On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:57:35 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45bed047$0$69038$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:t3etr2187g0fm8jgajl9tnfo48bbbvf1m0@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Yeah, right. Can you say, "Sour grapes?"
>>
>> 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..

"First" is another of your inventions -- the actual story (rumor)
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>