NEWS: When 'God Machines' [iPhones] go back to their maker

<http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/19/god_machine_meets_maker/>

....

The iPhone may yet, as I hoped back in January, give the established
manufacturers a long overdue reality check. Both Nokia and Sony
Ericsson have made their smartphones overly crufty and complicated as
the years go by - while Windows Mobile remains a collection of cracks
that defies any plaster. Reg readers long for simplicity.

The iPhone, however, doesn't look like the future of phones. If Apple
permits it, the iPhone should make great inroads into the "second
phone" market occupied by Windows Mobile and RIM's Blackberry today.
But the tablet market is pretty small at the end of the day. And
there really isn't much Apple, or anyone else, can do about mobile
data services vs real life. Perhaps no one ever will.

Less than a month after the launch we can look back to the hyperbolic
ventilations of Apple's Poodle Press - the Pogues, Levys and
Mossbergs - and ask ourselves, "what on earth were they thinking??"

[MORE]

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

---

› See More: NEWS: When 'God Machines' [iPhones] go back to their maker

At 19 Jul 2007 23:19:53 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/19/god_machine_meets_maker/>

Wow- that's your third news item you posted from The Register this week.
I assume that means you find it reputable.

You missed this one, apparently, back in the day:

http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/3...d_down_iphone/

"Verizon Wireless was the first company offered exclusive access to the
iPhone, but turned Apple away because of problems with the proposed
business model...

[MORE]



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

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 19 Jul 2007 23:19:53 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/19/god_machine_meets_maker/>
>
> Wow- that's your third news item you posted from The Register this week.
> I assume that means you find it reputable.
>
> You missed this one, apparently, back in the day:
>
> http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/3...d_down_iphone/
>
Gotta love that.
What will his excuse be now ?

> "Verizon Wireless was the first company offered exclusive access to the
> iPhone, but turned Apple away because of problems with the proposed
> business model...
>
> [MORE]
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

In article <[email protected]>, Todd
Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Verizon Wireless was the first company offered exclusive access to the
> iPhone, but turned Apple away because of problems with the proposed
> business model...

Todd, that article and the one in USA Today makes an assertion. There
is no proof that it is a fact. And since all the sources quoted are
from Verizon it could all very well be sour grapes from Verizon. The
most likely and logical scenario is that Apple shopped the iPhone to
both Verizon and AT&T and went with the one they got the best deal
from.

--
Charles

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:06:28 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/19/god_machine_meets_maker/>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> The iPhone may yet, as I hoped back in January, give the established
>> manufacturers a long overdue reality check. Both Nokia and Sony
>> Ericsson have made their smartphones overly crufty and complicated as
>> the years go by - while Windows Mobile remains a collection of cracks
>> that defies any plaster. Reg readers long for simplicity.
>>
>> The iPhone, however, doesn't look like the future of phones. If Apple
>> permits it, the iPhone should make great inroads into the "second
>> phone" market occupied by Windows Mobile and RIM's Blackberry today.
>> But the tablet market is pretty small at the end of the day. And
>> there really isn't much Apple, or anyone else, can do about mobile
>> data services vs real life. Perhaps no one ever will.
>>
>> Less than a month after the launch we can look back to the hyperbolic
>> ventilations of Apple's Poodle Press - the Pogues, Levys and
>> Mossbergs - and ask ourselves, "what on earth were they thinking??"
>>
>> [MORE]
>
>In the meantime, Motorola products *still* SUCK.

Why does Navas go out of his way to find and then post ill
considered articles on the iPhone, and only if they are negative.

This article continues the fiction of a huge margin on the iPhones,
as if the cost of parts equals the cost of phones. Research,
development, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, inventory,
advertising, selling, all must cost zero by that bogus calculation.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:24:44 -0400, Charles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Todd
>Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Verizon Wireless was the first company offered exclusive access to the
>> iPhone, but turned Apple away because of problems with the proposed
>> business model...
>
>Todd, that article and the one in USA Today makes an assertion. There
>is no proof that it is a fact. And since all the sources quoted are
>from Verizon it could all very well be sour grapes from Verizon.

The story of Verizon turning down the iPhone originated last January,
way too soon to be sour grapes. SORRY.

>The
>most likely and logical scenario is that Apple shopped the iPhone to
>both Verizon and AT&T and went with the one they got the best deal
>from.

On 7/20/07 8:59 AM, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:06:28 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/19/god_machine_meets_maker/>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> The iPhone may yet, as I hoped back in January, give the established
>>> manufacturers a long overdue reality check. Both Nokia and Sony
>>> Ericsson have made their smartphones overly crufty and complicated as
>>> the years go by - while Windows Mobile remains a collection of cracks
>>> that defies any plaster. Reg readers long for simplicity.
>>>
>>> The iPhone, however, doesn't look like the future of phones. If Apple
>>> permits it, the iPhone should make great inroads into the "second
>>> phone" market occupied by Windows Mobile and RIM's Blackberry today.
>>> But the tablet market is pretty small at the end of the day. And
>>> there really isn't much Apple, or anyone else, can do about mobile
>>> data services vs real life. Perhaps no one ever will.
>>>
>>> Less than a month after the launch we can look back to the hyperbolic
>>> ventilations of Apple's Poodle Press - the Pogues, Levys and
>>> Mossbergs - and ask ourselves, "what on earth were they thinking??"
>>>
>>> [MORE]
>>
>> In the meantime, Motorola products *still* SUCK.
>
> Why does Navas go out of his way to find and then post ill
> considered articles on the iPhone, and only if they are negative.
>
Because he considers this 'HIS' group and he can get away with it?

On 7/20/07 9:04 AM, in article
[email protected], "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Why does Navas go out of his way to find and then post ill
>> considered articles on the iPhone, and only if they are negative.
>
> Because he works for Motorola. Haven't you noticed?
>
> There is a very, very obvious conflict of interest in everything he
> posts.
>
> He will deny this, but his postings speak for themselves.
>
> But with luck, he'll go hide for another 3 months and we'll have peace
> and quiet here.
>
Those that are rational could only hope.

At 20 Jul 2007 07:24:44 -0400 Charles wrote:

> Todd, that article and the one in USA Today makes an assertion. There
> is no proof that it is a fact.

I was having a bit of fun with John's assertion that "reliable" sources
didn't pickup the USA Today story, so I quoted from one his recent
favorite sources.

Personally, as a glance at my older posts have shown, I've always been on
John's side with this- just as a smart consumer won't buy a big-ticket
item without comparison shopping, neither will corporations engage in big
exclusive deals without a lot of shopping around and homework first.
Even if Verizon was "approached" first, we'll never know if that was
because they were Apple's preference, or because Apple wanted to
eliminate them from the running based on their knowledge of Verizon's
corporate culture. (One must assume Apple brushed up against Verizon
before, just as they'd previously worked with Cingular, during the
process of creating the iTunes-enabled ROKR phone with Motorola.)

> And since all the sources quoted are
> from Verizon it could all very well be sour grapes from Verizon.

Or no one at AT&T or Apple could truthfully deny it. A responsible
journalist would, and likely did, have asked both of them.

I suspect Verizon was doing a bit of public damage control- as a former
Cingular dealer myself, I appreciate Verizon's desire not to shut out
their dealers like Circuit City. If I were Radioshack right now, my
lawyers would be going over that Cingular contract for 40th time looking
for creative new ways to make AT&T feel new adventures in pain and
suffering for missing out on the largest introductory sales of a consumer
electronics product offering in, well, the history of consumer
electronics! I suspect the Verizon statements had the dual purpose of
pointing out Apple didn't choose AT&T because of any ideal fit, or
Apple's condemnation of other carriers, plus reassured their (Verizon's)
dealers and distributors that Verizon didn't drop the ball on them.

> The
> most likely and logical scenario is that Apple shopped the iPhone to
> both Verizon and AT&T and went with the one they got the best deal
> from.

The Wall Street Journal article posted last night seems to indicate that
the Apple/Cingular talks were VERY preliminary before Apple sat at the
table seriously with Verizon (and seemed to be shown the door.) However,
what that actually means is subject to debate (and much spin here, of
course!)

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:06:28 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/19/god_machine_meets_maker/>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> The iPhone may yet, as I hoped back in January, give the established
>> manufacturers a long overdue reality check. Both Nokia and Sony
>> Ericsson have made their smartphones overly crufty and complicated as
>> the years go by - while Windows Mobile remains a collection of cracks
>> that defies any plaster. Reg readers long for simplicity.
>>
>> The iPhone, however, doesn't look like the future of phones. If Apple
>> permits it, the iPhone should make great inroads into the "second
>> phone" market occupied by Windows Mobile and RIM's Blackberry today.
>> But the tablet market is pretty small at the end of the day. And
>> there really isn't much Apple, or anyone else, can do about mobile
>> data services vs real life. Perhaps no one ever will.
>>
>> Less than a month after the launch we can look back to the hyperbolic
>> ventilations of Apple's Poodle Press - the Pogues, Levys and
>> Mossbergs - and ask ourselves, "what on earth were they thinking??"
>>
>> [MORE]
>
>In the meantime, Motorola products *still* SUCK.

Actually quite good.

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

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:04:49 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Why does Navas go out of his way to find and then post ill
>> considered articles on the iPhone, and only if they are negative.
>
>Because he works for Motorola. ...

Nope. But thanks for playing.

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

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:28:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>At 19 Jul 2007 23:19:53 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/19/god_machine_meets_maker/>
>
>Wow- that's your third news item you posted from The Register this week.
>I assume that means you find it reputable.

No, just entertaining (like NE and (somewhat) useful.

>You missed this one, apparently, back in the day:
>
>http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/3...d_down_iphone/
>
>"Verizon Wireless was the first company offered exclusive access to the
>iPhone, but turned Apple away because of problems with the proposed
>business model...
>
> [MORE]

Unattributed repetition of the USA Today op-ed piece.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
Note the dates.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:06:28 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/19/god_machine_meets_maker/>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> The iPhone may yet, as I hoped back in January, give the established
>>> manufacturers a long overdue reality check. Both Nokia and Sony
>>> Ericsson have made their smartphones overly crufty and complicated as
>>> the years go by - while Windows Mobile remains a collection of cracks
>>> that defies any plaster. Reg readers long for simplicity.
>>>
>>> The iPhone, however, doesn't look like the future of phones. If Apple
>>> permits it, the iPhone should make great inroads into the "second
>>> phone" market occupied by Windows Mobile and RIM's Blackberry today.
>>> But the tablet market is pretty small at the end of the day. And
>>> there really isn't much Apple, or anyone else, can do about mobile
>>> data services vs real life. Perhaps no one ever will.
>>>
>>> Less than a month after the launch we can look back to the hyperbolic
>>> ventilations of Apple's Poodle Press - the Pogues, Levys and
>>> Mossbergs - and ask ourselves, "what on earth were they thinking??"
>>>
>>> [MORE]
>>
>>In the meantime, Motorola products *still* SUCK.
>
> Actually quite good.

You said it. They actually suck quite well.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:04:49 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Why does Navas go out of his way to find and then post ill
>>> considered articles on the iPhone, and only if they are negative.
>>
>>Because he works for Motorola. ...

He can only wish .

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

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:33:35 -0700, "Kevin Weaver"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:04:49 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why does Navas go out of his way to find and then post ill
>>>> considered articles on the iPhone, and only if they are negative.
>>>
>>>Because he works for Motorola. ...
>
>He can only wish .

You maybe, but not me. Yuck!

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