Phone Scoop

printed September 1, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=12817&fh=3266169

Home  ›  News  ›

Apple Not a Fan of FCC's 700MHz Interoperability Plan

Article Comments  

all discussions

Apple isn't a wireless carrier!

Jayshmay

Aug 23, 2013, 12:14 PM
This is none of Apple's business! Spectrum is an issue between the FCC and wireless carriers, NOT manufacturers.

I swear, Apple is like the North Korea of the technology world.
...
Zpike

Aug 23, 2013, 12:18 PM
But Apple does have the manufacturing cost of supporting those bands on their devices. So, I can see why they are concerned. Not that it matters. They already sell inferior crap at a premium price. So, they would definitely pocket any savings rather than pass them on to consumers. But I'm certainly not surprised that greed a**ho**s are greedy a**ho**s.
...
Jayshmay

Aug 23, 2013, 12:24 PM
Wouldn't a truly multi-band phone save a manufacturer money? Less region-specific models.
...
neurocutie

Aug 23, 2013, 1:21 PM
The problem isn't in making a multi-band phone, but rather having the hardware needed to REJECT out-of-band signals and channels particularly when channels are spaced too tightly, without sufficient "guard bands". It means adding expensive and possibly bulky filters to the RF section and may even impact radio sensitivity. All in all, the 700Mhz allocations are a big mess.
...
Rich Brome

Aug 23, 2013, 1:48 PM
Yes and no. More bands = more complex engineering.

That may or may not be offset by economies of scale, especially when considering smaller carriers.

I think if economies of scale made it cheaper for the iPhone, Apple would have already done it, as they are already a leader in minimizing SKUs with phones supporting a large number of bands.
...
CellStudent

Aug 23, 2013, 4:37 PM
Rich Brome said:
Yes and no. More bands = more complex engineering.

That may or may not be offset by economies of scale, especially when considering smaller carriers.

I think if economies of scale made it cheaper for the iPhone, Apple would have already done it, as they are already a leader in minimizing SKUs with phones supporting a large number of bands.


Or {gasp!} they might have to add 0.005 mm to the thickness of the iPhone in order to add an extra set of filters!

Wouldn't that be terrible?
...
DarkStar

Aug 25, 2013, 3:29 PM
Or it could cost $200 to reenigneer the whole phone. Shocked Shocked .

Thank you for showing that you know nothing about cellphone enigineering.
...
Jarahawk

Aug 25, 2013, 11:52 PM
So what? Apple won't pay that cost. Consumers will. And they'll pay whatever Apple tells them to pay.
...
DarkStar

Aug 26, 2013, 3:45 AM
No because $199 is the sweet spot. Customers won't understand why the next iPhone is so much more expensive. And now that there are viable alternatives apple would lose a lot of customers doing that.
...
T Bone

Aug 26, 2013, 2:45 PM
Not if every other phone's price increases by the same amount because they all have to do it.
...
Slammer

Aug 26, 2013, 1:08 PM
Actually, CellStudent is probably the best advisor of this subject. If I remember correctly, he is an engineer that deals directly with cellphone operations including the antenna and radio aspects of wireless devices. Between CellStudent and WiWavelength, these two forum members can probably supply all of us with just about any technical knowledge you seek.

From what I gather from CellStudent's post, cost is far from being an issue here. If it was, he would not have gone out of his way to post his comment.

I'm not an engineer of any kind but I don't believe frequency chips are the problem for Apple. It just doesn't want to spend an extra couple dollars per device on filtration components. It wants everyone to conform to its rules an...
(continues)
...
Haggard

Aug 25, 2013, 4:30 PM
Minus their whole road map of products in the pipeline possibly having to be altered. All that research and development would go to waste because of this.
...
Jarahawk

Aug 25, 2013, 11:49 PM
...is pass the added cost on to consumers. This isn't about cost. It's about control. Apple doesn't like being told how to build its devices.
...
Slammer

Aug 23, 2013, 1:11 PM
I hope Apple will have a hard time convincing the FCC to agree to this request. It greatly placates the largest carriers that have vested interests in these smaller rural areas. I suspect these carriers will keep their mouths shut during this time on the subject. Without having access to one of the country's most popular phones, anxious consumers of the smaller carriers could defect causing the meek to be unfairly singled out and to struggle in maintained business.

Guess what companies then become the beneficiaries?

John B.
...
Downscripting

Aug 24, 2013, 6:38 AM
The article said ATT already spoke out against it as well.
...
Jarahawk

Aug 25, 2013, 11:54 PM
Of course they did. Verizon and AT&T are not thrilled about having forced data roaming agreements with the small fry carriers.
...
Rich Brome

Aug 23, 2013, 1:50 PM
To be fair, Apple does bear the engineering cost of complying with this mandate. This is a mandate that applies to phones, not networks.
...
bobc74

Aug 24, 2013, 3:54 PM
And with the piles of cash at Apple's disposal, this shouldn't be an issue!
...
DarkStar

Aug 25, 2013, 3:31 PM
But it would be an issue. What is Apple's purpose in existance? To make money. That is their one and only purpose in existance. Just like every other company in the world. Even a lot of non-profit organizations are made to make the people working their money.

How will this make Apple money? Just because they have money doesn't mean they should spend it.
...
Jarahawk

Aug 25, 2013, 11:55 PM
Again...any cost will be passed on to the lemmings...er...consumers.
...
muchdrama

Aug 24, 2013, 11:21 PM
Jayshmay said:
This is none of Apple's business! Spectrum is an issue between the FCC and wireless carriers, NOT manufacturers.

I swear, Apple is like the North Korea of the technology world.


You completely missed the point--which is that Apple doesn't want to bake in any more tech that supports other bands. It would cost them money and eat into their profits.
...
Jarahawk

Aug 25, 2013, 11:56 PM
That's garbage.
...
muchdrama

Aug 26, 2013, 12:39 AM
Jarahawk said:
That's garbage.


Not if it were your company.
...
Jarahawk

Aug 26, 2013, 2:45 AM
Apple can set ANY price it desires for its iphone. Period. This isn't about profits. It's about control. It's as simple as that. They want to sue everyone and yet when they get sued Obama bails them out. Well...can't have it two ways, bub. It's time to pay the piper. I'm not even a fan of this proposed policy. The objections should be coming from AT&T and Verizon however---NOT Apple.
...
muchdrama

Aug 26, 2013, 5:06 PM
Jarahawk said:
Apple can set ANY price it desires for its iphone. Period. This isn't about profits. It's about control. It's as simple as that. They want to sue everyone and yet when they get sued Obama bails them out. Well...can't have it two ways, bub. It's time to pay the piper. I'm not even a fan of this proposed policy. The objections should be coming from AT&T and Verizon however---NOT Apple.


Geezus--if this post were any LESS informed, it'd burst into flames. This is absolutely about profits. If Apple has to add technology to their phones, it costs them money. And no, Apple cannot 'set ANY price it desires for its iphone'--especially when demand for the iPhone is starting to wane a bit.

...
(continues)
...
T Bone

Aug 26, 2013, 2:47 PM
Apple already makes about a 30% profit margin on everything it sells, if that profit margin drops for 30% to 29.9% it won't be the end of the world for them.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2015 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.
1