|
Bjarne, he never ruled that the map was not factual either. If AT&T had a chance of proving it wasn't factual they would have brought that to the table during the emergency injunction, which would have brought the gavel against Verizon. As AT&T has pointed out several times, they have the major populated areas more than covered with 3G. The major populous is the target audience for the iPhone (I wont argue this point here, they have been the target audience for Apple since the first USB capable iPod). Montana, Alaska, etc have no were near the target population density of San Fransisco, New York City, LA, etc. (that's right, comparing entire states to cities.) AT&T also points out that the EDGE and voice service is much more vast than the 3G coverage. EDGE although quiet slow, is supported by the iPhone so AT&T can sell them in those states even without 3G (which in my opinion is more underhanded than the map). I think we agree the map can be interpreted as an underhanded move in advertising but the people who don't live in the major populous would find it more than handy and informative in choosing a network for a smart phone.
|
|
|