Tommu_UK, SleepyGeek, Alcatholic, Zeke, Coma, Superbaka, ...

What you guys think?

Noted from various blogs that you guys think Apple should run its own pipes .  This article crystallizes salient issues.

Re: Should Apple operate a global Wi-Fi service?

[quote author=“Mace”]Tommu_UK, SleepyGeek, Alcatholic, Zeke, Coma, Superbaka, ...

What you guys think?

Noted from various blogs that you guys think Apple should run its own pipes .  This article crystallizes salient issues.

NO!!! While Apple does hardware very well I believe that this is way out outside of what they do well. Just look at .MAC. This is more in the territory of Google. In fact I would guess that Google is working it’s way in this direction. They are currently buying dark fiber and they will most likely buy as much of the 700mz spectrum that they can. It is much more likely that Apple will partner with Google as their hardware partner.

d

Re: Should Apple operate a global Wi-Fi service?

[quote author=“Mace”]What you guys think?

   
No and basically what roontoon stated.
Apple and Google will engage in a symbiotic relationship to forge the new communications paradigm.

Apple would definitely build the hardware with state of the art inception and delivery. I even envision the rumored Google phone as a cross branded Apple product capable of only making and receiving wireless voice messages over the Google wireless network. These Google phones would be offered cheap or free and Apple would command the higher end functions with their iPhones and iPod touch devices.

Google will be the Wi-Fi operator of choice for the United States given it’s soon to be completed massive data center build-out, the up coming FCC 700mz spectrum auction and the fact that they have invested 100 million in the worldwide leader in powerline communications. The BPL aspect would eliminate the need to do a physical build-out of the grid and what issues would be encountered if the 700mz spectrum could ride piggy back on that grid ?

Juicy images of sugar plums dancing through my head. 

Apple should stick to producing great products and let Google roll out the network.

Monopoly control of, and restricted access to the “last mile” of the data pipe/phone line to the individual has been central to massive revenues of telcos, and tax revenues of governments, and is a large component of government power. We can all see that it doesn’t need to be that way, and in fact it would be much easier to provide free high bandwidth data transfer for all than free water.

I instinctively feel that to go into this is to pick a very big fight, which Apple (and even Google) are not (yet?) strong enough for. For now they need at least some allies in the current order. The current arrangements are good enough for Apple’s purposes for now.

I don’t see Apple choosing to develop its own distribution infrastructure with so many other players in the game. Apple will leverage the infrastructure of other enterprises whether that be GOOG or other providers.

How about Apple would buy/own it, and Google takes care of it… ?
I keep reading these articles about Apple Bidding on Auctions…

NO…That type of infrastructure is not their area of expertise. Let others run own/operate it, whether Google, Verizon, etc, and Apple will just tap into it. However, I could see them buying/renting access to a nationwide network, when one exists.

What if your .Mac account included wireless access for your iPhone, iPod, Laptop, and ATV worldwide, with media purchase and subscription capabilty and a menu to choose from of all possible ISP services, like email, domain hosting, web hosting, etc?  What if you didn’t have to deal with companies like Comcast or Verizon at all? One service for all your needs and devices for ~$800 per year?

While I would love to see a global wireless network that I could use with my iphone and notebook, I do not think that Apple should do this.  One thing that makes a company sucessful is not only knowing what they do well, but knowing not to get involved in business that will delute what they do well, I see apple venturing into a global wireless network as the latter, it would take resourses away from what they do well.  If apple wins the auction, they should sell the bandwith rights to a company that could manage the network properly and has experience doing that.

[quote author=“New2Mac 2007”] . . . .  If apple wins the auction, they should sell the bandwith rights to a company that could manage the network properly and has experience doing that.

Cisco and Google immediately come to mind.

Just to jolt a few memories.  Many moons ago, in this forum, we blogged about whether there are other strategic reasons (other than for retailing) for locating Apple retail stores.  If current Wi-Fi chips are replaced with Wi-Max chips, doesn’t that expand coverage of hotspots?  Other than Apple and Starbucks, who else have many Wi-Fi hotspots all over the place?

I see it as a horse and cart situation. With a lot of iPhones and iTouches in consumers hands there may be pressure on certain
enterprises to supply wi fi… Restaurants and bookstores and come to mind or any place that humans gather for any length of time

30 miles vs. the current 7-10 miles max for cells. But this is a very complicated business without high margins that Apple likes to have. It is better suited to Google who can also direct traffic over the fiber that it is buying. Kind of a two for one deal. They can send any Wi-max or cell traffic and traffic going to their sites over this fiber that they are buying. Currently about 30-40 percent of all internet traffic is attributable to Google (mainly you tube). As it stands now Google has to direct this traffic over other networks and that is when all of the two tier business happened with the old cingular and the topic of net neutrality.

d

roontoon,

Any comments on Zeke’s idea?

When that article started talking about an Apple walled garden, I stopped taking it seriously.  That is exactly the opposite of Google’s explicit plans for the spectrum, were they to win it. And I figure Apple only bids in partnership with Google.

I think Google has spelled out their ideal plans on how they would use the spectrum . 
[quote author=“Google”]In particular, as a means of stimulating both “first order” and “second order” broadband competition, the Commission should extend to all CMRS-type1 spectrum licensees the obligation to provide (1) open applications, (2) open devices, (3) open services, and (4)open access.

And
[quote author=“Google”]In particular, the Commission’s service rules should facilitate the emergence of two types of competition. So-called “first order” (or network layer) competition would be provided by facilities-based market entrants, while “second order” (or applications and content layers) competition would be derived from numerous Web-based entities that subsequently utilize a licensee’s spectrum in novel ways. Both forms of competition can be enabled through the very same mechanism: tailored requirements that a meaningful amount of available commercial spectrum be licensed for “open” broadband platforms.

Unfortunately, the FCC did not go along with all four points of their plan.  Besides being a good indicator of how Google would have used the spectrum, Google also felt their 4 conditions were necessary to keep AT&T or other incumbents from winning the majority of the spectrum.  Now that only two of the 4-points will be imposed on the spectrum, open devices and open applications on those devices , with open services and open access rules NOT being adopted, I can only imagine that Google’s analysis shows the incumbents will likely win the auction against newcomers.

From Google’s 4-point proposal to the FCC:
[quote author=“Google”]Conversely, without the introduction of open broadband platforms, Google’s auction analysis strongly suggests that incumbents almost invariably will succeed in procuring the larger commercial spectrum blocks. As rational economic actors, those incumbents then will proceed in a manner that precludes alternative business models and arrangements. Thus, both first order and second order competition will be thwarted under auction rules that do not include various forms of open platforms.

And
[quote author=“Google”]Since filing its comments some six weeks ago, Google has undertaken further internal analyses, including meeting with auction experts and conducting extensive game theory scenarios, to determine whether and how it makes sense to participate – and do so successfully – in the upcoming auction. Our analysis has confirmed the view that incumbent wireless carriers are likely to prevail in a spectrum auction…

Could it be that given the less than ideal auction rules, Google’s figures now show that it needs Apple to join it in its auction bid in order beat out the incumbents like AT&T and Verizon?

But, looking at this spectrum question through the handy 4-point paradigm that Google has spelled out, I don’t really see what’s in it for Apple. The FCC has already granted open devices and open applications, regardless of who wins. Google’s services business has a lot more to benefit from the open services and open access model they want to implement by winning the auction.  Where does Apple benefit from open services and open access spectrum?  SJ has already said that Apple doesn’t really know how to do Web Services, some yes, but the big ones like Search, Advertising, Maps,  they don’t compete in.  Apple just wants to partner with those that do.

Maybe Intel would be a more natural partner for Google, and in fact Intel’s WiMax initiative, The Road to WiMax Businessweek.com , is exactly an initiative to create an expansion of broadband penetration into the home in order to sell more powerful Intel chips.  Of course this spectrum would compete with Intel’s WiMax initiative but in the end wouldn’t Intel benefit from both broadband efforts? 

On the other hand Intel is probably looking to have a lot more control around whatever broadband technology they help launch.  I wonder if the WiMax initiative envisions some of the same open access principles Google spelled out?  Spectrumwise, Sprint and Clearwire, seem to own the bulk of it, but has Intel imposed any open services model on the technology??

Frankly the more I write the less I understand!