Results 61 to 75 of 222
- 01-21-2008, 02:23 PM #61BobGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:210120081519141596%[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Apple almost certainly solicited bids from both carriers, and took the
>> best deal for Apple. That's commonly called a "beauty contest", which
>> Verizon lost, and did it's best to explain away.
>
> I do think that is likely. But unless they would have offered it on
> both carriers I think they would have given preference to the GSM
> carrier. Because of the Global market.
>
That odor you smell is the gigantic turd the iPhone has shown itself to be
in the Global market, primarily due to a lack of features that have come to
be looked upon as 'standard' in the Global market.
› See More: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
- 01-21-2008, 02:25 PM #62BobGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:210120081522313413%[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Scott
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lots of luck in what? Proving that you are simple an annoying little
>> fanboi? Too late- you've done the job for me.
>
> In other words you can't back up your assertion so you resort to drivel.
>
No- it has been posted here many times before. I am not responsible to
make multiple posts of the same information because you are too lazy to
look for it.
- 01-21-2008, 02:35 PM #63John NavasGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:25:48 -0600, Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
>news:210120081522313413%[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Scott
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Lots of luck in what? Proving that you are simple an annoying little
>>> fanboi? Too late- you've done the job for me.
>>
>> In other words you can't back up your assertion so you resort to drivel.
>
>No- it has been posted here many times before. I am not responsible to
>make multiple posts of the same information because you are too lazy to
>look for it.
Actually you are, since you are the one making the claim.
If you're not able or willing to back it up,
then you shouldn't be making the claim.
It's not our job to look anything up for you.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-21-2008, 02:36 PM #64John NavasGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:19:14 -0500, Charles
<[email protected]> wrote in
<210120081519141596%[email protected]>:
>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Apple almost certainly solicited bids from both carriers, and took the
>> best deal for Apple. That's commonly called a "beauty contest", which
>> Verizon lost, and did it's best to explain away.
>
>I do think that is likely. But unless they would have offered it on
>both carriers I think they would have given preference to the GSM
>carrier. Because of the Global market.
That was probably one factor in AT&T's favor, but not the only factor.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-21-2008, 02:37 PM #65John NavasGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:23:56 -0600, Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
>news:210120081519141596%[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple almost certainly solicited bids from both carriers, and took the
>>> best deal for Apple. That's commonly called a "beauty contest", which
>>> Verizon lost, and did it's best to explain away.
>>
>> I do think that is likely. But unless they would have offered it on
>> both carriers I think they would have given preference to the GSM
>> carrier. Because of the Global market.
>
>That odor you smell is the gigantic turd the iPhone has shown itself to be
>in the Global market, primarily due to a lack of features that have come to
>be looked upon as 'standard' in the Global market.
I detect a serious case of sour grapes.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-21-2008, 02:41 PM #66BobGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:23:56 -0600, Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>>in news:210120081519141596%[email protected]:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apple almost certainly solicited bids from both carriers, and took
>>>> the best deal for Apple. That's commonly called a "beauty
>>>> contest", which Verizon lost, and did it's best to explain away.
>>>
>>> I do think that is likely. But unless they would have offered it on
>>> both carriers I think they would have given preference to the GSM
>>> carrier. Because of the Global market.
>>
>>That odor you smell is the gigantic turd the iPhone has shown itself
>>to be in the Global market, primarily due to a lack of features that
>>have come to be looked upon as 'standard' in the Global market.
>
> I detect a serious case of sour grapes.
>
Sour grapes? Hardly. I require a real phone. One that has has more
features than flash.
I can get twice the phone for halk the money. I'll pass on the iToy.
- 01-21-2008, 02:42 PM #67BobGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:25:48 -0600, Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>>in news:210120081522313413%[email protected]:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Scott
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lots of luck in what? Proving that you are simple an annoying
>>>> little fanboi? Too late- you've done the job for me.
>>>
>>> In other words you can't back up your assertion so you resort to
>>> drivel.
>>
>>No- it has been posted here many times before. I am not responsible
>>to make multiple posts of the same information because you are too
>>lazy to look for it.
>
> Actually you are, since you are the one making the claim.
> If you're not able or willing to back it up,
> then you shouldn't be making the claim.
> It's not our job to look anything up for you.
>
Google is your friend, Johnny Novice.
- 01-21-2008, 02:47 PM #68Dennis FergusonGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-21, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
> news:210120081345495284%[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Scott
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> And if this were true, the first iPhone submitted to the FCC would have
>>> been GSM and not CDMA (as it was).
>>
>> Wrong. There never was a CDMA iPhone phone submitted to the FCC.
>>
>
> Not submitted as the iPhone (as the marketing name had not been decided
> upon yet), but the first phone submitted to the FCC by Apple was indeed
> CDMA. The GSM version was rushed out after the decision to go with AT&T.
>
> No need to make this up- it's all well documented.
There's only one set of submissions in the FCC database for a phone
from Apple Computer, and that is for a GSM phone. Documents were first
submitted on March 8, 2007, and approval was granted on May 17, 2007,
which is kind of what you'd expect for a phone to be shipped in June
or July.
If the other story line going on here is correct then Apple approached,
and was turned down by, Verizon in no later than February, 2005. So
when was it that they had test results from a working CDMA phone to
submit to the FCC, and where are the documents?
I remember the speculation about the GSM iPhone being a rush job (based,
somehow, if I'm remembering correctly, on the fact that the EGPRS test
results were submitted very late, or something) though I didn't understand
the argument then. If that bit of wild speculation has morphed into
the story above in less than a year I am truly awe-struck.
Dennis Ferguson
- 01-21-2008, 02:48 PM #69John NavasGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:42:10 -0600, Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:25:48 -0600, Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>>>in news:210120081522313413%[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Scott
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lots of luck in what? Proving that you are simple an annoying
>>>>> little fanboi? Too late- you've done the job for me.
>>>>
>>>> In other words you can't back up your assertion so you resort to
>>>> drivel.
>>>
>>>No- it has been posted here many times before. I am not responsible
>>>to make multiple posts of the same information because you are too
>>>lazy to look for it.
>>
>> Actually you are, since you are the one making the claim.
>> If you're not able or willing to back it up,
>> then you shouldn't be making the claim.
>> It's not our job to look anything up for you.
>
>Google is your friend, Johnny Novice.
So you're not just a blowhard, you're an immature blowhard.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-21-2008, 03:01 PM #70DTCGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent
John Navas wrote:
> Really? Then you'll have no problem backing that up with authoritative
> evidence. Otherwise it's no more persuasive than any other
> unsubstantiated claim.
Like "extended GSM" deployed by US carriers. We're still waiting on
the authoritative evidence.
- 01-21-2008, 03:10 PM #71Robert CoeGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:54:27 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:41:35 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote in
: <[email protected]>:
:
: >From Apple's point of view, there are really only two believable
: >possibilities:
: >
: >1. Apple thought they could easily produce a CDMA version of the iPhone, in
: >which case they would have happily sold the rights to both companies.
: >
: >2. They didn't, in which case the deck was stacked against Verizon, who would
: >have had to pay Apple enough to cover whatever the development cost turned out
: >to be. So Verizon might very well have "turned them down".
:
: 3. Apple maximized profit by granting an exclusive to one carrier in a
: given market (consistent with industry practice); GSM was the best
: technology to serve worldwide markets; and AT&T gave it the best deal.
How do you know (and for that matter, how would Apple know) that granting an
exclusive license to one carrier in the U.S market would maximize profit?
Unless my point 2 it correct and neither Apple nor Verizon was willing to step
up to the development cost of a CDMA version.
Bob
- 01-21-2008, 03:29 PM #72John NavasGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:01:31 -0600, DTC <[email protected]> wrote
in <%[email protected]>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Really? Then you'll have no problem backing that up with authoritative
>> evidence. Otherwise it's no more persuasive than any other
>> unsubstantiated claim.
>
>Like "extended GSM" deployed by US carriers. We're still waiting on
>the authoritative evidence.
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.verizon/msg/15688a284c92c746>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-21-2008, 03:32 PM #73John NavasGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:10:50 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:54:27 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>: On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:41:35 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote in
>: <[email protected]>:
>:
>: >From Apple's point of view, there are really only two believable
>: >possibilities:
>: >
>: >1. Apple thought they could easily produce a CDMA version of the iPhone, in
>: >which case they would have happily sold the rights to both companies.
>: >
>: >2. They didn't, in which case the deck was stacked against Verizon, who would
>: >have had to pay Apple enough to cover whatever the development cost turned out
>: >to be. So Verizon might very well have "turned them down".
>:
>: 3. Apple maximized profit by granting an exclusive to one carrier in a
>: given market (consistent with industry practice); GSM was the best
>: technology to serve worldwide markets; and AT&T gave it the best deal.
>
>How do you know (and for that matter, how would Apple know) that granting an
>exclusive license to one carrier in the U.S market would maximize profit?
>Unless my point 2 it correct and neither Apple nor Verizon was willing to step
>up to the development cost of a CDMA version.
Carriers are willing to pay a premium for cool exclusives, but not
otherwise, and Apple reportedly got extraordinary premiums out of AT&T,
including a share of subscriber revenue, which is unheard of.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-21-2008, 03:47 PM #74John NavasGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>"Tim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>> the U.S. market.
>>
>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>> down.
>John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>
>Verizon turned the iPhone down first.
Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-21-2008, 03:53 PM #75Todd AllcockGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - sharesplunged 25.2 percent
At 21 Jan 2008 14:09:19 -0600 Scott wrote:
> Why? When comparing Verizon and AT&T, the iPhone does not appear to be
> giving AT&T any competitive advantage.
I disagree- I think AT&T has retained and/or attracted a significant number
of subscribers fascinated by small shiny objects.
> Verizon keeps up in terms of net
> adds, and shows a much higher profit per subscriber.
True, but doesn't mean the iPhone offers no advantage. It could be easily
argued that Verizon would've closed the net-add gap even closer if AT&T
hadn't scored the iPhone, much the same way that offering a better fish
sandwich than your competitors might have a very small, but still measurable,
effect on the market share of fast-food burger joints. The quarter prior
to the iPhone, IIRC, Verizon was vir ually neck and neck in net adds, but
post-iPhone, there was a few hundred K gap. That might be the iPhone effect.
Having said that, Verizon still may have made the right call regardless- to
Verizon, the iPhone net adds might not be worth the loss in margin, the
disenfranchising of their dealer base (I suspect AT&T's independant dealers
aren't very happy with their inability to offer AT&T's most notorious
product!) and perhaps most importantly, it sets a carrier-can-call-the-
shots precedent- a "slippery slope" that Verizon might be unwilling to
slide down at this time.
Let's face it- Verizon's success has never been due to their handset
selection, but in spite of it! Verizon's a one-trick pony- it's all about
"the network." No one signs with Verizon for the "cool phones."
Similar Threads
- Samsung
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.verizon
Seamless Hosting Solutions for Creative Professionals
in Chit Chat