Bulls**t Alert

Posted by: krusher117

Bulls**t Alert - 12/29/04 04:41 AM

Ok judge for yourself, but I think this is rumor-mongering at its worst.
::this comes from macrumors.com

According to Spanish site CanalPDA.com (translated) in an interview with Apple's VP of Mobile Platforms and Services business unit Albert Slope, Apple is lining up their ducks to be a new mobile carrier.

"creating our own mobile carrier is the next logical step in our strategy of providing the Apple experience to the users of our products. We believe that existing carriers are not offering the flexibility nor the performance consumers deserve, so we have decided to move forward, providing cellphone users a full, personal communications and information environment, with the user-friendliness that has become synonymous with Apple's products and services"

"On the other hand", says Slope, "the sucess achieved by the iTunes Music Store has shown us the way to go: by selling songs to consumers at $0.99 apiece, we have accumulated a valuable expertise that will be most useful for billing them talking minutes".

According to the article, Apple's new mobile carrier will start operating as a MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator), using existing infrastructure to build a new brand.
Posted by: whitlock

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/29/04 06:31 AM

I think that anyone that high up in Apple would trigger a Google result.
Posted by: TutAnGeek

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/29/04 07:47 AM

Uhh, for starters, Apple has never been a service based company...
Posted by: zenstate

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/29/04 10:33 AM

TutAnGeek wrote:
Uhh, for starters, Apple has never been a service based company...

.mac is a service..
Posted by: whitlock

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/29/04 12:12 PM

They also founded Applelink, which we now know as AOL. With a company they started becoming that big, you would think that they are capable of making another big company, such as a cell phone provider. I do think, though, that if they created another company or division like that, they would keep it forever.

Why I edited :: Spelling error.

Post edited by: whitlock, at: 2004/12/29 12:22
Posted by: TutAnGeek

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/29/04 11:21 PM

<[censored] more capital to get off the ground than .Mac, and Applelink (Applelink was never national, was it?). .Mac meant some new code and say, 100 new servers at a cost of $1,500 each to them. A national cell phone provider would require an imense, diversified infrastructure across the US. Simply the land rights for each tower may cost $1,500, not to mention the cost of the equipment itself, and then the infrastucture to connect them all. And you're looking at thousands of towers to get a truly "cellphone users a full, personal communications and information environment."

The author addresses this, saying that they will start off using another network as its backbone. That's got to be a lot of money if they will completely subsidize the roaming costs to make their product fiscally competitive.
Posted by: whitlock

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/30/04 12:13 AM

Apple does not have enough capital to start being it's own company so it has to operate as a CLEC. Virgin operates through other networks and also I heard Time Warner Cable was going to do a deal with Sprint (Rumor) in the Kansas City area to provide cell phone services.

Everyone wants a piece of the piece of the pie. And also, on December 28th, it's a Spanish tradition to post fake news. I'd take that into mind as well.
Posted by: krusher117

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/30/04 12:19 AM

Apple creates services that promote the use of their products. .Mac sells macs, the iTunes music store sells iPod.

.Mac and iTMS were created to fill a void because nothing like them existed before. Cellular networks already exist and work well (actually they are light years behind but that's another discussion). Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, Panasonic, LG, etc etc don't own networks, and Tmobile Cingular Verizon, etc etc don't make handsets. If rumors of the Apple iPhone are correct it wouldn't make any sense to create a national network around it just to get people to buy it.

However, creating a new wireless service based on existing towers is EXTREMELY easy if you are willing to make the financial concessions. Virgin Wireless simply rebrands and sells Sprint service. Boost Wireless was an entirely new brand created to target teens that ran on the Nextel network. I'm sure there are more examples, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. All this, and I still say that doing it would be stupid given the cosolidation happening across the industry at this time
Cingular+ATT & Nextel+Sprint & behemoth Verizon
Posted by: krusher117

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/30/04 12:24 AM

Oh and for those of you on Sextel (Sprint Nextel) or Verizon, all signs point to incompatibility with the iPhone. GSM will, more likey than not, be the wireless standard that Apple will use for the iPhone. That means it will be compatible with Tmobile and Cingular ATT in the states, and almost every single wireless network around the world. I just hope that Apple doesn't allow someone with lots of money (Cingular) to buy exclusive rights to the phone like moto did with the RAZR. I'm a Tmo customer and wasn't all too happy about that mad .
Posted by: whitlock

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/30/04 12:55 AM

I prefer CDMA as opposed to GSM. Even though I work for a providor that uses GSM, I still prefer CDMA. It *just works, have clear signal, and don't worry about dropping calls. Works great with my Treo as well.

*Why I edited: 'jsut' is not a word, but 'just' is

Post edited by: whitlock, at: 2004/12/30 01:01
Posted by: oojacoboo

Re:Bulls**t Alert - 12/30/04 03:00 AM

You are right, it would not be GSM or TDMA or CDMA. All of these technologies are way out of date. The new est possibility would be 3G which is used by verizon in a couple areas of California and Florida as well as New York I believe. 3G allows transfer rates of up to 50 Kbps. This would be just fast enough for a multimedia network. The 3G network is already present in the Asia Pacific and most all of the phones on the network boast video conferencing. This is soon to be the newest standard here in the states. However, at the rate the US moves with technology, don't expect to see it for about 2 -3 years!

While I agree with everyone on all the comments, I would be interesting to see what Apple could do in the industry. It would not take as much capital as everyone seems to think. Running the network off of existing towers and paying a usage rights, a venture such as this could be quite possible.

The one problem that I see with this is the fact that the US is not ready. Americans don't care for the newsest technology like other countries and something such as this would be premature and a complete flop. I think that Apple knows this as well. Didn't they learn their lesson with the Newton? This is def a rumor!