Jobs wanted to build cell network dedicated to iPhone

2»

Comments

  • auxioauxio Posts: 1,561member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    He goes on to explain that Apple sells software and services through outlets like the App Store and iTunes that might have otherwise gone to the operators



    That's the part that truly gives me nightmares: carriers peddling software (similar to how they used to peddle ringtones and the like). Companies mostly made up of people who don't even know what a software developer is (and don't really care), trying to market, distribute and take a cut of software sales. So glad Apple won out on this...
  • ts@walthamts@waltham Posts: 6member
    I remember I used to get very angry in those days when smartphone manufacturers removed WiFi only for US market since carriers (the evil empire) would not let them.
  • cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iansilv View Post


    I still want them to do this....



    Here's a plan- buy Sprint. Unlimited everything for up to 5 apple devices per account. $80 a month. The end.



    ask me why this would be smart for Apple- ask me- go ahead!



    I know, it's a trick question, right? Because it wouldn't be smart for Apple.



    Apple fans need to try to understand that just because THEY want something doesn't mean Apple can make money delivering it.



    For instance, ATT made $3.5 billion in profits last quarter. That's 1.1 billion per month. It has 100 million subscribers. Thus, the profit per sub per month is $11. On those "outrageous" $80-100 monthly bills. I think the ARPU is something like $60. So for every three users ATT charges maybe $180 per month, and profits $30. What's the profit if you drop the charges to $80? Here's a hint. It starts with a -



    And you think Apple should provide cell service for 5 users for $80. So clueless.



    First of all ATT has huge scale that enables it to earn even that amount of money. It has huge fixed investments made over the course of decades that allow it to provide the "inferior" services that it provides. By the way, I'm SURE you knew that Apple has $256 BILLION in fixed assets. Yeah, those are the towers and lines between them that make cell service possible. After all those decades and all those hundreds of billions of dollars of investment, they earn less profit than Apple does.



    I've said it 100 times and I'll say it again - thank god no one at Apple listens to the armchair analysts who populate these boards.
  • auxioauxio Posts: 1,561member
    Would have loved to see Steve's attention to detail used to hone cellular service down to exactly what it is: a data pipe. Eliminating the many sideshows (e.g. home monitoring systems -- I'm looking at you Rogers) and focusing effort on the things that really matter: quality of service and data capacity.
  • lightstrikerlightstriker Posts: 458member
    I always though if Apple took over ATT they might have gotten some tech innovation to deal with the bandwidth problem.



    If Apple became a a telecom, can they make enough profit on hardware sales and break even on service like they do on the iPod/iTunes model?



    Can they be a contract-free, low fee competition to the others?



    Will they let other phones on the network?



    Can they innovate new services and wireless technology?
  • halfyearsunhalfyearsun Posts: 304member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post


    That's the part that truly gives me nightmares: carriers peddling software (similar to how they used to peddle ringtones and the like). Companies mostly made up of people who don't even know what a software developer is (and don't really care), trying to market, distribute and take a cut of software sales. So glad Apple won out on this...



    It wouldn't have ever happened. "apps" would have never been integral to the experience if carriers were the ones distributing them. In hindsight it seems like lost revenue for them, but its revenue that wouldn't have otherwise existed
  • halfyearsunhalfyearsun Posts: 304member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    I know, it's a trick question, right? Because it wouldn't be smart for Apple.



    Apple fans need to try to understand that just because THEY want something doesn't mean Apple can make money delivering it.



    For instance, ATT made $3.5 billion in profits last quarter. That's 1.1 billion per month. It has 100 million subscribers. Thus, the profit per sub per month is $11. On those "outrageous" $80-100 monthly bills. I think the ARPU is something like $60. So for every three users ATT charges maybe $180 per month, and profits $30. What's the profit if you drop the charges to $80? Here's a hint. It starts with a -



    And you think Apple should provide cell service for 5 users for $80. So clueless.



    First of all ATT has huge scale that enables it to earn even that amount of money. It has huge fixed investments made over the course of decades that allow it to provide the "inferior" services that it provides. By the way, I'm SURE you knew that Apple has $256 BILLION in fixed assets. Yeah, those are the towers and lines between them that make cell service possible. After all those decades and all those hundreds of billions of dollars of investment, they earn less profit than Apple does.



    I've said it 100 times and I'll say it again - thank god no one at Apple listens to the armchair analysts who populate these boards.



    Yeah yeah yeah.



    But one can dream!



    There's a reason it didn't work, namely it wasn't feasible. So it's nothing more than "what if"
  • nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    09-21-2006, 10:38 PM :: "Prediction: Apple iPhone is GSM locked to Apple Mobile MVNO"

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=66907
  • jahonenjahonen Posts: 364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Why? 802.22 makes me think a nationwide "Wi-Fi" network is doable.



    Because Wi-Fi has severe issues with things like mobility or capacity when you start putting more than a few users into a cell? It's after all a nomadic technology at best meant to be a wireless replacement for a fixed LAN.



    Sure you could make it mobile, but that would require a ton of proprietary vendor specific extensions for starters.



    Regs, Jarkko
  • pokepoke Posts: 506member
    I've been speculating for awhile (tongue-in-cheek, mostly) that this is what Apple's cash hoarding is about (I was thinking maybe they make their own next gen LEO satellite network for global coverage). It's obvious they have to move undermine the carriers at some point. They've chipped away at them but there has to be some long-term game plan.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,474member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jahonen View Post


    Because Wi-Fi has severe issues with things like mobility or capacity when you start putting more than a few users into a cell? It's after all a nomadic technology at best meant to be a wireless replacement for a fixed LAN.



    Sure you could make it mobile, but that would require a ton of proprietary vendor specific extensions for starters.



    Regs, Jarkko



    802.22 isn't really Wi-Fi, hence the quotes. It's designed for that very purpose, I think.
  • auxioauxio Posts: 1,561member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by halfyearsun View Post


    It wouldn't have ever happened. "apps" would have never been integral to the experience if carriers were the ones distributing them. In hindsight it seems like lost revenue for them, but its revenue that wouldn't have otherwise existed



    It may have "existed", but certainly not in as well thought out and executed manner as the iTunes app store. Which probably would have led to it's inevitable demise (due to poor experiences for both app purchasers and developers). That plus fragmentation because every carrier would have it's own version of an app store (each with it's own uniquely craptacular experience).
  • sandorsandor Posts: 240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post


    LOL. And you think Apple would have settled for the profit margins that AT&T/Verizon/etc receive?

    ...





    ATT (last quarter) posted that their mobile segment was operating on a 29.6% margin. Hardly a "settling" profit margin.



    for comparison, Exxon (an "evil" oil company) had a 12.2% profit margin in the same quarter ($10.3 billion profit on $125.3 billion revenue)











    http://www.att.com/Investor/Financia...ts_IB_3Q11.xls
  • sandorsandor Posts: 240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    I know, it's a trick question, right? Because it wouldn't be smart for Apple.



    Apple fans need to try to understand that just because THEY want something doesn't mean Apple can make money delivering it.



    For instance, ATT made $3.5 billion in profits last quarter. It has 100 million subscribers. Thus, the profit per sub per month is $11. On those "outrageous" $80-100 monthly bills.







    that was ATT as a whole. ATT's mobile unit posted 29% margins.
  • jahonenjahonen Posts: 364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    802.22 isn't really Wi-Fi, hence the quotes. It's designed for that very purpose, I think.



    It's a WRAN technology, which makes it even worse for things like voice traffic, where the cell change should be seamless. It isn't really defined for mobility at all so a nomadic system would be a better description. WiMAX had a similar start and one of the reasons why telcos didn't like it as much (true mobility came as an add-on really to WiMAX).



    The IEEE equivalent for mobility (with support for 250km/h speed and bitrates up to 80Mbpx) is 802.20, which was published in 2008, but hasn't been taken up by any significant amount since HSPA, CDMA2000 and LTE have achieved pretty much the goals of 802.20.



    Regs, Jarkko
  • jetzjetz Posts: 1,290member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sandor View Post


    that was ATT as a whole. ATT's mobile unit posted 29% margins.



    Not to mention the fact that a lot of their costs also have to do with subsidizing expensive handsets.



    In any event, I doubt Apple could start its own telco without drawing some kind of federal attention. Imagine what the antitrust authorities would say about an OEM owning a network and banning all their competitor's devices from the network.
  • luxom3luxom3 Posts: 96member
    Google tried this early/mid 2K... they pulled out, although they still own some bandwidth from the FCC(?).



    Interesting article between Google and Andrew Seybold...
  • hiker275hiker275 Posts: 53member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    Let's say this can work in the US (big assumption).



    Then what do you do in other countries? $80B can only go so far (can't believe I am writing this!).



    You must work in Washington DC..
Sign In or Register to comment.