Why iPhone for Cingular Only?

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.

john, you demeaned yourself when you posted an obvious lie. you
demean yourself further by insanely denying facts.

and, you've been around far too long to top-post, as you did. are you
in some emotional distress over having been caught lying?

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

---

› See More: Why iPhone for Cingular Only?

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

> 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 john, you owe the groups an apology.

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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, proof that you are lying has been reposted countless times,
including today.

continuing to deny your lie in the face of evidence that it was a lie
doesn't speak well for you

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

"http://groups.google.com/group/ba.internet/msg/b108ac12b3c04bc0?hl=en
&"

you should be ashamed of yourelf.

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

On 2007-07-18, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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&"

Got it. I'm not sure I buy his theory, however, given what is now
known about where they got the radio chips from.

The reason one might use Infineon as the vendor is that their
chipsets, both the UMTS and the older GSM versions, are physically
quite small compared to their competition. If you are tight on
space Infineon would be an advantage. The UMTS chipset also
has full band coverage (4-band GSM, 3-band UMTS), so you could
sell one product in all current markets.

The reason Apple couldn't have shipped HSDPA with Infineon as
the vendor is that Infineon's UMTS chipset was late, much later
than they were promising a couple of years ago. This is always
the risk if you design a product around vaporware vendor chips.
If there was any design scramble at all it may have been to get
the board with the older chipset in shape for FCC certification.
As for the FCC note that EGPRS is the worst case for meeting
Part 15 even if HSDPA is present; it is GSM pulsed transmission
at a high signalling rate, which is nasty for interference.

My guess would be that the reason the rumors put Asian availability
in 2008 is that in the two richest markets there 2100 MHz UMTS
is a requirement.

That's my theory, anyway. I believe Apple might have once considered
doing a CDMA phone, but the decision about that was made well before
they got around to building hardware. We'd need to hear Apple's version
of the story to know for sure, however, and that may never happen.

Dennis Ferguson

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>> first.
>> Yes we do:
>>
>> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>
> That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>
> "Move along, folks, nothing new here."

Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not fact?
Citations please.

From
http://www.intomobile.com/2007/05/23...ghts-back.html
[quote]
*Verizon's iPhone Killer on the way - Verizon Fights Back!*
Verizon Wireless VP, Jim Grace, says that, “We said no [to the iPhone
offer]. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn’t
reach a deal that was mutually beneficial.” Grace says that Verizon has no
regrets about turning down the iPhone, but “Time will tell” if they made
the right decision.

From
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1420
[quote]
*Verizon iPhone could have been a reality*
USAToday's Leslie Cauley reports that as long as two years ago, Apple and
Steve Jobs held initial discussions with Verizon about the carrier becoming
exclusive distributor for the then-envisioned iPhone.

If so, we would have seen Verizon's logo all over the ad at the top, not
Cingular's.

Didn't happen.

Verizon reportedly balked, because they wanted a degree of distribution
control over the device that Apple was not willing to cede. And Apple's
stance left Verizon very concerned about how such control would effect the
carrier's stance with multi-device retail distribution partners such as
Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

The result of the failure to agree is that Cingular/AT&T, Verizon's largest
rival, will be the iPhone's exclusive distributor when the much-anticipated
device is released in June.

From
http://www.iphoneonverizon.com/
[quote]
*How do you feel about Verizon passing on the iPhone?*
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.

From
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_b...rizon-guy.html
[quote]
*The Verizon guy who turned down the iPhone

Given the mass hysteria, it's probably not so good to be Denny Strigl this
week. He's the COO at Verizon quoted with pride about turning down the
iPhone deal

From
http://www.robhyndman.com/2007/01/29...ttle-analysis/
[quote]
*Verizon - iPhone News Yields Lots of Me Too Posts But Little Analysis*

After spotting today’s news of Verizon’s decision to reject an approach
from Apple to be the carrier for the iPhone...

From
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01...d_down_iphone/
[quote]
*Verizon turned down iPhone's advances*
We're just not meant for each other

Verizon Wireless was the first company offered exclusive access to the
iPhone, but turned Apple away because of problems with the proposed
business model. Cingular had no such reservations, and will be selling
Steve Jobs' "revolution" later this year.

Verizon Communications president and chief operating officer Denny Strigl
said: "The iPhone product is something we are happy we aren't the first to
market with."

The problem seems to have been Apple's insistence in sharing the call
revenue as well as controlling distribution channels and customer service.

Verizon vice president Jim Gerace (one of many veeps at the company) said:
"We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just
couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."

From
http://gracefulflavor.net/2007/01/30...h-iphone-deal/
[quote]
Translation: what that means in Verizon-speak is that Verizon wanted total
control of the iPhone’s technology, openness, distribution, customer
service, revenue sharing, and pricing. All for the privilege of letting
Jobs’ and co. use the iPhone on Verizon’s aging, non-standard CDMA network.

From
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterpri...nter_will.html
[quote]
USA Today also reported that Verizon was Apple's original choice for
wireless partner, but that Verizon wouldn't accept Apple's extraordinary
demand of an off-the-top cut of monthly subscriber revenue. That's
unprecedented. Now, with all the enthusiastic press that AT&T is scoring
from its ride in iPhone's hype wake, I expect that Verizon is wishing it
had tried just a little harder to cut a deal.

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

> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>> first.
>>
>>Yes we do:
>>
>><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>
> That's just Verizon spin, not fact.

How many more do you want, stupid? I've got dozens of others from
established and reputable sources, such as this USA Today link. I have yet
to see any statement from Apple or AT&T refuting the claim by Verizon. The
reason I haven't seen one is because one doesn't exist.


>
> "Move along, folks, nothing new here."
>

Just you being shown as a liar and incompetent as usual. You should have
learned long ago that you're not smart enough to play with the big kids,
Novice.

DTC wrote:

> Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not
> fact? Citations please.

LOL, right....citations from Navas. I've got a bridge to sell you.

> Verizon reportedly balked, because they wanted a degree of distribution
> control over the device that Apple was not willing to cede. And Apple's
> stance left Verizon very concerned about how such control would effect
> the carrier's stance with multi-device retail distribution partners such
> as Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

This is a big deal. Look at Radio Shack. Already reeling from the loss
of wireless business caused by their dropping of Verizon in favor of
Cingular, now they're locked out of selling the iPhone, at least initially.

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

> Scott wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Gee Scott, do you think anyone actually believes anything he posts
> anyway? Arguing with him only encourages him.
>

Gee Steve, many people do believe some of his posts- all you need to do to
see that is look at some of the responses. That is a problem if his
misinformation goes unchallenged. And you say I'm arguing with him, which
is impossible- he stopped responding directly to me some time ago. He
can't handle the truth. And if you think I'm looking for a response, I'm
not. By challenging him, it may cause some to do question his "expertise"
and research on their own before making a decision.

> ----------------------------------------------------
> The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that
> onlookers will have trouble telling which is the nut
> ----------------------------------------------------
>

And the problem with sticking your head in the sand as you do and
pretending that the problem doesn't exist is that people walk away with the
wrong information, which could an adverse effect on their decisions. You
may be fine with that- I'm not.

Scott wrote:

> Gee Steve, many people do believe some of his posts- all you need to do to
> see that is look at some of the responses. That is a problem if his
> misinformation goes unchallenged.

Those responses claiming to believe him are almost certainly from
sock-puppets, like "Mij Adyaw," and not from actual separate people.

> And the problem with sticking your head in the sand as you do and
> pretending that the problem doesn't exist is that people walk away with the
> wrong information, which could an adverse effect on their decisions. You
> may be fine with that- I'm not.

I don't believe that anyone is clueless enough to believe anything Navas
says. Maybe I have more faith than you in my fellow man!

BTW, does the iPhone support Extended GSM?

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

> Scott wrote:
>
>> Gee Steve, many people do believe some of his posts- all you need to
>> do to see that is look at some of the responses. That is a problem
>> if his misinformation goes unchallenged.
>
> Those responses claiming to believe him are almost certainly from
> sock-puppets, like "Mij Adyaw," and not from actual separate people.

Actually, they are almost certainly not. Now add another layer to the
equation- how mamy people are lurking, simply looking for information? How
many of them would believe every word that came out his mouth if it wasn't
challenged?

>
>> And the problem with sticking your head in the sand as you do and
>> pretending that the problem doesn't exist is that people walk away
>> with the wrong information, which could an adverse effect on their
>> decisions. You may be fine with that- I'm not.
>
> I don't believe that anyone is clueless enough to believe anything
> Navas says.

Even the first time non-techie reader, if Johnny's claims are left out
there without dispute?


> Maybe I have more faith than you in my fellow man!

I have faith that people will see the facts when they are presented, but
not enough faith for them to recognize crap when no facts are presented to
make the crap obvious. Your blind faith is simply a mechanism of
individual convenience- no need to take the time to point out the errors
because your "faith" in people will prevail.

>
> BTW, does the iPhone support Extended GSM?
>

BTW- how many people would believe it existed if nobody has cried foul when
he posted his first claim? The average consumer would have no idea thatr
it's crap.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.
>
>

You missed the Navas response. They are Verizon shills.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 john, you owe the groups an apology.
>
> It'll never happen.
>
> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
> One can only hope.

until this incident, i thought he was just one of those limited types
who held dearly to beliefs and rejected facts. but now that i have
seen him intentionally lie .... not just misrepresent, but lie
repeatedly .... he has lost all credibility.

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:48:50 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
><[email protected]> wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>> first.
>>
>>Yes we do:
>>
>><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>
>That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>
Navas always disputes anything that doesn't fit his strange world
view.


Apple is getting $100 per user from AT&T and 10% of monthly service
charges of iPhone users. In exchange for such an unusual cut of
revenue, Apple exchanged exclusivity.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:25:15 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote:

>> > actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
>>
>> It'll never happen.

True. Nothing to apologize for.

>> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.

Utter nonsense.

>> One can only hope.
>
>until this incident, i thought he was just one of those limited types
>who held dearly to beliefs and rejected facts. but now that i have
>seen him intentionally lie .... not just misrepresent, but lie
>repeatedly ....

More utter nonsense.

>he has lost all credibility.

Actually just fine, but thanks for your concern.

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