 12:33 pm |
| On 2007-02-02, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
> It's pretty trivial to switch the radio portion of a design from CDMA to
> GSM, there are many phones that are available in both technologies. If
> Apple was worried about only doing one initial product, then they would
> have approached Cingular and not bothered with going to Verizon first.
It is true that the design work to be done to switch technologies is
not so difficult for a not-too-price-sensitive platform, but it is still
the case that for volume manufacturing you really want to make sure you
can manage building a single product in sufficient quantities before you try
to manage adding part numbers. For a fairly recent example of a hit phone
design, Motorola was selling plain old V3's for well over a year
before there were V3c's, let alone V3i's or V3m's or V3x's, or V3xx's,
even though Motorola was already building other phones using all these
technologies and should hence have had an easier time than Apple with
a technology switch.
Despite this, it is clear that Apple at least considered doing a CDMA
phone first or they wouldn't have talked to Verizon. I don't think
we know that they went to Verizon first, however, and the rather
outrageous things Verizon claims they were asked to do to get the
business don't strike me as the final bargaining position you take
with your first choice. We'll have to wait to find out just what
Cingular agreed to for the business, but I'll be surprised if what
Cingular agreed to was anything close to what Verizon claim they were
asked for (though who knows...).
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-02, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:55:15 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< eoo3s257lgpqeph5rpod
ed3uck56uhhiar@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>I'll be awaiting your apology.
>
>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/category/apple/
That's just a blogger, with an "apparently" caveat.
I'm still awaiting any sort of real substantiation.
>Verizon was Apple's first choice;
Maybe; maybe not.
>then Verizon blew it.
I think so.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-02, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:14:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c21fde$0$68991$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Tinman wrote:
>
>Which no one from Apple or Cingular has disputed.
Which means nothing.
>Let's face it, Navas is upset because Cingular was the second choice,
My only actual concern is for the truth.
>[SNIP usual pro-Verizon, anti-Cingular flaming]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-02, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:10:24 -0500, "Don Udel \(ETC\)"
<donudel@ellijay.com> wrote in <epsvt001leh@enews4.newsguy.com>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2
bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@
4ax.com...
>
>And there is no real evidence of a "bidding war" either, is there?
No real evidence of anything, which makes this all pretty silly.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-02, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 07:17:37 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c20492$0$68963$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>
>All the evidence is that things occurred as the news reports state.
>Apple first approached Verizon, but could not reach an agreement, then
>they approached Cingular.
There's no evidence at all, just spin.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Andy S 2007-02-02, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:3mc1s21n72qa33j
ugp49tjag191fb28e97@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:03:41 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 45c0afcf$0$69002$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Translation: Outbid by Cingular.
Actually VZW didn't want to give on what Apple wanted.
>
> Perhaps Verizon just blew it.
>
>
> That's like saying there are lots of MP3 players, so the iPod isn't a
> big deal. :)
>
>
> Irrelevant. What matters most is the size of the base, since that's the
> source of all-important upgrades.
>
> It's pretty hard to spin this as being anything but bad news for
> Verizon, so I have to hand it to you. :)
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
| |
| Andy S 2007-02-02, 10:33 pm |
| "John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2
bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
> < rf51s2pfc30hi28cvag5
nc3g2cqoncbgpl@4ax.com>:
>
>
> No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
> by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
> referred to as a "bidding war".
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
>
VZW was approached TWO years ago
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
| |
| Scott 2007-02-02, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:3ri7s2lipe47r2l
la66vkc2a4a6qi1av3g@
4ax.com:
>
> Which means nothing.
No- it means that neither Apple or Cingular has pointed out any
inconsistencies in the account. Cingular has proven its tendency to point
out factual errors made by their competition.
>
>
> My only actual concern is for the truth.
>
Now that is funny!!!!! You wouldn't know the truth if it came up to you
with a name tag on and bit you in the XXX.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-02-02, 10:33 pm |
| At 02 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500 Andy S wrote:
> VZW was approached TWO years ago
Probably as was Cingular (and perhaps others.) Deals li
e these don't happen overnight.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-05, 4:33 am |
| On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:57:16 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45c29a7e$0$69033$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>It's pretty trivial to switch the radio portion of a design from CDMA to
>GSM, ...
Not true.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-05, 4:33 am |
| On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:36:19 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <epugpm$otu$1@aioe.org>:
>I assume Apple only went the "exclusive" route as a bargaining chip to
>getting their demands. ...
Exclusive deals are standard practice with new hot cell phones.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-05, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "Andy S"
< adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com> wrote in
< 45c3d4e0$0$24718$4c3
68faf@roadrunner.com>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2
bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@
4ax.com...
[color=darkred]
>VZW was approached TWO years ago
You know that ... how? And Cingular was approached when? Facts and
authoritative citations please.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-05, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:56:53 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <eq0nqe$q7g$1@aioe.org>:
>At 02 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500 Andy S wrote:
>
>
>Probably as was Cingular (and perhaps others.) Deals li
>e these don't happen overnight.
Indeed.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Andy S 2007-02-06, 10:33 pm |
| >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "Andy S"
> < adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com> wrote in
> < 45c3d4e0$0$24718$4c3
68faf@roadrunner.com>:
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:08ids29kjhpa32p
srlcduo0v6groi7ppce@
4ax.com...
You know that ... how? And Cingular was approached when? Facts and[color=darkred]
> authoritative citations please.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
>
Here ya go John
All dated on the 29th of january this year
From C-Net
http://news.com.com/ Verizon+Wirele..._3-6154287.html
Verizon Wireless could have been the first wireless carrier to offer the
Apple iPhone, but the mobile carrier passed on the opportunity because
Apple's financial terms were too steep, Verizon said Monday.
Denny Strigl, president and chief operating officer of Verizon
Communications, said the iPhone will help draw attention to the whole
mobile-music movement, but he said he was glad Verizon passed on the
opportunity. Verizon Wireless is jointly owned by Verizon Communications and
the European wireless carrier Vodafone.
"The iPhone product is something we are happy we aren't the first to market
with," he said during Verizon Communications' fourth-quarter 2006 earnings
call on Monday.
From USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2...on-iphone_x.htm
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.
From Macworld
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/0...rizon/index.php
Report: Verizon Wireless rejected iPhone deal
By Peter Cohen
Cingular (now AT&T) may not have been Apple's first choice for a partner for
its iPhone, reports USA Today. The newspaper said that Verizon Wireless
passed on an opportunity to become the exclusive distributor of the phone
almost two years ago.
Verizon Wireless vice president Jim Gerace claims that his company turned
Apple down because they "couldn't reach a deal that was mutually
beneficial." Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly fees, control over
how iPhones could be sold and control of the relationship with iPhone
customers, Gerace said.
Apple and Cingular won't talk about their relationship, other than to
acknowledge that Cingular will be the exclusive U.S. provider when the
iPhone is introduced later this year.
Apple did not comment for the article.
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
| |
| Andy S 2007-02-06, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:08ids29kjhpa32p
srlcduo0v6groi7ppce@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "Andy S"
> < adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com> wrote in
> < 45c3d4e0$0$24718$4c3
68faf@roadrunner.com>:
>
>
>
> You know that ... how? And Cingular was approached when? Facts and
> authoritative citations please.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
>
You wanted sources here are the three I jus gave you. Plus a whole bunch
more.
Google is your friend;)
http://www.google.com/search? q=ver...ie7&rlz=1I7GGIC
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-06, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:29:10 -0500, "Andy S"
< adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com> wrote in
< 45c92b69$0$1380$4c36
8faf@roadrunner.com>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:08ids29kjhpa32p
srlcduo0v6groi7ppce@
4ax.com...
>You know that ... how? And Cingular was approached when? Facts and
[color=darkred]
>Here ya go John
>[SNIP]
Same story, from Verizon, not authoritative.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Andy S 2007-02-07, 3:33 pm |
| >>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "Andy S"
> < adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com> wrote in
> < 45c92b69$0$1380$4c36
8faf@roadrunner.com>:
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:d8bis2h9utm772j
79lolst7bblial7pdb7@
4ax.com...
> Same story, from Verizon, not authoritative.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
>
Can you not see the forest for the trees, John?
I cited three sources, and added a link to google.
How about I look it up for you on wireless week. would that be better.
or maybe RCR. Would a cite from the CTIA be sufficient?
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-02-08, 4:33 am |
| At 07 Feb 2007 16:11:16 -0500 Andy S wrote:
> Can you not see the forest for the trees, John?
> I cited three sources, and added a link to google.
To be fair, all of the various "sources" are rehashing each other. If
someone stands at a podium and gives a press conference and 30 reporters
report on it, that's still one "source" of the story.
It might not be good enough for John, but as I've already posted, I feel
that until someone from Apple or Cingular denies it, (rather than
"decline to comment") it's the gospel so far.
> How about I look it up for you on wireless week. would that be better.
> or maybe RCR. Would a cite from the CTIA be sufficient?
Frankly, if they're all printing the same quotes from the Verizon VP as
everyone else did, since it's still all one source.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 07 Feb 2007 16:11:16 -0500 Andy S wrote:
>
>
> To be fair, all of the various "sources" are rehashing each other. If
> someone stands at a podium and gives a press conference and 30 reporters
> report on it, that's still one "source" of the story.
>
> It might not be good enough for John, but as I've already posted, I feel
> that until someone from Apple or Cingular denies it, (rather than
> "decline to comment") it's the gospel so far.
>
>
> Frankly, if they're all printing the same quotes from the Verizon VP as
> everyone else did, since it's still all one source.
Apple is very good about immediately disputing any story that concerns
them, if there are any inaccuracies. I know the Apple corporate
spokesperson, who says that it's corporate policy to correct any
mis-statements in the press.
It's a very safe bet to say that the original story was accurate since
neither Cingular or Apple has disputed it.
| |
| John Navas 2007-02-08, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:46:41 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45cb53f7$0$69009$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>Apple is very good about immediately disputing any story that concerns
>them, if there are any inaccuracies. I know the Apple corporate
>spokesperson, who says that it's corporate policy to correct any
>mis-statements in the press.
>
>It's a very safe bet to say that the original story was accurate since
>neither Cingular or Apple has disputed it.
How silly. Silence isn't confirmation of anything, no matter what you
may think.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2007-02-08, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> How silly. Silence isn't confirmation of anything, no matter what you
> may think.
Coming from a person that admonishes for anti-Cingular trolling.
| |
|
| decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
>
> Coming from a person that admonishes for anti-Cingular trolling.
The lack of a response to a negative story is indeed a confirmation that
indeed the facts of the story are true. Especially when the entities
have a history of quickly responding to negative publicity about them,
to deny what was written is true.
|
|
|
|
|