Apple and NeXT?

In the case of hospitals, a system occasionally takes over a bankrupt hospital. That isn't particularly worse for the people that continue to have proximity to the services available at the hospital.

Apple agreed to acquire NeXT and its technology in order to bring back Jobs, when Apple was on the cusp of bankruptcy, was absolutely certain to die, and had no negotiating power. It wasn't a merger.

Also modern Apple devices are based on the NeXT's operating system and have nothing other than cosmetic and emulative compatibility with MacOS. OSX/macOS is NeXTStep on top of Mach.

source: bought $100,000 of APPL in 1997.

>Apple agreed to acquire NeXT and its technology in order to bring back Jobs

Not really to "bring back Jobs". Jobs was not considered any kind of wonder CEO or miracle worker at the time. They wanted a new OS, as their own traditional Mac OS successor attempt had failed.

They also looked and negotiated with Be (for BeOS), so it wasn't that they wanted Jobs particularly.

It would just be a nice "back to roots" publicity side benefit, but nobody considered Jobs especially their potential saviour at the time...

Even if you credit all of their software to NeXT, Jony Ive was at Apple pre-NeXT-acquisition and it’s hard to imagine their turnaround going as well as it did without his work on the iMac.

>His followers are crazed and or ignorant cultists with zero design taste or sensibility.

Is that he has been awarded dozens of prestigious design awards and accolades from famous industrial designers?

Because all these have also "zero design taste"?

How about you overblow some of his wrong choices and obsessions (especially around 2015-2018), and ignore more than a decade of wonderful products, widely successful, praised for their design (looks and function), and well received?

Here's an Ive fanboy:

I’m have to admit being a bit baffled by how nobody else seems to have done what Apple did with the Macbook Air – even several years after the first release, the other notebook vendors continue to push those ugly and clunky things. Yes, there are vendors that have tried to emulate it, but usually pretty badly. I don’t think I’m unusual in preferring my laptop to be thin and light. Btw, even when it comes to Apple, it’s really just the Air that I think is special. The other apple laptops may be good-looking, but they are still the same old clunky hardware, just in a pretty dress. I’m personally just hoping that I’m ahead of the curve in my strict requirement for “small and silent”. It’s not just laptops, btw – Intel sometimes gives me pre-release hardware, and the people inside Intel I work with have learnt that being whisper-quiet is one of my primary requirements for desktops too. I am sometimes surprised at what leaf-blowers some people seem to put up with under their desks.

https://www.cultofmac.com/162823/linux-creator-linus-torvald...

Yes, Ive was absolute shit, which is why Steve Jobs (widely known as a cuddly man who never had a sharp word to say), said

"If I had a spiritual partner at Apple, it's Jony. Jony and I think up most of the products together and then pull others in and say, 'Hey, what do you think about this?' He gets the picture as well as the most infinitesimal details about each product. And he understands that Apple is a product company. He's not just a designer. That's why he works directly for me. He has more operational power than anyone else at Apple except me."

But sure. I prefer the clunky beige form that ruled the world before Apple started making big design waves in computers.

You’re welcome to that opinion, but the iMac took off years before OS X was an operating system anyone would want to use.

The iMac as introduced didn't run OSX and wasn't related to its introduction.

It appears you believe that Mac OS 8 was the OS of the future. You're welcome to that opinion.

No, what I’m saying is without the iMac the company would have sunk before OS X could do anything to save it

A lot of people think that tmobile and metro PCS merger really benefited the mobile carrier industry.

While there were more companies before the merger, verizon and at&t were dominating that a long tail of small companies was not true competition.

When tmobile merged, it started to add a true 3rd competitor to the scene and they were the first to do a lot of stuff with unlimited data. Many people attribute verizon and at&t following suit to their initial move.

Of course this is speculation as no one can prove casual linkage between these events, but it seems pretty plausible.

The Metro PCS merger was not at all significant compared to the load of spectrum and cash T-Mobile received when the AT&T merger didn’t go through.

I think sprint and T-Mobile merging would help create a real competitor to ATT and Verizon too. It’s just the nature of mobile networks that bigger is better.

I disagree here, with the disclaimer that I don’t have an incredible knowledge of this industry so my details could be inaccurate. I’m just an armchair quarterback.

Sure, Sprint is a dead carrier waking, but T-Mobile is already a competitor to Verizon and AT&T.

T-Mobile doesn’t need Sprint to compete with the other two at this point. They have the spectrum. They also have a 5G network rollout out with the lowest frequencies, which means they’ll actually have a coverage advantage.

Back to Sprint, they essentially can’t afford to build out 5G. But for consumers, they’re the cheapest option by far, especially when you consider their MVNOs like Boost Mobile. They also have a tremendous mess of spectrum that isn’t a very good situation for device interoperability and availability, nor is it good for rolling out 5G at all.

In other words, Sprint needs T-Mobile, but T-Mobile doesn’t need Sprint.

If Sprint cut costs and declared that they are the cheap, forever on 4G network, that would benefit price-sensitive consumers. Sprint’s competitive advantage would be that it doesn’t have to spend a lot of money on bothering to upgrade anything, or the marketing budgets that Verizon and the rest spend (I’d love to know how much of our monthly bill ends up on TV), and that their 4G network is good enough if you mostly care about price.

In my view this is the alternative that the corporations won’t even suggest to the public because it’s not as profitable. The people who own Sprint maximize their investment returns by selling to T-Mobile.

Sprint going bankrupt or being sold in pieces or in whole may even benefit the consumer more than Sprint being absorbed by T-Mobile, but the big three are never going to admit that.

Finally, what’s happening here is that you are unintentionally parroting T-Mobile’s own PR and lobbying efforts. T-Mobile put out news stories and press releases describing this exact scenario and how it benefits the consumer. They claim that they will truly do 5G right if they own Sprint, but I think they just want Sprint’s customers to be tacked on to their own.

> T-Mobile is already a competitor to Verizon and AT&T.

How come T-Mobile is consistently cheaper than ATT and Verizon? How come Verizon is the most expensive?

If the networks were the same, why would people opt to pay Verizon more? As far as I know, for coverage, Verizon > ATT > T-Mobile. It’s mostly a function of more towers, and I presume T-Mobile has the fewest.

I'm not sure if economists have developed some sort of model that would show when a consolidation would be beneficial in the long term for consumers, but I'd sure like to see one. We tend to not like it when firms collude with each other to control prices or stave off competition, in fact, we make it illegal to do so. But we rarely give them much trouble when they want to merge, which really isn't any different from collusion, don't you think?

I think there's differences of attention that make it different. When there's only one brand name, it invites a competitor from another market in. When there's three, but they all have the same policy, that's a bit different.

It's no different at all. Indeed the reason mergers are allowed but not open collusion is just to satisfy public opinion.

Anything where the size of a network increases. For example, airlines merging can mean more opportunities for connections.

Recent airline mergers in the US have clearly been a net negative for customers, probably for this exact reason. All of the airlines already flew to basically all the major airports, so mergers simply served to reduce competition and worsen prices and quality of service.

On the other hand, until the recent consolidation, US airlines were a terrible investment, so perhaps it’s not a viable business without huge economies of scale.

There’s even a joke of “how to go from billionaire to millionaire? Buy an airline”.

Sounds like an area for Vision Fund to extend the We brand into. Fits their model well.

If you want to be a millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline.

- Richard Branson

I feel like in the US, the massive domestic airline consolidation has mostly shrunk networks.

Yes! X.com and Confinity merged to become PayPal.

I can’t tell if you’re joking or not.

Well done.

If marginal services or businesses essentially /need/ to merge to survive it could improve things certainly, but in that case the extent suggested is usually slim to none since the alternative is foregone insolvency for both.

There are studies that a fragmented hospital landscape wit too many small hospitals are increasing risks here in Germany. Whether mergers would make matters any better I don‘t know.

Though it's definitely the exception, I found it nice when Patreon and Subbable merged. Everyone being on one platform, and the payment structure being consistent, was a plus.

It would be nice if the FTC did their job of breaking up conglomerates and preventing monopolistic competition. But Washington is like a plutocracy and the FTC wouldn't be serving the interests of all that network of money and favors being passed around.