Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal

John Navas wrote:
>
> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
> -- it's confusing. Thanks.
>

Strange comment from a top-poster, who should rather excuse himself for bucking USENET convention.

--
SlobbyDon

---

› See More: Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal

Replied inline...


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There is _no_ evidence that negotiations with Verizon took place
> _before_ negotiations with Cingular,

....and I never made that SPECIFIC claim....
....and I DID say "only a guess".


> and they almost certainly took
> place at the same time as part of a "bidding war".

Sure, possible...

> Since Apple is a
> worldwide company, and since GSM/UMTS dominates the worldwide market,
> GSM is a much better opportunity for the iPhone than CDMA2000, and thus
> Cingular is the logical choice for Apple, especially given that it's the
> largest US carrier.
>
> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
> -- it's confusing. Thanks.

I'm too old to change, It's obvious you'll read it no matter which way it's
posted..


> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:09:57 GMT, "Remove This"
> <[email protected]> wrote in <VRLvh.4454$Pk5.2367@trndny04>:
>
>>My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
>>would've loved to have
>>VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had
>>to
>>be made...
>>
>>Like I said, only a guess....
>
>>"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:45be9bb1$0$68949
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> LOL, Verizon probably wanted to disable the transfer of audio, photos,
>>>> video and ringtones from the computer to the phone, like they've done
>>>> on
>>>> most of the handsets they sell, demanding that iPhone owners send all
>>>> their content to the phone over the cellular network, rather than via
>>>> USB, Bluetooth, or WiFi.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you suppose Steve Jobs had a VZW hobbled-up phone, before, and didn't
>>> wanna get blamed for VZW turning it into a PoS?....hee hee...
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

True.. (And that's the kind of reply to a post I can appreciate.)
--
I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "



"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Remove This wrote:
>> My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
>> would've loved to have
>> VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had
>> to be made...
>
> I doubt it. The part of the iPhone that would be CDMA or GSM is a very
> small part of the total product. There are a great many phones that are
> available in both GSM and CDMA.

In article <[email protected]>,
"SlobbyDon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> John Navas wrote:
> >
> > p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
> > -- it's confusing. Thanks.
> >
>
> Strange comment from a top-poster, who should rather excuse himself for
> bucking USENET convention.

Th Miscrosoft support groups love top-posting. I got yelled at by one of
the moderators for bottom posting in the Mac Office group.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:31:40 GMT, "SlobbyDon"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
>> -- it's confusing. Thanks.
>
>Strange comment from a top-poster, who should rather excuse himself for bucking USENET convention.

I'm actually a bottom poster (as you would find with even the tiniest
bit of checking), but switching posting styles in mid-thread is rude no
matter which style you believe in, so I stick with top posting when
responding to a top posting.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:13:43 GMT, "Remove This"
<[email protected]> wrote in <XFNvh.20811$Mx4.14113@trndny07>:

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

>> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread
>> -- it's confusing. Thanks.
>
>I'm too old to change,

Just plain stubborn? Or deliberately rude?

>It's obvious you'll read it no matter which way it's
>posted..

I actually tend to just skip over top postings on the assumption that
the author is too clueless to be worth the time.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

There's actually quite a bit of difference between GSM and CDMA2000
which results in a substantial amount of additional engineering,
certification, manufacturing, and marketing costs, substantial
commonality notwithstanding. (Even apparently dissimilar phones can
have a great deal of commonality as they tend to be built on standard
platforms.) If it were really that cheap and easy, Nokia wouldn't have
abandoned the CDMA2000 market. (Steven argues both sides of an issue
depending on how it best fits his pro-CDMA2000, anti-GSM agenda.)

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:15:01 GMT, "Remove This"
<[email protected]> wrote in <9HNvh.2418$Xf4.2367@trndny09>:

>True.. (And that's the kind of reply to a post I can appreciate.)

>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Remove This wrote:
>>> My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
>>> would've loved to have
>>> VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had
>>> to be made...
>>
>> I doubt it. The part of the iPhone that would be CDMA or GSM is a very
>> small part of the total product. There are a great many phones that are
>> available in both GSM and CDMA.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
>
> I actually tend to just skip over top postings on the assumption that
> the author is too clueless to be worth the time.

I read the top postings if they make sense without the quoted text which is seldom cut down to the essentials.

--
SlobbyDon

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

> There is _no_ evidence that negotiations with Verizon took place
> _before_ negotiations with Cingular,

And there is no evidence to the contrary, either.



> and they almost certainly took
> place at the same time as part of a "bidding war".


There is no evidence to support this claim.



> Since Apple is a
> worldwide company, and since GSM/UMTS dominates the worldwide market,
> GSM is a much better opportunity for the iPhone than CDMA2000, and
> thus Cingular is the logical choice for Apple, especially given that
> it's the largest US carrier.


Then why go to Verizon at all? Another case where your circular logic
doesn't support the facts.

Scott wrote:

> There is no evidence to support this claim.

In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
out of character. Jobs is, above all, a businessman. He looked at which
carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
and went to them first. It'd be one thing if the two top carriers were
fairly close in terms of new contract customers, but they're not.
Verizon consistently tops Cingular by more than a two to one margin for
new post-paid customers, the most valuable kind.

Personally I think Verizon was probably foolish for turning Apple down,
because the iPhone customers will be very high ARPU customers. Yes,
Apple is a demanding partner, but think of an iPhone with EV-DO as
opposed to EDGE.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
> out of character. Jobs is, above all, a businessman. He looked at which
> carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
> and went to them first. It'd be one thing if the two top carriers were
> fairly close in terms of new contract customers, but they're not.
> Verizon consistently tops Cingular by more than a two to one margin for
> new post-paid customers, the most valuable kind.

Most likely he went to both carriers in the beginning to see which ones
he could work with. Both are in the same ballpark size-wise. But if he
were going to pick one it is more likely he would have went to Cingular
first because of the GSM and it's bigger global footprint.

I wish they could have worked out a deal with Verizon because Cingular
does not cut it for my needs here, and I would like an iPhone. I still
might get it and become a Cingular customer and keep Verizon too. I
know many with both services because Verizon is the best here but they
need GSM for International use.

--
Charles

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:56:11 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> There is no evidence to support this claim.
>
>In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
>out of character.

It's actually standard practice at Apple, as its partners and suppliers
know.

>Jobs is, above all, a businessman.

Which is why he would play one carrier off against the other. To do
otherwise would be leaving money on the table.

>He looked at which
>carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
>and went to them first. ...

No evidence of that, and what actually matters most is the size of the
subscriber base, the source of upgrades, not new sign-ups.

>Personally I think Verizon was probably foolish for turning Apple down,
>because the iPhone customers will be very high ARPU customers. Yes,
>Apple is a demanding partner, but think of an iPhone with EV-DO as
>opposed to EDGE.

At least we agree on something -- getting outbid by Cingular on the
iPhone may well prove to be the dumbest move Verizon has made in a long
time.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:18:38 -0500, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
<300120072118389796%[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, SMS
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In fact, it is highly unlikely that Apple would do this, as it's very
>> out of character. Jobs is, above all, a businessman. He looked at which
>> carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
>> and went to them first. It'd be one thing if the two top carriers were
>> fairly close in terms of new contract customers, but they're not.
>> Verizon consistently tops Cingular by more than a two to one margin for
>> new post-paid customers, the most valuable kind.
>
>Most likely he went to both carriers in the beginning to see which ones
>he could work with. Both are in the same ballpark size-wise. But if he
>were going to pick one it is more likely he would have went to Cingular
>first because of the GSM and it's bigger global footprint.

Yep.

--
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]:

>
> Which is why he would play one carrier off against the other. To do
> otherwise would be leaving money on the table.

What money is he leaving on the table. He is producing a phone, not
getting a cut of revenue. A $500 phone on the Cingular network will earn
Apple as much money as a $500 phone on the Verizon network.


>
>>He looked at which
>>carrier signs up the most customers each quarter for post-paid service,
>>and went to them first. ...
>
> No evidence of that, and what actually matters most is the size of the
> subscriber base, the source of upgrades, not new sign-ups.

The world acording to John Novice.


>
>>Personally I think Verizon was probably foolish for turning Apple down,
>>because the iPhone customers will be very high ARPU customers. Yes,
>>Apple is a demanding partner, but think of an iPhone with EV-DO as
>>opposed to EDGE.
>
> At least we agree on something -- getting outbid by Cingular on the
> iPhone may well prove to be the dumbest move Verizon has made in a long
> time.
>

Where is it referenced that any bidding occurred? Could it be more likely
that Verizon passed on the technology because it really isn't as cutting
edge as Apple would like people to think it is?

Silly me, but the idea of a $500 phone seems absurd.


"Billybobh3" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal
> Updated 1/29/2007 9:50 AM ET
>
>
>
> By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
> NEW YORK - 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.
> Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly
> cellphone fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control
> of the relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon
> Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the
> Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."
>
> Verizon's decision to pull the plug on talks sent Apple into the
> waiting arms of Cingular, which will be the exclusive U.S. carrier for the
> iPhone. The multifunction device is expected to ship in June and cost
> about $500.
>
> Apple and Cingular (which now is solely owned by AT&T and adopting
> that brand name) have declined to discuss terms of their alliance. But the
> Apple-Verizon talks offer a peek into the computer giant's thinking.
>
> According to Verizon, Apple CEO Steve Jobs insisted that he have hard
> control over iPhone distribution.
>
> The problem? While Apple and Verizon stores would have it, Wal-Mart,
> Best Buy and other Verizon distributors could have been left out. "That
> would have put our own distribution partners at a disadvantage" to Apple
> and Verizon stores, Gerace said.
>
> Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire, Apple
> wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair the phone. "They
> would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point
> where we would have almost had to take a back seat . on hardware and
> service support," Gerace says.
>
> Cingular won't talk about the financial terms or say how long its
> iPhone exclusivity lasts, but two people with direct knowledge of the deal
> say it's a five-year contract. The exclusive is USA-only, leaving Apple
> free to market its iPhone globally.
>
> Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman, declined to comment on any
> aspect of this story.
>
> Mark Siegel, a Cingular spokesman, said, "We think this is a win for
> Apple, and it is a win for Cingular."
>
> Siegel declined to comment on customer care plans but said Cingular
> would field calls related to the wireless service. "I don't want to leave
> the impression that these (iPhone) customers are not ours. They are."
>
> Siegel would not say whether Cingular distributors, which include
> Wal-Mart and RadioShack, would get the iPhone. The deal announcement
> referred only to Cingular and Apple stores and their websites.
>
>
>