Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Considering Participating in FCC Wireless Auction?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Rolling out this network would be staggeringly, staggeringly expensive. Apple's $14 billion could evaporate overnight on a project like this.
We had a similar next-generation frequency bandwidth auction here in the UK a few years ago, and a couple of mobile companies paid billions and billions for the right to use the frequencies. Now, several years later, takeup is still very low, and they're struggling to do much with it.
That's for the UK. The mobile companies already had the equipment, and the locations and the antennaes. The USA is several times the population, and also far larger. Apple may well have to set up its own antennae as the established companies may refuse to share.
How much would purchasing land, putting the paperwork through, and constructing 50,000 antennae across the USA cost upfront before you can start selling the service?
The USA telcos already have sunk costs, already have the equipment set up and paid off. Apple doesn't.
On the other hand, 300 million people paying $30 a month each is a hell of a revenue stream. Apple might find that hard to pass up. And if anybody can drag mobile telcoms into the 21st century, it's Apple and Google.
We had a similar next-generation frequency bandwidth auction here in the UK a few years ago, and a couple of mobile companies paid billions and billions for the right to use the frequencies. Now, several years later, takeup is still very low, and they're struggling to do much with it.
That's for the UK. The mobile companies already had the equipment, and the locations and the antennaes. The USA is several times the population, and also far larger. Apple may well have to set up its own antennae as the established companies may refuse to share.
How much would purchasing land, putting the paperwork through, and constructing 50,000 antennae across the USA cost upfront before you can start selling the service?
The USA telcos already have sunk costs, already have the equipment set up and paid off. Apple doesn't.
On the other hand, 300 million people paying $30 a month each is a hell of a revenue stream. Apple might find that hard to pass up. And if anybody can drag mobile telcoms into the 21st century, it's Apple and Google.
Bad idea Apple....there is no need for this AT&T is doing fine for you.
No need to build your own network...not with 1 phone on the market!
No need to build your own network...not with 1 phone on the market!
When Steve joined the board at Disney, lots of interesting (and good) things began to happen with the marriage of convenience. Suddenly, it just "made sense" that Disney and Apple had a closed entwined relationship; suddenly, both Disney and Apple customers reaped the benefit.
Google will win a spectrum chunk; they just have enough money to do it.
Now that Eric (from Google) is on the board at Apple, I see a very similar meeting of two companies again.
Google will need something that would compel their customers to use their wireless brand by choice instead of necessity. Since Google intends to use advertising revenue for their free wireless business model, relying on Apple to produce and provide the hardware to access this stream is a perfect scenario for these two companies. Future iPhone and iPod Touch users can expect free-but-advertising-supported services with an option to pay for premium, non-advertising-based services from Google. All the while, Apple continues to do what Apple does best - continue to make the best hardware to compliment the overall user experience.
Folks who are not intimate with the telecom industry, just don't realize just how profound it will be for Google to enter the field. Suddenly, what used to take many years to acquire and build a wireline-based network, can realistically be done in just a matter of a few years with wireless (consider a case in point: Verizon's aggressive and impressive wireless network buildout that took just a few years to accomplish.)
Google not only has the financial clout to become a new telecom member, it will have a decisive edge in becoming a defacto leader in US wireless services with a closely entwined partnership with Apple. In a similar fashion in how Apple has eliminated the Music Labels' power and clout by offering cheap content while being able to make money at doing it, a close Google and Apple alliance will shatter the foundation of the established big telecom companies in a way that no existing competition has done to date.
Mark my words, this scenario will come to be.
-joedy
Parochial
So this section of the US spectrum's up for sale, but it's not up for sale elsewhere (including Canada & Mexico let alone the rest of the world). Apple tends to look globally.
What are they going to do; invent a new phone or wireless networking standard? Bit like American football with the "World Series" - only invite Americans
I can't see Apple being so parochial.
Microsoft on the other hand...
So this section of the US spectrum's up for sale, but it's not up for sale elsewhere (including Canada & Mexico let alone the rest of the world). Apple tends to look globally.
What are they going to do; invent a new phone or wireless networking standard? Bit like American football with the "World Series" - only invite Americans
I can't see Apple being so parochial.
Microsoft on the other hand...
This is stupid.
Honestly Apple has ONE phone right now.
We don't want apple to go the way of Gateway- yes remember Gateway? What ever happened to them? Other than now being sold at Best Buy and that's about it?
Gateway tried to diversify to much. Stores, TV's, MP3 Players, Digital Camera's, Computer Monitors, and things like that. They tried to grow too quickly and it lead to their demise. Luckily for them some guy and Best Buy saved their @$$es. Remember when they were once major competitors with Dell?
I think Apple will be a lot smarter and not make the same mistakes of Gateway.
Honestly Apple has ONE phone right now.
We don't want apple to go the way of Gateway- yes remember Gateway? What ever happened to them? Other than now being sold at Best Buy and that's about it?
Gateway tried to diversify to much. Stores, TV's, MP3 Players, Digital Camera's, Computer Monitors, and things like that. They tried to grow too quickly and it lead to their demise. Luckily for them some guy and Best Buy saved their @$$es. Remember when they were once major competitors with Dell?
I think Apple will be a lot smarter and not make the same mistakes of Gateway.
Bit like American football with the "World Series" - only invite Americans
That would be baseball, but I take your point.
It's a funny point though given the reaction one typically sees on MacRumors Forums; Apple has frequently seemed too U.S. centric for many international posters in these forums.
I've heard that you can put a bunch of crawfish in an open bucket and don't have to worry about any escaping-- if one tries to crawl out, the others will pull it down. Should be the same with the mobile carriers and the spectrum bid. Further, cooperation between carriers would have antitrust implications if it worked to limit spectrum access. A bidder offering an open access model has the best chance for success. Last week there were rumors about the gphone which included a claim that some venture capitalists had seen a gphone model in a meeting. The real gphone part not likely, but might have been a kernel of truth to the meeting since big bucks would be necessary for a network buildout.
Ummmm.... sorry to break it to you but I think Apple is already Gateway...
Stores = Apples Stores (highly successful)
MP3 Players = iPod (most successful product in the last decade)
Digital Cameras = not really but iSight sort of
Computer Monitors = modestly successful (I'm sure they make money)
Dell also got into many of the same markets Gateway did except for the stores. There computer monitors are very popular but they're MP3 player bombed.
Anyway I don't you can take much from the Gateway lesson. Because Apple proves the exact opposite point, because if Apple hadn't diversified with the iPod or built their Stores they would probably be worth a lot less. I mean the iPod is at least half their business and the stores are responsible for like a quarter of the sales.
I'm not saying buying wireless would be a good idea, but I'm saying that diversification isn't always bad. Only if done with bad products. Gateway would be a prime example.
Those you think this is a stoopid idea are dead on. Those who think this is great don't really understand what it takes to set up a financially viable nationwide cell network. The license is just the first step.
If you love Apple you don't want this to happen. It will be a HUGE distraction b/c it will become Apple's #1 investment. Remember how 10.4 was delayed, delayed again, and maybe will ship by the end of Oct all because Apple had to allegedly put programs on the iPhone project. That will be the norm for all Mac products going forward. Even iPods will take 2nd chair, and forget about any new novel Apple product. The R&D budget will be eviserated by the cost of building out a network.
I really think BW is just writting silly stories to get hits though. No way Apple is going to piss away its reserves in such a crapshoot.
If you love Apple you don't want this to happen. It will be a HUGE distraction b/c it will become Apple's #1 investment. Remember how 10.4 was delayed, delayed again, and maybe will ship by the end of Oct all because Apple had to allegedly put programs on the iPhone project. That will be the norm for all Mac products going forward. Even iPods will take 2nd chair, and forget about any new novel Apple product. The R&D budget will be eviserated by the cost of building out a network.
I really think BW is just writting silly stories to get hits though. No way Apple is going to piss away its reserves in such a crapshoot.
HEY!
Not to worry. The iPhone is an AT&T exclusive. The iPod touch is not.
You must have missed the period in history where Apple made digital cameras, TVs, CD players, printers, etc.
Does this look familiar?
Or this maybe?
It will be interesting to see what Apple does, personally I'm leaning towards Apple not bidding at the auction. It's extremely risky but if they could get something going then it MIGHT be worth while.
You are right, of course. Even Apple can't roll out a US-wide wireless service overnight. But all this does point out something very important - everyone is fed up with the US Telcos, and their insane practices. And if enough big companies with very large war chests find that they can't work WITH them, they might start figuring out how to work against them.
I thought the FCC was claiming that getting the TV off of analog broadcast had something to do with giving those signals to public safety or something.
I figured it was BS and they'd make a buck off of it somehow. Sucks for all the people who have TVs that don't run off of cable.
I figured it was BS and they'd make a buck off of it somehow. Sucks for all the people who have TVs that don't run off of cable.
So? It would be an extension to the wifi network, not some sort of GSM. The ipod touch would get nationwide wireless broadband internet, if i correctly understand this whole spectrum thing that is.
I just hope that ANYBODY besides Comcast/Brighthouse/AT&T/Sprint/Verizon gets the spectrum. If one of those gets it, we'll be in for even more of the same crap that they pull. Please, somebody buy it just so they don't get their hands on it.
Agreed! I'm still bummed that the FCC is even letting them participate without regulation (like Google wanted to see).
It would be cool, though, if Apple and Google formed a new company (Gapple?
) to participate on the auction on their behalf. They each have tremendous sums of cash on hand, so could easily cough up the cash to not only buy into the new spectrum but also fund a company that would manage its use.Apple could sell iPods/phones/laptops that worked in that range, while Google could either offer their own hardware, or partner on the software/services side... whatever they thought was the best arrangement. They both clearly have not only an interest, but an enormous potential benefit in controlling a widespread data delivery method. I can see how either of these companies trying to manage a project like this could be too much for them, though, so an entity that was dedicated to do nothing else might be the answer, and splitting the costs and liability between the two of them would lessen the potential costs (they could fund with $5-7bln each and have an IPO and raise another $5-7bln to raise the rest of the startup cash).