Steve Jobs Envisioned Using Unlicensed Wi-Fi Spectrum for Apple Mobile Phone Network

[cvaldes]

I'm not really surprised that he would want to control the network; it always seemed like he was never totally satisfied with using traditional carriers.

LOL, that's an understatement.

Steve considered mobile operators to be dumb pipes, nothing more. He wouldn't let them touch the handset. No logos, no branding, no pre-installed carrier content stores (apps, ringtones, songs, whatever).

Periodically we see forum members suggesting that Apple should buy Sprint, T-Mobile USA, whoever. This is the antithesis of how Apple sees its mobile partners. Cellular companies bring zero value add to the table: that's how Steve saw it.

 

[canucksfan88]

i know they probably would have found a way to solve it...but operating on the 2.4/3.6/5 GHz frequency would have been horrible.

Interference would be through the roof, not to mention everytime someone might use the microwave..

 

[cameronjpu]

Apple had a chance to break the carrier control and Apple failed to do it in the US. Instead it gave in and let the carrier have standard deal. It would of been nice if Apple only sold off contract and required the carriers to give a rate cut (say $10 per month per line) for phones off contract. No phone subsidy pricing but you do get a cheaper rate plan.

Right now if you do not buy a susbitized phone you are still paying the extra price. Well everyone but T-Mobile who does offer a cheaper plan if you go off contract. Hell I would be happy if that deal required a contract to hold on to. Lock in at the lower rate.

People have this bizarre idea that Apple Inc is out there trying to come up with ways to make your life better, even if it means Apple's own loss. They're NOT! They're out there trying to come up with ways to get you to buy more cool stuff as long as it makes them more money than the alternative.

All these delusional pipe dreams about Apple hobbling themselves in order to thumb their nose (sorry, actually in order for YOU to thumb YOUR nose) at the carriers are just that, delusions.

----------

I would have originally said "this would never happen", but considering all of the things that I originally didn't think would happen (that Jobs said would happen) has happened, I'd say that this will happen one day.

Steve didn't say this would happen. He looked into it and said it wouldn't happen.

 

[Sonny1]

Apple end-to-end? Hmmm...

[url=https://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/15/steve-jobs-envisioned-using-unlicensed-wi-fi-spectrum-for-apple-mobile-phone-network... co-founder's overall goal of controlling the entire user experience from end to end.

======
Well, "end to end" is asking a bit much. is it possible that Jobs also envisioned selling clothing to Apple users?

 

[DeathChill]

Apple had a chance to break the carrier control and Apple failed to do it in the US. Instead it gave in and let the carrier have standard deal.

I'd disagree as Apple broke some of the most important controls that the carriers had.

 

[cameronjpu]

That savings can really add up. Heck $15 a month would be a better deal. Tmobile used to offer one and the difference in contract price worked out to be like 300 bucks over 2 years. Well more than the 150-200 buck discount they gave you on the phone.
So it works out the carriers give you a break in your monthly bill at what you were paying in say 90% of subsidisy for a phone. That means they are going to get a little money out of the deal but we save more money.

I see it the opposite way. I pay about $110 per month for my cell plan and I have unlimited everything. Every 12 months ATT gives me $450 in credit toward a new iPhone. At the end of the year I generally sell that for about $100 more than I paid for it (IE I just sold my 16GB iPhone 4 for $300 after paying $200). Thus I get the free use of a brand new iPhone for a full year, plus $100, just for having a cell contract that I would have anyway.

Or taken the other way, more the way you're talking about it - that $550 I net is about $40 per month taken off my bill. Not a bad discount ATT's giving people who sign that contract, eh?

----------

I mean, it stands to reason they want to do *something* with that pile of money.. building a nationwide infrastructure for setting up their own Apple network is precisely what this amount of money could be used for. Any thoughts?

Yes, they should light it on fire. Very smart. Why pay a dividend when it serves as perfectly good kindling?

----------

Pixar isn't Apple.

Not to mention that Pixar didn't reshape anything.

----------

The sort of attitude that ends space programs

Oh, I thought economics ended space programs?

 

[justanothernerd]

I see it the opposite way. I pay about $110 per month for my cell plan and I have unlimited everything. Every 12 months ATT gives me $450 in credit toward a new iPhone. At the end of the year I generally sell that for about $100 more than I paid for it (IE I just sold my 16GB iPhone 4 for $300 after paying $200). Thus I get the free use of a brand new iPhone for a full year, plus $100, just for having a cell contract that I would have anyway.

Or taken the other way, more the way you're talking about it - that $550 I net is about $40 per month taken off my bill. Not a bad discount ATT's giving people who sign that contract, eh?

----------



Yes, they should light it on fire. Very smart. Why pay a dividend when it serves as perfectly good kindling?

----------



Not to mention that Pixar didn't reshape anything.

----------



Oh, I thought economics ended space programs?

I'm curious how giving away a dividend is any better for the company than building infrastructure that can develop a new (and potentially very large) revenue stream.

 

[daxomni]

Stanton was one of the early entrepreneurs in cellular technology, founding a small company called Western Wireless that later spun out part of itself as VoiceStream and which became T-Mobile USA following a 2001 acquisition by Deutsche Telekom. The remainder of Western Wireless was acquired by Alltel in 2005.

Which was then bought out by Verizon. Does anyone doubt that after another election or two we'll be able to remove Sprint and T-Mobile from the list of alternative carriers? As the date gets closer and closer I find myself longing for all the wonderful things a duopoly has historically brought with it.

 

[Winni]

I wonder if Apple's pricing actually would have been more reasonable. Breaking control of telecom carriers is one thing. Competing on price when people are already used to getting bent over a barrel... we'll never know.

Every revolution only exchanges the face of the tyrant. Seeing how tightly Apple locks their customers into iTunes, it's actually a good thing that they don't own and censor the network as well.

 

[divinox]

And we still don't have FaceTime on 3G due to carriers.

Strange carriers. We had video calling like a decade ago. Carriers loved it, why wouldn't they. Are you sure that it is not Apple that is to blame?

 

[jclardy]

I mean, it stands to reason they want to do *something* with that pile of money.. building a nationwide infrastructure for setting up their own Apple network is precisely what this amount of money could be used for. Any thoughts?

I doubt it. What do they do with the rest of the world? Build a world wide network, just for the iPhone (And I guess Mac and iPad as well). The amount of maintenance required would be astronomical considering they would need technicians everywhere.

 

[Gasu E.]

<deleted due to redundancy>

 

[yeah]

I got an opinion/idea:

Apple makes the largest carrier in the U.S.A. and call it AppleCell
Up to 4G HSPA+ speeds!
$50 unlimited everything?
Millions of Apple fans will buy the iPhone with AppleCell!

----------

Which was then bought out by Verizon. Does anyone doubt that after another election or two we'll be able to remove Sprint and T-Mobile from the list of alternative carriers? As the date gets closer and closer I find myself longing for all the wonderful things a duopoly has historically brought with it.

So would you rather pay for cr** service and HIGH billes, or pay a pretty low bill and still get great service. Like if you oppose the merger of AT&T & T-Mobile!

 

[vitzr]

Pixar.

I like Pixar. A lot.

But to claim they reshaped the film industry is over the top. This is Hero Worship to the extreme. While Jobs certainly contributed to the hardware / software part of the process, to give him credit for Pixar et al. is to live in fantasyland.

Once Apple is free from Steve this, and Steve that, blah blah blah... then the company will be living & creating in the present.

The only relevant time in space that exists.

On topic: Apple as a service provider. No thank you.

 

[zap2]

very few people would buy a smartphone at the $700 average retail price. i know i wouldn't. mobile internet is not that important

Likely not, but the market would change, people would likely look for smartphones that were cheaper, so while you wouldn't be getting free phones, you can find decent sub-200 dollar hardware with Android., and we'd likely see the price of high end phones drop from their pricing now(the prices carriers charge for device out of contract are much higher then buying an unlocked device of similar quality)

Nothing from apple has ever been cheaper than the competition. I'd expect premium rates from apple for their own networks.

Nothing is a very strong world, perhaps few or minority would have been a better choice?

 

[something3153]

I'd sure love Apple drowning out my home wifi with their cell signal, and I'm sure everyone else here would as well. I'm also sure they'd have any coverage outside of cities. Car issue in New Mexico? Hope you like walking and waiting.

----------

Cellular companies bring zero value add to the table: that's how Steve saw it.

Well, except that whole cellular coverage thing. They kinda make cellular phones work. I'd call that a value add, personally, to a phone. Just sayin'.

 

[surfkw]

argh

This was always my personal hope for the iphone. And it still is. I would imagine if you had a wireless contract with apple it would include your phone, ipad, and be built in to your laptops. wireless on all your devices. i hope Tim has not abandoned this dream and apple can eventually give the carriers the finger and they can all go play with their droids
hell, if google were to pull something like this off, for the right price i would move to a droid

 

[Gemütlichkeit]

I'm not really surprised that he would want to control the network; it always seemed like he was never totally satisfied with using traditional carriers.

Can you blame him? Look at the cellular market in the states. I'd want to avoid that at all costs.

 

[Slix]

I don't think Apple's pursuit is over. After 5 generations of iPhones, Apple has a very large installed base of devices. Include iPads and Macs and you have a blanket over large swaths of many cities. Peer to Peer is beginning to look possible.

In an upcoming iOS update, Apple could enable iOS users to opt into a plan where they would allow the ability to network with other iOS devices leapfrogging their data needs from one iPhone to the closest one, to the one further down and so on until reaching a partner's WiFi source. Apple could install very few WiFi sources, even just one in each of their stores.

Essentially, all iPhones would be interconnected peer-to-peer with each other leapfrogging data needs from iPhone to iPhone until reaching an Apple store. In large cities, there are more than enough iPhones and iPads to do this.

Apple could roll this out with iPods and iPads first since most of the installed base of these devices don't have 3G carrier connectivity anyway and then move in to iPhones as well.

Alternatively, Apple could work with WiFi @ Starbucks using this same principle. They have a great relationship with the coffee chain and in many north american cities, there's a Starbucks at every block. Surely between the distance of you and the closest Starbucks, there will be several iPhones which can be piggybacked on to reach the Starbucks signal.

The technology exists and could work on existing iOS devices. It's a matter of working out the business side of things and rolling this out fast enough to avoid angering their telecom partners before the rollout is complete and Apple doesn't need them anymore.

This could work someday in the future. For example, I live in an apartment complex and there's wifi in most of the apartments, but in the center of it all, there's no wifi. If this worked how you said, we'd a ll have coverage wherever we go.

 

[Dr Kevorkian94]

wow! like a month after i got the original iPhone a friend of mine was asking how the service works and how it works with wi-fi. And we literally thought how this could be done like chatted about it for a solid hour, i thought if anyone could do it apple could of. I guess it wasn't meant to be

 

[MJL]

If that were to have ever happened, you could be SURE that Apple would lock down the iPhone even more and have it ONLY work on that spectrum.

Choice is a philosophy that is non-existent at Apple.

Re. your signature: Apple IS Big Brother.

Regarding this story: It paints a very negative picture of Steve Jobs: a control freak and an eventual bully.

Regarding the patent wars: Do not forget who threw the first stone - that was Apple (result of being a control freak).

Remember: Life is a boomerang, you'll reap what you sow.

Regarding pricing: Apple would charge far more, look at the extortion prices for their hardware. As mentioned elsewhere by me: They are only a mediocre computer company who have some innovative enclosures but under the hood it is not that good. It is only ranked as "being highly reliable" because it is just difficult for the ordinary Joe Bloggs to get inside (and who works without any antistatic protection - there goes your reliability).

The only runaway succes Apple ever had was initially the iPod - iTunes where the iPod is now being replaced by smart phones hence Apple had to get in on the mobile phone industry. But the mobile phone industry has seen so many comers and goers that it is only a matter of time before Apple goes the same way. (Motorola, Nokia, RIM etc)

And do not mention the iPad since that is only a toy: for any serious work you'll want a keyboard and mouse and by the time you add that then a genuine laptop becomes compacter with more battery life. And you have only to close the lid to be ready to travel rather than have all kinds of other parts to pack up and protect (screen anyone?).

Having an built in battery? One that the customer cannot replace? Never had to work on a plane on extended international flights? Or being tied in with a manufacturer's obsolence? Thre is a healthy industry repacking laptop batteries at a fraction of the cost of the genuine article.

I've seen it in other parts of the electronics industry: fancy on the outside, junk on the inside: the hype won't last.

And indeed SJ will not be forgotten: in due time he will be regarded as the d e vil himself with him being the most singular person in eroding of anyones privacy (GPS mobile phone, recording starting and stopping of programs at what location, having access to all your data, being able to trace your computer and take pictures of anyone having that computer at that time in possession) He is the creator of Big Brother of George Orwell's "1984".

 

[Shrink]

if this feasible someone would have done it already

HUH??!!

This asserts that everything that can be done, has been done.

Not much to look forward to in the future...

 

[Jason black]

Wouldn't this mean no subsidized prices for phones?

 

[cvaldes]

Well, except that whole cellular coverage thing. They kinda make cellular phones work. I'd call that a value add, personally, to a phone. Just sayin'.

Nope.

"Outside of economics, value added refers to "extra" feature(s) of an item of interest (product, service, person etc.) that go beyond the standard expectations and provide something "more" while adding little or nothing to its cost." (source: Wikipedia)

Cellular coverage is part of the standard expectation of cellular service, just like you expect your electric company to provide power or your dry cleaner to clean your clothes.

Value add in the context of mobile operators would be things like app stores, music stores, wallpaper images, exclusive sports content like streaming video of (insert favorite sports league here) to your handset. Stuff like that.

 

[rsands1]

Cameronjpu
Originally Posted by OllyW
"Pixar isn't Apple."
Not to mention that Pixar didn't reshape anything.

Really...are you both that ignorant and stupid? Maybe you should read this article about Pixar, Steve Jobs and Apple Computers. But just in case your too lazy to read it here are some excerpts for you.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-2...steve-jobs-changed-the-film-industry-forever/

"There's never been a movie studio with an unbroken streak of hit movies like Pixar. From the original "Toy Story" to "Finding Nemo" to "Cars," "Ratatouille," and "Toy Story 3," the animation wizards at Pixar have won over the industry, forcing Hollywood to change how it makes films, and it's made billions in the process."


"Creating a new industry - In the 1990s, Pixar was "not the only [studio] working on [computer animation] for movies," said David Cohen, an editor at Variety. But "they were the ones that succeeded and showed everybody how to do it, both technologically and creatively, and the extent [to which] that changed the entertainment landscape is hard to overstate."
After all, Cohen explained, until "Toy Story" hit theaters in 1995, Disney had been pretty much the only maker of animated films in the United States. And based on the success of "Toy Story" and subsequent Pixar films, a whole animation industry was born in Hollywood. Today, Cohen pointed out, there's a Best Animated Feature Academy Award, meaning that there is at least one such film released a month on average. "That's a completely different world than before Pixar," Cohen said. "Would that have happened without Pixar? Well, somebody had to come along and show it could be successful."

Yet even without the library of films and influence on the wider computer animation industry, Pixar's impact on Hollywood may still have been profound. That's due, said Cohen, to RenderMan, the computer rendering software that the company developed in 1987. Today, that software is not only used in-house at Pixar, but also at studios throughout Hollywood and the global film industry and the software alone "would have made Pixar a significant company to the movie business,"



Just thought you might like to know how Pixar DID CHANGE the film industry.