Consumer Reports study garners rave reviews for iPhone

4phun wrote:
> Consumer Reports study garners rave reviews for iPhone
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...rave_revi.html
>
> Apple's iPhone won best-phone honors in a new Consumer Reports study.
>
> The results were part of a nationwide survey of more than 47,000
> readers in 20 metro areas that appears in the magazine's upcoming
> issue.
>
Strange, ATT seems to be one of the lower-ranked Telcos out there.

Apple should have tried harder to sign with Verzion (since Apple went to
Verizon first, but was rejected because of the iPhone's lack of key featues)

---

› See More: Consumer Reports study garners rave reviews for iPhone

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:00:11 -0600, Jon <[email protected]> wrote:

>4phun wrote:
>> Consumer Reports study garners rave reviews for iPhone
>>
>> http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...rave_revi.html
>>
>> Apple's iPhone won best-phone honors in a new Consumer Reports study.
>>
>> The results were part of a nationwide survey of more than 47,000
>> readers in 20 metro areas that appears in the magazine's upcoming
>> issue.
>>
>Strange, ATT seems to be one of the lower-ranked Telcos out there.
>
>Apple should have tried harder to sign with Verzion (since Apple went to
>Verizon first, but was rejected because of the iPhone's lack of key featues)


Wrong, Verizon rejected having to pay a percentage of revenue to
Apple. Nice try at rewriting history.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/3124/

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/...ed.by.verizon/

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 05:08:02 -0800 (PST), 4phun <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Dec 9, 1:00 am, Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 4phun wrote:
>> > Consumer Reports study garners rave reviews for iPhone
>>
>> >http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...consumer_repor...
>>
>> > Apple's iPhone won best-phone honors in a new Consumer Reports study.
>>
>> > The results were part of a nationwide survey of more than 47,000
>> > readers in 20 metro areas that appears in the magazine's upcoming
>> > issue.
>>
>> Strange, ATT seems to be one of the lower-ranked Telcos out there.
>>
>> Apple should have tried harder to sign with Verzion (since Apple went to
>> Verizon first, but was rejected because of the iPhone's lack of key featues)
>
>Jon what fantasy world do you live in? Did Verizon ever reject any
>phone for lack of features? Hello, isn't Verizon the single most hated
>company by knowledgeable geeks because they remove features that
>phones have on other carriers so they can merely sell them back to the
>poor consumer as additions to their Verizon cellular contracts and
>rate plans?
>
>AT&T making the bold move to get rid of the contract requirement for
>all new customers (except for iPhone) really shows they are open to
>new competition based on service alone.
>Cellular Contracts are the single most hated item by the public
>according to the Consumer's Report. Since AT&T has the most remarkable
>cellular phone in history it makes sense they that they continue to
>lock it into their network. But they do that even with a hint of grace
>as the AT&T unlimited useage data plan for the iPhone is less than the
>cost of data on the other phones they provide service for.


Not true the PDA Connect plan is $19.99 for other
non 3G similarly featured cell phones.

Ron wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:00:11 -0600, Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 4phun wrote:
>>> Consumer Reports study garners rave reviews for iPhone
>>>
>>> http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...rave_revi.html
>>>
>>> Apple's iPhone won best-phone honors in a new Consumer Reports study.
>>>
>>> The results were part of a nationwide survey of more than 47,000
>>> readers in 20 metro areas that appears in the magazine's upcoming
>>> issue.
>>>
>> Strange, ATT seems to be one of the lower-ranked Telcos out there.
>>
>> Apple should have tried harder to sign with Verzion (since Apple went to
>> Verizon first, but was rejected because of the iPhone's lack of key featues)
>
>
> Wrong, Verizon rejected having to pay a percentage of revenue to
> Apple. Nice try at rewriting history.
>
> http://www.legitreviews.com/news/3124/
>
> http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/...ed.by.verizon/
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

Hmm, lets see, would a cell company that is leading the wireless data
market choose to take a phone that uses older and outdated data
connections and cant even do MMS?

I sure as hell would not.

4phun <[email protected]> wrote in
news:c8c50666-5819-4231-9e87-cc0e4c50e941@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 9, 8:50 am, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:00:11 -0600, Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >4phun wrote:
>> >> Consumer Reports study garners rave reviews for iPhone
>>
>> >>http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200..._consumer_repo
>> >>r...
>>
>> >> Apple's iPhone won best-phone honors in a new Consumer Reports
>> >> study.
>>
>> >> The results were part of a nationwide survey of more than 47,000
>> >> readers in 20 metro areas that appears in the magazine's upcoming
>> >> issue.
>>
>> >Strange, ATT seems to be one of the lower-ranked Telcos out there.
>>
>> >Apple should have tried harder to sign with Verzion (since Apple
>> >went to Verizon first, but was rejected because of the iPhone's lack
>> >of key featues)
>>
>> Wrong, Verizon rejected having to pay a percentage of revenue to
>> Apple. Nice try at rewriting history.
>>
>
> Let us not distort the facts, Ron. Apple gets the normal residual due
> any cell phone dealer from AT&T.

Umm- no. Sorry, Oxtard- their level of corporate greed in this instance is
far above the norm.

> If Verizon was hung up on that then I
> hate to be a Verizon cellphone dealer who would have to worry about
> being cut off from his due commisions for selling a Verizon cellular
> plan.

Apple is not a dealer- they are a phone rpovider. If you knew anything
about the in dustry you'd know that. You'd also know the difference
between a commission and the blackmail Apple is getting.

>
>
> Since the iPhone only can be bought from AT&T or an Apple store they
> get that commission a cell store gets.

No- they get much more.

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:54:24 -0600, Jon <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ron wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:00:11 -0600, Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 4phun wrote:
>>>> Consumer Reports study garners rave reviews for iPhone
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...rave_revi.html
>>>>
>>>> Apple's iPhone won best-phone honors in a new Consumer Reports study.
>>>>
>>>> The results were part of a nationwide survey of more than 47,000
>>>> readers in 20 metro areas that appears in the magazine's upcoming
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>> Strange, ATT seems to be one of the lower-ranked Telcos out there.
>>>
>>> Apple should have tried harder to sign with Verzion (since Apple went to
>>> Verizon first, but was rejected because of the iPhone's lack of key featues)
>>
>>
>> Wrong, Verizon rejected having to pay a percentage of revenue to
>> Apple. Nice try at rewriting history.
>>
>> http://www.legitreviews.com/news/3124/
>>
>> http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/...ed.by.verizon/
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>
>Hmm, lets see, would a cell company that is leading the wireless data
>market choose to take a phone that uses older and outdated data
>connections and cant even do MMS?
>
>I sure as hell would not.

Fine, but try reading the URLs I posted, rather than reinventing
history.

Verizon's rejection had zero to do with Technology, and everything
to do with a wrong (as it now turns out) economic projection.

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:28:04 -0600, CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

>4phun <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:c8c50666-5819-4231-9e87-cc0e4c50e941@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Dec 9, 8:50 am, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:00:11 -0600, Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >4phun wrote:
>>> >> Consumer Reports study garners rave reviews for iPhone
>>>
>>> >>http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200..._consumer_repo
>>> >>r...
>>>
>>> >> Apple's iPhone won best-phone honors in a new Consumer Reports
>>> >> study.
>>>
>>> >> The results were part of a nationwide survey of more than 47,000
>>> >> readers in 20 metro areas that appears in the magazine's upcoming
>>> >> issue.
>>>
>>> >Strange, ATT seems to be one of the lower-ranked Telcos out there.
>>>
>>> >Apple should have tried harder to sign with Verzion (since Apple
>>> >went to Verizon first, but was rejected because of the iPhone's lack
>>> >of key featues)
>>>
>>> Wrong, Verizon rejected having to pay a percentage of revenue to
>>> Apple. Nice try at rewriting history.
>>>
>>
>> Let us not distort the facts, Ron. Apple gets the normal residual due
>> any cell phone dealer from AT&T.
>
>Umm

And why wodid you snip out the URLs that prove you wrong?


http://www.legitreviews.com/news/3124/

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/...ed.by.verizon/

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>
>> If Verizon was hung up on that then I
>> hate to be a Verizon cellphone dealer who would have to worry about
>> being cut off from his due commisions for selling a Verizon cellular
>> plan.
>
>Apple is not a dealer- they are a phone rpovider. If you knew anything
>about the in dustry you'd know that. You'd also know the difference
>between a commission and the blackmail Apple is getting.
>
>>
>>
>> Since the iPhone only can be bought from AT&T or an Apple store they
>> get that commission a cell store gets.
>
>No- they get much more.