5 ms·

I find it representative of the sorry state of tech 'journalism' that anyone would think that a cell phone in 2021 is capable of satellite internet. A quick se

• bob1029 5y ago
  I wonder what the theoretical minimum size would be for an antenna that can maintain a half-decent connection with the current generation of starlink/iridium/et.al. satellites.
  • jonplackett 5y ago
    I would presume it's not that much smaller than the size they built Dishy
  • hugs 5y ago
    Check out the Garmin inReach Mini or Rock Seven's RockBLOCK 9603. They're already relatively small -- I could imagine those circuits getting smooshed into a phone case. However, I doubt the connection would be anywhere close to half-decent. Would be useful for emergency text-messaging after a disaster, though.
    • gruez 5y ago
      >Would be useful for emergency text-messaging after a disaster, though. Disaster is probably the least useful use case for this. The satellite would be overloaded from all the people requesting help. A far more plausible use case is if you got lost hiking or something.
      • Scoundreller 5y ago
        Or multicast down, but probably couldn’t get more than a few kbps without killer expenses. Outernet was an application of this concept: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othernet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othernet But reality is that cellular coverage world wide gets better and better.
• wmf 5y ago
  The joke's on you; multiple startups are working on satellites that can communicate with unmodified cell phones. It will probably be limited to SMS but it's not literally impossible.
  • xvf22 5y ago
    Plenty of startups works on impractical stuff. Not to pass judgement but the fact that startups are trying doesn't necessarily confirm validity. See wireless power.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • Retric 5y ago
      You can buy a range of actual wireless power tech today going all the way back to crystal radio‘s. Charging pads, RFID tags, and fully radio powered sensors etc aren’t want we thing of as wireless power but yesterday’s magic is today’s background noise.
      • dividedbyzero 5y ago
        > yesterday’s magic is today’s background noise. Yesterday's magic is today's Ikea product. I have a few of their 5 Euro Livboj Qi charging pads for charging my phone and Airpods and they work just fine.
      • xvf22 5y ago
        More thinking ubeam now sonicEnergy. https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/arguing-point.html https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2017/06/arguing-point....
  • baxtr 5y ago
    I've heard there is a startup that has developed devices to automate and miniaturize blood tests!
• xwdv 5y ago
  Why? Look how fast technology progresses these days and how people have become so used to it. Seemingly impossible technological advances are rarely met with skepticism and disbelief but rather a shrug of the shoulders and a “Huh, guess they figured that out.” That’s partly why people are so easily scammed by companies like Nikola and Theranos.
• Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Iriduim phones are much smaller (~5x, I guess) than first Motorola mobile phones. They are capable of internet access, likely with first-generation GPRS speeds, and at killer rates.
• Retric 5y ago
  I agree it wasn’t going to happen, but I understand their confusion. Current satellite phones are the size of regular cellphones. That’s the equivalent of very low bandwidth internet access, but even low bandwidth access can still be really useful. https://www.g-comm.us/iridium-9555-satellite-phone.html https://www.g-comm.us/iridium-9555-satellite-phone.html Dropping that to something that fits in an iPhone would be a very significant improvement, but it hardly breaks the laws of physics. Thus https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • mikestew 5y ago
    I think it slightly disingenuous to just pretend that big honkin’ antenna isn’t there and then say “it’s the size of regular cellphones”. My Motorola Startac from 25-30 years ago didn’t have an antenna that big.
    • Retric 5y ago
      It’s 143mm x 55mm, the iPhone pro is 146.7 mm x 71.5 mm and the iPhone pro MAX is 160mm x 78 mm. Granted it’s also thicker and slightly heavier, but calling it cellphone sized is reasonable IMO.
      • simonh 5y ago
        That’s with the antenna collapsed. Extending it looks like it adds another 10cm or so.
  • vmception 5y ago
    Apple has streamlined very significant improvements before (and nobody cares if an obscure android device had it five years beforehand, Apple has wowed and brought many things into commonplace) I would agree that there would typically be something obvious in the supply chain or a proof of concept before the iphone randomly has a significant improvement though
  • 5y ago
• Geee 5y ago
  It wouldn't even make any sense.
• amznthrwaway 5y ago
  I own a satellite transceiver for backcountry usage that enables me to SMS from anywhere in the world. It weighs 3.5 ounces (including a rugged case), is only 2 or 3 inches tall and wide, was cheap, and is three or four years old.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• HugoDaniel 5y ago
  ...but Apple
  • vlunkr 5y ago
    They can put in all in vast space they freed up when they took out the headphone jack.
• lanna 5y ago
  > In 2007, RIM [...] held multiple meetings after the iPhone was launched and accused Apple of lying about the capabilities of the new device. The claims focused on how it was impossible that a device with such a larger touch display could have any usable battery life. [0] > [...] it couldn’t do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc. Imagine their surprise when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it. It was ridiculous, it was brilliant. [1] I agree with you regarding the next iPhone not having satellite internet. But I don't think it represents "the sorry state of tech journalism" or lack of common sense. I can understand why some people would believe Apple is capable of doing the impossible: because they have seen Apple doing the "impossible" before. [0] https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/rim-thought-the-2007-iphone-was-impossible/ https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/rim-thought-the-2007-ipho... [1] https://macdailynews.com/2010/12/27/rim_microsoft_were_in_denial_thought_apple_was_lying_about_original_iphone/ https://macdailynews.com/2010/12/27/rim_microsoft_were_in_de...
  • AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
    The only "sorry state of tech journalism" is over-reporting this as "omg it totally will" instead of "qualcomm released a new chip which could pave the way for the iPhone to have satellite connectivity" The issue isn't limited to tech journalism at all and in fact tech journalism may be the least affected by this issue of all. But, frankly, I know my headline won't generate as many clicks or views and that's why they do it. Because we collectively react more to the sensational. The fault, dear lanna, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.
  • zamalek 5y ago
    > In 2007, RIM [...] held multiple meetings after the iPhone was launched and accused Apple of lying That in itself is completely absurd. The iPhone was disruptive because it had a slick touch interface and thoughtful UX. There were phones doing vastly more (e.g. multitasking) than the iPhone years prior (Symbian, Windows CE), with a full day of battery life. It's no wonder RIM ended if they were that disconnected from the smartphone market.
• randyrand 5y ago
  The Garmin Inreach Mini is physically possible. It’s considerably smaller than a cell phone. https://www.switchbacktravel.com/best-satellite-messengers https://www.switchbacktravel.com/best-satellite-messengers