Verizon and Apple iPhone

Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:15:32 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> When Apple and Cingular are raking in the bucks next fall, and Verizon
>>> decides it wants a piece of the action, what Verizon VP will get
>>> canned because the 5 year Cingular USA exclusivity contract precludes
>>> it?
>> No real evidence of that. Verizon and Cingular were probably approached
>> by Apple at the same time. That's a standard practice, commonly
>> referred to as a "bidding war".
>
> And there is no real evidence of a "bidding war" either, is there?

All the evidence is that things occurred as the news reports state.
Apple first approached Verizon, but could not reach an agreement, then
they approached Cingular.

---

› See More: Verizon and Apple iPhone

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
>>And have a nice day.
>
>
> I'll be awaiting your apology.
>
> http://www.engadgetmobile.com/category/apple/
>
> Verizon was Apple's first choice; then Verizon blew it.

In fairness that Engadget piece appears to be based entirely on the same USA
Today article from 1/29/2007.


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
>>> And have a nice day.
>>
>> I'll be awaiting your apology.
>>
>> http://www.engadgetmobile.com/category/apple/
>>
>> Verizon was Apple's first choice; then Verizon blew it.
>
> In fairness that Engadget piece appears to be based entirely on the same USA
> Today article from 1/29/2007.

Which no one from Apple or Cingular has disputed.

Let's face it, Navas is upset because Cingular was the second choice,
even though when you look at the quarterly results of both companies
it's crystal clear why Apple went to Verizon first. Would you rather
market a new handset to a carrier that signs up 2.1 million new contract
customer per quarter, or to a carrier that signs up well under 1 million
new contract customers per quarter? Do the math.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tinman wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
>>>> And have a nice day.
>>>
>>> I'll be awaiting your apology.
>>>
>>> http://www.engadgetmobile.com/category/apple/
>>>
>>> Verizon was Apple's first choice; then Verizon blew it.
>>
>> In fairness that Engadget piece appears to be based entirely on the same
>> USA Today article from 1/29/2007.
>
> Which no one from Apple or Cingular has disputed.
>
> Let's face it, Navas is upset because Cingular was the second choice,

I don't personally care whom was first choice; that ship has sailed. But the
fact remains that the Engadget link provided nothing but more ammunition for
Navas to knock down. For *sure* it ain't gonna trigger an apology (just the
opposite--unless he reads this first <g>).


> even though when you look at the quarterly results of both companies it's
> crystal clear why Apple went to Verizon first. Would you rather market a
> new handset to a carrier that signs up 2.1 million new contract customer
> per quarter, or to a carrier that signs up well under 1 million new
> contract customers per quarter? Do the math.

The math was done long before Q4 2006, don't you think? Not saying you're
incorrect, just pointing out that these discussions likely started back in
Q1/Q2 2005 (at least with Verizon).


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:

> The math was done long before Q4 2006, don't you think? Not saying you're
> incorrect, just pointing out that these discussions likely started back in
> Q1/Q2 2005 (at least with Verizon).

Of course, but the numbers have been similar for many quarters. Verizon
has been signing up far more new contract customers, the high value
customers that would be likely to buy an iPhone. When you launch a new
product, you go for the biggest TAM (total available market).

As one analyst put it, "Verizon continues to take significant market
share from Cingular in the retail postpaid market."

Maybe Apple also looked at the differences in quality of the network as
well, especially the much larger high speed data network. Maybe they
didn't include HSDPA in the iPhone because the HSDPA network coverage
lags EV-DO by so much.

Whatever the reasons, it's exceedingly amusing to see Navas come up with
all of his rationalizations...again.

At 01 Feb 2007 10:10:24 -0500 Don Udel (ETC) wrote:

> And there is no real evidence of a "bidding war" either, is there?

No, there isn't. More likely, since this was two years ago, I'm guessing
that Apple approached both carriers (and probably others) in the
"concept" phase of design to gauge the carriers receptiveness to Apple's
unconventional marketing ideas. Seemingly, Verizon all but slammed the
door on them, leaving Cingular as the carrier to negotiate seriously with.

I assume Apple only went the "exclusive" route as a bargaining chip to
getting their demands. They could have also sold it unlocked via their
existing sales channels, or else went the MVNO route a la Amp'd or Disney
Mobile. I'm assuming they considered those options as well.

People shouldn't forget that this was a pure business decision- it had
nothing to do with who's the "best" carrier or even the best "fit"
technologically. It was all about who gave Apple the best deal _for
Apple_, and that, apparently, was Cingular.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-02-01, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The math was done long before Q4 2006, don't you think? Not saying you're
>>> incorrect, just pointing out that these discussions likely started back in
>>> Q1/Q2 2005 (at least with Verizon).
>> Of course, but the numbers have been similar for many quarters. Verizon
>> has been signing up far more new contract customers, the high value
>> customers that would be likely to buy an iPhone. When you launch a new
>> product, you go for the biggest TAM (total available market).
>
> Exactly. But Apple has worldwide selling power, and if they goal was
> the biggest total addressable market with a single initial product then
> a GSM product can't be topped.

It's pretty trivial to switch the radio portion of a design from CDMA to
GSM, there are many phones that are available in both technologies. If
Apple was worried about only doing one initial product, then they would
have approached Cingular and not bothered with going to Verizon first.

> Any dalliance with Verizon would have
> meant they'd need to develop a second model to put on the shelves in
> Europe and Asia, so even if we accept that Verizon somehow has an advantage
> in the US which might make up for its smaller subscriber numbers,

Verizon actually has more postpaid subscribers than Cingular, and
continues to sign up more than 2x as many new postpaid customers every
quarter. Clearly Apple looked at these numbers and it was part of the
reason that they went to Verizon first.

Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> *snip*
> >Would you rather
>> market a new handset to a carrier that signs up 2.1 million new contract
>> customer per quarter, or to a carrier that signs up well under 1 million
>> new contract customers per quarter? Do the math.
>
> I think it's a little more complicated than who adds more new contracts a
> month, although I'm fairly sure that would enter into it. I think I'd be
> more interested in who was selling more high end phones.

Verizon has far more high-end corporate customers buying PDA phones, but
I'm not sure how material that is, since the iPhone really isn't
designed for that market. The iPhone is more of an entertainment device,
because it lacks a lot of PDA functionality, and the corporate
applications such as _Corporate Time_ won't run on it.

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


>>
>>Which no one from Apple or Cingular has disputed.
>
> Which means nothing.

No- it means that neither Apple or Cingular has pointed out any
inconsistencies in the account. Cingular has proven its tendency to point
out factual errors made by their competition.


>
>>Let's face it, Navas is upset because Cingular was the second choice,
>
> My only actual concern is for the truth.
>

Now that is funny!!!!! You wouldn't know the truth if it came up to you
with a name tag on and bit you in the ass.

At 02 Feb 2007 19:18:34 -0500 Andy S wrote:

> VZW was approached TWO years ago

Probably as was Cingular (and perhaps others.) Deals li
e these don't happen overnight.

At 07 Feb 2007 16:11:16 -0500 Andy S wrote:

> Can you not see the forest for the trees, John?
> I cited three sources, and added a link to google.

To be fair, all of the various "sources" are rehashing each other. If
someone stands at a podium and gives a press conference and 30 reporters
report on it, that's still one "source" of the story.

It might not be good enough for John, but as I've already posted, I feel
that until someone from Apple or Cingular denies it, (rather than
"decline to comment") it's the gospel so far.

> How about I look it up for you on wireless week. would that be better.
> or maybe RCR. Would a cite from the CTIA be sufficient?

Frankly, if they're all printing the same quotes from the Verizon VP as
everyone else did, since it's still all one source.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 07 Feb 2007 16:11:16 -0500 Andy S wrote:
>
>> Can you not see the forest for the trees, John?
>> I cited three sources, and added a link to google.
>
> To be fair, all of the various "sources" are rehashing each other. If
> someone stands at a podium and gives a press conference and 30 reporters
> report on it, that's still one "source" of the story.
>
> It might not be good enough for John, but as I've already posted, I feel
> that until someone from Apple or Cingular denies it, (rather than
> "decline to comment") it's the gospel so far.
>
>> How about I look it up for you on wireless week. would that be better.
>> or maybe RCR. Would a cite from the CTIA be sufficient?
>
> Frankly, if they're all printing the same quotes from the Verizon VP as
> everyone else did, since it's still all one source.

Apple is very good about immediately disputing any story that concerns
them, if there are any inaccuracies. I know the Apple corporate
spokesperson, who says that it's corporate policy to correct any
mis-statements in the press.

It's a very safe bet to say that the original story was accurate since
neither Cingular or Apple has disputed it.

decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> How silly. Silence isn't confirmation of anything, no matter what you
>> may think.
>
>
> Coming from a person that admonishes for anti-Cingular trolling.

The lack of a response to a negative story is indeed a confirmation that
indeed the facts of the story are true. Especially when the entities
have a history of quickly responding to negative publicity about them,
to deny what was written is true.