|
|
| Welcome to the Mac Forums forums. Please read the FAQ if you have questions. Register to participate. |
|
|||||||
| TouchArcade.com - iPhone Game Reviews and News |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 | ||
|
macrumors bot
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
Apple MVNO Patent Reveals Abandoned Possibility
![]() A newly published patent application reveals an abandoned possibility for the Apple iPhone. The patent details the methods for Apple to act as a "mobile virtual network operator" (MVNO). Quote:
An earlier Wired article on the iPhone's origins had previously revealed that Apple was prepared to try to launch the iPhone themselves, if negotiations with Cingular (AT&T) fell through: Quote:
Article Link Last edited by arn : Apr 10, 2008 at 05:20 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
macrumors regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
that is pretty interesting information. wonder what things would have been like if apple was its own carrier...
proly more delays on the computer updates :P
__________________
In terms of computers: it isn't what's under the hood that is important; its what you can do with it that is. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
macrumors 603
|
now that is interesting. it would be cool to see apple do it themselves, but it's probably better to partner with at&t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
macrumors regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: So Cal
|
based on the awesome $20/mnth data plan from ATT I think Apple made the right choice. I cant imagine Apple getting a better deal on minutes and data on their own not to mention we would probably miss out on Visual Voicemail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
macrumors 6502
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Well, "alternate" negotiations were successful. I still would have preferred Verizon.
Very interesting, though. |
|
|
|
| theheadguy |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by theheadguy |
|
|
#6 |
|
macrumors regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
|
MVNOs don't live long, at least in the post-paid world.
Both ESPN and Disney poured a ton of money into launching their own MVNOs. neither MVNO is around today. Pre-paid MVNOs have had some success w/ voice/text (Tracfone, Virgin Mobile), but wouldn't work well with the iPhone (unlimited data) |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
macrumors 6502a
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oxford, UK.
|
more american stuff not worth mentioning in the UK!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
macrumors 65816
|
Quote:
__________________
12.1" PowerBook G4; 23" Apple Cinema Display; 40GB Playstation 3; 16GB iPod Touch |
|
|
|
|
| Brianstorm91 |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by Brianstorm91 |
|
|
#9 |
|
macrumors 68040
Join Date: Feb 2004
|
I would have been much more likely to buy an iPhone had Apple been the carrier. I think the failure of MVNO's in general is a huge statement about the oligoboly that is the mobile phone industry.
The new 900mhz (er, is that the right frequency? Whatever all the recent C and D Block auction business was about) with it's regulated openness might give some breathing room for new players, but we'll see.
__________________
iMac 2.4ghz Core2Duo, 2gb, 1.5TB Dell mini 9, 2gb, 32gb SSD, OS X 16gb iPod touch - 40gb AppleTV Nikon D40 w/ Sigma 18-200mm OS |
|
|
|
| mrgreen4242 |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by mrgreen4242 |
|
|
#10 |
|
macrumors 6502a
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
|
They still might decide to go down the MVNO route once whatever deals they've signed with O2 / AT&T / whoever expire. And there's still the MVNO possibility in as yet iPhone-free countries.
If Apple did go MVNO, it would really shake the market up - and in a good way. But the obstacle would be the existing networks, who'd not be willing to give Apple a good wholesale deal. MVNOs are very relevant to the UK. Virgin is one and there's a ton of others. Even 3 used to (and possibly still does) borrow the O2 network. SL
__________________
15" MBP: 2.4GHz C2D SR; now 4GB RAM; 160GB 5400rpm HD; Matte; 20" Cinema Disp. 14" iBook G4: 1.33GHz; 768MB RAM; 80GB HD. Switched Nov '04. |
|
|
|
| superleccy |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by superleccy |
|
|
#11 |
|
macrumors 68040
Join Date: Feb 2004
|
More British comments not worth reading in the US? I fail to see the reason for your post.
Here here. Apostrophes have simply become warning signs for the letter S.
__________________
iMac 2.4ghz Core2Duo, 2gb, 1.5TB Dell mini 9, 2gb, 32gb SSD, OS X 16gb iPod touch - 40gb AppleTV Nikon D40 w/ Sigma 18-200mm OS |
|
|
|
| mrgreen4242 |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by mrgreen4242 |
|
|
#12 |
|
macrumors god
|
IMHO too bad they didn't go this route - the iPhone would be a much more attractive device to me (and I bet a lot of other people as well) if I wouldn't have to be tied to AT&T. Oh well... I just bought an iPod touch and have an independent cell phone on the carrier of my choice and that works for me like a charm.
__________________
happy thankschrismahanakwaanzicasmasgiving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
macrumors member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, UK
|
Not totally true! It could have applied at a global level, meaning that wherever you are in the world you are only paying the price of a local (mobile) call to call within that country. So an iPhone owner in the UK can go over to the States and pay AT&T or Verizon rates for calls to US numbers as an American iPhone user would normally, and vice-versa.
No use to me, but would have pleased cheapskate pond hoppers
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
macrumors member
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
|
|
|
|
| randomrazor |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by randomrazor |
|
|
#15 |
|
macrumors newbie
Join Date: Sep 2006
|
What a coincidence i was talking to a Rogers operator, fixing my blackberry, and i was asking when he might think that they will be getting the IPhone.
He said two interesting things, 1st that they were supposed to get it for chrismass but name rights were not settled by then and that now Apple was considering starting their own phone service (subcontracting to rogers). Interesting that this news comes in just after my discussion. More to come I guess as seems that the rights for Canada have been settled. Can't wait anymore.....
__________________
Sheradon
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
macrumors member
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
macrumors 68030
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: A geographical oddity...1 hour from BWI/DCA/IAD/MDT
|
But what a ride it was. I was locked in to ATT when ESPNMobile launched, but I still keep a copy of the full "Sports Heaven" on my iPod.
__________________
Joe Biden passes through Union Station, DC at 4:50-5 pm on a regular basis. Especially Fridays. IDKTFG |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
macrumors 6502a
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Milky Way....a little place called Chicago
|
That's interesting. But I think the rates would have been much higher because Apple probably wouldn't have been able to get as good of a deal on pricing of minutes. And how does data work with MVNO's? How would unlimited data work?
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
macrumors newbie
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
| malcolmffc |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by malcolmffc |
|
|
#20 |
|
macrumors 6502a
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
|
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
I agree with most here. I think that despite the way that a lot of people feel about AT&T, it was a way to get the phone into the hands of a bunch of people in the US with fewer headaches. It would have been difficult for Apple to start its own cell service provider even if the bought the minutes wholesale. I'm glad the deal worked out. It seems to be beneficial to all parties involved.
__________________
Stuff |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
macrumors 6502a
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver, CO
|
I think Apple really wanted a carrier to go with so if the device was not to be a success they werent left trying to be a reseller and then it gets ugly if they found it too expensive etc and needed to move people back over to a normal carrier setup.
Also the visual vmail may or may not have been possible in the sense that the wholesale carrier would be less likely to invest the money into the technology required as it would be Apple's phone network and not the carriers, at least in the way it was promoted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
macrumors 68020
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: West Coast
|
Apple is a US based, but very global company (thankfully).
That being said, I do agree that as this is an American site covering on a corporation that's headquartered in California, USA, a little US bias is in order. But isn't this all a little off-topic? |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
macrumors newbie
Join Date: Apr 2008
|
MVNO is still not out of question
It's not necessarily an abandoned opportunity. It would have been very difficult for Apple to launch an MVNO right from the start. They had to go AT&T/exclusive contract route.
But once that contract runs out, Apple is free to do whatever they like. The can decide to go MVNO route then. With tens of millions of iPhone users out there Apple will have incredible leverage with all mobile operators, and can demand MVNO access to any network. And it's not like your iPhone has to be on AT&T network. Simple firmware update when you next connect your iPhone to iTunes can set it free, or give it access to Apple's MVNO offering. And when iPhone starts a bidding war for it's users between AT&T and T-Mobile, some interesting things might happen. And in Europe and Asia, where 3-5 GSM operators could start the bidding war, even more so. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
macrumors 6502a
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: So. Cal.
|
Interesting but irrelevant. Apple and the iPhone are locked to AT&T until 2012 here in the U.S. Keep on hacking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Retired
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
|
I guess if this were the case they would have put a bit more effort into stopping unlocks.
|
|
|
|
| psychofreak |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by psychofreak |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|