| Dennis Ferguson 2008-01-23, 10:33 pm |
| On 2008-01-23, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock 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.
[color=darkred]
> 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.
Even if the Verizon executive's statements had been entirely fabricated,
a self-serving denial from Apple might or might not have been believed but
certainly would have made it clear that Apple thought what a Verizon executive
(especially this particular source of clearly objective information) had
to say about them was important enough to deserve a response. Not saying
anything doesn't say anything about what was said, all it says is that
you don't think there is anything worth talking about.
Do you see the common theme in the two paragraphs I wrote above? I'm not
an iPhone fan but I think Apple won that one big time, though feel free to
continue to put your faith in your Verizon executive if you want. Beware of
unlocked phones.
> 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".
You know, I'd be surprised if Apple hadn't talked to dozens of mobile
phone companies by now, including many we may never hear about (note
the Vodafone logo in the firmware but no reports of talks with Vodafone
in the press). They do have a hot product. For all I know they may
have even been shown the door after many of those visits; their terms
really do suck for the phone company. Out of all of this, so far we
have reports of a few details of what was said in two of those negotiation,
one from a China Mobile guy who claims he thought the seminar he was
speaking at would be private, and one from a Verizon VP of Communications
who apparently went out of his way to offer it to the press.
What I would conclude from this is that (1) leaks of private information
from those talks are rare (I think this is how it is supposed to work),
and (2) in intentionally leaking information about the terms of the deal
offered, Verizon is still unique. I think Verizon is still in a class
by itself, and that isn't a high class.
Oh, and I see the China Mobile guy also said China Mobile had some
concerns about Apple's competence building communications equipment.
I've seen no response from Apple about that. Does your theory about
the meaning of Apple's lack of response mean Apple also thinks this
report has some basis in fact, or does that theory only apply when it
suits you?
> It's pretty clear why Apple approached Verizon first.
It is pretty clear that Verizon is unlikely to know if they were
approached first, and while Apple knows Apple hasn't said yet. Beyond
that is the realm of speculation.
Dennis Ferguson
|