FT puts the price at U.S. $245 billion, which is larger than the gross national product of all but 39 countries. According to Wireless Intelligence’s most recent global rankings, Verizon Wireless, Vodafone and AT&T are the second, third and fourth largest carriers, in that order, by revenue. In terms of total subscribers, the multinational Vodafone is the world’s second largest carrier, while Verizon and AT&T rank 16^th and 18^th respectively.

In short this would be one hell of an deal, and by FT reckoning it would be the largest M&A transaction in history. That should be one reason to be skeptical that it’s true. There would be some big regulatory hurdles to such a deal, though they could probably be overcome since AT&T and Verizon wouldn’t themselves be merging. The biggest reason for skepticism, though, is we’ve been hearing talk of Verizon-Vodafone deals practically since the two companies combined their U.S. mobile operations in 2000. So far they’ve all come to naught.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro
• 12 tech leaders’ resolutions for 2012
• Report: How Mobile Cloud Computing Will Change Tech

Before there were Apple Retail stores and the App Stores, Apple relied on third-party vendors to sell and support Apple products. Sure, some folks bought directly from Apple, and there was a support line, but for the most part, third parties provided complete after-sales customer care, and most importantly, acted as representatives of the Apple brand. Apple couldn’t be everywhere and do everything, and vendors filled in the gaps, helping make Apple the well-respected company it is today.

Once Apple retail came on the scene, third-party resellers struggled. Many went out of business or had to consolidate because their supplier was suddenly also their competitor. Obviously, that’s not an ideal situation, but it has worked well enough for about 10 years now. Yet in the past year, Apple’s relationship with third-party sales and support outlets has moved from uncomfortable coexistence to downright hostility.

Resellers

Apple’s decision to kill off boxed versions of software like MobileMe, and presumably Lion (the developer preview is distributed via the App Store) cuts off the ability of resellers to provide these products to customers themselves. Predicting that iWork ‘12 and all future Apple software products will be App Store-only too is hardly a stretch. Profits on computers are usually pretty small for resellers, while software has much bigger margins. (It’s just a box with a disc or code after all.) It’s also likely that Apple’s most profitable product (from a margin standpoint), AppleCare, will also eventually be sold only online. These changes could easily push a number of struggling resellers off the cliff, even while they drive Apple’s revenue share up and keep costs to consumers down.

Developers

By selling software via the App Store, Apple gains an exclusive relationship with the user, leaving the developer out in the cold. Not only does Apple potentially get a higher percent of profit than when it sells a physical box, but it also gets to benefit from customer information.  Developers still have to maintain the support costs of their product, yet don’t have nearly as much access to customer data. They can’t easily cross-promote products, upsell, or even solicit feedback for new features.

Furthermore, new applications that “push the envelope” of user experience or features will likely get marginalized since App Store apps are only allowed to use certain approved Apple development techniques. We see this everyday with the iPhone, but at least on that platform it was like that from day one. As a longtime Mac user, it’s not a “feature” I’m keen to see make the leap to OS X.

Service Providers

Apple’s new Joint Venture program looks to be a support and service division similar to Best Buy’s Geek Squad. I wrote about it last year when Apple was awarded the trademark. For $499, business customers get prioritized access to Geniuses, along with workshops and loaner machines. On-site support is not directly mentioned, but is likely. Also, Apple is now using OnForce, and moving away from recommending independent third-party support via the Apple Consultants Network (ACN). The OnForce platform acts as an intermediary between end-user and technician, and technicians may not reveal their full contact information nor contact the customer directly when using the system.

For the record, I am a service provider for OnForce and a member of the ACN (see disclosure), so Apple’s decision to cut out the middle man affects me directly. If Apple stops referring third-party service providers like myself, many of my colleagues will go out of business just as many resellers did. When this happens, your main source for service for your Apple devices will have to be Apple Retail stores and if you don’t happen to live near one, you’ll be out of luck. And of course, as an exclusive provider, price and wait times for repair will be whatever Apple decides. High prices along with long wait times and considerable treks to Apple stores isn’t good for consumers, or ultimately Apple’s brand. Apple’s Joint Venture program promises much, but when some have priority access to a Genius, what happens to those who didn’t pay the $499?

One company, even one as powerful as Apple, cannot be all things to all people and will eventually spread itself too thin. If you don’t live near an Apple store or if you want an application or service provider not approved by Apple, the future isn’t bright. We’re moving one step closer to the day when “jailbreaking” the Mac OS becomes a necessity for users who prefer Apple’s more open past. In fact, I can easily imagine Steve Jobs responding to these concerns in his typically terse manner:

“These are our customers, not yours.”

- Sent from my iPad 2

Disclosure: Dave Greenbaum owns his own consulting business that supports Macs and PCs. He is an Apple Certified Support Professional, a service provider for OnForce, and a member of the Apple Consultants Network. Apple clearly states that membership of the ACN does not imply not offer any direct business relationship with the company.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• How Mobile Is Changing the Video Game Market — and What It Means
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• What App Distributors Can Learn from the Ringtone Craze

Over at Patently Apple, Jack Burcher Purcher reports that Apple is applying for a trademark called “Joint Venture.” The trademark application indicates that this will most likely be some kind of new service offering by Apple. Might Apple start providing on-site service just like Best Buy’s Geek Squad?

The key clauses in the patent application seem to indicate this just might be the case:

“International Class 037: Maintenance, installation and repair of computer hardware, computer peripherals, computer networks, and consumer electronic devices; information, advisory and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid.”

“International Class 042: Technical support and consulting services pertaining to computer hardware, computer peripherals, computer software and consumer electronics; troubleshooting and computer diagnostic services for computer hardware, computer peripherals, computer software and consumer electronic devices; consulting services in the field of selection, implementation and use of computer hardware and software systems for others.”

Would this be a good thing for Apple customers? Certainly being able to purchase additional on-site services directly from an Apple Store would be convenient. The Geniuses stay locked behind the bar (pun intended) and Apple relies on independent third-party sources who are often part of the Apple Consultants Network (ACN) or Apple Authorized Service Providers (AASP) to provide on-site service to Apple’s customers. For many of them, paying Apple directly to set up their Xserve or Airport Extreme may be a great idea and would be consistent with the offerings of big PC companies that provide end-to-end support for larger installations. Joint Venture members would be people trained by Apple, and specializing in Macs (unlike Best Buy’s on-site squad). It’s always possible that Apple could decide to have Joint Venture members be existing members of the ACN and AASP programs and the trademark could all be about branding.

If Apple opts for its own on-site “Genius Squad,” it would likely be biased towards Apple-approved solutions, utilizing equipment that Cupertino sells. This may limit the choice of customers and marginalize third-party vendors that don’t sell items in the Apple Store or web site. Currently AASPs and ACNs don’t work for Apple and don’t always recommend pure Apple solutions for their customers. If Apple entered into this territory, it could put some of these smaller independent companies out of business just as the Apple Stores did for independent Apple resellers.

Which is better? Independent support by non-Apple employees or on-site consultants who work for Apple? My vote, of course, is for independent solutions, but that’s because I’m a member of the ACN.

Then again, Apple may just be covering its bases should it ever decided to compete with, or limit, the AASP or ACN program. Apple’s silent on what it intends to do; the trademark filing is the only clue. Of course, I’m not sure which color shirt a potential “Genius Squad” would wear, either. Black turtlenecks would be too obvious.

Both Comcast and NBC have been among the leaders in bringing premium video content online; the cable company, through its On-Demand Online initiative (now inexplicably called Fancast Xfinity), and NBC through its distribution of videos on Hulu. But if the Comcast-NBC deal goes through, don’t expect the new joint venture to change much in the way the companies handle their videos online.

For instance, Comcast’s own digital media properties — like Fancast and Comcast.net — will remain part of the cable mothership and will not be included in the joint venture. Those sites will continue to be used for the cable company’s upcoming Xfinity project, which would tie the videos that are available to subscribers online to the cable packages that they’ve paid for.

Get this report for $79 when you subscribe to GigaOM Pro!

At the same time, Comcast execs seem to be taking a “hands off” approach to the way that NBC Universal chooses to distribute its videos online. On the companies’ investor relations call earlier today, Comcast COO Steve Burke said that he expected broadcast content NBC to continue to be available in an ad-supported format on Hulu, while the companies would reserve full-length videos from premium cable networks to be made available online through TV Everywhere-type services.

Calling the separate business models “complementary,” Burke went on to say that he didn’t expect much to change  in the way NBC Universal managed the distribution of its content.

“Right now, NBC Universal is distributing a lot of their broadcast content on Hulu, and they have been quite careful not to put too much of their paid-for-cable content out for free over the Internet,” Burke said. “We think both those strategies are smart and appropriate… and we would see after the deal closing, lots of broadcast content going to Hulu and being available for free, and cable content that cable customers pay for, that cable companies and satellite companies and telcos pay for, being on TV Everywhere.”

Burke also seemed to throw cold water on the formation of a premium, subscription-based service from Hulu. When asked if he foresaw the creation of a Hulu Premium service on the investor call, Burke said such a plan was “certainly not in the cards.” But on a press call a few hours later, he backpedaled from that stance while seeking to clarify his original answer. “During the next year, NBC Universal is very likely to be doing exactly what it had been doing,” Burke said.

Burke pointed out that NBC is just a minority shareholder in Hulu, and that the specific business models that needed to be worked out would be left to Hulu management, as well as to the new joint venture’s CEO Jeff Zucker. But Zucker declined to elaborate much on the topic, saying that he didn’t want to talk about the Hulu roadmap.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• OTT technologies and strategies for broadcasters
• Who and what to watch in the new era of the living room
• Connected Consumer Q3: Netflix fumbles; Kindle Fire shines

The venture will be 51 percent owned by Comcast, which is contributing its portfolio of cable networks, such as E!, the Gold Channel, a number of regional sports networks and other digital media properties, all of which are valued at around $7.25 billion. In addition, Comcast will make a payment of $6.5 billion in cash to GE, an amount that is subject to some adjustments between now and close of deal.

GE will own 49 percent of the venture, and will put up the broadcast network, theme parks, movie studio, and cable-television channels of NBC Universal. In order to make the deal work, NBC will borrow approximately $9.1 billion from third-party lenders and distribute the cash to GE.

GE will purchases Vivendi’s 20 percent stake in NBC Universal for $5.8 billion, a price that the companies agreed to earlier this week. As part of that deal, GE has agreed to purchase a  7.66 percent stake of NBC from Vivendi for $2 billion in September 2010, if the Comcast deal is not completed by then. GE would then acquire the remaining 12.34 percent stake of NBC for $3.8 billion when the Comcast deal closes.

Jeff Zucker, current president and CEO of NBC Universal, will be chief executive of the joint venture, reporting to Comcast COO Steve Burke. The new entity will be headquartered in New York, and will have a board of directors that includes three members from Comcast and two from GE.

The companies spent the last nine months negotiating a deal, but now the real fun begins. The deal is expected to face intense scrutiny from government regulators, which will take several months and could wipe out some of the benefits of creating the venture.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Ultimate Guide To TV Everywhere
• Report: The Ongoing Battle for the Digital Home
• Connected consumer first-quarter 2013: Analysis and outlook