8 ms·

I think you underestimate how many iPhones are sold per year, and how many phones Apple forecasts to sell for the 14 model which is satellite enabled. We're tal

I think you underestimate how many iPhones are sold per year, and how many phones Apple forecasts to sell for the 14 model which is satellite enabled. We're talking tens of millions Couple that with phones that will roam into satellite coverage in rural areas... there will be extensive bandwidth requirements from this newly deployed fleet. Especially in the summer...

wmf 4y ago
phones that will roam into satellite coverage in rural areas That's not what Apple announced. Satellite service is only for emergencies and is cumbersome to use.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- aabhay 4y ago
  For now! It would make sense for Apple to eventually own/manage a satellite fleet for global communication in the near future. The current carriers must be shitting their pants about this.
  - jlmorton 4y ago
    I'm not exactly sure what you're imagining, but there are fundamental physics problems in the way of just launching a bunch of satellites and enabling global communications. Apple has partnered with Globalstar to use geostationary satellites to send incredibly small amounts of data measured in bytes, not kilobytes. These satellites have only limited bandwidth, and it's very expensive. And with the antenna size and power available in a phone today, it's never going to be more than kilobytes. SpaceX Starlink/TMobile announced a much higher-bandwidth option, but it's incredibly fleeting, lasting just a few seconds. Starlink satellites are in very low Earth orbit, moving at 8km/second. You can't just point an antenna at it and have it work. The antenna needs to track the satellite. And it needs to have a constant line of sight free of obstructions. Starlink currently builds a very cheap phased-array antenna, but it's still ~$1,000 to manufacture, it's a couple cubic feet in volume, and it uses >100 watts. Starlink V2 will bring very large antennas to Starlink satellites which will enable direct 5G connectivity, but that connectivity will last for a few seconds, with perhaps thirty minutes between connections. I'm not saying it's impossible, but no one knows how to build a satellite system currently that will cause any carriers to shit their pants.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > Apple has partnered with Globalstar to use geostationary satellites I haven't read the announcement, but Globalstar's constellation is in LEO.
      - gtvwill 4y ago
        Yeah but their satellites are basically oversized analogue relays. So bandwidth is bugger all with little capacity to increase it. So Leo or not it's like having CDMA speeds as your cap. Pretty much useless for anything other than a GPS location ping for emergency use.
      - tshaddox 4y ago
        Indeed. Until a few years ago I was also under the impression that the satellite phone constellations were geostationary or at least geosynchronous. I remember growing up in the 90s hearing about satellite phones and how they had a very noticeable delay, which I assumed meant they were way up there. But perhaps that was just an older generation of constellations, because Globalstar and Iridium (by far the most popular networks in use by consumer-grade devices) are definitely LEO.
        walrus01 4y ago
        inmarsat does sell a handheld satellite phone product (google "inmarsat isatphone") which uses narrow band data channels and handhelds to talk to geostationary satellites. Its coverage is not quite as solid or reliable as iridium, because you can be easily obstructed by a mountain on your south side if you're at latitude 45N or something, and doesn't extend beyond about 70 degrees north, but it's also priced cheaper than iridium for the hardware and the monthly service. what most people think of as a satellite phone is indeed LEO since iridium has the lion's share of the market.
      - mr_toad 4y ago
        1400km, compared to 550km for Starlink.
    - wmf 4y ago
  - kylehotchkiss 4y ago
    They're funding a large amount of GlobalStar's future constellation, which seems like a pathway to ownership (if Globalstar goes under or apple can acquire without the debt burden)
    - ZetaZero 4y ago
      Apple also funds much of TSMC's growth, without any pathway to ownership. Apple is likely just buying top priority.
      - rjzzleep 4y ago
        Let's be real here, TSMC's growth is there with or without Apple.
        macintux 4y ago
        It’s not obvious it would be had Apple not started pumping stratospheric amounts of money into them years ago. And they’re still pre-paying new fab development that TSMC might find it challenging to afford without them. (Disclaimer: casual observer at best. May be misrepresenting what I’ve heard.)
        hnaccount_rng 4y ago
        That's not clear at all. TSMC's capability growth _started_ with Apple fabbing with them
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      Apple prefers to keep away from the downsides of actual ownership while having the upsides of being an only customer
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Does anyone prefer to keep the downsides? The only thing stopping people is not having the cash to be able to do the same.
  - deltree7 4y ago
    They aren't. https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-takes-coverage-above-and-beyond-with-spacex https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-takes-cove... I'd also bet on Starlink to scale better than Globalstar (after they also own the fucking rockets). Add better features and innovate
- bdonlan 4y ago
  They mentioned a feature where your location could be sent via satellite in "find my" even in a non-emergency.
  - xattt 4y ago
    It looks it still takes some effort to send out a message with aiming and everything.
    - cavisne 4y ago
      The findmy feature was in the press release. The aiming is probably only important for the sos case (sending the message immediately). Findmy can probably just update the location in the background whenever it gets a signal
      - tialaramex 4y ago
        Yes, findmy messages are store-and-forward. So the phone notices, "Huh, I saw something, when I was here, at this time, but I have no WiFi or cell signal" so it goes in a pile, and then a while later it has satellite, but still no WiFi or cell signal, so it sends out the pile. I'm surprised it's worth doing this, I'd have expected that most findmy situations it's enough to get the pile of data hours or days later when somebody has Internet access again. Like, suppose I drop my airpods out of a pocket on some mountain trail on Saturday morning, a subsequent walker's iPhone sees them, but has no WiFi of course, however on Monday they're in the office, their iPhone reports it saw my airpods, X here at T time, and that's enough that I should be able (if I want) to go back and find them. The place you might spend longer periods with only satellite is the open ocean, but basically if you lose shit in the ocean it's fucking gone.
        vineyardmike 4y ago
        Find My isn’t just Find My Stuff. It’s also Find My Friends and Find My Family Member. The use case isn’t AirPods lost in the tundra it’s your husband or wife lost in the tundra.
- krrrh 4y ago
  The ones that are going to be hurting right away are Garmin with their InReach line and Zoleo. This covers the most important thing that backcountry types pay monthly fees and carry an extra device for, which are emergencies, but Apple didn’t mention anything about two way texts which is a secondary but important use. Backcountry hunters will still pay money for now to be able to text home or send a message to the floatplane pilot but that’s not going to last for long. Overall what they showed in terms of positioning the phone to get a good satellite connection looks about as reliable and cumbersome as using an InReach, which is fine. Today was a real shot at two of Garmin’s profit centres with the Apple Watch Pro also targeting their GPS sports watches.
  - golan 4y ago
    I own a Garmin InReach that I regularly take with me on hiking expeditions (mostly Scotland, Iceland and South Africa) and it’s super handy on remote areas with no coverage. The ability to send an SOS is the main feature, but the two-way messaging system is just amazing for peace of mind, for me and my family. However, the main thing about the InReach is its ruggedness and battery life, which I consider essential. I always carry an iPhone with me that I use when and if I get reception, but I need to carry a battery pack for it and it’s always in the back of my mind that an iPhone is a relatively fragile device and it’s one misstep away from cracking/breaking/etc, hence the inReach. Moving forward, having both will be great, but I think having to rely only on an iPhone would make me a bit nervous, so I’m not sure how much of a threat this is for the inReach devices (at least for now).
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      I think this drastically underestimates or at least undersells the impact of convenience, or in this case the maximum possible level of convenience which is already having the feature even if you don't know it. Similar arguments could have and indeed were made for every other small electronic device the smartphone has replaced. It's not that the advantages you listed don't exist, it's just that they won't hold a candle to the explosion of smartphones with satellite messaging built in by default. I feel like even just 1 year (and 200 million satellite-enabled iPhones) from today pointing out these advantages is going to look like people pointing out that land lines have better audio quality and lower latency than cell phones. I always carry my InReach with periodic location sharing enabled when I'm on backpacking trips. I also almost always carry it during international travel and road trips, but not usually with periodic location sharing. If iPhones start offering plans with periodic location sharing, I'm fairly confident that I'd stop carrying the InReach unless I was on a particularly remote trip that was outside of my comfort zone (which isn't something I really do anyway).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mort96 4y ago
They described the bandwidth as tens of seconds to minutes for sending single, short, compressed messages, with your phone aimed right at a satellite for the duration. This isn't the kind of network which you "roam" with.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

wmf 4y ago

phones that will roam into satellite coverage in rural areas That's not what Apple announced. Satellite service is only for emergencies and is cumbersome to use.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
aabhay 4y ago
For now! It would make sense for Apple to eventually own/manage a satellite fleet for global communication in the near future. The current carriers must be shitting their pants about this.
- jlmorton 4y ago
  I'm not exactly sure what you're imagining, but there are fundamental physics problems in the way of just launching a bunch of satellites and enabling global communications. Apple has partnered with Globalstar to use geostationary satellites to send incredibly small amounts of data measured in bytes, not kilobytes. These satellites have only limited bandwidth, and it's very expensive. And with the antenna size and power available in a phone today, it's never going to be more than kilobytes. SpaceX Starlink/TMobile announced a much higher-bandwidth option, but it's incredibly fleeting, lasting just a few seconds. Starlink satellites are in very low Earth orbit, moving at 8km/second. You can't just point an antenna at it and have it work. The antenna needs to track the satellite. And it needs to have a constant line of sight free of obstructions. Starlink currently builds a very cheap phased-array antenna, but it's still ~$1,000 to manufacture, it's a couple cubic feet in volume, and it uses >100 watts. Starlink V2 will bring very large antennas to Starlink satellites which will enable direct 5G connectivity, but that connectivity will last for a few seconds, with perhaps thirty minutes between connections. I'm not saying it's impossible, but no one knows how to build a satellite system currently that will cause any carriers to shit their pants.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Apple has partnered with Globalstar to use geostationary satellites I haven't read the announcement, but Globalstar's constellation is in LEO.
    - gtvwill 4y ago
      Yeah but their satellites are basically oversized analogue relays. So bandwidth is bugger all with little capacity to increase it. So Leo or not it's like having CDMA speeds as your cap. Pretty much useless for anything other than a GPS location ping for emergency use.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      Indeed. Until a few years ago I was also under the impression that the satellite phone constellations were geostationary or at least geosynchronous. I remember growing up in the 90s hearing about satellite phones and how they had a very noticeable delay, which I assumed meant they were way up there. But perhaps that was just an older generation of constellations, because Globalstar and Iridium (by far the most popular networks in use by consumer-grade devices) are definitely LEO.
      - walrus01 4y ago
        inmarsat does sell a handheld satellite phone product (google "inmarsat isatphone") which uses narrow band data channels and handhelds to talk to geostationary satellites. Its coverage is not quite as solid or reliable as iridium, because you can be easily obstructed by a mountain on your south side if you're at latitude 45N or something, and doesn't extend beyond about 70 degrees north, but it's also priced cheaper than iridium for the hardware and the monthly service. what most people think of as a satellite phone is indeed LEO since iridium has the lion's share of the market.
    - mr_toad 4y ago
      1400km, compared to 550km for Starlink.
  - wmf 4y ago
- kylehotchkiss 4y ago
  They're funding a large amount of GlobalStar's future constellation, which seems like a pathway to ownership (if Globalstar goes under or apple can acquire without the debt burden)
  - ZetaZero 4y ago
    Apple also funds much of TSMC's growth, without any pathway to ownership. Apple is likely just buying top priority.
    - rjzzleep 4y ago
      Let's be real here, TSMC's growth is there with or without Apple.
      - macintux 4y ago
        It’s not obvious it would be had Apple not started pumping stratospheric amounts of money into them years ago. And they’re still pre-paying new fab development that TSMC might find it challenging to afford without them. (Disclaimer: casual observer at best. May be misrepresenting what I’ve heard.)
      - hnaccount_rng 4y ago
        That's not clear at all. TSMC's capability growth _started_ with Apple fabbing with them
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Apple prefers to keep away from the downsides of actual ownership while having the upsides of being an only customer
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Does anyone prefer to keep the downsides? The only thing stopping people is not having the cash to be able to do the same.
- deltree7 4y ago
  They aren't. https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-takes-coverage-above-and-beyond-with-spacex https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-takes-cove... I'd also bet on Starlink to scale better than Globalstar (after they also own the fucking rockets). Add better features and innovate
bdonlan 4y ago
They mentioned a feature where your location could be sent via satellite in "find my" even in a non-emergency.
- xattt 4y ago
  It looks it still takes some effort to send out a message with aiming and everything.
  - cavisne 4y ago
    The findmy feature was in the press release. The aiming is probably only important for the sos case (sending the message immediately). Findmy can probably just update the location in the background whenever it gets a signal
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      Yes, findmy messages are store-and-forward. So the phone notices, "Huh, I saw something, when I was here, at this time, but I have no WiFi or cell signal" so it goes in a pile, and then a while later it has satellite, but still no WiFi or cell signal, so it sends out the pile. I'm surprised it's worth doing this, I'd have expected that most findmy situations it's enough to get the pile of data hours or days later when somebody has Internet access again. Like, suppose I drop my airpods out of a pocket on some mountain trail on Saturday morning, a subsequent walker's iPhone sees them, but has no WiFi of course, however on Monday they're in the office, their iPhone reports it saw my airpods, X here at T time, and that's enough that I should be able (if I want) to go back and find them. The place you might spend longer periods with only satellite is the open ocean, but basically if you lose shit in the ocean it's fucking gone.
      - vineyardmike 4y ago
        Find My isn’t just Find My Stuff. It’s also Find My Friends and Find My Family Member. The use case isn’t AirPods lost in the tundra it’s your husband or wife lost in the tundra.
krrrh 4y ago
The ones that are going to be hurting right away are Garmin with their InReach line and Zoleo. This covers the most important thing that backcountry types pay monthly fees and carry an extra device for, which are emergencies, but Apple didn’t mention anything about two way texts which is a secondary but important use. Backcountry hunters will still pay money for now to be able to text home or send a message to the floatplane pilot but that’s not going to last for long. Overall what they showed in terms of positioning the phone to get a good satellite connection looks about as reliable and cumbersome as using an InReach, which is fine. Today was a real shot at two of Garmin’s profit centres with the Apple Watch Pro also targeting their GPS sports watches.
- golan 4y ago
  I own a Garmin InReach that I regularly take with me on hiking expeditions (mostly Scotland, Iceland and South Africa) and it’s super handy on remote areas with no coverage. The ability to send an SOS is the main feature, but the two-way messaging system is just amazing for peace of mind, for me and my family. However, the main thing about the InReach is its ruggedness and battery life, which I consider essential. I always carry an iPhone with me that I use when and if I get reception, but I need to carry a battery pack for it and it’s always in the back of my mind that an iPhone is a relatively fragile device and it’s one misstep away from cracking/breaking/etc, hence the inReach. Moving forward, having both will be great, but I think having to rely only on an iPhone would make me a bit nervous, so I’m not sure how much of a threat this is for the inReach devices (at least for now).
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    I think this drastically underestimates or at least undersells the impact of convenience, or in this case the maximum possible level of convenience which is already having the feature even if you don't know it. Similar arguments could have and indeed were made for every other small electronic device the smartphone has replaced. It's not that the advantages you listed don't exist, it's just that they won't hold a candle to the explosion of smartphones with satellite messaging built in by default. I feel like even just 1 year (and 200 million satellite-enabled iPhones) from today pointing out these advantages is going to look like people pointing out that land lines have better audio quality and lower latency than cell phones. I always carry my InReach with periodic location sharing enabled when I'm on backpacking trips. I also almost always carry it during international travel and road trips, but not usually with periodic location sharing. If iPhones start offering plans with periodic location sharing, I'm fairly confident that I'd stop carrying the InReach unless I was on a particularly remote trip that was outside of my comfort zone (which isn't something I really do anyway).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mort96 4y ago

They described the bandwidth as tens of seconds to minutes for sending single, short, compressed messages, with your phone aimed right at a satellite for the duration. This isn't the kind of network which you "roam" with.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]