Re: Verizon and the Iphone

[cross-posted from ba.internet]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:51:29 -0700, Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in
<139kum25mh54b3d@corp.supernews.com>:

>There are an interesting twist with Verizon and the Iphone
>
>AT&T wireless is a division (or wholly owned subsidiary) of AT&T. The
>same is not true of Verizon Wireless and Verizon. VZW is 55% Verizon
>and 45% Vodafone.
>
>According to the Vodaphone website:
>
>Vodafone Group Plc is the world's leading mobile telecommunications
>company, with a significant presence in Europe, the Middle East, Africa,
>Asia Pacific and the United States through the Company's subsidiary
>undertakings, joint ventures, associated undertakings and investments.
>
>Multiple news sources report that Vodafone seems to be one of leading
>contenders for the Iphone in Europe. It will be interesting to see how
>this plays out. Vodaphone is much larger than the other contender
>(T-mobile) so it would be in Apple's best interest to cut the deal.

If it happens, it will be a painful irony for Verizon Wireless, which
lost out on the iPhone at least in part because of its dependence on
US-centric CDMA2000. But O2 is now being mentioned as the initial
iPhone carrier in the UK, with other carriers in France and Germany:

"O2 gets iPhone rumours resurface with talk of £178 million investment"
<http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/8738/9762/O2-gets-iPhone-rumours-again.phtml>

The rumours suggesting that O2 will be the operator to get Apple's
iPhone in the UK have made a come-back.

The original reports were denied by O2 and given the "no-comment"
treatment by Apple.

Intelligence from Thomson Financial, citing a Spanish newspaper that
attributes the info to unnamed sources, states that an agreement
between the two firms has been reached.

Apparently, O2 will get the exclusive right to sell the iPhone in the
UK and have committed £178 million overall to do so.

[MORE]

"O2 has won iPhone UK contract: reports"
<http://www.enn.ie/article/66703.html>

"Apple to Partner with O2 in UK, Orange in France, No 3G?"
<http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/04/apple-to-partner-with-o2-for-iphone-uk-orange-in-france/>

"O2 beats rivals in battle for the rights to Apple’s iPhone"
<http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article2028678.ece>

The deal will come as a bitter disappointment to Vodafone,
which had been tipped as the front-runner for the deal.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:3j0n93drvjc8cmqma3144jatn7462erqqd@4ax.com:



>
> If it happens, it will be a painful irony for Verizon Wireless, which
> lost out on the iPhone at least in part because of its dependence on
> US-centric CDMA2000.

Network configuration had nothing to do with the decision. Verizon turned
down Apple due to the high costs of having exclusive rights to the product.

Gee, Novice- you seem to be getting it all wrong today.

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:C4Odncch7oBJCgbbnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:3j0n93drvjc8cmqma3144jatn7462erqqd@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>>
>> If it happens, it will be a painful irony for Verizon Wireless, which
>> lost out on the iPhone at least in part because of its dependence on
>> US-centric CDMA2000.
>
> Network configuration had nothing to do with the decision. Verizon turned
> down Apple due to the high costs of having exclusive rights to the
> product.
>
> Gee, Novice- you seem to be getting it all wrong today.

He said "in part". His story is at least as credible as yours. More so
actually.

-Frank

Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <C4Odncch7oBJCgbbnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@adelphia.com>, Scott
> <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> Network configuration had nothing to do with the decision.
>> Verizon turned down Apple due to the high costs of having
>> exclusive rights to the product.
>
> My guess is that Verizon wanted to cripple the thing like they do
> the rest of their hardware - so you have to pay them to do simple
> things like transfer wallpaper and ringtones.

Why would you have to pay to transfer wallpaper and ringtones? I don't
have to pay to do these things, there's no need to do so.

http://www.howardforums.com
http://mark.cdmaforums.com/



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

At 16 Jul 2007 18:58:47 -0700 Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> My guess is that Verizon wanted to cripple the thing like they do the
> rest of their hardware - so you have to pay them to do simple things
> like transfer wallpaper and ringtones.

I doubt it was the CDMA technology, since Apple surely knew the
technology Verizon used when they talked, I don't think "crippling" was a
factor either- Verizon tends not to cripple their higher-end phones (like
the VX-6700, for example.)

My guess is that Verizon didn't like Apple's distribution and commission
ideas- Apple is handling support and exchange, and reportedly gets a
monthly commission on AT&T's revenues from iPhone customers.

Thae monthly commission is probably why distribution of the iPhone is
currently from Apple and AT&T corporate stores only- way back when I was
a Cingular dealer, Cingular paid the dealer a monthly commission on that
dealer's customer's payments- I assume they still do. I also assume
Cingular doesn't want to pay two commissions, so they left the dealers
out of the iPhone business, paying Apple as if they were the "dealer" of
all iPhone customers. If I was still a Cingular dealer, I'd be pretty
P.O.'ed right now being left out of benefitting from the best selling
phone they've ever had. The lost sales opportunities of Cingular's
dealer base is two fold- they don't just miss out on iPhone sales, but
any sales that AT&T will make from customers who come in to look at the
iPhone, then opt for a cheaper music phone like a Sync.

Perhaps Verizon didn't want to lose any distribution control of "their"
handsets, or perhaps they valued their dealers enough not to give them
the middle finger with respect to opportunity or commissions.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Frankster wrote:
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:C4Odncch7oBJCgbbnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:3j0n93drvjc8cmqma3144jatn7462erqqd@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> If it happens, it will be a painful irony for Verizon Wireless,
>>> which lost out on the iPhone at least in part because of its
>>> dependence on US-centric CDMA2000.
>>
>> Network configuration had nothing to do with the decision. Verizon
>> turned down Apple due to the high costs of having exclusive rights
>> to the product.
>>
>> Gee, Novice- you seem to be getting it all wrong today.
>
> He said "in part". His story is at least as credible as yours. More so
> actually.
>
Not at all Frank. Scott is correct, at least in my understanding of this.
CDMA vs. GSm had nothing to do with it, not even "in part". Some people like
to believe that Aplle/iPhone is so great that they got to turn Verizon down.
However, based on what I've read, quite the opposite is true. One example
follows here:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

Don't sell Verizon short. I'm pissed that they didn't get iPhone, but I
understand their business decision. Apple tried demanding way too much.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <C4Odncch7oBJCgbbnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@adelphia.com>, Scott
> <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> Network configuration had nothing to do with the decision. Verizon
>> turned down Apple due to the high costs of having exclusive rights
>> to the product.
>
> My guess is that Verizon wanted to cripple the thing like they do the
> rest of their hardware - so you have to pay them to do simple things
> like transfer wallpaper and ringtones.

Nope. Read the article I posted the link to earlier. There are others if you
don't respect just a single source. If you guys googled a little, you'd
actually have facts to argue with instead of "guess".

Sorry for the seeming arrogance in my reply, but I've seen way too much of
this misinformation posted. I have no stock in Verizon by the way.