Why Apple Owning a Cell Carrier Like AT&T or Verizon is Unlikely: A Strategic Breakdown

The question of why Apple, a company renowned for its end-to-end control over its products, hasn't acquired a major cell carrier like AT&T or Verizon sparked a lively Hacker News discussion. The overwhelming consensus suggests that such a move would be strategically and financially disadvantageous for Apple, despite the allure of "closing the loop" on the iPhone's ecosystem as suggested by the original poster.

The Financial and Strategic Deterrents

Several core arguments emerged against Apple entering the carrier business:

Low Margins and High Capital Expenditure: Commenters frequently pointed out that wireless carriers operate on significantly lower net profit margins (around 13% for Verizon, compared to Apple's ~26%) and are burdened by massive capital investments in infrastructure like cell towers and network upgrades (e.g., 6G). This contrasts sharply with Apple's preference for high-margin, asset-lighter businesses. As one user noted, "Managing millions of cell towers would be diluting their focus into a low-margin, commodity business, away from their high-margin luxury hardware/software engineering business." The sheer debt carried by major carriers (e.g., Verizon $115B, AT&T $126B) would also be a significant burden.
Antitrust and Regulatory Scrutiny: An acquisition of a major carrier by Apple would undoubtedly trigger intense antitrust investigations. Commenters believe regulators would likely block such a move to prevent monopolistic practices and preserve competition in the telecommunications sector.
Dilution of Core Focus: Apple's success stems from its expertise in designing and engineering premium hardware and software. Managing a complex, service-heavy, and geographically dispersed carrier network is a vastly different undertaking that would dilute executive focus and resources. While one commenter suggested a holding company structure could mitigate this, the prevailing view was that it's a distraction Apple doesn't need.
"Commodify Your Complement" Strategy: Apple currently benefits from carriers acting as "dumb pipes" for its data-hungry devices. iPhones are available on all major carriers, maximizing their market reach. As explained by one commenter referencing Joel Spolsky's strategy, Apple benefits by "being on any/all networks." Owning a single carrier would turn other carriers into direct competitors, potentially leading them to deprioritize or even drop iPhones, thereby shrinking Apple's distribution and advertising channels.
Operational Headaches: Running a carrier involves dealing with network outages, customer service complaints on a massive scale, and complex international regulations – responsibilities Apple currently avoids. Furthermore, carriers often act as crucial sales channels, handling terms and concessions for large enterprise customers that Apple itself might be unwilling to manage.

Exploring Alternatives and Counterpoints

While the general sentiment was against an acquisition, some alternative paths and nuances were discussed:

The MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator) Option: Some users suggested Apple could launch an MVNO, similar to Google Fi, by leasing network capacity from existing carriers. This would offer some level of service integration without the burden of owning infrastructure. However, others argued that MVNOs are often treated as "second-tier citizens" by host carriers, and Apple might not want to cede that much control or accept potentially deprioritized service. The success of an Apple MVNO would heavily depend on its negotiation power.
Carrier Profitability Debate: A point of contention was the actual profitability of carriers. While net margins are lower, one commenter noted AT&T's gross margin is 50-60%. Another argued that the "commoditization" of carriers is a myth. However, the high debt and capital expenditure requirements remained undisputed.
Satellite Communications Investment: It was highlighted that Apple is investing in satellite communications (e.g., with Globalstar), primarily for emergency services. This indicates an interest in alternative connectivity but on a much smaller, more controlled scale than acquiring a national carrier.

Broader Implications for Apple's Strategy

The discussion also shed light on Apple's overarching business philosophy:

Focus on High-Margin Niches: Apple consistently seeks to expand into high-margin businesses (like services – iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV+) where it can differentiate itself, often through privacy or superior user experience. The carrier business doesn't fit this mold.
Maintaining Brand Mystique: One commenter suggested Apple's success is partly built on a "mystique of superiority." It would be challenging to make a carrier network "noticeably better" to justify the Apple premium, especially when many users offload to Wi-Fi.
Questioning Expansion Necessity: Some argued that Apple, having captured a significant portion of its potential customer base in high-end devices, doesn't need to expand into a fundamentally different and challenging industry like telecom infrastructure simply for the sake of growth, countering the original poster's idea that Apple is "hitting walls."

Ultimately, the consensus is that Apple buying a major cell carrier is highly improbable. The financial burdens, regulatory roadblocks, strategic misalignment with its core strengths, and potential disruption to its existing successful sales model far outweigh the perceived benefits of complete end-to-end control that includes the network itself.