[BidClub_]
Sharp Tech · · 23 分钟

(预览)Apple 如何改变移动通信经济学、SpaceX 想如何利用频谱、航空公司与运营商、Yann LeCun 离开 Meta

Andrew SharpBen Thompson

播客
TL;DR
  • SpaceX 近200亿美元的频谱收购,让稀缺无线容量成为本期预览的核心。继9月约170亿美元的交易后,EchoStar同意再出售26亿美元频谱;与此同时,在联邦监管机构施压下,EchoStar还与AT&T达成了另一笔230亿美元的出售协议。Ben Thompson反驳EchoStar只是被“逼着”退出的说法:它拒绝为建设真正成为第四大运营商所需的基站提供资金。

  • 运营商业务归根结底是一场差异化有限的资本开支竞赛。Thompson直言,“一座手机基站和另一座手机基站没什么区别”,运营商的盈利能力取决于其建设覆盖网络的激进程度。他谨慎地表示,Verizon的网络可能仍然最适合让用户几乎在任何地方都至少接入4G,但维持这一优势意味着持续投入。

  • 当整合能带来此前不可能实现的体验时,它会形成杠杆;但一旦更广泛的生态追上来,整合就会变成税负。NTT DoCoMo高度整合的日本移动通信体验,让用户能做当时美国手机通常做不到的事情;AOL也曾让上网变得简单。开放互联网成熟、Google让其变得易于导航后,AOL“被自身的重量压垮”。

  • Apple对硬件、软件、操作系统、应用和既有iTunes用户基础的持久整合,让iPhone扭转了运营商的权力结构。Verizon拒绝Apple的条款,因为Apple不允许运营商品牌露出或控制软件;Cingular接受条款并更名为AT&T,随后眼看着Verizon用户“纯粹为了这部手机”转网——连Motorola Razr也从未诱发过这种行为。

  • iPhone让运营商商品化,却迫使它们为提升Apple价值的基础设施买单。iPhone庞大的数据消耗,迫使AT&T及其竞争对手进行“天文数字”级别的网络建设,早期拥堵因此得到解决,而Apple“连一分钱都没花”。Thompson的结论是:“全世界都替Apple做了这件事”,而Apple则保住了高毛利硬件模式。

  • Apple把对运营商的依赖转化为合同保障下的iPhone销量,在耗尽新的分销伙伴之前,让盈利表现异常可预测。那些不断流失用户的运营商纷纷“求着要iPhone”,并接受最低销量保证。NTT DoCoMo和China Mobile在iPhone 6时代前后加入后,Apple已经没有更多主要运营商可拓展;到iPhone 6S前后,业绩开始出现上下双向偏离预期。

摘要 · 为研究而整理的核心内容

1. EchoStar退出频谱,暴露出假装做运营商的代价

  • Andrew Sharp的开场背景是:EchoStar同意再向SpaceX出售26亿美元频谱,叠加9月约170亿美元的交易。SpaceX当年累计购入的频谱接近200亿美元;与此同时,EchoStar还在联邦监管机构施压下,与AT&T达成了230亿美元的频谱出售协议。

  • Thompson反驳Bloomberg关于EchoStar“被迫放弃”成为美国第四大主要无线运营商的说法。他给出的更尖锐版本是:“EchoStar拒绝进行成为第四大无线运营商所必需的投资”,因此,稀缺频谱被推向真正会使用它的公司,是合理结果。

  • Sharp追问,真正有效的部署究竟需要什么。Thompson认为Boost Mobile就是EchoStar的载体,并称它确实建设了一点基础设施,但他的答案既不性感又是关键所在:“你得真正去建设真正使用这些频谱的基站。”只有频谱所有权、没有足够的网络投资,并不能造就有竞争力的运营商。

2. 无线通信本质仍是资本开支生意,只是披着体验生意的外衣

  • Thompson对运营商经济学的框架是:过去每家运营商都想掌握客户体验,因为“谁愿意只去建设手机基站?”但除了规模之外,基站覆盖很难形成差异化,因此盈利能力“取决于你愿意在资本投资上花多少钱”。

  • iPhone问世前后,Verizon主要凭借更优的覆盖赢得了这场竞争。Thompson认为,它可能至今仍是让用户几乎在任何地方都至少接入4G的最佳选择,不过他也明确补充说,“别引用我的话”,承认不同网络的营销说法很难直接比较。

  • 他自己的冗余配置也说明覆盖仍然碎片化:对长期在海外生活的人来说,T-Mobile“仍然是最划算的选择”,但离开Madison后信号很快变差;Charter则提供低优先级的Verizon覆盖作为备份。Thompson还在光纤之外保留Starlink,并开玩笑说自己实际上有3家移动运营商,因为“始终保持联网对我非常重要”。

3. 整合早期制胜,随后可能变成AOL式负担

  • 在iPhone出现前,NTT DoCoMo代表了运营商的理想形态:频谱、基站、手机和服务整合在一个体系内。日本用户当时能做很多美国手机通常做不到的事情;而Thompson在华盛顿特区只能用一款显示4到5行黑白文字的WAP浏览器阅读RSS,还产生了约1000美元的手机账单。

  • Thompson将这一优势与Clay Christensen的观点联系起来:早期产品必须整合,因为它们“还不够好”。如果整合能实现其他方式无法实现的功能,并且所有者能锁定由此形成的优势,它就可能赢得竞争并保持防御性。

  • AOL则是失败案例。它的整合服务曾是上网的傻瓜式入口,并且包含开放互联网尚未提供的内容;随着网络扩张,AOL变成了“一种负担和一种税”。Google让开放互联网变得可搜索、可发现,AOL失去了存在理由,最终“被自身的重量压垮”。

  • Apple有所不同,因为软硬件整合能实现其他公司无法做到的事情。应用强化操作系统,用户很少更换操作系统,而Apple只在自有硬件上提供其操作系统,从而同时保留控制权,并通过高价设备实现变现。

4. iPhone将权力从运营商转移到手机厂商

  • Thompson称这次发布是“围绕自己重构价值链的历史级案例之一”。Apple进入移动通信市场时,拥有Mac和iPod带来的用户忠诚度,以及一个已经安装iTunes、并具备用于管理iPhone所需软件的用户基础。

  • Verizon认为自己的领先网络提供了议价能力,并拒绝接受Apple不允许运营商品牌露出或控制软件的要求。Cingular接受条款,并借机更名为AT&T;随后,客户做出了前所未有的选择——专门为了获得一部手机而离开Verizon。

  • Sharp的对比准确抓住了这一断裂点:即便在Razr最风靡的时候,客户也只是要求在现有网络上使用Motorola的手机,而不是更换运营商。有了iPhone,他们“纯粹为了硬件”转网,运营商接入因此在Apple产品之下彻底商品化。

  • Apple随后在国际市场复制了这一策略,往往选择通过市场份额第二或第三的运营商首发。在日本,排名靠后的SoftBank接受了条件,而高度整合的 incumbent NTT DoCoMo选择抵抗;Thompson记不清究竟是SoftBank超过了NTT DoCoMo,还是仅仅追平了份额,但他说SoftBank“彻底击溃了NTT DoCoMo”。

5. 运营商为Apple建设网络,也为其销量提供保障

  • NTT DoCoMo最终在大约2014年采用iPhone——Thompson认为那是iPhone 6时期,接近China Mobile加入的时间;他认为后者可能发生在同一年或前后相近的时间。此后,日本市场几乎完全被iPhone主导,原本坚持留在NTT DoCoMo的用户终于也能买到iPhone。

  • Apple几乎没有理由亲自成为运营商:Thompson表示,Apple无法凭借自身能力提供更好的网络体验,因为这种体验依赖建设基站所需的资本开支,而这对Apple的高毛利硬件模式而言是一门糟糕的生意。iPhone数据用量爆发后,早期城市网络一再饱和,迫使AT&T及竞争对手投入巨额基础设施;服务得到改善,而“Apple连一分钱都没花”。

  • 随着尚未采用iPhone的运营商不断流失客户,Apple要求它们在获得iPhone销售权的同时承诺最低销量。这让业绩预测在大约iPhone 6S之前异常稳定;但在加入NTT DoCoMo和China Mobile后,Apple已经没有更多运营商可拓展,也失去了锁定销量保证的议价能力,于是盈利开始上下双向超预期或不及预期。

Andrew Sharp

Hello, and welcome to a free preview of Sharp Tech. Hello, and welcome back to another episode of Sharp Tech. I'm Andrew Sharp, and on the other line, Ben Thompson. Ben, how are you doing?

Ben Thompson

I’m not good, Andrew. I’m pretty upset, to be totally honest with you.

Andrew Sharp

I’m not doing well either, just for the record. I’m feeling chastened on this end of the line. Do you want to explain why you’re not feeling good and feeling upset right now?

Ben Thompson

Look, we started out on a great page. You said you were going to take one of my recommendations for winter.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

I’m feeling good. I’m glad you’re listening to me. Such a breakthrough.

Andrew Sharp

Go ahead and drop another one, yeah.

Ben Thompson

It only took 2 to 3 years, which is good for you relative to—

Andrew Sharp

Uh-huh.

Ben Thompson

You had to go through the period of just completely rejecting the opposite of what I say. I try to add on to it. We’re talking about jackets here. I’m like, “Oh, by the way, my favorite company, Kizik, has winter boots that are awesome. You could just slip them on, and it’s great.”

Andrew Sharp

Yep.

Ben Thompson

And the disdain and dismissal with which you—

Andrew Sharp

Immediate “Not doing that.”

Ben Thompson

No, it wasn’t just that you wouldn’t do it. That’s fine. The disgust with which you expressed it hurt.

Andrew Sharp

I mean, look, nothing is nearer and dearer to your heart than the Kizik brand, and honestly, I feel a little guilty—

Ben Thompson

Actually, there was a contractor here at the house this week who was slipping his shoes on and off. I’m like, “It’s fine. Just leave your shoes on. It’s not a big deal.” And he’s like, “Oh, blah, blah, blah, blah. You don’t know what happened.” And I’m like, “Well, you should get Kiziks. You’re always taking your shoes on and off.” And he’s like, “Do you work for them?”

Andrew Sharp

Ben is performing guerrilla marketing all over the world on behalf of Kizik.

Ben Thompson

Well, the great thing is, you know, we talked about how the 1 comp I ever accepted was from them, and then it got lost in the mail. I never received it.

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

Which is great, because I feel—

Andrew Sharp

It was the universe validating your policy.

Ben Thompson

That’s right. I feel more empowered to endorse them to everyone. So, yes, I do have another take while we’re here.

Andrew Sharp

Okay.

Ben Thompson

They’re my favorite. The whole new generation of D2D startups—sell online, all that sort of thing—obviously, they’re my favorite. My other take is, do you remember all this D2C stuff really started with razors?

Andrew Sharp

Uh-huh.

Ben Thompson

There was Dollar Shave Club, and then the whole thing was, “They’re all the same. 5 blades, da-da-da-da.” So—

Andrew Sharp

Oh, yeah. It was a tentpole part of the millennial business generation. I bought some Harry’s razors, for sure.

Ben Thompson

Yeah, so I went to Costco when I moved back, and I’m like, “Well, I’ll try some Harry’s razors,” because they were—of course, they’ve realized that Facebook takes all their money online, so now they’re trying to sell in retailers.

Andrew Sharp

Uh-huh.

Ben Thompson

Terrible. Just a terrible razor. You can use it—

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

Once. You cannot—so you know what? Good for CPG. Good for P&G. You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to go buy a Gillette razor like I used almost my entire life, and I’m going to be happy about it. So—

Andrew Sharp

Totally.

Ben Thompson

I feel like, good for the old guard.

Andrew Sharp

Honestly, it was an important epiphany for me. When I say it’s a central aspect of the millennial experience, early in my 20s or maybe my mid-20s, Harry’s sounded like a better razor, and I felt very superior using Harry’s razors. Then I looked down one day and I was like, “These razors just suck.” I’m going back to Gillette and going with something I can trust. I’ll pay extra money for it, and it’s a much better way to live. But they get you with the marketing, and I felt like I was using a better, cooler—

Ben Thompson

No, it feels cool and hip, yeah.

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

And the terrible thing is, because I bought it at Costco, I have all these freaking razors to work through. But that’s fine, because they’re only good for 1 shave anyway, so I’m plowing through them. Unfortunately, I’m part Asian, so I don’t have to shave that often. What are you going to do?

Andrew Sharp

Yes. Well—

Ben Thompson

I’m Asian. I’m a quarter Asian. But the Asian genes that I got mean I don’t look Asian.

Andrew Sharp

Breaking news on the show here, yeah.

Ben Thompson

Yeah, no, I don’t look Asian, but I also cannot grow a beard. So it takes me longer than you would think to finish off this stupid pack of razors.

Andrew Sharp

Fair enough. One day I’ll break the seal on owning my first pair of Kiziks. They won’t be Kizik boots, unfortunately, though, because it snows about 3 days a year in Washington, DC.

Ben Thompson

No, that is literally the best articulation of the Kizik idea. Putting on boots is really annoying. It’s one of those things where you just don’t go outside or don’t do stuff. It’s like, “Oh, I’ve got to put my boots on,” or you put your tennis shoes on because they’re easier, then you fall on your rear end.

Andrew Sharp

Snow all in your shoes.

Ben Thompson

It hurts. You hurt yourself.

Andrew Sharp

Sure.

Ben Thompson

Oh—

Andrew Sharp

Yeah, well, the thing is, I just don’t own any pair of boots here in DC.

Ben Thompson

Oh, but—

Andrew Sharp

That’s my coastal privilege.

Ben Thompson

Well, the other problem here is your feet get cold. You wear boots for warmth. That’s the biggest case here.

Andrew Sharp

Well, maybe I’m built different over here in Washington, DC. I can handle some cold feet. In any event, enough prelude. Ben, we’ll dive in and begin with a story from Bloomberg. They write:

“EchoStar agreed to sell more spectrum licenses to Elon Musk’s SpaceX for $2.6 billion as it works to unwind parts of its 5G wireless network. The deal adds to a September agreement that the satellite TV and wireless company inked to sell SpaceX about $17 billion in wireless spectrum. Between that sale and another to AT&T for $23 billion, which EchoStar brokered under pressure from federal regulators, the company has been forced to give up on becoming a 4th major US wireless carrier as originally envisioned.”

So there’s the EchoStar story, but SpaceX is the star of the story. SpaceX has now purchased nearly $20 billion worth of spectrum this year.

Ben Thompson

Is it that high? I guess it is, yeah.

Andrew Sharp

You’ve written about it a few times on Stratechery. We haven’t discussed it on the podcast. What is driving these investments? Where is SpaceX trying to go?

Ben Thompson

I think it’s really interesting. I’m glad we’re going to talk about it. The 1 funny line in this story, though, I just have to call it out: “The company has been forced to give up on becoming a 4th major US wireless carrier.” No, EchoStar declined to make the investments necessary to be a 4th wireless carrier.

And so they are appropriately being forced to give up the spectrum to people who will actually use it. This is downstream from some of the AT&T Mobile stuff. I can’t even recall; I’d have to go back and refresh myself on the details. Spectrum is a scarce resource. EchoStar has been sitting on a bunch of it, and we need that spectrum.

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

So—

Andrew Sharp

Out of curiosity, what would the investments have been from EchoStar in order to make that spectrum more useful?

Ben Thompson

You have to actually build towers that use the spectrum.

Andrew Sharp

Okay.

Ben Thompson

I think Boost Mobile is their thing, and they’ve built a little bit, but being a carrier is not a great business. I think that’s actually an interesting place to start. You go back way back when, and—well, let’s go back just to around the iPhone days.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

Carriers wanted to own it all. The carrier everyone dreamed to be was NTT DoCoMo in Japan: fully integrated. Of course, they had spectrum and built towers. They also designed their own phones. All the coolest mobile phones came from Japan, and the absolute coolest mobile phones couldn’t be used elsewhere because they only worked on NTT DoCoMo’s network.

And you had a lot of the things that people only realized they could do on phones once the iPhone came out. You could do them in Japan in that time period. It was a real classic example of the Clay Christensen concept that, at the beginning, stuff has to be fully integrated because it’s not—

Good enough. So in the U.S., when I got my first cellphone, I got a Samsung phone—I don't even remember what it was. I think it was on AT&T, or maybe it was Sprint. I think it might have been on Sprint back then.

Andrew Sharp

Oh, wow. Throwback, yeah.

Ben Thompson

I had 4 or 5 lines of text, and, being me, managed to accrue a $1,000 cellphone bill because I figured out how to get the WAP browser, and I had an RSS reader on there. This was the summer I was living in Washington, D.C., because I was interning there, and I would go sit on the lawn of the National Mall and scroll through and just read the internet for an hour. That cost a lot of money.

Andrew Sharp

That sounds pretty great.

Ben Thompson

Yeah, I know.

Andrew Sharp

And may actually count as touching grass, just for the record.

Ben Thompson

I was literally lying on the grass.

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

But I was doing this on 4 lines of text, black-and-white. Pretty ridiculous. Had I been in Japan, I could have had a larger screen and probably a better experience.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

And they were doing it all. Everyone wanted to do that. They wanted to own the experience. If you got a cellphone, you only got the cellphone from the carrier; you bought your cellphone from the carrier, and it was tied to that carrier. They wanted to own the whole experience, because who wants to just build cellphone towers?

Andrew Sharp

Sure.

Ben Thompson

At the end of the day, one cellphone tower is like another cellphone tower. It becomes a matter of who can build more. Your profitability is a function of how much you're willing to spend on capital investments, which is a tough game to play.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

So you roll around to the iPhone coming out. The company that had won that game by and large was Verizon. They had the best coverage; they still, I think, mostly have the best coverage. Obviously, there are a gazillion commercials citing all sorts of different things, but especially if you want at least 4G speed anywhere, I think Verizon is probably still the best. Again, don't quote me—

Andrew Sharp

Okay.

Ben Thompson

—but I'm such a sicko that I actually have 2 carriers just to make sure I have as much coverage as possible anywhere. Look, I haven't changed at all.

Andrew Sharp

Exactly. A sicko 20 years ago, still a sicko today. Love it.

Ben Thompson

Yeah. Well, I've been a T-Mobile customer for a long time because T-Mobile is by far the best if you live internationally. First, they were the first one to have a good international plan, where by default you got a certain amount of data in basically any country you went to, and then you got SMS and texting, and all of that just worked seamlessly.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

Everyone has that now, but T-Mobile is still the only one where, with AT&T and Verizon, you have to be in the U.S. most of the time, and then you can have a good plan abroad. T-Mobile will let you live abroad, only come to the U.S. occasionally, and still maintain your plan.

Andrew Sharp

Okay.

Ben Thompson

So for anyone living abroad, T-Mobile is still the best deal, the best plan. The problem is T-Mobile's coverage has just sucked. It's fine in Madison; you get out of town, and it falls apart very quickly. I still value that international aspect.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

My wife is back and forth between here and Taiwan. She has a line also. So I still have T-Mobile, but I got Charter, the cable company.

Andrew Sharp

I didn't know they did cell service. Wow.

Ben Thompson

Oh, man. That's going to break the heart of Craig Moffett. Yeah, no, there was a deal a while ago where Verizon had to give them a network. So both Comcast and Charter run on Verizon.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

They run at a lower prioritization level. I wouldn't tolerate that for my primary line. I want to be top priority. I don't want my data pushed aside for anybody else. I want it to work all the time.

Andrew Sharp

Yep.

Ben Thompson

In this case, it works because what I want is coverage if I'm out in the boonies and T-Mobile doesn't work, which it probably won't. They did acquire U.S. Cellular, which I'm excited about, because U.S. Cellular has great coverage in Wisconsin. Anyhow, way too many details that no one cares about.

Andrew Sharp

No, a fun little digression into Ben's fetishes as far as carriers are concerned.

Ben Thompson

Oh, I mean—

Andrew Sharp

But—

Ben Thompson

We talked about that. It's very important to me to be online and connected all the time.

Andrew Sharp

Everywhere.

Ben Thompson

So I have 2 phone carriers, and I'm—

Andrew Sharp

An absolute sicko on the other line of this podcast.

Ben Thompson

Well, even though I got fiber, I still have Starlink on the roof. So I have 2 home internet providers—and I have 2 cellular providers. It's ridiculous. Oh, actually, probably—

Andrew Sharp

Just in case there's an earthquake that disrupts the fiber connection that's running into your house now.

Ben Thompson

I did maintain my carrier in Taiwan as well, so I guess I have 3 cellphone carriers. But anyhow.

Andrew Sharp

All right, so the economics of carriers, though. That's where we're beginning.

Ben Thompson

Yeah, so Verizon is generally the best, but Verizon wanted to leverage being the best into owning the full customer experience. It's akin to the whole thing with GM and CarPlay.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

“We want to own the dashboard. We can sell services,” blah, blah, blah, whatever it might be.

Andrew Sharp

I mean, it's fairly intuitive that if Verizon can make the best phones, that's going to be a differentiator that makes me choose Verizon service, number 1.

Ben Thompson

Well, they never wanted to make the phones. They just wanted to control them, have control, have their services on there, and push people toward their favorite partners. It's the old integrated sort of playbook. You can see why you want to do that. The problem with integration—

Andrew Sharp

I mean, think about if iPhones were only available on Verizon. Everybody would have Verizon service.

Ben Thompson

Well, we're going to get there. The problem with integration is, if it lets you do something that wasn't possible, you can win. If you have some way to lock in that advantage, you can maintain your win. But over time, if you don't have those 2 things and you can't scale to the broader thing, your advantage disappears.

I talked to the CEO of Unity this week, who had one of his stops at AOL back in the day, and we were talking about this in passing. AOL in the '90s was so easy. It was the way people got online.

Getting online otherwise—it's actually funny. I realized this week that the company I got fiber from, I was actually a customer 30 years ago, because I was in the “I'm too good for AOL” camp back when they first started.

Andrew Sharp

Oh, of course you were.

Ben Thompson

Yeah, so I wanted to get a real internet connection. The company was called SuperNet. I remembered this week, “Wait, I pushed my parents to get a SuperNet ISP account—

Andrew Sharp

An early adopter—

Ben Thompson

—way back when.”

Andrew Sharp

Out there in Madison.

Ben Thompson

Yeah.

Andrew Sharp

Great.

Ben Thompson

No, so I actually haven't told SuperNet that. I have to—

Andrew Sharp

But AOL was the idiot-proof solution for the rest of us 20 and 30 years ago.

Ben Thompson

And they had so much more stuff on AOL. I remember being online in the '90s and being annoyed that I didn't have access to AOL, because there was so much on there that wasn't available on the internet broadly.

Andrew Sharp

Uh-huh.

Ben Thompson

But the internet grew up. You got lots of stuff on the internet, and suddenly having to go through AOL—it could access the broader internet, but it just became this burden and this tax. It was cheaper and better to just get a regular connection to the internet and then—

Andrew Sharp

And a browser. Yeah.

Ben Thompson

How did you find stuff there? Oh, Google.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

Google, in many respects, is what broke AOL. The internet grew up, and there was lots of stuff, but if you didn't know how to find it, it wasn't useful to you. Then Google made it possible for you to find everything.

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

And suddenly the whole reason for AOL just fell down under its own weight. This is a story that you see happen. What makes Apple unique is that, by integrating the software and the hardware, it does something no one else can do. Operating systems are so powerful because apps are built for them. It's the key thing you interact with all the time.

People don't churn from operating systems, and because you can only get Apple's operating systems on Apple hardware, Apple can make a lot of money by selling that hardware at a premium price.

Andrew Sharp

Sure.

Ben Thompson

The reason this came to bear was with the iPhone, and I'm sure there have to be business cases about it. This is one of the things I wanted to write about when I started Techre. I'm like, “I need to write about this,” because people don't really get this. It's one of the all-time examples of reconfiguring a value chain around you, which is that Apple had this built-in customer base of people who first loved the Mac, and then a larger portion of people who loved the iPod.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

Even with the iPod, they had the iTunes component and the iPod component. It was hardware and software that worked together, and they got a lot of people using iTunes who then got an iPod. Now, some people got an iPod and thus used iTunes, but it was very much working together in that regard.

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

They come out with the iPhone. The iPhone's amazing, and everyone already has the software to manage the iPhone because they have iTunes. It becomes—Apple has this thing coming out, everyone is eagerly anticipating what it's going to be, and Apple goes to Verizon and says, “We're coming out with this iPhone. You have the best network. Of course, we want to be on the best network. Let's make a deal.”

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

Verizon's like, “No,” because Apple did not want to have Verizon branding on their phone. By the way, your phone—

Andrew Sharp

Mm.

Ben Thompson

—used to have the carrier's brand on it. They did not want Verizon controlling the software. That's Apple's key to success: owning and controlling that. From Verizon's perspective, it's like, “No, we're leading—”

Andrew Sharp

We have the leverage. Yeah.

Ben Thompson

“We have the—” Exactly. What Apple did was sign a deal with what was then Singular. Cingular took the opportunity of this deal to rebrand AT&T.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

Cingular was what happened when AT&T was split up and then sort of reunited over time. What happened, which had never happened previously, was that people started leaving Verizon for AT&T because they wanted the iPhone.

Andrew Sharp

Strictly for the phone.

Ben Thompson

That's right.

Andrew Sharp

Strictly for the hardware. Yep.

Ben Thompson

That never happened before. There was never a phone—even when Motorola had the Razr—where people clamored to get it on their network. They weren't—

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

—leaving their networks to get that phone. Apple did this in market after market. It was so fascinating. In every market, they usually ended up launching with the second- or third-place carrier because the leading carrier resisted. The ultimate example of this was Japan. SoftBank was in a distant third place. They said, “Fine, we'll take it.” Japan is a massive iPhone country, and NTT DoCoMo was one of the last carriers ever to carry the iPhone, precisely because NTT DoCoMo was the AOL of phone carriers.

Andrew Sharp

Hmm.

Ben Thompson

They had the full experience and the better experience. They were superior, and of course they wanted to hold onto that. Apple goes in, and SoftBank goes from this distant third place to—I can't remember if they passed NTT DoCoMo. I think they at least tied them as far as—

Andrew Sharp

Okay.

Ben Thompson

—share. They just obliterated NTT DoCoMo. Finally, around 2014—I think it was with the iPhone 6, because NTT DoCoMo and China Mobile came out in, I believe, the same year, around the same time—they gave in and started supporting the iPhone. Now the iPhone is just totally dominant in Japan. Everyone who stuck with NTT DoCoMo was like, “Oh, thank God, finally.”

By Apple controlling the hardware and software, they completely reconfigured the value chain for carriers, and—

Andrew Sharp

Right, and turned every carrier into a commodity at the end of the day.

Ben Thompson

That's right. Everyone over time is always like, “Why doesn't Apple become a carrier?” Apple loves to integrate things. They could provide a better experience. It's like, well, number one—

Andrew Sharp

Well, let them spend the money.

Ben Thompson

No, they can't provide a better experience because experience isn't a function of Apple's skill set. The experience is a function of spending capital—

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

—to build towers. That's a bad business for Apple in particular, which is making massive margins selling these things. More than that, because there was already competition in the market, what actually happened was that Cingular made a lot of money on the iPhone by selling super-high-priced plans. They also spent an astronomical amount of money because iPhones were using so much data.

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

So they had to spend that money just to stay competitive, and that happened to everyone. There was this massive build-out of equipment simply because the amount of data people were using exploded.

Andrew Sharp

To serve the iPhone user base.

Ben Thompson

That's right.

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

People forget—

Andrew Sharp

That makes sense.

Ben Thompson

The first few years of the iPhone were like this: There would be long periods where you just couldn't use it because the towers were so saturated, particularly in big cities. It's much better now, but it's much better now without Apple spending a dime on it.

Andrew Sharp

Right.

Ben Thompson

Right?

Andrew Sharp

Because everyone else but Apple spent a lot of money in order to ultimately serve Apple's interests.

Ben Thompson

The whole world did that. More than that, actually, one of the reasons why Apple's earnings were so predictable through about the iPhone 6S—

Andrew Sharp

Mm-hmm.

Ben Thompson

—is because what would happen was Apple, as this is becoming clear, was gaining leverage in every market, and every carrier that didn't have an iPhone was bleeding customers.

Andrew Sharp

Yeah.

Ben Thompson

So now they're coming to Apple begging for the iPhone. What Apple would say was, “Okay, you can have the iPhone, and you have to sign a sales guarantee of how many iPhones you're going to sell.”

Andrew Sharp

Ah, okay.

Ben Thompson

People wondered why Apple's forecasts—

Andrew Sharp

They know exactly—

Ben Thompson

—were so perfect.

Andrew Sharp

—how many iPhones are going to be sold. Yeah.

Ben Thompson

It's because it was contractually guaranteed how many iPhones they would sell. What was super funny, and I didn't even realize this until after the fact, is that I think it was the iPhone 6S. Suddenly, Apple kept missing earnings—

Andrew Sharp

Uh-huh.

Ben Thompson

—both up and down. They sold more than they expected, then fewer than they expected. It's like, what happened? Did they become totally incompetent? No. What happened was, with the iPhone 6, they finally ran out of carriers to add.

Andrew Sharp

I was gonna say.

Ben Thompson

They got NTT DoCoMo, and they got China Mobile.

Andrew Sharp

Sign one of those deals.

Ben Thompson

Right. And so they could no longer lock in guaranteed sales because they no longer had total leverage in the marketplace.

(预览)Apple 如何改变移动通信经济学、SpaceX 想如何利用频谱、航空公司与运营商、Yann LeCun 离开 Meta — 文字稿与摘要 | BidClub