Apple as a Wireless Provider?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

While this falls more in line with speculation than actual rumor, Forbes mentions (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/07/08/apple-cellphone-service-cx_de_0708apple.html) the possibility of Apple launching its own wireless network to promote the upcoming Motorola iTunes-enabled cellular phone.

Forbes comments how other companies have recently been able to enter the mobile market without a significant outlay of money by becoming a "mobile virtual network operator" or MVNO. The advantage is that it allows companies to deploy a mobile network but utilize existing infrastructure. Disney, ESPN and Earthlink are among companies who have launched their own mobile networks.

This would also circumvent roadblocks in having to work with individual wireless carriers.

The solution could be for Apple to launch its own cellular network, doing an end run around carriers and providing the company with revenue from both selling phone handsets and from the resale of cellular service.

The most recent rumors have pinpointed Cingular as the likely provider (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/07/20050701115914.shtml) for Motorola's iTunes enabled cell phone.

[realityisterror]

It shall never happen... maybe someday it'll be like a nationwide WiFi/cell network... but Apple isn't really the one to do that...

I'm thinking the iTunes phone, if and when it is released, will come through Cingular or Verizon... quite possibly Cingular, since that's where analysts and insiders are pointing...

reality

[mlrproducts]

This won't happen even though it would be AWESOME!

[amac4me]

if this were to happen, all i would have to say is WHOA :eek:

[iMeowbot]

w00t, e•World Phone Edition! Gah, let's hope not. .Mac seems to be about as complicated as Apple can get with an online service without losing it completely.

[Surreal]

is there really that much money to be made in this arena? i know that it would push hardware..but not apple's hardware..so it would hardly be a "break even to get ahead" situation ala itunes music store.

[pontecorvo]

but Apple isn't really the one to do that...


Like Disney and ESPN are? :rolleyes:

[nagromme]

If it's becoming common for "any old company" to piggyback off of existing systems, then I guess anything's possible. But doubtful.

Still, not nearly AS doubtful as MacOSRumors' tidbit a while back about Apple becoming a wireless carrier by putting up cell towers at all their retail stores :o

[ham_man]

If Apple wants to sell a large number of phones, they will do it through one of the existing providers (Cingular, Verizon, etc.). People will be more likely to buy an iTunes phone if there is no hassle of switching providers...

[pontecorvo]

Darnit, second post, but still this won't happen even though it would be AWESOME!
First of all, why won't it happen? Second of all, why would it be "AWESOME!"?

[technocoy]

you can bet the motorola would just be a hold-over for a wholly apple designed iPhone.

here's to wishing....

[snkTab]

I figure it'll be more expensive and have less customer service.

[evilernie]

If it does happen I hope they don't hook up with the SUCKIEST provider there is, which of course is Cingular.

[Flying Llama]

Wow, wonder what their plans would be like! :eek:
But apple style as a wireless provider? Integration with current apple products? That would be quite nice. :)
I doubt this will happen, though why would it be on page 1... :confused:

llama :cool:

[xli_ne]

I would put my money on Cingular. Our apple rep at compusa, last time i checked, had his work cell phone through at&t that apple gave to him and paid the bill for. Since Cingular now owns them, I have no doubt in my mind that it will be cingular.

[jinzo012]

Maybe they'll send a couple relay systems up into orbit with STS-114 (One-Fourteen)- Return to flight.
maybe
probably not though

[Thanatoast]

Hey, if Apple provided a capable pda-phone, and if it happened to be integrated with their ipod products, I wouldn't complain. Imagine having an apple pda (ha!!) / cellphone (i like the samsung i500, i550) with a 20 gig harddrive full of music, games, videos, productivity software, camera, universal remote, etc, etc.

Bow down before the uber-convergence device!

[macnews]

I don't think this will happen and doubt it would be awesome. The equivilant would be Apple ONLY selling iPods through HP, Dell, etc. It would still be an iPod and would be branded much like the HP iPod but why? Unlike other branded iPods, cell phones are being practically given away.

There is more money to be made by having more phones with iTunes service and finding a way to split revenue with the major exisiting cell phone providers. Of course the major problem here is the providers tend to be very greedy and like the idea of charging an arm and a leg for ring tones.

[abrooks]

We have to remember that Forbes was one of the first to report and confirm the Intel switch, none of us believed it or wanted to believe it but they news sources were right, I think we should think some more before we cast this away.

[moosecat]

It may be more than speculation. Engadget claims (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000670049839/) that "one of own reliable sources" says that "Apple is actually [I]already working on this."

I don't know Engadget's reliability when it comes to Mac rumors, but it's generally a reliable and trustworthy site.

[Le Big Mac]

is there really that much money to be made in this arena? i know that it would push hardware..but not apple's hardware..so it would hardly be a "break even to get ahead" situation ala itunes music store.

There's plenty of money to be lost creating the infrastructure. If they wanted to do anything, it would be like Virgin does--resell capacity on another network, say Cingular, and brand it "Apple". I doubt it would make sense profit-wise, but at least it has a chance, unlike creating their own network.

[MaCaDDiCT21]

I can see microsoft doing something like this, but not Apple. Also, one phone isnt really much of a base for Apple to launch a service. I just dont see it happening...

[Stella]

Waste of time - especially since it'll probably be a usa only market, which is far less prosperous than in Europe.

Any new entry needs to compete on price - get the price of ownership down - especially in Canada - the "system access fee" crap. Virgin has gotten rid of this on its service - a few more providers doing this will hopefully get Fido, Rogers et al to remove the fee completely to remain competitive.

Apple should really stick to what it does best.

Apple needs some kind of novelty factor to succeed - and I just don't think that iTunes would be it.

[Mtn Tamale]

Although I don't see it happening. T-Mobile is profitable and experiencing 30% year over year growth right now. DT has said it is for sale. Anticipated price is $20 Billion. They need $5 Billion in upgrades over the next 5 years according to Businessweek which will keep pace with the advances in wireless broadband. That would be a visionary move by Apple.

A national wireless broadband data network for them to do whatever they wanted.....oooooooh.

[joeconvert]

I doubt this will happen, though why would it be on page 1... :confused:


B/c it came from a credible source (Forbes) known for its insight in the business world.

I agree, however, that it is not likely to happen. The author in question was clearly under pressure ot meet a deadline with an insightful column.

[Stella]

What you describe is a smartphone.

Apple should go with Symbian OS, if any. Palm and microsoft are nowhere in this arena. ( Symbian has over 50% marketshare, twice that of microsoft and palm).


Hey, if Apple provided a capable pda-phone, and if it happened to be integrated with their ipod products, I wouldn't complain. Imagine having an apple pda (ha!!) / cellphone (i like the samsung i500, i550) with a 20 gig harddrive full of music, games, videos, productivity software, camera, universal remote, etc, etc.

Bow down before the uber-convergence device!

[cryptochrome]

An Apple MNVO could go way beyond competitors branding. Firstly, it could tie into/be a part of .Mac, the new touchpoint of your distributed resources and services. This would be no ordinary cell phone or network - it would be your constant mobile link to your data and computing power. A good phone would include cellular, 802.11r WiFi and/or 802.16 WiMax and/or Bluetooth, and would use a non-proprietary USB2 connector/recharger. The phone incrementally and automatically syncs or retrieves or deposits data, and makes calls via the best/cheapest of the above connection methods. It can act as a modem/base station for WiFi or USB connected devices, and discover and interoperate with them via Bonjour.

Text messaging via iChat, email via a .Mac-integrated Mail.app, and phone calls via a single number, will be seamlessly integrated over your various devices such that you do not require a separate number/address for your phone and computers. Besides the obvious PDA-like File storage, Address Book, iCal, TextEdit (Word processing), Preview(PDF and images), iTunes, and iPhoto services, web is accessible via Safari-lite, including RSS feeds for news. Of course it can also accept new programs (widgets?Java?Cocoa?) downloaded any which way, and flash memory can be upgraded.

New notebooks will have a phone unit built in, and smaller WiFi handsets that work only over WiFi and use VOIP will be available for the home. There will be more than one phone model.

Well, it all seems pretty obvious to me. Too bad I just renewed my Verizon account.

[andiwm2003]

Although I don't see it happening. T-Mobile is profitable and experiencing 30% year over year growth right now. DT has said it is for sale. Anticipated price is $20 Billion. They need $5 Billion in upgrades over the next 5 years according to Businessweek which will keep pace with the advances in wireless broadband. That would be a visionary move by Apple.

A national wireless broadband data network for them to do whatever they wanted.....oooooooh.


actually german telekom wants between 20 and 30 billion EURO's and it needs araound 10 Billion EUROs of investment. that put's it out of Apples reach i would guess. but who knows.

[AidenShaw]

If this is true, before too long "Apple Computer, Inc" will need to change its name to "Apple Lifestyle Device, Inc"...

[cryptochrome]

I forgot to mention digital camera, which of course operates seamlessly with iPhoto, and an audio/video jack, allowing it to operate as an iPod Photo with headphones/AV cable adaptor. Also, it may want to include some sort of port that allows other devices to plug into it - namely cameras.

On the wilder side, one shortcoming of all small devices is the small screens. Reading a PDF or viewing a high resolution image is basically impossible on a handheld device. However, <a href="http://www.edgereview.com/reviews.cfm?Category=video&ID=46">head-mounted displays</a> can get around this by projecting a high resolution image directly into the eyes. Including a microdisplay you peer into to see into your high-resolution document, or for private materials, would be a major boon.

[Doctor Q]

If this is true, before too long "Apple Computer, Inc" will need to change its name to "Apple Lifestyle Device, Inc"...It's a fact of history that Apple Computer has branched out into more than Macintoshes, while magazines and websites have been named after the Mac. Luckily, we can all go to applerumors.com (http://applerumors.com/)!

As somebody with no qualifications as a business strategy consultant, I'll put in my 2 cents anyway. I don't think Apple should branch out into nonrelated businesses, as many companies do when they see a short-term gain they can make in a brand new area. It diffuses their focus and confuses the public. The trick is in finding new markets that you can bring into your fold and integrate with your product line.

Becoming an online music vendor was in between those extremes. Selling music was related to, but not directly a result of, selling computers to consumers and in some ways has turned Apple into a tail wagging a dog in many consumers' view.

The question is how a wireless business would fit in with the rest of Apple's "Macintosh" business.

[ccuilla]

If this is true, before too long "Apple Computer, Inc" will need to change its name to "Apple Lifestyle Device, Inc"...

Apple stopped being "Apple Computer" a long time ago. This is not a bad thing.

[dlfitch]

Basically, if this ever comes to fruition it will essentially be 'Sprint Wireless's Apple Plan' - Sprint is the only company that licenses it's towers out to MVNOs (like Virgin) and the cell service itself would be pretty identical. So, apple works out the deal with Sprint, designs a phone or two, sets up a new customer support office, creates some badass features that integrate with your computer, and they're good to go - all costing probably costing less than $100 million in initial investment. Suddenly every 'mac fanatic' or zealot or 'cultist' out there has a reason to dump their existing wireless contract and go with apple, for no other reason than the fact that it would be badass. Hopefully the features and .Mac integration would make it worthwhile, but even if not - this is a perfect way for Apple to monopolize on their fanbase by offering a service that 98% of that fanbase is already paying for. I can't think of a better way for them to capitalize on the ipod craze...

[zelmo]

If the Apple Macintosh is the "hub" of the digital lifestyle, and the Apple iPod is the "spoke" that delivers audio (and now photo) content, what other spokes might Apple be working on to complete the as-yet-unseen grand scheme? Video content seems obvious to many. A system to access your data remotely seems possible, too. Would that include phone service or just data access?
How many people do I know who took one look at my iPod, wondered why the heck anyone would EVER need all their music with them, then turned around and got one, only to wonder how the hell they ever got by without it?
Jobs and Ives are all about products that just work, that do things that you need them to do, even if you don't realize you need them at the time. I'm not saying there's an Apple cell service in the offing. I'm just reminded that not many thought much of the iPod at first. That turned out pretty well for Apple. Certainly, they are working on some things we can't possibly know about, much less predict, that will sound strange, then seem utterly natural once implemented.

I'm just rambling now, but I swear I had a point to make when I started typing this.... :rolleyes:

[macnews]

I forgot to mention digital camera, which of course operates seamlessly with iPhoto, and an audio/video jack, allowing it to operate as an iPod Photo with headphones/AV cable adaptor. Also, it may want to include some sort of port that allows other devices to plug into it - namely cameras.

On the wilder side, one shortcoming of all small devices is the small screens. Reading a PDF or viewing a high resolution image is basically impossible on a handheld device.

No offense, but are you NUTS? The biggest short coming with a device like this would be battery life!! When cell phones first came out batteries were huge. Over the past ten years cell phone became more efficient and batteries became much better at using less power. However, the recent increase in do dads and gizmos that cell phones can do (bluetooth, color screens, ringtones, web access, cameras, video cams, sound recording, etc.) has started the battery life problem again. A cell phone that could do everything you mentioned would probably only last an hour if you used most of those services. Battery technology needs to catch up and the power consumption needs to go down.

Although I love my bluetooth enabled phone, I do miss not having to worry about my battery life for three-five days. On my old phone I could take for two hours a day and not have to re-charge for three days.

[fabsgwu]

Basically, if this ever comes to fruition it will essentially be 'Sprint Wireless's Apple Plan' - Sprint is the only company that licenses it's towers out to MVNOs (like Virgin) and the cell service itself would be pretty identical.

Wrong. Verizon has inked a MVNO deal with "Amp'd Mobile" launching this fall, Nextel has one with "Boost." And T-Mobile has roaming agreements with Cingular. There's no inherent reason another big Carrier (other than Sprint) wouldn't sign MVNO's, it's all about growth and market-share, and everyone wants more of the pie.

[dongmin]

The key is bandwidth. If Apple gets into this wireless business, it's not just to put itunes on a few phones. No way. Apple has bigger things in mind, looking ahead.

[solvs]

If this is true, before too long "Apple Computer, Inc" will need to change its name to "Apple Lifestyle Device, Inc"...
A) As mentioned, Apple hasn't been Apple Computers for a long time.

B) Some of us like the way Apple is headed. Computers are part of it, but things like the iPod keep them profitable and in the public spotlight. And that's a good thing.®

C) I'm sure a more reasonable explanation is that they will piggy back their service on someone else's network, using their software on other's hardware. Perhaps it's not just Moto, and perhaps soon it won't just be Cingular.

D) After the Intel thing, nothing surprises me anymore, so who knows. So... where's my iPhone? The money is in my hands Steve, give me a reason to upgrade. :D

[dstorey]

If we think what Apple would need for this move:

Phones: iPod phone, Moto phones, relationships with all major suppliers through their work with quicktime and iSync - check
Network infrastructure: Sprint lease this in the states, but I dunno about any GSM networks. Virgin resell in uk (through vodaphone maybe i forger?) - check
Payment: prepay card infrastructure in place with the existing itms cards that are available in many stores. Monthly bills via the itms monthly allowance feature - check.
Customer base: Many fans that would buy anything apple and give it a good market head start, fans of iPod that want same experience on their phones - check
Support: existing apple care and technically trained support staff - check
Unique selling points: iTunes/iPod integration, iSync, .Mac (could be given away free with monthly plans, with content for phones as well as just the mac). Future integration with apple services and products...movie store, iChat/VoIP etc... check.

In short they have most the infrastructure in place via other products to be able to enable this to roll out without too much major development away from their core markets. With strong integration with itunes and the mac (a given) this would be very popular with mac users from the roll out onwards. The avenues for payment are interesting as they already exist in itms and can be tied in with a phone service. All places that sell itms cards will automatically become prepay sellers too. Cards could become duel use, so you could use them to add minutes to your phone or buy songs/ringtones/movies whatever. If on a contract then you could charge the itms downloads to your phonebill. That way the creditcard charges for apple could be reduced as all purchases in a month would just be processed in one go.

There is so many options that having a phone network could give apple. I think iChat already supports SIP, and it could easy become a skype rival (but with much bigger market exposure and budget).

There would be no provider to stop an apple phone change onto an iChat network when in range of airport, routing all calls through your airport and ichat, and switching to the cell network when out of range. iChat would probably also support txt messaging and sending multi media messages to the phone. It would be very interesting if they made a flat rate data service. I think Apple being a computer company, it would have to have a very strong data plan, as most of it's customers would be more likely to use this. The only thing missing for apple would be that they don't supply the broadband connection for the VoIP and your surfing at home. With the move to VoIP the ISP's will become the new telecom giants as we wont be paying line rental and phone calls, just a broadband rental and possibly a cell rental if there is no big wifi network that builds up outdoors (will take a long time for this to happen). If apple release a cell network then .mac could become much more useful and valuable, with a lot of possible services it could offer.

One major thing apple lacks in the whole widget is mobile phone software except itunes. I guess this is where moto come in. I just hope they design a better interface. Safari is already suited to mobiles (see nokia's work on series 60), and we could possibly see ports of ichat, quick time and the like. A lot of things like addressbook and calenders exist on the iPod. I wonder if it would be possible to add phone capabilities to the iPod OS, or if it would be better to port the iPod stuff to a moto os (i dunno which they use?) Palm could be interesting. Were they not founded by ex apple people? They also are planning to base the new os on linux. Replace linux with Darwin and we are moving somewhere. With the increased popularity of windows for phones and pda's, symbian and phones eating away at pda market share, i wonder if palm will become an attractive acquisition for apple, providing they still have technology that benefits apple.

[Porchland]

If Apple wants to sell a large number of phones, they will do it through one of the existing providers (Cingular, Verizon, etc.). People will be more likely to buy an iTunes phone if there is no hassle of switching providers...

Bing. That is the correct answer.

This is a big-picture sort of question for Apple to answer. On the one hand, Apple could launch into the void and try and build a customer base from scratch as it did with the iPod. On the other hand, Apple could stick with market-share leaders like Cingular and Verizon and bring a new wrinkle to essentially a mature market.

I would LOVE for Apple to actually roll the dice and build a wireless brand from scratch, but I think it's just got too much going against it.

* Everyone has a mobile phone, so every new iPhone customer would be a switcher. A lot of hassle.

* Risk. By going with Motorola and one of the other carriers, Apple can leave the phone business to the phone guys and stick with making and licensing great software like iTunes for mobile phones.

I actually think that's short-sighted. Apple has a great brand in iPod, and could do mobile "different" like it does everything else. I totally think Apple would get this right. Apple's brand would leverage very well in the mobile phone business, and the launch and initial campaign would be a HUGE story in the mainstream press.

But it won't happen.

[Porchland]

There's plenty of money to be lost creating the infrastructure. If they wanted to do anything, it would be like Virgin does--resell capacity on another network, say Cingular, and brand it "Apple".

You just restated what was in the lead post.

The whole news item was that Apple would resell on an existing network.

[g4cubed]

Although I don't see it happening. T-Mobile is profitable and experiencing 30% year over year growth right now. DT has said it is for sale. Anticipated price is $20 Billion. They need $5 Billion in upgrades over the next 5 years according to Businessweek which will keep pace with the advances in wireless broadband. That would be a visionary move by Apple.

A national wireless broadband data network for them to do whatever they wanted.....oooooooh.
Doubtful anything will happen but this would be the way to do it.

[jyvin]

Wrong. Verizon has inked a MVNO deal with "Amp'd Mobile" launching this fall, Nextel has one with "Boost." And T-Mobile has roaming agreements with Cingular. There's no inherent reason another big Carrier (other than Sprint) wouldn't sign MVNO's, it's all about growth and market-share, and everyone wants more of the pie.

I think you wrong. Sprint is absolutely best at MVNOs. They have signed more and are the most successfully to date; really by a landslide. They have Virgin, ESPN, Disney, Time Warner Cable, Qwest, and had AT&T signed up before they were bought.

[jyvin]

This story is kind of old but still applicable.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5555098.html

[Booga]

This is another rumor, like the Apple-on-Intel one, that has been circulating for a decade or more. Way back when digital phones were just on the horizon, there was some talk of Apple reserving large chunks of bandwidth for their own service. Then later on, when bandwidth was being auctioned by the FCC, there were rumors of Apple bidding on it. I think eventually some of that instead turned into the AirPort and 802.11 they have today, but Apple has dabbled just beyond the edge of the wireless telephony business for a long time.

[~Shard~]

As somebody with no qualifications as a business strategy consultant, I'll put in my 2 cents anyway. I don't think Apple should branch out into nonrelated businesses, as many companies do when they see a short-term gain they can make in a brand new area. It diffuses their focus and confuses the public. The trick is in finding new markets that you can bring into your fold and integrate with your product line.

<snip>

The question is how a wireless business would fit in with the rest of Apple's "Macintosh" business.

That's a very good point Doctor Q. I have witnessed this firsthand, working for what used to be "the phone company". All we did was phone service, for 80 years. Then all of a sudden, cell phones came along, so we had to get into the wireless world. Then this little thing called "the Internet" came along, so we got into that. Along the way many people complained, and said the phone company should just stick and do what it's always done, and what it's good at doing. But if that were the case, we wouldn't exist today, especially with shrinknig LD rates and the like!

More recently, we've branched out into digital video over DSL (with complaints again from the CableCos, etc.) and we're of course getting into VoIP now as well, both residential and consumer. So, we've successfully evolved from a phone company into a true Service Provider. But as you say, the trick is doing it right, and doing things that make sense.

It made sense for us to get into the Home Security business, since we own the phone lines, but would it have made sense for us to start building TVs? Probably not. Does it make sense for Apple to get into providing wireless? I guess everyone has their thoughts and opinions on the matter, but I think that might be stretching it a bit msyelf.

[zelmo]

The way the US cellular business operates really sucks, for consumers, at least. The providers disable valuable features on some phones, pricing plans are structured so typical consumers don't always understand what they are signing up for (and more importantly, what they aren't signing up for), signing a long term agreement sucks, and then there's the requirement of buying a phone from the service provider in the first place. Let's not even bring up the fact that phones are crippled to work only on a specific network, requiring you to buy a new phone (and a whole new contract) when you finally get fed up and switch.

I don't know if the regulations governing US cellular service even allow for a different approach, but if they do, then Apple is the company I'd like to see shaking things up. Across all their products, what Apple is consistent with is beauty, elegance and ease of use. Not words I've ever associated with a cell service. Certainly Apple is well known for using proprietary systems to manage their markets, so I don't have any illusions that they'd have a wide open system. That being acknowledged, I can't possibly imagine that Apple would make it worse.

Sure would be nice if it happened, but don't go betting the farm just yet.

[savar]

If it does happen I hope they don't hook up with the SUCKIEST provider there is, which of course is Cingular.

Yeah, Cingular is without a doubt the worst. I've got Sprint now and will hopefully jump to Verizon at the end of the summer when my contract expires. So I guess it would be cool if they put out an itunes phone for Verizon, but I still don't really see the point. And I'm only buying clamshell phones from here on out, so if they don't make a clamshell itms phone I won't buy it.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic...why would Apple start their own cellular network? That sounds totally insane to me. But I thought the intel announcment sounded insane too until it was confirmed so I'm taking a break from making firm statements about Apple's plans.

I really wish Apple would release an Apple branded phone...give it some iPod resemblance and have Apple engineers contribute on the user interface. (Make it look OS Xish? I have a friend who interned at motorola last summer and he wrote an OS X looking interface for them which he now uses on his phone. Never seen it anywhere else.)

[GregA]

This would also circumvent roadblocks in having to work with individual wireless carriers.It would circumvent roadblocks of working with every carrier by reselling a network with only one? How is that an advantage?

[GregA]

Nice ideas in your posts cryptochrome and dstorey

I have only one thing to add - and that's a simple "starting point" Apple could have.
edit: Hmmm.. on hindsight.. it's not really just "one thing" eh? :)

Starting VERY simply - lets imagine an Airport-phone for the home. It's just a cordless home phone like many people have, with a few exceptions
a) it's made by Apple
b) it connects to your Airport network
c) it makes and receives phone calls via the net (but looks and feels like a regular phone)

I'm talking about a very simple phone, to start with - really an iChat phone that also connects to the regular phone networks.

From there, the idea can expand (or higher end phones can add features), especially a nice colour screen:
1) it could send/receive iChat messages and SMS messages
2) it could do video calls (ala iChat)
3) you could have a few iPhones in your house (some higher end, some simpler phones?)
4) it could run widgets (including Phonebook, and iTunes remote?)
5) a bigger screen could work for eBooks, & to check email/web.

It wouldn't take much to do the above. Besides building an Airport-phone, they'd have to expand .Mac to provide a phone number and billing, connect iChat to regular phone networks, and add QoS to Airport devices. No big deals with mobile carriers.

The above phone stays at home, it doesn't go with you. And that may be "old school" at this point.

So from here, the ideas get bigger. Such as
6) configure the phone for your home AND work AND friend's houses
7) add iPod functionality for 'disconnected' use
8) provide wireless access points at Apple stores AND
9) automatically log on to wireless access points wherever they may be

That give you quite a useable phone, but it's not 'always connected' until you:
10) add cell phone technology

#10 is where this article started off, with an ongoing range of possibilities.

[speleoterra]

this isn't entirely stupid.

Does anyone really like their carrier?
Does anyone really like their plans they get with their phones?

what if?
Apple did it better, ie; > walkman/iPod
ie; cell phone/iPhone
ie; networks/ .mac
ALL syncing with your lifestyle and other Apple products?

NOBODY is doing this. THAT! is a market that Apple could "invent" properly easily and be a mother of all "communication companies" out there.

Hmmmm......

[HasanDaddy]

This makes a lot of sense

Apple is going to do it the same way that VIRGIN does it, which is to piggyback off of SPRINT PCS or another cell provider

Virgin simply pays Sprint a certain amount of profits, for use of all of their CDMA equipment --- however, they get power over what the plans will be, etc

There are a few companies that due the exact same thing, and most of them are contracted with Sprint PCS

Earthlink does this off of Sprint and Verizon

I don't know of any company that works with Tmoblie or Cingular in this fashion ---- but I could see Apple partnering with Sprint or Verizon, under their own network, as both of those companies are so use to doing it

FOr Apple to re-create a new network though is too much of an undertaking and unrealistic - but ya never know?

[bitpad]

I like the idea of Apple as a mobile reseller/mvno. I think the carrier could benefit from the learnings, and Apple would have a nice recurring revenue stream from premium customers as the iPOD revenue stream matures. I've put all my comments at http://www.bitpad.com

Let me know what you think.

[stefman]

This would be a very good thing for Apple. They could actually also have cell phone access built into the iPods and would fight off the competition from Nokia phones that are coming up with 4Gig HD's inside.

Imagine if you can leave your house with your iPod and receive/make calls while listening to music.

I'd be first in line! :D

[Machead III]

Not gonna happen, not unless Apple bought out a big network, which they won't, so forget it.

[SilvorX]

Basically, if this ever comes to fruition it will essentially be 'Sprint Wireless's Apple Plan' - Sprint is the only company that licenses it's towers out to MVNOs (like Virgin) and the cell service itself would be pretty identical. So, apple works out the deal with Sprint, designs a phone or two, sets up a new customer support office, creates some badass features that integrate with your computer, and they're good to go - all costing probably costing less than $100 million in initial investment. Suddenly every 'mac fanatic' or zealot or 'cultist' out there has a reason to dump their existing wireless contract and go with apple, for no other reason than the fact that it would be badass. Hopefully the features and .Mac integration would make it worthwhile, but even if not - this is a perfect way for Apple to monopolize on their fanbase by offering a service that 98% of that fanbase is already paying for. I can't think of a better way for them to capitalize on the ipod craze...

if they did a partnership with Sprint, I wouldn't mind that, although I'dd have to learn more plans and services if Apple uses Sprint's customer service :eek:

[actripxl]

If Apple does do this its best bet is to do this with GSM carrier since they can ship the phones world wide. I do a lot of traveling and GSM is the only viable option for the intelligent consumer. Just get to the country and by a SIM chip, no more roaming charges.

[macnulty]

I would suppose it is possible, but what would be the incentive for the end user to switch. An iTunes phone? There are basically 2 customers: price buyers and service ( or coverage ) buyers. If Apple couldn't offer one or the other it would be SOL. Besides the price trend is downward, not a good time to be entering the market.

[sacear]

w00t, e•World Phone Edition! Gah, let's hope not. .Mac seems to be about as complicated as Apple can get with an online service without losing it completely.e•World was excellent. The best online service and community at that time.

e•World was another Michael Spindler train wreck. Apple already had Applelink in service for several years; the idea for e•World actually pre-dated AOL and was supposed to be an extension of the Macintosh Operating System included free with System 7 back in the early nineties. Spindler couldn't understand what e•World was or how it worked, and didn't see its benefits. Then AOL took off and he finally got the picture. However, for some reason, he tho't e•World would be a huge success and a huge income revenue resource, so instead of including it free with the System Software, he made the decision to charge for it and to charge expensive rates for the online time. In typical Spindler fashion, months later Apple was back-pedaling by giving e•World away for free and trying to adjust the online rates. Yet, that was too little, too late. There were too many other online services and communities at that time (Prodigy, CompuServe, GEnie, Delphi, AOL, etc.), and Apple could not keep up or find its niche marketing to and depending on only Macintosh users.

[iMeowbot]

e•World was excellent. The best online service and community at that time.

Meh. They did a nice job of reskinning the AOL software, but the community part is where they really fell down: there really wasn't much of one. That's why we called it empty•World! Apple completely dropped the ball when it came to getting enough subscribers to make the service sustainable. At peak they managed to attract 150K subscribers. Given the small proportion of any online community that ever speaks up and the large number of discussion areas Apple created up front, I guess that the reputation was inevitable, but most boards really were peppered mostly with unreplied, apparently unread, messages.[/quote]
e•World was another Michael Spindler train wreck. Apple already had Applelink in service for several years; the idea for e•World actually pre-dated AOL and was supposed to be an extension of the Macintosh Operating System included free with System 7 back in the early nineties.
There were two Applelink services. One was an internal Apple system, and a second one, run by Quantum (now AOL) and called Applelink Personal Edition, was for the general public. Personal Edition was what became AOL after Apple abandoned it. e•World was a second joint venture with AOL.
Spindler couldn't understand what e•World was or how it worked, and didn't see its benefits. Then AOL took off and he finally got the picture.
AOL were already taking off by the time eWorld was introduced. Early that year (1992), AOL floated their IPO with 180K subscribers. They were already up to 300K by the time Apple signed the eWorld deal in the fall, and AOL reached half a million by the end of 1993. Having just become a public company and always being more than happy to trumped their ever-increasing subscribe numbers, there is no way that the rapid growth at AOL couldn't have been known to Apple. The infamous flood of AOL disks (floppies at the time, with a PC-GEOS based version of the AOL client) had already begun.
However, for some reason, he tho't e•World would be a huge success and a huge income revenue resource, so instead of including it free with the System Software, he made the decision to charge for it and to charge expensive rates for the online time.
The eWorld software was tossed in with Performa models, which was the Apple consumer product line at the time.

e•World began at $5/hour, later dropped to $3/hour.

In 1992, AOL charged a monthly fee of $5.95 which included one non-peak hour. Additional time was billed at $5/hour (non-peak) or $10/hour (peak). In 1993 they dropped to an initial $9.95 a month (5 hours included) and $3.50 for additional time. For most users, the prices worked out to about the same.

Clearly the Apple service was initially cheaper, and later comparable.

[Marianco]

Apple's iTunes phone does not need to have a wireless carrier's approval for it to work as long as it is a GSM phone (the ones with SIM cards).

All Apple has to do is to sell UNLOCKED versions of the iTunes phone (just as third parties do on eBay). This allows the phone to work with ANY carrier that uses GSM (essentially all of them!).

Then all the user has to do is place the SIM card of their existing phone into the iTunes phone. Then viola! It works! An unlocked phone is one which is not given a password which forces it to work only with a single wireless carrier.

Note that I am assuming that the user wants to download their music on iTunes then upload it into the iTunes phone via bluetooth or USB, rather than wanting to download music via wireless service. Of course if the iTunes phone has Java, conceivably, you can download a Java cell version of iTunes into the phone and download music from Apple itself via wireless.

Note that the most important thing is the users can use the iTunes phone irrespective of the wireless carrier's consent or not - so long as it is a GSM phone.

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

While this falls more in line with speculation than actual rumor, Forbes mentions (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/07/08/apple-cellphone-service-cx_de_0708apple.html) the possibility of Apple launching its own wireless network to promote the upcoming Motorola iTunes-enabled cellular phone.

Forbes comments how other companies have recently been able to enter the mobile market without a significant outlay of money by becoming a "mobile virtual network operator" or MVNO. The advantage is that it allows companies to deploy a mobile network but utilize existing infrastructure. Disney, ESPN and Earthlink are among companies who have launched their own mobile networks.

This would also circumvent roadblocks in having to work with individual wireless carriers.



The most recent rumors have pinpointed Cingular as the likely provider (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/07/20050701115914.shtml) for Motorola's iTunes enabled cell phone.

[Lynxpro]

What you describe is a smartphone.
Apple should go with Symbian OS, if any. Palm and microsoft are nowhere in this arena. ( Symbian has over 50% marketshare, twice that of microsoft and palm).




Symbian has 50% of the market because that is what Nokia uses. At this point, Nokia IS Symbian. Sony Ericsson to an extent as well until something else comes along the way.

The other players are exploring Linux, PalmOS (err, PalmOS+Linux), and MS options, or a combination thereof. There's absolutely no reason why Apple should/would go with Symbian considering all the other options on the market, plus some homegrown perhaps in their own R&D labs. There's no reason a modern version of NewtonOS could be done or a mini-OS X for such a beast.

[GregA]

There's no reason a modern version of NewtonOS could be done or a mini-OS X for such a beast.Hopefully Apple will stick with 2 OSes - the one you'll see on tomorrows PowerMacs, and the one you'll see on tomorrow's iPods.

ie: iPods and PDAs run one OS, Macs run the other OS. iHome set top box runs.... one or the other....