Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Most MVNOs are second tier resellers, sometimes owned by the major carriers, designed to appeal to buyers looking for cheap rates. APPLE could by airtime from all of them, in big enough chunks, to demand top tier service and manage connections to maintain service levels without having to roam. I doubt they would price like the current MVNOs but focus on service and unlimited data to make the ancillary products more compelling. For example, sell HBO through iTunes and offer it on mobile devices as well as AppleTV. No need for a DVR as you could stream and d/l content; and thus change the whole competitive landscape relative to cell phone and cable markets. If they pull it off you cut cut the cable and inernet access so you TCO could go down even if you pay more for cellular service. It could be a brilliant strategic move, or if it fails, only burn a little of Apple's cash.

What is the incentive for Verizon and AT&T to sell Apple large chunks of their capacity at discounted prices?
 
What is the incentive for Verizon and AT&T to sell Apple large chunks of their capacity at discounted prices?
if they have excess unused capacity, it makes sense to rent to someone at discount and receive money. Those who rent the capacity will further sell the capacity and make some money (like possible Apple).
 
Apple by buying and combining large chunks of communication capacity may be able to provide Apple networks (virtual) that can possible work everywhere, with seamless transition between different providers if necessary. Especially important for mobile. Less so internationally but possible.
 
What is the incentive for Verizon and AT&T to sell Apple large chunks of their capacity at discounted prices?
I'd assume that it's more efficient to sell a large chunk of bandwidth to one company than to sell tiny pieces to millions of people. Maybe I'm completely off base with my logic but if I had 50lbs of crystal meth to sell I'd rather make one sale to a distributor for $1.38M than try and sell it all a gram at a time. I may make a little less because I'm selling it wholesale but I'm also not paying for the overhead to move the product or dealing with the customers.
 
Apple by buying and combining large chunks of communication capacity may be able to provide Apple networks (virtual) that can possible work everywhere, with seamless transition between different providers if necessary. Especially important for mobile. Less so internationally but possible.

Do you travel much? How do you think that European operators work globally? I don't think you know what you are talking about.
 
if they have excess unused capacity, it makes sense to rent to someone at discount and receive money. Those who rent the capacity will further sell the capacity and make some money (like possible Apple).
Yes, but they'll likely be trading a bunch of full-price iPhone customers for wholesale-priced iPhone customers. MVNO deals generally assume new customers are added rather than poaching existing customers. I don't see the incentive for the carrier to allow that.
 
I wonder what the benefits would be to the customer? Back in 07 when the iPhone was released it might have been a game changer perhaps, mobile networks were awful in the UK.

Would it be possible to do a deal with multiple carriers so they could use whoever's network gave the best performance at a particular location?
 
Nice, an Apple Watch without a SIM slot. Everything is built-in, tied to the Apple Network.
 
Most MVNOs are second tier resellers, sometimes owned by the major carriers, designed to appeal to buyers looking for cheap rates. APPLE could by airtime from all of them, in big enough chunks, to demand top tier service and manage connections to maintain service levels without having to roam. I doubt they would price like the current MVNOs but focus on service and unlimited data to make the ancillary products more compelling.
Perhaps let me put it this way... How does it benefit the carrier itself to allow their own top-tier service to be sub-par? MVNOs are allowed to have advantages over the carrier because of the de-prioritization and or service area restrictions. Otherwise, Straight-Talk would just be a much better offer then AT&T itself. As would MetroPCS over T-Mob.

For example, sell HBO through iTunes and offer it on mobile devices as well as AppleTV. No need for a DVR as you could stream and d/l content; and thus change the whole competitive landscape relative to cell phone and cable markets. If they pull it off you cut cut the cable and inernet access so you TCO could go down even if you pay more for cellular service. It could be a brilliant strategic move, or if it fails, only burn a little of Apple's cash.
And my problem with this here is that on an average month I use 250 GB of data. On a better month I can double that. I'm sure others could still routinely double even that. Just how many are you expecting to "cut the cord" and service their household internet though cellular access?

ATT and VZW both complain that neither has the capacity to service grandfathered Unlimited plan customers beyond 5 gig.

Mind you, i'm not disagreeing with you. But ATT and VZW *especially* do not want to be dumb pipes.
 
maybe Apple is growing too big for its own good. They should break down.

I still remember back in early 2000's where they were still trying to prove themselves... how things change
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Does anyone really think Apple just started thinking about this after Google announced Fi? This is why I hate all these copying charges (outside of the blatant stuff from certain Chinese companies). Companies have lots of irons in the fire. Just because one announces something first doesn't mean another copied it.

"Guys, Samsung just released a smartwatch! JONY! Make something shiny that we can sell in a year. Take the damn elves back from Santa if you must! We're going to create a new product from scratch in a year just like we always do!"

Yes, I also enjoy people who think one company copies another in like a three month window. If Samsung releases a product like a new Galaxy model in June, Apple couldn't possibly implement any major hardware feature as a copy for a September release because I'm pretty sure suppliers are getting ready to start cranking out massive quantities of the new product.
 
I know Apple has plenty of animosity toward wireless carriers, especially AT$T and Veri$on here in the US, so this wouldn't surprise me.
 
I don't care how much of a premium Apple might charge; if it's a better service I'll pay for it. Gladly.

If it isn't I won't. But I bet it will be-Apple has a pretty good track record.
 
I am pretty sure iPhone has the ability to figure out the differential between the signals. The issue is implementing it so that user understands whats going to happen.
Current implementation is simple. If Wifi available, get list of Wifi. If one of them is selected as auto-connect, connect to it. else show the wifi list for user to select from. This is done irrespective of their signal strengths, because of complexities with perception of signal strength.
Should it use signal strength (dB) or bandwidth(Mbps) as a factor to switch?

Nobody has implemented it as yet. Not iOS, Android or any other mobile platform.
Not true, on Android there is an option to prefer WAN over WLAN if the internet signal is crappy, with varying levels of aggressiveness.

Really Apple should be doing exactly what Google Fi is doing. Set up VPN and connect over WLAN or WAN and offer cheap rates based on data usage.
 
If Apple wants good coverage, they have to use Verizon or AT&T. How many people here think either of those carriers is going to lease capacity to Apple to provide unlimited data at cheaper rates than they offer themselves. And neither offers unlimited data to new customers. Raise your hands.

The way Apple works is... They will lease the capacity at same or higher rates and then FORCE iPhone users to purchase and use their network at a premium.

They do this will many of their markets, including Macs. For example, they charge you $300 for 16GB of RAM ($90 in real world). How do they do that? They solder the RAM so you have to buy from them and if you want to upgrade, you have to buy a NEW product from them.

I have been a diehard Apple/OSX user for as long as I can remember. I am so sick of this, I am typing this from a Windows 10 system.
 
I'd assume that it's more efficient to sell a large chunk of bandwidth to one company than to sell tiny pieces to millions of people. Maybe I'm completely off base with my logic but if I had 50lbs of crystal meth to sell I'd rather make one sale to a distributor for $1.38M than try and sell it all a gram at a time. I may make a little less because I'm selling it wholesale but I'm also not paying for the overhead to move the product or dealing with the customers.

Verizon and AT&T already have about 100 million customers each. Their business model already seems to be selling tiny pieces of capacity.
 
The way Apple works is... They will lease the capacity at same or higher rates and then FORCE iPhone users to purchase and use their network at a premium.

They do this will many of their markets, including Macs. For example, they charge you $300 for 16GB of RAM ($90 in real world). How do they do that? They solder the RAM so you have to buy from them and if you want to upgrade, you have to buy a NEW product from them.

I have been a diehard Apple/OSX user for as long as I can remember. I am so sick of this, I am typing this from a Windows 10 system.

I don't think they will be able to do that with a phone, people may actually drop Apple if forced into using them as a carrier.

How do you like Windows 10?
 
Btw, Ben Bajarin tweeted that he's highly skeptical Apple will become an MVNO. I agree. Apple already took on the carriers and crushed them. If there's any truth to this report I think it's for something new that we're not thinking about like the rumored car or Watch.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.