4 ms·
> 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 pr
by 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 agoIf 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 agoLike AirPower.
- sitkack 7y agoI don't think you need base stations, given atomic clocks shared between the network and possibly on some of the client devices, the client devices could form a large phased array receiver and then mesh the data between the ground based mesh. Base stations help, but aren't required.
- nordsieck 7y ago> I don't think you need base stations, given atomic clocks shared between the network and possibly on some of the client devices, the client devices could form a large phased array receiver and then mesh the data between the ground based mesh. Are you suggesting that no person with an iPhone ever makes/takes a call with a non-iPhone user?
- test0483836 7y agoIf I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the phones form a mesh on the ground to distribute the data that needs transmission to and from the satellite. And that the mesh network of devices also synchronize their radios to act as one gigantic phased array (or in chunks) to communicate with the satellites. That's a fantastically crazy idea, in a good way
- onionjake 7y agoDo you have any links and resources on those calculations about starlink?