Might be the buildings.....I suppose that represents a challenge for any carrier.
It is, but GSM-based carriers in the US have had a harder time of it do to the technology differences and frequencies that were used. Things are changing and the playing field essentially leveled (in those respects) with the 700MHz spectrum auction in 2008.
The only other issue is tower placement. I don?t know if AT&T or Verizon?s current placement is more ideal for this new spectrum.
It's all about what you want to hear, what gets attention and brings site advertising income.
No, it isn't. The NYT's brand depends on reliable sources. They correct when wrong. And the NYT's readership doesn't "want" to hear about Apple and Verizon. It doesn't care about Apple in the same way as an Apple rumor site.
Agreed. I find the rumors hard to believe due to the lack of details about what hardware is being used or even how they are addressing the whole 5 year contract that was revealed during one of the early lawsuits.
But hey, keep up the rumors. Cause they are just going to send the stock way up and I can make bank on selling a few shares.
Between all the problems with the AT&T network and the threat of a DOJ intervention on the various phone exclusivity agreements, it may be that Apple and AT&T negotiated a settlement of the contract. Apple probably would have to have given up some of its cut of the monthly fees in return, which could leave the DOJ still interested in the arrangement as it injures the consumer.
Ok, let's say that the rumor is true and that there will be some kind of iPhone on Verizon in 2011. Apple would be smart to be quiet about it, but have some controlled leaks made by a third party source and announced by WSJ, NYT, etc. By doing so, it may cause some Android purchasers to hold off and wait until next year. It would also be a weak enough rumor to deter current iPhone buyers from delaying their purchases until next year. If the rumors had more meat to them, iPhone sales could stall as many buyers may wait until next year to buy from Verizon. I think this could be a perfectly balanced media leak that is vague enough to continue the iPhones current sales momentum, while also creating some hesitation with the Android buyers. This would be an ideal game strategy for the holiday season.
Ok, let's say that the rumor is true and that there will be some kind of iPhone on Verizon in 2011. Apple would be smart to be quiet about it, but have some controlled leaks made by a third party source and announced by WSJ, NYT, etc. By doing so, it may cause some Android purchasers to hold off and wait until next year. It would also be a weak enough rumor to deter current iPhone buyers from delaying their purchases until next year. If the rumors had more meat to them, iPhone sales could stall as many buyers may wait until next year to buy from Verizon. I think this could be a perfectly balanced media leak that is vague enough to continue the iPhones current sales momentum, while also creating some hesitation with the Android buyers. This would be an ideal game strategy for the holiday season.
Exactly. These are Apple authorized leaks. Note the lack of witch hunts in Apple, or denials.
CDMA is dead tech and 4G is on the way. Apple isn't going to take their flagship product and release a version that does LESS than it's predecessor. Maybe we'll see a T-Mobile iPhone since they use similar tech. But a Verizon CDMA iPhone doesn't help Apple or Verizon so it doesn't make sense.
A known source, the "No Shit Times" that doesn't need to be in contact with Apple told Ian that Apple is going to bring the iPhone to Verizon, either nearly next year, or like really soon or something.
The long-hoped-for Verizon iPhone "could drop a lot fewer calls and suck less than the one on ATT," wrote 'author' Ian. Though Google's Android mobile OS now outsells the iPhone, Ian said, "that's just because Android os on, like every crappy little phone out there now and the iPhone is only on ATT.
According to the Ian, if you ask, anyone who has to deal with ATT, they're like "Hell yeah I wish it was on Verizon!" The Verizon iPhone "is going to sell a shitload of phones when it lands," Ian said.
Ian references The Wall Street Journal's Wednesday story as part of "the flurry of douche bag analysts trying to justify their salaries when you can just find info on blogs now" predicting a Verizon iPhone. Rumors of a Verizon iPhone have persisted forever, coming to a head about every six hours.
The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are both widely respected publications, but as recently as this summer, they started hosting comments on all their stories and really "facebooked it up" on their websites, pissing Ian off. CNN.com does this too, and it sucks there too. "Why don't news organizations report on critical news? Everyone knows Verizon, or Sprint, or T-Mobile will eventually get the iPhone. Our soldiers are dying overseas, climate change is disrupting the Earth's ecosystems, and these news sources just keep talking about the iPhone coming to Verizon... it's getting pathetic," said Ian. On the eve of the "Antennagate" press conference in July, Ian authored a chat message to his friend, citing his own opinion. The chat message stated, "Yeah I heard about it but the phone is pretty cool. Is that idiot raising his hand again?? That dude has no idea what's going on in this class!"
Also prior to the iPhone 4 antenna press conference, Ian and his friends liked the iPhone 4, and so did pretty much everyone they talked to. After the conference, their opinion did not change. Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs denied something about knowing there was a problem with the iPhone's antenna at a press conference, saying the company had only learned of the problem 22 days earlier. Ian then stated, "The dude's a billionaire, and he probably knows what he's doing."
Exactly. These are Apple authorized leaks. Note the lack of witch hunts in Apple, or denials.
You mean like how for the past 4 years it's been Apple's policy to not comment one way or another on rumors of this nature? at all?
There's a lack of a witch hunt because that's there standard operating procedure, not because they are letting it play out. In fact, the only time there's BEEN a witch hunt is when a leak is confirmed to come from apple.
You infer that CNN and MSNBC are not credible sources. Is this a inference based on fact or opinion?
Considering NO ONE reporting this story (with the hopeful exception of NYT and WSJ) is fact checking, then no, they're not credible. fact checking is a basic part of journalism. Why is it that these "well known" companies can neglect to do it and still be trusted.
Considering NO ONE reporting this story (with the hopeful exception of NYT and WSJ) is fact checking, then no, they're not credible. fact checking is a basic part of journalism. Why is it that these "well known" companies can neglect to do it and still be trusted.
How do you know they aren?t fact checking? It sounds like you are saying ?if they don?t reveal their source it?s because they don?t have one to reveal.? An anonymous source is still a source, and if this source has set a precedence by correct in the past why should they not trust it simply because this person wants anonymity.
Besides there being a lot of anecdotal evidence building up the WSJ and NYT articles that made me think a CDMA-based iPhone will be confirmed come January-ish, I don?t recall for the last 3 years of this Verizon iPhone rumour that either of these papers have made such bold claims about it being a done deal. So why now after so long would they finally jump into the fray with ?unfactual? reporting? Why would NYT also put the foot into the ring if they thought the WSJ was just making crap up? I think NYT source got to them a little later than they hoped and the WSJ had already scoped them.
Comments
Might be the buildings.....I suppose that represents a challenge for any carrier.
It is, but GSM-based carriers in the US have had a harder time of it do to the technology differences and frequencies that were used. Things are changing and the playing field essentially leveled (in those respects) with the 700MHz spectrum auction in 2008.
The only other issue is tower placement. I don?t know if AT&T or Verizon?s current placement is more ideal for this new spectrum.
It's all about what you want to hear, what gets attention and brings site advertising income.
No, it isn't. The NYT's brand depends on reliable sources. They correct when wrong. And the NYT's readership doesn't "want" to hear about Apple and Verizon. It doesn't care about Apple in the same way as an Apple rumor site.
Since when does the NYT work for Apple, how can they make these remarks?
It is a newspaper, in a democracy.
It doesn't have to work for Apple to report on it.
It can make these remarks by printing them.
point about the Boy Who Cried Wolf story is to always believe the boy who cries wolf, just in case.
Good lord!!!!! THE POINT OF THE STORY IS TO NOT CRY WOLF!!!!! It is a story to teach children the consequences of lying.
It is a newspaper, in a democracy.
It doesn't have to work for Apple to report on it.
It can make these remarks by printing them.
So they can make stuff up and print it if they want to? yea, never see me reading that paper again.
this guy sounds pissed off:
Whatever. The point about the Boy Who Cried Wolf story is to always believe the boy who cries wolf, just in case.
LOL ... I assume you missed that class! Time to catch up on Aesop's stories and their correct meanings!
Good. God. If someone people only knew
You infer that CNN and MSNBC are not credible sources. Is this a inference based on fact or opinion?
Agreed. I find the rumors hard to believe due to the lack of details about what hardware is being used or even how they are addressing the whole 5 year contract that was revealed during one of the early lawsuits.
But hey, keep up the rumors. Cause they are just going to send the stock way up and I can make bank on selling a few shares.
Between all the problems with the AT&T network and the threat of a DOJ intervention on the various phone exclusivity agreements, it may be that Apple and AT&T negotiated a settlement of the contract. Apple probably would have to have given up some of its cut of the monthly fees in return, which could leave the DOJ still interested in the arrangement as it injures the consumer.
LOL ... I assume you missed that class! Time to catch up on Aesop's stories and their correct meanings!
Let's not be too moronic. The story has two purposes.
To teach children not to lie, to teach people to not ignore warnings, even if assumed false.
Folk tales were not just for kids. The uneducated peasants learned from them too.
So they can make stuff up and print it if they want to? yea, never see me reading that paper again.
They didn't make it up.
I am resurrecting this thread in Jan.
Just to say I told you so.
Ok, let's say that the rumor is true and that there will be some kind of iPhone on Verizon in 2011. Apple would be smart to be quiet about it, but have some controlled leaks made by a third party source and announced by WSJ, NYT, etc. By doing so, it may cause some Android purchasers to hold off and wait until next year. It would also be a weak enough rumor to deter current iPhone buyers from delaying their purchases until next year. If the rumors had more meat to them, iPhone sales could stall as many buyers may wait until next year to buy from Verizon. I think this could be a perfectly balanced media leak that is vague enough to continue the iPhones current sales momentum, while also creating some hesitation with the Android buyers. This would be an ideal game strategy for the holiday season.
Exactly. These are Apple authorized leaks. Note the lack of witch hunts in Apple, or denials.
Let's not be too moronic.
Then stop posting.
The long-hoped-for Verizon iPhone "could drop a lot fewer calls and suck less than the one on ATT," wrote 'author' Ian. Though Google's Android mobile OS now outsells the iPhone, Ian said, "that's just because Android os on, like every crappy little phone out there now and the iPhone is only on ATT.
According to the Ian, if you ask, anyone who has to deal with ATT, they're like "Hell yeah I wish it was on Verizon!" The Verizon iPhone "is going to sell a shitload of phones when it lands," Ian said.
Ian references The Wall Street Journal's Wednesday story as part of "the flurry of douche bag analysts trying to justify their salaries when you can just find info on blogs now" predicting a Verizon iPhone. Rumors of a Verizon iPhone have persisted forever, coming to a head about every six hours.
The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are both widely respected publications, but as recently as this summer, they started hosting comments on all their stories and really "facebooked it up" on their websites, pissing Ian off. CNN.com does this too, and it sucks there too. "Why don't news organizations report on critical news? Everyone knows Verizon, or Sprint, or T-Mobile will eventually get the iPhone. Our soldiers are dying overseas, climate change is disrupting the Earth's ecosystems, and these news sources just keep talking about the iPhone coming to Verizon... it's getting pathetic," said Ian. On the eve of the "Antennagate" press conference in July, Ian authored a chat message to his friend, citing his own opinion. The chat message stated, "Yeah I heard about it but the phone is pretty cool. Is that idiot raising his hand again?? That dude has no idea what's going on in this class!"
Also prior to the iPhone 4 antenna press conference, Ian and his friends liked the iPhone 4, and so did pretty much everyone they talked to. After the conference, their opinion did not change. Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs denied something about knowing there was a problem with the iPhone's antenna at a press conference, saying the company had only learned of the problem 22 days earlier. Ian then stated, "The dude's a billionaire, and he probably knows what he's doing."
There- fixed the story for you guys!
Exactly. These are Apple authorized leaks. Note the lack of witch hunts in Apple, or denials.
You mean like how for the past 4 years it's been Apple's policy to not comment one way or another on rumors of this nature? at all?
There's a lack of a witch hunt because that's there standard operating procedure, not because they are letting it play out. In fact, the only time there's BEEN a witch hunt is when a leak is confirmed to come from apple.
You infer that CNN and MSNBC are not credible sources. Is this a inference based on fact or opinion?
Considering NO ONE reporting this story (with the hopeful exception of NYT and WSJ) is fact checking, then no, they're not credible. fact checking is a basic part of journalism. Why is it that these "well known" companies can neglect to do it and still be trusted.
Considering NO ONE reporting this story (with the hopeful exception of NYT and WSJ) is fact checking, then no, they're not credible. fact checking is a basic part of journalism. Why is it that these "well known" companies can neglect to do it and still be trusted.
How do you know they aren?t fact checking? It sounds like you are saying ?if they don?t reveal their source it?s because they don?t have one to reveal.? An anonymous source is still a source, and if this source has set a precedence by correct in the past why should they not trust it simply because this person wants anonymity.
Besides there being a lot of anecdotal evidence building up the WSJ and NYT articles that made me think a CDMA-based iPhone will be confirmed come January-ish, I don?t recall for the last 3 years of this Verizon iPhone rumour that either of these papers have made such bold claims about it being a done deal. So why now after so long would they finally jump into the fray with ?unfactual? reporting? Why would NYT also put the foot into the ring if they thought the WSJ was just making crap up? I think NYT source got to them a little later than they hoped and the WSJ had already scoped them.