Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I didn't explain myself well!
As for the roaming agreement: Do you think the carriers will refuse charging other carrier's customers for roaming onto their network? Just because it isn't currently allowed, doesn't mean that wouldn't make sense with a popular world phone. I think the carriers would be all over themselves to offer world roaming plans
The US has a pretty great plan with 49 states being covered by all the major MNOs. Can you do that in Europe taking a quick car, bus or train ride between countries? Sure, those are different countries, but they are much smaller than the US. Id expect if any part of the world would make roaming affordable and seamless it would be theEU countries.
As a leading manufacturer of smart phones, say, 60-100 million units per year -- Apple can offer a phone that will work on any communication network.
Apple can negotiate costs and production preference from a position of strength unmatched by any phone mfgr.
Weve been over this. They CAN, but that doesnt mean its the best option for them. They can also make a $400 notebook if they want or make a smaller Mac Pro (aka: xMac).
They can do a lot of things, but the problem is finding an argument that supports that move when a world mode phone supporting 4x GSM bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA bands is not on the market nor is selling in all countries a vendor does business in.
Even the crippled and erroneously named world mode phones from other carriers are not common. Thats a huge clue.
To the many consumers this eliminates an unnecessary choice/limitation -- which cell network.
In most countries, it does not. In North America it would providing its also unlocked, but remember that Apple also locks their iPhones to the carrier for every country its laws dont prevent it.
I understand why you want this. Id like it, too, but nothing has shown itself to make this seem like a viable option for Apple.
This is like buying a radio without requiring you to decide among AM, FM and short wave -- you get it all at no extra cost.. Oh, it does TV too.
But there is an extra cost. Why should everyone who has no CDMA network in their country and who doesnt plan to travel to a country with CDMA pay the additional licensing cost for the technology, as well as the HW? Or why should Apple lose money on each sale when they making two different models is most cost effective?
its easy to say that economy of scale will make this cheaper, but if that is true then why doesnt RiM and everyone else make a single model type that works on all networks? Why do they keep making the GSM or CDMA model, and then release the model for the other network a little later? If you have a per unit licensing fee that is based on the price of the unit then you have diseconomy of scale.
If its 1%, that still $5 per 16GB iPhone that get stripped from Apples net profit. Instead of paying that on, say, 10M CDMA iPhones for 2011, you are paying that on, say, 60M total iPhones as the GSM-based models will far outsell the CDMA-based model. So instead of paying $50M to Qualcomm they are paying $300M. Thats a quarter-billion dollar loss in profit, and thats before you add on the cost for this HW, or any unquantifiable costs like user experience from having a smaller battery or less efficient chips that use more power.
Here is a slightly older article that details Qualcomms roadmap for 2011 and onward. Again, Apple can likely license the radio tech from Qualcomm without having to use Snapdragon and Adeno. Im certain that Samsung and Imagination are in their pocket for the future.