It’s becoming far too common for websites who measure success via pageviews to churn out articles and slap either a sensationalist or misleading headline on it. Typically, this practice resides in the purview of lesser-known blogs, but it turns out that even sites like the Wall Street Journal have no bones about implementing this annoying strategy.
Under the terms of the original AT&T/Apple deal, the iPhone has always been and remains exclusive to AT&T. Initial reports have pegged the length of the exclusive deal at 2 years, while some have speculated that the exclusive deal might be as many as 5 years.
The iPhone has been immensely popular, and one can only imagine how much sales would increase if the iPhone all of a sudden became available on other carriers. It was therefore with great interest that I clicked onto a WSJ article titled, “AT&T Chief Presses to Keep iPhone, Deepen Wireless Push.”
After reading the article, however, I felt a bit cheated. The extent of the iPhone discussion was comprised of only a few sentences which speculated that AT&T has been in talks to extent their exclusivity deal with Apple until 2011. The source? “People familiar with the matter.”
Almost 99% of the article discussed AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, his background, his rise to prominence, and what he’s doing to keep AT&T competitive when it comes to wireless services. Don’t get me wrong, it was an enlightening and worthwhile article, but to be fair, it really had nothing to do with AT&T’s efforts to keep the iPhone away from other carriers.
Just trying to keep it real, I guess. Am I off base? Feel free to holla back in the comments below.