Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Should Apple build its own 4G network to complement existing carrier networks
- Thread starter DaveSW
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
it's ok. They're all like that in Australia.
Thank goodness I'm not Australian.
Where I come from, sense is included with the passport.
Nothing is stopping him from sending his own robot back in time and stopping my robot from killing him pre-birth.
and you have nothing to support YOUR statements either.
I gave you some numbers that supports my statement, and they are no where near $50B.
you have provided NOTHING.
True, the number was not even close to $50B, but it didn't support your statement either. Building infrastructure in one country does not equal building infrastructure in another country. Population density, geographic terrain, and area all contribute into how the infrastructure needs to be built.
Have you noticed how wireless prices are dropping significantly? What is Apple's ROI on this task, even if it only cost $8-10B? Then if they concentrate on this ridiculous idea, they don't have the expertise in it, so they would need to hire or contract out the work. That's additional cost that most carriers won't realize. Even still, Apple has enough issues with keeping up the pace with respect to performance, and introducing a plan to build a wireless infrastructure can only lead to more delays. You might want to check out how companies typically have a core offering. With Apple, it's hardware and software, not telecommunication infrastructure.
Seriously, the several threads you started about "Apple should ... " are not well thought out and are nothing more than ramblings at best. You admitted yourself that you're just bored and creating threads just to be creating threads.
China has access to cheap labor and I'm sure the Gov't there can clear any issues with regards to monopoly clauses with each town (would they have those in China?), pole rights and licensing, digging permits, union labor, etc.
Apple was prepared to buy blocks of coverage when they released the original iPhone if they couldn't get a carrier to sign on. Smaller carriers do this without actually owning the wires. AT&T is really bending over backwards for Apple, so I don't see them messing with that just yet.
I'm sure Apple wants to leverage industry pricing down (a good start with the iPad), but I don't see that happening until 4G rollout is pretty well established.
Note where I said "essentially". Building your own infrasture at a huge cost to support a small population si not a wise idea - you would loose money in that.
The numbers you gave are bogus. You simply cannot compare the costs of upgrading an existing network from 2G to 3G in one country to the cost of building a brand spankin' new network from the ground up in another country. The cost to upgrade to 3G in China, Germany, Australia, or even the US for that matter, are completely meaningless to this discussion.
This thread epitomizes macrumors. Narrow minded folks who are infatuated with Apple.
In any case, I'm in the camp that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with what the OP suggests. Apple clearly aspires to "move the world forward" and not just sit around producing computers like dell/hp/gateway/et al. Nonetheless, the economics behind doing it probably aren't sound.
Look at Google, they are pushing into markets that no one ever envisioned. Why can't Apple do the same?
I guess, technically, the teleco business has an enormous barrier to entry. However, when you potentially do have enough money to breach that barrier, you get to ask questions just like the OP did.
In any case, I'm in the camp that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with what the OP suggests. Apple clearly aspires to "move the world forward" and not just sit around producing computers like dell/hp/gateway/et al. Nonetheless, the economics behind doing it probably aren't sound.
Look at Google, they are pushing into markets that no one ever envisioned. Why can't Apple do the same?
I guess, technically, the teleco business has an enormous barrier to entry. However, when you potentially do have enough money to breach that barrier, you get to ask questions just like the OP did.
This thread epitomizes macrumors. Narrow minded folks who are infatuated with Apple.
In any case, I'm in the camp that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with what the OP suggests. Apple clearly aspires to "move the world forward" and not just sit around producing computers like dell/hp/gateway/et al. Nonetheless, the economics behind doing it probably aren't sound.
Look at Google, they are pushing into markets that no one ever envisioned. Why can't Apple do the same?
I guess, technically, the teleco business has an enormous barrier to entry. However, when you potentially do have enough money to breach that barrier, you get to ask questions just like the OP did.
exactly.
Also, if Apple for some crazy reason, decides to build their own 3G/4G network, they're not going to do it all by themselves. they're going to partner with existing carriers and other companies to reduce cost and gain access to infrastructure, expertise, etc.
This thread epitomizes macrumors. Narrow minded folks who are infatuated with Apple.
In any case, I'm in the camp that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with what the OP suggests. Apple clearly aspires to "move the world forward" and not just sit around producing computers like dell/hp/gateway/et al. Nonetheless, the economics behind doing it probably aren't sound.
Look at Google, they are pushing into markets that no one ever envisioned. Why can't Apple do the same?
I guess, technically, the teleco business has an enormous barrier to entry. However, when you potentially do have enough money to breach that barrier, you get to ask questions just like the OP did.
This is getting a bit silly now. Apple may well have £40 billion in the bank. Realistically they probably have it tied up in assets. Whatever. The notion that they'd spend it all on an effort to increase wireless internet in one country only by a minimal amount sounds crazy. The reception is not the main reason why people don't but iPhones: it's the cost of owning one. If they wanna sell more, they could decrease the price. Spending billions to build infrastructure is silly. That money needs to be used to buy the kinda small acquisitions they have made over the years (Fingerworks etc) to add to their products - not to appease a vocal minority on a specialist website.
Very true. Apple is a company that is smart enough to not re-invent the wheel if they don't have to and to not get into markets that they don't have a reasonable expectation of success. Widely divesting your company into new business strategies where you nave no established business. Simply making a phone that is successful is in no way analogous to being a telecoms or an extension of one. If there was any relationship we would be seeing companies like Nokia or HTC doing it - they are not and for a reason. Telecom investment has huge financial barriers to entry.
The only possibility that would make even the least bit of sense is maybe paying to increase a current telecoms infrastructure. Ignoring the legal loops and political wranglings that would be involved, any benefit to Apple gets nullified when their actions would benefit competitors equally. Apple isn't going to spend money on something that is going to equally benefit competitors like that. That is just not smart.
ok maybe not a full-blown 3G/4G network.
Apple can just offer free city/nationwide wifi or 3g microcells.
http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/why/3gmicrocell/?source=ECH9k9t0000gtpvb
Apple can just offer free city/nationwide wifi or 3g microcells.
http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/why/3gmicrocell/?source=ECH9k9t0000gtpvb
Exactly - anything that Apple would do to AT&T or any other providers network that involves infrastructure would almost certainly benefit a competitor in some way - unless Apple releases new hardware to explain something unique - of course it would be limited anyway.
And you just cannot go out and do this sort of thing. You want to improve AT&T's network, you have to get AT&T to allow that. Same problems as before. The best company to improve AT&T's network is - AT&T and it is not something you can just do. It would be a waste for Apple.
And how exactly can Apple improve on this when they are not a telecom and when AT&T is? You cannot just throw money at a problem and hope it gets solved. It's not that easy. If it were, AT&T/telecoms in general would have fixed it by now. How is Apple equipped to solve this problem? What do they have that a telecom does not? Show us something that makes sense because what you are saying doesn't add up.
And you just cannot go out and do this sort of thing. You want to improve AT&T's network, you have to get AT&T to allow that. Same problems as before. The best company to improve AT&T's network is - AT&T and it is not something you can just do. It would be a waste for Apple.
And how exactly can Apple improve on this when they are not a telecom and when AT&T is? You cannot just throw money at a problem and hope it gets solved. It's not that easy. If it were, AT&T/telecoms in general would have fixed it by now. How is Apple equipped to solve this problem? What do they have that a telecom does not? Show us something that makes sense because what you are saying doesn't add up.
AT&T has fast 3g connection
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/23/atandt-tops-3g-wireless-performance-study/
I'm interested in Apple screwing the mobile networks and offering data plan so everyone can Skype or more likely iChat each other. There's big profits to be had - unlimited data usage in the UK is 30GBP a month, (50 dollars?). If VOIP was more accessible, everyone would jump ship to their VOIP iPhone and pay Apple 50 dollars a month and be done with their conventional cellular connection.
It will take a company with muscle and innovation to push us past the cellular age. The tech is there, we just don't have an initiative yet. Wouldn't surprise me at all if we have to wait 10 years + to see the back of cellular :/
It will take a company with muscle and innovation to push us past the cellular age. The tech is there, we just don't have an initiative yet. Wouldn't surprise me at all if we have to wait 10 years + to see the back of cellular :/
that's short-term thinking imo. i think Apple should do whatever it can to improve the iPhone/iPads internet connection and not rely solely on AT&T.
internet connection is way too important for Apple.
offering free nationwide or citywide wifi is not new (google's doing it, starbucks, etc. does it for a fee i think, etc.). and it's not that expensive to implement.
Guess what's on the other side of that WiFi link. Some carrier is there providing the bandwidth. So if Apple provides WiFi or 3G/4G, there has to be some connection to the Internet, and Apple is not a carrier of Internet services. They tried that once with eWorld and it failed miserably.
They are doing it on the back of another provider - Apple already gets free wi-fi from AT&T locations with the iPhone. Google's inmplementaions are not nationwide or citywide either - there are very limited and there is no evidence that it will ever stay that way either.
The OP is talking cellular. That's very different
If that's all you're basing your situation on, then you have little understanding of reality. Just because Steve says "go" doesn't mean it's going to suddenly be profitable. Check out the Lisa or the hockey puck mouse. Not very good products for their time.
Look at what Apple offers: hardware and software. Every company focuses on a core set of products. Take a look at what Jobs and Cook stated yesterday. They are looking for acquisitions, not building from the ground up:
Where do you see a telecommunications business fitting into that portfolio? What do you think will happen to the stock price if Apple announced this? I would venture to say the stakeholders would not be happy in the least as there's too much risk for too little return in profit. Take a look at other wireless providers; they are charging less and less all the time.