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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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>
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.
>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>
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>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".
Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
<lig1s2tckrm8lb1h67m739sta4re9dh8hf@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>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".
>
>Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:50:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45c0c8e5$0$69005$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>> Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
>
>When you live in an alternate universe, that doesn't work.
You should know.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:40 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>X-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:56:40 EST (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
><lig1s2tckrm8lb1h67m739sta4re9dh8hf@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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".
>>
>>Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
>
>I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
>carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.
I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:45:19 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
<buv1s29rvenuntiqjpqqolptn4ju8fdhvr@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:40 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>><lig1s2tckrm8lb1h67m739sta4re9dh8hf@4ax.com>:
>>>Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
>>
>>I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
>>carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.
>
>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.
Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
And have a nice day.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:02:55 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
<nv72s2hru969lf2b1t872otvc6gp5nesdm@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.
>>
>>Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
>>And have a nice day.
>
>Like the time you illegally put your ringtones online, and it took 2
>weeks till you realised it was copyright infringement to do so.
Nothing of the sort.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:4292s251e7b8rm1k81p0lrorlo1j68ob7j@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:02:55 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
> <nv72s2hru969lf2b1t872otvc6gp5nesdm@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.
>>>
>>>Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
>>>And have a nice day.
>>
>>Like the time you illegally put your ringtones online, and it took 2
>>weeks till you realised it was copyright infringement to do so.
>
> Nothing of the sort.
>
Wow- I have to agree with Phillipe on this one. It is well documented in
multiple threads from two(?) years ago. You violated copyright law,
despite your best attempt to invoke the "Law According to Navas".
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>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".
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:45:19 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
><buv1s29rvenuntiqjpqqolptn4ju8fdhvr@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:40 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>><lig1s2tckrm8lb1h67m739sta4re9dh8hf@4ax.com>:
>
>>>>Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
>>>
>>>I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
>>>carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.
>>
>>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.
>
>Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
>And have a nice day.
"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?
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.
<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.
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.
"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).
> 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).
Of course, but the numbers have been similar for many quarters. Verizon
has been signing up far more new contract customers, the high value
customers that would be likely to buy an iPhone. When you launch a new
product, you go for the biggest TAM (total available market).
As one analyst put it, "Verizon continues to take significant market
share from Cingular in the retail postpaid market."
Maybe Apple also looked at the differences in quality of the network as
well, especially the much larger high speed data network. Maybe they
didn't include HSDPA in the iPhone because the HSDPA network coverage
lags EV-DO by so much.
Whatever the reasons, it's exceedingly amusing to see Navas come up with
all of his rationalizations...again.
On 2007-02-01, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> 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).
>
> Of course, but the numbers have been similar for many quarters. Verizon
> has been signing up far more new contract customers, the high value
> customers that would be likely to buy an iPhone. When you launch a new
> product, you go for the biggest TAM (total available market).
Exactly. But Apple has worldwide selling power, and if they goal was
the biggest total addressable market with a single initial product then
a GSM product can't be topped. Any dalliance with Verizon would have
meant they'd need to develop a second model to put on the shelves in
Europe and Asia, so even if we accept that Verizon somehow has an advantage
in the US which might make up for its smaller subscriber numbers, it
certainly has no advantage that could pay for delaying product availability
in Europe and Asia.
> As one analyst put it, "Verizon continues to take significant market
> share from Cingular in the retail postpaid market."
But as another analyst put it, "GSM/UMTS market penetration worldwide is
up from 53% in 2000 to 82% in 2006".
> Maybe Apple also looked at the differences in quality of the network as
> well, especially the much larger high speed data network. Maybe they
> didn't include HSDPA in the iPhone because the HSDPA network coverage
> lags EV-DO by so much.
I'm curious about this too, though less because of anything to do with
Cingular and more because lack of 2100 MHz UMTS keeps them from selling
in Korea and Japan. I guess it could also be because a 4-band GSM/3-band
UMTS phone was too bleeding edge for a first product (I know of only 2
phones on the market that do this, and one doesn't do HSDPA), or because
support for wideband CDMA would have stressed a power budget that is
probably tight already. It could be anything.
At 01 Feb 2007 10:10:24 -0500 Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> And there is no real evidence of a "bidding war" either, is there?
No, there isn't. More likely, since this was two years ago, I'm guessing
that Apple approached both carriers (and probably others) in the
"concept" phase of design to gauge the carriers receptiveness to Apple's
unconventional marketing ideas. Seemingly, Verizon all but slammed the
door on them, leaving Cingular as the carrier to negotiate seriously with.
I assume Apple only went the "exclusive" route as a bargaining chip to
getting their demands. They could have also sold it unlocked via their
existing sales channels, or else went the MVNO route a la Amp'd or Disney
Mobile. I'm assuming they considered those options as well.
People shouldn't forget that this was a pure business decision- it had
nothing to do with who's the "best" carrier or even the best "fit"
technologically. It was all about who gave Apple the best deal _for
Apple_, and that, apparently, was Cingular.
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-02-01, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> 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).
>> Of course, but the numbers have been similar for many quarters. Verizon
>> has been signing up far more new contract customers, the high value
>> customers that would be likely to buy an iPhone. When you launch a new
>> product, you go for the biggest TAM (total available market).
>
> Exactly. But Apple has worldwide selling power, and if they goal was
> the biggest total addressable market with a single initial product then
> a GSM product can't be topped.
It's pretty trivial to switch the radio portion of a design from CDMA to
GSM, there are many phones that are available in both technologies. If
Apple was worried about only doing one initial product, then they would
have approached Cingular and not bothered with going to Verizon first.
> Any dalliance with Verizon would have
> meant they'd need to develop a second model to put on the shelves in
> Europe and Asia, so even if we accept that Verizon somehow has an advantage
> in the US which might make up for its smaller subscriber numbers,
Verizon actually has more postpaid subscribers than Cingular, and
continues to sign up more than 2x as many new postpaid customers every
quarter. Clearly Apple looked at these numbers and it was part of the
reason that they went to Verizon first.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45c21fde$0$68991$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
*snip*
>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.
I think it's a little more complicated than who adds more new contracts a
month, although I'm fairly sure that would enter into it. I think I'd be
more interested in who was selling more high end phones. If the majority
of new customers are taking the free phone, it might be a strech for them to
spring for a $600 iphone. Get my drift? If I were Apple, I might be
interested in the company that was successfully moving PDA or other high end
phones. I don't know the answer to this. Who was more sucessfull moving the
high priced Razr when it first came out (to both new and existing
customers)? Who has more high end phones in their lineup? Who has a
customer base that tends to upgrade phones more? How's that for some math?
Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45c21fde$0$68991$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> *snip*
> >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.
>
> I think it's a little more complicated than who adds more new contracts a
> month, although I'm fairly sure that would enter into it. I think I'd be
> more interested in who was selling more high end phones.
Verizon has far more high-end corporate customers buying PDA phones, but
I'm not sure how material that is, since the iPhone really isn't
designed for that market. The iPhone is more of an entertainment device,
because it lacks a lot of PDA functionality, and the corporate
applications such as _Corporate Time_ won't run on it.
On 2007-02-02, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2007-02-01, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Exactly. But Apple has worldwide selling power, and if they goal was
>> the biggest total addressable market with a single initial product then
>> a GSM product can't be topped.
>
> It's pretty trivial to switch the radio portion of a design from CDMA to
> GSM, there are many phones that are available in both technologies. If
> Apple was worried about only doing one initial product, then they would
> have approached Cingular and not bothered with going to Verizon first.
It is true that the design work to be done to switch technologies is
not so difficult for a not-too-price-sensitive platform, but it is still
the case that for volume manufacturing you really want to make sure you
can manage building a single product in sufficient quantities before you try
to manage adding part numbers. For a fairly recent example of a hit phone
design, Motorola was selling plain old V3's for well over a year
before there were V3c's, let alone V3i's or V3m's or V3x's, or V3xx's,
even though Motorola was already building other phones using all these
technologies and should hence have had an easier time than Apple with
a technology switch.
Despite this, it is clear that Apple at least considered doing a CDMA
phone first or they wouldn't have talked to Verizon. I don't think
we know that they went to Verizon first, however, and the rather
outrageous things Verizon claims they were asked to do to get the
business don't strike me as the final bargaining position you take
with your first choice. We'll have to wait to find out just what
Cingular agreed to for the business, but I'll be surprised if what
Cingular agreed to was anything close to what Verizon claim they were
asked for (though who knows...).
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:55:15 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
<eoo3s257lgpqeph5rpoded3uck56uhhiar@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:45:19 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>><buv1s29rvenuntiqjpqqolptn4ju8fdhvr@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:40 GMT, John Navas
>>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>>><lig1s2tckrm8lb1h67m739sta4re9dh8hf@4ax.com> :
>>
>>>>>Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
>>>>
>>>>I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
>>>>carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.
>>>
>>>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.
>>
>>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/
That's just a blogger, with an "apparently" caveat.
I'm still awaiting any sort of real substantiation.
>Verizon was Apple's first choice;
Maybe; maybe not.
>then Verizon blew it.
I think so.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:14:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <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.
Which means nothing.
>Let's face it, Navas is upset because Cingular was the second choice,
My only actual concern is for the truth.
>[SNIP usual pro-Verizon, anti-Cingular flaming]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:10:24 -0500, "Don Udel \(ETC\)"
<donudel@ellijay.com> wrote in <epsvt001leh@enews4.newsguy.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:gjc1s2lbnvq8ip2bivvj8bj1pqtth0ohcp@4ax.com.. .
>> 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?
No real evidence of anything, which makes this all pretty silly.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Verizon and Apple iPhone 
Linear Mode
