#2) It does not matter whether you or I consider your slate product a cell phone. All that matters are the contractual obligations in the written agreement between Apple and ATT. The contract may cover all cellular devices made by Apple, or just a subset of cellular devices. You happen to believe that the agreement only covers a small subset of cellular devices. I t would make sense that ATT would want their agreement to at least cover all iPhones, including all updates to the iPhone and iPhone 3G. Whether the exclusive agreement also covers all cellphones and/or all cell phone devices is unknowable.

The only condition about which I can feel certain, at least since the renegotiation, is that the exclusive agreement covers more than just the iPhone 3G. Whether it covers all cellular devices, no one outside of the involved parties can know or can reliably guess.

Also consider that all of Apples devices so far have been based on GSM technologies. So one can reliably predict that much of Apple’s cellular research has centered on GSM technologies. Apple has the most experience with products that use GSM technologies, although they have most certainly hired some number of engineers that have experience working with CDMA cellular phone technology. It would make sense that Apple would develop products that incorporate cellular technologies with which they are most familiar. For now that means GSM technologies.

lastly consider cross-selling. Apple would want any hypothetical cellular capable computer device to be available wherever the iPhone is available as well next to other Mac products where those are sold. It makes little sense to have an Apple data-capable cellular device with CDMA technology for sale at Verizon, and at the same time having its’ landmark cell phone, the iPhone 3G, for sale at competing cellular carrier ATT.

It makes no sense to have Apple CDMA tablet or netbook for sale at Verizon, where they’ll be encouraged to purchase an iPhone competitor phone.

I understand why people would want to see Apple devices on the major competing network to ATT, especially when ATT is dropping the ball with the reliability of its’ 3G network. The load from all the new iPhone 3G phones sold seems to overwhelm ATT’s 3G in a number of metro areas.

Still, it makes sense for Apple to wait until the iPhone can be opened up from its’ exclusive agreement with ATT before thinking of adding CDMA-based products. If they spend the engineering resources to develop CDMA products, it makes sense to be able to use that engineering investment across their cellular product line. Plus, Apple will want carrier partners who offer Apple products to be able to offer the entire Apple cellular product line.

As much as many would like to see an Apple CDMA data product on Verizon, it won’t happen unless 1) Apple is contractually able to do so, based on their exclusive agreement with ATT and 2) Apple would want to get back at ATT for providing sucky service.

If Apple negotiated a faulty network service opt-out clause with ATT, the clause would almost certainly also apply to the central product of the exclusive agreement, the iPhone. That means that a Verizon netbook would be offered simultaneously with a Verizon iPhone.

But don’t hold your breath. I’m not predicting such a drastic move. It makes more sense for the partners to work together to make the product the best they possible can as fast as humanly possible or faster.

Listen up ATT. Stop antagonizing Apple.

Apple is used to providing the best service to their customers. Having partners ruining Apple’s customers experiences is not something that Apple will tolerate for long. So, I thoroughly expect that ATT is at this moment building additional cells and adding as much capacity as possible to the urban centers that have experienced less than stellar 3G service.

The reasons to classify it other than cell phone:

1) the ability to have;
–Internet access to data
–compute power (full OS X capability)
is more important than making/taking phone calls.

This positioning removes many of the size/weight limitations of a cell phone.

If the slate? were 6×9 inches (or larger) it is unlikely you would hold it to your ear for phone calls– rather use a BT headset. A 3×5 inch device could, likely, replace a cell phone.

2) the second reason is as you’ve anticipated– I suspect that Apple could offer such a device independent of their existing exclusive iPhone agreements with carriers: ATT, VodaPhone, etc.

3) The new device would be SIMless or have a SIM tied to the device not the carrier.

Your concept of a world-wide roaming-free network is a natural. Lot’s of advantages for personal and, especially, business use:
– 1 stop shopping for all your network access needs
– same for support
– reduced costs
– ability to predict (budget) and control costs
– eliminate hassle of carrying/switching/losing multiple SIM cards
– aforementioned ability to move seamlessly (or is that SIMlessly) between multiple carriers without interruption.

The ability to budget network costs, alone, makes this a winner for businesses!

The multi-network phone would use ATT in the US, and a local network when traveling abroad. At no time would Apple customers have to pay roaming rates. Apple customers would always use local cellular networks, and pay local cellular rates. The customer would be able to choose either monthly rates or prepaid service.

Another alternative would be the Apple-branded service that we’ve discussed. In each country, Apple would offer a local rate, instead of roaming rates. Since Apple would negotiate wholesale rates within each territory, then Apple could pass on local rates worldwide instead of charging roaming rates. In essence, Apple would be able to market the first worldwide cellular service, where the whole world was included as part of the Apple WorldPlan. This new world roam-free cellular marketing would echo the National Plans that carriers started offering in the United States some years ago, that in essence did away with roaming within the United States for any US subscriber.

I’m shocked that similar no-roaming plans have not been marketed and more widely used in the Common European Market, especially by the larger multi-country carriers. For these large carriers, roaming out of country would often be on a commonly owned subsidiary of the same cellular pone group. I don’t understand why these carriers don’t make more of any effort to eliminate roaming, at least within their own carrier networks, domestically and abroad. It seems like a great marketing tactic to grab a disproportionate amount of traveling power-users.

We’re destined to get some game-changing moves in the cellular industry over the next few years. Bring it on.

You’ve got a great tech history, and you’ve said some really intelligent things.

But why is it so important to you on insisting that a portable slate with a cellular radio built-in is not a cell phone? That the device looks different from typical handheld cell phones is not material.

What matters is the contract that Apple signed with ATT. Does it cover all cell products manufactured by Apple or just the iPhone. It seems that there may have be some ambiguity with the original iPhone contract, but Apple and ATT renegotiated the deal before the iPhone 3G, extendeding the term of their agreement. I get the feeling that ATT made a point to clarify exactly what devices are or are not covered in their agreement with Apple. In exchange for the substantial subsidies on the iPhone 3G, I would imagine that ATT would want some assurance that they wouldn’t get surprised by Apple cellular products on competing networks during the extended term of their agreement; especially after some public Apple comments that the original agreement may have only applied to the original iPhone.

The carriers are setup to deliver voice-only, data-only, and/or data + voice. Voice-only is any simple feature phone. Data-only is any expresscard laptop cellular data card. iPhone is the best example of voice+data.

But any device of any shape or size can accommodate any of the three combinations of cellular service. ATT offers all of these cellular services combinations, as does any other major cellular carrier. To the carriers, these are all cellular receivers that they market in order to sell their cellular network services.

I don’t know the particulars of the ATT-Apple agreement. But since Apple was hinting at wiggle room, it would seem reasonable that ATT would want some certainty in exchange for all those iPhone 3G subsidies, that are so sizable as to affect their short-term cash flow and quarterly earnings reports.

In reality it doesn’t matter, if Apple is stuck with ATT for another year or so or not. If Apple has agreed to stick with ATT, then they can debut whatever product on ATT. The multi-network functions would work in all the territories where their agreements are not exclusive. In the few countries that are still under exclusive contract, such as the US with ATT, then the network options would be restricted to just the exclusive network until such time as the exclusivity expires. After the exclusive contract ends, then Apple is free to add whatever other networks it wishes. My guess is that all cellular networks will offer Apple phones and other devices. As such, when such time as Apple offers Apple-branded cellular service that makes use of the patent mentioned in the above posts, then all cellular networks could potentially work with Apple’s cellular product(s). If the content of Apple’s patent filing are correct, than Apple’s system would automatically favor those networks that offer the best service and that have negotiated the best rates for Apple’s customers.

It will be interesting to see how the cellular industry evolves over the years.

I agree that Apple is tied to ATT for the iPhone & that built-in battery, size & power considerations preclude using multiple carriers.

However, what I am suggesting is not an iPhone, rather a mobile slate MT computer. Assumably it would be at least 3×5 inches, likely larger.

It would use cell, WiFi , whatever is available.

As a new product [category] it need not be tied to any specific carrier.

It is not a cell phone!

The fact that it can make/receive phone calls is incidental– it is a gp computer that can connect to the internet (and remain connected) anywhere.

The fact that the carriers are not set up to deliver a data-only or data+phone service is also incidental– if we build it they will come.

If the carriers are not prescient enough to realize the potential, Apple could provide the service themselves by contracting access to multiple carriers’ networks.

Excellent information my friend!

Interesting.

Seems like Apple is tied to ATT and their overwhelmed network for the time being. Plus, Verizon hasn’t sounded too excited about offering Apple products; although that’s likely just been due to sour grapes from ATT having the iPhone exclusive. I think that Verizon has now had plenty of time to see the lines at the Apple and ATT stores, and starting Monday Best Buy stores as well. When the ATT exclusive ends, Verizon will probably be first in line to get Apple product.

There are technical issues as well. Verizon is building out an impressive EVDO network, which is a CDMA broadband network. Up until now, Apple has delivered phones that are compatible with GSM technologies (GSM/EDGE/UMTS/HSDPA). To ship a Verizon capable phone would require adding phone that work only with the competing CDMA technologies or phones that can handle both CDMA & GSM technologies in the same device for maximum roaming options. Having so many different radio technologies to support would also have battery implications as well as the increased component and support cost from the additional complexity. The advantage of an omni-capable phone is that one would never be limited by the capabilities of a single carrier’s single network. By the time Verizon can join all the others in the playground’s Apple sandbox, ATT will have built out their network to provide more capacity and better reception. The quality of ATT’s network, or rather its’ present shortcomings, will be less of an issue then it is now. The benefit of supporting both 3G technology families would mean much better roaming options worldwide.

But adding Verizon support bring up these questions that add complexity to the Apple experience. Does everyone have the extra capability, and its’ extra cost and extra battery drain? If not, then Apple phones will have inconsistent capabilities and inconsistent network support throughout the world, since he two technology families are not compatible. The networks will continue to be incompatible until a unified 4G technology is created to replace both of the current incompatible cell tech families. Then Apple, and everyone else, will be able to support all 4G networks, which would ideally replace both EVDO and HSDPA broadband networks, that are only still now being built out throughout the world.

I would not be surprised if Apple takes over the customer experience, and markets the cell service directly to it’s end customers, buying the network coverage wholesale from the various carriers. That is probably the reason for the patents in the first place, not to add so much extra complexity to the end user; having to chose the best quality connection or the cheapest rate. Apple’s technology would do all that automatically, and market the service as one package with unlimited service on whichever is the best network, almost invisibly to the end user.

Apple wouldn’t make their customers have to figure out which is the best cell coverage and best rate cost on a block by block and town by town basis. Apple would want to deliver a better experience.

Many analysts believe that cell phone network access will become a commodity utility. Cell carriers would be providers of the pipe like today’s electricity, gas, and water utilities and Internet ISPs. Others would provide services on top of that utility service. Yahoo, Google, travelocity.com, contintenal.com, are examples of such services coming from differing directions and working at different layers within a vertical.

Apple would be well positioned to succeed in a changing marketplace.

Sorry, not enough time but here you go.

Different 3G and corresponding antenna technologies. That is why even a hacked iPhone 3G can not get on Verizon’s 3G network.

I have not read up on the 4G though. Anybody know if that is a worldwide standard or will it be the same problem of different techs?

Otherwise dicklacara, you have explained what we all expect from Apple withe the iSlate or MacTouch. A seamless connection, like the iPhone, but maybe minus the connection issues… :)

By the way, carriers already offer “unlimited data” plans. LOL

Good thinking outside the box though. I recall an older Apple patent along those lines, a phone that could access all the GSM networks and pick the cheapest.
Sound familiar to anyone?

Peace!