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

[ChrisTX]

At this point, is there anything Jobs envisioned that someone else hadn't already envisioned in print? Marketer, not inventor. No shame in that, in fact, large honor - i would say. Marketing a product is a fine art.

Is that including the 317 patents tied to Steve Jobs alone?

 

[divinox]

Is that including the 317 patents tied to Steve Jobs alone?

Could've had a thousand for all i care. Please highlight his top 3 innovations for me. Innovations not already envisioned by others.

 

[miles01110]

Is that including the 317 patents tied to Steve Jobs alone?

Steve Jobs does not have 317 patents tied to him "alone." He is listed on 317 patents, but not as the sole inventor on all 317.

 

[Juanldw]

I remember dreaming about it years back but not only for the iphone but for everything that required wifi <3... but yeah can anyone imagine how much that would cost? x3

Tho who knows maybe one day someone will solve the problem

 

[adildacoolset]

Dear Tim Cook,
I believe in you to continue this. Please do it and make it worldwide. Apple does have the resources to do it.

 

[cameronjpu]

Your maths is wrong. Your calculation is based on you paying $200 for a phone and selling it for $300, with AT&T giving you $450. But that isn't the case. The cost of the phone is $650; you pay $200 of it, and AT&T pays $450. Your total cost is $200 + $110 per month - $300 for the use of a new iPhone and AT&T's service.

Yes but the value I'm getting, which is just as real a thing, adds that $450 credit from ATT. I would have to pay in order to use a new iPhone, and the best way to estimate what that would cost is the actual price of the iPhone. So the transfer to me is the whole value of the phone, not just the $300 resale price.

$200 + $110 per month - $300 - $450.

----------

It baffles me to this day that people don't understand that every cent subsidized on one side of the pricing scheme is essentially recouped on the other (albeit not necessarily perfectly distributed over the consumer-base).

In the example above, AT&T will charge you 200, recoup 450, and on top add a) cost of service b) profit margin on the same (with the same reservation as above). In essence, they don't really subsidize the phone at all, they subsidize their service (in exchange for your contractual lock-in*).

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or with the poster you're replying to, but it sounds like me. What I was saying is what you said above - the subsidized phone is no different from an unsubsidized phone and a lower contract price. Many people here would be extraordinarily happy to hear that they could bring an iPhone to ATT and get $40 per month off their service, right? That's exactly how the math works out, if you get a new phone every 12 months as I do from ATT.

----------

Dear Tim Cook,
I believe in you to continue this. Please do it and make it worldwide. Apple does have the resources to waste, to do it.

Fixed that for you

 

[powers74]

I doubt they ever considered free.

Apple is a hardware company. That is where they like to make their money. They tend to break even on software & services. Maybe not free, but I imagine their services would have been reasonable.

Wow, Steve envisaged VOIP and mesh networks, mere years after they were available.

You know...

Steve did not invent the mouse.

Steve did not invent the GUI.

Steve did not invent Ethernet networking.

Steve did not invent 3D animation.

Steve did not invent the MP3 player.

Steve did not invent cell phones.

Steve did not invent touch screens.

Steve did not invent tablet computers.

What he was very good at, however, was seeing a new technology or use of hardware in it's infancy and envisioning a great way for people to use it. Some people get this - really get it, and some don't. And that's fine.

 

[Enuratique]

Spectrum Auction

And this is exactly why I was hoping Google would have seriously won the auction for spectrum back in 2008 (which Verizon ultimately won). They had a small victory by ensuring there were certain "neutrality freedom" strings attached to that spectrum. But imagine what could have been...

Google is rumored to have a nationwide network of dark fiber - they could have seriously offered a data-only network (possibly even free - ad supported of course) and leverage their new acquisition of Google Voice to support voice calling. It could have even been open to other devices...

The carriers would have absolutely **** themselves. The old business model would have been eroded over night.

 

[Thunderhawks]

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.

Totally agreed.

There will come a point where data consumption will require re-structuring of the way the providers operate.

Capping usage or for that matter capping anything will entice plenty of people to figure out how to get around any restrictions.

Depending on how long this takes and with enough business and consumers kvetching the government will step in to force this.

(Not that I am for anything politicians get involved in)

I can already see the slogan:

Data Free World!

 

[rcappo]

I remember dreaming about it years back but not only for the iphone but for everything that required wifi <3... but yeah can anyone imagine how much that would cost? x3

Tho who knows maybe one day someone will solve the problem

I am going to pay Verizon $720 every 2 years to provide Data Access over 3G. Now, imagine if every wireless customer took that money and instead built a large mesh network to share with everyone else, maybe put one in their cars, big one at home, at businesses, public parks, etc. You could put a few up every year, until every populated place was covered. Then it would be pretty cheap to operate and wouldn't cost you $360 every year. There would be a lot more innovation if 'free' Internet was available as well.

 

[alent1234]

And this is exactly why I was hoping Google would have seriously won the auction for spectrum back in 2008 (which Verizon ultimately won). They had a small victory by ensuring there were certain "neutrality freedom" strings attached to that spectrum. But imagine what could have been...

Google is rumored to have a nationwide network of dark fiber - they could have seriously offered a data-only network (possibly even free - ad supported of course) and leverage their new acquisition of Google Voice to support voice calling. It could have even been open to other devices...

The carriers would have absolutely **** themselves. The old business model would have been eroded over night.

the expensive part is building out all the towers for the end points and connecting them to the back bone fiber

 

[JHankwitz]

I have to say that if I were going to pick someone as my wireless carrier, it would be any company except Apple. Can you imagine what they would charge?

Let's see... iCloud is only $25/year

 

[daxomni]

if this feasible someone would have done it already

I think this sort of self-defeating attitude is why our world is so screwed up today. Only the psychopaths at the top of the food chain are still thinking big. Everyone else is too focused on their own problems to deal with the bigger issues anymore.

 

[divinox]

Yes but the value I'm getting, which is just as real a thing, adds that $450 credit from ATT. I would have to pay in order to use a new iPhone, and the best way to estimate what that would cost is the actual price of the iPhone. So the transfer to me is the whole value of the phone, not just the $300 resale price.

$200 + $110 per month - $300 - $450.

----------



I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or with the poster you're replying to, but it sounds like me. What I was saying is what you said above - the subsidized phone is no different from an unsubsidized phone and a lower contract price. Many people here would be extraordinarily happy to hear that they could bring an iPhone to ATT and get $40 per month off their service, right? That's exactly how the math works out, if you get a new phone every 12 months as I do from ATT.

----------



Fixed that for you

1) Sorry, but your math sucks. You can't subtract 450 twice. 200 is in fact (650-450).

2) What i said was: You may think the phone is subsidized. Its really not. Not to any large degree, at least. AT&T doesn't pay you 450 to sign up for a contract. Its more like "give you 50, shift 400 towards your 2 year contract". And, by doing that (locking yourself up) you'll probably lose more than those 50 in the end too, but thats somewhat besides the point.


Anyhow, i'm thankful that i live in a country with strict regulation on these things. Our total cost of ownership is that much lower thanks to it - this despite a) higher taxes b) higher device costs.

----------

Apple is a hardware company. That is where they like to make their money. They tend to break even on software & services. Maybe not free, but I imagine their services would have been reasonable.




You know...

Steve did not invent the mouse.

Steve did not invent the GUI.

Steve did not invent Ethernet networking.

Steve did not invent 3D animation.

Steve did not invent the MP3 player.

Steve did not invent cell phones.

Steve did not invent touch screens.

Steve did not invent tablet computers.

What he was very good at, however, was seeing a new technology or use of hardware in it's infancy and envisioning a great way for people to use it. Some people get this - really get it, and some don't. And that's fine.

Infancy seems quite incorrect. In fact, i'd even choose mature over it. That said, i agree with your overall point.

----------

And this is exactly why I was hoping Google would have seriously won the auction for spectrum back in 2008 (which Verizon ultimately won). They had a small victory by ensuring there were certain "neutrality freedom" strings attached to that spectrum. But imagine what could have been...

Google is rumored to have a nationwide network of dark fiber - they could have seriously offered a data-only network (possibly even free - ad supported of course) and leverage their new acquisition of Google Voice to support voice calling. It could have even been open to other devices...

The carriers would have absolutely **** themselves. The old business model would have been eroded over night.

The only way for Google to make such a service free would be if everyone gave up their entire sense of privacy. In short, they would have to get complete access to all your online activities.

... i think i'd rather pay.

 

[something3153]

Let's see... iCloud is only $25/year

Yup, hard drive space in a server has the same cost model as a national or world-wide cell network. Clearly.

 

[divinox]

Totally agreed.

There will come a point where data consumption will require re-structuring of the way the providers operate.

Capping usage or for that matter capping anything will entice plenty of people to figure out how to get around any restrictions.

Depending on how long this takes and with enough business and consumers kvetching the government will step in to force this.

(Not that I am for anything politicians get involved in)

I can already see the slogan:

Data Free World!

According to experts, it somewhat "ends" with 4G. That said, 4G will last us quite some time. Ericsson, for example, demonstrated 1.2 Gbit speeds over 4G in 2010. This year, they pushed it up to 1.4 Gbit. Unless we find something radically new to fill our pipes with (we will surely find things, but how radical), it'll take quite some time before we hit the roof - so to speak.

 

[vvswarup]

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.

As usual, cherrypicking facts to suit your anti-Apple rants!!!

Apple exercises an unprecedented level of control over the carriers. They did not give in on anything. They're the first OEM to exercise such a high level of control over the platform.

With the original iPhone, the device was sold at full retail price. The data plan was $20/month. However, that was changed with the iPhone 3G. AT&T started subsidizing the iPhone and raised the 3G rate by $10 across the board.

If there were no contract/subsidy, the phone would cost you $500 or more. Are you prepared to pay that kind of money even if you could get a cheaper plan? I don't think so.

 

[something3153]

If there were no contract/subsidy, the phone would cost you $500 or more. Are you prepared to pay that kind of money even if you could get a cheaper plan? I don't think so.

I am. Paying up-front in cash is cheaper than spreading payments out, if the system is set up honestly.

 

[heffer2k02]

Has all the safe spectrum been licensed? Just like the sale of the 3G spectrum, could Apple not license parts of the spectrum it needs as well, or even buy up some cellular companies around the world and do as it pleases? I mean, they have 100's of billions of cash reserves. There's nothing they can't do....

 

[diamond.g]

According to experts, it somewhat "ends" with 4G. That said, 4G will last us quite some time. Ericsson, for example, demonstrated 1.2 Gbit speeds over 4G in 2010. This year, they pushed it up to 1.4 Gbit. Unless we find something radically new to fill our pipes with (we will surely find things, but how radical), it'll take quite some time before we hit the roof - so to speak.

The air interface (given enough spectrum) isn't the problem. The backhaul is the problem.

 

[divinox]

The air interface (given enough spectrum) isn't the problem. The backhaul is the problem.

Actually, as far as i can remember, the air (or rather, ether) is the problem. Theres only so much we can cram through it.

 

[diamond.g]

Actually, as far as i can remember, the air (or rather, ether) is the problem. Theres only so much we can cram through it.

Has the US allowed more than 5Mhz chunks of spectrum to be used (at a time) yet? You would think the larger the chunks the more devices can be on at the same time.


EDIT: looks like LTE, WiFi and WiMax use 20Mhz chunks of spectrum at a time.

 

[divinox]

Has the US allowed more than 5Mhz chunks of spectrum to be used (at a time) yet? You would think the larger the chunks the more devices can be on at the same time.


EDIT: looks like LTE, WiFi and WiMax use 20Mhz chunks of spectrum at a time.

Testing facilities are shielded, they should be able to use whatever frequencies they want.

Anyway, since I'm no antenna engineer, heres a link. Translation provided by Google. If something sounds messed up, ask. Ill translate it for you.

http://translate.google.se/translat...ion/4g-sista-generationen_6131107.svd&act=url

 

[hchung]

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.

What you're first proposing is called a mesh network.

What you're proposing is also not feasible for voice communication because the latency would be awful. You'd speak a sentence, and then many seconds later, the other person would start to hear it. With custom radios (but then you can't leverage the existing devices), it could be possible to reduce some of the latency but it'll still be worse than what we have now.

However, it would also make every device have very bad battery life because the wifi would be always on AND transmitting.

The 2nd thing you're proposing is much more feasible. In fact, didn't Nintendo do this sort of partnership with McDonald's or somebody? (Nintendo DS units could connect up to hot spots for gaming over the net?)

 

[MattInOz]

What you're first proposing is called a mesh network.

What you're proposing is also not feasible for voice communication because the latency would be awful. You'd speak a sentence, and then many seconds later, the other person would start to hear it. With custom radios (but then you can't leverage the existing devices), it could be possible to reduce some of the latency but it'll still be worse than what we have now.

However, it would also make every device have very bad battery life because the wifi would be always on AND transmitting.

The 2nd thing you're proposing is much more feasible. In fact, didn't Nintendo do this sort of partnership with McDonald's or somebody? (Nintendo DS units could connect up to hot spots for gaming over the net?)

I wonder if research in to Wifi Meshes lead to Apples interest in LTE networks and buying chunks of Patents for the standard. As I understand LTE has been designed as a mesh and allows for seamless small scale cells to be added to the mesh. Add there push for eSIM and I wonder if they are looking at rolling LTE support across the board Laptops, AE base stations, Mystical AppleTV.

Over a Radio Tech like that then an Apple iMesh would seem like a more interesting prospect.