or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Verizon responds to AT&T in court: 'The truth hurts'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon responds to AT&T in court: 'The truth hurts'

post #1 of 132
Thread Starter 
Verizon filed an aggressive legal response Monday as part of its ongoing defense against AT&T, accusing its competitor of overreacting to "the truth" of its wireless data service.

The latest filing on behalf of Verizon Wireless was in response to the latest request by AT&T to pull a series of ads from the air which highlight the disparity between the two companies' 3G data networks. The legal response holds no punches and is aggressive from the introduction: "AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon's "There's A Map For That" advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon's ads are true and the truth hurts."

Verizon's filing was issued in response to AT&T, which asserted that Verizon's ads are "false and misleading" because they confuse customers into believing that AT&T has no coverage in the areas highlighted as being devoid of 3G coverage.

Verizon's conclusion filed Monday in an Atlanta court maintains the tone set out from the start: "In the final analysis, AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon's side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T's confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger."

In light of Verizon's advertising assault, AT&T recently issued a response directly to its customers, calling the ads "so blatantly false and misleading, that we want to set the record straight about AT&T's wireless data coverage." AT&T then went on to highlight the speed of its network and the total coverage of its EDGE and 3G networks.

This response followed its federal complaint against Verizon's series of five ads which compared both network's 3G national coverage areas. The first two, dubbed "College" and "Bench," used the phrase "There's a map for that" in parody of the famous "There's an app for that" iPhone commercials. Verizon then followed up with three holiday-themed ads, with one describing the iPhone as a "misfit" due to AT&T's poor 3G coverage.

Verizon has recently turned up the heat on AT&T in the hardware arena as well, releasing several ads directly criticizing the iPhone and highlighting the differences between it and the Droid. The Droid is currently Verizon's flagship phone and is the first phone to have the Android 2.0 platform along with Google Maps Navigation, a GPS-like application which gives turn-by-turn directions directly over the data connection.

AppleInsider recently reported that scores associated with the Verizon Wireless brand have soared, while AT&T's have dropped since the Droid and 3G-coverage ads started to run Oct. 18th.
post #2 of 132
Poor Them. Get over it.
post #3 of 132
You tell 'em Verizon! AT&T deserves it.

All I want for Christmas is a Verizon 64 Gig iPhone!
post #4 of 132
I love it when two whores bitch!
post #5 of 132
None of them are perfect. However, VZ is the sore looser in market share. VZ missed the chance to get the exclusive on the iPhone.
post #6 of 132
AT&T needs to stop whining, man up, and start producing ads that showcase the inherent benefits of HSPA over EVDO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

I love it when two whores bitch!

Nice.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #7 of 132
Cell phone carriers are the antichr**t and must be stopped. I hope they sue each other out of existance.
post #8 of 132
Heh, if Verizon ever got the iPhone along with AT&T I can't even imagine the kind of ad wars that would take place with Apple sitting pretty in the middle. It seems that every cellular ad or controversy is somehow at least indirectly related with Apple. Apple has sucked all the available air out of the rest of the hardware makers.
post #9 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

AT&T needs to stop whining, man up, and start producing ads that showcase the inherent benefits of HSPA over EVDO.




Nice.

Or better yet start upgrading and expanding its network from edge so Verizon doesn't have a leg to stand on. The benefits of HSPA over EVDO don't matter if EVDO's the only one with a signal.
post #10 of 132
It is obvious that Verizon's commercials are not misleading. They do compare the products apples to apples (or Apples to Droids networks that is).

Still there must have been a reason for apple to go with ATT in the first place. How were the two networks comparing on the eve of iPhone launch? Did ATT always have a crappier network, and if not how long ago did Verison outdo ATT in 3G? Maybe the tables will turn again when iPhone 4G comes out.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #11 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

AT&T needs to stop whining, man up, and start producing ads that showcase the inherent benefits of HSPA over EVDO.

Exactly. No one is stopping AT&T from starting their own ad campaign against Verizon. By the time this lawsuit is finalized Verizon would have started their next round of ad campaigns.
post #12 of 132
Its hard to argue with Verizon on this one. I agree AT&T has to suck it up and improve its network.
post #13 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Or better yet start upgrading and expanding its network from edge so Verizon doesn't have a leg to stand on. The benefits of HSPA over EVDO don't matter if EVDO's the only one with a signal.

They apparently cover 75% of the populated US. Then there are the places that people dont live but travel through. I have no idea how much area that is but I wouldnt expect it to cover nearly as much area as Verizons network.

Id rather see them get their 3G network converted to 850MHz and increase the throughput in the needed areas first before they focus on pushing their 3G coverage out to more remote areas. With a 5000% increase in data usage in 3 years I think its more important area to focus those billions in upgrading the high data areas first. From a per capita usage standpoint that seems to make more sense to me.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #14 of 132
I agree and this is likely the primary strategy AT&T is pursuing, but its undermined by explosive iPhone sales and the popularity of its thousands of apps. I believe its the type of problem that the other US carriers would like to have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I’d rather see them get their 3G network converted to 850MHz and increase the throughput in the needed areas first before they focus on pushing their 3G coverage out to more remote areas. With a 5000% increase in data usage in 3 years I think it’s more important area to focus those billions in upgrading the high data areas first. From a per capita usage standpoint that seems to make more sense to me.
post #15 of 132
Verizon just needs to take a break and stop acting immature. Just
stick to the fact that you have the best wireless coverage and most amount of customers
in the United States.
And since they were targeting the iPhone, maybe they should've agreed to "take" the iPhone instead of AT&T holding that crown.
"the truth hurts"
note to Verizon: "KARMA hurts."
post #16 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexhasfun28 View Post

Verizon just needs to take a break and stop acting immature. Just
stick to the fact that you have the best wireless coverage and most amount of customers
in the United States.

I can’t agree with your sentiment that Verizon is acting immature. It’s a good campaign focus. One that directly speaks to consumers. AT&T has spent the last several years saying they had the fastest 3G network. AT&T has dug their own grave by first directly comparing the non-descript ‘3G’ doublespeak despite Verizon and AT&T’s 3G networks being inherently different.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #17 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Or better yet start upgrading and expanding its network from edge so Verizon doesn't have a leg to stand on. The benefits of HSPA over EVDO don't matter if EVDO's the only one with a signal.

Or, come out with Verizon customer testimonial ads and use the complaints from these former Verizon users and there are plenty of complaints...

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...ou-charge-now/

Kind of like a version of the Laptop Hunter ads except AT&T can call it "The Customer Satisfaction" ads... and if Verizon goes to court, AT&T can counter with, "Hey, the truth hurts!"

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #18 of 132
Apple needs to step it up, not make excuses. I live in a rural part of the US that really struggles acquiring an AT&T signal (this extends over almost the entire state of Utah). Most people here use Verizon. The difference in how well a signal is received isn't even close. It's as though AT&T has written us completely off.

I can tell you if the iPhone was picked up by Verizon, I would switch immediately. The worst part of my iPhone is AT&T!

I also understand that Verizon was approached first by Apple, but refused due to the Visual Voicemail and Apple's general overbearing control they would need over their iPhone. Verizon, at the time, wasn't willing to concede to Apple's requests. Anyone else hear the same thing?
post #19 of 132
Good for Verizon for standing up for their campaign. AT&T can stop crying and start plugging holes in their network.
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
post #20 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

It is obvious that Verizon's commercials are not misleading. They do compare the products apples to apples (or Apples to Droids networks that is).

Still there must have been a reason for apple to go with ATT in the first place. How were the two networks comparing on the eve of iPhone launch? Did ATT always have a crappier network, and if not how long ago did Verison outdo ATT in 3G? Maybe the tables will turn again when iPhone 4G comes out.

Verizon's 'map for that' commercials ARE misleading but not false. They compare 3G coverage (not false) but do so in a way that gives the impression that all the other areas are not covered at all (misleading).

There was a good reason(s) Apple went with AT&T. Verizon rejected the opportunity to carry the iPhone originally. Other reasons include AT&T being willing to build back-end network support for iPhone features, and their willingness to let Apple maintain control of their device, unlike what VZ does to devices.
post #21 of 132
I really don't like any of this. I have Verizon, but don't like the fact that their ads go for the jugular. Reminds me of political ad smear campaigns. Just like the "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" ads that both Apple and M$ are producing.

So here's an idea: Make an ad campaign that shows what YOU can do, not showing what your COMPETITORS do not. I find ads that speak out against others failures as immature, and that the company making the ad is hiding something bad about themselves by showing how "horrible" the other guy is. Everyone should be able to pull themselves up above the rest, not stand on other people's faces to get ahead.

Now mind you, I prefer Verizon's coverage over AT&Ts, and T-Mobile. I don't however like the "There's a charge for that" mentality that Verizon has. If you do it right, you can avoid the little tiny charges here and there.

Personally, I'd like to see Apple use their iPhone/iPod ad style for their computers. I'm so sick of the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" characters. Same goes for the M$ ads when it was the "Laptop Hunters". I hated those too. Show me what the Apple can do SANS Microsoft. So far, their computer ads can't do that... which is sadly ironic (even more sad to me is how well they've worked)

So, just show me how well your products work STAND ALONE, not in comparison, and maybe I'll be more inclined to buy!

(Note: All cell phone companies in the US in my market have ads that bash each other... you loose no matter who you choose.)
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #22 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Or, come out with Verizon customer testimonial ads and use the complaints from these former Verizon users and there are plenty of complaints...

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...ou-charge-now/

Kind of like a version of the Laptop Hunter ads except AT&T can call it "The Customer Satisfaction" ads... and if Verizon goes to court, AT&T can counter with, "Hey, the truth hurts!"

Here are a couple of samples....

Verizon Customer: "Verizon is the king of the heap of greedy phone companies.

Im part of a class action suit against their charging people through their billing date, when canceling at the end of their contract date.

This is stated verbally to customers who cancel. while clearly stated otherwise in their customer agreement. The amount overcharged unwitting users is in the millions of dollars.

Beware.

Paul Stravinsky"

or

"Verizon is a money-grubbing organization, period. I bought my first iPhone just six weeks before the expiration of my then current contract with Verizon. I had been a Verizon customer for years, yet they insisted on charging me the full early termination fee even though they were prorating this fee for newer customers. When I objected, they referred my call to their Loyalty department. In other words, if youre not a loyal Verizon customer, screw you. Since Verizon refused to lower the fee, I refused to pay them a penny.

The irony is that I recently got an offer of settlement from Verizon for half the original fee. One has to wonder, wouldnt it have been more cost-effective for them to have negotiated the fee in the first place? Thats what blind greed does to people. I wouldnt trust Verizon as far as I can throw them.

alansky"



AT&T Customer: "The same day I read your post regarding Verizon data charges, I noticed my AT&T bill had a data charge. I then recalled accidently hitting one of those mystery keys that triggers this charge (I terminated the charge immediately.) Im not sure what key I hit, but I was cold, and was wearing mittens.

Anyhow, I was only charged 8 cents (so it seems at least AT&T prorates the charge), but I went ahead and called AT&T anyhow and had the charge removed.

Ill stick with AT&T! - merrilee"

or

"My phone fell into a pool with 21 days left on my two year contract. I took the opportunity to cancel my account and get an iPhone. Verizon refused to let me pay for my last month on my agreement ($59) and made me pay the full cancellation fee of $175. I will NEVER go back to Verizon even if they get the iPhone. Ive been very happy with AT&T anyway plus their employees are actually friendly. - Phil"

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #23 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonlivy View Post

Apple needs to step it up, not make excuses. I live in a rural part of the US that really struggles acquiring an AT&T signal (this extends over almost the entire state of Utah). Most people here use Verizon. The difference in how well a signal is received isn't even close. It's as though AT&T has written us completely off.

I can tell you if the iPhone was picked up by Verizon, I would switch immediately. The worst part of my iPhone is AT&T!

I also understand that Verizon was approached first by Apple, but refused due to the Visual Voicemail and Apple's general overbearing control they would need over their iPhone. Verizon, at the time, wasn't willing to concede to Apple's requests. Anyone else hear the same thing?

Good luck with that VZ service. Yes, you'll get better network coverage. You want text messaging? Oh, that'll cost you extra (just like the other guys). Want media messaging? Oh, that'll cost you extra. You want a WiFi enabled phone? No, no, we don't allow those phones because we want all data to run across our network so we can charge you more for it. You want Bluetooth? Oh, no, well, maybe we'll let you run a wireless headset, but we'll cripple any other function because we wouldn't want you to be able to get data over Bluetooth for the same reason as WiFi. You want music or media streaming on your phone? Oh, oops, sorry, you can't have that, but you can sign up for our proprietary VCast service for an outlandish fee, and we'll tell you what content you're allowed to have, where, when, and how much. You want web surfing? Well, you can now have this 'mobile web' thingy we made, but you need to sign up for our 'unlimited' data plan, for an extra fee, and you're limited to 5MB of 'unlimited' data per month - you can go over, but it'll cost ya. You want email? Okay, but you have to use our service... etc., etc., etc.

Some of these restrictions are starting to change, but only because of the iPhone & AT&T. Were it not for the iPhone, VZ would still be the most draconian cell service provider on the planet (well, they still are, but changing - because they have to).

So, yea, VZ missed their golden opportunity at the iPhone because they were too pig-headed to create support for visual voice mail... and music, and video, and WiFi, and maps data, and web browsing, and, and, and... and accept the idea that maybe the people who make the device want to control the features and future of their own device. I hope that sets the record straight on who is overbearing. \

But yea, AT&T's signal in Utah does suck pretty bad, I know, I travel there enough.
post #24 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Good luck with that VZ service. Yes, you'll get better network coverage. You want text messaging? Oh, that'll cost you extra (just like the other guys). Want media messaging? Oh, that'll cost you extra. You want a WiFi enabled phone? No, no, we don't allow those phones because we want all data to run across our network so we can charge you more for it. You want Bluetooth? Oh, no, well, maybe we'll let you run a wireless headset, but we'll cripple any other function because we wouldn't want you to be able to get data over Bluetooth for the same reason as WiFi. You want music or media streaming on your phone? Oh, oops, sorry, you can't have that, but you can sign up for our proprietary VCast service for an outlandish fee, and we'll tell you what content you're allowed to have, where, when, and how much. You want web surfing? Well, you can now have this 'mobile web' thingy we made, but you need to sign up for our 'unlimited' data plan, for an extra fee, and you're limited to 5MB of 'unlimited' data per month - you can go over, but it'll cost ya. You want email? Okay, but you have to use our service... etc., etc., etc.

Some of these restrictions are starting to change, but only because of the iPhone & AT&T. Were it not for the iPhone, VZ would still be the most draconian cell service provider on the planet (well, they still are, but changing - because they have to).

So, yea, VZ missed their golden opportunity at the iPhone because they were too pig-headed to create support for visual voice mail... and music, and video, and WiFi, and maps data, and web browsing, and, and, and... and accept the idea that maybe the people who make the device want to control the features and future of their own device. I hope that sets the record straight on who is overbearing. \

But yea, AT&T's signal in Utah does suck pretty bad, I know, I travel there enough.

This is truth right here. While Verizon may have arguably better coverage, they are know for having bad phones that are very locked down. They may have better 3G coverage, yet AT&T's 3G is actually faster at the moment in there areas where they have it. And even where they don't have 3G service, it's not like there's no phone service at all, the data is just slower. One other thing about Verizon is that right now they aren't based on the GMS standard and you don't get a SIM card which you can change between phones, which is unfortunate.

This isn't to say that AT&T is amazing, because they have their own host of issues, some of which ARE coverage, and they DO limit some programs on the iPhone from running over their network. BOTH have horrible prices for their services.

All I'm saying is that I think in the big picture the negatives to Verizon leave AT&T as the better choice.
post #25 of 132
Verizons ads are factual, I don't think they can be faulted for simply being misleading. There wouldn't be many ads out there if we go by AT&T's standards for advertising. Bye bye every axe ad, most ads for chewing gum (they somehow suggest that gum has sex appeal) the mac vs pc ads, laptop hunters, etc.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #26 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Good luck with that VZ service. Yes, you'll get better network coverage. You want text messaging? Oh, that'll cost you extra (just like the other guys). Want media messaging? Oh, that'll cost you extra. You want a WiFi enabled phone? No, no, we don't allow those phones because we want all data to run across our network so we can charge you more for it. You want Bluetooth? Oh, no, well, maybe we'll let you run a wireless headset, but we'll cripple any other function because we wouldn't want you to be able to get data over Bluetooth for the same reason as WiFi. You want music or media streaming on your phone? Oh, oops, sorry, you can't have that, but you can sign up for our proprietary VCast service for an outlandish fee, and we'll tell you what content you're allowed to have, where, when, and how much. You want web surfing? Well, you can now have this 'mobile web' thingy we made, but you need to sign up for our 'unlimited' data plan, for an extra fee, and you're limited to 5MB of 'unlimited' data per month - you can go over, but it'll cost ya. You want email? Okay, but you have to use our service... etc., etc., etc.

Some of these restrictions are starting to change, but only because of the iPhone & AT&T. Were it not for the iPhone, VZ would still be the most draconian cell service provider on the planet (well, they still are, but changing - because they have to).

So, yea, VZ missed their golden opportunity at the iPhone because they were too pig-headed to create support for visual voice mail... and music, and video, and WiFi, and maps data, and web browsing, and, and, and... and accept the idea that maybe the people who make the device want to control the features and future of their own device. I hope that sets the record straight on who is overbearing. \

But yea, AT&T's signal in Utah does suck pretty bad, I know, I travel there enough.

You're going way overboard. The iPhone and the Droid plans are extremely similar (in fact the same). The only difference between them is the outlandish $350 that you have to pay to terminate your contract early. Both have wifi and I find it funny that you mention Verizon crippling Bluetooth because Apple already does unless they do offer file transfers over Bluetooth.

Having the iPhone on both networks also creates competition and drives down cost. Just because of the iPhone, Verizon allowed Google Voice. Both companies will go out of their ways to open up the network more than they ever have because of Apple.

While Verizon does have better coverage, if they were the only carrier with the iPhone, they would have the same troubles as AT&T.
post #27 of 132
All I can say about those $1.99 charges on Att is (well, Cingular at the time), is that I never had a data plan aka MediaNet, and every time I accidently opened up the browser, I hit end, and never got charged.

In fact, when I got my Motorola Ming, I never could connect to Att and get an Edge connection unless I enabled MediaNet - it would always just stay at GPRS.

Just my experience.

I haven't seen T-Mobile promote the N900 phone yet, so I may just buy it unlocked at newegg for $559. While I do like the iphone, I'd rather have the high end screen and not be on Verizon with the Droid phone.

Besides, I can have a $30 voice plan and $25 for unlimited data, both cheaper than Att or Verizon. And in FL, I'm covered.
post #28 of 132
The truth: Verizon has been hurt by AT&T and the iPhone. The Druid and an aggressive marketing campaign aren't going to change that.

Maybe AT&T should advertise how many more terabytes per day their network dishes out to its discerning customers than Verizon's slow-poke network does. AT&T can also mention Exchange support for the iPhone doesn't cost anything extra, compared to the $15/month extra it costs for the Druid on Verizon.
post #29 of 132
An interesting aside - Orange UK have just started selling the iPhone and their marketing campaign centres around their superior 3G coverage.

It's the first time that I've seen a UK carrier compete on coverage in about 10 years. It's been such a non-issue for so long that competition has always centred around price or handset choice. It's a tactic that's likely to work though as O2 UK have under-invested in their 3G network for many years and it doesn't have enough capacity for all of its iPhone users.
post #30 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

It is obvious that Verizon's commercials are not misleading. They do compare the products apples to apples (or Apples to Droids networks that is).

Still there must have been a reason for apple to go with ATT in the first place. How were the two networks comparing on the eve of iPhone launch? Did ATT always have a crappier network, and if not how long ago did Verison outdo ATT in 3G? Maybe the tables will turn again when iPhone 4G comes out.

If my memory serves me correctly, the ONE and only reason why Verizon LOST the iPhone from jump street to AT&T was that; they (Verizon) wanted the last and final say on the app store and wanted to get a bigger piece of the cake up front and they didn't want to subsidize the iPhone and Apple said NO WAY JOSE!!! so that's what i remember why they blew their chance with the first iPhone...

because of CONTROL issues and in a way 'we' the consumers win, because now when Apple makes the next iPhone in 2010 (next summer) for Verizon, then AT&T will LOSE ALL the customers (myself included) to Verizon... I have HAD IT with this crappy AT&T SHYT!!!

AT&T can you HEAR ME NOW????!?!!??
post #31 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

I really don't like any of this. I have Verizon, but don't like the fact that their ads go for the jugular. Reminds me of political ad smear campaigns. Just like the "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" ads that both Apple and M$ are producing.

So here's an idea: Make an ad campaign that shows what YOU can do, not showing what your COMPETITORS do not. I find ads that speak out against others failures as immature, and that the company making the ad is hiding something bad about themselves by showing how "horrible" the other guy is. Everyone should be able to pull themselves up above the rest, not stand on other people's faces to get ahead.

Now mind you, I prefer Verizon's coverage over AT&Ts, and T-Mobile. I don't however like the "There's a charge for that" mentality that Verizon has. If you do it right, you can avoid the little tiny charges here and there.

Personally, I'd like to see Apple use their iPhone/iPod ad style for their computers. I'm so sick of the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" characters. Same goes for the M$ ads when it was the "Laptop Hunters". I hated those too. Show me what the Apple can do SANS Microsoft. So far, their computer ads can't do that... which is sadly ironic (even more sad to me is how well they've worked)

So, just show me how well your products work STAND ALONE, not in comparison, and maybe I'll be more inclined to buy!

(Note: All cell phone companies in the US in my market have ads that bash each other... you loose no matter who you choose.)

you are either a frustrated ex-advertising executive or maybe a current one, I don't know- I worked at and ad agency for 10 years and its the nature of the game, but those I'm a Mac, I'm a PC are FUCKING GENIUS AD's on APPLE's part they should win awards for those ads... this is AMERICA and its called competition -

and for ALL the APPLE HATERS from the past, present and future APPLE IS KING and there is nothing anyone can do but fight to the finish to get their IPhone on to their networks.. we the consumers WIN.... whats your beef?? oh and as for your suggestion about 'US' creating our own ads?? that's what MICRO$HIT tried to pass off as "real people' buying a PC instead of a MAC when they were given $1500. to spend on a new laptop;
Turns out they were 'hired' actors... Ooops!!!! and what was that the Mr. Bill Gates said about Mr. Steve Jobs??

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ing_apple.html
post #32 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

I really don't like any of this. I have Verizon, but don't like the fact that their ads go for the jugular. Reminds me of political ad smear campaigns. Just like the "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" ads that both Apple and M$ are producing.

So here's an idea: Make an ad campaign that shows what YOU can do, not showing what your COMPETITORS do not. I find ads that speak out against others failures as immature, and that the company making the ad is hiding something bad about themselves by showing how "horrible" the other guy is. Everyone should be able to pull themselves up above the rest, not stand on other people's faces to get ahead.

Now mind you, I prefer Verizon's coverage over AT&Ts, and T-Mobile. I don't however like the "There's a charge for that" mentality that Verizon has. If you do it right, you can avoid the little tiny charges here and there.

Personally, I'd like to see Apple use their iPhone/iPod ad style for their computers. I'm so sick of the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" characters. Same goes for the M$ ads when it was the "Laptop Hunters". I hated those too. Show me what the Apple can do SANS Microsoft. So far, their computer ads can't do that... which is sadly ironic (even more sad to me is how well they've worked)

So, just show me how well your products work STAND ALONE, not in comparison, and maybe I'll be more inclined to buy!

(Note: All cell phone companies in the US in my market have ads that bash each other... you loose no matter who you choose.)

It's funny, then, that your signature touts Linux by pointing out your perceived shortcomings of Apple. Can Linux not stand on its own merits?
post #33 of 132
I like consulting webpages while I'm on a call, how you like them apples?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #34 of 132
Big guys are used to sell they reputation, too. They've never been suing over the truth since the age of King Solomon.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #35 of 132
I thought Verizon's "Apples to apples" comparison wasn't.
Wasn't Verizon including it's slower service in its map and only AT&Ts fastest service on their map?

I don't care. Truth or not, false or not, AT&T is blowing it with the iPhone and Verizon wouldn't be any better. There's always some area where you're not covered and both networks would be overloaded by a popular iPhone.

It will be nice when Apple sheds its contract with AT&T and some real competition can begin.
post #36 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I agree and this is likely the primary strategy AT&T is pursuing, but its undermined by explosive iPhone sales and the popularity of its thousands of apps. I believe its the type of problem that the other US carriers would like to have.

I think its something more like do as little as possible to maximize profits. This is the dark side of the iPhone and why we need a little competition. No matter how bad the network is, people are still going to buy the iPhone. As such, they have no incentive to make more than the minimum amount of upgrades.
post #37 of 132
Well sadly, if Verizon is stating FACT, there is little anyone can do about it. AT&T should try to IMPROVE its network and get over it already.

RT
post #38 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Still there must have been a reason for apple to go with ATT in the first place.

An important factor must have been that, if they had gone with Verizon, Apple would have had to make a CDMA phone for the US and a GSM phone for the rest of the world. Alternatively they could have made a phone that supported both standards.

Both options have HUGE disadvantages compared to making a single GSM phone for the whole world.
post #39 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Verizons ads are factual, I don't think they can be faulted for simply being misleading. There wouldn't be many ads out there if we go by AT&T's standards for advertising. Bye bye every axe ad, most ads for chewing gum (they somehow suggest that gum has sex appeal) the mac vs pc ads, laptop hunters, etc.

If you look at at&t's 3G coverage map in the Verizon ads, you'll notice there is no 3G in the Traverse City area (Northwest of the lower peninsula). There is also only a small amount of 3G in the south central area of Michigan. In fact, there is 3G almost all the way along the I-94 corridor.

I have to wonder if there are other areas of the country that Verizon is not showing accurately. I think they are using an outdated map. If they are I think at&t has a point.
post #40 of 132
that they don't have a leg to stand on.

They don't deny that their 3G coverage sucks, but essentially say that the blank spots shown in the Verizon ads are covered by their older glacially-slow technologies.

Quit wasting your money on lawsuits, AT&T, and put it into building a competitive network.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Verizon responds to AT&T in court: 'The truth hurts'