Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why hasn't Apple bought a cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't Apple bought a cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon?

#41

Post by lotsofpulp »

nabla9 wrote: post #30
lotsofpulp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true, just from first principles. You think anyone would watch Apple TV+ shows if there were no suspense or mystery because all the good guys use Apple stuff and all the bad guys use non Apple stuff?

It is true. You can't use first principles to make argument about easily verifiable facts. There are movies that use loopholes and gray areas, of course. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/26/apple-doe...

That Rian Johnson interview got milked to high heavens for clickbait. Genius marketing by him, especially since he makes mystery movies.

Plenty of examples of bad guys using iPhones here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/13hrdak/comment...

https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/13hrdak/rant_ap...

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't Apple bought a cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon?

#42

Post by Dkumpikolo »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #35
Dkumpikolo wrote: post #17

why would they? It's already a fully integrated end-to-end communication device. They don't know how to operate it, they don't care about millions of people complaining about shitty network, they don't have to handle internationalization and they would position themselves against whoever carrier is before/after at&t, Verizon and T-Mobile. They make huge margins by making hardware. This type of margin is not happening…

Uh, doesn't it need a network to be an end-to-end communications device? Except for physical proximity of course.

If you wanna define it like this then apple would need to be your home ISP too.

And owning all the fiber connections between the base stations and their network.

And all connections from home to their network.

And even if they have that, you are not browsing Verizon services but from others like Google etc.

They don't do that.

Closest operator I know could be German Telekom because they came out from the state owned Telekom company and they got all the copper which was laying around.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't Apple bought a cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon?

#43

Post by Dkumpikolo »

solardev wrote: post #23
Dkumpikolo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weirdly enough though. It's super expensive, only a real option for emergencies and not a mass market. Either they expect low orbit sat to be the next thing or it's a pure diversity topic because yeah what else should they do

Isn't low orbit sat what Starlink is?

Yes

But for high speed the smallest antenna is still centimeters wide.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't Apple bought a cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon?

#44

Post by solardev »

Dkumpikolo wrote: post #17

why would they? It's already a fully integrated end-to-end communication device. They don't know how to operate it, they don't care about millions of people complaining about shitty network, they don't have to handle internationalization and they would position themselves against whoever carrier is before/after at&t, Verizon and T-Mobile. They make huge margins by making hardware. This type of margin is not happening…

PS it looks to me like all of your comments are being auto-marked as "dead" and won't show up to most readers. Not sure why; they seem totally reasonable to me.

Might wanna reach out to hn@ycombinator.com and ask.

(Welcome to HN btw)

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't Apple bought a cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon?

#45

Post by solardev »

nottorp wrote: post #33

Instead of worshipping company growth, perhaps you should think of your interests as a potential customer and remember competition is good when you're buying...

All our carriers kinda suck, though. The best ones are all MVNOs. Apple entering the space WOULD be competition.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't Apple bought a cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon?

#47

Post by xboxnolifes »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #26
nabla9 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but appear to strictly avoid showing their products in those shows. Apple has 'villains can't use iPhones' rule. Directors are not allowed to use Apple product placement for villains. Apple pushes their products in Apple TV+ and pays for product placements, or provides their products for free for other productions as as long as you follow the rules.

That is not true, just from first principles. You think anyone would watch Apple TV+ shows if there were no suspense or mystery because all the good guys use Apple stuff and all the bad guys use non Apple stuff?

Just have everyone use non-apple stuff? What?

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't Apple bought a cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon?

#49

Post by solardev »

Dkumpikolo wrote: post #43
solardev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't low orbit sat what Starlink is?

Yes But for high speed the smallest antenna is still centimeters wide.

Interesting. I wonder if you can space it out virtually by having several iPhone users stand near each other and form a virtual antenna?

I don't need to be able to stream 4k from the woods, but it would be nice to be able to download topo maps and such while hiking.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't Apple bought a cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon?

#50

Post by basch »

prewett wrote: post #32

In addition to anti-trust problems, why would Apple want a capital intensive, low-margin, commodity business? Verizon has a net profit margin of about 13%, Apple is currently about twice that. Furthermore, Apple makes computers (the iPhone being a pocket computer using the cell network instead of wired or Wi-fi). Managing millions of cell towers would be diluting their focus into a low-margin, commodity business, awa…

>Managing millions of cell towers would be diluting their focus

Somewhat disagree. If you stuck Apple and ATT into a single holding company, each company still has identical focus. Does Berkshire Hathaway buying another company dilute the focus of any other?

I am always surprised when companies want to eliminate small divisions and projects that break even as if they cant just exist off to the side, pay for themselves, and be otherwise ignored. Not everything has to contribute to corporate profit. Resources that pay for themselves aren't consumed in a way that can be reallocated if they are eliminated.

Post reply on HN