I don't think Apple would've had a problem handling the PR, even it it said "Apple" instead of "AT&T" next to the missing bars. Every geek would have known which network backs Apple's network and word would have spread quickly enough.
Still, not going the MVNO route was a good choice - why divert your attention and resources so much when a carrier will let you do almost everything you want.
Yeah, this article sucked. Everyone knows MVNOs never make money.
I actually think Apple dodged a bullet by using AT&T instead of Verizon. Nobody with great mobile aspirations would ever build a CDMA phone that could only be sold in one country and on one network. Having a GSM radio is precisely what makes the iPhone successful globally.
Using Sprint would have been a lot of trouble for Apple, though. They'd have had to manufacture two iPhone variations – one that works with Sprint's CDMA network, and one that used GSM for every other market in the world. Not that this is impossible, especially if the tradeoffs are right, but it's probably much easier to only have to worry about one type of cell phone chipset.
Apple may have dodged a bullet, but I'm not so sure the whole virtual network business was ever in the cards. If anything, it may have been a bargaining chip used to grease the wheels of early conversations with carriers.
Think about it. If you're a carrier, do you want to sell a bunch of high volume, low margin commodity pipe each month to one company? Or would you rather enjoy subscriber growth, reduce your churn, and sell a bunch of high margin data plans? Unless I'm missing a huge piece of the puzzle, I think carriers would rather have direct billing relationships with high value subscribers.
So that's how you chum the water, if you're Apple and you want to get away with murder, relative to normal manufacturer/carrier relations. Make it look like this is going to do down no matter what, so line up now and join the fun or watch from outside. They can do this very credibly at that point – the iPod nano was heating up and people were noticing Apple's consumer mojo.
But would Apple really want to be an MVNO? I say not in a million years. Consider: Apple has spent a lot of time explaining their position on vertical integration. They like to have complete control over everything that exists between themselves and the user experience. Whether it's Thoughts on Flash, their position on licensing their OSes, or internal antenna testing facilities on their campus, this is a resounding theme.
Being an MVNO completely runs counter to that. For all the control they gain cutting the carrier out of the customer experience, Apple doesn't even control the most essential component of the business – the wireless infrastructure. That leaves them entirely at the mercy of the carrier for the wireless phone experience they are directly selling to the user. This isn't like the manufacturing relationships they already have to build their stuff – if a manufacturer doesn't work out, the worst that happens is a batch of iDevice X doesn't reach US shores. Consumers never see the gaffe, except as buzz-worthy "omg they're out of stock" news.
The outcome they chose makes it clear who sells what, letting Apple pass the buck when they're not involved in a shitty portion of the iPhone experience.
Apple made the right move, but culturally, I don't think they'd have played it any other way.
if apple would have gone the MVNO route, the iPhone would be multiband, and have tethering. it probably could have connected to either sprints/verizon tech, or to ATT's network.
it could have been the phone with the best connection. apple could have also made deals with people to route calls through wifi, 3 years ago.
think of how much time apple has lost to ATT being slow.
7 comments
[ 9.2 ms ] story [ 92.3 ms ] threadStill, not going the MVNO route was a good choice - why divert your attention and resources so much when a carrier will let you do almost everything you want.
I actually think Apple dodged a bullet by using AT&T instead of Verizon. Nobody with great mobile aspirations would ever build a CDMA phone that could only be sold in one country and on one network. Having a GSM radio is precisely what makes the iPhone successful globally.
If they wind up making CDMA iPhones anyway...
Think about it. If you're a carrier, do you want to sell a bunch of high volume, low margin commodity pipe each month to one company? Or would you rather enjoy subscriber growth, reduce your churn, and sell a bunch of high margin data plans? Unless I'm missing a huge piece of the puzzle, I think carriers would rather have direct billing relationships with high value subscribers.
So that's how you chum the water, if you're Apple and you want to get away with murder, relative to normal manufacturer/carrier relations. Make it look like this is going to do down no matter what, so line up now and join the fun or watch from outside. They can do this very credibly at that point – the iPod nano was heating up and people were noticing Apple's consumer mojo.
But would Apple really want to be an MVNO? I say not in a million years. Consider: Apple has spent a lot of time explaining their position on vertical integration. They like to have complete control over everything that exists between themselves and the user experience. Whether it's Thoughts on Flash, their position on licensing their OSes, or internal antenna testing facilities on their campus, this is a resounding theme.
Being an MVNO completely runs counter to that. For all the control they gain cutting the carrier out of the customer experience, Apple doesn't even control the most essential component of the business – the wireless infrastructure. That leaves them entirely at the mercy of the carrier for the wireless phone experience they are directly selling to the user. This isn't like the manufacturing relationships they already have to build their stuff – if a manufacturer doesn't work out, the worst that happens is a batch of iDevice X doesn't reach US shores. Consumers never see the gaffe, except as buzz-worthy "omg they're out of stock" news.
The outcome they chose makes it clear who sells what, letting Apple pass the buck when they're not involved in a shitty portion of the iPhone experience.
Apple made the right move, but culturally, I don't think they'd have played it any other way.
if apple would have gone the MVNO route, the iPhone would be multiband, and have tethering. it probably could have connected to either sprints/verizon tech, or to ATT's network.
it could have been the phone with the best connection. apple could have also made deals with people to route calls through wifi, 3 years ago.
think of how much time apple has lost to ATT being slow.