Why iPhone for Cingular Only?
Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa
Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
Kevin
"Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa" <Mous...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote in message
news:Hqlfi.470643$115.4...@newsfe10.phx...
If I were Steve Jobs, I would go with the company that offered me the most
money. And he did.
Kevin Weaver
But you know how verizon cripples there phones and there would be no way
apple could sell these under verizon.
What ever is down the road for verizon that is going to compare to the
iphone is anyone's guess. But with all the things verizon does not allow,
what good is it?
"Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa" <Mous...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote in message
news:Hqlfi.470643$115.4...@newsfe10.phx...
Agent_C
<Mous...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
>Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular?
I'll speculate that this decision was at least in part influenced by
the lack of disparity in service/coverage between Verizon and Cingular
in California. They're roughly equal in most areas.
Contrast that with the East Coast, where Verizon is clearly superior
in most areas.
The Stinkular factor is the one and only reason I'll probably never
own this phone.
A_C
Mitchell Regenbogen
Actually, you're all incorrect. If you had followed this you would know
that the reason Apple chose Cingular is that Verizon refused to give
Apple total control of the content. Apple wants to make money not only
selling the iPhone, but selling you content. Verizon said no. Cingular
said yes (presumably for enough money).
Agent_C <Agent-C-h...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
news:51ss731uqjos12t4i...@4ax.com:
stevev
"Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa" <Mous...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote in message
news:Hqlfi.470643$115.4...@newsfe10.phx...
deal). Although their total number of customers is about equal, Verizon is
considered by most to be the superior network with better coverage and
support in many areas (mine, for example) and many, many more long-term
contracts than ATT. I don't see this changing until Verizon starts losing
customers to ATT due to more versatile phones (fully functional, not
crippled), more and less expensive plan choices, and other technological
advances. Both Europe and Asia are well ahead of the US...again, I suspect
the reason is money. Got to keep those well-paid executives and
stockholders happy.
Jer
It's my understanding that Cing^H^H^H^H at&t is paying a chunk for the
exclusive privilege. According to I, Cringely in 01/07...
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070111_001476.html
Follow the money.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Al Bundy
"Pegleg" <Peg...@usnavyret.mil> wrote in message
news:bk9t73dsg7m74p46c...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:26:37 -0700, "stevev" <ste...@addlebrain.com>
> wrote:
>>I suspect that money was the reason (Apple gave ATT an exclusive 5-year
>>deal). Although their total number of customers is about equal, Verizon
>>is
>>considered by most to be the superior network with better coverage and
>>support in many areas (mine, for example) and many, many more long-term
>>contracts than ATT. I don't see this changing until Verizon starts losing
>>customers to ATT due to more versatile phones (fully functional, not
>>crippled), more and less expensive plan choices, and other technological
>>advances. Both Europe and Asia are well ahead of the US...again, I
>>suspect
>>the reason is money. Got to keep those well-paid executives and
>>stockholders happy.
>
> they know people will stay with them because of their coverage,
> especially if you travel much. Their prices suck, their hardware
> crippling policy sucks, on the whole their phones suck but their
> coverage is the best overall.
>
> Maybe if they start losing subscribers they will change some things but
> I'm not holding my breath.
> -
>
> Pegleg
> U.S. Navy Retired
> Support Our Troops,
> Question The Policy!
>
> All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words:
> freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
> Sir Winston Churchill
And let's not forget the other Verizon Exclusive (Screw Me Now)
Gotta love em.
Al
stevev
lack of flexibility, costly extras - because their network was better (it
certainly is in my area). Remains to be seen if this will change with the
iPhone. It does have an impressive list of functions in a single device.
Shortly we will know if they are worth it, or even if they work. AT&T
claims that 40% of people expressing interest in the iPhone are NOT
currently AT&T customers. If large numbers of subscribers switch to AT&T
from other carriers, Verizon (and the others) will have to respond or
continue losing customers. Seems to me it will be good for the customer no
matter what, assuming the total cost isn't prohibitive.
"Al Bundy" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lQDfi.2586$yN.2274@trnddc07...
Larry
news:CNEfi.35480$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
> Verizon (and the others) will have to respond or
> continue losing customers. Seems to me it will be good for the
> customer no matter what, assuming the total cost isn't prohibitive.
>
>
The iPhone's ability to connect to any wifi it finds, bypassing Verizon,
entirely, will never be sold by Verizon unless those features are turned
off. I was amazed to see how many PDAs Alltel sells that will connect to
any wifi that's open or you have a WEP code for.
Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP
SMS
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:21:11 -0700, "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa"
> <Mous...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
>
>> Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular?
>
> I'll speculate that this decision was at least in part influenced by
> the lack of disparity in service/coverage between Verizon and Cingular
> in California. They're roughly equal in most areas.
Hardly. In the urban parts of the urban counties, they are roughly
equal. But go to a rural part of an urban county, and the differences
are significant. These differences are reflected in all the independent
surveys.
If the other Steve founder of Apple, Wozniak, had been consulted, he
would have confirmed this. He actually moved because he couldn't get GSM
coverage in the rural part of Los Gatos where he lived!
In any case, according to all reports, Apple did approach Verizon first,
and Verizon wasn't interested due to the terms that Apple wanted.
Verizon, with it's significantly higher numbers of net additions, could
afford to be choosy.
It goes further than that however. It's also CDMA's superiority over GSM
in terms of coverage, something I experienced several times in the past
week up in some rural areas of Southern Oregon. For whatever reason, the
CDMA carriers in that area have done a very good job of coverage in the
rural areas, while the GSM carriers have not.
> Contrast that with the East Coast, where Verizon is clearly superior
> in most areas.
I've experienced the exact opposite. While Verizon also tops Cingular in
every survey of east coast urban areas, I've not experienced the large
areas of "no-coverage" that exist with Cingular in places like the Bay
Area of California. I attributed it to the more dense demographics of
the Atlantic Seaboard, and Southeast.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]
SMS
> Yup, they have been able to sustain their business model - crippled phones,
> lack of flexibility, costly extras - because their network was better (it
> certainly is in my area). Remains to be seen if this will change with the
> iPhone. It does have an impressive list of functions in a single device.
> Shortly we will know if they are worth it, or even if they work. AT&T
> claims that 40% of people expressing interest in the iPhone are NOT
> currently AT&T customers. If large numbers of subscribers switch to AT&T
> from other carriers, Verizon (and the others) will have to respond or
> continue losing customers. Seems to me it will be good for the customer no
> matter what, assuming the total cost isn't prohibitive.
It'll be hard for Verizon to respond. Certainly they could offer a phone
with similar features, including WiFi, and they almost certainly will do
so. But it won't have the branding advantage of the iPhone, nor will it
have the accessory selection.
Todd Allcock
> The iPhone's ability to connect to any wifi it finds, bypassing
Verizon,
> entirely, will never be sold by Verizon unless those features are
turned
> off.
Um, the Verizon PPC phone (XV-6700) is a Windows Mobile phone with Wi-Fi.
It connects to any open Wi-Fi network.
> I was amazed to see how many PDAs Alltel sells that will connect to
> any wifi that's open or you have a WEP code for.
So will Verizon's, Sprint's, Cingular's, T-Mo's, etc.
SMS
> At 25 Jun 2007 04:06:17 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>> The iPhone's ability to connect to any wifi it finds, bypassing
> Verizon,
>> entirely, will never be sold by Verizon unless those features are
> turned
>> off.
>
>
> Um, the Verizon PPC phone (XV-6700) is a Windows Mobile phone with Wi-Fi.
> It connects to any open Wi-Fi network.
Yeah, and it's made by HTC which is making the HTC Touch, which is their
iPhone competitor, and is more fully featured than the iPhone. No doubt
there will be a CDMA version of the HTC Touch, though practically
speaking the slide out keyboard on the XV-6700 is more useful for stuff
like e-mail and text messaging than a touch screen.
The big advantage of the HTC Touch is that it's a full PDA and an open
architecture design, running an OS that has an SDK and thousands of
applications. This probably doesn't matter to the typical iPhone user,
who's not using the device for anything other than the phone, web
browser, and music player, but it matters a lot in the corporate
environment.
Of course HTC can't match the Apple branding.
Kurt
"stevev" <ste...@addlebrain.com> wrote:
Jobs is no fool. He's not going to try and save a few bucks going in for
a project that requires long term viablity.
I guarantee Apple crossed their ts and dotted their is on this project.
I think hacing Apple oversee this ATT endevour will shape ATT up pretty
fast.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Kurt
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
What you all don't realize that it's not about the branding as it is
about making a multi-function phone that everyone can easily figure out
how to use.
This is where every other phone mfr has fallen flat on their faces.
The HTC will basically only appeal to techies, as will all the other
similar phones out there.
It's been long overdue for a major player to raise the bar.
Kurt
"Kevin" <web...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wake up.
Apple is doing well.
Jobs is smart. He would never jeopardize a long term project like this
simply to save a couple bucks on the front end.
Yazzan Gable
"Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa" <Mous...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
Hmmm. Could it be that the iPhone is quad-band GSM and there are more
GSM phones in the world than there are Verizon phones that run on their
specific flavour of CDMA?
Also that Cingular/ATT would probably NOT cripple the phone's bluetooth
abilities and NOT insist that the wi-fi be taken off...
SMS
> In article <Hqlfi.470643$115.4...@newsfe10.phx>,
> "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa" <Mous...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
>
>> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
>> Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
>> coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
>> were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
>> according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
>
>
> Hmmm. Could it be that the iPhone is quad-band GSM and there are more
> GSM phones in the world than there are Verizon phones that run on their
> specific flavour of CDMA?
No. Apple knew that when it approached Verizon prior to approaching
Cingular.
> Also that Cingular/ATT would probably NOT cripple the phone's bluetooth
> abilities and NOT insist that the wi-fi be taken off...
LOL, yeah that's a real possibility.
One thing I don't like about the iPhone is that the SIM card is
non-removable. If you're traveling overseas you can't stick in a prepaid
SIM card, you have to roam internationally, at considerable cost.
Michael Paris
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46829c36$0$27157$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Yazzan Gable wrote:
>> In article <Hqlfi.470643$115.4...@newsfe10.phx>,
>> "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa" <Mous...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand
>>> that Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for
>>> superb coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose
>>> Cingular? If I were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the
>>> best network and according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
>> Hmmm. Could it be that the iPhone is quad-band GSM and there are more
>> GSM phones in the world than there are Verizon phones that run on their
> No. Apple knew that when it approached Verizon prior to approaching
> Cingular.
Yeah far more gsm in the world.
>> Also that Cingular/ATT would probably NOT cripple the phone's bluetooth
>> abilities and NOT insist that the wi-fi be taken off...
thats because you can use any unlocked gsm phones on AT&T (Cingular)'s
network as long as it supports
its frequencies.
> LOL, yeah that's a real possibility.
>
> One thing I don't like about the iPhone is that the SIM card is
> non-removable. If you're traveling overseas you can't stick in a prepaid
> SIM card, you have to roam internationally, at considerable cost.
It has a sim card tray. And I'm sure there will be hacks out rather quickly
that will unlock the iphone, and there's nothing Apple can do about it.
Usually but I'm sure not with the iphone, AT&T will provide unlock codes 90
days after service starts. There is no law that prevents you from unlocking
any
phone, its a DMCA exemption.
Unless you are dying for the iphone, and I admit its nice, I would wait abit
before getting one. My kids Samsung Sync's on AT&T do most of what the
iphone
does with out alot of the pizzazz and it is 3g hsdpa, and has stereo
bluetooth, but no wifi. And they were almost free.
SMS
> does with out alot of the pizzazz and it is 3g hsdpa, and has stereo
> bluetooth, but no wifi. And they were almost free.
The next version of the iPhone will almost certainly have 3G. It was
rather amusing to read one reviewers comment about using the iPhone on
AT&T's EDGE network:
"David Pogue of the New York Times called AT&T's EDGE network
"excruciatingly slow." "You almost ache for a dial-up modem," he said."
Of course it's not AT&T's fault that Apple didn't put HSDPA into the
iPhone. I think one of the reasons that Apple approached Verizon first
was because the Verizon EV-DO network has far more coverage than the
AT&T HSDPA network. Apple may have been reluctant to include HSDPA on
the iPhone because of fears of complaints from users that they couldn't
get an HSDPA connection. Or it may have been a compromise to be able to
differentiate service plans, and offer lower cost plans for the iPhone
than are offered for the HSDPA network.
Michael Paris
> was because the Verizon EV-DO network has far more coverage than the
> AT&T HSDPA network. Apple may have been reluctant to include HSDPA on the
> iPhone because of fears of complaints from users that they couldn't get an
> HSDPA connection. Or it may have been a compromise to be able to
> differentiate service plans, and offer lower cost plans for the iPhone
> than are offered for the HSDPA network.
I don't think thats the reason but, it could be, but to complain about
AT&T's slow network under edge is not their fault, its the fault of the
phone not supporting 3g. Maybe EVDO is faster then AT&T's , but not to the
point of making much of a difference. And if that is the sole criteria,
Sprints EVDO is faster yet, but again, for a phone, doubtful it would make a
big real world difference. Maybe if tethering.
I do agree, the next iphone will support 3g hsdpa or whatever is out at the
time.
Another critisim is lack of flash, java and aps. Well the first two
probably will be solved by the summers end, the last will take sometime, but
no different then when PalmOS or WM first came out, it will take developers
time.
This phone is a fashion statement as much as being what it is, and this is
nothing new, in phones, watches and other electronic items, I don't intend
on getting one at this time, I don't think those who want one out of the
gate are wrong either, good luck to them, and if you see me, let me play
with it. :-) Meanwhile I will be very happy with my 8525 and my carry light
Samsung SGH-A727 which I switch sims back and forth according to me needs at
the time.
Charles
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I think one of the reasons that Apple approached Verizon first
You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
first.
--
Charles
SMS
"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/30/verizon_turned_down_iphone/"
among many other reports.
Charles
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> "http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/30/verizon_turned_down_iphone/"
> among many other reports.
The Register is not reliable, for example the article it states Rogers
has signed up in Canada, which is not confirmed. I think you are
confusing Verizon turning it down, with Verizon being offered it first.
It is more likely that it was offered to both Cingular and Verizon,
probably around the same time.
--
Charles
Tim Smith
Charles <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> 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>
--
--Tim Smith
Charles
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
That is not proof that they approached Verizon first. It is likely
they negotiated with both Cingular and Verizon, playing both against
each other.
--
Charles
earththing
<Mousta...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
> Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
> coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
> were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
> according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
accepted.
Mitchell Regenbogen
fo...@his.com.remove.invalid:
Definitely a possibility, if you live under a rock.
SMS
There is a lot more evidence that Apple approached Verizon first, and
actually rushed out the GSM design when it didn't work out with Verizon.
Someone in ba.internet was analyzing the FCC applications as well, which
showed the same thing, Cingular was essentially a last-minute switch for
Apple.
John Navas
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
<reply_in_group-12E...@news.supernews.com>:
That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
"Move along, folks, nothing new here."
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas
wrote in <4693944f$0$27170$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
Nope. Just speculation unsupported by any real evidence, as I pointed
out in my rebuttal.
John Navas
wrote in <1183926482.1...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
lost, a big downer for Verizon.
Scott
news:0qkq93pr2mer3iane...@4ax.com:
>
> That's Verizon spin not fact.
Untrue- Apple has even admitted that they went to Verizon first. Don't
believe it? Google it, Spanky.
> What undoubtedly actually happened is
> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>
Wrong on all counts.
Ness_net
The only "spin" here is yours.
It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3iane...@4ax.com...
John Navas
<ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<mPidnWHn396dEADb...@giganews.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3iane...@4ax.com...
>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
Nope.
>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
Hence, no facts.
Scott
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <mPidnWHn396dEADb...@giganews.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:0qkq93pr2mer3iane...@4ax.com...
>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>
>>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
>
> Nope.
Yep- well documented and available to anyone operating at higher than a
five year old menatality. This would obviously disqualify you.
>
>>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
>
> Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
> Hence, no facts.
>
Google is your friend, Zippy.
Ness_net
You can certainly deny all you want. But, it doesn't change a thing
The FACTS stay the same.
Going 'round and 'round with you is absolutely pointless also.
What is WELL documented is the FACT that you do not seen to ever
see the actual truth on many, if not most occasions - at least in discussions
I've seen.
So, whatever.... twist and spin John - it proves nothing. Other than what
most here know - you ain't got a frickin' clue.
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:dn5r939j4l1984g3p...@4ax.com...
SMS
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.
----------------------------------------------------
The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that
onlookers will have trouble telling which is the nut
----------------------------------------------------
james g. keegan jr.
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <earth...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <1183926482.1...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
> >of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
> >requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
> >accepted.
>
> That's Verizon spin not fact. 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, when you post blatant lies like that, people disrespect you
even more.
that apple offered the iphone to verizon first has been well
documented.
please, don't lie in the cellular groups. people read here for
information.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
Dennis Ferguson
> Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:0qkq93pr2mer3iane...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact.
>>
>> Untrue- Apple has even admitted that they went to Verizon first. Don't
>> believe it? Google it, Spanky.
>>
>>> What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong on all counts.
>
> 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).
Dennis Ferguson
John Navas
<dcfer...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnf9smo1.8...@akit-ferguson.com>:
Indeed -- makes no sense at all. Apple was almost certainly heading for
the _worldwide_ GSM market from the beginning.
John Navas
wrote in <469dc40a$0$27215$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:0qkq93pr2mer3iane...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact.
>>
>> Untrue- Apple has even admitted that they went to Verizon first. Don't
>> believe it? Google it, Spanky.
>>
>>> What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>
>> Wrong on all counts.
>
>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.
Not true. That was just speculation based on little actual evidence.
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 Navas
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:18:12 -0700, "Ness_net"
<ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<5q-dnVuHpIoPPwDb...@giganews.com>:
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
Scott
> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm
Now shut up and go away.
Kevin Weaver
"Scott" <how...@you.do> wrote in message
news:f9OdnTTtmsN0_APb...@adelphia.com...
DTC
> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:18:12 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <5q-dnVuHpIoPPwDb...@giganews.com>:
>
>> As I and others have stated - "documented" fact.
>> You can certainly deny all you want. But, it doesn't change a thing
>>
>> The FACTS stay the same.
BZZZZZZZZ....... top posting alert.
SMS
> 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&"
Scott
$Rw1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
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.
james g. keegan jr.
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> 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?
james g. keegan jr.
Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
james g. keegan jr.
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> 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
james g. keegan jr.
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
"http://groups.google.com/group/ba.internet/msg/b108ac12b3c04bc0?hl=en
&"
you should be ashamed of yourelf.
Dennis Ferguson
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
SMS
> 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.
Scott
news:469f5c5a$0$27192$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> 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.
SMS
> 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?
Scott
news:469fae12$0$27225$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> 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.
Scott
news:elmop-02F5B2....@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
> In article <3oCdnZ-q9uNPFQPb...@adelphia.com>,
> Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.
>
>
You missed the Navas response. They are Verizon shills.
james g. keegan jr.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA...@individual.net>,
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <f9OdnTTtmsN0_APb...@adelphia.com>,
> > Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
> >
> > > John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> > > news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e...@4ax.com:
> > >
> > > > No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-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.
John Navas
<jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in
<jgkeegan-4BC017...@individual.net>:
>In article <elmop-8A8F81....@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA...@individual.net>,
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> 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. ;)
John Navas
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-02F5B2....@nntp1.usenetserver.com>:
>In article <3oCdnZ-q9uNPFQPb...@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
>
>Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.
USA Today is crappy "journalism", in this case just repeating spin from
Verizon. Not terribly surprising that this hasn't been confirmed by
credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.
John Navas
wrote in <469fae12$0$27225$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>BTW, does the iPhone support Extended GSM?
Of course it does. The feature is in the tower, not the handset.
james g. keegan jr.
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> USA Today is crappy "journalism", in this case just repeating spin from
> Verizon.
please provide credible evidence to support that outrageous
allegation.
james g. keegan jr.
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:25:15 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <jgkeegan-4BC017...@individual.net>:
>
> >In article <elmop-8A8F81....@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA...@individual.net>,
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> 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.
your whimpering response didn't refute a single fact.
> >he has lost all credibility.
>
> Actually just fine, but thanks for your concern. ;)
i am not surprised that you are used to people noting that you have
no credibility.
John Navas
wrote in <469f5c5a$0$27192$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>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? ...
Pretty clear that they do, which I know really upsets you. ;)
Kevin Weaver
news:prtv93ltun78638nv...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:43:55 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote in <469f5c5a$0$27192$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>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? ...
>
> Pretty clear that they do, which I know really upsets you. ;)
>
SMS
> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA...@individual.net>,
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>> news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm
>>>
>>> Now shut up and go away.
>>
>> actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
>
>
> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
Yes, even though I've had him kill-filed for a long time, I can always
tell when he disappears for a long time, as the responses to his
misinformation also disappear. It seems that whenever he gets caught
lying in such a clear way, he lays low for a while.
I wonder what he hopes to achieve by lying about why and when Verizon
turned down the iPhone. He should be thrilled that Cingular was able to
snag it for themselves, as it should really help them with new additions.
james g. keegan jr.
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
he still hasn't acknowledged his lie. in fact, he is still in the
denial stage, which is both fascinating and disturbing.
Kurt
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:25:15 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <jgkeegan-4BC017...@individual.net>:
>
> >In article <elmop-8A8F81....@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA...@individual.net>,
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> 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. ;)
Non sequitor.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
DTC
>> Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.
[Cough}
> USA Today is crappy "journalism", in this case just repeating spin from
> Verizon. Not terribly surprising that this hasn't been confirmed by
> credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.
Actually New York Times did cover it, but it required a subscription and I
didn't pursue the article enough to quote it.
Scott
Crap- I should have bet somebody that he would say this.
Okay, Johnny, I'll find a few more for ya'- there are hundreds of articles.
Maybe I'll go back and find some fo the rags, blogs and forwign websites
you've used in the past. I'm sure all of them have weighed in on the
subject. Maybe a WSJ article is in order as well.
You are truly the definition of Usenet troll.
SMS
> he still hasn't acknowledged his lie. in fact, he is still in the
> denial stage, which is both fascinating and disturbing.
I could easily list 100 of his lies, so I don't think it's too
fascinating. At to disturbing, don't let Usenet trolls and spammers
disturb you.
james g. keegan jr.
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
that's probably good advice.
John Navas
in <labolide-96C7BA...@news.giganews.com>:
>Non sequitor.
Failure to understand what that really is.
John Navas
wrote in <46a00fd7$0$27206$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
>Yes, even though I've had him kill-filed for a long time, I can always
>tell when he disappears for a long time, as the responses to his
>misinformation also disappear. It seems that whenever he gets caught
>lying in such a clear way, he lays low for a while.
Hardly. LOL! It's just that (unlike you) I have a life, and this is a
busy time of year for me -- we're prepping for the Big Boat Series. :)
>I wonder what he hopes to achieve by lying about why and when Verizon
>turned down the iPhone. ...
The lie is yours (and you know it).