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

51–60 of 60 posts

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

#51

Post by cosmicgadget »

Dkumpikolo wrote: post #42
cosmicgadget wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am not sure how else to define "fully integrated end-to-end".

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

#52

Post by Dkumpikolo »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #51
Dkumpikolo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am not sure how else to define "fully integrated end-to-end".

Http, https, etc. the protocols responsible for the end to end communication

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

#53

Post by cosmicgadget »

Dkumpikolo wrote: post #52
cosmicgadget wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure how else to define "fully integrated end-to-end".

Http, https, etc. the protocols responsible for the end to end communication

Protocols and nodes are not the same.

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

#54

Post by theobreuerweil »

sambaumann wrote: post #15
globie wrote: post #11

Like many others have pointed out, Apple is obsessed with avoiding antitrust scrutiny. A fun (edit: incorrect) example: they are fine owning the device you use to connect to their own streaming service to watch their own produced TV shows, but appear to strictly avoid showing their products in those shows. EDIT: I stand corrected! Multiple "Apple Original Series" contain Apple products, such as in Ted Lasso and (I th…

The characters in Ted Lasso almost exclusively have iPhones and Macs

To the extent that a character makes a joke about his relationship getting serious enough that they started sharing an iCloud account

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

#57

Post by Dkumpikolo »

solardev wrote: post #49
Dkumpikolo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it's only about the antenna you should be able to connect it with a cable and put it on a backpack

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

#58

Post by Spooky23 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #38
dublinben wrote: post #16

Wireless carriers are a low-margin, increasingly commoditized business. Apple is only interested in expanding into high-margin businesses like services (iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV, etc.) where they can offer unique value (e.g. privacy) compared to their competitors. Apple keeps so much cash on hand because they have more money than worthwhile ways to invest it.

Uh no, they print money. They just have more costal spend and wouldn’t make Apple balance sheet attractive for wall st. The commoditization is a myth - it’s like beer, most of the competition are brands that are either reskinned white label services or partners.

s/costal/capital/

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

#59

Post by dymk »

hollerith wrote: post #25
akudha wrote: post #24

Why hasn’t Apple entered the medical devices business (glucose monitors etc)? Isn’t that a lot easier than spending hundreds of billions into buying a carrier?

Apple is adding features that compete with medical devices, but my guess is that they haven't developed any devices that require FDA approval because the approval process would eat up too much mental bandwidth among their executives. Apple seems to have a healthy instinct for conserving executive bandwidth.

AirPods Pro are FDA approved as hearing aids

Apple Watch has FDA marketing authorization for afib detection (and looks like sleep apnea detection as well)

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

#60

Post by PaulHoule »

basch wrote: post #50
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 themselve…

The puzzle of capitalism is that a company that won't spend to expand their network will happily spend $15 billion to buy a competitor.

As a worker you're mainly concerned about how many dollars you get for an hour of work, a capitalist is concerned about the return they get on investment -- they want to invest as little as possible but get as large a return as possible.

A consequence of that is that a huge valuation like what Apple has is a bit of a bluff. If they really started to invest that capital their valuation would collapse, their capital looks valuable because they can run a big business while using very little of it.

Post reply on HN