Why Do iPhone Users Have to Put Up with Carriers?

By now you've seen the reviews of the iPhone for Verizon. They seem to boil down to: "Just like the iPhone for AT&T but without the dropped calls." Which is exactly what people were hoping for. Jubilation all around, right?

Maybe not. The people doing the reviews have early access to the Verizon iPhone. Or, for the sake of brevity, the ViPhone. So you've got half a dozen reviewers rocking the iPhone on Verizon's network, but reviewers imagine that their experience will be universal. One suspects that once ViPhones start jumping on the network in large numbers things might not go as smoothly.

For the sake of those who were up at 3 a.m., let's hope the ride on Verizon's network is much smoother than the sea of choppy coverage people using the iPhone have come to expect. Seriously, people were up at 3 A.M. to order the ViPhone. This shows a certain belief in synergy between Verizon and Apple, a kind of you got your chocolate in my peanut butter thing, that is just inexplicable. Why do carriers have to be visibly involved with the iPhone at all?

You'll argue that the way the model works is that phone companies sell service and hardware companies make the devices. Just because that is the way it has worked (using a loose definition of "worked") doesn't mean that is the way it should work. And to accept that something should work the way it always has is a completely unAppleish way of looking at things.

Applying the same logic, that the way the things are is the way they should be, to the iPad leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that the iPad should have come with a stylus and been more OS X and less iOS. Apple, a company who probably passes out copies of Candide to new hires, didn't think that just because tablet computers came with a stylus the iPad had to come with a stylus. The argument is: because Apple didn't go with the status quo with the iPad tablet computing has gotten better for everyone.

If you think about the iPhone carriers for a moment, you may start to really wonder why users are even aware of what company is carrying their signal. Why don't get the full Apple treatment from top to bottom. The conundrum is readily resolved by noting that Apple can't build towers across the nation and run their own ding dang network because a) it would be very expensive and b) it would take a long time.

Welcome to the world of the MVNO. MVNO stands for Mobile Virtual Network operator. The idea being that instead of building towers and acquiring spectrum these folks just buy a chunk of bandwidth from an established cell provider and let their customers use that bandwidth for their calling and data needs.

You can see the rub with this approach. Where is the incentive on the part of Verizon, Sprint or AT&T to cater to what amounts to a competitor? Why wouldn't they collude and shut Apple out of the cell phone business? The answer is simple and it has to do with dough. Apple has plenty of cash to waive around, plenty of customers and thus plenty of reasons for the cell phone companies to kowtow to it.

It's like the old saying, when you owe the bank a million dollars the bank owns you. When you owe the bank a billion dollars, you own the bank. If Apple had gone the MVNO route the amount of money flowing from Apple to the cell providers would be large enough that Apple could force the hands of the contracted carriers.

There is no reason to think that Apple would have to stick with AT&T or Verizon. Apple could crank a mixed CDMA and GSM phone. That would free Apple to license chunks of bandwidth from both Verizon and AT&T. If those companies can't come through with the necessary bandwidth Sprint could always be added to the mix. The names aren't really important, the important thing is that Apple could buy up the necessary bandwidth to keep users happy.

Users wouldn't just be happy with the better reception, they'd also be happy because they don't have to deal with cell phone carriers. A trip to your local Apple Store solves all your problems.

Assuredly, Apple thought about this option and explored it. The idea was then rejected for some reason. Perhaps it was the abject failure of the ESPN phone, perhaps Apple wasn't so sure the iPhone would become the mega hit it has become. All that said, the obsessing over who carries the iPhone is one big failure of the iPhone. Apple generally provides complete solutions and controls the environment as much a corporately possible. Jumping on the net at three in the morning, dealing with cell phone companies isn't all that users expect from Apple. On the other hand, it sure seems better than AT&T.