So lets say Apple makes deals with all 4 US carriers and also major carriers in Canada, Mexico, Europe and Asia. It then creates and encompasses all these into Apple Wireless MVNO. It then uses its current CDMA model phones which work on everything except China Mobile. They then sell plans unlimited talk, text and 20 GB LTE data for $50 month. The cool thing is that your plan is now a world plan. The Apple SIM in your phone connects to the strongest carrier amongst their offering. No having to swap out SIMs or purchase other carrier plans. Thus the garden is expanded and customers are even happier.
So lets say Apple makes deals with all 4 US carriers and also major carriers in Canada, Mexico, Europe and Asia. It then creates and encompasses all these into Apple Wireless MVNO. It then uses its current CDMA model phones which work on everything except China Mobile. They then sell plans unlimited talk, text and 20 GB LTE data for $50 month. The cool thing is that your plan is now a world plan. The Apple SIM in your phone connects to the strongest carrier amongst their offering. No having to swap out SIMs or purchase other carrier plans. Thus the garden is expanded and customers are even happier.
Something like this is what I would have thought Apple would do if they were really going down that path. Buy capacity from every (as many as possible) cell companies in the world and make a worldwide MVNO. And one that works everywhere in the US with capacity from all the major carriers, and with Apple SIM type capability able to jump between them all to the one that was best at the moment, in any country. That would be a valuable service from the customer experience standpoint.
So lets say Apple makes deals with all 4 US carriers and also major carriers in Canada, Mexico, Europe and Asia. It then creates and encompasses all these into Apple Wireless MVNO. It then uses its current CDMA model phones which work on everything except China Mobile. They then sell plans unlimited talk, text and 20 GB LTE data for $50 month. The cool thing is that your plan is now a world plan. The Apple SIM in your phone connects to the strongest carrier amongst their offering. No having to swap out SIMs or purchase other carrier plans. Thus the garden is expanded and customers are even happier.
And who's going to let them do this for $50? Apple doesn't get into money losing ventures. This talk reminds me a bit of the car talk. Apple's not doing a car, they'll just do the brains and UI for other cars dashboards blah blah blah...when we've seen ZERO evidence any car company is willing to give up their dashboard to Apple and Apple has ZERO history of successfully being a piece of software or other technology in someone else's product.
And who's going to let them do this for $50? Apple doesn't get into money losing ventures.
Depends on how you view it.
Apple don't make money directly from very much of their software, but their software enhances their ecosystem, so is worth it.
Apple likely doesn't make any money from iCloud, as most accounts will be on the free tier, but it enhances their ecosystem.
An Apple MVNO may not make much, or any money, but if it gives any Apple mobile device anywhere in the world the best mobile data signal available then that's a massive enhancement to the Apple ecosystem.
It's the complete ecosystem that sells the hardware, the software, the cloud services and the customer service as a complete package.
Although, I honestly cannot think of a single instance in which Apple has entered even a single domain in which it appears to have said, "Google is in, or is thinking of getting into, that business, so I must."
Targeted ads. . .
Yeah, like it's even a remotely serious or material business for Apple.
They were aiming for 50% market share in mobile advertising. How's that not serious?
BTW, did you notice the other day that Google set up a subsidiary, Google Auto LLC? Could be for liability reasons or for some bigger project, perhaps building/partnering on an actual car of some sort. AFAIK they haven't discussed it.
Surely they'd want to insulate themselves from potential class-action lawsuits stemming from their automated car software. Damages could be in the billions if some major software failure causes hundreds or thousands to be harmed.
Virgin Mobile USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Corporation" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Sprint Corporation">Sprint Corporation</a> .
Next up: trying to prove me wrong by pointing to Boost Mobile Australia.
Here's what it says: "Founded in 2001 as a joint venture between Virgin Group, Singapore Telecommunications Limited and Sprint Corporation, Virgin Mobile USA commenced operations in June, 2002 as a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO)...."
Go back and take a look at what I originally posted. (The fact that it got fully bought out by Sprint later actually supports my larger point about how and why MVNO model is perhaps for loser companies, not serious companies like Apple. But if you'd like to focus on the trivial point that it was later bought out by Sprint, go right ahead!).
However, note that it says, "Rather than focusing on ad revenues, Apple plans to use iAd as a program to incentivize App Store development."
Really interesting strategy, very Apple-like (and Google-unlike) to want to give developers the revenue -- rather than take it themselves -- with a view to enhance the ecosystem, rather than make money selling ads.
However, note that it says, "Rather than focusing on ad revenues, Apple plans to use iAd as a program to incentivize App Store development."
Really interesting strategy, very Apple-like (and Google-unlike) to want to give developers the revenue -- rather than take it themselves -- with a view to enhance the ecosystem, rather than make money selling ads.
The initial split was 60/40 but they switched to 70/30 in 2012, so apologies if I don't buy that they weren't focusing on ad revenue.
What's a reasonable estimate of such ad revenue? Is it remotely material or meaningful for Apple, from what you've seen or heard (or guessed)? I am curious.
They surely may have changed it later, as you say, but that does not seem to have been the articulated strategy when they introduced it in 2010, according to your own cite. It is also plausible that Apple wanted it to be similar to their 70/30 iTunes split, so as to not raise the hackles of regulators, and more importantly, of folks who might have started to demand a similar split for their content sold through iTunes.
that isn't why - the income they make from iAds is small. Apple has said they wanted to give devs a way to earn money while promoting ads that are more considerate to users than google's.
nope. Apple has clearly stated their reasons for bundling native vector maps, and it wasn't because Google was in that sector. it was because they couldn't get what they desired in that sector using google's offering.
Comments
So lets say Apple makes deals with all 4 US carriers and also major carriers in Canada, Mexico, Europe and Asia. It then creates and encompasses all these into Apple Wireless MVNO. It then uses its current CDMA model phones which work on everything except China Mobile. They then sell plans unlimited talk, text and 20 GB LTE data for $50 month. The cool thing is that your plan is now a world plan. The Apple SIM in your phone connects to the strongest carrier amongst their offering. No having to swap out SIMs or purchase other carrier plans. Thus the garden is expanded and customers are even happier.
Only for Apple users, so they simply replaced the Google maps backend for their customers. Google Maps is open to all, and links to advertisements.
The iPod originally only worked with a Mac, doesn't mean it wasn't an entry into the MP3 player market.
So lets say Apple makes deals with all 4 US carriers and also major carriers in Canada, Mexico, Europe and Asia. It then creates and encompasses all these into Apple Wireless MVNO. It then uses its current CDMA model phones which work on everything except China Mobile. They then sell plans unlimited talk, text and 20 GB LTE data for $50 month. The cool thing is that your plan is now a world plan. The Apple SIM in your phone connects to the strongest carrier amongst their offering. No having to swap out SIMs or purchase other carrier plans. Thus the garden is expanded and customers are even happier.
Something like this is what I would have thought Apple would do if they were really going down that path. Buy capacity from every (as many as possible) cell companies in the world and make a worldwide MVNO. And one that works everywhere in the US with capacity from all the major carriers, and with Apple SIM type capability able to jump between them all to the one that was best at the moment, in any country. That would be a valuable service from the customer experience standpoint.
And who's going to let them do this for $50? Apple doesn't get into money losing ventures. This talk reminds me a bit of the car talk. Apple's not doing a car, they'll just do the brains and UI for other cars dashboards blah blah blah...when we've seen ZERO evidence any car company is willing to give up their dashboard to Apple and Apple has ZERO history of successfully being a piece of software or other technology in someone else's product.
I don't normally cite Wikipedia, except when it is too obvious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Mobile
Did you even notice that I specifically called it "Virgin Mobile USA"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Mobile_USA
Next up: trying to prove me wrong by pointing to Boost Mobile Australia.
Apple don't make money directly from very much of their software, but their software enhances their ecosystem, so is worth it.
Apple likely doesn't make any money from iCloud, as most accounts will be on the free tier, but it enhances their ecosystem.
An Apple MVNO may not make much, or any money, but if it gives any Apple mobile device anywhere in the world the best mobile data signal available then that's a massive enhancement to the Apple ecosystem.
It's the complete ecosystem that sells the hardware, the software, the cloud services and the customer service as a complete package.
They were aiming for 50% market share in mobile advertising. How's that not serious?
BTW, did you notice the other day that Google set up a subsidiary, Google Auto LLC? Could be for liability reasons or for some bigger project, perhaps building/partnering on an actual car of some sort. AFAIK they haven't discussed it.
Surely they'd want to insulate themselves from potential class-action lawsuits stemming from their automated car software. Damages could be in the billions if some major software failure causes hundreds or thousands to be harmed.
Cite?
Here's what it says: "Founded in 2001 as a joint venture between Virgin Group, Singapore Telecommunications Limited and Sprint Corporation, Virgin Mobile USA commenced operations in June, 2002 as a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO)...."
Go back and take a look at what I originally posted. (The fact that it got fully bought out by Sprint later actually supports my larger point about how and why MVNO model is perhaps for loser companies, not serious companies like Apple. But if you'd like to focus on the trivial point that it was later bought out by Sprint, go right ahead!).
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/110230/apple-iad-plans-to-eat-up-half-the-mobile-ad-market
Allow me to translate: Apple is looking into being a MVNO.
Good link, thanks.
However, note that it says, "Rather than focusing on ad revenues, Apple plans to use iAd as a program to incentivize App Store development."
Really interesting strategy, very Apple-like (and Google-unlike) to want to give developers the revenue -- rather than take it themselves -- with a view to enhance the ecosystem, rather than make money selling ads.
The initial split was 60/40 but they switched to 70/30 in 2012, so apologies if I don't buy that they weren't focusing on ad revenue.
They surely may have changed it later, as you say, but that does not seem to have been the articulated strategy when they introduced it in 2010, according to your own cite. It is also plausible that Apple wanted it to be similar to their 70/30 iTunes split, so as to not raise the hackles of regulators, and more importantly, of folks who might have started to demand a similar split for their content sold through iTunes.
that isn't why - the income they make from iAds is small. Apple has said they wanted to give devs a way to earn money while promoting ads that are more considerate to users than google's.
nope. Apple has clearly stated their reasons for bundling native vector maps, and it wasn't because Google was in that sector. it was because they couldn't get what they desired in that sector using google's offering.