|
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"
|
|
| Ness-Net 2008-01-21, 10:33 pm |
| "Tim Smith" < reply_in_group@mouse
-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
> In article < pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o
6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> 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.
>
> --
> --Tim Smith
John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
Verizon turned the iPhone down first.
| |
|
| IMHO IIRC wrote:
> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
> first choice rather than just you saying it?
Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or citations.
One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.
I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success
(following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of
new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon.
| |
|
| IMHO IIRC wrote:
> Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and therefore
> there is no need for him to provide any support.
He follows the adage, "If You Don't Like the Facts...Go Out and Make
Some of Your Own."
> The only thing that might get Navas to change his claim is to have a video
> of Steve Jobs saying that Apple was forced to go with ATT since they were
> unable to get VZW to meet their demands - but then again Navas might not.
He might claim that it was an actor impersonating Steve Jobs.
Still, "demands" is probably too strong. They just couldn't reach an
agreement. It wasn't just the revenue sharing either, it was the demand
that the iPhone only be sold in Verizon's company-owned stores and Apple
stores, which would have upset Verizon's resellers including the big-box
stores. AT&T had less to worry about, since they probably didn't mind
upsetting resellers like Radio Shack.
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Navas never has references or citations.
Totally incorrect. He provides links to his personal experiences
to validate his point. Perhaps if he wore a hat, it might hide it.
|
|
|
|
|