Starbucks/AT&T deal to include edge servers for Apple?
In the world of wireless networking, there are big secrets and little secrets. For a great rundown on the obvious and hidden implications of the AT&T/Starbucks WiFi deal, you should check out Glenn Fleishman's piece at TidBITS. Glenn sussed out the various flavors of AT&T's offering, mused about the implications of WiFi ubiquity for the anticipated 3G iPhone, and tried to track down the deal for Starbucks card holders; it's still not clear exactly how the "2 hours of access" arrangement will work, but the expectation is that anyone with a Starbucks card that gets used (to make a purchase) once a month will be able to connect for up to two hours a day during that month.Things got really interesting, however, when Glenn talked to Starbucks CTO Chris Bruzzo about the AT&T deal. Bruzzo strongly implied that Starbucks retail locations are caching iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store content for sales to iTunes, iPhone and iPod touch users in-store, rather than having to backhaul the content from Apple. Glenn quotes Bruzzo, "Right now in our stores that have the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store, you go and buy the song that's playing directly overhead, and see how fast it transfers." If Starbucks is populating hundreds of Wi-Fi Store-enabled locations with edge servers to speed content delivery for music, wouldn't it make sense to do the same for the yet-huger TV show and movie files that are zipping about? At that point, Starbucks becomes a loading zone for both caffeine and content. Fill 'er up!
Update: Apparently there's some confusion over 'edge servers.' To clarify, I don't mean EDGE as in AT&T's 2.5G wireless network, I mean edge as in the edge of a network, a razor, or of night. Apple's investment in and longtime use of Akamai shows that it understands the value of having content decentralized across the network.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Chad said 11:32AM on 2-14-2008
'the expectation is that anyone with a Starbucks card that gets used once a month will be able to connect for up to two hours a day during that month.'
It's pretty clear that if you use your Starbucks card, you get two free hours of internet that day and only that day. If you don't purchase anything you don't get the free internet.
Reply
Michael Rose said 11:40AM on 2-14-2008
Chad, sorry, you're mistaken -- the 2 free hours comes with the card, not with a coffee.
Per Fleishman's post at http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008175.html
"AT&T says in their press release that all Starbucks Card holders, which is simply their value-storing swipe card system, will get two hours of free Wi-Fi a day. No purchase is needed: you just need an active card, I confirmed with the company. Walk in, buy a $5 value card, activate it, and you’re on for two hours a day from then forward."
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=827
Michael Rose said 3:37PM on 2-14-2008
Glenn updated his research (and I've updated the post) -- as far as we know now, any card purchase during the month qualifies you for 2 hrs/day of access.
matthew said 11:37AM on 2-14-2008
IMHO, Starbucks should offer FREE f'ing WiFi, just like Panera, etc.
I fully realize that this is not an inexpensive proposition for ATT and Starbucks. But complicated and/or expensive access for customers is just not going to have much appeal for the average person. If Starbucks wants to reinvigorate their business (which isn't doing too well, if you haven't been following the company), free WiFi would be a great way to do it.
Reply
Michael Rose said 11:42AM on 2-14-2008
I think SBUX's take is that the regular customers have Starbucks cards anyway, so this is "practically free" access on a loyalty basis.
matthew said 11:46AM on 2-14-2008
"I think SBUX's take is that the regular customers have Starbucks cards anyway"
The general consensus is that issue with SBUX downturn is due to slowing traffic. I stand behind my earlier post, but do not for a second think I have it exactly right.
potato said 5:12PM on 2-14-2008
It's a fine balancing act. Starbucks wants customers who come in, order, take the product, and get the hell out. High turnover is good for business.
The guy sitting in the corner on his laptop for hours on end, nursing a $4 latte, is not good for business.
So while creating a good "hang out" atmosphere is good for their bottom line, in the end they don't want you sitting around forever, which is exactly what WiFi will do.
Go to a free-WiFi coffee shop sometime, and try to find a table. In most cases it's downright maddeningly impossible, given the number of people camped out with their laptops.
Tony said 5:35PM on 2-14-2008
"IMHO, Starbucks should offer FREE f'ing WiFi, just like Panera, etc."
Have you *used* (or tried to use) the "free WiFi" at Panera? I've tried twice, at 2 different Panera's, and it's worse than dialup. I'd rather surf the web on my cellphone. Very basic sites take so long to load it's not even worth it.
Of course, your mileage may vary, but so far I'm 0 for 2 at Panera.
Gary said 11:43AM on 2-14-2008
How many folk in any given Starbucks outlet are actually buying tracks in store to download onto their iPhone/iPod touch at any one time? I'm probably not the best judge of this kind of thing (I buy those CD things that used to be so popular), but I can't believe it's the kind of volume that requires dedicated servers caching 4Mb music files.
That's a lot of investment for the presumably very limited slice of iTunes revenue they're receiving.
Reply
Michael Rose said 11:48AM on 2-14-2008
Good point -- which makes one think there must be more coming from this substantial capital investment and long-term strategic relationship between Apple, AT&T and 'buckys.
theun4gven said 2:11PM on 2-14-2008
These 'dedicated' servers are not there just to allow more people to download at any one time. They are there to allow super fast downloads to those who do make purchases within the store. This would allow users in Starbucks to download a song in about two seconds assuming they have around an 11Mbit/sec connection.
Think of it this way: Transferring a file from one computer on your home network to another on your same network will be very fast while transferring that file to a relative across the country will take much longer. the path between the people using the Starbucks network and the locally stored files is much smaller and, therefore, much faster.
Also, these servers can still be used to transfer the files to Joe Everyman using iTunes on his home computer, thereby freeing up bandwidth to Apple's other servers. They don't just have to serve the files to Starbucks patrons.
Gary said 4:24AM on 2-15-2008
I understand why caching is great for the end user, I just don't think that it makes business sense for Starbucks to invest in the hardware needed to cache the iTunes catalog at its individual locations.
I imagine that if Apple/Stabucks/AT&T want mobile downloads to truly take off, they have to make the user experience as seemless as possible, but how much money is there to be made from offering $.99 songs to iPhone owners in Starbucks outlets?
I'd love to know the average number of songs sold per Starbucks location per day.
Bender Bending Rodriguez said 11:50AM on 2-14-2008
Will they be using Xserves for this purpose? This seems like a perfect fit for these elegant and hassle servers.
Reply
SubGenius said 12:38PM on 2-14-2008
I think a Mac mini would be more appropriate. Just share the internet connection over it's built in WiFi hardware.
YoJIMbo said 12:43PM on 2-14-2008
I assume you mean hassle-free ;)
Bender Bending Rodriguez said 12:48PM on 2-14-2008
@ YoJIMbo: haha Thanks, tha is wht I meant.
@ SubGenius: Perhaps a Xserve is overkill if it's 'just' for Starbucks playlists, but the Mac Mini isn't a good fit either. Time Capsule would be much more ideal as it's already a robust wireless router with a built-in 500GB or 1TB of storage.
Todd Bradley said 1:13PM on 2-14-2008
So that would seem to imply there are computer systems in Starbucks locations nationwide that have copies of copyrighted music files. How does the RIAA feel about this?
Reply
theun4gven said 2:10PM on 2-14-2008
They probably feel the same as they do about any other of Apple's many servers that store their music for downloads.
Håkan said 6:59PM on 2-14-2008
This seems like just the thing RIAA lawyers love bitching about, but, well, Apple makes them money.
Glenn Fleishman said 1:14PM on 2-14-2008
Thanks for the link love.
I had to confirm a bit more with Starbucks about their Starbucks Card deal. The press release is rather obscure. I wound up having three conversations with them about this to get the actual details.
You must make one purchase on a Starbucks Card each month to get the free Wi-Fi for two hours per day during that month. You don't need to make a purchase that day (unless you haven't so far that month), and the purchase can be any amount.
The reason there's so much confusion is that they weren't ready to "message" this issue, surprisingly, so they didn't have fact sheet on it. They were focused on the bigger stuff, and plan to have full details and restrictions available before the launch.
Really, this means spending $1 to $2 per month if you don't otherwise purchase anything in the stores on a regular basis to get 2 hours per day during that month. Cheap.
On the EDGE/edge thing, I know I'm on the edge when I talk about edge servers not EDGE servers, but it's a good point. The network is always more powerful on the edge; that's why Apple invested in and uses Akamai, which is an edge-to-the-ISP server group.
Which means, Apple already has a tech investment in a company that knows how to replicate content "close" to each set of users.
Reply