The two largest US cellcos went on the warpath this week with
contrasting statements about their web strategies.
Verizon Wireless formed a far reaching partnership with Google,
echoing the search giant's existing alliance with Sprint and pointing
to Android dominance of the CDMA carriers' own-branded web services
platforms, which will be vital to differentiation in the open access
world, and will take shape from 2010.
AT&T is exploring its own options to create an AT&T mobile web
experience that will compensate for falling data rates and the loss
of the usual carrier lock-in weapons -- exclusives, subsidies and
closed network/software platforms. It increasingly seems to be
distancing itself from Google and turning to a range of partners
usually more associated with European operators, from Opera to Nokia.
The three mobile web models
1.
The mobile web world is likely to break into three distinct
battlefields from next year, and major carriers will have to take
account of all three. First, the conventional smartphone approach,
where the phonemaker and carrier engage in a tug-of-war over brand
visibility and commercial relationship, but the handset itself is the
key to customer choice.
This choice increasingly rests on the availability of downloadable
apps and the overall software environment of the phone, not just
hardware features. Of course, the premier example of this in the US
has been the AT&T-iPhone relationship, which Verizon Wireless has
failed to match for impact with a branded smartphone range that
relies heavily on BlackBerry and Windows Mobile.
2.
It is likely to ally with Android manufacturers such as Motorola and
HTC to redress this balance, but its initial Android announcements,
made with Google this week ahead of the CTIA Wireless and
Entertainment show in San Diego, fall into the second mobile internet
category. This is the creation of an operator branded platform, with
a distinctive set of user interfaces, applications (with the
mandatory store) and mass market webphones.
In this model, the carrier tries to keep customers loyal by offering
a cost effective, usable and attractive web experience from which
users, especially those below the smartphone uplands, will feel
comfortable, even when not tied in by a long contract or closed
network. To make this model work at all, operators need to move well
beyond their conventional and limited portals and attract large bases
of developers and device partners - as Vodafone has epitomized with
its transition from old-style Live! to its new Vodafone 360 (see
separate item on Telco 2.0).
They also need to harness the differentiation they can derive from
their networks, opening proprietary features such as address books
and location to third party programmers. The operator branded 'smart
pipe' approach is much discussed, but actual offerings are only just
emerging -- Orange Partner, China Mobile oFone, Vodafone 360, and now
Verizon and AT&T are trying to create their own offerings.
3.
The third mobile web model could disrupt the other two in time, but
only when wireless networks have the capacity and robustness to
support vast amounts of data traffic and still generate profit for
their operators. This means WiMAX and LTE, probably both in their
next iterations, plus plentiful spectrum and advanced new networks
and devices geared to maximum efficiency.
This is the 'Google vision', where the browser replaces the functions
of the full-blown operating system and all applications are created
and run in the browser, using standard techniques like HTML 5 and
JavaScript, with data and back end processes located in the 'cloud'.
Downloads, apps optimized for specific devices or networks, and
semi-closed portals all disappear in favour of a fully open web akin
to that on the PC -- where, of course, the carrier becomes a bit pipe
rather than a smart pipe.
Current networks do not support this however, as highlighted by
Google itself in its eagerness to work closely with the carriers it
eventually seeks to sideline, pushing Android even as it develops
Chrome as the browser/OS of the future. This raises the ironic
prospect of Palm webOS being closer to the open web dream than Google
itself (see inset).
My thoughts: Almost regardless of how this plays out, Sprint and
T-Mobile risk being marginalized by the Verizon/Google vs AT&T/Apple
battle, with Palm as the wild card. A big question is how Nokia will
respond. Another big question is whether or not Microsoft can stay in
the game by reinventing Windows Mobile, which I think unlikely.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:qniuc5pdfcheegalv9eurl2mokk41q29b1@4ax.com...
> My thoughts: Almost regardless of how this plays out, Sprint and
> T-Mobile risk being marginalized by the Verizon/Google vs AT&T/Apple
> battle, with Palm as the wild card. A big question is how Nokia will
> respond. Another big question is whether or not Microsoft can stay in
> the game by reinventing Windows Mobile, which I think unlikely.
Interesting, John, though you have dismissed T-Mo's current Android
phone offerings. Why?
It's far too early to dismiss T-Mobile and Sprint. Normally you'd think
that everyone would migrate to Verizon and AT&T since they will
eventually have most of their 3G service at 800/850 MHz thus providing
better coverage than the 1900 MHz carriers. But most users simply don't
understand the differences in technology and how it affect coverage and
quality of service even when companies like AT&T explicitly state the
reason why they're moving 3G services to 800 MHz is to improve coverage.
Even now, most users, when they don't have coverage when driving, simply
assume that no one else has coverage on any carrier so why should they
switch. When you're at a public place like an airport or national park
where you're talking on the phone but someone near you can't get a
signal, is the only time they get an inkling of the vast coverage
differences between carriers. Maybe the new TV ad will have some effect,
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU"
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4acf88b4$0$1669$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Cameo wrote:
>
>> Interesting, John, though you have dismissed T-Mo's current Android phone
>> offerings. Why?
>
> If you want informed opinion on where the smart phone market is going you
> can read:
>
> "http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner"
>
> It's far too early to dismiss T-Mobile and Sprint. Normally you'd think
> that everyone would migrate to Verizon and AT&T since they will eventually
> have most of their 3G service at 800/850 MHz thus providing better
> coverage than the 1900 MHz carriers. But most users simply don't
> understand the differences in technology and how it affect coverage and
> quality of service even when companies like AT&T explicitly state the
> reason why they're moving 3G services to 800 MHz is to improve coverage.
>
> Even now, most users, when they don't have coverage when driving, simply
> assume that no one else has coverage on any carrier so why should they
> switch. When you're at a public place like an airport or national park
> where you're talking on the phone but someone near you can't get a signal,
> is the only time they get an inkling of the vast coverage differences
> between carriers. Maybe the new TV ad will have some effect,
> "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU"
The new TV ad is interesting, and makes AT&T look pretty darned bad. But
there's a problem with that TV ad for many, and that problem is that it
doesn't mirror their own reality. For me, I've been able to get 3G coverage
on my iPhone everywhere I've traveled. Now perhaps I just happen to travel
in AT&T corridors? And the few places I haven't picked up 3G I've gotten a
very good Edge signal.
I don't disbelieve the Verizon map. Verizon clearly has a better network.
I'm just not convinced that 3G towers in the desert are a huge deal for most
customers, especially if Edge coverage exists in those areas.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
In article <WridnUzAkv0gLVLXnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> , MikeJ@ChainReaction.com says...
> I don't disbelieve the Verizon map. Verizon clearly has a better
network.
> I'm just not convinced that 3G towers in the desert are a huge deal for most
> customers, especially if Edge coverage exists in those areas.
I live in the desert, and I wish T-Mo would roll out 3G here.
> I don't disbelieve the Verizon map. Verizon clearly has a better
> network. I'm just not convinced that 3G towers in the desert are a huge
> deal for most customers, especially if Edge coverage exists in those areas.
I agree. I'm happy to have any coverage at all in rural areas it doesn't
have to be 3G. In many places I've been in the Sierras there is only
CDMA coverage, no EDGE or 3G. You should not go to those places, or take
along a PagePlus phone if you really care about having at least voice
coverage. The last place outside of California I experienced a very
large coverage difference between GSM and CDMA was in Yellowstone where
I roamed on some unknown carrier on CDMA but the people we were
traveling with simply had no coverage at all. But I agree that that sort
of "in the middle of nowhere" coverage isn't a problem for people that
never venture to those places.
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:03:32 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Cameo wrote:
>
>> Interesting, John, though you have dismissed T-Mo's current Android
>> phone offerings. Why?
>
> If you want informed opinion on where the smart phone market is going
> you can read:
>
> "http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner"
>
> It's far too early to dismiss T-Mobile and Sprint. Normally you'd think
> that everyone would migrate to Verizon and AT&T since they will
> eventually have most of their 3G service at 800/850 MHz thus providing
> better coverage than the 1900 MHz carriers. But most users simply don't
> understand the differences in technology and how it affect coverage and
> quality of service even when companies like AT&T explicitly state the
> reason why they're moving 3G services to 800 MHz is to improve coverage.
>
> Even now, most users, when they don't have coverage when driving, simply
> assume that no one else has coverage on any carrier so why should they
> switch. When you're at a public place like an airport or national park
> where you're talking on the phone but someone near you can't get a
> signal, is the only time they get an inkling of the vast coverage
> differences between carriers. Maybe the new TV ad will have some effect,
> "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU"
Something else to bear in mind when thinking "coverage" is
the whole rest of the world. Just as GSM 1900 won't cut it
in Europe or Asia, neither will most US CDMA phones. So it
matters little to me whether Sprint, Verizon, or AT&T have
better coverage in US desert terrain; what does matter, is
that my cellular service provider not turn the whole rest
of the world into a desert.
That was my principal reason for signing up with VoiceStream
at the turn of this century, and a big reason for my staying
with them -- ok, with T-Mobile -- now.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> Something else to bear in mind when thinking "coverage" is
> the whole rest of the world. Just as GSM 1900 won't cut it
> in Europe or Asia, neither will most US CDMA phones. So it
> matters little to me whether Sprint, Verizon, or AT&T have
> better coverage in US desert terrain; what does matter, is
> that my cellular service provider not turn the whole rest
> of the world into a desert.
Really immaterial because when traveling to Europe or Asia even if you
had a quad-band GSM phone on T-Mobile or AT&T, you wouldn't want to pay
the roaming rates charged by T-Mobile or AT&T (or for that matter when
traveling to Asian countries that also have CDMA networks like Taiwan,
China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, etc., you wouldn't want to pay
Verizon's roaming rates).
You bring an unlocked GSM phone that works on 900/1800 and get a prepaid
SIM card when you get to your destination, or if traveling to a lot of
countries you get a global prepaid SIM card that still has far lower
rates than AT&T or T-Mobile.
If you really want to roam with your Verizon account in GSM-only
countries then Verizon has several phones that are CDMA/GSM; you get the
best of both worlds with Verizon's superior U.S. coverage on CDMA and
GSM coverage in Europe and Asia. You also get to roam in CDMA-only
countries like South Korea.
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:41:45 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> tlvp wrote:
>
>> Something else to bear in mind when thinking "coverage" is
>> the whole rest of the world. Just as GSM 1900 won't cut it
>> in Europe or Asia, neither will most US CDMA phones. So it
>> matters little to me whether Sprint, Verizon, or AT&T have
>> better coverage in US desert terrain; what does matter, is
>> that my cellular service provider not turn the whole rest
>> of the world into a desert.
>
> Really immaterial because when traveling to Europe or Asia even if you
> had a quad-band GSM phone on T-Mobile or AT&T, you wouldn't want to pay
> the roaming rates charged by T-Mobile or AT&T (or for that matter when
> traveling to Asian countries that also have CDMA networks like Taiwan,
> China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, etc., you wouldn't want to pay
> Verizon's roaming rates).
Actually, the rates passed on to me by T-Mobile for *in-country* calls
within any country I've roamed in are very reasonable -- 40-70 cents/min.
-- and the ability to receive SMS (within my bucket allowance) and to use
GPRS data without limit, both at no cost, are very attractive aspects of
the T-Mo plan I have, that no other carriers' plans seem to match.
> You bring an unlocked GSM phone that works on 900/1800 and get a prepaid
> SIM card when you get to your destination, or if traveling to a lot of
> countries you get a global prepaid SIM card that still has far lower
> rates than AT&T or T-Mobile.
That's true. But those needing to reach me in an emergency (my house has
burned down, my car's been stolen, or whatever) won't be able to without
my informing them of my new temporary SIM's number.
> If you really want to roam with your Verizon account in GSM-only
> countries then Verizon has several phones that are CDMA/GSM; you get the
> best of both worlds with Verizon's superior U.S. coverage on CDMA and
> GSM coverage in Europe and Asia. You also get to roam in CDMA-only
> countries like South Korea.
Now *that* is a new development worth my attention! Thanks for pointing it out.
Back in 2000, when I started cellular usage, Verizon (and Sprint, and Nextel)
all said "GSM? what's that?" and indicated they had inexpensive *rental* plans
for roaming *abroad*, as that wasn't possible with the domestic handsets they
were offering at that time.
So: thanks for the new information. And cheers,
-- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> That's true. But those needing to reach me in an emergency (my house has
> burned down, my car's been stolen, or whatever) won't be able to without
> my informing them of my new temporary SIM's number.
What you do is set up a Google Voice account, then you forward that
number to whatever the SIM number is of your phone, in whatever country
you're in. Your callers get a single local number that they can always
use to reach you. I did something similar with Voicestick before Google
Voice was available. It worked well, and I could give out a number to
people even before I got my prepaid SIM card.
>> If you really want to roam with your Verizon account in GSM-only
>> countries then Verizon has several phones that are CDMA/GSM; you get the
>> best of both worlds with Verizon's superior U.S. coverage on CDMA and
>> GSM coverage in Europe and Asia. You also get to roam in CDMA-only
>> countries like South Korea.
>
> Now *that* is a new development worth my attention! Thanks for pointing
<snip>
> So: thanks for the new information. And cheers,
The latest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and leader of the free world
uses a Verizon phone that works on CDMA and GSM, the BlackBerry 8830
World Edition. However there is no W-CDMA data, only EVDO data, so when
outside EVDO countries you can only get GPRS data.
On 2009-10-11, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:41:45 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Really immaterial because when traveling to Europe or Asia even if you
>> had a quad-band GSM phone on T-Mobile or AT&T, you wouldn't want to pay
>> the roaming rates charged by T-Mobile or AT&T (or for that matter when
>> traveling to Asian countries that also have CDMA networks like Taiwan,
>> China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, etc., you wouldn't want to pay
>> Verizon's roaming rates).
>
> Actually, the rates passed on to me by T-Mobile for *in-country* calls
> within any country I've roamed in are very reasonable -- 40-70 cents/min.
> -- and the ability to receive SMS (within my bucket allowance) and to use
> GPRS data without limit, both at no cost, are very attractive aspects of
> the T-Mo plan I have, that no other carriers' plans seem to match.
Umm, if I had that plan I'd keep it too, until they pried it out of my
cold, dead hands.
>> You bring an unlocked GSM phone that works on 900/1800 and get a prepaid
>> SIM card when you get to your destination, or if traveling to a lot of
>> countries you get a global prepaid SIM card that still has far lower
>> rates than AT&T or T-Mobile.
>
> That's true. But those needing to reach me in an emergency (my house has
> burned down, my car's been stolen, or whatever) won't be able to without
> my informing them of my new temporary SIM's number.
He's right that you can use a forwarding service for this (I use Skype
or Rebtel depending on which is cheaper for the phone I'm forwarding too)
but even with voice calls forwarded free roaming GPRS has great value.
>> If you really want to roam with your Verizon account in GSM-only
>> countries then Verizon has several phones that are CDMA/GSM; you get the
>> best of both worlds with Verizon's superior U.S. coverage on CDMA and
>> GSM coverage in Europe and Asia. You also get to roam in CDMA-only
>> countries like South Korea.
>
> Now *that* is a new development worth my attention! Thanks for pointing it out.
It still doesn't replace the plan you have now. If you need roaming
service in Japan or Korea try to acquire a GSM phone which supports the
2100 MHz UMTS band, it should work fine with a T-Mobile SIM of a vintage
more recent than maybe 2002. And you might find that "free roaming
GPRS" covers 3G data as well, since T-Mobile USA would have trouble
telling those apart.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ad16d31$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> The latest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and leader of the free
> world uses a Verizon phone that works on CDMA and GSM, the BlackBerry
> 8830 World Edition. However there is no W-CDMA data, only EVDO data,
> so when outside EVDO countries you can only get GPRS data.
I'm sure he even has a highly secure satellite phone.
> Umm, if I had that plan I'd keep it too, until they pried it out of my
> cold, dead hands.
Yes, that's a good deal, though intra-country calls on
"http://www.globalroaming.mobi/" are a good deal too. Free GPRS data is
an almost unbelievably good deal that should never be given up willingly.
> It still doesn't replace the plan you have now. If you need roaming
> service in Japan or Korea try to acquire a GSM phone which supports the
> 2100 MHz UMTS band, it should work fine with a T-Mobile SIM of a vintage
> more recent than maybe 2002. And you might find that "free roaming
> GPRS" covers 3G data as well, since T-Mobile USA would have trouble
> telling those apart.
It's rather amusing that some services that aren't really included or
even officially available, on some carriers are available because the
billing systems aren't that sophisticated. For example, Tracfone GSM,
and PagePlus CDMA users have been able to roam in countries where,
according to the carrier, the phone shouldn't work at all. I don't know
what Verizon does to PagePlus if a PagePlus user is roaming in China on
one of China's CDMA networks, and the Chinese network tries to bill
Verizon for roaming charges. Tracfone warns users to not roam
internationally even if they can, and will cancel service if users abuse
it. Tracfone's handsets keep track of the balance on the account and not
all foreign networks know that the users can't be billed for calls;
presumably AT&T gets stuck with paying these roaming charges, and then
bills Tracfone.
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 11:06:50 -0700, "Cameo" <cameo@cameo.invalid> wrote
in <hanu3s$vb0$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:qniuc5pdfcheegalv9eurl2mokk41q29b1@4ax.com.. .
>> My thoughts: Almost regardless of how this plays out, Sprint and
>> T-Mobile risk being marginalized by the Verizon/Google vs AT&T/Apple
>> battle, with Palm as the wild card. A big question is how Nokia will
>> respond. Another big question is whether or not Microsoft can stay in
>> the game by reinventing Windows Mobile, which I think unlikely.
>
>Interesting, John, though you have dismissed T-Mo's current Android
>phone offerings. Why?
T-Mobile has far less resources than Verizon.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:03:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4acf88b4$0$1669$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Cameo wrote:
>
>> Interesting, John, though you have dismissed T-Mo's current Android
>> phone offerings. Why?
>
>If you want informed opinion on where the smart phone market is going
>you can read:
>
>"http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner"
That's easily the silliest (and funniest) assessment I've seen spewed by
Gartner, which isn't exactly known for the accuracy of its forecasts.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:22:18 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4acfc55a$0$1598$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> I don't disbelieve the Verizon map. Verizon clearly has a better
>> network. I'm just not convinced that 3G towers in the desert are a huge
>> deal for most customers, especially if Edge coverage exists in those areas.
>
>I agree. I'm happy to have any coverage at all in rural areas it doesn't
>have to be 3G. In many places I've been in the Sierras there is only
>CDMA coverage, no EDGE or 3G. ...
The reverse is also true.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:30:39 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ad16d31$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>tlvp wrote:
>
>> That's true. But those needing to reach me in an emergency (my house has
>> burned down, my car's been stolen, or whatever) won't be able to without
>> my informing them of my new temporary SIM's number.
>
>What you do is set up a Google Voice account, then you forward that
>number to whatever the SIM number is of your phone, in whatever country
>you're in. Your callers get a single local number that they can always
>use to reach you. ...
That can be done with any decent mobile phone service,
and Google Voice isn't free for international calls.
Let me guess ... you've never actually done it --
you're speculating on this just like everything else.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:03:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4acf88b4$0$1669$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> Cameo wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting, John, though you have dismissed T-Mo's current Android
>>> phone offerings. Why?
>> If you want informed opinion on where the smart phone market is going
>> you can read:
>>
>> "http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner"
>
> That's easily the silliest (and funniest) assessment I've seen spewed by
> Gartner, which isn't exactly known for the accuracy of its forecasts.
>
Which would explain the credibility and bankability of, say, a
Gartner, Inc. (NYSE: IT) opinion, compared to that of oh, say,
"Navas Group"...
News wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:03:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <4acf88b4$0$1669$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>> Cameo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting, John, though you have dismissed T-Mo's current Android
>>>> phone offerings. Why?
>>> If you want informed opinion on where the smart phone market is going
>>> you can read:
>>>
>>> "http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner"
>>>
>>
>> That's easily the silliest (and funniest) assessment I've seen spewed by
>> Gartner, which isn't exactly known for the accuracy of its forecasts.
>>
>
>
>
> Which would explain the credibility and bankability of, say, a
> Gartner, Inc. (NYSE: IT) opinion, compared to that of oh, say,
> "Navas Group"...
Too funny. Our favorite troll, who never provides citations for
anything, and quotes himself, is criticizing Gartner.
Of course Gartner could turn out to be way off base. Apple may decide to
offer the iPhone on multiple carriers in each country, greatly
increasing their market share, while Android could be a spectacular
flop. In fact by making those predictions it could change the behavior
of the players in ways that change the outcome.
Gartner has a pretty good record in terms of the accuracy of their
forecasts. At least they seem to understand the market on which they are
reporting, unlike our favorite troll. OTOH I seriously question their
prediction on 3D printers being cheap enough for home use by 2011.
John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:31:26 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4ad3ca12$0$1670$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> Gartner has a pretty good record in terms of the accuracy of their
>> forecasts. ...
>
> Proof? Even a single example? No.
> We're expected to take your word for it,
> and you have no idea what you're talking about.
>
News wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:31:26 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <4ad3ca12$0$1670$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>> Gartner has a pretty good record in terms of the accuracy of their
>>> forecasts. ...
>>
>> Proof? Even a single example? No.
>> We're expected to take your word for it,
>> and you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
>
> Look in the mirror lately?
Gartner publishes a piece called "Looking Back" or something like that
where they review the accuracy of their predictions. Since their
business model depends on their reputation they're fairly careful not to
make any outrageous predictions but of course things change and they
don't get everything right.
Our favorite troll is just upset because what analysts predict (not just
Gartner), and what survey companies report, doesn't jive with how he
wishes things would be in the world. He's very bitter about the way
things turned out for Cingular/AT&T which is why you see him lying all
the time.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:57:07 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ad494fa$0$1654$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Our favorite troll is just upset because what analysts predict (not just
>Gartner), and what survey companies report, doesn't jive with how he
>wishes things would be in the world. He's very bitter about the way
>things turned out for Cingular/AT&T which is why you see him lying all
>the time.
The reality is that your pontifications and prognostications have been
dead wrong time and time again, and you bitterly resent having that
pointed out.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
NEWS: Verizon/Google vs AT&T/Apple 
Linear Mode
