I'd much rather give my cell dollars to Apple than Cingular, Moto, and the like. The iPod interface is simple, speedy, and extensible, and I far prefer it to the clunky, slow interface on my Motorola phone. There's a few things Apple would need to work out but I'm confident they'd do a good job, and versions 2, 3, and 4 will only be better.
I don't see replacing my phone for another year or so, but by then hopefully Apple kit will be out.
Yes, I would like that too, and I have no doubt that Apple could build a very nice phone with a very nice interface with some really sweet integration, but how do you see Apple overcoming the barriers to entry in this market?
Cant believe all this rediculous hype about an iPhone or whatever you want to call it. Nothing more than speculation and rumors.
They don't call it a rumor mill for nothing.
On topic, I wonder how an iPhone would affect the iPod (an apple product which actually exists). There have been discussions on this board about how smart phones and the like threaten the iPod's dominance as a music player, though I don't think they are particularly valid. What's different here is the apple design being thrown into both contenders. There's a good chance they'd share quality and interface elements, and be similar in a number of other ways (click wheel perhaps).
If Apple nails the market with this phone (which I assume would require multimedia functionality), then where's the iPod brand going to go? This is especially problematic for the nano which probably has about the same song capacity as a potential iPhone. With a music (very) capable iPhone, why bother with a Nano?
It just seems like Apple would have to pit its product lines up against each other to enter the phone market. I imagine that in the long run this would hurt both.
This seems to me a bit of irresponsible speculation on the effects of what seems to be a chronically erroneous bit of speculation; which is not to say that Apple won't introduce a phone, but it's been predicted many times in the past and many times the prediction has not born fruit.
What I would love to see, however, is Apple releasing a non-subsidized carrier independent GSM phone. So for $400 or so you get an Apple phone based one the capability level of say an iPod Nano plus some basic smart phone capability, integrated well into Apple's iApps. I'm a bit skeptical about that solution, however, since the majority of the market will be using MS Outlook/etc. and Apple will need to come up with either a PC sync solution (not their druthers I'd imagine) or PC equivalents of their iApps (also difficult since it'll require migration on the part of PC users; which means it'll need to be much more enticing than Outlook, and integrate as well or better with the rest of the MS suite/OS).
The one thing Apple would have going or it in this scenario would be the promise of untied handsets; and thus the feeling of freedom to let Cingular and T-Mobile compete unfettered by contract/handset tie-in, and it also means no crippled handset functionality. Getting to far into bed with one particular carrier is a dangerous proposition for Apple and their brand identity, since it can really only serve to fracture their market and inevitably decrease the value of their brand, potentially by a great deal. People that don't like their cell carrier tend to really hate their cell carrier, and those that like their carrier tend to suffer their existence, more than actually like them.
Dunno, I doubt it, if only because I don't think anyone has made enough of a business of leasing carrier space to cut into the lessees action.
Quote:
Wouldn't there be contract terms that would prevent this?
Probably, but I doubt contracts are being written with any kind of serious, as in "interfere with the lessees ability to provide services", amount of use in mind. It's just common sense that if Apple made a killer phone and sold enough of them to actually pose a threat to Motorola, that that would represent sufficient bandwidth to be a problem for whoever they might be leasing from, not to mention actual competition.
Quote:
Either way, the carrier is making money, either directly or indirectly.
Sure, but making money by leasing space to a boutique operator with a tiny user base is one thing, leasing space to a competitor who is cutting into your lucrative cash cow of for-pay downloads and data services is another. I don't think it's possible to overestimate how seriously the cell companies take the idea that they are the rightful gatekeepers of "content on demand everywhere always". It bodes to be a vastly more lucrative business than simple voice services, and if it looks like Apple is getting a toehold on that synergy, like they've taken charge of digital music downloads, there isn't a cell carrier in existence that wouldn't cut them off at the knees at their first opportunity.
The irony is that this all applies only if Apple offers a cell phone which is hugely successful, like iPod successful. If they have a little niche cell phone business like Virgin Mobile, no worries, but why bother?
The way things are set up now, if Apple makes a popular cell phone they loose, because it triggers a reaction from the big guys, and if they offer a non-popular cell phone they loose because it's, you know, non-popular.
For all the people rhapsodizing about how cool a cell Apple could make, I don't doubt it, but I still haven't seen a persuasive explanation of how they get such an item hooked into nation-wide coverage on their own, or carried by the big service providers if not.
The one thing Apple would have going or it in this scenario would be the promise of untied handsets; and thus the feeling of freedom to let Cingular and T-Mobile compete unfettered by contract/handset tie-in, and it also means no crippled handset functionality. Getting to far into bed with one particular carrier is a dangerous proposition for Apple and their brand identity, since it can really only serve to fracture their market and inevitably decrease the value of their brand, potentially by a great deal. People that don't like their cell carrier tend to really hate their cell carrier, and those that like their carrier tend to suffer their existence, more than actually like them.
This is interesting to me, but I'm not sure how it works. Can I walk into Verizon and say "sign me up, but I'll be using my own phone, thanks?" And what if "my own phone" offers functionality that takes money out of Verizon's pocket, such as easy transfer of ringtones and wall paper from a Mac (instead of having to purchase those things from Verizon, which is what they want you to do)? Will Verizon actually support such a handset?
There are laws supporting this; in fact if you go to Cingular of T-Mobile and request your phone be unlocked I believe they must do it. However, it only really works for GSM phones reliably since that is the only setup that specifies a phone must use a SIM card. Nextel's service did as well, but they use iDen for transmission and as far as I know are the only ones who do, so it doesn't do you any good. Verizon, likewise, uses CDMA which does not require the use of SIM cards, and as such Verizon has its customers by the balls (as does Sprint and any other CDMA/TDMA provider).
Currently the two major US providers on GSM are Cingular and T-Mobile?which is admittedly a choice between Cingular's larger, more advanced network (much better coverage than T-Mobile if you use a quad-band phone) and T-Mobile's less covered network but much better pricing structure. Cingular seems to be very fond of the nickel and dime scheme of little fees everywhere for everything.
An added bonus of an unlocked GSM phone is if you ever go on vacation somewhere you can buy a local service SIM card and some minutes for relatively cheap, and I've found nearly invariably that foreign cell service is absurdly cheaper than it is in the US (we truly are getting the shaft on this one).
And yes, I switched to Cingular from T-Mobile using my unlocked RAZR and I basically said "Hey, I'd like a SIM I've got my own phone thanks." I also put my own wallpapers on my phone over bluetooth?I could do the same with ring tones but I leave my phone on vibrate.
People that don't like their cell carrier tend to really hate their cell carrier, and those that like their carrier tend to suffer their existence, more than actually like them.
This may explain the attraction that Apple has to the wireless carriers. How can they inject appeal to their products? How can they get people to switch carriers? An iPhone that is different may be what carriers need to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Yes Apple has some risk in partnering with a wireless carrier, but potentially could leverage new users to the mac platform a la iPod if done correctly. IMO Apple needs a new peripheral product that integrates with the Mac like the iPod. This can attract new users to the mac platform.
Everyone please STOP making a connection to old school "CELL" companies, Apple just won't go in that direction. CELLS are dead for all practical purposes. It's a dying industry, Apple just hasn't played their cards to finally kill it... "yet"...
Some real food for thought:
IP is where EVERYTHING is going, Apple has the highest percentage of wireless enabled users in the World, thus a Wireless IP Phone similar to what Netgear is about to announce is where this is all heading. NOT CELL PHONES! The below link is similar to what Apple is working on, you can bank on it...
Apple owns all of the Class A Address Space of "17", so they could easily run a huge IP Phone System just from that asset alone. (or just the iChat/AOL naming conventions)
All Apple has to do is announce an Apple IP Phone ($299) that works seamlessly with/or without an Apple Basestation $99 and game is over. This will cause a massive implosion in Cells phones, since "unlimited world wide talk time" will suddenly be "FREE". At the very same time it will cause a massive explosion of Apple IP Phones and basestations since there will be a mad rush to blanket the planet with these "FREE" zones, to use these "FREE" talk time Apple IP Phones.
Throw in Intel's WiMax (802.16)... And it's a done deal.
Do it Apple, you MUST make Skype, the next "Rio"...
Lastly, Apple "pre roots", were based on "Free" phone calls, so perhaps on April 1st, Apple can make this all come full circle
Until you realize that your IP phone now doesn't work in 90% of the places you really want to use it. At best IP telephony is ready for handing off to IP networks when available, and falling back on traditional cell when you are outside of that range.
We are probably seeing a decade long dying breath of cell carriers as they once were, and their resignation to a Power Company like utility commodity, but they are going to fight tooth and nail on the way there. All of the infrastructure folks will, as modularization makes them commodities (more so than they already are).
Everyone please STOP making a connection to old school "CELL" companies, Apple just won't go in that direction. CELLS are dead for all practical purposes. It's a dying industry, Apple just hasn't played their cards to finally kill it... "yet"...
That is a joke of a claim. There are estimates of two billion cell phones in use. That would be a huge and expensive installed base infrastructure to simply obsolete, it's not likely to happen. Installed base is more significant than questions about whether something is obsolete, it is an incredible momentum to fight against.
Quote:
Some real food for thought:
IP is where EVERYTHING is going, Apple has the highest percentage of wireless enabled users in the World, thus a Wireless IP Phone similar to what Netgear is about to announce is where this is all heading. NOT CELL PHONES! The below link is similar to what Apple is working on, you can bank on it...
IP, maybe, but it won't be IPv4. It would be impossible to put all current cell phone users on the current IPv4 system.
Apple owns all of the Class A Address Space of "17", so they could easily run a huge IP Phone System just from that asset alone. (or just the iChat/AOL naming conventions)
Throw in Intel's WiMax (802.16)... And it's a done deal.
Apple doesn't have enough IP addresses to do what you propose. A class 'A' is "only" 16 million IP addresses, there are about 3x more iPods than that, Apple sold 14M in '05Q4. Then there's the issue of routing, especially if you connect to a non-Apple subnet. I'm not sure an IP-based system can handle mobile use where one would switch subnets many times a day. My understanding is that cell phones with IP capabilities more or less tunnel over the cellular data network.
I'm not sure if WiMax has been proven yet, particularly for mobile use. Even if it is, a WiMax carrier would just be a repainted cellular carrier because they probably would have to put up just as many towers or attach to existing cellular towers, basically becomming yet another cellular network.
That is a joke of a claim. There are estimates of two billion cell phones in use. That would be a huge and expensive installed base infrastructure to simply obsolete, it's not likely to happen. Installed base is more significant than questions about whether something is obsolete, it is an incredible momentum to fight against.
There are not 2 billion cell phones in "use", far less than a billion. You mean 2 billion have been made since the 60's. It's hard to compete against "free". CELL companies will die because of this, just watch. I fully understand they won't disappear overnight, but Apple could inherit the "wealth" of most all cell companies if they do it.
Okay about the IP / Class A, the current iChat/AOL screen name method will be fine.
As appealing as this fantasy scenario is to me (and obviously to others) I think I'd be very suprised by Apple getting into wireless service at this point. The phone maybe... but they had better buy T-Mobile or something if they really want to make a mark at this point. The industry is very mature now and fragmented among all the minor players.
So, really, does anybody have any plausible ideas about how Apple would get into the cell phone business?
Sure, they could make a standard issue handset with a better interface and leave it at that, but is that what we're looking for?
Because there are really good reasons, that I and a number of others have laid out, for why anything more than that really wouldn't work, short of Apple deploying its own nationwide network of cell towers and switching infrastructure.
So the debate keeps going back and forth between "cogent reasons why Apple would face enormous obstacles breaking into the cell market" and "man, an Apple cell phone would be so awsome, I want an Apple cell phone". Which isn't really a debate.
So, again: anybody got a scenario that lets Apple make a cell phone that does something more than organize the usual cell phone functions in a better way (which is fine, so far as it goes) which you can actually use (as in, make and receive calls everywhere your current cell phone can)?
The only one I can see is for Apple to become an MVNO, which right there puts a limit on how successful such a product can really be.
So, really, does anybody have any plausible ideas about how Apple would get into the cell phone business?
Sure, they could make a standard issue handset with a better interface and leave it at that, but is that what we're looking for?
Because there are really good reasons, that I and a number of others have laid out, for why anything more than that really wouldn't work, short of Apple deploying its own nationwide network of cell towers and switching infrastructure.
So the debate keeps going back and forth between "cogent reasons why Apple would face enormous obstacles breaking into the cell market" and "man, an Apple cell phone would be so awsome, I want an Apple cell phone". Which isn't really a debate.
So, again: anybody got a scenario that lets Apple make a cell phone that does something more than organize the usual cell phone functions in a better way (which is fine, so far as it goes) which you can actually use (as in, make and receive calls everywhere your current cell phone can)?
The only one I can see is for Apple to become an MVNO, which right there puts a limit on how successful such a product can really be.
Historically Apple users have paid more for Apple products. Why wouldn't they pay more for an iPhone, provided it is actually different and better than what's out there? I hate my current cell phone, I certainly would look at an iPhone. I'm not advocating that they become a carrier, just that they make the phone for other carriers.
IMO, the cell phone industry is a mature business with nothing but 'me to' products. Eventually somebody will take some risk and try to offer something different in order to differntiate themselves from their competitors. Who knows, maybe the time is now. My 2 cents.
Comments
Originally posted by Xool
I'd much rather give my cell dollars to Apple than Cingular, Moto, and the like. The iPod interface is simple, speedy, and extensible, and I far prefer it to the clunky, slow interface on my Motorola phone. There's a few things Apple would need to work out but I'm confident they'd do a good job, and versions 2, 3, and 4 will only be better.
I don't see replacing my phone for another year or so, but by then hopefully Apple kit will be out.
Yes, I would like that too, and I have no doubt that Apple could build a very nice phone with a very nice interface with some really sweet integration, but how do you see Apple overcoming the barriers to entry in this market?
Originally posted by addabox
The trouble with being an MVNO is that if you're actually successful, the carrier whose business you're cutting into takes your coverage away.
Has this happened? Wouldn't there be contract terms that would prevent this?
Either way, the carrier is making money, either directly or indirectly.
Originally posted by rinnin
Cant believe all this rediculous hype about an iPhone or whatever you want to call it. Nothing more than speculation and rumors.
They don't call it a rumor mill for nothing.
On topic, I wonder how an iPhone would affect the iPod (an apple product which actually exists). There have been discussions on this board about how smart phones and the like threaten the iPod's dominance as a music player, though I don't think they are particularly valid. What's different here is the apple design being thrown into both contenders. There's a good chance they'd share quality and interface elements, and be similar in a number of other ways (click wheel perhaps).
If Apple nails the market with this phone (which I assume would require multimedia functionality), then where's the iPod brand going to go? This is especially problematic for the nano which probably has about the same song capacity as a potential iPhone. With a music (very) capable iPhone, why bother with a Nano?
It just seems like Apple would have to pit its product lines up against each other to enter the phone market. I imagine that in the long run this would hurt both.
What I would love to see, however, is Apple releasing a non-subsidized carrier independent GSM phone. So for $400 or so you get an Apple phone based one the capability level of say an iPod Nano plus some basic smart phone capability, integrated well into Apple's iApps. I'm a bit skeptical about that solution, however, since the majority of the market will be using MS Outlook/etc. and Apple will need to come up with either a PC sync solution (not their druthers I'd imagine) or PC equivalents of their iApps (also difficult since it'll require migration on the part of PC users; which means it'll need to be much more enticing than Outlook, and integrate as well or better with the rest of the MS suite/OS).
The one thing Apple would have going or it in this scenario would be the promise of untied handsets; and thus the feeling of freedom to let Cingular and T-Mobile compete unfettered by contract/handset tie-in, and it also means no crippled handset functionality. Getting to far into bed with one particular carrier is a dangerous proposition for Apple and their brand identity, since it can really only serve to fracture their market and inevitably decrease the value of their brand, potentially by a great deal. People that don't like their cell carrier tend to really hate their cell carrier, and those that like their carrier tend to suffer their existence, more than actually like them.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Has this happened?
Dunno, I doubt it, if only because I don't think anyone has made enough of a business of leasing carrier space to cut into the lessees action.
Wouldn't there be contract terms that would prevent this?
Probably, but I doubt contracts are being written with any kind of serious, as in "interfere with the lessees ability to provide services", amount of use in mind. It's just common sense that if Apple made a killer phone and sold enough of them to actually pose a threat to Motorola, that that would represent sufficient bandwidth to be a problem for whoever they might be leasing from, not to mention actual competition.
Either way, the carrier is making money, either directly or indirectly.
Sure, but making money by leasing space to a boutique operator with a tiny user base is one thing, leasing space to a competitor who is cutting into your lucrative cash cow of for-pay downloads and data services is another. I don't think it's possible to overestimate how seriously the cell companies take the idea that they are the rightful gatekeepers of "content on demand everywhere always". It bodes to be a vastly more lucrative business than simple voice services, and if it looks like Apple is getting a toehold on that synergy, like they've taken charge of digital music downloads, there isn't a cell carrier in existence that wouldn't cut them off at the knees at their first opportunity.
The irony is that this all applies only if Apple offers a cell phone which is hugely successful, like iPod successful. If they have a little niche cell phone business like Virgin Mobile, no worries, but why bother?
The way things are set up now, if Apple makes a popular cell phone they loose, because it triggers a reaction from the big guys, and if they offer a non-popular cell phone they loose because it's, you know, non-popular.
For all the people rhapsodizing about how cool a cell Apple could make, I don't doubt it, but I still haven't seen a persuasive explanation of how they get such an item hooked into nation-wide coverage on their own, or carried by the big service providers if not.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
.....
The one thing Apple would have going or it in this scenario would be the promise of untied handsets; and thus the feeling of freedom to let Cingular and T-Mobile compete unfettered by contract/handset tie-in, and it also means no crippled handset functionality. Getting to far into bed with one particular carrier is a dangerous proposition for Apple and their brand identity, since it can really only serve to fracture their market and inevitably decrease the value of their brand, potentially by a great deal. People that don't like their cell carrier tend to really hate their cell carrier, and those that like their carrier tend to suffer their existence, more than actually like them.
This is interesting to me, but I'm not sure how it works. Can I walk into Verizon and say "sign me up, but I'll be using my own phone, thanks?" And what if "my own phone" offers functionality that takes money out of Verizon's pocket, such as easy transfer of ringtones and wall paper from a Mac (instead of having to purchase those things from Verizon, which is what they want you to do)? Will Verizon actually support such a handset?
Are there laws regarding this?
Currently the two major US providers on GSM are Cingular and T-Mobile?which is admittedly a choice between Cingular's larger, more advanced network (much better coverage than T-Mobile if you use a quad-band phone) and T-Mobile's less covered network but much better pricing structure. Cingular seems to be very fond of the nickel and dime scheme of little fees everywhere for everything.
An added bonus of an unlocked GSM phone is if you ever go on vacation somewhere you can buy a local service SIM card and some minutes for relatively cheap, and I've found nearly invariably that foreign cell service is absurdly cheaper than it is in the US (we truly are getting the shaft on this one).
And yes, I switched to Cingular from T-Mobile using my unlocked RAZR and I basically said "Hey, I'd like a SIM I've got my own phone thanks." I also put my own wallpapers on my phone over bluetooth?I could do the same with ring tones but I leave my phone on vibrate.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
People that don't like their cell carrier tend to really hate their cell carrier, and those that like their carrier tend to suffer their existence, more than actually like them.
This may explain the attraction that Apple has to the wireless carriers. How can they inject appeal to their products? How can they get people to switch carriers? An iPhone that is different may be what carriers need to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Yes Apple has some risk in partnering with a wireless carrier, but potentially could leverage new users to the mac platform a la iPod if done correctly. IMO Apple needs a new peripheral product that integrates with the Mac like the iPod. This can attract new users to the mac platform.
Some real food for thought:
IP is where EVERYTHING is going, Apple has the highest percentage of wireless enabled users in the World, thus a Wireless IP Phone similar to what Netgear is about to announce is where this is all heading. NOT CELL PHONES! The below link is similar to what Apple is working on, you can bank on it...
http://tools.netgear.com/skype/
Apple owns all of the Class A Address Space of "17", so they could easily run a huge IP Phone System just from that asset alone. (or just the iChat/AOL naming conventions)
All Apple has to do is announce an Apple IP Phone ($299) that works seamlessly with/or without an Apple Basestation $99 and game is over. This will cause a massive implosion in Cells phones, since "unlimited world wide talk time" will suddenly be "FREE". At the very same time it will cause a massive explosion of Apple IP Phones and basestations since there will be a mad rush to blanket the planet with these "FREE" zones, to use these "FREE" talk time Apple IP Phones.
Throw in Intel's WiMax (802.16)... And it's a done deal.
Do it Apple, you MUST make Skype, the next "Rio"...
Lastly, Apple "pre roots", were based on "Free" phone calls, so perhaps on April 1st, Apple can make this all come full circle
We are probably seeing a decade long dying breath of cell carriers as they once were, and their resignation to a Power Company like utility commodity, but they are going to fight tooth and nail on the way there. All of the infrastructure folks will, as modularization makes them commodities (more so than they already are).
Originally posted by OS11
Everyone please STOP making a connection to old school "CELL" companies, Apple just won't go in that direction. CELLS are dead for all practical purposes. It's a dying industry, Apple just hasn't played their cards to finally kill it... "yet"...
That is a joke of a claim. There are estimates of two billion cell phones in use. That would be a huge and expensive installed base infrastructure to simply obsolete, it's not likely to happen. Installed base is more significant than questions about whether something is obsolete, it is an incredible momentum to fight against.
Quote:
Some real food for thought:
IP is where EVERYTHING is going, Apple has the highest percentage of wireless enabled users in the World, thus a Wireless IP Phone similar to what Netgear is about to announce is where this is all heading. NOT CELL PHONES! The below link is similar to what Apple is working on, you can bank on it...
IP, maybe, but it won't be IPv4. It would be impossible to put all current cell phone users on the current IPv4 system.
Quote:
http://tools.netgear.com/skype/
Apple owns all of the Class A Address Space of "17", so they could easily run a huge IP Phone System just from that asset alone. (or just the iChat/AOL naming conventions)
Throw in Intel's WiMax (802.16)... And it's a done deal.
Apple doesn't have enough IP addresses to do what you propose. A class 'A' is "only" 16 million IP addresses, there are about 3x more iPods than that, Apple sold 14M in '05Q4. Then there's the issue of routing, especially if you connect to a non-Apple subnet. I'm not sure an IP-based system can handle mobile use where one would switch subnets many times a day. My understanding is that cell phones with IP capabilities more or less tunnel over the cellular data network.
I'm not sure if WiMax has been proven yet, particularly for mobile use. Even if it is, a WiMax carrier would just be a repainted cellular carrier because they probably would have to put up just as many towers or attach to existing cellular towers, basically becomming yet another cellular network.
Originally posted by JeffDM
That is a joke of a claim. There are estimates of two billion cell phones in use. That would be a huge and expensive installed base infrastructure to simply obsolete, it's not likely to happen. Installed base is more significant than questions about whether something is obsolete, it is an incredible momentum to fight against.
There are not 2 billion cell phones in "use", far less than a billion. You mean 2 billion have been made since the 60's. It's hard to compete against "free". CELL companies will die because of this, just watch. I fully understand they won't disappear overnight, but Apple could inherit the "wealth" of most all cell companies if they do it.
Okay about the IP / Class A, the current iChat/AOL screen name method will be fine.
Originally posted by thumbelina
i dont care what everybody will say but im really excited for this iPhone!!!!!
What iPhone? There is none! Where's the proof or even rumors from "very reliable sources?" Nowhere. Get a grip people. God
You have a camera phone... They have a camera phone.
You have nation wide roaming plan... They have nation wide roaming plan.
You have an add agency... They have an add agency.
You have an Apple iPhone... They have a new add agency.
Sure, they could make a standard issue handset with a better interface and leave it at that, but is that what we're looking for?
Because there are really good reasons, that I and a number of others have laid out, for why anything more than that really wouldn't work, short of Apple deploying its own nationwide network of cell towers and switching infrastructure.
So the debate keeps going back and forth between "cogent reasons why Apple would face enormous obstacles breaking into the cell market" and "man, an Apple cell phone would be so awsome, I want an Apple cell phone". Which isn't really a debate.
So, again: anybody got a scenario that lets Apple make a cell phone that does something more than organize the usual cell phone functions in a better way (which is fine, so far as it goes) which you can actually use (as in, make and receive calls everywhere your current cell phone can)?
The only one I can see is for Apple to become an MVNO, which right there puts a limit on how successful such a product can really be.
Originally posted by addabox
So, really, does anybody have any plausible ideas about how Apple would get into the cell phone business?
Sure, they could make a standard issue handset with a better interface and leave it at that, but is that what we're looking for?
Because there are really good reasons, that I and a number of others have laid out, for why anything more than that really wouldn't work, short of Apple deploying its own nationwide network of cell towers and switching infrastructure.
So the debate keeps going back and forth between "cogent reasons why Apple would face enormous obstacles breaking into the cell market" and "man, an Apple cell phone would be so awsome, I want an Apple cell phone". Which isn't really a debate.
So, again: anybody got a scenario that lets Apple make a cell phone that does something more than organize the usual cell phone functions in a better way (which is fine, so far as it goes) which you can actually use (as in, make and receive calls everywhere your current cell phone can)?
The only one I can see is for Apple to become an MVNO, which right there puts a limit on how successful such a product can really be.
Historically Apple users have paid more for Apple products. Why wouldn't they pay more for an iPhone, provided it is actually different and better than what's out there? I hate my current cell phone, I certainly would look at an iPhone. I'm not advocating that they become a carrier, just that they make the phone for other carriers.
IMO, the cell phone industry is a mature business with nothing but 'me to' products. Eventually somebody will take some risk and try to offer something different in order to differntiate themselves from their competitors. Who knows, maybe the time is now. My 2 cents.