On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:08:16 -0400, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> If it has the sizzle I care about, especially seamless integration with
> all my Google cloud functionality, that's as good as or better than what
> I have now, then that would be enough to get me seriously interested.
> The steak (what's inside) is not something I care about as a _user_ (not
> a technologist).

When I'm good and hungry, the sizzle only whets my appetite for the steak.
If there's no steak, or it's no good, I'm gone in a flash for the real thing,
no matter how compelling the sizzle.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:58:18 -0400, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> ... [alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists] ...

Tell that to my Cingular-logoed Moto SLVR L2 , and to the
Cingular/at&tWireless store a few miles from my home :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:53:42 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/2/2010 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> And of course the story is ridiculous on the surface. The claim that "
>>> "It would require a full redesign of the phone" is obviously ridiculous.
>>> The radio and antenna would change of course, but the OS and the
>>> mechanicals would need only minor changes.
>>
>> changing the radio *is* a major change.
>>
>>> Qualcomm would have supplied
>>> whatever support to Apple that was needed given the prospect of selling
>>> so many chips or getting so much in royalties.
>>
>> not for free they wouldn't.
>
>You have no idea how the chip business works. ...

You don't either.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:50:51 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/2/2010 4:21 PM, nospam wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> chief of the iPhone software team, to meet with Qualcomm who was
>>> supplying Verizon with their CDMA chips. The bottom line-switching to
>>> a CDMA model was too complex and expensive. It would require a full
>>> redesign of the phone and at the time, Verizon was considered an
>>> "iffy" proposition-as much as AT&T was. The subject of switching to
>>> Big Red came up often, and as one source noted, "Every time the issue
>>> of switching came up, it always seemed to cause as many problems as
>>> it solved."
>>
>> that was *after* the iphone came out, and *after* apple and at&t made
>> an agreement. not relevant to this discussion.
>
>And of course the story is ridiculous on the surface. ...

You have to say that, of course, because it completely contradicts your
story.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On 2010-09-02, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> "NEW YORK — 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.
> Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone
> fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the
> relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon
> Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about
> the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually
> beneficial."

Oh, and just to be clear what Jim Gerace's job at Verizon is,
here's an excellent example when he was defending Verizon's
monopoly on handsets used on their service:

<http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/387/ResponsetotheWallStreetJournal.aspx>

So is it really true that "viruses and trojans are part of the unlocked
handset experience", or that unlocked handsets expose kiddies to
porn? And I really don't get how being able to swap local prepaid SIM
cards into a phone you already own when you travel internationally is
"more expensive" than Verizon's model, which would have you buy a whole
new phone when you want local phone service in another country (not to
mention that Verizon charges significantly more for "international"
roaming [on Sprint] in the US Virgin Islands, which were in the US last
time I checked, than my UK carrier charges for roaming in any EU country).

Or how about this one, when he was defending the ETF:

<http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/683/ETFExplained.aspx>

So does the ETF really help poor people get broadband internet
access?

Jim Gerace is apparently Verizon's VP of Spin.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2010-09-02, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >> i've said before, nobody outside of a few people at apple and verizon
>> > >> knows exactly what transpired.
>> > >
>> > >That's true. All we know is that Apple approached Verizon first and they
>> > >were unable to make a deal.
>> >
>> > Wrong again(tm):
>> > Recent press accounts make it clear that AT&T was the first choice of
>> > Apple.
>>
>> cite them.
>>
>> the *only* thing we know is that apple and at&t entered into a contract
>> for an unspecified amount of time greater than 1 year ('multi-year
>> exclusive'). beyond that, it's speculation.
>
> Actually we know much more than that because it would be illegal for
> corporate executives to publicly make false statements. It's highly
> unlikely that the Verizon executive lied, and no interested party,
> AT&T, Apple, or Verizon denied that the story was true.
>
> "NEW YORK — 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.
> Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone
> fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the
> relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon
> Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about
> the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually
> beneficial."
>
> Verizon's decision to pull the plug on talks sent Apple into the
> waiting arms of Cingular, which will be the exclusive U.S. carrier for
> the iPhone. The multifunction device is expected to ship in June and
> cost about $500."

So if that's true then how come Verizon's CEO Ivan Seidenberg mostly
contradicted it when he said

"Apple never seriously considered building a CDMA version of the
iPhone due to CDMA's more limited distribution footprint."?

The quote is from a WSJ article that requires a subscription to read, but
you can also see it repeated here (and many other places):

<http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/04/apple_and_veriz.html>

Or what about Apple COO Tim Cook when he said

"CDMA doesn't really have a life to it after a point in time."

quoted here:

<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2009-04-26-apple-verizon-iphone_N.htm>

Apple doesn't seem to be real keen to build a CDMA phone and
Seidenberg says they never were.

> Significantly, Apple did not issue any denial of this news story which
> was widely reported.

It sort of seems like Verizon's CEO did, though.

Dennis Ferguson

On 9/2/2010 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And of course the story is ridiculous on the surface. The claim that "
>> "It would require a full redesign of the phone" is obviously ridiculous.
>> The radio and antenna would change of course, but the OS and the
>> mechanicals would need only minor changes.
>
> changing the radio *is* a major change.
>
>> Qualcomm would have supplied
>> whatever support to Apple that was needed given the prospect of selling
>> so many chips or getting so much in royalties.
>
> not for free they wouldn't.

You have no idea how the chip business works. It's standard operating
procedure for the vendor of the major chips to provide whatever
engineering assistance necessary in order to bring a major design win
into production. Sometimes there's an agreement that the price of the
chips will fall after a certain quantity, in lieu of upfront NRE, but
that's not a given. For a customer like Apple, and a product like the
iPhone there's no question that the necessary applications engineering
support would have been provided by Qualcomm at no cost.

On 9/2/2010 4:21 PM, nospam wrote:

<snip>

>> chief of the iPhone software team, to meet with Qualcomm who was
>> supplying Verizon with their CDMA chips. The bottom line-switching to
>> a CDMA model was too complex and expensive. It would require a full
>> redesign of the phone and at the time, Verizon was considered an
>> "iffy" proposition-as much as AT&T was. The subject of switching to
>> Big Red came up often, and as one source noted, "Every time the issue
>> of switching came up, it always seemed to cause as many problems as
>> it solved."
>
> that was *after* the iphone came out, and *after* apple and at&t made
> an agreement. not relevant to this discussion.

And of course the story is ridiculous on the surface. The claim that "
"It would require a full redesign of the phone" is obviously ridiculous.
The radio and antenna would change of course, but the OS and the
mechanicals would need only minor changes. Qualcomm would have supplied
whatever support to Apple that was needed given the prospect of selling
so many chips or getting so much in royalties.

It's a virtual certainty that Apple had already done prototypes of
iPhones with a variety of radios, not just for the prospect of Verizon
or Sprint, but for Korean and Japanese carriers as well. That's standard
operating procedure in the cell phone business. Dropping in a different
radio is easy. Just look at all the Motorola handsets that were released
for GSM, TDMA/AMPS, CDMA/AMPS, and iDEN. Taking it through all the
regulatory and certification procedures takes a lot of time though.

Todd Allcock wrote on [Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:51:53 -0600]:
>
>
> "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> gee, my iphone works on my wireless network (free)
>
> You've got free broadband? Cool...

me too, it's some free public provider called "linksys" or something

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

> >Actually we know much more than that because it would be illegal for
> >corporate executives to publicly make false statements. It's highly
> >unlikely that the Verizon executive lied, and no interested party,
> >AT&T, Apple, or Verizon denied that the story was true.
> >
> >"NEW YORK — 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.
> >Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone
> >fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the
> >relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon
> >Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about
> >the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually
> >beneficial."
>
> In other words, Verizon lost the beauty contest to AT&T, and tried to
> put the best possible face on it, weak though it was. Only the naive
> would buy it.

strange interpretation. the fact is that apple and verizon did not
agree on terms.

> >Verizon's decision to pull the plug on talks sent Apple into the
> >waiting arms of Cingular, which will be the exclusive U.S. carrier for
> >the iPhone. The multifunction device is expected to ship in June and
> >cost about $500."
>
> "And now for the rest of the story:"
>
> <http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/Appl...-iPhone-to-Ver
> izon-as-early-as-2007-article-a_12446.html>
> or <http://goo.gl/JXSb>
>
> A story in the latest Wired magazine details how Steve Jobs and Apple
> continuously became frustrated with AT&T. A number of times,
> switching the iPhone over to Verizon was suggested until it was
> determined that the cost to change the phone to Big Red's CDMA
> network was so high that it put the kibosh on the plan. Toward the
> end of 2007, when the iPhone was only a few months old, AT&T asked
> Apple if it could reduce the use of bandwidth by making the YouTube
> client work only on Wi-Fi. Jobs became perturbed at the idea of
> restrictions being placed on the device and sent Scott Forstall, the
> chief of the iPhone software team, to meet with Qualcomm who was
> supplying Verizon with their CDMA chips. The bottom line-switching to
> a CDMA model was too complex and expensive. It would require a full
> redesign of the phone and at the time, Verizon was considered an
> "iffy" proposition-as much as AT&T was. The subject of switching to
> Big Red came up often, and as one source noted, "Every time the issue
> of switching came up, it always seemed to cause as many problems as
> it solved."

that was *after* the iphone came out, and *after* apple and at&t made
an agreement. not relevant to this discussion.

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:41:07 -0700 (PDT), in
<282a506c-e6c5-4a7c-bb33-688dd6a81342@l20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>nospam wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >That's true. All we know is that Apple approached Verizon first and they
>> > >were unable to make a deal.
>> >
>> > Wrong again(tm):
>> > Recent press accounts make it clear that AT&T was the first choice of
>> > Apple.
>>
>> cite them.
>>
>> the *only* thing we know is that apple and at&t entered into a contract
>> for an unspecified amount of time greater than 1 year ('multi-year
>> exclusive'). beyond that, it's speculation.
>
>Actually we know much more than that because it would be illegal for
>corporate executives to publicly make false statements. It's highly
>unlikely that the Verizon executive lied, and no interested party,
>AT&T, Apple, or Verizon denied that the story was true.
>
>"NEW YORK — 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.
>Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone
>fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the
>relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon
>Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about
>the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually
>beneficial."

In other words, Verizon lost the beauty contest to AT&T, and tried to
put the best possible face on it, weak though it was. Only the naive
would buy it.

>Verizon's decision to pull the plug on talks sent Apple into the
>waiting arms of Cingular, which will be the exclusive U.S. carrier for
>the iPhone. The multifunction device is expected to ship in June and
>cost about $500."

"And now for the rest of the story:"
<http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/Apple-looked-into-switching-the-iPhone-to-Verizon-as-early-as-2007-article-a_12446.html>
or <http://goo.gl/JXSb>

A story in the latest Wired magazine details how Steve Jobs and Apple
continuously became frustrated with AT&T. A number of times,
switching the iPhone over to Verizon was suggested until it was
determined that the cost to change the phone to Big Red's CDMA
network was so high that it put the kibosh on the plan. Toward the
end of 2007, when the iPhone was only a few months old, AT&T asked
Apple if it could reduce the use of bandwidth by making the YouTube
client work only on Wi-Fi. Jobs became perturbed at the idea of
restrictions being placed on the device and sent Scott Forstall, the
chief of the iPhone software team, to meet with Qualcomm who was
supplying Verizon with their CDMA chips. The bottom line-switching to
a CDMA model was too complex and expensive. It would require a full
redesign of the phone and at the time, Verizon was considered an
"iffy" proposition-as much as AT&T was. The subject of switching to
Big Red came up often, and as one source noted, "Every time the issue
of switching came up, it always seemed to cause as many problems as
it solved."

...

Apple has made some mistakes of its own. Apple insiders confirmed
that the baseband software running the iPhone's main radio was full
of bugs when the device was originally launched, and was a
contributing factor to all of the dropped calls. And the selection of
Infineon to provide the main radio was-in hindsight-not a good idea
because of the tech firm's limited use in the U.S. prior to being
used by Apple. Still, the iPhone has been a huge money maker for
Apple and remains the smartphone that everyone is still trying to
kill all these years later. And yes, while sources say that leaving
AT&T for Verizon has been brought up about half a dozen times, there
are no plans to switch carriers now. Right now, the public perceives
AT&T as the bad parent, putting a cap on data usage, complaining in
public about broadband usage and looking to spank customers with a
tiered data plan. Apple remains the good parent, the one with the
cool hardware and software that seems to have no limits to what you
can do with it.

>Significantly, Apple did not issue any denial of this news story which
>was widely reported.

Wrong again(tm):
Companies almost never deny false stories (because it tends to actually
give them legs and credibility).

>Also significant is that the revenue sharing
>arrangement and the unsubsidized model was scuttled after it was clear
>that the arrangement was resulting in lower than expected sales and
>large numbers of iPhones being purchased but not activated on AT&T.

Wrong again(tm):
Sheer unsupported fantasy on your part.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

In article
<282a506c-e6c5-4a7c-bb33-688dd6a81342@l20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > >That's true. All we know is that Apple approached Verizon first and they
> > > >were unable to make a deal.
> > >
> > > Wrong again(tm):
> > > Recent press accounts make it clear that AT&T was the first choice of
> > > Apple.
> >
> > cite them.
> >
> > the *only* thing we know is that apple and at&t entered into a contract
> > for an unspecified amount of time greater than 1 year ('multi-year
> > exclusive'). beyond that, it's speculation.
>
> Actually we know much more than that because it would be illegal for
> corporate executives to publicly make false statements. It's highly
> unlikely that the Verizon executive lied, and no interested party,
> AT&T, Apple, or Verizon denied that the story was true.

but there's no law that prevents journalists from speculating or
talking out their ass.

> "NEW YORK — 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.
> Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone
> fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the
> relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon
> Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about
> the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually
> beneficial."

looks like navas is wrong again (tm).

> Verizon's decision to pull the plug on talks sent Apple into the
> waiting arms of Cingular, which will be the exclusive U.S. carrier for
> the iPhone. The multifunction device is expected to ship in June and
> cost about $500."

that part is speculation. apple likely was in talks with at&t all
along, waiting to see which carrier would be the best choice.

nospam wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> i've said before, nobody outside of a few people at apple and verizon
> > >> knows exactly what transpired.
> > >
> > >That's true. All we know is that Apple approached Verizon first and they
> > >were unable to make a deal.
> >
> > Wrong again(tm):
> > Recent press accounts make it clear that AT&T was the first choice of
> > Apple.
>
> cite them.
>
> the *only* thing we know is that apple and at&t entered into a contract
> for an unspecified amount of time greater than 1 year ('multi-year
> exclusive'). beyond that, it's speculation.

Actually we know much more than that because it would be illegal for
corporate executives to publicly make false statements. It's highly
unlikely that the Verizon executive lied, and no interested party,
AT&T, Apple, or Verizon denied that the story was true.

"NEW YORK — 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.
Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone
fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the
relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon
Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about
the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually
beneficial."

Verizon's decision to pull the plug on talks sent Apple into the
waiting arms of Cingular, which will be the exclusive U.S. carrier for
the iPhone. The multifunction device is expected to ship in June and
cost about $500."

Significantly, Apple did not issue any denial of this news story which
was widely reported. Also significant is that the revenue sharing
arrangement and the unsubsidized model was scuttled after it was clear
that the arrangement was resulting in lower than expected sales and
large numbers of iPhones being purchased but not activated on AT&T.

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

> >> i've said before, nobody outside of a few people at apple and verizon
> >> knows exactly what transpired.
> >
> >That's true. All we know is that Apple approached Verizon first and they
> >were unable to make a deal.
>
> Wrong again(tm):
> Recent press accounts make it clear that AT&T was the first choice of
> Apple.

cite them.

the *only* thing we know is that apple and at&t entered into a contract
for an unspecified amount of time greater than 1 year ('multi-year
exclusive'). beyond that, it's speculation.

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:45:31 -0400, in
<[email protected]>, "Peter Pan"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>gee, my iphone works on my wireless network (free) and I use icall (free)
>for free calling (as a backup it does cell, but *ONLY* if no free wireless
>available), does the htc work at home or work on a free wireless network, or
>only on its own data/voice contracts with the cell service?

Mine sure does. 3CXPhone.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?