Now thats a crappy situation to be in - the cost of running cable in a remote area isn't cheap when you think of the per-capita ratio.
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 Tablet to Support Multiple Wireless Carriers Including Verizon?
- Thread starter Cmax
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Now thats a crappy situation to be in - the cost of running cable in a remote area isn't cheap when you think of the per-capita ratio.
IF this ends up being true, then we will see a Verizon iPhone this year some time. If they have already tested the chips in the Tablet for Verizon's network and baked it into iPhone OS 4.0, then there will be little to do to implement the same thing on the iPhone itself!
I just hope it is NOT required to have a data plan because I don't want another expensive bill like my iPhone every month. I would just wanna use the iSlate with WIFI mostly at home! Also, I hope that without a data plan and subsidizing that it will still be a reasonable price around $600 or so!
I just hope it is NOT required to have a data plan because I don't want another expensive bill like my iPhone every month. I would just wanna use the iSlate with WIFI mostly at home! Also, I hope that without a data plan and subsidizing that it will still be a reasonable price around $600 or so!
It's actually really strange... because we are rural, but "in town". But ya, that Tornado a few years ago? Wiped all my neighbors out.... it was a fight for a few days to get Comcast (and heck, even Progress Energy) to run our wire. We were going to be the ONLY customer on the drop for a long time.
So given the logistics of it all - i'm pretty sure short of moving, i'll NEVER have fiber run back here (because, who is paying for the 600 foot run to the house from the street? to ONE house?)
Sigh.....
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I strongly believe the data plan will be optional. That way those with an existing data plan device can buy a Tablet and not feel they are getting it 2 ways from a wireless carrier. However, I also believe that the unsubsidized price will be much higher than $600, partially because this thing is supposed to be an iPhone+, bigger screen, more functionality, etc and you can look up the unsubsidized pricing of the iPhone to understand the point. My guess is $799 unsubsidized on the low end, and $999 is pretty easy to imagine too.
Because it's faster.
3G connectivity gives you theoretical speeds of 3.6Mbps or sometimes 7.2Mbps in some areas of the USA or up to 14.4Mbps in much of Europe. Subtract some overhead and I can usually count on 4-5Mbps in the UK.
Bluetooth 2.x +EDR give you 3Mbps theoretically.
In theory and usually in practice, a direct 3G connection will usually be quicker than a tethered Bluetooth connection. I've not got an iPhone so I don't know if the iPhone has a fast Bluetooth connection.
Secondly, if you've got WiFi in your device, even 802.11b is quicker than Bluetooth.
My direct experience of using both on a Nokia E71 which supports tethering via Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, 802.11b/g wifi and even USB is that Bluetooth is a third of the speed of wifi or USB generally. Both wifi and USB are faster than the 3G connection so it makes no difference which I choose other than obviously with the E71 running as an ad-hoc hotspot I can run multiple wifi connected devices rather than just one on the USB cable. More practically, it's dead easy to use existing wifi networking than installing USB drivers and pairing bluetooth devices.
Apple needs to add WiFi tethering to the iPhone.
As long as the other rumours of a Jan Launch and March shipping, there's time to validate the hardware on their partners networks.
At the moment, the only people at the cell companies that need to know are upper mgmt and sales who'll be looking at the pricing and perhaps marketing looking at how it should be positioned.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Here's the thing though, very few have more than 2 competitors for services like broadband and phone. I live in one of the richest counties in the U.S. and have a total choice of just 2 carriers for broadband & phone. That's the trick. Buy out- or crush- any little upstarts that starts gaining some "lower price" traction and you can hold pricing for broadband at $24-49+ per month. Those wires are already run. The infrastructure to deliver broadband or phone to any given house already connected is not a massive cost to these companies. There's a lot of room for margin trimming to benefit users.
However, when you have only 2 competitors, it's pretty easy for both to settle in on certain minimum prices and not feel the need to battle each other on permanent price reductions (effectively lowering their own price over time as well). That's how we get conditioned that something like broadband internet should cost about $24-49+ per month, or cell phone contracts should generally cost what they cost.
Competition yields drives for volume plays, which is how prices for the same kinds of service can come down. AT&T learned the hardest possible way that a monopoly will not be tolerated, resulting in their breakup back in the 80's. Over time though, they've merged their way back to a near-monopoly, avoiding going all the way for risk of being broken up again, yet getting it close enough that there is generally only 1 other competitor for key services like broadband.
And of course, they've learned to better play the political game so that the government- whether dems or republicans- do not block acquisitions of smaller players delivering better prices to individual users. That maintains the status quo of higher prices, with little pressure to deliver better service or lower prices to end users.
Even very densely populated cities where you would think there would be dozens of choices for these kinds of services, generally have just a few real options.
Oh i know - i'm from CA, haven't lived here in the sticks but for 6 years now! We had Comcast and Verizon out there for phone & cable.
Doesn't make it any righter - just that here, with my small town government, the odds of ever getting more choice is about.... nil. The town to the south of us has their own power company. I'm thankful that i don't live there because their bills are almost twice what ours our apparently. I'll keep progress energy thank you very much.
The most recent area i was shocked to see how much a company paid to allow them to provide service was Waste Management. Ye gads....
I wish i had time to tackle it, but i have a Special needs child that goes to therapy 3 times a week out of town - i just have too much on the plate right now.
The rebuilding of the Bell monopoly is scary to think about - so i tend to not think about it.... LOL!!
From what we have gathered, Apple is making this a truly unique "mobile" experience. In order to access the App Store and iTunes, you need an internet connection and wifi is not always available. No way they don't make this without an option for 3G.
Only question is how much will it cost and will Verizon take part?
Only question is how much will it cost and will Verizon take part?
The kindle provides limited 3G networking for the purpose of downloading books/journals. It also allows limited browsing of wikipedia and some blogs. EDIT TO MAKE IT CLEARER (Kindle embeds the cost of 3G into the price of the download, browsing of the amazon store, wikipedia and the limited blogs it allows access to appear on the face of it to be included in the up front cost)
What if Apple partially adopted this. So when you buy the iSlate, there's no cellular contract, but it's connected to 1 or other cellular network, ideally your preferred one that has the best coverage. When you buy something from iTunes, the cost to download it is embedded in the charge made to you. ie. instead of £0.79 for a song, you get it for £0.89. To rent a movie would be say £3.49 rather than £2.99.
The same with the rumoured periodicals, the cost to deliver is embedded in the subscription.
Now lets say you wanted to look up a website, rather than impose a monthly fee, though that could be an option. What if you could make a small micropayment say £0.50 for 24hrs, or you payed a reasonable amount per megabyte you were downloading. After all the majority of iSlate customers already have an iTunes account and are accustomed to making small payments for instant gratification. If it's all handled through iTunes, you have a slick already setup payment stream.
Now we all expect and like the idea of pulling out our iPhone and going to any website we feel like, but we pay a premium for that privilege. Would Apple be able to convince us that micropayments are the way to go for the tablet?
Some example pricing, just to get people thinking, note i may be over estimating the charges and underestimating Apple's ability to negotiate a good deal.
Al a carte
Purchase price = £599
Download of tune = £0.89 (10p more)
Download of rental movie = £3.49 (50p more, yes i know it's not proportional)
subscription to 12 monthly periodicals = £23.99 (embedded cost of delivery)
24 Hrs browsing = £0.50 (250MB cap probably) or
1 Megabyte = £0.05
Subsidized model
Purchase price = £399
Monthly data charge 24mth contract = £15.99
Download of tune = £0.79 (perhaps with some free tunes/month)
Download of rental movie = £2.99 (perhaps with a free couple of rentals)
subscription to 12 monthly periodicals = £21.59 (delivery not charged + free samples)
Browsing = included in the deal
When you are on a wifi network the prices in iTunes automatically change to reflect the standard rates we see on a PC or Mac. Perhaps they'll have some neat way of making it obvious that there's a delivery charge on 3G.
Anyway, food for thought.
M.
What if Apple partially adopted this. So when you buy the iSlate, there's no cellular contract, but it's connected to 1 or other cellular network, ideally your preferred one that has the best coverage. When you buy something from iTunes, the cost to download it is embedded in the charge made to you. ie. instead of £0.79 for a song, you get it for £0.89. To rent a movie would be say £3.49 rather than £2.99.
The same with the rumoured periodicals, the cost to deliver is embedded in the subscription.
Now lets say you wanted to look up a website, rather than impose a monthly fee, though that could be an option. What if you could make a small micropayment say £0.50 for 24hrs, or you payed a reasonable amount per megabyte you were downloading. After all the majority of iSlate customers already have an iTunes account and are accustomed to making small payments for instant gratification. If it's all handled through iTunes, you have a slick already setup payment stream.
Now we all expect and like the idea of pulling out our iPhone and going to any website we feel like, but we pay a premium for that privilege. Would Apple be able to convince us that micropayments are the way to go for the tablet?
Some example pricing, just to get people thinking, note i may be over estimating the charges and underestimating Apple's ability to negotiate a good deal.
Al a carte
Purchase price = £599
Download of tune = £0.89 (10p more)
Download of rental movie = £3.49 (50p more, yes i know it's not proportional)
subscription to 12 monthly periodicals = £23.99 (embedded cost of delivery)
24 Hrs browsing = £0.50 (250MB cap probably) or
1 Megabyte = £0.05
Subsidized model
Purchase price = £399
Monthly data charge 24mth contract = £15.99
Download of tune = £0.79 (perhaps with some free tunes/month)
Download of rental movie = £2.99 (perhaps with a free couple of rentals)
subscription to 12 monthly periodicals = £21.59 (delivery not charged + free samples)
Browsing = included in the deal
When you are on a wifi network the prices in iTunes automatically change to reflect the standard rates we see on a PC or Mac. Perhaps they'll have some neat way of making it obvious that there's a delivery charge on 3G.
Anyway, food for thought.
M.
I see your point, but I really hope you are wrong! There was that one rumor from Digg saying we will be shocked how low the price will be. Again, just more waiting to find out.
I'm there.
And here in the US i think it would take a company such as Apple to do this - and break away from the carrier based "crap".
Right now if i want to buy a mifi and have daily usege.... it's like $15 for a day. Yuck.
I'd like to see Apple do this.... in some shape or form anyway. Perhaps even a, here is our device. It contains a radio for connection over GSM/CMDA/_____ . Who you go to provide that service is up to you, however we here at Apple have neogiated with XYZ to bring you data service for the low price of $__.
Then the companies that you use already - can try to get THOSE dollars from you.
Competition and shake up in the wireless world....
Oh gee, am i awake? I must stop daydreaming huh? LOL!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Those are great ideas. I'm sure many people would love a pay-as-you-use-it structure. For example, I really need wide open 3G when I travel for business. But when I'm at home, I don't need it at all. So I would love to be able to own a 3G tablet or iPhone with a pay-when-I-need-it 3G service.
However, while that would work great for me... and you... and pretty much everyone else... who wouldn't want it to be that way? The big companies in charge of 3G, who very much like us paying a monthly rate whether we use it enough to get full value out of each month or not.
It's so tough to watch the collision of what would be best for the customers vs. what is best for the shareholders, when those two are not in sync (which is increasingly common in a system where companies can be "to be too big to fail"... but then not broken up after they are saved). Prices of 3G could be much lower... and would be much lower if capitalism was properly fueled with the fading piece that makes it work: there needs to be a good number of competitors for any given product or service. As soon as we allow there to be just one or two providers of anything, capitalism fails in what it should deliver for the customer end (though it is claimed a capitalism victory for those on the shareholder end as pseudo-monopolies find it easy to maintain and/or raise prices when there is little to no choice for the market but pay up).
For something as basic as communications, the one choice we still fully have that doesn't give into the game being played upon us by the pseudo-monopoly Goliaths (to not buy) shouldn't be the best choice. To stick it to AT&T by switching to Verizon (or vice versa) accomplishes almost nothing in terms of a noticably better customer experience.
And neither of them would be interested in a plan that would keep a lot of money in end-user pockets (such as these pay-as-you-use-it concepts) at the expense of the locked in monthly subscription contract model so lucrative "as is" now.
I see your point, but I really hope you are wrong! There was that one rumor from Digg saying we will be shocked how low the price will be. Again, just more waiting to find out.
I'd guess $799 for wifi only and $1099 for a 2 year 3G contract with AT&T.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I see your point, but I really hope you are wrong! There was that one rumor from Digg saying we will be shocked how low the price will be. Again, just more waiting to find out.
I believe that rumor. But, unfortunately, the shocking low price is the subsidized price. Apple still gets paid the same... just with AT&T, Verizon, etc chipping in on the amount above the "shockingly low" price*
*with 24-month contract.
I'd call a device as impressive as the iPhone a shockingly low priced device too (until you factor in the TOTAL price with the contract if you buy it at the shockingly low price, instead of paying up for the unsubsidized version).
Your argument is pretty sound, however sprint have already conceded edit - a per download deal for Amazon's kindle, and AT&T for the nook. (Am i right, some website claimed AT&T was the provider for the nook?)
I think it's getting to that point were a large customer like Apple can beat the cell companies into some middle ground of common sense.
M.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Your argument is pretty sound, however sprint have already conceded this for Amazon, and AT&T for the nook. (Am i right, some website claimed AT&T was the provider for the nook?)
I think it's getting to that point were a large customer like Apple can beat the cell companies into some middle ground of common sense.
M.
As mentioned elsewhere (several times) in this thread, the Kindle "free 3G" is not free... you are paying for it with each book purchase. The free 3G experience beyond book buying & downloading is extremely limited on the Kindle.
The assumption for this Tablet is wide open internet access, services, etc- just like the iPhone, but maybe somewhat more than the iPhone. You can't do that on the "free 3G" in the Kindle or Nook. And even if you tried, it wouldn't be long until "free" would be replaced by "heavy user" fees and/or higher media fees.
There is no free 3G. Apple & Amazon are not tapping into a free source of 3G communications by their own choosing. Amazon made a deal for that kind of access and pays it for Kindle users by charging extra for the books those user's buy.
The concept of this Tablet is that you won't have to buy ANYTHING from iTunes to still use it in many desirable ways. If you can assume that is true, then SOMEBODY has to pay for the 3G (if it has it). Else, even $1000 price is probably not high enough if Apple is going to pay it for us (unless, maybe, they make each Tablet self-destruct in approx. month 16 or so)
Did you read my post? Its whole premise is on Apple charging you extra on a download for the 3G cost. My additional point was in response to you assertion that cellular companies wouldn't take such a deal as they prefer the monthly upfront charge. I was just saying they took that deal from Amazon and B&N, why wouldn't they take a similar deal from Apple?
Fixed my post so there's less chance of confusion
I want a Wi-Fi only tablet. I already pay a monthly bill for my iPhone. I don't need another monthly bill. I want a Tablet with Wi-Fi only. (maybe I can figure out a way to connect it to my iPhone's data connection)
may not be a solution for everyone, but i'm quite happy ignoring the phone while i surf on the tablet.
if the tablet has phone hardware built in then all the better. i can make calls with a headset+tablet
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, sorry about the confusion. To the latter piece, I wouldn't say the cell phone companies were pushed into the deal with Amazon & B&N... it's not really that great of a deal for Amazon and B&N- they have to pay for an unknown variable... just how much 3G will each e-Book owner use for the life of this device. The structure of it is that 3G is barely used- almost entirely in a transactional event resulting in a digital download.
Can Apple make this same deal? Sure. Should they? Sure. But my assumptions run that many interested in buying this Tablet want to heavily use the internet connection for purposes beyond buying iTunes media. If there is no iTunes transactions for many Tablet users, then Apple just eats the cost of paying for their 3G access. I just don't see that happening.
So, unless this Tablet is far more limited in what it can do (very much like a Kindle, and not very much like an iPhone/Touch), somebody pays for the internet connection. And if it is a 3G connection, it seems it would have to be more like a classic 3G contract, Mifi-type deal, or similar. Whether we pay a monthly fee to Apple (who then pays it to 3G partners) or we pay it directly to an AT&T, Verizon, etc. simply shouldn't make that much of a difference.
For anyone who will do their general internet access via wifi, but want to occasionally buy some iTunes media via 3G, this Amazon system would be great, and I hope it is included in the Tablet too.
Or, you want a tablet without a forced 3G dataplan.
Most laptops with 3G radios come without a plan. If you don't want 3G, there's no monthly payment. If you do, you sign up with a carrier.
Verizon even has "pay as you go" plan to buy 3G by the day/week/month if you occasionally want 3G. (http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=products_prepaidmb)
I'd have to agree with that statement... as a Amazon Kindle owner, I would never try using it for the web. eInk is way too slow at this time to make it useful, I even cringe when reading books sometimes. If the tablet has a real display, which is likely, then a traditional 3G contract is more likely.
That's why i believe there's the dual option of 3G payg for the iSlates that predominantly stay at home and a subsidized model with unlimited 3G (God, that's a joke right there, false advertising i calls it).
The difference between failure and success is the cost Apple negotiates with the carriers for payg daily or per megabyte. Currently in the UK i can get 24hrs on T-Mobile for about £2 a day payg. If Apple can get that or better then i think we have a winner.
No one expects to get 3G for FREE, but perhaps Apple will take it on the chin for email downloads of a reasonable size and browsing the iTunes store. Everthing else is either payg or a monthly contract.
M.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's why i believe there's the dual option of 3G payg for the iSlates that predominantly stay at home and a subsidized model with unlimited 3G (God, that's a joke right there, false advertising i calls it).
The difference between failure and success is the cost Apple negotiates with the carriers for payg daily or per megabyte. Currently in the UK i can get 24hrs on T-Mobile for about £2 a day payg. If Apple can get that or better then i think we have a winner.
No one expects to get 3G for FREE, but perhaps Apple will take it on the chin for email downloads of a reasonable size and browsing the iTunes store. Everthing else is either payg or a monthly contract.
M.
Generally, I'm with you on this. But (maybe I'm confused again), this reads like you are envisioning a cheaper "open" 3G option. By open, I mean not doing Kindle-like 3G stuff like buying something from iTunes, but using Safari, or making VOIP calls, etc. If so, I just don't see that at all. The 3G controllers don't win by giving us 3G when we need it at a lot cheaper rates than it costs us to have it even when we don't need it. Do that and EVERYONE should switch to the "as you need it" plan, even dump their 3G phone contract for data only, and enjoy 3G everywhere mobile VOIP instead. Huge savings for consumers!
I'd love to see that happen... it would be great for end users like you & me. But there's NO incentive at all of the 3G providers to give Apple a better 3G option than those they sell themselves.
I can easily picture a wifi only Tablet capable of 3G connections for iTunes content transactions (with no contract, nor monthly fee). That would be very Kindle like. As soon as the 3G becomes a bit more- like your Tmobile daily rate probably offers- then it is a better deal to have your 3G experience through this device rather than paying AT&T or Verizon, etc in a monthly contract. I just can't see why AT&T, Verizon, etc would want to do that.
If Apple had the power to motivate a lower price for (beyond transactional) 3G service, it would already exist in the iPhone offers.
I speculate there will be 2 options for this Tablet:
1. Subsidized (with contract) for a "shockingly low" price
2. Unsubsidized (no contract) for a higher price (my guess $799). I can easily imagine the Kindle-like transaction 3G as a part of this (applying only to purchases via iTunes though).
Apple could roll out some kind of iTunes subscription package where a monthly fee would be flowing to Apple. That could use 3G to gain access to your subscriptions. And if so, some of the monthly fee being paid to Apple would pay the 3G companies for that transactional access. This is still very much a Kindle-like limited 3G model, only one that has you ordering a group of "books" (various iTunes media in this case) each month as part of your package subscription.