On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
<reply_in_group-12EDD9.22372807072007@news.supernews.com>:
>In article <280620072203091974%fort@his.com.remove.invalid> ,
> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>> first.
>
>Yes we do:
>
><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
"Move along, folks, nothing new here."
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:15:24 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4693944f$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Mitchell Regenbogen wrote:
>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote in news:080720070800099983%
>> fort@his.com.remove.invalid:
>>
>>> In article <reply_in_group-12EDD9.22372807072007@news.supernews.com>,
>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <280620072203091974%fort@his.com.remove.invalid> ,
>>>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>>>> first.
>>>> Yes we do:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>>> That is not proof that they approached Verizon first. It is likely
>>> they negotiated with both Cingular and Verizon, playing both against
>>> each other.
>>
>> Definitely a possibility, if you live under a rock.
>
>There is a lot more evidence that Apple approached Verizon first, and
>actually rushed out the GSM design when it didn't work out with Verizon.
>Someone in ba.internet was analyzing the FCC applications as well, which
>showed the same thing, Cingular was essentially a last-minute switch for
>Apple.
Nope. Just speculation unsupported by any real evidence, as I pointed
out in my rebuttal.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:1b1n935qkjd4fdfihng7up3549tjr8ngsc@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:15:24 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4693944f$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Mitchell Regenbogen wrote:
>>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote in news:080720070800099983%
>>> fort@his.com.remove.invalid:
>>>
>>>> In article <reply_in_group-12EDD9.22372807072007@news.supernews.com>,
>>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <280620072203091974%fort@his.com.remove.invalid> ,
>>>>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>>>>> first.
>>>>> Yes we do:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>>>> That is not proof that they approached Verizon first. It is likely
>>>> they negotiated with both Cingular and Verizon, playing both against
>>>> each other.
>>>
>>> Definitely a possibility, if you live under a rock.
>>
>>There is a lot more evidence that Apple approached Verizon first, and
>>actually rushed out the GSM design when it didn't work out with Verizon.
>>Someone in ba.internet was analyzing the FCC applications as well, which
>>showed the same thing, Cingular was essentially a last-minute switch for
>>Apple.
>
> Nope. Just speculation unsupported by any real evidence, as I pointed
> out in my rebuttal.
>
Yeah -the only real evidence comes from interviews with Apple and Verizon
folks. What would they know about the situation?
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <earththing@gmail.com>
wrote in <1183926482.197496.105850@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>:
>On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa"
><Mousta...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
>> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
>> Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
>> coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
>> were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
>> according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
>
>Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
>of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
>requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
>accepted.
That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
lost, a big downer for Verizon.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <earththing@gmail.com>
> wrote in <1183926482.197496.105850@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>:
>
>>On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa"
>><Mousta...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
>>> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
>>> Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
>>> coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
>>> were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
>>> according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
>>
>>Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
>>of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
>>requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
>>accepted.
>
> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<mPidnWHn396dEADbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@giganews.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com...
>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
Nope.
>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
Hence, no facts.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:dn5r939j4l1984g3pch4ar4h3ils791etg@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <mPidnWHn396dEADbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com. ..
>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>
>>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
>
> Nope.
Yep- well documented and available to anyone operating at higher than a
five year old menatality. This would obviously disqualify you.
>
>>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
>
> Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
> Hence, no facts.
>
As I and others have stated - "documented" fact.
You can certainly deny all you want. But, it doesn't change a thing
The FACTS stay the same.
Going 'round and 'round with you is absolutely pointless also.
What is WELL documented is the FACT that you do not seen to ever
see the actual truth on many, if not most occasions - at least in discussions
I've seen.
So, whatever.... twist and spin John - it proves nothing. Other than what
most here know - you ain't got a frickin' clue.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:dn5r939j4l1984g3pch4ar4h3ils791etg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <mPidnWHn396dEADbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com...
>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>
>>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
>
> Nope.
>
>>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
>
> Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
> Hence, no facts.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Scott wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com:
>
>> That's Verizon spin not fact.
>
> Untrue- Apple has even admitted that they went to Verizon first. Don't
> believe it? Google it, Spanky.
>
>> What undoubtedly actually happened is
>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>
>
> Wrong on all counts.
Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
dibs on the iPhone were correct.
----------------------------------------------------
The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that
onlookers will have trouble telling which is the nut
----------------------------------------------------
In article <0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <earththing@gmail.com>
> wrote in <1183926482.197496.105850@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>:
>
> >Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
> >of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
> >requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
> >accepted.
>
> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
john, when you post blatant lies like that, people disrespect you
even more.
that apple offered the iphone to verizon first has been well
documented.
please, don't lie in the cellular groups. people read here for
information.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
On 2007-07-18, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com:
>>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact.
>>
>> Untrue- Apple has even admitted that they went to Verizon first. Don't
>> believe it? Google it, Spanky.
>>
>>> What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong on all counts.
>
> Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
> that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
> appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
> So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
> dibs on the iPhone were correct.
Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
I find it odd that Apple, at a stage in a CDMA project advanced enough to
have a prototype requiring any sort of FCC approval, would have changed
chipset vendors to get GSM. Qualcomm sells GSM/UMTS chipsets which are
at least basically compatible with their CDMA2000 products in size and
function; Infineon's chipsets are quite different in function, and they
sell no CDMA2000 chips (they also announced UMTS products only last
February or so, which is probably why the iPhone doesn't support it
yet).
>> Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
>> that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
>> appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
>> So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
>> dibs on the iPhone were correct.
>
>Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
>I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
>concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
>
>I find it odd that Apple, at a stage in a CDMA project advanced enough to
>have a prototype requiring any sort of FCC approval, would have changed
>chipset vendors to get GSM. Qualcomm sells GSM/UMTS chipsets which are
>at least basically compatible with their CDMA2000 products in size and
>function; Infineon's chipsets are quite different in function, and they
>sell no CDMA2000 chips (they also announced UMTS products only last
>February or so, which is probably why the iPhone doesn't support it
>yet).
Indeed -- makes no sense at all. Apple was almost certainly heading for
the _worldwide_ GSM market from the beginning.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:41:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <469dc40a$0$27215$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com:
>>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact.
>>
>> Untrue- Apple has even admitted that they went to Verizon first. Don't
>> believe it? Google it, Spanky.
>>
>>> What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>
>> Wrong on all counts.
>
>Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
>that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
>appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
>So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
>dibs on the iPhone were correct.
Not true. That was just speculation based on little actual evidence.
What undoubtedly actually happened is that Apple held a beauty contest
that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon lost, a big downer for Verizon.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:18:12 -0700, "Ness_net"
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<5q-dnVuHpIoPPwDbnZ2dnUVZ_ru3nZ2d@giganews.com>:
>As I and others have stated - "documented" fact.
>You can certainly deny all you want. But, it doesn't change a thing
>
>The FACTS stay the same.
>
>Going 'round and 'round with you is absolutely pointless also.
>What is WELL documented is the FACT that you do not seen to ever
>see the actual truth on many, if not most occasions - at least in discussions
>I've seen.
>
>So, whatever.... twist and spin John - it proves nothing. Other than what
>most here know - you ain't got a frickin' clue.
>
>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:dn5r939j4l1984g3pch4ar4h3ils791etg@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
>> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
>> <mPidnWHn396dEADbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>
>>>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>>>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>>>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
>>
>> Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
>> Hence, no facts.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:f9OdnTTtmsN0_APbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e1qb5c67cr5mlvtfe4@4ax.com:
>
>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>>
>
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>
> Now shut up and go away.
John Navas wrote:
> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:18:12 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <5q-dnVuHpIoPPwDbnZ2dnUVZ_ru3nZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> As I and others have stated - "documented" fact.
>> You can certainly deny all you want. But, it doesn't change a thing
>>
>> The FACTS stay the same.
> Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
> I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
> concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
The post about it was in ba.internet.
See "http://groups.google.com/group/ba.internet/msg/b108ac12b3c04bc0?hl=en&"
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:23uni.23250
$Rw1.14734@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
> What he will say is "Rubbish" I'm sure.
>
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:f9OdnTTtmsN0_APbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e1qb5c67cr5mlvtfe4@4ax.com:
>>
>>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>
>> Now shut up and go away.
>
>
Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs. My
post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy (one of
many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture of the
situation.
In article <f9OdnTTtmsN0_APbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e1qb5c67cr5mlvtfe4@4ax.com:
>
> > No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>
> Now shut up and go away.
actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
In article <kums93pp8p1p64n1ifk20d421fv1fdpqrg@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:25:05 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
> <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
> <slrnf9smo1.86.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>
> >On 2007-07-18, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
> >> that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
> >> appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
> >> So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
> >> dibs on the iPhone were correct.
> >
> >Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
> >I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
> >concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
> >
> >I find it odd that Apple, at a stage in a CDMA project advanced enough to
> >have a prototype requiring any sort of FCC approval, would have changed
> >chipset vendors to get GSM. Qualcomm sells GSM/UMTS chipsets which are
> >at least basically compatible with their CDMA2000 products in size and
> >function; Infineon's chipsets are quite different in function, and they
> >sell no CDMA2000 chips (they also announced UMTS products only last
> >February or so, which is probably why the iPhone doesn't support it
> >yet).
>
> Indeed -- makes no sense at all. Apple was almost certainly heading for
> the _worldwide_ GSM market from the beginning.
On 2007-07-18, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
>> I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
>> concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
>
> The post about it was in ba.internet.
>
> See "http://groups.google.com/group/ba.internet/msg/b108ac12b3c04bc0?hl=en&"
Got it. I'm not sure I buy his theory, however, given what is now
known about where they got the radio chips from.
The reason one might use Infineon as the vendor is that their
chipsets, both the UMTS and the older GSM versions, are physically
quite small compared to their competition. If you are tight on
space Infineon would be an advantage. The UMTS chipset also
has full band coverage (4-band GSM, 3-band UMTS), so you could
sell one product in all current markets.
The reason Apple couldn't have shipped HSDPA with Infineon as
the vendor is that Infineon's UMTS chipset was late, much later
than they were promising a couple of years ago. This is always
the risk if you design a product around vaporware vendor chips.
If there was any design scramble at all it may have been to get
the board with the older chipset in shape for FCC certification.
As for the FCC note that EGPRS is the worst case for meeting
Part 15 even if HSDPA is present; it is GSM pulsed transmission
at a high signalling rate, which is nasty for interference.
My guess would be that the reason the rumors put Asian availability
in 2008 is that in the two richest markets there 2100 MHz UMTS
is a requirement.
That's my theory, anyway. I believe Apple might have once considered
doing a CDMA phone, but the decision about that was made well before
they got around to building hardware. We'd need to hear Apple's version
of the story to know for sure, however, and that may never happen.
John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
> <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
> <reply_in_group-12EDD9.22372807072007@news.supernews.com>:
>
>> In article <280620072203091974%fort@his.com.remove.invalid> ,
>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>> first.
>> Yes we do:
>>
>> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>
> That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>
> "Move along, folks, nothing new here."
Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not fact?
Citations please.
From http://www.intomobile.com/2007/05/23...ghts-back.html
[quote]
*Verizon's iPhone Killer on the way - Verizon Fights Back!*
Verizon Wireless VP, Jim Grace, says that, “We said no [to the iPhone
offer]. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn’t
reach a deal that was mutually beneficial.” Grace says that Verizon has no
regrets about turning down the iPhone, but “Time will tell” if they made
the right decision.
From http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1420
[quote]
*Verizon iPhone could have been a reality*
USAToday's Leslie Cauley reports that as long as two years ago, Apple and
Steve Jobs held initial discussions with Verizon about the carrier becoming
exclusive distributor for the then-envisioned iPhone.
If so, we would have seen Verizon's logo all over the ad at the top, not
Cingular's.
Didn't happen.
Verizon reportedly balked, because they wanted a degree of distribution
control over the device that Apple was not willing to cede. And Apple's
stance left Verizon very concerned about how such control would effect the
carrier's stance with multi-device retail distribution partners such as
Wal-Mart and Best Buy.
The result of the failure to agree is that Cingular/AT&T, Verizon's largest
rival, will be the iPhone's exclusive distributor when the much-anticipated
device is released in June.
From http://www.iphoneonverizon.com/
[quote]
*How do you feel about Verizon passing on the iPhone?*
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.
Given the mass hysteria, it's probably not so good to be Denny Strigl this
week. He's the COO at Verizon quoted with pride about turning down the
iPhone deal
Verizon Wireless was the first company offered exclusive access to the
iPhone, but turned Apple away because of problems with the proposed
business model. Cingular had no such reservations, and will be selling
Steve Jobs' "revolution" later this year.
Verizon Communications president and chief operating officer Denny Strigl
said: "The iPhone product is something we are happy we aren't the first to
market with."
The problem seems to have been Apple's insistence in sharing the call
revenue as well as controlling distribution channels and customer service.
Verizon vice president Jim Gerace (one of many veeps at the company) said:
"We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just
couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."
From http://gracefulflavor.net/2007/01/30...h-iphone-deal/
[quote]
Translation: what that means in Verizon-speak is that Verizon wanted total
control of the iPhone’s technology, openness, distribution, customer
service, revenue sharing, and pricing. All for the privilege of letting
Jobs’ and co. use the iPhone on Verizon’s aging, non-standard CDMA network.
From http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterpri...nter_will.html
[quote]
USA Today also reported that Verizon was Apple's original choice for
wireless partner, but that Verizon wouldn't accept Apple's extraordinary
demand of an off-the-top cut of monthly subscriber revenue. That's
unprecedented. Now, with all the enthusiastic press that AT&T is scoring
from its ride in iPhone's hype wake, I expect that Verizon is wishing it
had tried just a little harder to cut a deal.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:f91n93l35cvlb26ns9l9stnvg6p8fdq153@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
> <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
> <reply_in_group-12EDD9.22372807072007@news.supernews.com>:
>
>>In article <280620072203091974%fort@his.com.remove.invalid> ,
>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>> first.
>>
>>Yes we do:
>>
>><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>
> That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
How many more do you want, stupid? I've got dozens of others from
established and reputable sources, such as this USA Today link. I have yet
to see any statement from Apple or AT&T refuting the claim by Verizon. The
reason I haven't seen one is because one doesn't exist.
>
> "Move along, folks, nothing new here."
>
Just you being shown as a liar and incompetent as usual. You should have
learned long ago that you're not smart enough to play with the big kids,
Novice.
> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs. My
> post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy (one of
> many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture of the
> situation.
Gee Scott, do you think anyone actually believes anything he posts
anyway? Arguing with him only encourages him.
----------------------------------------------------
The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that
onlookers will have trouble telling which is the nut
----------------------------------------------------
> Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not
> fact? Citations please.
LOL, right....citations from Navas. I've got a bridge to sell you.
> Verizon reportedly balked, because they wanted a degree of distribution
> control over the device that Apple was not willing to cede. And Apple's
> stance left Verizon very concerned about how such control would effect
> the carrier's stance with multi-device retail distribution partners such
> as Wal-Mart and Best Buy.
This is a big deal. Look at Radio Shack. Already reeling from the loss
of wireless business caused by their dropping of Verizon in favor of
Cingular, now they're locked out of selling the iPhone, at least initially.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:469f5c5a$0$27192$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs.
>> My post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy
>> (one of many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture
>> of the situation.
>
> Gee Scott, do you think anyone actually believes anything he posts
> anyway? Arguing with him only encourages him.
>
Gee Steve, many people do believe some of his posts- all you need to do to
see that is look at some of the responses. That is a problem if his
misinformation goes unchallenged. And you say I'm arguing with him, which
is impossible- he stopped responding directly to me some time ago. He
can't handle the truth. And if you think I'm looking for a response, I'm
not. By challenging him, it may cause some to do question his "expertise"
and research on their own before making a decision.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that
> onlookers will have trouble telling which is the nut
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
And the problem with sticking your head in the sand as you do and
pretending that the problem doesn't exist is that people walk away with the
wrong information, which could an adverse effect on their decisions. You
may be fine with that- I'm not.
Re: Why iPhone for Cingular Only? 
Linear Mode
