5 ms·

This could be a game changer: 1) No more carriers. They get a consistent, high margin monthly revenue stream, can have one worldwide SKU and can let illegal im

This could be a game changer: 1) No more carriers. They get a consistent, high margin monthly revenue stream, can have one worldwide SKU and can let illegal imports take care of situations where there has been the potential for bans e.g. patents or Russia. 2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them dictate where the industry goes. 3) Further ties customers to Apple in a world where its getting harder to differentiate on hardware features alone. Instead they can differentiate on the network e.g. no more roaming charges and offer unique bundles e.g. ATV+ with Apple Internet. And good luck with smaller players being able to launch their own satellite. 4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding apps be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing and killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc. 5) Apple owns the total experience. It's just you and Apple.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dchest 7y ago
There's a proposed law in Russia that will fine people for using foreign satellite internet. Also, how do you think people will get iPhones, smuggling?
- evgen 7y ago
  You mean like how Russians got most Western products only a few decades ago? No, I think they will get their grey market product from eBay like everyone else does.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Yes, smuggling. The same way that they got iPhones before they were officially available in Russia. Just because the sickle and hammer aren't on every flagpole doesn't mean smuggling has ceased in the new Russia.
StuffedParrot 7y ago
Who will buy this?
- bwb 7y ago
  Americans who have cell phones :)? Anyone on GoogleFi? People who travel and don't want to switch phones? If Apple can deliver something at $25 to $80 a month like carriers who wouldn't want it?
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    People in Europe who pay 10€/month for mobile internet.
    - bwb 7y ago
      I'm in Europe and that is a basic plan, but a lot of people pay more. I am guessing at 10 euros a month you might get 1GB a month, which is not enough for most things.
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        You can easily get a prepaid SIM with 3 GB of LTE for 10€/month in Western Europe. 5+ GB is possible if you're willing to go with one of the less extensive networks (e.g., Vodafone), or if you're willing to sign a contract (i.e., not prepaid).
        bwb 7y ago
        Got a link? I've seen some pre-paid plans that did, but super discount carriers I didn't trust too much on speed / EU roaming agreements to other countries.
        lostlogin 7y ago
        Last year I walked into various grotty shops and sim cards in that price range were readily available in the UK and France. Usually 4g occasionally 3g. They were prepaid.
nordsieck 7y ago
> 1) No more carriers. This doesn't really work. If you've looked at some of the calculations for SpaceX's constellation (probably the highest bandwidth one proposed so far), it is completely insufficient for even medium sized cities. There is also a question of what sort of antenna the phones will use to connect with the satellites. My understanding is that modern sat phones are pretty low bandwidth and aren't really the sleak and slim design we've come to expect from Apple. > can let illegal imports take care of situations where there is the potential for bans e.g. patents or Russia. Probably not possible either. They're going to need plenty of base stations, which are easy to ban with court order. > 2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them dictate where the industry goes. We'll see. If the problem is with patents instead of technical ability then this will be easier than I expect. > 4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding apps be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing and killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc. Again, they're going to need base stations. The parts of the world that regularly do that stuff are usually pretty poor, which means pretty low iPhone penetration. If Apple can pull this off, it'd be great for them. I'm not very optimistic.
- flattone 7y ago
  If apple is working on this id have guessed the viability is arguably roadmaped? If not it feels like throwing money around to see what sticks. .
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > If apple is working on this id have guessed the viability is arguably roadmaped? The explanation could be as simple as: they have huge piles of cash and don't know what to do with them. Satellite internet (for busses and bigger) seems like a decent use for it. It's true that SpaceX is ahead and has cheaper launch prices than anyone, but Apple might believe they can just outspend everyone else.
  - dole 7y ago
    Like AirPower.
- 7y ago
m11a 7y ago
With point 4) I don't think Apple intends to ignore the ruling of governments in that way. Much of Apple's business remains in the hardware market, and indeed this service would require hardware also (perhaps even be limited to iDevices). Such countries could just ban the sale of Apple devices. Besides, there's much more profit in Apple co-operating with countries like China vs trying to ignore their will and do their own thing on their land anyway. Either way, it's hard to imagine that a country like China wouldn't be able to create some blockers for Apple's telecoms. Apple stands up for citizens rights in accordance with the law. It does not generally stand up for circumventing the law in countries, even if it might disagree with that law.
- MegaDeKay 7y ago
  Indeed. The term you are looking for in 4) is Lawful Interception [0]. Existing satellite networks like Iridium that support satellite crosslinks and could theoretically get around this are not legally allowed to do so [e.g. 1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception [1] https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08528.html https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08528.html
bwb 7y ago
Very well said, you nailed it! I think this is super interesting if they are looking this way, I'd go with Apple for the reasons you mentioned in a heartbeat.
squarefoot 7y ago
Latency will restrict it to niche use cases, the most likely of which is probably #4. No Great Firewall can stop this, unless it morphs into a Great Faraday Dome. I assume public transportation wouldn't be practical because of the costs of keeping a dish pointed in the right direction when in motion. Edit: expanded concept.
- sangnoir 7y ago
  > No Great Firewall can stop this[...] True, but the great Surface-to-Space anti-satellite missile can, and China has very publicly demonstrated this capability. So Apple will still have to comply with onerous request from some space-faring nation's.
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    And if said missiles is greater in cost (manufacture/maintenance/launch) than the satellites (manufacture/maintenance/launch)? I'm thinking there are much more cost effective[0] ways to go about such possible ends any given space-faring nation may be seeking… [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_of_ASATs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_...
    - sangnoir 7y ago
      The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. Rather, what matters is the "cost" of someone poking holes in the Great Firewall (which itself cost(s) no small amount). What price would China pay to maintain "social cohesion"? My guess is "a lot", especially if they are setting a public example. The mere threat to destroy a hostile satellite would likely be enough to activate censorship, if economic incentives have failed. Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground
      - cinquemb 7y ago
        >The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. With thinking like this, this is how one looses in the game of attrition warfare (setting aside the technical difficulties shooting down satellites that are trying to active evade such, rather than some boisterous demo on one that isn't). If the Chinese can't maintain "social cohesion" at a cheap of enough cost, it would be only be ruinous in the long run. "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" - Sun Tzu >Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground Well this certainly sounds like a cheaper alternative that seems way more sustainable and wont be as burdensome on the resources of a population. However, any ground station that has LOS into china from outside its borders) and powered high enough would evade such, then we're talking about the cat and mouse game of trying to impede beam paths. Maybe they'd have to purse something on the device level via the manufactures to block such things.
techslave 7y ago
none of those things are possible. Apple would have to be king of the world to make it happen and even then, satellites alone will not work. even if there could be a tiny ecosystem of apple wireless, nobody would interconnect to it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dchest 7y ago

There's a proposed law in Russia that will fine people for using foreign satellite internet. Also, how do you think people will get iPhones, smuggling?

evgen 7y ago
You mean like how Russians got most Western products only a few decades ago? No, I think they will get their grey market product from eBay like everyone else does.
reaperducer 7y ago
Yes, smuggling. The same way that they got iPhones before they were officially available in Russia. Just because the sickle and hammer aren't on every flagpole doesn't mean smuggling has ceased in the new Russia.

StuffedParrot 7y ago

Who will buy this?

bwb 7y ago
Americans who have cell phones :)? Anyone on GoogleFi? People who travel and don't want to switch phones? If Apple can deliver something at $25 to $80 a month like carriers who wouldn't want it?
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  People in Europe who pay 10€/month for mobile internet.
  - bwb 7y ago
    I'm in Europe and that is a basic plan, but a lot of people pay more. I am guessing at 10 euros a month you might get 1GB a month, which is not enough for most things.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      You can easily get a prepaid SIM with 3 GB of LTE for 10€/month in Western Europe. 5+ GB is possible if you're willing to go with one of the less extensive networks (e.g., Vodafone), or if you're willing to sign a contract (i.e., not prepaid).
      - bwb 7y ago
        Got a link? I've seen some pre-paid plans that did, but super discount carriers I didn't trust too much on speed / EU roaming agreements to other countries.
        lostlogin 7y ago
        Last year I walked into various grotty shops and sim cards in that price range were readily available in the UK and France. Usually 4g occasionally 3g. They were prepaid.

nordsieck 7y ago

> 1) No more carriers. This doesn't really work. If you've looked at some of the calculations for SpaceX's constellation (probably the highest bandwidth one proposed so far), it is completely insufficient for even medium sized cities. There is also a question of what sort of antenna the phones will use to connect with the satellites. My understanding is that modern sat phones are pretty low bandwidth and aren't really the sleak and slim design we've come to expect from Apple. > can let illegal imports take care of situations where there is the potential for bans e.g. patents or Russia. Probably not possible either. They're going to need plenty of base stations, which are easy to ban with court order. > 2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them dictate where the industry goes. We'll see. If the problem is with patents instead of technical ability then this will be easier than I expect. > 4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding apps be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing and killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc. Again, they're going to need base stations. The parts of the world that regularly do that stuff are usually pretty poor, which means pretty low iPhone penetration. If Apple can pull this off, it'd be great for them. I'm not very optimistic.

flattone 7y ago
If apple is working on this id have guessed the viability is arguably roadmaped? If not it feels like throwing money around to see what sticks. .
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > If apple is working on this id have guessed the viability is arguably roadmaped? The explanation could be as simple as: they have huge piles of cash and don't know what to do with them. Satellite internet (for busses and bigger) seems like a decent use for it. It's true that SpaceX is ahead and has cheaper launch prices than anyone, but Apple might believe they can just outspend everyone else.
- dole 7y ago
  Like AirPower.
7y ago

m11a 7y ago

With point 4) I don't think Apple intends to ignore the ruling of governments in that way. Much of Apple's business remains in the hardware market, and indeed this service would require hardware also (perhaps even be limited to iDevices). Such countries could just ban the sale of Apple devices. Besides, there's much more profit in Apple co-operating with countries like China vs trying to ignore their will and do their own thing on their land anyway. Either way, it's hard to imagine that a country like China wouldn't be able to create some blockers for Apple's telecoms. Apple stands up for citizens rights in accordance with the law. It does not generally stand up for circumventing the law in countries, even if it might disagree with that law.

MegaDeKay 7y ago
Indeed. The term you are looking for in 4) is Lawful Interception [0]. Existing satellite networks like Iridium that support satellite crosslinks and could theoretically get around this are not legally allowed to do so [e.g. 1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception [1] https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08528.html https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08528.html

bwb 7y ago

Very well said, you nailed it! I think this is super interesting if they are looking this way, I'd go with Apple for the reasons you mentioned in a heartbeat.

squarefoot 7y ago

Latency will restrict it to niche use cases, the most likely of which is probably #4. No Great Firewall can stop this, unless it morphs into a Great Faraday Dome. I assume public transportation wouldn't be practical because of the costs of keeping a dish pointed in the right direction when in motion. Edit: expanded concept.

sangnoir 7y ago
> No Great Firewall can stop this[...] True, but the great Surface-to-Space anti-satellite missile can, and China has very publicly demonstrated this capability. So Apple will still have to comply with onerous request from some space-faring nation's.
- cinquemb 7y ago
  And if said missiles is greater in cost (manufacture/maintenance/launch) than the satellites (manufacture/maintenance/launch)? I'm thinking there are much more cost effective[0] ways to go about such possible ends any given space-faring nation may be seeking… [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_of_ASATs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_...
  - sangnoir 7y ago
    The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. Rather, what matters is the "cost" of someone poking holes in the Great Firewall (which itself cost(s) no small amount). What price would China pay to maintain "social cohesion"? My guess is "a lot", especially if they are setting a public example. The mere threat to destroy a hostile satellite would likely be enough to activate censorship, if economic incentives have failed. Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground
    - cinquemb 7y ago
      >The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. With thinking like this, this is how one looses in the game of attrition warfare (setting aside the technical difficulties shooting down satellites that are trying to active evade such, rather than some boisterous demo on one that isn't). If the Chinese can't maintain "social cohesion" at a cheap of enough cost, it would be only be ruinous in the long run. "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" - Sun Tzu >Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground Well this certainly sounds like a cheaper alternative that seems way more sustainable and wont be as burdensome on the resources of a population. However, any ground station that has LOS into china from outside its borders) and powered high enough would evade such, then we're talking about the cat and mouse game of trying to impede beam paths. Maybe they'd have to purse something on the device level via the manufactures to block such things.

techslave 7y ago

none of those things are possible. Apple would have to be king of the world to make it happen and even then, satellites alone will not work. even if there could be a tiny ecosystem of apple wireless, nobody would interconnect to it.