Apple as a Wireless Provider?

[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]

Apple a Wireless Opperator: Great Idea!

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!

 

[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

 

[actripxl]

GSM

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]

e•World: Spindler's train wreck mess

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 does not need wireless, just sell UNLOCKED phones!

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.

While this falls more in line with speculation than actual rumor, Forbes mentions 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 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....