Tinman wrote:
> <karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:eoo3s257lgpqeph5rpoded3uck56uhhiar@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> 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.