"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45c21fde$0$68991$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> 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,

I don't personally care whom was first choice; that ship has sailed. But the
fact remains that the Engadget link provided nothing but more ammunition for
Navas to knock down. For *sure* it ain't gonna trigger an apology (just the
opposite--unless he reads this first <g>).


> 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.

The math was done long before Q4 2006, don't you think? Not saying you're
incorrect, just pointing out that these discussions likely started back in
Q1/Q2 2005 (at least with Verizon).


--
Mike