Verizon CEO hates on Steve Jobs, doesn't see iPhone as a mass-market handset

If you've been scouring the dictionary for sour grapes, chances are you'll find Ivan Seidenberg's picture. Verizon Communications' chairman and chief executive recently sat down for an interview with Financial Times, and while he spent the vast majority of his time boasting of just how amazing Verizon is, he did stop to remark about Cupertino ever so briefly. Granted, he did start off by admitting that Apple was a "great company," but that didn't stop him from pillorying the iPhone as well as Dear Leader himself. He actually accused the interviewer of "declaring [Apple] a winner before it had earned it on the field," suggesting that the iPhone wouldn't become a mass-market handset simply because the next iteration will be subsidized. He also stated that "Mr. Jobs had no monopoly on innovation," and took the conversation even further off track by blurting that "Steve Jobs eventually will get old." At least Keystone knows where to find its next bitter beer face, right?

[Via The Inquirer, image courtesy of Pace, thanks Frank]

[K @ Jul 1st 2008 9:46AM]

idiot

[Blackstar @ Jul 1st 2008 10:17AM]

Yup.

And his 'amazing' company still can't get my bill right for over 18 months. How's THAT for 'amazing'.

[Quix @ Jul 1st 2008 10:32AM]

This guy should shave his head and legally change his name to I. Instant street cred. Hey, it worked for Microsoft.

[fred @ Jul 1st 2008 10:41AM]

Yeah he is an idiot. He hasnt apparently gotten the memo that only Steve Jobs can be critical of other companies products.

"He actually accused the interviewer of "declaring [Apple] a winner before it had earned it on the field," "

And he is correct with that. The tech media, always working hard to protect Apple from criticism and competition, has just declared the iPhone the end all of phones, and have pushed a narrow philosophy that no other phone could possibly be as good for the consumer. It is not only dishonest, it reeks of bias that does consumers a disservice in the end. Just look at the "How dare you" tone of this article as a prime example.

"He also stated that "Mr. Jobs had no monopoly on innovation,"

They dont. That is self-evident. But just saying so will invite heaps of scorn to be tossed on him because an atmosphere has been created that only Apple has "innovation", which is never defined by the people that believe that ironically, it is just tossed out there and you are just supposed to accept it.

"Steve Jobs eventually will get old."

Yes, again an obvious statement because all things pass and new ones take their place.

Of course that cant be applied to Apple, because then it is just mean and bitter talk.

[Zak @ Jul 1st 2008 11:18AM]

No, Fred... just no. The interviewer was just asking questions, not declaring Apple a winner of anything. Seidenberg is so defensive about it that he lashes out at the interviewer. Ever heard the phrase "shooting the messenger"?

And of course Jobs doesn't have a monopoly on innovation. Duh? However, Verizon has yet to prove that THEY have any innovation at all. The fact that Seidenberg even brought it up is questionable. How is Verizon innovating anything?

And Steve Jobs will eventually get old. REALLY?! So what Seidenberg is saying is that since Apple has so completely outmaneuvered them, their only choice is to just wait it out. Until Steve Jobs gets old. Then Verizon will make their move! Uh, sure. That's innovation right there.

Fred, your knee-jerk defense of this moron is only proving what an idiot you are. Anybody with a modicum of objectivity can pretty easily see that Seidenberg is lashing out at Apple because they're doing something Verizon hasn't been able to do. If Verizon were as awesome as Seidenberg seems to think they are, they would actually be DOING something to combat the iPhone, like Sprint did with the Instinct. But they're not, are they? Apparently Seidenberg would rather cry about it than do something about it.

Yeah, that's a real hero you've decided to cuddle up with, Fred.

[lorenpedro @ Jul 1st 2008 11:40AM]

Verizon is very innovative... they've invented a way to make any phone suck... the invention is called Vcast. I'm ditching it on the 11th when I switch. Make sure all you other switchers get a new phone if you have the insurace with verizon so you can craigslist it for more$$.

[fred @ Jul 1st 2008 11:50AM]

Zak, your comments were so absurd and childish, it isn't even worth the time to reply beyond this.

[Sean M. @ Jul 1st 2008 11:59AM]

You know, I'll agree the Verizon hasn't innovated. Nor has AT&T. The plain truth is that the attack on apple really is just lashing out against the path not taken.

What is evident is that Verizon, for all the equipment faux pas they make, is a better * cellular * company than AT&T, and are not currently in the market of making handsets to compete against Apple. LG, HTC and others make the handsets (VZW just screws up the interface). Hate VZW's handset offerings, their prices, that hideous UI, that's all fine and dandy. But they continue to outrank AT&T in the CS and Network side, and they continue to make money.

That is what Ivan and VZW do, they make money. He passed over the iPhone, but they still make money. Poor Ivan realized he could have even more money if he hadn't f'd up. He can't very well say that though. He can't even say it's a great phone, but AT&T sucks, because thats the same thing. So he attacks the phone.

Even if the iPhone NEVER get's old, eventually the exclusivity with AT&T will. And Apple will want to make money and they will produce whatever version of the iPhone is needed for whatever network VZW is on, and hopefully under the 'open network' policy, VZW won't have any say about UI's and it will be then what it is now...a decent phone with a screaming fast OS that is easy to use.

So yes, he has to wait it out. and some day, when he retires, he'll have to admit it was a mistake. but we shouldn't expect him to tuck tail today. Although a little restraint would be nice.

[Zak @ Jul 1st 2008 12:08PM]

Fred: Ah yes, the old "you are beneath me" excuse. Nice try, come back when you've got enough brain to argue your side.. Or just keep saying really stupid things in comments, that's ok too.

[fred @ Jul 1st 2008 12:35PM]

Whatever floats your tugboat, zak.

And besides you pretty much proved my point with the whole undefined definition of "innovation" thing. You accuse them of not being innovative based on having done zero research into their products and services, while just proclaiming Apple to be just that based on nothing more than you are a fan of that company.

Verizon is not Apple so thus they cannot possibly be innovative. Oh and anyone that says otherwise just shows how much of an "idiot you are", according to Zak.

And people wonder why having a discussion with Apple fanatics is pointless?

[Zak @ Jul 1st 2008 1:15PM]

Fred, read Sean's comments if you don't want to read mine. He's basically saying the same thing I am, but maybe you'll understand it better if it doesn't come from me, right?

As far as the innovation thing - prove that I haven't done the research. Show me where Verizon is being innovative. Do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Apple is innovative because they're doing things like changing the way people think about phones. Have you not seen the legion of phones coming out that are basically copying the iPhone, or at least trying to? Why do you think that's happening?

I didn't say Verizon wasn't innovative because they're not Apple. That was all you. I said Verizon isn't innovative because they're NOT. Is that clear enough for you this time? Like I said, prove me wrong. PROVE it. Do it. Don't just tell me I'm wrong, PROVE it.

As much as you probably hate to hear this, I'm the one with facts on my side here. Apple is an innovative company, and Verizon is not. If you argue with that, you're a lot more of a fanboy than I am. Ignoring basic facts doesn't make you smart or right. It just makes you ignorant. Just like Seidenberg. If he were truly the innovator you seem to think he is, they would have an answer to the iPhone by now. Sprint did it, Verizon has no excuse.

Keep in mind Seidenberg is the guy who originally turned Apple down when Jobs shopped the iPhone to Verizon. Can you say sour grapes?

[Harry @ Jul 1st 2008 2:18PM]

I don't know about AT&T, but as Cingular, they came out with rollover minutes. Pretty much the most damn innovative thing an American cellular carrier has ever done in my book.

[SimbaDogg @ Jul 1st 2008 3:16PM]

why isn't this under the old C-E-Oh no you didn't tag

[David @ Jul 1st 2008 7:29PM]

Hey Zak, you do know that Fred never mentioned Verizon in his first post. He didn't say that Verizon is innovative, just that we shouldn't be too narrow-minded as to where innovation can come from.

[Homer J @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:24PM]

I am not going to touch the innovative part of this string, just ask a simple question.

Can anyone name another smart-phone that can easily
-- play music (especially from iTunes)
-- play video (that does not need to be converted)
-- has a readily available source of music and video that can be downloaded
-- has GPS
-- has a bevy of third party peripherals
-- has a decent interface
-- has a decent web browser

Will be interested in the responses.

BTW my 2 cents: If Verizon had the iPhone with their network quality, they would have cleaned up. I think AT&T is now on or near par, but the in-network calling is still a strong draw as most of my friends / family have VZW.

[Sean M. @ Jul 1st 2008 9:47AM]

Oh Ivan...I think by old, he means LTE...then he can use one too.

[Lein @ Jul 1st 2008 9:47AM]

Insulting the God-King. Doesn't that qualify for the CE-Oh-No-He-Didn't tag?

Boy, I love corporate ignorance. While I won't be buying one (I need a damned physical qwerty, so sue me,) it's still going to sell like mad simply because it has become so easy to market. Maybe he's just regretting giving Apple the cold shoulder on an iPhone deal...

[w00t @ Jul 1st 2008 10:38AM]

Oww damnit, comments like SuperCoolSplasdfkjl3!0's should come with government health warnings!

[Warhorse @ Jul 1st 2008 12:29PM]

Why does SuperCool remind me of Jar Jar Binks...

[clakimpersonator @ Jul 1st 2008 3:12PM]

HE IS SO STUPID I CAN"T BELIEVE HE WOULD EVEN DARE INSULT JOBS. JOBS IS THE ONE AND ONLY GUY WHO CAN SAVE US FROM GLOBAL WARMING AND THE EVIL APPLE HATERS. I HATE THAT GUY.

[Drei @ Jul 1st 2008 3:14PM]

@Warhorse: that's an insult to Jar Jar Binks

[DanLeasure @ Jul 1st 2008 9:50AM]

What a tool.

They're so innovative that after 7 years as their customer I'm switching over to ATT this month...not just because of the iPhone...but because Verizon phones suck. The standardized programming they slap them all with feels like dos compared to software other companies are putting out.

[blackmonkey @ Jul 1st 2008 10:17AM]

same here.. I've been with them for over 5 years and i`m switching over to ATT as soon as my 2 secondary lines finish their contracts.

[riggs @ Jul 1st 2008 10:21AM]

so youre going from bad to worse?

[Dennis @ Jul 1st 2008 11:17AM]

I agree. I left Verizon years back because the phones suck and I need my phone to do more than just make a call. I went to T-MO and then Cingular. The phones were great but the network wasn't anything to brag about. I went back to Verizon almost two years ago and it's the same old, same old: the network is great and the phones suck. But, now, Verizon itself is starting to aggravate me with their attitude. So, I might be leaving again. Between T-Mo and AT&T, around here AT&T is the best of two evils.

[alex @ Jul 1st 2008 10:53AM]

Not to say he isn't an idiot but Riggs is right. Like the commercial say it's not the phone but the network it's on. I mean it's fantastic I have a brand spanking all-in-one 9G wifi hifi Blutoothie, but if I no signal it isn't worth shit. Not to mention the Deathstar will give up info on you willy nilly to anyone anywhere. Forget any privacy you may thought you might have.

[Scott Miller @ Jul 1st 2008 11:11AM]

nope, from bad to bad

[Mike @ Jul 1st 2008 9:55AM]

Nothing against Mr. Seidenberg, he's a great guy but has taken the company into such a locked down direction. He's probably bitter that they didn't take the iPhone contract when it was first offered to them so he's maintaining that attitude that iPhone is not a profitable venture when deep down inside it's eating him up.

[Ken @ Jul 1st 2008 10:40AM]

What really irks me is that my choice is between AT&T and Verizon. It wasn't AT&T who signed up the iPhone. It was Cingular. My bet is that AT&T will eventually sucktify and lock up their phones just like Verizon does. I truly hate AT&T, but Verizon's phones suck. What the hell is a consumer supposed to do when there are no decent options?

[KJ @ Jul 1st 2008 12:05PM]

One problem with your statement KEN. You forgot that Cingular bought AT&T and then when they realized that AT&T was more recognizable brand name in the market place than Cingular they changed their name. The company now is more Cingular than AT&T - the only thing AT&T about it is the name.

The chain of events went something like this:
Cingular owned by Bell South and SBC.
AT&T Wireless (separate entity from AT&T - traded under AWE, not T) bought by Cingular in late 04.
All AT&T wireless stores became Cingular stores in later 04
SBC bought AT&T - created 'the new AT&T' - Late '05
SBC bought Bell South in Late 06
SBC decided to rebrand Cingular to AT&T in early '07

SBC was a result of Merger of Ameritech, SWB & PT - all baby bells. (remember the trust busting)
Then SBC bought up the remaining bells to reform back into AT&T.

Your statement would be correct if you didn't know anything about the corporate structure about what went on. However, fundamentally it's always been AT&T in some iteration. However, if you feel that Cingular was different, then your statement is false, as they were the purchaser and only chose the AT&T name/logo for marketing presence.

[Josh Havener @ Jul 1st 2008 12:06PM]

@Ken...and anyone who doesn't know how the whole Ma Bell/Baby Bell thing worked out...

It all started as AT&T, the cold, ruthless monopoly...Then Big Brother stepped in and de-monopolized it...giving us the bell system (aka Baby Bells)... Things went fine for a while, and then the Baby bells started to merge. That gave way to Ameritech, SBC, and Southwest Bell... The three of them merged together to form a bigger SBC who had their wireless baby, Cingular (well Southwest Bell was a late addition to the manage trois, but for simplicity's sake...) With that going good for them, they realized that Ma Bell's wireless provider (the old AT&T Wireless) was floundering, so they decided to take them in to the fold and look after them... They did have a stipulation though...she couldn't be known as AT&T Wireless anymroe...she had to change her name to Cingular as well.

So things went good for the new wireless powerhouse for a while...they got their mother in the mix and things were going swimingly...that is until SBC decided to buy Ma Bell's terrestial division...Thats when SBC decided that nobody knew who they were anymore as a corporation, and they wanted to kick it old school, so they decided to switch back to the at&t brand, but make it theirs... all new fangled with an "improved" deathstar logo and a new "clear-view" font. This really confused, and still confuses, people who had their service, especially those who had the old AT&T wireless... but what these people fail to realize is that its not the old at&t anymore... its just a mutation of the name...

For the TL;DR version: AT&T -> Bell System (SBC, Ameritech, Southwest Bell) -> SBC -> The New at&t

[Josh Havener @ Jul 1st 2008 12:12PM]

I'm dumb... Southwest Bell was SBC... I meant Bell South...

-1 Internets to me.

[Mike @ Jul 1st 2008 12:49PM]

Josh, thanks for that history lesson! Just as it was mentioned in the timeline how all of the baby bells were dispersed and scattered about to evolve, I believe we're starting to see the beginnings of a deregulation paradox; where everything is being brought back together. Just as Josh said, it really isn't AT&T anymore but rather "at&t", a completely different company than the 'old order' we were so used to back in the early 1980's. Cingular could have left the name Cingular but wanted the weight and impact of those three letters that the world once trusted and loved. So the question is now, if the theroy is correct and at&t is sucking everything back together, will we see innovation and competition slow to the point where we will have a choice of a black, red or white phone? Also, eventually can we predict that the government might step in like Warren G, to regulate?

[Josh Havener @ Jul 1st 2008 1:55PM]

http://www.wikinvest.com/images/thumb/0/00/Att_history.jpg/800px-Att_history.jpg

Thats an illustrated history for those who still don't understand the whole at&t paradox... notice how Verizon was(is) a baby bell....

[YesHone @ Jul 1st 2008 3:07PM]

My Friends! It's all quite clear, once Steven Colbert explains it...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=I6nuwQmhrZ8

[Khris @ Jul 1st 2008 9:57AM]

Perfect example of a Corporate Hissy Fit.

[Hagrun @ Jul 1st 2008 9:59AM]

Job's does have a monopoly on innovation because no one else has offered up any competition (speaking strictly about phones). It seems as though other companies don't have the ability to look at their products and say "Wow this is slow", "or this doesn't work as well as it should." Until other companies stop rushing to production with their half ass devices no one even has what it takes to compete with Apple. Apple takes their time with their devices and it shows. Then they market their stuff perfectly.
Verizon has crapped out a few touch screen phones but not one of them has the interface to even get close to the iphone. It sounds to me like this dude isn't happy about the decision he made when Jobs came to Verizon with the iphone. Live and learn Ivan.
That said I am a Verizon user because I don't like dropped calls. Sorry AT&T.

[blackmonkey @ Jul 1st 2008 10:27AM]

I used to work for Verizon and hated all their phones. Any time they announced a new phone and how much time they spent making sure it works good i said to myself, "yeah right". Those people spent 3-6 months of checking their phones before releasing them and still things like , quiet speaker, horrible battery life, lame menus, ugly designs showed up in all of these "approved" phones. These people should have been fired long time ago. They are either not doing their jobs or they don't have any idea what is considered to be a good product on todays standards.

[Neeko @ Jul 1st 2008 2:50PM]

"Job's does have a monopoly on innovation because no one else has offered up any competition (speaking strictly about phones)"

Please tell me your joking? APPLE has no monopoly on anything besides MP3 players. Companies like HTC,Samsung and Nokia have been creating innovative phones for YEARS...YEARS. Apple has produced one phone which was a spinoff of their already popular IPOD. The IPHONE doesnt have any INNOVATIVE phone features besides Visual voicemail, which isnt used/liked by every iphone user.

What sells the iphone is the integration of ipod with touchscreen iphone. Of course the idiotic thinking that ALL APPLE PRODUCTS ARE THE BEST EVER CREATED doesnt hurt also.

This doesnt mean i dont think the iphone isnt a great device. I also think the N95,HTC phones and certain blackberries are just as creative and innovative.

INNOVATION DOESNT START OR END WITH ONE COMPANY IN THIS INDUSTRY!

[Hagrun @ Jul 1st 2008 3:29PM]

Okay... an angry guy... Yes the whole Apple has a monopoly on innovation thing was a joke. Obviously that cannot happen since it's not an industry. It was a sensationalistic headline to get your attention. Thanks for making it a success!

I guess you didn't notice the whole multitouch interface, and how well the program integrate with the OS (not to say it doesn't have it's problems). I'd say that the interface was a pretty darn big innovation. Visual voicemail I've seen before, so Apple shouldn't even get credit for that. I agree the voicemail thing is lame.
Apple's innovation also comes in style, something no one has really seen in this kind of device. The iPhone is a great device that doesn't make you look like you walked out of a bad 80s scifi movie while using it.

Perhaps your argument will be more valid once the stylus makes it's return to popularity.

No reason to hate Apple lovers. I don't see a problem with liking Apple products though. Apple does what it does damn well, and it has the reputation to prove it. Part of Apple's marketing scheme is to let the products speak for themselves, and they really scream.

I, like most, love the blackberry. I think their interface is also innovative, however the iPhone's sales numbers speak for themselves.

Apple continues to push forward in leaps and bounds by setting goals and not compromising what they think the device should be. THAT is why Apple will stay among the top players in the game.

I'm not an Apple fan boy or anything. I don't even have an iPhone, but I do give credit where credit is due.
Now don't be so angry!

[Michael @ Jul 1st 2008 10:00AM]

Epic Fail! The guy's obviously a douche. I hate suits who can't see the future when it slaps them in the face.

[Ignatius @ Jul 1st 2008 10:02AM]

He's right about one thing, Steve Jobs is going to get old.

It's just a matter of time before the hip, stylish crowd finally gets bored of the Apple way.

[Khris @ Jul 1st 2008 10:21AM]

Because it's only one demographic of people who are into Apple products. *eyeroll*

Come on......you can find an iPod on a person of just about EVERY age and that means more than just the "hip, stylish crowd" like Apple products.

[Ignatius @ Jul 1st 2008 10:22AM]

Most people have an iPod because they don't know of alternative choices and they aren't willing to go the extra mile to actually make an informed decision. There are dozens of better players out there that don't chain you to a DRM system, cost less AND provide better support.

[Dan @ Jul 1st 2008 10:28AM]

I agree with Kris.

Its not about that they are hip or stylish, its just down to one simple fact, the products just freaking work and do their job well.

I'm not a big apple fanboy, heck im not even a fanboy at all, but their iPods are the best music players I have ever had, and the iPhone has been my favorite phone thus far and im a big PPC user. Despite its gripes with no keyboard or other small concerns, the iPhone has been the one phone I always go back after trying another new phone.

Steve Jobs can be a million years old for all I cared,,,, but if they sell the goods and products that has no competition then you can bet every one and their mother will buy it.

[John @ Jul 1st 2008 10:32AM]

I don't think anyone questions that. It sounds, however, like you're implying that Apple will get old and everyone will go back to their one-color LCD Nokias and Dell Inspirons, which isn't true.

[Dan @ Jul 1st 2008 10:32AM]

Lock to a DRM system?

Maybe you never had a iPod before but iTunes and the ipod allow full use of any non-drm mp3 for ...ooh I dont know....since the creation of time.. They dont force you to use iTunes for your music store, you still have the option of buying music elsewhere and just sync/import into your itunes.

Also there are very few mp3 players out there that really compete with the iPod. The only series or company that come to mind is Creative which I agree is a nice player, but to me and many others the UI of the ipod is simply easy to use and just overall a better experience.

[Ignatius @ Jul 1st 2008 10:41AM]

Wait wait... what is that? You have to sync everything with iTunes? Ah, I just have to drag and drop with my Cowon, which has never failed to play any file I've thrown at it, no matter what the codec.

Not to mention that it is capable of recording TV, capturing audio from line-in sources, has an integrated FM radio, comes with all cables necessary for outputting -HD- signals to TV (which cost $30-40 in a retail store) and has a bigger screen and better battery life?

Oh, and it's what, $50 more than the iPod?

No, there are no other good players out there than the iPod, riiiiight?

[Khris @ Jul 1st 2008 10:47AM]

Would you like a medal or a chest to pin it on??

I'm glad that you've found something other than an iPod to tuck you in bed at night and suck you off when you're bored.

For the average joe user, an iPod will be everything they need and more. Not everyone will need countless sophisticated features which might only get used once in a blue moon.

[Ignatius @ Jul 1st 2008 10:54AM]

What, so you get mad when I throw something that's obviously more advanced than the precious iPod in front of you?

Chill out. There's more to life than Apple.