|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > January 2008 > Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"
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 |
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"
|
|
| Tim Smith 2008-01-21, 4:33 am |
| In article < pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o
6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
> the U.S. market.
Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
down.
--
--Tim Smith
| |
|
| Tim Smith wrote:
> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
> down.
More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
date was over early in the evening.
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> nsulting those who disagree with
> you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.
Kettle...Pot
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <zL- dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUV
Z_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness-Net" <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ooooo! Oooooo! My turn!
>
> Ummmm....let's see.....so many to choose from.....
>
> Oh, OK:
>
> Rubbish.
Sorry Elmo..I beat ya to it!
[color=darkred]
notwithstanding the[color=darkred]
| |
|
| IMHO IIRC wrote:
> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
> iPhone deal.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2...on-iphone_x.htm
>
> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
> says?
>
> OR do we just take your word for this.
John isn't known for ever providing references.
Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke,
I was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of
the story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so
it's pretty clear that the story was accurate.
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
> More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
> date was over early in the evening.
Verizon had no interest in Apple's plan for revenue sharing of monthly
fees, while Apple felt that the added upside in new customers that the
iPhone would bring the carrier entitled them to part of the revenue.
Both had strong bargaining positions, Verizon as the premier carrier in
the U.S. in terms of quality, with the largest base of retail
subscribers, and Apple with its consumer electronics marketing
expertise. Reportedly Verizon did offer a compromise where they would
revenue share on new subscribers but not current subscribers that
switched to the iPhone, but that wasn't sufficient for Apple so they
went to their second choice.
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the
> guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But
> since you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is
> some sort of new development.
Huh? I know he was posting a link to last year's article, it was true
then and it's true now.
> Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being
> repeated by the clueless...
LOL, so how many articles, repeating the same facts, do you think are
required?
> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
> logic is ridiculous.
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. With Sarbanes-Oxley, you no longer have executives of
major corporations running around making up stories that are so easy to
verify.
Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
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?
|
|
|
|
|