Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28
  1. #1
    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?

    And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.



    See More: Verizon and Apple iPhone




  2. #2
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    [email protected] wrote:
    > 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?
    >
    > And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.


    Presumably Verizon knew what they were giving up when they passed on the
    iPhone. Perhaps their analysis showed that a $600 handset that lacked
    basic PDA functions, and that didn't have high speed data, wouldn't sell
    in sufficient quantities, even when promoted by a rock star, or that it
    would be very successful for Apple, but not bring much revenue to Verizon.

    It's not like there won't be other phones with similar functionality to
    the iPhone available, we've already seen that some are coming.

    Cingular was more willing to accede to Apple's demands because Cingular
    lags Verizon by a huge margin in new post-paid customers. Cingular can
    brag about having the most customers, but a lot of those customers are
    low margin, low ARPU, prepaid customers.



  3. #3
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    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?
    >
    >And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.


    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".

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



  4. #4
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:03:41 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >> 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?
    >>
    >> And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.

    >
    >Presumably Verizon knew what they were giving up when they passed on the
    >iPhone.


    Translation: Outbid by Cingular.

    >Perhaps their analysis showed that a $600 handset that lacked
    >basic PDA functions, and that didn't have high speed data, wouldn't sell
    >in sufficient quantities, even when promoted by a rock star, or that it
    >would be very successful for Apple, but not bring much revenue to Verizon.


    Perhaps Verizon just blew it.

    >It's not like there won't be other phones with similar functionality to
    >the iPhone available, we've already seen that some are coming.


    That's like saying there are lots of MP3 players, so the iPod isn't a
    big deal.

    >Cingular was more willing to accede to Apple's demands because Cingular
    >lags Verizon by a huge margin in new post-paid customers. Cingular can
    >brag about having the most customers, but a lot of those customers are
    >low margin, low ARPU, prepaid customers.


    Irrelevant. What matters most is the size of the base, since that's the
    source of all-important upgrades.

    It's pretty hard to spin this as being anything but bad news for
    Verizon, so I have to hand it to you.

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



  5. #5

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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?
    >>
    >>And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.

    >
    >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".



    Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.



  6. #6
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>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?
    >>>
    >>>And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.

    >>
    >>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".

    >
    >Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.


    I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
    carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.

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



  7. #7
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:50:43 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.

    >
    >When you live in an alternate universe, that doesn't work.


    You should know.

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



  8. #8

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:40 GMT, John Navas
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >X-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:56:40 EST (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
    >
    >On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
    ><[email protected]>:
    >
    >>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>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?
    >>>>
    >>>>And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.
    >>>
    >>>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".

    >>
    >>Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.

    >
    >I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
    >carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.



    I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.



  9. #9
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:45:19 -0600, [email protected] wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:40 GMT, John Navas
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
    >><[email protected]>:


    >>>Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.

    >>
    >>I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
    >>carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.

    >
    >I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.


    Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
    And have a nice day.

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



  10. #10

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>
    >>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.

    >
    >Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
    >And have a nice day.



    Like the time you illegally put your ringtones online, and it took 2
    weeks till you realised it was copyright infringement to do so.



  11. #11
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:02:55 -0600, [email protected] wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.

    >>
    >>Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
    >>And have a nice day.

    >
    >Like the time you illegally put your ringtones online, and it took 2
    >weeks till you realised it was copyright infringement to do so.


    Nothing of the sort.

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



  12. #12
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

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

    > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:02:55 -0600, [email protected] wrote in
    > <[email protected]>:
    >
    >>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.
    >>>
    >>>Now I understand how and why you're so misinformed. Thanks.
    >>>And have a nice day.

    >>
    >>Like the time you illegally put your ringtones online, and it took 2
    >>weeks till you realised it was copyright infringement to do so.

    >
    > Nothing of the sort.
    >


    Wow- I have to agree with Phillipe on this one. It is well documented in
    multiple threads from two(?) years ago. You violated copyright law,
    despite your best attempt to invoke the "Law According to Navas".



  13. #13
    Anon E. Muss
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:15:48 GMT, John Navas
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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?
    >>
    >>And Verizon blew it cause Apple offered it to them first.

    >
    >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".


    Hypocrit.

    Right back at you: No real evidence of that.



  14. #14

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:09 GMT, John Navas
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:45:19 -0600, [email protected] wrote in
    ><[email protected]>:
    >
    >>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:40 GMT, John Navas
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:03 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
    >>><[email protected]>:

    >
    >>>>Try the very news articles you previously linked to. Jeez.
    >>>
    >>>I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, reading a bit more
    >>>carefully, and considering the sources cited in the story carefully.

    >>
    >>I already do that and give no weight to anything Navas says.

    >
    >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.



  15. #15
    Don Udel \(ETC\)
    Guest

    Re: Verizon and Apple iPhone


    "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?

    Don





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast