Carriers won't accept SIM-less phones until they absolutely have to, the iPhone has significant market presence, but I'm unconvinced that Apple is willing to anger every single carrier worldwide by demanding they support a SIM-less solution that they are adamantly opposed to.
Apple's plan to offer a SIM-less phone may already be in action.
Just a few months ago, Apple started selling carrier-unlocked, unsubsidized iPhone 4s in the U.S. They could use the sales of these handsets to gauge demand and price tolerance for a carrier-independent iPhone. When enough people have switched to buying iPhones outright, Apple can start selling these unsubsidized, carrier-unlocked iPhones alongside the carrier-locked offerings.
This will upset the carriers, but if Apple plays its cards right, the carriers will have no choice but to accept the change.
Users should be able to dynamically switch carriers on a per-call (or service) basis, with the user (and perhaps the phone) helping with the selection based on price, QoS, and other factors. So when I'm overseas a local provider is likely to be cheaper than my home network. When I automatically pick up a WiFi hotspot, VoIP may be better than the strongest cell provider.
Surely this would be an open and fair market, quite the opposite of the monopoly currently enjoyed by our blood-sucking cell carriers. The argument, as I understand it, is that they invest so much in building their network and infrastructure, that they must be allowed to execute as a monopoly. But surely if none are a monopoly, then the strength of their network (not just price but also quality and bandwidth) will determine whose network is actually used.
Brave new world, but it really is time the regulators made this a reality.
Yes, but... regulators have the canny ability of making things worse!
Believe me, I have no love for telephone carriers or cable carriers,
But, they have taken a certain amount of risk, invested resources and deserve a fair return on their investments.
But, they should not be immune from failure or competition by poorly thought-out and implemented regulations.
Often, regulations award monopolies and stifle competition by raising the entry threshold.
I can remember when the US (and much of the world) had 1 phone carrier (T) Bell Telephone,
You had dependable service and predictable costs -- but very little excitement or innovation.
Often, though, regulated monopolies can be beneficial to the general public by reducing infrastructure clutter and costs -- public water,gas and electric utilities are, often, good examples,
My only point here is that regulations should allow competition, innovation -- yet provide for entry of new companies and technologies.
I think that a company like Apple should be free to compete, fairly*, in the regulated airwaves, interstate commerce and cable networks -- should they wish to do so.
Apple's plan to offer a SIM-less phone may already be in action.
Just a few months ago, Apple started selling carrier-unlocked, unsubsidized iPhone 4s in the U.S. They could use the sales of these handsets to gauge demand and price tolerance for a carrier-independent iPhone. When enough people have switched to buying iPhones outright, Apple can start selling these unsubsidized, carrier-unlocked iPhones alongside the carrier-locked offerings.
This will upset the carriers, but if Apple plays its cards right, the carriers will have no choice but to accept the change.
Plus, if Apple offers older iPhone models for reasonable prices unsubsidized, it will likely generate a lot more interest (and knowledge about) the benefits of getting an iPhone that way (and start the ball rolling). Can't wait...
[...] Apple's interest in this outraged some carriers, who felt the method would marginalize their role in courting customers. Carriers in Europe subsequently threatened to cut subsidies for the iPhone if Apple pursued those plans. [...]
The carriers are fighting the inevitable, tooth and nail. Desperately trying to maintain their grip on their customer bases. Promoting themselves as different and better than the other guy, despite their descent into generic commodity providers. Like different brands of bleach.
I personally don't give a toasted sh!t about AT&T's web site or advertising or Verizon's web site or advertising. Directly comparing their pricing somewhere, anywhere, like on iPhone, is a great idea.
If Apple is eventually allowed to provide users with comparison shopping like this, I see two more things that could eventually happen (but probably won't):
1. On-the-fly carrier selection: choose whichever carrier has the strongest signal wherever you happen to be at the moment and use that one. The iPhone or iPad could automatically choose between, say, AT&T and Verizon. You wouldn't need to know which one was in use at the moment. And every month you'd pay Apple instead of any particular carrier.
2. Elimination of separate voice and data "plans." The "real 4G" spec requires combining voice and data into a single internet packet stream, so there would be no technical reason to charge separately for voice and data. The recent "3.9G" LTE technology still uses separate voice and data connections (not to mention vastly slower speeds than the 4G spec's 100Mb/s for high mobility users (on planes, cars, etc.) and 1Gb/s for low mobility users (pedestrians, fixed position terminals.) It's basically a faster 3G.
The cell carriers will fight #1 to the death. They want to lock in their users. And the real reason Sprint et al are claiming that LTE is a "4G" network is to confuse the issue. They don't want #2 to ever happen. They don't want their users to know that 4G networks, when they are finally rolled out, will combine voice and data. They want you to pay for separate plans. I'm sure their spreadsheets tell them that separate plans are more profitable.
You are so right, cxc. Big Business and Special Interests have a strangle-hold on your nation but I have faith that Americans will rise up and return democracy to their nation. To quote Michael Moore, A businessman will sell you the rope to hang himself.
Actually, I think the quote is attributed to Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin....
Quote:
The Soviet Union's V.I.Lenin said it best: "A capitalist is someone who will sell us the rope to hang him with."
Be that as it may, Michael Moore is of the same socio-political persuasion.
The carriers are fighting the inevitable, tooth and nail. Desperately trying to maintain their grip on their customer bases. Promoting themselves as different and better than the other guy, despite their descent into generic commodity providers. Like different brands of bleach.
I personally don't give a toasted sh!t about AT&T's web site or advertising or Verizon's web site or advertising. Directly comparing their pricing somewhere, anywhere, like on iPhone, is a great idea.
If Apple is eventually allowed to provide users with comparison shopping like this, I see two more things that could eventually happen (but probably won't):
1. On-the-fly carrier selection: choose whichever carrier has the strongest signal wherever you happen to be at the moment and use that one. The iPhone or iPad could automatically choose between, say, AT&T and Verizon. You wouldn't need to know which one was in use at the moment. And every month you'd pay Apple instead of any particular carrier.
2. Elimination of separate voice and data "plans." The "real 4G" spec requires combining voice and data into a single internet packet stream, so there would be no technical reason to charge separately for voice and data. The recent "3.9G" LTE technology still uses separate voice and data connections (not to mention vastly slower speeds than the 4G spec's 100Mb/s for high mobility users (on planes, cars, etc.) and 1Gb/s for low mobility users (pedestrians, fixed position terminals.) It's basically a faster 3G.
The cell carriers will fight #1 to the death. They want to lock in their users. And the real reason Sprint et al are claiming that LTE is a "4G" network is to confuse the issue. They don't want #2 to ever happen. They don't want their users to know that 4G networks, when they are finally rolled out, will combine voice and data. They want you to pay for separate plans. I'm sure their spreadsheets tell them that separate plans are more profitable.
Right On!
Especially: "Promoting themselves as different and better than the other guy, despite their descent into generic commodity providers."
... how about a new word to describe that... say, genericnicityness.
The carriers should be marginalized. They are nothing more than utility companies getting in the way of innovation. I can't wait for Apple to buy one of them and butt f@&$ the entire industry!!!
Imagine ATT's shift in board meeting strategy discussion-
"Well, we WERE going to meet about the effectiveness of our public relations campaign in convincing consumers that eliminating unlimited data plans is actually giving them 'options,' but now we need to address the fact that Apple just bought Sprint, renamed it the 'iNetwork,' and don't give a f@&$ if it makes money for them..."
The carriers are fighting the inevitable, tooth and nail. Desperately trying to maintain their grip on their customer bases. Promoting themselves as different and better than the other guy, despite their descent into generic commodity providers. Like different brands of bleach.
I personally don't give a toasted sh!t about AT&T's web site or advertising or Verizon's web site or advertising. Directly comparing their pricing somewhere, anywhere, like on iPhone, is a great idea.
If Apple is eventually allowed to provide users with comparison shopping like this, I see two more things that could eventually happen (but probably won't):
1. On-the-fly carrier selection: choose whichever carrier has the strongest signal wherever you happen to be at the moment and use that one. The iPhone or iPad could automatically choose between, say, AT&T and Verizon. You wouldn't need to know which one was in use at the moment. And every month you'd pay Apple instead of any particular carrier.
2. Elimination of separate voice and data "plans." The "real 4G" spec requires combining voice and data into a single internet packet stream, so there would be no technical reason to charge separately for voice and data. The recent "3.9G" LTE technology still uses separate voice and data connections (not to mention vastly slower speeds than the 4G spec's 100Mb/s for high mobility users (on planes, cars, etc.) and 1Gb/s for low mobility users (pedestrians, fixed position terminals.) It's basically a faster 3G.
The cell carriers will fight #1 to the death. They want to lock in their users. And the real reason Sprint et al are claiming that LTE is a "4G" network is to confuse the issue. They don't want #2 to ever happen. They don't want their users to know that 4G networks, when they are finally rolled out, will combine voice and data. They want you to pay for separate plans. I'm sure their spreadsheets tell them that separate plans are more profitable.
This would be insanely useful, and helpful to customers around the world. I travel and either use my jailbroken iPhone or I just get a throwaway phone where ever I go.
The biggest hurdle, I presume, would be the business side of this. Because I doubt carriers would be happy with customers buying phones from Apple or another carrier and then not locking into their 2-year contracts. But at the same time if they try and just shut out Apple from doing what they want, they may be in turn shut down by Apple to even allow iPhones on their networks. Which would obviously be a big loss of revenue.
Let's just see where Steve Jobs and Apple go with this, if they go anywhere at all with it. Keep your fingers crossed!
I can see the benefit of being able to switch providers. Those with unlocked phones in Europe can already easily switch between carriers by swapping out sim cards. I use an unlocked phone while traveling and I buy prepaid sim cards in each country. So the benefit is mainly being able to switch to CDMA carriers, which are already simless. I see two downsides with a simless phone from apple though.
1) It will not be possible anymore to use another phone on the same line. The micro sim already makes this difficult. I have several gsm phones and I like being able to switch phones. Sometimes I prefer using an old phone that I won't miss if it gets stolen. Now I just have to put the sim in another phone.
2) Apple charges 30% for transaction processing in the app store. If they charge the same for this service, then we end up paying more.
Also, the main reason that carriers in the USA can lock in customers is that customers let them. T-mobile offers a discount if you bring your own device that is bigger than the subsidy for the device, but people still get the more expensive plan with a "free" device.
That would be amazing. Create some real competition in the carrier space. You want iPhone customers - offer some incentives that the competition does not have. They may say they will stop subsidizing, but in the end they need the customers and competitive pressure will let us arrive at some sort of reasonable middle ground between big subsidies and no subsidies.
If there is a company that can pull this off its definitely Apple, so I wish them luck and hope they carry out this vision.
I'm going to admit it now, I am an Android fanboy...not necessarily a Google fanboy but definitely an Android fanboy. Get that out the way, call me names, blah blah blah...okay then on to my point.
This would be wonderful...and hopefully does take hold....and hopefully becomes a standard and Apple again ushers in a new generation of tech. Carrier's can ruin phones, and damn near ruin Android itself, locking down devices and stripping it of features and adding layers of uninstallable bloatware....
Weakening the carriers and turning them into what they should be, as another poster said 'utility companies' would be great. It would also force providers of prepaid services to offer the best services for any area because if you didn't like AT&T you could easily switch to Verizon/Sprint/T-mobile/Etc at the press of a button the next month. The subsidized plans would still exist of course forcing you into contracts and on THOSE phones (Android etc, obviously) bloatware could exist, sure, but for prepaid users, this would be masterful, and also it would better service for us all.
also, in case you're wondering why I'm here...
On my device there is an app called "News and Weather" and I created a topic filter called Android...since a LOT of Apple Insider's topics are strictly anti-Android for whatever reason I find myself reading their articles and the hilariously biased comments. Figured why not join.
That would be amazing. Create some real competition in the carrier space. You want iPhone customers - offer some incentives that the competition does not have. They may say they will stop subsidizing, but in the end they need the customers and competitive pressure will let us arrive at some sort of reasonable middle ground between big subsidies and no subsidies.
If there is a company that can pull this off its definitely Apple, so I wish them luck and hope they carry out this vision.
Subsidies and this global access prepaid could exist still, it would just force carriers to give prepaid people reasons NOT to leave their service, this could mean cheaper prices, better, faster service...cash incentives, etc.
It could work...The carriers will fight it tooth and nail, but hopefully they don't win.
Would actually be nice to see Google and Apple team up to push this as they both have significant market presence (though Apple a lot more so despite percentages) but I think I have a better chance of seeing pigs fly...backwards...
1. On-the-fly carrier selection: choose whichever carrier has the strongest signal wherever you happen to be at the moment and use that one. The iPhone or iPad could automatically choose between, say, AT&T and Verizon. You wouldn't need to know which one was in use at the moment. And every month you'd pay Apple instead of any particular carrier.
Ultimately, the carriers control the networks so on-the-fly will never happen. I think the best we can hope for is that Apple separates the phone components from the device. They'd sell an iPod Touch device, which you pay outright and you simply pay for an add-on from the carrier on a pay-per-use basis or very short-term contract e.g monthly.
There can still be subsidised devices on contract but it wouldn't be the only option and it means that you don't need to upgrade your handset for a 4G rollout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
2. Elimination of separate voice and data "plans."
That's the big development I'd like to see but there will be resistance. It will also take a while due to the requirement for compatibility with older phones. Paying per call and per text and per data usage needs to stop though. Phones should become like home broadband where you can do anything you want for a single fee and you just pay if you go over your bandwidth limit.
I'd also like to see the elimination of phone numbers. Like what domain names are to IP addresses. I'm so tired of having to remember new numbers all the time. I'd just like to have a registered handle that humans recognise and I can point that to any number I get. Obviously celebrities will pick obscure handles but it means no more numbers.
Comments
Carriers won't accept SIM-less phones until they absolutely have to, the iPhone has significant market presence, but I'm unconvinced that Apple is willing to anger every single carrier worldwide by demanding they support a SIM-less solution that they are adamantly opposed to.
Apple's plan to offer a SIM-less phone may already be in action.
Just a few months ago, Apple started selling carrier-unlocked, unsubsidized iPhone 4s in the U.S. They could use the sales of these handsets to gauge demand and price tolerance for a carrier-independent iPhone. When enough people have switched to buying iPhones outright, Apple can start selling these unsubsidized, carrier-unlocked iPhones alongside the carrier-locked offerings.
This will upset the carriers, but if Apple plays its cards right, the carriers will have no choice but to accept the change.
Users should be able to dynamically switch carriers on a per-call (or service) basis, with the user (and perhaps the phone) helping with the selection based on price, QoS, and other factors. So when I'm overseas a local provider is likely to be cheaper than my home network. When I automatically pick up a WiFi hotspot, VoIP may be better than the strongest cell provider.
Surely this would be an open and fair market, quite the opposite of the monopoly currently enjoyed by our blood-sucking cell carriers. The argument, as I understand it, is that they invest so much in building their network and infrastructure, that they must be allowed to execute as a monopoly. But surely if none are a monopoly, then the strength of their network (not just price but also quality and bandwidth) will determine whose network is actually used.
Brave new world, but it really is time the regulators made this a reality.
Yes, but... regulators have the canny ability of making things worse!
Believe me, I have no love for telephone carriers or cable carriers,
But, they have taken a certain amount of risk, invested resources and deserve a fair return on their investments.
But, they should not be immune from failure or competition by poorly thought-out and implemented regulations.
Often, regulations award monopolies and stifle competition by raising the entry threshold.
I can remember when the US (and much of the world) had 1 phone carrier (T) Bell Telephone,
You had dependable service and predictable costs -- but very little excitement or innovation.
Often, though, regulated monopolies can be beneficial to the general public by reducing infrastructure clutter and costs -- public water,gas and electric utilities are, often, good examples,
My only point here is that regulations should allow competition, innovation -- yet provide for entry of new companies and technologies.
I think that a company like Apple should be free to compete, fairly*, in the regulated airwaves, interstate commerce and cable networks -- should they wish to do so.
* yes, I mean legally, ethically and morally
Apple's plan to offer a SIM-less phone may already be in action.
Just a few months ago, Apple started selling carrier-unlocked, unsubsidized iPhone 4s in the U.S. They could use the sales of these handsets to gauge demand and price tolerance for a carrier-independent iPhone. When enough people have switched to buying iPhones outright, Apple can start selling these unsubsidized, carrier-unlocked iPhones alongside the carrier-locked offerings.
This will upset the carriers, but if Apple plays its cards right, the carriers will have no choice but to accept the change.
Plus, if Apple offers older iPhone models for reasonable prices unsubsidized, it will likely generate a lot more interest (and knowledge about) the benefits of getting an iPhone that way (and start the ball rolling). Can't wait...
[...] Apple's interest in this outraged some carriers, who felt the method would marginalize their role in courting customers. Carriers in Europe subsequently threatened to cut subsidies for the iPhone if Apple pursued those plans. [...]
The carriers are fighting the inevitable, tooth and nail. Desperately trying to maintain their grip on their customer bases. Promoting themselves as different and better than the other guy, despite their descent into generic commodity providers. Like different brands of bleach.
I personally don't give a toasted sh!t about AT&T's web site or advertising or Verizon's web site or advertising. Directly comparing their pricing somewhere, anywhere, like on iPhone, is a great idea.
If Apple is eventually allowed to provide users with comparison shopping like this, I see two more things that could eventually happen (but probably won't):
1. On-the-fly carrier selection: choose whichever carrier has the strongest signal wherever you happen to be at the moment and use that one. The iPhone or iPad could automatically choose between, say, AT&T and Verizon. You wouldn't need to know which one was in use at the moment. And every month you'd pay Apple instead of any particular carrier.
2. Elimination of separate voice and data "plans." The "real 4G" spec requires combining voice and data into a single internet packet stream, so there would be no technical reason to charge separately for voice and data. The recent "3.9G" LTE technology still uses separate voice and data connections (not to mention vastly slower speeds than the 4G spec's 100Mb/s for high mobility users (on planes, cars, etc.) and 1Gb/s for low mobility users (pedestrians, fixed position terminals.) It's basically a faster 3G.
The cell carriers will fight #1 to the death. They want to lock in their users. And the real reason Sprint et al are claiming that LTE is a "4G" network is to confuse the issue. They don't want #2 to ever happen. They don't want their users to know that 4G networks, when they are finally rolled out, will combine voice and data. They want you to pay for separate plans. I'm sure their spreadsheets tell them that separate plans are more profitable.
You are so right, cxc. Big Business and Special Interests have a strangle-hold on your nation but I have faith that Americans will rise up and return democracy to their nation. To quote Michael Moore, A businessman will sell you the rope to hang himself.
Actually, I think the quote is attributed to Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin....
The Soviet Union's V.I.Lenin said it best: "A capitalist is someone who will sell us the rope to hang him with."
Be that as it may, Michael Moore is of the same socio-political persuasion.
The carriers are fighting the inevitable, tooth and nail. Desperately trying to maintain their grip on their customer bases. Promoting themselves as different and better than the other guy, despite their descent into generic commodity providers. Like different brands of bleach.
I personally don't give a toasted sh!t about AT&T's web site or advertising or Verizon's web site or advertising. Directly comparing their pricing somewhere, anywhere, like on iPhone, is a great idea.
If Apple is eventually allowed to provide users with comparison shopping like this, I see two more things that could eventually happen (but probably won't):
1. On-the-fly carrier selection: choose whichever carrier has the strongest signal wherever you happen to be at the moment and use that one. The iPhone or iPad could automatically choose between, say, AT&T and Verizon. You wouldn't need to know which one was in use at the moment. And every month you'd pay Apple instead of any particular carrier.
2. Elimination of separate voice and data "plans." The "real 4G" spec requires combining voice and data into a single internet packet stream, so there would be no technical reason to charge separately for voice and data. The recent "3.9G" LTE technology still uses separate voice and data connections (not to mention vastly slower speeds than the 4G spec's 100Mb/s for high mobility users (on planes, cars, etc.) and 1Gb/s for low mobility users (pedestrians, fixed position terminals.) It's basically a faster 3G.
The cell carriers will fight #1 to the death. They want to lock in their users. And the real reason Sprint et al are claiming that LTE is a "4G" network is to confuse the issue. They don't want #2 to ever happen. They don't want their users to know that 4G networks, when they are finally rolled out, will combine voice and data. They want you to pay for separate plans. I'm sure their spreadsheets tell them that separate plans are more profitable.
Right On!
Especially: "Promoting themselves as different and better than the other guy, despite their descent into generic commodity providers."
... how about a new word to describe that... say, genericnicityness.
Imagine ATT's shift in board meeting strategy discussion-
"Well, we WERE going to meet about the effectiveness of our public relations campaign in convincing consumers that eliminating unlimited data plans is actually giving them 'options,' but now we need to address the fact that Apple just bought Sprint, renamed it the 'iNetwork,' and don't give a f@&$ if it makes money for them..."
The carriers are fighting the inevitable, tooth and nail. Desperately trying to maintain their grip on their customer bases. Promoting themselves as different and better than the other guy, despite their descent into generic commodity providers. Like different brands of bleach.
I personally don't give a toasted sh!t about AT&T's web site or advertising or Verizon's web site or advertising. Directly comparing their pricing somewhere, anywhere, like on iPhone, is a great idea.
If Apple is eventually allowed to provide users with comparison shopping like this, I see two more things that could eventually happen (but probably won't):
1. On-the-fly carrier selection: choose whichever carrier has the strongest signal wherever you happen to be at the moment and use that one. The iPhone or iPad could automatically choose between, say, AT&T and Verizon. You wouldn't need to know which one was in use at the moment. And every month you'd pay Apple instead of any particular carrier.
2. Elimination of separate voice and data "plans." The "real 4G" spec requires combining voice and data into a single internet packet stream, so there would be no technical reason to charge separately for voice and data. The recent "3.9G" LTE technology still uses separate voice and data connections (not to mention vastly slower speeds than the 4G spec's 100Mb/s for high mobility users (on planes, cars, etc.) and 1Gb/s for low mobility users (pedestrians, fixed position terminals.) It's basically a faster 3G.
The cell carriers will fight #1 to the death. They want to lock in their users. And the real reason Sprint et al are claiming that LTE is a "4G" network is to confuse the issue. They don't want #2 to ever happen. They don't want their users to know that 4G networks, when they are finally rolled out, will combine voice and data. They want you to pay for separate plans. I'm sure their spreadsheets tell them that separate plans are more profitable.
^ This.
The biggest hurdle, I presume, would be the business side of this. Because I doubt carriers would be happy with customers buying phones from Apple or another carrier and then not locking into their 2-year contracts. But at the same time if they try and just shut out Apple from doing what they want, they may be in turn shut down by Apple to even allow iPhones on their networks. Which would obviously be a big loss of revenue.
Let's just see where Steve Jobs and Apple go with this, if they go anywhere at all with it. Keep your fingers crossed!
1) It will not be possible anymore to use another phone on the same line. The micro sim already makes this difficult. I have several gsm phones and I like being able to switch phones. Sometimes I prefer using an old phone that I won't miss if it gets stolen. Now I just have to put the sim in another phone.
2) Apple charges 30% for transaction processing in the app store. If they charge the same for this service, then we end up paying more.
Also, the main reason that carriers in the USA can lock in customers is that customers let them. T-mobile offers a discount if you bring your own device that is bigger than the subsidy for the device, but people still get the more expensive plan with a "free" device.
If there is a company that can pull this off its definitely Apple, so I wish them luck and hope they carry out this vision.
This would be wonderful...and hopefully does take hold....and hopefully becomes a standard and Apple again ushers in a new generation of tech. Carrier's can ruin phones, and damn near ruin Android itself, locking down devices and stripping it of features and adding layers of uninstallable bloatware....
Weakening the carriers and turning them into what they should be, as another poster said 'utility companies' would be great. It would also force providers of prepaid services to offer the best services for any area because if you didn't like AT&T you could easily switch to Verizon/Sprint/T-mobile/Etc at the press of a button the next month. The subsidized plans would still exist of course forcing you into contracts and on THOSE phones (Android etc, obviously) bloatware could exist, sure, but for prepaid users, this would be masterful, and also it would better service for us all.
also, in case you're wondering why I'm here...
On my device there is an app called "News and Weather" and I created a topic filter called Android...since a LOT of Apple Insider's topics are strictly anti-Android for whatever reason I find myself reading their articles and the hilariously biased comments. Figured why not join.
That would be amazing. Create some real competition in the carrier space. You want iPhone customers - offer some incentives that the competition does not have. They may say they will stop subsidizing, but in the end they need the customers and competitive pressure will let us arrive at some sort of reasonable middle ground between big subsidies and no subsidies.
If there is a company that can pull this off its definitely Apple, so I wish them luck and hope they carry out this vision.
Subsidies and this global access prepaid could exist still, it would just force carriers to give prepaid people reasons NOT to leave their service, this could mean cheaper prices, better, faster service...cash incentives, etc.
It could work...The carriers will fight it tooth and nail, but hopefully they don't win.
Would actually be nice to see Google and Apple team up to push this as they both have significant market presence (though Apple a lot more so despite percentages) but I think I have a better chance of seeing pigs fly...backwards...
1. On-the-fly carrier selection: choose whichever carrier has the strongest signal wherever you happen to be at the moment and use that one. The iPhone or iPad could automatically choose between, say, AT&T and Verizon. You wouldn't need to know which one was in use at the moment. And every month you'd pay Apple instead of any particular carrier.
Ultimately, the carriers control the networks so on-the-fly will never happen. I think the best we can hope for is that Apple separates the phone components from the device. They'd sell an iPod Touch device, which you pay outright and you simply pay for an add-on from the carrier on a pay-per-use basis or very short-term contract e.g monthly.
There can still be subsidised devices on contract but it wouldn't be the only option and it means that you don't need to upgrade your handset for a 4G rollout.
2. Elimination of separate voice and data "plans."
That's the big development I'd like to see but there will be resistance. It will also take a while due to the requirement for compatibility with older phones. Paying per call and per text and per data usage needs to stop though. Phones should become like home broadband where you can do anything you want for a single fee and you just pay if you go over your bandwidth limit.
I'd also like to see the elimination of phone numbers. Like what domain names are to IP addresses. I'm so tired of having to remember new numbers all the time. I'd just like to have a registered handle that humans recognise and I can point that to any number I get. Obviously celebrities will pick obscure handles but it means no more numbers.