SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:39:04 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>DTC wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
>> date was over early in the evening.
>
>Verizon had no interest in Apple's plan for revenue sharing of monthly
>fees, while Apple felt that the added upside in new customers that the
>iPhone would bring the carrier entitled them to part of the revenue.
>
>Both had strong bargaining positions, Verizon as the premier carrier in
>the U.S. in terms of quality, with the largest base of retail
>subscribers, and Apple with its consumer electronics marketing
>expertise. Reportedly Verizon did offer a compromise where they would
>revenue share on new subscribers but not current subscribers that
>switched to the iPhone, but that wasn't sufficient for Apple so they
>went to their second choice.

Still the Verizon apologist. In fact AT&T had the strongest position,
with the most customers of any U.S. carrier, and technology common to
most of the rest of the world. Verizon simply lost the beauty contest,
and then tried desperately to explain that away.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:05:37 -0700, "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"SMS" wrote:
>> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>>
>>> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected
>>> Apple iPhone deal.
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>>
>>> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
>>> says?
>>>
>>> OR do we just take your word for this.
>>
>> John isn't known for ever providing references.
>>
>> Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke, I
>> was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of the
>> story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so it's
>> pretty clear that the story was accurate.
>
>If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the guy
>posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But since
>you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is some sort of
>new development.
>
>Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being repeated
>by the clueless...
>
>And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted logic
>is ridiculous.

Nicely put.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:03:39 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Tinman wrote:
>
>> If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the
>> guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But
>> since you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is
>> some sort of new development.
>
>Huh? I know he was posting a link to last year's article, it was true
>then and it's true now.

Except is was just spin then, and is still just spin now.

>> Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being
>> repeated by the clueless...
>
>LOL, so how many articles, repeating the same facts, do you think are
>required?

Spin, no matter how many times repeated, is still spin, not "facts".
The only real "facts" is that the only source is Verizon.

>> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
>> logic is ridiculous.
>
>No it isn't. ...

Saying so over and over doesn't make it true.

>Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
>carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
>its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
>quality carrier?

Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest
subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On 2008-01-22, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
>> logic is ridiculous.
>
> No it isn't. When a major newspaper has a story that is negative to a
> major corporation you will always see a response if the story is untrue.
> In this case you would have seen denials from both Apple and AT&T if the
> story was false.

Boy, I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a losing
competitor attempting to diminish an announcement which had attracted
some interest by blabbing about talks that were certainly intended to
be kept private in an attempt to make the case that they'd been clever
not to take that deal (which really suggests to me that they were
motivated by worry that they'd been stupid not to pursue the deal).
This is a low class act that it speaks for itself and needs no
public response. In fact it demands no response; a response would
only suggest that you actually care what Verizon thinks, and wrestling
with pigs will only get you dirty too.

Of course, I could be wrong since I have no particular information
beyond the article itself, but then again, neither do you. To be
clear what the job of the Verizon VP quoted in that article (and
apparently its source) is, however, here's a quote from the same
guy on another, more recent, topic, in particular an article in
the Wall Street Journal that US carriers should be made to open
their networks to compatible phones:

The Journal makes an increasingly popular but mistaken assumption
that the European government-mandated model of unlocked handsets
means better consumer choices.

Let's start with the European experience. Viruses and Trojans are
part of the unlocked handset experience. Just imagine children's
mobile phones receiving some of the indecent messages that come
into e-mail boxes everyday. "Open" devices simply lower standards.

In contrast to Europe, handsets provided by U.S. carriers have
software that protects consumers from fraud and theft. [...]
Carriers customize handsets to optimize voice quality and data
services.

Contrary to the Journal's assertion, Europe's one-size fits all
portability comes at the expense of consumer choice and price.

This requires no response either (especially when I look at how high
Verizon's revenue and profit from handset sales is compared to its
GSM competitors). This was, of course, before Verizon decided an
open phone network was a good thing.

> With Sarbanes-Oxley, you no longer have executives of
> major corporations running around making up stories that are so easy to
> verify.

Oh my god, so it's true unlocked phones attract viruses and child
porn... Oh, never mind, I can't bring myself to respond to that.

> Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
^^^^^

So you are assuming not only that Apple spoke to Verizon, but also that
Apple kept Verizon up to date on who else they were talking to and how
that was going, so Verizon could know they were first? Doubt it, though
you never know.

> carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
> its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
> quality carrier?

Well, let's look at what the carriers we know Apple did deals with since
then (you can even throw in China Mobile if you want) have in common:
(1) they're the biggest carrier in their market by number of users; and
(2) GSM. So which carrier would Apple have preferred in 2005?

There is at least some hint that Apple must have been fairly close to
doing something with one of Verizon Wireless's parent companies since
they included Vodafone's logo with the original firmware. See, e.g.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2mpm39

So (noting that Vodafone and O2 have pretty near identical shares of the
UK market) do you think the sins of the child might have been visited
upon the parent? I have no idea but, since we're engaging in pure, idle
speculation about things we have absolutely no knowledge of, I'll just
point out that from my point of view this would have been a way more
appropriate response to the quite tacky Verizon-sourced article than
getting all tacky yourself by arguing about it in public would have
been. Who wants to talk business with people who will turn around and
do that?

In any case, I don't think we'll ever know anything more about this
until someone at Apple writes a book.

Dennis Ferguson

In news:[email protected],
John Navas <[email protected]> typed:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:03:39 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>> Tinman wrote:
>>
>>> If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the
>>> guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But
>>> since you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is
>>> some sort of new development.
>>
>> Huh? I know he was posting a link to last year's article, it was true
>> then and it's true now.
>
> Except is was just spin then, and is still just spin now.
>
>>> Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being
>>> repeated by the clueless...
>>
>> LOL, so how many articles, repeating the same facts, do you think are
>> required?
>
> Spin, no matter how many times repeated, is still spin, not "facts".
> The only real "facts" is that the only source is Verizon.
>
>>> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
>>> logic is ridiculous.
>>
>> No it isn't. ...
>
> Saying so over and over doesn't make it true.
>
>> Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
>> carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
>> its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
>> quality carrier?
>
> Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest
> subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world.


Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
first choice rather than just you saying it?

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:04:19 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In news:[email protected],
>John Navas <[email protected]> typed:

>> Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest
>> subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world.
>
>Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>first choice rather than just you saying it?

Why not just tell us where anything that independently corroborates the
Verizon spin can be found rather than just taking Verizon at its word.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

At 22 Jan 2008 22:41:05 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> Boy, I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a losing
> competitor attempting to diminish an announcement which had attracted
> some interest by blabbing about talks that were certainly intended to
> be kept private in an attempt to make the case that they'd been clever
> not to take that deal (which really suggests to me that they were
> motivated by worry that they'd been stupid not to pursue the deal).


To be fair, the undue amount of press surrounding the AT&T iPhone deal
probably prompted a response.

> This is a low class act that it speaks for itself and needs no
> public response.

The VPs quote was measured and appropriate- it was PC (didn't knock the
product, AT&T or Apple.)

> In fact it demands no response; a response would
> only suggest that you actually care what Verizon thinks, and wrestling
> with pigs will only get you dirty too.


That's an interesting take on it that I'd agree with if this wasn't AT&T we
were talking about! The same AT&T, wo, despite having an "open network"
already, followed Verizon's "open network" pledge with their own, and who
announced the availability of a 3G iPhone be ore Apple did! ;-)

> Of course, I could be wrong since I have no particular information
> beyond the article itself, but then again, neither do you.

Agreed. It's fun to speculate though.

> To be
> clear what the job of the Verizon VP quoted in that article (and
> apparently its source) is, however, here's a quote...
<snip "closed-is-better" quote>

That was priceless! Thanks for the chuckle. To be fair, I've never heard
of a Verizon kiddie-porn spam incident so he must've been right! ;-)


> This requires no response either (especially when I look at how high
> Verizon's revenue and profit from handset sales is compared to its
> GSM competitors). This was, of course, before Verizon decided an
> open phone network was a good thing.


I'm still surprised AT&T didn't take the bait. They rarely show any
restraint.


> In any case, I don't think we'll ever know anything more about this
> until someone at Apple writes a book.

Fair enough!

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:51:39 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>> first choice rather than just you saying it?
>
>Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or citations.

Too funny! Let's see if you have any...

>One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
>story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
>grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
>Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
>Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
>them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
>for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
>legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.

No citations. What a shock. Not.

>I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
>choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success
>(following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of
>new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon.

The shill here is you, constant Verizon apologist and AT&T basher.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In news:[email protected],
SMS <[email protected]> typed:
> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>> first choice rather than just you saying it?
>
> Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or
> citations.
> One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
> story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
> grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
> Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
> Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
> them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
> for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
> legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.
>
> I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
> choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success
> (following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of
> new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon.


Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and therefore
there is no need for him to provide any support.

The only thing that might get Navas to change his claim is to have a video
of Steve Jobs saying that Apple was forced to go with ATT since they were
unable to get VZW to meet their demands - but then again Navas might not.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:26:07 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In news:[email protected],
>SMS <[email protected]> typed:
>> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>>
>>> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>>> first choice rather than just you saying it?
>>
>> Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or
>> citations.
>> One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
>> story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
>> grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
>> Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
>> Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
>> them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
>> for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
>> legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.
>>
>> I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
>> choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success
>> (following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of
>> new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon.
>
>Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and therefore
>there is no need for him to provide any support.
>
>The only thing that might get Navas to change his claim is to have a video
>of Steve Jobs saying that Apple was forced to go with ATT since they were
>unable to get VZW to meet their demands - but then again Navas might not.

Again, not a shred of corroborating evidence. Instead you stoop to
persona attack. Makes it pretty clear that you don't really have
anything to do on other than parroting whatever Verizon might say.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

IMHO IIRC wrote:

> Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and therefore
> there is no need for him to provide any support.

He follows the adage, "If You Don't Like the Facts...Go Out and Make
Some of Your Own."

> The only thing that might get Navas to change his claim is to have a video
> of Steve Jobs saying that Apple was forced to go with ATT since they were
> unable to get VZW to meet their demands - but then again Navas might not.

He might claim that it was an actor impersonating Steve Jobs.

Still, "demands" is probably too strong. They just couldn't reach an
agreement. It wasn't just the revenue sharing either, it was the demand
that the iPhone only be sold in Verizon's company-owned stores and Apple
stores, which would have upset Verizon's resellers including the big-box
stores. AT&T had less to worry about, since they probably didn't mind
upsetting resellers like Radio Shack.

SMS <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and
>> therefore there is no need for him to provide any support.
>
> He follows the adage, "If You Don't Like the Facts...Go Out and Make
> Some of Your Own."
>
>> The only thing that might get Navas to change his claim is to have a
>> video of Steve Jobs saying that Apple was forced to go with ATT since
>> they were unable to get VZW to meet their demands - but then again
>> Navas might not.
>
> He might claim that it was an actor impersonating Steve Jobs.
>
> Still, "demands" is probably too strong. They just couldn't reach an
> agreement. It wasn't just the revenue sharing either, it was the
> demand that the iPhone only be sold in Verizon's company-owned stores
> and Apple stores, which would have upset Verizon's resellers including
> the big-box stores. AT&T had less to worry about, since they probably
> didn't mind upsetting resellers like Radio Shack.
>

I'm going to assume that we won't see any more "Don't feed the Navas
troll" posts from you after this thread.

Replying to him second hand and complaining about those that reply to him
directly is rather hypocritical.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:37 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and therefore
>> there is no need for him to provide any support.
>
>He follows the adage, "If You Don't Like the Facts...Go Out and Make
>Some of Your Own."
>
>> The only thing that might get Navas to change his claim is to have a video
>> of Steve Jobs saying that Apple was forced to go with ATT since they were
>> unable to get VZW to meet their demands - but then again Navas might not.
>
>He might claim that it was an actor impersonating Steve Jobs.
>
>Still, "demands" is probably too strong. They just couldn't reach an
>agreement. It wasn't just the revenue sharing either, it was the demand
>that the iPhone only be sold in Verizon's company-owned stores and Apple
>stores, which would have upset Verizon's resellers including the big-box
>stores. AT&T had less to worry about, since they probably didn't mind
>upsetting resellers like Radio Shack.

No citations. No surprise. Total fantasy.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS wrote:
> Navas never has references or citations.

Totally incorrect. He provides links to his personal experiences
to validate his point. Perhaps if he wore a hat, it might hide it.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:57:39 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Jan 2008 22:41:05 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>> Boy, I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a losing
>>> competitor attempting to diminish an announcement which had attracted
>>> some interest by blabbing about talks that were certainly intended to
>>> be kept private in an attempt to make the case that they'd been clever
>>> not to take that deal (which really suggests to me that they were
>>> motivated by worry that they'd been stupid not to pursue the deal).
>>
>>
>> To be fair, the undue amount of press surrounding the AT&T iPhone deal
>> probably prompted a response.
>
>Apple has never hesitated in responding to news stories about the iPhone
>that have no basis in fact.

Not true.

>If the Verizon executive's statements had
>been false then they would have responded.

Nonsense.

>Verizon isn't the only carrier in the world that decided that Apple's
>requirements in terms of revenue sharing and distribution were not
>something they were interested in. See
>"http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9850498-7.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=NewsBlog".

Your first cite in ages is a blog! LOL
And that's China, which is pretty much meaningless.

>It's pretty clear why Apple approached Verizon first. ...

It didn't.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>