10 ms·

>Free, Not free according to Musk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4&t=12m37s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4&t=12m37s >Well it can't be

>Free, Not free according to Musk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4&t=12m37s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4&t=12m37s >Well it can't be free. Because then we'll, like, we'll go out of business. [laugh] >No, no, it can't be free to the user. I don't think so. >This would be... this would cost a lot to build. Ultimately over time to build the full version of the system, we're talking about something that would be 10 or 15 billion dollars to create. Maybe more. And the user terminals would be at least 100, to maybe 300 dollars, depending on which type of terminal. >And this is intended to generate a significant amount of revenue, and help fund a city on Mars. So looking into the long term, and saying, "what's needed to create a city on Mars?" Well one thing's for sure... a lot of money. [laugh] So we need things that will generate a lot of money.

fmueller 10y ago
Nothing a company builds is free. And I think it's better to pay with money than with data. Not saying you're not paying with both here.
- FilterSweep 10y ago
  > Not saying you're not paying with both here. If Facebook's "Open Internet" (Read: "Walled Garden") denied by India is any indication, you're unfortunately paying more for the service with your personal data than you are with any money.
- bigboris 10y ago
  Absolutely. Money is once...you pay it to someone, they pay it to someone else, they no longer have it. When you pay someone with your data, they have that forever and can monetize it hundreds of different ways over and over long after you've moved on or stopped using whatever you got from them.
  - thasaleni 10y ago
    One question we fail to ask, when we compare money to personal data, is how much is that data worth to you, when it's not being monetized by some company x?
    - xchaotic 10y ago
      Not much at all in most cases, at least not in a way you can easily monetize. To sum up others can get some money from it, you don't. So you are getting the short end of the stick. This made me delete most of my social media accounts.
flueedo 10y ago
15 billion to develop and deploy to space over four thousand satelites (not ignoring the fact that developing the prototype costs orders of magnitude more than simply assemblying the rest) seems like a gross underestimation...
- phpnode 10y ago
  Presumably they've thought this through before announcing it.
- drcross 10y ago
  Musk's real practical talent seems to be as a "scaling enthusiast". While I don't want to come across as a fanboy, I've been re-thinking my assumptions recently based on his perspective of what the real costs of things should be when manufacturing, testing and QC is mostly automated and I can't find fault with a lot of his calculations.
- simonh 10y ago
  If they can put up 20 sats per launch, that's a cost of $75m per launch. With first stage re-usability each launch might cost ~$35m, leaving $2m to pay for each of those 20 satellites. This isn't taking into account the cost of ground stations and operational costs such as personnel, but it doesn't seem completely outlandish.
- aalbertson 10y ago
  Elon Musk != Donald Trump. When he makes statements/estimations, even if they prove significantly conservative, they are truly grounded in verifiable facts.
  - namlem 10y ago
    I certainly would not call Musk's statements conservative. He does ultimately deliver, but seldom on schedule.
- bigboris 10y ago
  People have been trying this for decades without success. McCaw and Gates tried it in the 90s with Teledesic, for example. Iridium also tried it without success. IIRC, Teledesic's early estimates 20 years ago were ~$10B.
wscott 10y ago
>And this is intended to generate a significant amount of revenue You gotta appreciate the honesty. It is so unusual that we still look at this trying to see the angles.
- notheguyouthink 10y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted. Very true statement, imo.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  One of the good impressions that I get from Musk: Money does not seem to be his goal, but rather a side-effect of good technology. Unlike a lot of other people who seem to use good technology as a means of achieving money. He seems genuinely eager to get projects started and self-sustainable so that they can outlive him and push humanity forward.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    > Unlike a lot of other people who seem to use good technology as a means of achieving money. There's nothing wrong with this. In fact many pure tech projects fail completely because they don't understand how to make money, ultimately helping no one.
    - baq 10y ago
      that's the whole point of the GP: it's not the tech or the money that's the goal, it's the helping out part that drives both the tech and the money. i agree that this doesn't look usual and i applaud Musk for becoming rich and still being focused on his original goals instead of trying to make more money.
      - manigandham 10y ago
        > being focused on his original goals instead of trying to make more money. My point is that there's nothing wrong with trying to make more money as the goal. It's not some morally lesser option.
mehdix 10y ago
I guess the OP means "free" as in "freedom" not as in "free beer".
dmihal 10y ago
There was an article on HN at some point talking about how GPS is one of the first free-for-everyone services ever. GPS requires maintaining an array of satellites, but governments have decided that footing the bill for maintenance is worth it to give the whole planet access to GPS.
- bigboris 10y ago
  First, GPS is the US, not "governments". The US owns it, period. There's only one reasonably functional alternative and that's GLONASS which is Russian. There is no communal body or activity supporting GPS other than the US (and by extension US taxpayers). The US can deny access to GPS anytime it wishes through a feature called Selective Availability (SA). This was turned off in the early 2000s and the official US position is that it "has no intent" to turn it on again but there's nothing preventing it. Second, access to GPS (the receivers) is further regulated by the US under certain conditions (ie those that would provide a military advantage) and require an ITAR license from the US. Third, GPS was developed and is maintained specifically for defense/military purposes. Public GPS is less capable and the more capable military signals are encrypted. Sure, it is used by the public, but that is not the primary use case. Granted, this is evolving as the US is at the forefront of things like autonomous vehicles and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications which require precise positioning data but the intent was and is to support US efforts primarily military. Any global benefit is purely incidental.
perseusprime11 10y ago
I like Elon but think he is not thinking straight here. Eventually Internet will become free. No point in thinking of making significant revenue.
- jayshua 10y ago
  Why is that inevitable?
norea-armozel 10y ago
Even at 300 dollars a month if he throws in a decent hub or terminal it could be a net savings for any NGO, research team, or rural government or village. Especially on the last two if they're allow to resell a portion of their access to cover their costs. I hope the 100 dollar price point becomes viable, though. That would probably increase the market for them and just would be a boon for many more people.

fmueller 10y ago

Nothing a company builds is free. And I think it's better to pay with money than with data. Not saying you're not paying with both here.

FilterSweep 10y ago
> Not saying you're not paying with both here. If Facebook's "Open Internet" (Read: "Walled Garden") denied by India is any indication, you're unfortunately paying more for the service with your personal data than you are with any money.
bigboris 10y ago
Absolutely. Money is once...you pay it to someone, they pay it to someone else, they no longer have it. When you pay someone with your data, they have that forever and can monetize it hundreds of different ways over and over long after you've moved on or stopped using whatever you got from them.
- thasaleni 10y ago
  One question we fail to ask, when we compare money to personal data, is how much is that data worth to you, when it's not being monetized by some company x?
  - xchaotic 10y ago
    Not much at all in most cases, at least not in a way you can easily monetize. To sum up others can get some money from it, you don't. So you are getting the short end of the stick. This made me delete most of my social media accounts.

flueedo 10y ago

15 billion to develop and deploy to space over four thousand satelites (not ignoring the fact that developing the prototype costs orders of magnitude more than simply assemblying the rest) seems like a gross underestimation...

phpnode 10y ago
Presumably they've thought this through before announcing it.
drcross 10y ago
Musk's real practical talent seems to be as a "scaling enthusiast". While I don't want to come across as a fanboy, I've been re-thinking my assumptions recently based on his perspective of what the real costs of things should be when manufacturing, testing and QC is mostly automated and I can't find fault with a lot of his calculations.
simonh 10y ago
If they can put up 20 sats per launch, that's a cost of $75m per launch. With first stage re-usability each launch might cost ~$35m, leaving $2m to pay for each of those 20 satellites. This isn't taking into account the cost of ground stations and operational costs such as personnel, but it doesn't seem completely outlandish.
aalbertson 10y ago
Elon Musk != Donald Trump. When he makes statements/estimations, even if they prove significantly conservative, they are truly grounded in verifiable facts.
- namlem 10y ago
  I certainly would not call Musk's statements conservative. He does ultimately deliver, but seldom on schedule.
bigboris 10y ago
People have been trying this for decades without success. McCaw and Gates tried it in the 90s with Teledesic, for example. Iridium also tried it without success. IIRC, Teledesic's early estimates 20 years ago were ~$10B.

wscott 10y ago

>And this is intended to generate a significant amount of revenue You gotta appreciate the honesty. It is so unusual that we still look at this trying to see the angles.

notheguyouthink 10y ago
Not sure why you're downvoted. Very true statement, imo.
CaptSpify 10y ago
One of the good impressions that I get from Musk: Money does not seem to be his goal, but rather a side-effect of good technology. Unlike a lot of other people who seem to use good technology as a means of achieving money. He seems genuinely eager to get projects started and self-sustainable so that they can outlive him and push humanity forward.
- manigandham 10y ago
  > Unlike a lot of other people who seem to use good technology as a means of achieving money. There's nothing wrong with this. In fact many pure tech projects fail completely because they don't understand how to make money, ultimately helping no one.
  - baq 10y ago
    that's the whole point of the GP: it's not the tech or the money that's the goal, it's the helping out part that drives both the tech and the money. i agree that this doesn't look usual and i applaud Musk for becoming rich and still being focused on his original goals instead of trying to make more money.
    - manigandham 10y ago
      > being focused on his original goals instead of trying to make more money. My point is that there's nothing wrong with trying to make more money as the goal. It's not some morally lesser option.

mehdix 10y ago

I guess the OP means "free" as in "freedom" not as in "free beer".

dmihal 10y ago

There was an article on HN at some point talking about how GPS is one of the first free-for-everyone services ever. GPS requires maintaining an array of satellites, but governments have decided that footing the bill for maintenance is worth it to give the whole planet access to GPS.

bigboris 10y ago
First, GPS is the US, not "governments". The US owns it, period. There's only one reasonably functional alternative and that's GLONASS which is Russian. There is no communal body or activity supporting GPS other than the US (and by extension US taxpayers). The US can deny access to GPS anytime it wishes through a feature called Selective Availability (SA). This was turned off in the early 2000s and the official US position is that it "has no intent" to turn it on again but there's nothing preventing it. Second, access to GPS (the receivers) is further regulated by the US under certain conditions (ie those that would provide a military advantage) and require an ITAR license from the US. Third, GPS was developed and is maintained specifically for defense/military purposes. Public GPS is less capable and the more capable military signals are encrypted. Sure, it is used by the public, but that is not the primary use case. Granted, this is evolving as the US is at the forefront of things like autonomous vehicles and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications which require precise positioning data but the intent was and is to support US efforts primarily military. Any global benefit is purely incidental.

perseusprime11 10y ago

I like Elon but think he is not thinking straight here. Eventually Internet will become free. No point in thinking of making significant revenue.

jayshua 10y ago
Why is that inevitable?

norea-armozel 10y ago

Even at 300 dollars a month if he throws in a decent hub or terminal it could be a net savings for any NGO, research team, or rural government or village. Especially on the last two if they're allow to resell a portion of their access to cover their costs. I hope the 100 dollar price point becomes viable, though. That would probably increase the market for them and just would be a boon for many more people.