"Misfit Toys" ad kills off Verizon iPhone?

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

Apple isn't exactly lacking in ego, and one has to wonder if Verizon airing
their "Misfit Toys" commercial, showing an iPhone in with a bunch of
discarded junk, was a very wise move. I can't imagine Steve Jobs would see
an ad like that and think very kind things about doing biz with Verizon.
It's one thing to poke fun of AT&T, it's another to very clearly target the
iPhone itself. Or am I the only person thinking that might have been a very
costly commercial for Verizon to air?

Then there's the issue of missed opportunities. If I were Apple, I'd make
sure I had stronger coverage than Verizon at the farthest-north-possible
point. As in, when Santa needs a reliable phone, AT&T is the best network
choice. :)

(And yes, I did look at network coverage maps, and both AT&T and Verizon
service Alaska's North Slope region)

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Larry]

Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Apple isn't exactly lacking in ego, and one has to wonder if Verizon
airing their "Misfit Toys" commercial, showing an iPhone in with a
bunch of discarded junk, was a very wise move. I can't imagine Steve
Jobs would see an ad like that and think very kind things about doing
biz with Verizon. It's one thing to poke fun of AT&T, it's another to
very clearly target the iPhone itself. Or am I the only person
thinking that might have been a very costly commercial for Verizon to
air?

....or Verizon doesn't WANT iPhones on their system jamming it up like
ATTWS is in the larger cities?.....Maybe a change of heart....

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Larry

Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Apple isn't exactly lacking in ego, and one has to wonder if Verizon
airing their "Misfit Toys" commercial, showing an iPhone in with a
bunch of discarded junk, was a very wise move. I can't imagine Steve
Jobs would see an ad like that and think very kind things about doing
biz with Verizon. It's one thing to poke fun of AT&T, it's another to
very clearly target the iPhone itself. Or am I the only person
thinking that might have been a very costly commercial for Verizon to
air?

....or Verizon doesn't WANT iPhones on their system jamming it up like
ATTWS is in the larger cities?.....Maybe a change of heart....

If VZW's system is so great, then shouldn't it be able to handle the
load of a few iPhones - or any other smart phones, for that matter?
After all, iPhones can't suck up more bandwidth than any other brand
or model of smart phone.

VZW has an amazing talent for shooting itself in the foot. That must
come from the GTE side of the family...

[nospam]

Post by Scott in SoCal
If VZW's system is so great, then shouldn't it be able to handle the
load of a few iPhones - or any other smart phones, for that matter?
After all, iPhones can't suck up more bandwidth than any other brand
or model of smart phone.

yes they can, and by quite a bit. iphone users consume substantially
more bandwidth than people who own other phones.

Post by Scott in SoCal
VZW has an amazing talent for shooting itself in the foot. That must
come from the GTE side of the family...

if by shoot in the foot you mean has one of the more reliable networks
with vastly better coverage.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
If VZW's system is so great, then shouldn't it be able to handle the
load of a few iPhones - or any other smart phones, for that matter?
After all, iPhones can't suck up more bandwidth than any other brand
or model of smart phone.

yes they can, and by quite a bit. iphone users consume substantially
more bandwidth than people who own other phones.

On what do you base that statement?

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
VZW has an amazing talent for shooting itself in the foot. That must
come from the GTE side of the family...

if by shoot in the foot you mean has one of the more reliable networks
with vastly better coverage.

No, I mean things like jacking up their ETFs so high that even the FCC
gets pissed off.

[nospam]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
If VZW's system is so great, then shouldn't it be able to handle the
load of a few iPhones - or any other smart phones, for that matter?
After all, iPhones can't suck up more bandwidth than any other brand
or model of smart phone.

yes they can, and by quite a bit. iphone users consume substantially
more bandwidth than people who own other phones.

On what do you base that statement?

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125167204761770765.html>
It is no secret that iPhone users download games, video and other Web
data at two to four times the rate of other smart-phone users.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/technology/companies/03att.html>
Not only do iPhone owners download applications, stream music and
videos and browse the Web at higher rates than the average smartphone
user, but the average iPhone owner can also use 10 times the network
capacity used by the average smartphone user.

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
VZW has an amazing talent for shooting itself in the foot. That must
come from the GTE side of the family...

if by shoot in the foot you mean has one of the more reliable networks
with vastly better coverage.

No, I mean things like jacking up their ETFs so high that even the FCC
gets pissed off.

that is obnoxious, but a high etf has nothing to do with the ability to
make or receive a call, and for customers who don't prematurely cancel
their contracts, it doesn't make that much of a difference.

[NotMe]

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
If VZW's system is so great, then shouldn't it be able to handle the
load of a few iPhones - or any other smart phones, for that matter?
After all, iPhones can't suck up more bandwidth than any other brand
or model of smart phone.

yes they can, and by quite a bit. iphone users consume substantially
more bandwidth than people who own other phones.

On what do you base that statement?

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125167204761770765.html>
It is no secret that iPhone users download games, video and other Web
data at two to four times the rate of other smart-phone users.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/technology/companies/03att.html>
Not only do iPhone owners download applications, stream music and
videos and browse the Web at higher rates than the average smartphone
user, but the average iPhone owner can also use 10 times the network
capacity used by the average smartphone user.

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
VZW has an amazing talent for shooting itself in the foot. That must
come from the GTE side of the family...

if by shoot in the foot you mean has one of the more reliable networks
with vastly better coverage.

No, I mean things like jacking up their ETFs so high that even the FCC
gets pissed off.

that is obnoxious, but a high etf has nothing to do with the ability to
make or receive a call, and for customers who don't prematurely cancel
their contracts, it doesn't make that much of a difference.

I consider the ETF especially if I own my equipment to be the gotch
capitalism.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam
yes they can, and by quite a bit. iphone users consume substantially
more bandwidth than people who own other phones.

On what do you base that statement?

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125167204761770765.html>
It is no secret that iPhone users download games, video and other Web
data at two to four times the rate of other smart-phone users.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/technology/companies/03att.html>
Not only do iPhone owners download applications, stream music and
videos and browse the Web at higher rates than the average smartphone
user, but the average iPhone owner can also use 10 times the network
capacity used by the average smartphone user.

Fascinating. So what is it about the iPhone that makes it hog 10 times
as much bandwidth as any other phone of equal capabilities?

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
VZW has an amazing talent for shooting itself in the foot. That must
come from the GTE side of the family...

if by shoot in the foot you mean has one of the more reliable networks
with vastly better coverage.

No, I mean things like jacking up their ETFs so high that even the FCC
gets pissed off.

that is obnoxious, but a high etf has nothing to do with the ability to
make or receive a call, and for customers who don't prematurely cancel
their contracts, it doesn't make that much of a difference.

Except that the people most likely to cancel their contracts
"prematurely" are the ones who are having problems making calls.

[nospam]

Post by Scott in SoCal
Fascinating. So what is it about the iPhone that makes it hog 10 times
as much bandwidth as any other phone of equal capabilities?

because it's much easier to install apps and actually use them. many of
them are graphic intensive and can use a lot of data, such as those
with map views.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
Fascinating. So what is it about the iPhone that makes it hog 10 times
as much bandwidth as any other phone of equal capabilities?

because it's much easier to install apps and actually use them. many of
them are graphic intensive and can use a lot of data, such as those
with map views.

So it is your claim that no other phone has these capabilities today,
nor will there ever be such a phone in the future, and therefore
simply banning the iPhone from VZW's network will avoid all bandwidth
issues?

[nospam]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
Fascinating. So what is it about the iPhone that makes it hog 10 times
as much bandwidth as any other phone of equal capabilities?

because it's much easier to install apps and actually use them. many of
them are graphic intensive and can use a lot of data, such as those
with map views.

So it is your claim that no other phone has these capabilities today,
nor will there ever be such a phone in the future, and therefore
simply banning the iPhone from VZW's network will avoid all bandwidth
issues?

how in the world did you get that from what i wrote?

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
Fascinating. So what is it about the iPhone that makes it hog 10 times
as much bandwidth as any other phone of equal capabilities?

because it's much easier to install apps and actually use them. many of
them are graphic intensive and can use a lot of data, such as those
with map views.

So it is your claim that no other phone has these capabilities today,
nor will there ever be such a phone in the future, and therefore
simply banning the iPhone from VZW's network will avoid all bandwidth
issues?

how in the world did you get that from what i wrote?

You focus on the iPhone as if it were the only phone that could cause
bandwidth issues. I find it diffisult to accept your premise that some
other phone, present or future, could not also turn out to be a
bandwith hog.

[nospam]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
Fascinating. So what is it about the iPhone that makes it hog 10 times
as much bandwidth as any other phone of equal capabilities?

because it's much easier to install apps and actually use them. many of
them are graphic intensive and can use a lot of data, such as those
with map views.

So it is your claim that no other phone has these capabilities today,
nor will there ever be such a phone in the future, and therefore
simply banning the iPhone from VZW's network will avoid all bandwidth
issues?

how in the world did you get that from what i wrote?

You focus on the iPhone as if it were the only phone that could cause
bandwidth issues.

i never said it was the only device that could do it.

what i'm saying is that iphone users use up more bandwidth than
non-iphone users. it's not that it *could* cause bandwidth issues, it's
that it *is* causing them.

Post by Scott in SoCal
I find it diffisult to accept your premise that some
other phone, present or future, could not also turn out to be a
bandwith hog.

nobody knows what the future will bring. i'm talking about *now*.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
I find it diffisult to accept your premise that some
other phone, present or future, could not also turn out to be a
bandwith hog.

nobody knows what the future will bring.

I do. It's going to bring more phones that can suck up more bandwidth
and make today's iPhone users look like pikers. The VZW version of the
Google Nexus looks to be the vanguard of that bandwidth-sucking horde.

[nospam]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
I find it diffisult to accept your premise that some
other phone, present or future, could not also turn out to be a
bandwith hog.

nobody knows what the future will bring.

I do.

so why are you wasting time on usenet? go play the stock market or
horse races.

Post by Scott in SoCal
It's going to bring more phones that can suck up more bandwidth
and make today's iPhone users look like pikers. The VZW version of the
Google Nexus looks to be the vanguard of that bandwidth-sucking horde.

and you think the iphone will not change as well? maybe it will be
eclipsed by something else, maybe it won't.

unfortunately, the nexus one has a very restrictive limit to the number
of apps, a paltry 190 meg. on the other hand, maybe that means it will
be more of a bandwidth hog since apps will need to download anything of
substance.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by nospam

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal
I find it diffisult to accept your premise that some
other phone, present or future, could not also turn out to be a
bandwith hog.

nobody knows what the future will bring.

I do.

so why are you wasting time on usenet?

I have one more prediction for the future: I won't be wasting any more
time with you. :)

[Todd Allcock]

Post by nospam
unfortunately, the nexus one has a very restrictive limit to the number
of apps, a paltry 190 meg. on the other hand, maybe that means it will
be more of a bandwidth hog since apps will need to download anything of
substance.

The "paltry" 190 MB shouldn't be a problem. While Android devices (out of
the box) require apps to be downloaded to main memory, that only limits the
executable portion. The data portion of the app can be download to storage
card. Take a really big app, like an "offline" GPS app, for example. The
executable might be 1 or 2MB and install in main memory, but the maps, voice
prompt speech engine, POI data, etc, totaling 1 or 2 GB would install to the
storage card. Even "large" games have relatively small executables, with
the storage-installable game data (graphics, sound, etc.) taking up the bulk
of the game's size.

There should be no problem stuffing an Android device with a couple hundred
apps if one desires. Rooting it so apps themselves can be installed to
storage would make the number nuch higher.

[nospam]

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam
unfortunately, the nexus one has a very restrictive limit to the number
of apps, a paltry 190 meg. on the other hand, maybe that means it will
be more of a bandwidth hog since apps will need to download anything of
substance.

The "paltry" 190 MB shouldn't be a problem. While Android devices (out of
the box) require apps to be downloaded to main memory, that only limits the
executable portion. The data portion of the app can be download to storage
card. Take a really big app, like an "offline" GPS app, for example. The
executable might be 1 or 2MB and install in main memory, but the maps, voice
prompt speech engine, POI data, etc, totaling 1 or 2 GB would install to the
storage card. Even "large" games have relatively small executables, with
the storage-installable game data (graphics, sound, etc.) taking up the bulk
of the game's size.

which means that if you want to swap a card, those apps are no longer
functional, entirely defeating the advantage of having a card slot.

Post by Todd Allcock
There should be no problem stuffing an Android device with a couple hundred
apps if one desires. Rooting it so apps themselves can be installed to
storage would make the number nuch higher.

i think i read that it currently limits the number of 'home screens' to
3 or 4 pages (versus 11 on the iphone).

[Todd Allcock]

Post by nospam

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam
unfortunately, the nexus one has a very restrictive limit to the
number of apps, a paltry 190 meg. on the other hand, maybe that
means it will be more of a bandwidth hog since apps will need to
download anything of substance.

The "paltry" 190 MB shouldn't be a problem. While Android devices
(out of the box) require apps to be downloaded to main memory, that
only limits the executable portion. The data portion of the app can
be download to storage card. Take a really big app, like an
"offline" GPS app, for example. The executable might be 1 or 2MB and
install in main memory, but the maps, voice prompt speech engine,
POI data, etc, totaling 1 or 2 GB would install to the storage card.
Even "large" games have relatively small executables, with the
storage-installable game data (graphics, sound, etc.) taking up the
bulk of the game's size.

which means that if you want to swap a card, those apps are no longer
functional, entirely defeating the advantage of having a card slot.

Defeating one advantage, I guess. You still have the advantage of
increasing storage as your needs grow, or memory gets cheaper, without
having to buy a new phone..

Post by nospam

Post by Todd Allcock
There should be no problem stuffing an Android device with a couple
hundred apps if one desires. Rooting it so apps themselves can be
installed to storage would make the number nuch higher.

i think i read that it currently limits the number of 'home screens' to
3 or 4 pages (versus 11 on the iphone).

The number of screens depends on the verson of the Android OS. Unlike
the iPhone, however, you can scroll the home screens, so you aren't as
limited in the number of apps per screen, like you are with the iPhone's
fixed grid .

Also, the screens can also contain folders each with a scrolling list of
apps allowing you to actually categorize apps- a concept sorely needed on
the iPhone, yet still absent.

[nospam]

Post by Todd Allcock
Defeating one advantage, I guess. You still have the advantage of
increasing storage as your needs grow, or memory gets cheaper, without
having to buy a new phone..

true, but people tend to get new phones every couple of years.

Post by Todd Allcock
Also, the screens can also contain folders each with a scrolling list of
apps allowing you to actually categorize apps- a concept sorely needed on
the iPhone, yet still absent.

iphone's app handling works great. for a page or two of apps.

having several pages of apps and certainly with the maximum of 11
pages, swiping back and forth gets old, *fast*. being able to search by
name is occasionally helpful but who the hell can remember the names of
200 apps?

[Larry]

Post by Todd Allcock
There should be no problem stuffing an Android device with a couple
hundred apps if one desires. Rooting it so apps themselves can be
installed to storage would make the number nuch higher.

He's worried about how many fart and flashlight apps Android can store,
like his beloved iPhone toy does.

[DevilsPGD]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by nospam
yes they can, and by quite a bit. iphone users consume substantially
more bandwidth than people who own other phones.

On what do you base that statement?

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125167204761770765.html>
It is no secret that iPhone users download games, video and other Web
data at two to four times the rate of other smart-phone users.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/technology/companies/03att.html>
Not only do iPhone owners download applications, stream music and
videos and browse the Web at higher rates than the average smartphone
user, but the average iPhone owner can also use 10 times the network
capacity used by the average smartphone user.

Fascinating. So what is it about the iPhone that makes it hog 10 times
as much bandwidth as any other phone of equal capabilities?

Ease of use.

Surfing the net on a Blackberry is certainly possible, for example, but
it's far from an enjoyable experience in most cases, it's simply too
slow and cumbersome an interface.

WebKit does a much better job at rendering pages, does so faster, and it
makes it easier to manipulate pages not designed for small screens.

A combination of the ease of use and speed of using a larger touch
screen driven webkit browser makes it easier to burn through a lot more
pages.

Combine heavier usage that with the fact that the Blackberry browser
relies on an external proxy to pre-compress content for smaller
over-the-wire transmission and you end up with a device that is more
suited for heavier web use.

[Larry]

Post by Scott in SoCal
If VZW's system is so great, then shouldn't it be able to handle the
load of a few iPhones - or any other smart phones, for that matter?
After all, iPhones can't suck up more bandwidth than any other brand
or model of smart phone.
VZW has an amazing talent for shooting itself in the foot. That must
come from the GTE side of the family...

If Verizon puts an Iphone on their system, it won't be anything like the
ATT iPhone because it will have that trademark Verizon hobbleware firmly
attached to the OS to put them into control, turning off everything they
either think will use bandwidth or they can resell you, features that were
already on the phone, like the ability to simply copy pictures off the
phone on bluetooth or wifi to your computer....instead of PAYING Verizon to
do it over their network at 25c/picture or some other gouge.

Verizon's history of these practices is quite clear.....

Case in point:
My phone on Alltel was a Motorola Z6m
The same exact phone on Verizon was a TV sales gimmick the Z6tv.

Yecch....

Sellphone Bluetooth only connects to a headset or car radio for a reason,
you know....(c;]

[Josh]

Post by Larry

Post by Scott in SoCal
If VZW's system is so great, then shouldn't it be able to handle the
load of a few iPhones - or any other smart phones, for that matter?
After all, iPhones can't suck up more bandwidth than any other brand
or model of smart phone.
VZW has an amazing talent for shooting itself in the foot. That must
come from the GTE side of the family...

If Verizon puts an Iphone on their system, it won't be anything like the
ATT iPhone because it will have that trademark Verizon hobbleware firmly
attached to the OS to put them into control, turning off everything they
either think will use bandwidth or they can resell you, features that were
already on the phone, like the ability to simply copy pictures off the
phone on bluetooth or wifi to your computer....instead of PAYING Verizon to
do it over their network at 25c/picture or some other gouge.
Verizon's history of these practices is quite clear.....
My phone on Alltel was a Motorola Z6m
The same exact phone on Verizon was a TV sales gimmick the Z6tv.
Yecch....
Sellphone Bluetooth only connects to a headset or car radio for a reason,
you know....(c;]

The HTC Droid Eris I have (Android OS) on Verizon doesn't appear to be
crippled in any way, nor does it have much in the way of Verizon-added
junkware/default bookmarks/etc. Can download any Android Marketplace
app or install from anywhere, including self-written ones with the
free SDK, by unchecking one box. And some of these apps are quite
bandwidth intensive, e.g. Pandora.

Presumably the Motorola Droid is similar; this is my first Verizon
experience, so I have no knowledge of other phones.

Josh

[Mark Crispin]

Post by Josh

Post by Larry
If Verizon puts an Iphone on their system, it won't be anything like the
ATT iPhone because it will have that trademark Verizon hobbleware

The HTC Droid Eris I have (Android OS) on Verizon doesn't appear to be
crippled in any way, nor does it have much in the way of Verizon-added
junkware/default bookmarks/etc.

Larry's comments about Verizon firmware are several years out of date,
back from the time when the hot Motorola phone was the V710; and never
were valid for BlackBerry or other smartphones.

Post by Josh
Presumably the Motorola Droid is similar; this is my first Verizon
experience, so I have no knowledge of other phones.

The Motorola Droid is also fully-functional Android.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by Mark Crispin
Larry's comments about Verizon firmware are several years out of date,
back from the time when the hot Motorola phone was the V710; and never
were valid for BlackBerry or other smartphones.

That's not quite true- no modern Verizon Windows Mobile smartphone is
capable of making a dial-up networking connection to a dialup ISP, even
though Verizon's network still supports it. The GSM versions of such
phones are, however.

[el KaBong]

Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Apple isn't exactly lacking in ego, and one has to wonder if Verizon
airing their "Misfit Toys" commercial, showing an iPhone in with a bunch
of discarded junk, was a very wise move. I can't imagine Steve Jobs would
see an ad like that and think very kind things about doing biz with
Verizon. It's one thing to poke fun of AT&T, it's another to very clearly
target the iPhone itself. Or am I the only person thinking that might have
been a very costly commercial for Verizon to air?
Then there's the issue of missed opportunities. If I were Apple, I'd make
sure I had stronger coverage than Verizon at the farthest-north-possible
point. As in, when Santa needs a reliable phone, AT&T is the best network
choice. :)
(And yes, I did look at network coverage maps, and both AT&T and Verizon
service Alaska's North Slope region)
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Isn't it aapl's second contract with AT&T? Maybe verizion knows they'll
never be in the loop.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Apple isn't exactly lacking in ego, and one has to wonder if Verizon
airing their "Misfit Toys" commercial, showing an iPhone in with a
bunch of discarded junk, was a very wise move. I can't imagine Steve
Jobs would see an ad like that and think very kind things about doing
biz with Verizon. It's one thing to poke fun of AT&T, it's another to
very clearly target the iPhone itself. Or am I the only person thinking
that might have been a very costly commercial for Verizon to air?

All's fair in love, war and business. Besides, I think Verizon crafted
the commercial very carefully- the Misfit Toys say something like "but
you run all those apps- everybody loves you" then the phone shamefully
shows its AT&T coverage map and the toys respond with "Oh, you'll fit
right in here." The message, at least as I interpreted it, was "nice
phone- pity it's on a lousy network..." A message seemingly placing the
blame squarely on AT&T, rather than Apple.

I can't help but think Verizon intentionally steered clear of insulting
the iPhone, not so much to appease Apple but as to keep the message
"believable." The iPhone is popular and beloved enough that an anti-
iPhone (as a device) ad would seem far too "sour-grapey" and immediately
be dismissed as BS by iPhone users and potential users. No one listens
to an ad they don't believe, but this way, they can position the Droid as
a phone that's iPhone-like, but on a better service, and hope to attract
both groups.

[Dennis Ferguson]

Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Apple isn't exactly lacking in ego, and one has to wonder if Verizon airing
their "Misfit Toys" commercial, showing an iPhone in with a bunch of
discarded junk, was a very wise move. I can't imagine Steve Jobs would see
an ad like that and think very kind things about doing biz with Verizon.
It's one thing to poke fun of AT&T, it's another to very clearly target the
iPhone itself. Or am I the only person thinking that might have been a very
costly commercial for Verizon to air?

While I agree with Todd that the ad isn't very hard on the phone
at all (as opposed to AT&T's network), I also think you might be
reversing cause and effect. Assuming Apple sticks to their past
behaviour and will be shipping new iPhone hardware in early summer,
it is probably safe to say that whatever Apple is doing with the
phone in 2010 has already been firmly decided at this point, and
probably exists in prototype form already. Because of this I don't
think Verizon could help but already know what will, or won't, be
coming in their direction next year.

That being the case, if you really think the ad is bashing the iPhone
(and I'm not sure it is) then I guess I'd be more likely to think about
what that says about what Verizon knows is, or isn't, coming from Apple
in their direction...

Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Then there's the issue of missed opportunities. If I were Apple, I'd make
sure I had stronger coverage than Verizon at the farthest-north-possible
point. As in, when Santa needs a reliable phone, AT&T is the best network
choice. :)
(And yes, I did look at network coverage maps, and both AT&T and Verizon
service Alaska's North Slope region)

Actually I'm pretty sure Verizon doesn't; they sold their Alaska licenses
sometime not long after the GTE acquisition. There is a CDMA operator
there that Verizon roams on, however (though you'll pay for the service
if you have a Verizon prepaid phone).

Dennis Ferguson

[Carl]

Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Apple isn't exactly lacking in ego, and one has to wonder if Verizon
airing their "Misfit Toys" commercial, showing an iPhone in with a
bunch of discarded junk, was a very wise move. I can't imagine Steve
Jobs would see an ad like that and think very kind things about doing
biz with Verizon. It's one thing to poke fun of AT&T, it's another to
very clearly target the iPhone itself. Or am I the only person
thinking that might have been a very costly commercial for Verizon to
air?
Then there's the issue of missed opportunities. If I were Apple, I'd
make sure I had stronger coverage than Verizon at the
farthest-north-possible point. As in, when Santa needs a reliable
phone, AT&T is the best network choice. :)
(And yes, I did look at network coverage maps, and both AT&T and
Verizon service Alaska's North Slope region)

You might be guilty of personifying objects in your concern (as are, I
believe, many of the other posters responding in this thread). Apple is not
some child whose feelings are going to be hurt and who won't talk to Verizon
anymore. This is business. Money and deals talk.

I apologize in advance to those of you who understand my post for appearing
to "talk down", but just to make it clear to everyone, Personification means
giving an inanimate object human traits and qualities, such as emotions,
desires, sensations, physical gestures and speech. Many posters in this
thread appear to be guilty of this particularly human trait.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

Post by Carl

Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Apple isn't exactly lacking in ego, and one has to wonder if Verizon
airing their "Misfit Toys" commercial, showing an iPhone in with a
bunch of discarded junk, was a very wise move. I can't imagine Steve
Jobs would see an ad like that and think very kind things about doing
biz with Verizon. It's one thing to poke fun of AT&T, it's another to
very clearly target the iPhone itself. Or am I the only person
thinking that might have been a very costly commercial for Verizon to
air?
Then there's the issue of missed opportunities. If I were Apple, I'd
make sure I had stronger coverage than Verizon at the
farthest-north-possible point. As in, when Santa needs a reliable
phone, AT&T is the best network choice. :)
(And yes, I did look at network coverage maps, and both AT&T and
Verizon service Alaska's North Slope region)

You might be guilty of personifying objects in your concern (as are, I
believe, many of the other posters responding in this thread). Apple
is not some child whose feelings are going to be hurt and who won't
talk to Verizon anymore. This is business. Money and deals talk.

It's an ego-driven corporate environment, which has served the company
very, very well (they chose the right ego). Talk to people who work
there. Yes, money is extremely important. But so is control and an
intense desire to teach a lesson to those who don't believe in them.
Apple itself is all about "personification."

But don't take my word for it regarding "personification" in business.
http://www.redmondpie.com/verizon-droid-ads-targets-apple-and-steve-jobs-9140112/

Post by Carl
I apologize in advance to those of you who understand my post for
appearing to "talk down", but just to make it clear to everyone,
Personification means giving an inanimate object human traits and
qualities, such as emotions, desires, sensations, physical gestures
and speech. Many posters in this thread appear to be guilty of this
particularly human trait.

No problem, I knew what you meant. Thanks-

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[SMS]

Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Apple isn't exactly lacking in ego, and one has to wonder if Verizon
airing their "Misfit Toys" commercial, showing an iPhone in with a bunch
of discarded junk, was a very wise move. I can't imagine Steve Jobs
would see an ad like that and think very kind things about doing biz
with Verizon. It's one thing to poke fun of AT&T, it's another to very
clearly target the iPhone itself. Or am I the only person thinking that
might have been a very costly commercial for Verizon to air?

I suspect that Verizon accepts that there will be no iPhone for them
until LTE and will continue to tout their coverage advantages in their
advertising.

The impending release of the Google phone will help the Droid as it
legitimizes the Android platform and helps expand the base of applications.