It boggles my mind how gullible people can be. There was no substantive information in that article.
A "wink, wink" was even tossed in. There is no way, no how that anyone within ATT, excepting possibly the janitor, would presume to tell anyone remotely close to Steve Jobs what he should wear when he meets with ATT execs. Incredibly, most people posting here were taken in by this. It boggles my mind how people are so willing to accept something as fact just because it was in print somewhere. Why does the mere fact that it was in print give it any greater credibility than something that some stranger that you ran into the street told you?
As for the exclusivity of the agreement, and the gist of the article, the article entirely misses what is likely the true story. The true is most likely that ATT is paying Apple for exclusivity, and that Apple is entirely happy with the arrangement because their margins on the phone are so high. Unless and until someone comes up with some good reason to believe that this is not the case, then it should be taken for granted that this the full explanation and the end of the story. Why aren't the people who write these pointless, non-imformative articles providing meaningful, hard facts? The place to start here would be with finding out how much VZ pays for their phones, and then comparing that with the amount that ATT pays Apple. An article of this sort should always start with that, i.e., should start by making it clear that VZ pays just as much for comparable phones that ATT pays for iPhone. "Comparable phone" means of course a phone that is leased to customers for a similar amount and under similar contractual terms.
[QUOTE=AppleInsider;1679148]A new report detailing the relationship between Apple and AT&T, the exclusive carrier of the iPhone in the U.S., reveals that Apple CEO Steve Jobs allegedly considered dropping AT&T numerous times, and considered leaving for Verizon as far back as 2007.
Uhm.....wow...where do I begin?? How bout this.....How the hell can Jobs consider dumping AT&T for Verizon "as far back as 2007", when the iPhone came OUT in 2007. They tried to go with Verizon in the first place, but that deal fell through, hence they went to AT&T, but they didn't think about dumping AT&T for Verizon. Jesus...get your facts straight noob!
Uhm.....wow...where do I begin?? How bout this.....How the hell can Jobs consider dumping AT&T for Verizon "as far back as 2007", when the iPhone came OUT in 2007. They tried to go with Verizon in the first place, but that deal fell through, hence they went to AT&T, but they didn't think about dumping AT&T for Verizon. Jesus...get your facts straight noob!
Well you have to remember that Apple originally signed a contract with Cingular. Once SBC/AT&T acquired Cingular, the contracts would have to be renegotiated. I addition I'm sure that both organizations have plenty of opt out clauses based on performance and quotas.
If true, this would further confirm Apple's disinterest in reception. Maybe I could make calls in 3G mode if San Francisco if Apple had used a better radio.
You lost me when you got the the fiber; fiber; optic; verizon can run much of it thru it's fios network, stuffs. Immediately beneath every cell tower is a cable. Backbone capacity isn't the issue with AT&T - it's quite beefy.
You guys in the US really are in a mess with this while AT&T aren't you. Here in the UK the iPhone is on 5 carriers now, with the previous exclusive carrier (O2) having lost their exclusivity some time ago now. I gather many other countries also have a choice of carriers with the iPhone, so what's gone wrong in the US? Why are you stuck with only one choice? Is this an uncommon situation or are most phones locked down like this in the US?
What's wrong? Right Hand vote = AT&T (GSM); Left Hand vote = Verison (CDMA). So, that much hands used no more left to vote others!
You know what happened to the person who took that photo? They disappeared. Rumor has it they are now chained up in a Foxconn factory making iPhone in China. Every morning, some guy in a mask wakes them up by saying, "I want to play a game" over an intercom.
Not hard to believe story about ATT & APPLE albeit short on the inner details.
ATT has made many mistakes over the years and should have seized the opportunity with APPLE as an exclusive partner to improve upon their service and follow the lead from APPLE.
ATT feels that once it looses their exclusivity contract on the IPHONE they will still be a dominant force. Truth is customers will run to other carries even if the rate is higher.
If you were on trial in front of a jury, would you wear a suit? Would you prefer that your lawyer wore a suit to court as well or would having him show up in t-shirt and sandals be just fine?
As long as they clear the molestation charges, they can be buck nekkid for all I care.
Obviously I would feel compelled to wear a suit in that situation as I would in many situations. What I'm saying is that it's not of my free will nor do I see the importance of it. Is a murderer in a suit any less of a murderer? No, so what difference does it make?
It's just a charade to make people look better than they are. I can sit in a court room surrounded by criminals and lawyers who bleed the taxpayer dry with their corruption and they're all wearing suits or I can sit in a bar with the working class in casual clothes who have been out doing an honest day's work. There will be criminals there too but the point is that the uniform is meaningless, it's the actions of the person wearing it that matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash
Jobs is an exception to many rules. One of them is dress. Otherwise you get Phil Schiller up there on stage with Jobs, dressed in his hip, casual clothes, looking about as comfortable as I imagine Randall Stephenson would next to Jobs, dressed similarly.
I think they all look pretty comfortable in their chosen outfits.
Bertrand Serlet wears what resembles a suit and if anything he looks like he should be wearing something else entirely. Something that a Bond villain would wear:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonerATO
For the last time Verizon is not switching to GSM, but is adding/moving to LTE. LTE is based on OFDMA and not GSM.
'For the last time'? How many times have you mentioned it? Even if it's not for calls, they can use the data service to make calls. Their coverage should be enough to allow that. It's about time the networks started doing this and stopped charging per call.
If Verizon offered a plan with just a data cap but no calling limits or charges, AT&T would be history. A 2GB data cap would allow over 1000 minutes of call time. If they set it at 5GB to cover actual data usage then it's fine and they can have data overage charges. They could allow about 250 minutes of FaceTime calling with that plan too.
I just don't see much point in them making a CDMA iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
You know what happened to the person who took that photo? They disappeared. Rumor has it they are now chained up in a Foxconn factory making iPhone in China. Every morning, some guy in a mask wakes them up by saying, "I want to play a game" over an intercom.
I think it was Microsoft trying to Photoshop out a black guy again.
Interesting. For those who believe that Apple should merge with this or that company, stories like should give pause. Corporate culture is important and the differences can be difficult to overcome.
A new report detailing the relationship between Apple and AT&T, the exclusive carrier of the iPhone in the U.S., reveals that Apple CEO Steve Jobs allegedly considered dropping AT&T numerous times, and considered leaving for Verizon as far back as 2007.
The tense relationship between Apple and AT&T is detailed in this month's issue of Wired magazine. Though the article is not yet available online, it was summarized Monday by Jason D. O'Grady of ZDNet.
The article compares the relationship between AT&T and Apple as a loveless celebrity marriage -- one that went wrong quickly after the honeymoon ended. Apple was unwilling to restrict the Internet capabilities of the iPhone, while AT&T struggled to meet the overwhelming pressure the smartphone placed on its network.
An anonymous source told the magazine that Jobs discussed severing ties with AT&T at least a half-dozen times. At one point in 2007, Apple engineers allegedly visited the headquarters of Qualcomm to consider the prospect of creating a CDMA iPhone for the rival network. EVentually, the company concluded it would have to rebuild the phone from scratch to fit the new chips inside, making the prospect too costly and complicated.
The article also alleges that Qualcomm also began working on a chip that will allow the iPhone to work on both the AT&T and Verizon networks. Recent reports have alleged that Apple will offer a CDMA iPhone for the Verizon network in January 2011.
One of many spats between the companies was said to be regarding tethering: Apple wanted it to be included in the standard data plan charges, while AT&T wanted to charge extra. AT&T eventually won that alleged battle, as it now offers tethering via USB or Bluetooth for an extra $20 per month.
The report also said that AT&T took issue with the fact that the iPhone uses a radio from Infineon, a company that previously had been most widely used in Europe, where cell towers are more common. AT&T allegedly felt that Apple's use of an Infineon chip led to inferior reception. When the wireless carrier asked Apple to resolve the issues "together," it was said that Apple's response was, "No, you resolve them. They're not our problem. They're your problem."
The companies apparently squabbled over small things as well, as the two corporate cultures did not mesh well. At one point, an AT&T representative reportedly told one of Jobs' deputies that the company co-founder should wear a suit to meet with the AT&T Board of Directors. That AT&T employee was allegedly told, "We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
I agree with AT&T on this one. Jobs looks stupid in that same outfit day after day and the other guys just look really uncomfortable dressed like that. It doesn't fit their personalities. Appropriate attire is showing respect for your partners and vendors. Jobs would probably show up to a funeral dressed like that. He doesn't appear to give a rat's ass about anyone but himself. Oh I forgot, he 'loves' his users.
well, from the article, it seems that apple doesn't actually have any respect for at&t.
besides that, if it weren't for the iphone, somebody like t-mobile would have surpassed at&t due to their vastly superior phones, customer service, and price. and at&t wants to complain about wearing suits?
I agree with AT&T on this one. Jobs looks stupid in that same outfit day after day and the other guys just look really uncomfortable dressed like that. It doesn't fit their personalities. Appropriate attire is showing respect for your partners and vendors. Jobs would probably show up to a funeral dressed like that. He doesn't appear to give a rat's ass about anyone but himself. Oh I forgot, he 'loves' his users.
Outfit like suit is only respect in certian circles. If you followed world better (I am European) then you would know that in many businesses outside of this country (and also in designers buisnesses in the USA) the proper attire is turtleneck and sports jacket. If you do not like it then it is your problem. If world did not change then you would be wearing tailcoat and tallhat to the office.
Respect style of others. That does not mean they show up dirty and unprepared. Respect is in how you get along with partner and how you refer to them and not via attire. Tide attire is everything what's needed.
Having said that I go to interviews sharp in suit and tie, but as soon as I notice that company standard for business is different I adopt to common attire regardless if I like it or not. This is to say I am part of it and I do not make revolutions by being different in this context for the firm that pays me. That's a minimum that we have to comply.
Also be careful who you are talking about. Jobs is THE enterpreneur of technology wheather you like it or not. As such a person he can afford being extravagant and also decide what's appropriate in his company what's not. I may disagree on some points with Mr. Jobs', but I will defend his postion on this. That's respect to real leaders.
I bet they will! Verizon's probably kicking themselves for all the lost billions they could've made if they jumped on board the first time Apple courted them.
Verizon is probably thanking their lucky starts that they didn't get that contract as THEY would have been the ones taking the hits for a network that was being choked by a 5000% data bandwidth increase. Give me a break. Verizon was no more ready than AT&T for the iPhone explosion.
Well you have to remember that Apple originally signed a contract with Cingular. Once SBC/AT&T acquired Cingular, the contracts would have to be renegotiated. I addition I'm sure that both organizations have plenty of opt out clauses based on performance and quotas.
Your information is incorrect. SBC owned the majority share of Cingular when the original contract was signed. They received the balance of Cingluar when SBS purchased BellSouth.
Not hard to believe story about ATT & APPLE albeit short on the inner details.
ATT has made many mistakes over the years and should have seized the opportunity with APPLE as an exclusive partner to improve upon their service and follow the lead from APPLE.
ATT feels that once it looses their exclusivity contract on the IPHONE they will still be a dominant force. Truth is customers will run to other carries even if the rate is higher.
That "truth" is not supported by anything outside of forums like this. Teleco analysts and the like do not come to the same conclusion.
Comments
AT&T wants nothing for their customers. Seems like Apple's the only one on our side.
What are you smoking?
A "wink, wink" was even tossed in. There is no way, no how that anyone within ATT, excepting possibly the janitor, would presume to tell anyone remotely close to Steve Jobs what he should wear when he meets with ATT execs. Incredibly, most people posting here were taken in by this. It boggles my mind how people are so willing to accept something as fact just because it was in print somewhere. Why does the mere fact that it was in print give it any greater credibility than something that some stranger that you ran into the street told you?
As for the exclusivity of the agreement, and the gist of the article, the article entirely misses what is likely the true story. The true is most likely that ATT is paying Apple for exclusivity, and that Apple is entirely happy with the arrangement because their margins on the phone are so high. Unless and until someone comes up with some good reason to believe that this is not the case, then it should be taken for granted that this the full explanation and the end of the story. Why aren't the people who write these pointless, non-imformative articles providing meaningful, hard facts? The place to start here would be with finding out how much VZ pays for their phones, and then comparing that with the amount that ATT pays Apple. An article of this sort should always start with that, i.e., should start by making it clear that VZ pays just as much for comparable phones that ATT pays for iPhone. "Comparable phone" means of course a phone that is leased to customers for a similar amount and under similar contractual terms.
Uhm.....wow...where do I begin?? How bout this.....How the hell can Jobs consider dumping AT&T for Verizon "as far back as 2007", when the iPhone came OUT in 2007. They tried to go with Verizon in the first place, but that deal fell through, hence they went to AT&T, but they didn't think about dumping AT&T for Verizon. Jesus...get your facts straight noob!
Uhm.....wow...where do I begin?? How bout this.....How the hell can Jobs consider dumping AT&T for Verizon "as far back as 2007", when the iPhone came OUT in 2007. They tried to go with Verizon in the first place, but that deal fell through, hence they went to AT&T, but they didn't think about dumping AT&T for Verizon. Jesus...get your facts straight noob!
Well you have to remember that Apple originally signed a contract with Cingular. Once SBC/AT&T acquired Cingular, the contracts would have to be renegotiated. I addition I'm sure that both organizations have plenty of opt out clauses based on performance and quotas.
If true, this would further confirm Apple's disinterest in reception. Maybe I could make calls in 3G mode if San Francisco if Apple had used a better radio.
perhaps the rest of the world>>>AT&T?
You lost me when you got the the fiber; fiber; optic; verizon can run much of it thru it's fios network, stuffs. Immediately beneath every cell tower is a cable. Backbone capacity isn't the issue with AT&T - it's quite beefy.
-Chris
i stand corrected
They do rent on occasions though:
That might be resolved with Verizon switching to GSM:
http://www.gsmworld.com/newsroom/pre.../2010/5105.htm
GSM is a far more prevalent network format so it makes more sense for Verizon to go GSM so that the same iPhone can work on both networks.
For the last time Verizon is not switching to GSM, but is adding/moving to LTE. LTE is based on OFDMA and not GSM.
You guys in the US really are in a mess with this while AT&T aren't you. Here in the UK the iPhone is on 5 carriers now, with the previous exclusive carrier (O2) having lost their exclusivity some time ago now. I gather many other countries also have a choice of carriers with the iPhone, so what's gone wrong in the US? Why are you stuck with only one choice? Is this an uncommon situation or are most phones locked down like this in the US?
What's wrong? Right Hand vote = AT&T (GSM); Left Hand vote = Verison (CDMA). So, that much hands used no more left to vote others!
How about this?
You know what happened to the person who took that photo? They disappeared. Rumor has it they are now chained up in a Foxconn factory making iPhone in China. Every morning, some guy in a mask wakes them up by saying, "I want to play a game" over an intercom.
ATT has made many mistakes over the years and should have seized the opportunity with APPLE as an exclusive partner to improve upon their service and follow the lead from APPLE.
ATT feels that once it looses their exclusivity contract on the IPHONE they will still be a dominant force. Truth is customers will run to other carries even if the rate is higher.
If you were on trial in front of a jury, would you wear a suit? Would you prefer that your lawyer wore a suit to court as well or would having him show up in t-shirt and sandals be just fine?
As long as they clear the molestation charges, they can be buck nekkid for all I care.
Obviously I would feel compelled to wear a suit in that situation as I would in many situations. What I'm saying is that it's not of my free will nor do I see the importance of it. Is a murderer in a suit any less of a murderer? No, so what difference does it make?
It's just a charade to make people look better than they are. I can sit in a court room surrounded by criminals and lawyers who bleed the taxpayer dry with their corruption and they're all wearing suits or I can sit in a bar with the working class in casual clothes who have been out doing an honest day's work. There will be criminals there too but the point is that the uniform is meaningless, it's the actions of the person wearing it that matters.
Jobs is an exception to many rules. One of them is dress. Otherwise you get Phil Schiller up there on stage with Jobs, dressed in his hip, casual clothes, looking about as comfortable as I imagine Randall Stephenson would next to Jobs, dressed similarly.
I think they all look pretty comfortable in their chosen outfits.
Bertrand Serlet wears what resembles a suit and if anything he looks like he should be wearing something else entirely. Something that a Bond villain would wear:
For the last time Verizon is not switching to GSM, but is adding/moving to LTE. LTE is based on OFDMA and not GSM.
'For the last time'? How many times have you mentioned it? Even if it's not for calls, they can use the data service to make calls. Their coverage should be enough to allow that. It's about time the networks started doing this and stopped charging per call.
If Verizon offered a plan with just a data cap but no calling limits or charges, AT&T would be history. A 2GB data cap would allow over 1000 minutes of call time. If they set it at 5GB to cover actual data usage then it's fine and they can have data overage charges. They could allow about 250 minutes of FaceTime calling with that plan too.
I just don't see much point in them making a CDMA iPhone.
You know what happened to the person who took that photo? They disappeared. Rumor has it they are now chained up in a Foxconn factory making iPhone in China. Every morning, some guy in a mask wakes them up by saying, "I want to play a game" over an intercom.
I think it was Microsoft trying to Photoshop out a black guy again.
Interesting. For those who believe that Apple should merge with this or that company, stories like should give pause. Corporate culture is important and the differences can be difficult to overcome.
Sooo true...
A new report detailing the relationship between Apple and AT&T, the exclusive carrier of the iPhone in the U.S., reveals that Apple CEO Steve Jobs allegedly considered dropping AT&T numerous times, and considered leaving for Verizon as far back as 2007.
The tense relationship between Apple and AT&T is detailed in this month's issue of Wired magazine. Though the article is not yet available online, it was summarized Monday by Jason D. O'Grady of ZDNet.
The article compares the relationship between AT&T and Apple as a loveless celebrity marriage -- one that went wrong quickly after the honeymoon ended. Apple was unwilling to restrict the Internet capabilities of the iPhone, while AT&T struggled to meet the overwhelming pressure the smartphone placed on its network.
An anonymous source told the magazine that Jobs discussed severing ties with AT&T at least a half-dozen times. At one point in 2007, Apple engineers allegedly visited the headquarters of Qualcomm to consider the prospect of creating a CDMA iPhone for the rival network. EVentually, the company concluded it would have to rebuild the phone from scratch to fit the new chips inside, making the prospect too costly and complicated.
The article also alleges that Qualcomm also began working on a chip that will allow the iPhone to work on both the AT&T and Verizon networks. Recent reports have alleged that Apple will offer a CDMA iPhone for the Verizon network in January 2011.
One of many spats between the companies was said to be regarding tethering: Apple wanted it to be included in the standard data plan charges, while AT&T wanted to charge extra. AT&T eventually won that alleged battle, as it now offers tethering via USB or Bluetooth for an extra $20 per month.
The report also said that AT&T took issue with the fact that the iPhone uses a radio from Infineon, a company that previously had been most widely used in Europe, where cell towers are more common. AT&T allegedly felt that Apple's use of an Infineon chip led to inferior reception. When the wireless carrier asked Apple to resolve the issues "together," it was said that Apple's response was, "No, you resolve them. They're not our problem. They're your problem."
The companies apparently squabbled over small things as well, as the two corporate cultures did not mesh well. At one point, an AT&T representative reportedly told one of Jobs' deputies that the company co-founder should wear a suit to meet with the AT&T Board of Directors. That AT&T employee was allegedly told, "We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
i love the part about the suits!
I agree with AT&T on this one. Jobs looks stupid in that same outfit day after day and the other guys just look really uncomfortable dressed like that. It doesn't fit their personalities. Appropriate attire is showing respect for your partners and vendors. Jobs would probably show up to a funeral dressed like that. He doesn't appear to give a rat's ass about anyone but himself. Oh I forgot, he 'loves' his users.
well, from the article, it seems that apple doesn't actually have any respect for at&t.
besides that, if it weren't for the iphone, somebody like t-mobile would have surpassed at&t due to their vastly superior phones, customer service, and price. and at&t wants to complain about wearing suits?
I agree with AT&T on this one. Jobs looks stupid in that same outfit day after day and the other guys just look really uncomfortable dressed like that. It doesn't fit their personalities. Appropriate attire is showing respect for your partners and vendors. Jobs would probably show up to a funeral dressed like that. He doesn't appear to give a rat's ass about anyone but himself. Oh I forgot, he 'loves' his users.
Outfit like suit is only respect in certian circles. If you followed world better (I am European) then you would know that in many businesses outside of this country (and also in designers buisnesses in the USA) the proper attire is turtleneck and sports jacket. If you do not like it then it is your problem. If world did not change then you would be wearing tailcoat and tallhat to the office.
Respect style of others. That does not mean they show up dirty and unprepared. Respect is in how you get along with partner and how you refer to them and not via attire. Tide attire is everything what's needed.
Having said that I go to interviews sharp in suit and tie, but as soon as I notice that company standard for business is different I adopt to common attire regardless if I like it or not. This is to say I am part of it and I do not make revolutions by being different in this context for the firm that pays me. That's a minimum that we have to comply.
Also be careful who you are talking about. Jobs is THE enterpreneur of technology wheather you like it or not. As such a person he can afford being extravagant and also decide what's appropriate in his company what's not. I may disagree on some points with Mr. Jobs', but I will defend his postion on this. That's respect to real leaders.
I bet they will! Verizon's probably kicking themselves for all the lost billions they could've made if they jumped on board the first time Apple courted them.
Verizon is probably thanking their lucky starts that they didn't get that contract as THEY would have been the ones taking the hits for a network that was being choked by a 5000% data bandwidth increase. Give me a break. Verizon was no more ready than AT&T for the iPhone explosion.
Well you have to remember that Apple originally signed a contract with Cingular. Once SBC/AT&T acquired Cingular, the contracts would have to be renegotiated. I addition I'm sure that both organizations have plenty of opt out clauses based on performance and quotas.
Your information is incorrect. SBC owned the majority share of Cingular when the original contract was signed. They received the balance of Cingluar when SBS purchased BellSouth.
Not hard to believe story about ATT & APPLE albeit short on the inner details.
ATT has made many mistakes over the years and should have seized the opportunity with APPLE as an exclusive partner to improve upon their service and follow the lead from APPLE.
ATT feels that once it looses their exclusivity contract on the IPHONE they will still be a dominant force. Truth is customers will run to other carries even if the rate is higher.
That "truth" is not supported by anything outside of forums like this. Teleco analysts and the like do not come to the same conclusion.