On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 07:17:37 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45c20492$0$68963$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>> <rf51s2pfc30hi28cvag5nc3g2cqoncbgpl@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> When Apple and Cingular are raking in the bucks next fall, and Verizon
>>>> decides it wants a piece of the action, what Verizon VP will get
>>>> canned because the 5 year Cingular USA exclusivity contract precludes
>>>> it?
>>> No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
>>> by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
>>> referred to as a "bidding war".
>>
>> And there is no real evidence of a "bidding war" either, is there?
>
>All the evidence is that things occurred as the news reports state.
>Apple first approached Verizon, but could not reach an agreement, then
>they approached Cingular.
There's no evidence at all, just spin.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:3mc1s21n72qa33jugp49tjag191fb28e97@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:03:41 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45c0afcf$0$69002$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>> When Apple and Cingular are raking in the bucks next fall, and Verizon
>>> decides it wants a piece of the action, what Verizon VP will get
>>> canned because the 5 year Cingular USA exclusivity contract precludes
>>> it?
>>>
>>> And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.
>>
>>Presumably Verizon knew what they were giving up when they passed on the
>>iPhone.
>
> Translation: Outbid by Cingular.
Actually VZW didn't want to give on what Apple wanted.
>>Perhaps their analysis showed that a $600 handset that lacked
>>basic PDA functions, and that didn't have high speed data, wouldn't sell
>>in sufficient quantities, even when promoted by a rock star, or that it
>>would be very successful for Apple, but not bring much revenue to Verizon.
>
> Perhaps Verizon just blew it.
>
>>It's not like there won't be other phones with similar functionality to
>>the iPhone available, we've already seen that some are coming.
>
> That's like saying there are lots of MP3 players, so the iPod isn't a
> big deal.
>
>>Cingular was more willing to accede to Apple's demands because Cingular
>>lags Verizon by a huge margin in new post-paid customers. Cingular can
>>brag about having the most customers, but a lot of those customers are
>>low margin, low ARPU, prepaid customers.
>
> Irrelevant. What matters most is the size of the base, since that's the
> source of all-important upgrades.
>
> It's pretty hard to spin this as being anything but bad news for
> Verizon, so I have to hand it to you.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
> <rf51s2pfc30hi28cvag5nc3g2cqoncbgpl@4ax.com>:
>
>>When Apple and Cingular are raking in the bucks next fall, and Verizon
>>decides it wants a piece of the action, what Verizon VP will get
>>canned because the 5 year Cingular USA exclusivity contract precludes
>>it?
>>
>>And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.
>
> No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
> by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
> referred to as a "bidding war".
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
VZW was approached TWO years ago
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:3ri7s2lipe47r2lla66vkc2a4a6qi1av3g@4ax.com:
>>
>>Which no one from Apple or Cingular has disputed.
>
> Which means nothing.
No- it means that neither Apple or Cingular has pointed out any
inconsistencies in the account. Cingular has proven its tendency to point
out factual errors made by their competition.
>
>>Let's face it, Navas is upset because Cingular was the second choice,
>
> My only actual concern is for the truth.
>
Now that is funny!!!!! You wouldn't know the truth if it came up to you
with a name tag on and bit you in the ass.
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "Andy S"
<adsisson@NOSPAMrochester.rr.com> wrote in
<45c3d4e0$0$24718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>> <rf51s2pfc30hi28cvag5nc3g2cqoncbgpl@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>When Apple and Cingular are raking in the bucks next fall, and Verizon
>>>decides it wants a piece of the action, what Verizon VP will get
>>>canned because the 5 year Cingular USA exclusivity contract precludes
>>>it?
>>>
>>>And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.
>>
>> No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
>> by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
>> referred to as a "bidding war".
>VZW was approached TWO years ago
You know that ... how? And Cingular was approached when? Facts and
authoritative citations please.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:56:53 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <eq0nqe$q7g$1@aioe.org>:
>At 02 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500 Andy S wrote:
>
>> VZW was approached TWO years ago
>
>Probably as was Cingular (and perhaps others.) Deals li
>e these don't happen overnight.
Indeed.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "Andy S"
> <adsisson@NOSPAMrochester.rr.com> wrote in
> <45c3d4e0$0$24718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>>VZW was approached TWO years ago
> >
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:08ids29kjhpa32psrlcduo0v6groi7ppce@4ax.com...
You know that ... how? And Cingular was approached when? Facts and
> authoritative citations please.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
Here ya go John
All dated on the 29th of january this year
Verizon Wireless could have been the first wireless carrier to offer the
Apple iPhone, but the mobile carrier passed on the opportunity because
Apple's financial terms were too steep, Verizon said Monday.
Denny Strigl, president and chief operating officer of Verizon
Communications, said the iPhone will help draw attention to the whole
mobile-music movement, but he said he was glad Verizon passed on the
opportunity. Verizon Wireless is jointly owned by Verizon Communications and
the European wireless carrier Vodafone.
"The iPhone product is something we are happy we aren't the first to market
with," he said during Verizon Communications' fourth-quarter 2006 earnings
call on Monday.
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
NEW YORK - Verizon Wireless, the No. 2 U.S. cellphone carrier, passed on the
chance to be the exclusive distributor of the iPhone almost two years ago,
balking at Apple's rich financial terms and other demands.
Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone fees,
say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the relationship
with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice president.
"We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just
couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."
Verizon's decision to pull the plug on talks sent Apple into the waiting
arms of Cingular, which will be the exclusive U.S. carrier for the iPhone.
The multifunction device is expected to ship in June and cost about $500.
Report: Verizon Wireless rejected iPhone deal
By Peter Cohen
Cingular (now AT&T) may not have been Apple's first choice for a partner for
its iPhone, reports USA Today. The newspaper said that Verizon Wireless
passed on an opportunity to become the exclusive distributor of the phone
almost two years ago.
Verizon Wireless vice president Jim Gerace claims that his company turned
Apple down because they "couldn't reach a deal that was mutually
beneficial." Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly fees, control over
how iPhones could be sold and control of the relationship with iPhone
customers, Gerace said.
Apple and Cingular won't talk about their relationship, other than to
acknowledge that Cingular will be the exclusive U.S. provider when the
iPhone is introduced later this year.
Apple did not comment for the article.
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:08ids29kjhpa32psrlcduo0v6groi7ppce@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "Andy S"
> <adsisson@NOSPAMrochester.rr.com> wrote in
> <45c3d4e0$0$24718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>> <rf51s2pfc30hi28cvag5nc3g2cqoncbgpl@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>When Apple and Cingular are raking in the bucks next fall, and Verizon
>>>>decides it wants a piece of the action, what Verizon VP will get
>>>>canned because the 5 year Cingular USA exclusivity contract precludes
>>>>it?
>>>>
>>>>And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.
>>>
>>> No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
>>> by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
>>> referred to as a "bidding war".
>
>>VZW was approached TWO years ago
>
> You know that ... how? And Cingular was approached when? Facts and
> authoritative citations please.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
You wanted sources here are the three I jus gave you. Plus a whole bunch
more.
Google is your friend
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:29:10 -0500, "Andy S"
<adsisson@NOSPAMrochester.rr.com> wrote in
<45c92b69$0$1380$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "Andy S"
>> <adsisson@NOSPAMrochester.rr.com> wrote in
>> <45c3d4e0$0$24718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>>>VZW was approached TWO years ago
>> >
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:08ids29kjhpa32psrlcduo0v6groi7ppce@4ax.com.. .
>You know that ... how? And Cingular was approached when? Facts and
>> authoritative citations please.
>Here ya go John
>[SNIP]
Same story, from Verizon, not authoritative.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "Andy S"
>>> <adsisson@NOSPAMrochester.rr.com> wrote in
>>> <45c3d4e0$0$24718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>>>>VZW was approached TWO years ago
>>> >
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:08ids29kjhpa32psrlcduo0v6groi7ppce@4ax.com. ..
>>You know that ... how? And Cingular was approached when? Facts and
>>> authoritative citations please.
> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:29:10 -0500, "Andy S"
> <adsisson@NOSPAMrochester.rr.com> wrote in
> <45c92b69$0$1380$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>
>>Here ya go John
>>[SNIP]
>>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:d8bis2h9utm772j79lolst7bblial7pdb7@4ax.com.. .
> Same story, from Verizon, not authoritative.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
Can you not see the forest for the trees, John?
I cited three sources, and added a link to google.
How about I look it up for you on wireless week. would that be better.
or maybe RCR. Would a cite from the CTIA be sufficient?
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
> Can you not see the forest for the trees, John?
> I cited three sources, and added a link to google.
To be fair, all of the various "sources" are rehashing each other. If
someone stands at a podium and gives a press conference and 30 reporters
report on it, that's still one "source" of the story.
It might not be good enough for John, but as I've already posted, I feel
that until someone from Apple or Cingular denies it, (rather than
"decline to comment") it's the gospel so far.
> How about I look it up for you on wireless week. would that be better.
> or maybe RCR. Would a cite from the CTIA be sufficient?
Frankly, if they're all printing the same quotes from the Verizon VP as
everyone else did, since it's still all one source.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 07 Feb 2007 16:11:16 -0500 Andy S wrote:
>
>> Can you not see the forest for the trees, John?
>> I cited three sources, and added a link to google.
>
> To be fair, all of the various "sources" are rehashing each other. If
> someone stands at a podium and gives a press conference and 30 reporters
> report on it, that's still one "source" of the story.
>
> It might not be good enough for John, but as I've already posted, I feel
> that until someone from Apple or Cingular denies it, (rather than
> "decline to comment") it's the gospel so far.
>
>> How about I look it up for you on wireless week. would that be better.
>> or maybe RCR. Would a cite from the CTIA be sufficient?
>
> Frankly, if they're all printing the same quotes from the Verizon VP as
> everyone else did, since it's still all one source.
Apple is very good about immediately disputing any story that concerns
them, if there are any inaccuracies. I know the Apple corporate
spokesperson, who says that it's corporate policy to correct any
mis-statements in the press.
It's a very safe bet to say that the original story was accurate since
neither Cingular or Apple has disputed it.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:46:41 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45cb53f7$0$69009$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 07 Feb 2007 16:11:16 -0500 Andy S wrote:
>>
>>> Can you not see the forest for the trees, John?
>>> I cited three sources, and added a link to google.
>>
>> To be fair, all of the various "sources" are rehashing each other. If
>> someone stands at a podium and gives a press conference and 30 reporters
>> report on it, that's still one "source" of the story.
>>
>> It might not be good enough for John, but as I've already posted, I feel
>> that until someone from Apple or Cingular denies it, (rather than
>> "decline to comment") it's the gospel so far.
>>
>>> How about I look it up for you on wireless week. would that be better.
>>> or maybe RCR. Would a cite from the CTIA be sufficient?
>>
>> Frankly, if they're all printing the same quotes from the Verizon VP as
>> everyone else did, since it's still all one source.
>
>Apple is very good about immediately disputing any story that concerns
>them, if there are any inaccuracies. I know the Apple corporate
>spokesperson, who says that it's corporate policy to correct any
>mis-statements in the press.
>
>It's a very safe bet to say that the original story was accurate since
>neither Cingular or Apple has disputed it.
How silly. Silence isn't confirmation of anything, no matter what you
may think.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> How silly. Silence isn't confirmation of anything, no matter what you
>> may think.
>
>
> Coming from a person that admonishes for anti-Cingular trolling.
The lack of a response to a negative story is indeed a confirmation that
indeed the facts of the story are true. Especially when the entities
have a history of quickly responding to negative publicity about them,
to deny what was written is true.
Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone 
Linear Mode
