Why iPhone for Cingular Only?

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> 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.

---

› See More: Why iPhone for Cingular Only?

John, John, John.....

The only "spin" here is yours.

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa"
>><[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> 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.
>

Google is your friend, Zippy.

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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 <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>

> >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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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).

Dennis Ferguson

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:25:05 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On 2007-07-18, SMS <[email protected]> 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.

--
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 <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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.

What he will say is "Rubbish" I'm sure.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> 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.


BZZZZZZZZ....... top posting alert.

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&"

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in news:23uni.23250
[email protected]:

> What he will say is "Rubbish" I'm sure.
>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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.