Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal
Updated 1/29/2007 9:50 AM ET
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.
Apple and Cingular (which now is solely owned by AT&T and adopting
that brand name) have declined to discuss terms of their alliance. But the
Apple-Verizon talks offer a peek into the computer giant's thinking.
According to Verizon, Apple CEO Steve Jobs insisted that he have hard
control over iPhone distribution.
The problem? While Apple and Verizon stores would have it, Wal-Mart,
Best Buy and other Verizon distributors could have been left out. "That
would have put our own distribution partners at a disadvantage" to Apple and
Verizon stores, Gerace said.
Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where
we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and service
support," Gerace says.
Cingular won't talk about the financial terms or say how long its
iPhone exclusivity lasts, but two people with direct knowledge of the deal
say it's a five-year contract. The exclusive is USA-only, leaving Apple free
to market its iPhone globally.
Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman, declined to comment on any
aspect of this story.
Mark Siegel, a Cingular spokesman, said, "We think this is a win for
Apple, and it is a win for Cingular."
Siegel declined to comment on customer care plans but said Cingular
would field calls related to the wireless service. "I don't want to leave
the impression that these (iPhone) customers are not ours. They are."
Siegel would not say whether Cingular distributors, which include
Wal-Mart and RadioShack, would get the iPhone. The deal announcement
referred only to Cingular and Apple stores and their websites.
> Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
> wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
> would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where
> we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and service
> support," Gerace says.
LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45be9bb1$0$68949$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Billybobh3 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
>> wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
>> would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point
>> where we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and
>> service support," Gerace says.
>
> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via USB,
> Bluetooth, or WiFi.
Billybobh3 wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45be9bb1$0$68949$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Billybobh3 wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
>>> wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
>>> would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point
>>> where we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and
>>> service support," Gerace says.
>> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
>> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
>> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
>> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via USB,
>> Bluetooth, or WiFi.
>
> Let me know how you make out with EDGE....
Hey, the iPhone is not something I'd ever buy, it's too de-featured for
the price. It's a consumer product for people that don't need full PDA
functionality. That's not to say future versions of it are not going to
be better.
What I'd like in a phone is:
-VOIP Application for WiFi calling
-HSDPA or EV-DO with tethering, not just low speed EDGE.
-Full PDA with third-party applications, akin to what's available for
phone running WinCE or Palm OS.
-MP3 Player that does not support DRM formats
-Slide out keyboard for text input
-USB, Bluetooth, Consumer IR and IrDA IR
I think that Apple/Cingular went with EDGE because they want to offer
less expensive plans than they would offer with high speed data. I read
that they will be offering monthly plans in the $80 range. With HSDPA
and tethering, they'd be over $100/month.
In article <45be9bb1$0$68949$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Billybobh3 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
> > wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
> > would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where
> > we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and service
> > support," Gerace says.
>
> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
> USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
And I'm glad Apple would handle repairs. I've always had Macs and always
had great (though rare) repair experiences. I shudder to think what
Cingular would do if left to their own devices...
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..
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:45be9bb1$0$68949
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
> USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
>
>
Do you suppose Steve Jobs had a VZW hobbled-up phone, before, and didn't
wanna get blamed for VZW turning it into a PoS?....hee hee...
Larry
--
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.
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>
In article <nhetr2573p1ue7hmqu27oglmp7e02qvcsu@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:04:58 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-F60EA6.19045029012007@news.giganews.com>:
>
> >And I'm glad Apple would handle repairs. I've always had Macs and always
> >had great (though rare) repair experiences.
>
> You've been lucky to miss out on warranty problems.
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...nG=Google+Sear
> ch>
>
> >I shudder to think what
> >Cingular would do if left to their own devices...
>
> Toss the phone and give you a refurb.
My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
would've loved to have
VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had to
be made...
Like I said, only a guess....
--
I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98C8F30D96F8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:45be9bb1$0$68949
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
>> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
>> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
>> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
>> USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
>>
>>
>
> Do you suppose Steve Jobs had a VZW hobbled-up phone, before, and didn't
> wanna get blamed for VZW turning it into a PoS?....hee hee...
>
> Larry
> --
> Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
> Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.
There is _no_ evidence that negotiations with Verizon took place
_before_ negotiations with Cingular, and they almost certainly took
place at the same time as part of a "bidding war". Since Apple is a
worldwide company, and since GSM/UMTS dominates the worldwide market,
GSM is a much better opportunity for the iPhone than CDMA2000, and thus
Cingular is the logical choice for Apple, especially given that it's the
largest US carrier.
p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
-- it's confusing. Thanks.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:09:57 GMT, "Remove This"
<spamdumpster@verizon.net> wrote in <VRLvh.4454$Pk5.2367@trndny04>:
>My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
>would've loved to have
>VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had to
>be made...
>
>Like I said, only a guess....
>"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns98C8F30D96F8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253. ..
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:45be9bb1$0$68949
>> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>>
>>> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
>>> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done on
>>> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
>>> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
>>> USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
>>>
>>
>> Do you suppose Steve Jobs had a VZW hobbled-up phone, before, and didn't
>> wanna get blamed for VZW turning it into a PoS?....hee hee...
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Remove This wrote:
> My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
> would've loved to have
> VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just
> had to be made...
I doubt it. The part of the iPhone that would be CDMA or GSM is a very
small part of the total product. There are a great many phones that are
available in both GSM and CDMA.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:7v2vr2ddbqsbvq3tnf2hie5hvo08tntktb@4ax.com...
> There is _no_ evidence that negotiations with Verizon took place
> _before_ negotiations with Cingular,
....and I never made that SPECIFIC claim....
....and I DID say "only a guess".
> and they almost certainly took
> place at the same time as part of a "bidding war".
Sure, possible...
> Since Apple is a
> worldwide company, and since GSM/UMTS dominates the worldwide market,
> GSM is a much better opportunity for the iPhone than CDMA2000, and thus
> Cingular is the logical choice for Apple, especially given that it's the
> largest US carrier.
>
> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
> -- it's confusing. Thanks.
I'm too old to change, It's obvious you'll read it no matter which way it's
posted..
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:09:57 GMT, "Remove This"
> <spamdumpster@verizon.net> wrote in <VRLvh.4454$Pk5.2367@trndny04>:
>
>>My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
>>would've loved to have
>>VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had
>>to
>>be made...
>>
>>Like I said, only a guess....
>
>>"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns98C8F30D96F8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253.. .
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:45be9bb1$0$68949
>>> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>>>
>>>> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
>>>> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done
>>>> on
>>>> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
>>>> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
>>>> USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you suppose Steve Jobs had a VZW hobbled-up phone, before, and didn't
>>> wanna get blamed for VZW turning it into a PoS?....hee hee...
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
True.. (And that's the kind of reply to a post I can appreciate.)
--
I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45bf9534$0$69004$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Remove This wrote:
>> My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
>> would've loved to have
>> VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had
>> to be made...
>
> I doubt it. The part of the iPhone that would be CDMA or GSM is a very
> small part of the total product. There are a great many phones that are
> available in both GSM and CDMA.
In article <w2Nvh.20820$X72.1771@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
"SlobbyDon" <slobby_NIXSPAMdon@mail.ru> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
> >
> > p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
> > -- it's confusing. Thanks.
> >
>
> Strange comment from a top-poster, who should rather excuse himself for
> bucking USENET convention.
Th Miscrosoft support groups love top-posting. I got yelled at by one of
the moderators for bottom posting in the Mac Office group.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:31:40 GMT, "SlobbyDon"
<slobby_NIXSPAMdon@mail.ru> wrote in
<w2Nvh.20820$X72.1771@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
>> -- it's confusing. Thanks.
>
>Strange comment from a top-poster, who should rather excuse himself for bucking USENET convention.
I'm actually a bottom poster (as you would find with even the tiniest
bit of checking), but switching posting styles in mid-thread is rude no
matter which style you believe in, so I stick with top posting when
responding to a top posting.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
There's actually quite a bit of difference between GSM and CDMA2000
which results in a substantial amount of additional engineering,
certification, manufacturing, and marketing costs, substantial
commonality notwithstanding. (Even apparently dissimilar phones can
have a great deal of commonality as they tend to be built on standard
platforms.) If it were really that cheap and easy, Nokia wouldn't have
abandoned the CDMA2000 market. (Steven argues both sides of an issue
depending on how it best fits his pro-CDMA2000, anti-GSM agenda.)
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:15:01 GMT, "Remove This"
<spamdumpster@verizon.net> wrote in <9HNvh.2418$Xf4.2367@trndny09>:
>True.. (And that's the kind of reply to a post I can appreciate.)
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:45bf9534$0$69004$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net.. .
>> Remove This wrote:
>>> My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
>>> would've loved to have
>>> VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had
>>> to be made...
>>
>> I doubt it. The part of the iPhone that would be CDMA or GSM is a very
>> small part of the total product. There are a great many phones that are
>> available in both GSM and CDMA.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:7v2vr2ddbqsbvq3tnf2hie5hvo08tntktb@4ax.com:
> There is _no_ evidence that negotiations with Verizon took place
> _before_ negotiations with Cingular,
And there is no evidence to the contrary, either.
> and they almost certainly took
> place at the same time as part of a "bidding war".
There is no evidence to support this claim.
> Since Apple is a
> worldwide company, and since GSM/UMTS dominates the worldwide market,
> GSM is a much better opportunity for the iPhone than CDMA2000, and
> thus Cingular is the logical choice for Apple, especially given that
> it's the largest US carrier.
Then why go to Verizon at all? Another case where your circular logic
doesn't support the facts.
In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
out of character. Jobs is, above all, a businessman. He looked at which
carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
and went to them first. It'd be one thing if the two top carriers were
fairly close in terms of new contract customers, but they're not.
Verizon consistently tops Cingular by more than a two to one margin for
new post-paid customers, the most valuable kind.
Personally I think Verizon was probably foolish for turning Apple down,
because the iPhone customers will be very high ARPU customers. Yes,
Apple is a demanding partner, but think of an iPhone with EV-DO as
opposed to EDGE.
In article <45bff73d$0$68962$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
> out of character. Jobs is, above all, a businessman. He looked at which
> carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
> and went to them first. It'd be one thing if the two top carriers were
> fairly close in terms of new contract customers, but they're not.
> Verizon consistently tops Cingular by more than a two to one margin for
> new post-paid customers, the most valuable kind.
Most likely he went to both carriers in the beginning to see which ones
he could work with. Both are in the same ballpark size-wise. But if he
were going to pick one it is more likely he would have went to Cingular
first because of the GSM and it's bigger global footprint.
I wish they could have worked out a deal with Verizon because Cingular
does not cut it for my needs here, and I would like an iPhone. I still
might get it and become a Cingular customer and keep Verizon too. I
know many with both services because Verizon is the best here but they
need GSM for International use.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:56:11 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45bff73d$0$68962$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>> There is no evidence to support this claim.
>
>In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
>out of character.
It's actually standard practice at Apple, as its partners and suppliers
know.
>Jobs is, above all, a businessman.
Which is why he would play one carrier off against the other. To do
otherwise would be leaving money on the table.
>He looked at which
>carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
>and went to them first. ...
No evidence of that, and what actually matters most is the size of the
subscriber base, the source of upgrades, not new sign-ups.
>Personally I think Verizon was probably foolish for turning Apple down,
>because the iPhone customers will be very high ARPU customers. Yes,
>Apple is a demanding partner, but think of an iPhone with EV-DO as
>opposed to EDGE.
At least we agree on something -- getting outbid by Cingular on the
iPhone may well prove to be the dumbest move Verizon has made in a long
time.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:18:38 -0500, Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote in
<300120072118389796%fort514@mac.com>:
>In article <45bff73d$0$68962$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
>> out of character. Jobs is, above all, a businessman. He looked at which
>> carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
>> and went to them first. It'd be one thing if the two top carriers were
>> fairly close in terms of new contract customers, but they're not.
>> Verizon consistently tops Cingular by more than a two to one margin for
>> new post-paid customers, the most valuable kind.
>
>Most likely he went to both carriers in the beginning to see which ones
>he could work with. Both are in the same ballpark size-wise. But if he
>were going to pick one it is more likely he would have went to Cingular
>first because of the GSM and it's bigger global footprint.
Yep.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:u400s2hptu92b366m4rmtq124h50d3hti1@4ax.com:
>
> Which is why he would play one carrier off against the other. To do
> otherwise would be leaving money on the table.
What money is he leaving on the table. He is producing a phone, not
getting a cut of revenue. A $500 phone on the Cingular network will earn
Apple as much money as a $500 phone on the Verizon network.
>
>>He looked at which
>>carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
>>and went to them first. ...
>
> No evidence of that, and what actually matters most is the size of the
> subscriber base, the source of upgrades, not new sign-ups.
The world acording to John Novice.
>
>>Personally I think Verizon was probably foolish for turning Apple down,
>>because the iPhone customers will be very high ARPU customers. Yes,
>>Apple is a demanding partner, but think of an iPhone with EV-DO as
>>opposed to EDGE.
>
> At least we agree on something -- getting outbid by Cingular on the
> iPhone may well prove to be the dumbest move Verizon has made in a long
> time.
>
Where is it referenced that any bidding occurred? Could it be more likely
that Verizon passed on the technology because it really isn't as cutting
edge as Apple would like people to think it is?
Silly me, but the idea of a $500 phone seems absurd.
"Billybobh3" <billybobh3@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hqGdndPE0O7qByPYnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal
> Updated 1/29/2007 9:50 AM ET
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Apple and Cingular (which now is solely owned by AT&T and adopting
> that brand name) have declined to discuss terms of their alliance. But the
> Apple-Verizon talks offer a peek into the computer giant's thinking.
>
> According to Verizon, Apple CEO Steve Jobs insisted that he have hard
> control over iPhone distribution.
>
> The problem? While Apple and Verizon stores would have it, Wal-Mart,
> Best Buy and other Verizon distributors could have been left out. "That
> would have put our own distribution partners at a disadvantage" to Apple
> and Verizon stores, Gerace said.
>
> Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
> wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
> would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point
> where we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and
> service support," Gerace says.
>
> Cingular won't talk about the financial terms or say how long its
> iPhone exclusivity lasts, but two people with direct knowledge of the deal
> say it's a five-year contract. The exclusive is USA-only, leaving Apple
> free to market its iPhone globally.
>
> Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman, declined to comment on any
> aspect of this story.
>
> Mark Siegel, a Cingular spokesman, said, "We think this is a win for
> Apple, and it is a win for Cingular."
>
> Siegel declined to comment on customer care plans but said Cingular
> would field calls related to the wireless service. "I don't want to leave
> the impression that these (iPhone) customers are not ours. They are."
>
> Siegel would not say whether Cingular distributors, which include
> Wal-Mart and RadioShack, would get the iPhone. The deal announcement
> referred only to Cingular and Apple stores and their websites.
>
>
>
Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal 
Linear Mode
