Apple in Tablet Discussions with Both AT&T and Verizon

[HobeSoundDarryl]

While Apple is probably looking at an international release, a US targeted product is not unreasonable. People seem to get annoyed that an American company would focus primarily on the American market-- which also happens to dwarf the rest of the world. There's money to be made elsewhere, but if you're going to pick one market to start with...

That's right. One of the few things we (Americans) still have over the rest of the world that could be leveraged for real and meaningful change is that the U.S. is still THE world's best market. If you create anything anywhere in the world, the #2 place (besides your own backyard) where you want to try to sell it is to "those crazy Americans." We appear to be consumers of anything and everything. Too bad this reality is not leveraged much for our benefit.

 

[Analog Kid]

If you have a device that does all of the 3G data protocols it doesn't matter which carrier because it is the same exact hardware coming off the line regardless. The only thing have to work out is activation logistics.... which can be done in the time between when announcement is made late Janurary and when the device is actually sold ( mid/late March - June ).

Even more so if using a base radio that has already been qualified on all of their networks and just need to maybe tweak some config issues for this specific design.

It is old, established news for devices to have this capability (they already exist and are already on the market). There is nothing revolutionary about it.

Releasing a product and saying "we don't know who's going to be providing service, but we'll find someone" would not be acceptable to any marketing department I've ever encountered.

Putting in a more costly multi-protocol radio would suggest that they aren't planning to tie the device to any carrier, and therefore wouldn't need to make these arrangements.

Alternatively, they may be trying to set up non-exclusive subsidy deals with multiple carriers, but I find that the least likely option.

And MSNBC has sportscaster Keith Olbermann for credibility plus its website is co-owned & managed by MICROSOFT!

Choose your lack of reliability carefully.

At least Rush Limbaugh is a Mac fanatic and Mac laptops are prominently featured on several FOX News Channel programs.

I don't really know much about Olbermann, but you're welcome to question his reliability when Mac Rumors quotes his reports. Limbaugh doesn't work for Fox.

Whether it's an analyst, blogger, or news channel-- part of consuming rumors is judging the reliability of the source. FNC is the source leading this thread, and they have gone out of their way to put politics ahead of news. That will be commented on just as much as whether people like Verizon or AT&T because it is relevant to the thread. If the thread was about conflicting reports coming from FNC and MSNBC, then comparisons would make sense but lashing out at random and unrelated media sources suggests a persecution complex...

Having said that, I think Fox is uniquely qualified to traffic in rumors and speculation and have no problem with their reports being linked here. Eventually MR will be able to refer to FNC's track record on rumors just like they do for other sources.

On the other hand, I've always thought Bob Costas was a little shifty and have no faith in his Apple rumors.

 

[Analog Kid]

That's right. One of the few things we (Americans) still have over the rest of the world that could be leveraged for real and meaningful change is that the U.S. is still THE world's best market. If you create anything anywhere in the world, the #2 place (besides your own backyard) where you want to try to sell it is to "those crazy Americans." We appear to be consumers of anything and everything. Too bad this reality is not leveraged much for our benefit.

Biggest is a fact, best is a judgement that will based on more than just size.

And I think the US gets plenty of leverage out of its market size. As an example-- this international forum is conducting all conversation in English.

 

[TraceyS/FL]

What leverage? No one should conjure ANY illusion that Apple is going to be able to get 3G providers to take a big hit to their revenues in support of selling more Apple products. The last thing that AT&T and Verizon want is ANY kind of special 3G price arrangement they can choose to offer on their network that yields a cheaper 3G phone/phone-like (VOIP) solution for millions of their customers.

They don't win by giving any discount data-only plan that then is eaten up by lots of us (via a Tablet/iPhone/Touch) with a VOIP calling solution.

Just put yourself in their shoes when you think of these kinds of things, and ask the ultimate capitalism question: what in this for me? In our own shoes, it's potentially big monthly cash savings. In their shoes, our big monthly savings is their big per-customer loss.

They have a "hot" product (potentially) and have proven to be in the drivers seat with the iPhone.

I said HOPE, not that it would - but i am HOPING they are able to force some change.

If Apple and a potential "hot product" can't shake things up, we are doomed to be mired in the muck that is ATT/Verizon for the rest of all time.....

I read part of an article yesterday that said women who look at things as "half full" have way less of a chance of having a heart attack, so hey, i'm trying to look at things that way in the name of growing old with my kids!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Biggest is a fact, best is a judgement that will based on more than just size.

And I think the US gets plenty of leverage out of its market size. As an example-- this international forum is conducting all conversation in English.

I'm not thinking what language a group of people choose to converse in is the level of leverage I was thinking of. Nice? Sure. But, I would think the world's hungriest buyers (of everything) could get a little more than just our language spoken at international forums. I'm thinking more along the lines of something the average citizen of the U.S. would see as a direct benefit.

 

[deconstruct60]

Releasing a product and saying "we don't know who's going to be providing service, but we'll find someone" would not be acceptable to any marketing department I've ever encountered.

If Apple wanted to sell unlocked stuff and they stepped to Tmobile ( which readily accepts and has service plans oriented to unlocked devices ) or Sprint would they would say : "Nah! we don't want your device" ? They'd be all over it like white on rice with few questions asked. The two more likely candidates to posture for a better deal are ....... Verizon and ATT .

If multivendor it doesn't make much sense to stop with just those two.
Especially if you have hardware that is compatible with all four Verizon, Sprint, Tmobile, and ATT .

My guess is that they both want it ( verizon and att) but are trying to talk Apple into kicking the other one in the shins and not offer it to their competitor. Apple's best barganing position in that case is to move forward on the plan that releases on both. As they get more and more desperate to kick the competitor can just chop the other guy off if get them to put crazy stupid money on the table to do it. Apple is better served though without taking the crazy stupid money though. They need a multivendor distribution model anyway since worldwide this goofy situation is illegal anyway.


remember this is not a phone. Every single cell vendor out there right now is trying to get people to buy more data plans ( because that is biggest growth revenue). A generic data plan consuming device is great. There is little need or incentive to lock it up to a single vendor. (e.g., the MiFi devices that popped up on most vendors offerings. Except ATT's which is clogged anyway. )
They all need tons of more revenue to pay for the 4G roll out that so many want to happen "tomorrow" and , at least in the US, to pay for the 4G spectrum they had to pay billions for to deploy it on.

Putting in a more costly multi-protocol radio would suggest that they aren't planning to tie the device to any carrier, and therefore wouldn't need to make these arrangements.

What value added customer benefit is served by tying the device to one service vendor?

However, what are the more natural retail outlets for these besides the Apple store. Those would be ATT , Sprint , Verizon , and Tmobile stores.
Folks could buy preconfigured and it runs devices straight out of the box from any one of those stores. In contrast, what happens at the Apple store if don't have a configuration/initialization agreement in place? You send the person off with something that isn't hooked up? Even a radio with personalities still has to be configured as to which one of the flavors it is working with.

Look at the recent issues that Google had with selling phones for the glitches that pop up if you haven't worked out your relationships ahead of time.

Alternatively, they may be trying to set up non-exclusive subsidy deals with multiple carriers, but I find that the least likely option.

Apple trying to set the subsidy level is dubious. Especially if they are going to sell unlocked versions themselves. If service retailer wants to sell them at $500 and another wants to sell them at $550 why should apple care if the cell company is buying them from Apple at $700 wholesale ?
That is like complaining about a store that offers "no interest credit for 6 months" to their customers to buy an Apple product. Apple got its money. stop.

Especially if the cell companies are competing with data plans at different prices. Frankly, there is a decent case for antitrust violations for colluding with several vendors to all set their service+device prices all at some fixed level.