6 ms·

Apple’s Emergency SOS link puts it into the satellite fight with SpaceX and more

ultra_nick 4y ago
Bets that Apple switches to SpaceX by 2030.
- johnflan 4y ago
  or buys them
  - Tuna-Fish 4y ago
    Not for sale. It's a private company where one person owns more than two thirds of the vote share. Can't be bought for love or money.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      If you offered Musk the CEO job of the merged company he would be happy to accept a buy out.
      - mandeepj 4y ago
        Tim Cook already hung up on that idea :-)
      - lajamerr 4y ago
        Maybe for Starlink as a spun off company. But not SpaceX. That's his passion project. He would want to make sure he's in majority control the entire time.
    - mandeepj 4y ago
      FWIW - Starlink has IPO plans
    - xnx 4y ago
      Everything has a price
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        SpaceX is one of the few things that might not actually have a practical price.
      - msh 4y ago
        When the owner of the thing you are seeking to buy is the richest guy in the world that might not be true
      - sneak 4y ago
        Sometimes the price is tonnage to Mars and not money, however. It seems clear to me that SpaceX is not a business in the traditional sense; the revenue is an essential prerequisite but ultimately a side effect of pursuing its goal (which is not money at all).
msoad 4y ago
Apple has the capital to develop and launch connectivity satellites all around the world. Instead of building a car they should focus on this IMO.
- michelb 4y ago
  They won't be building a car, and they probably won't build satellites. A deal with Starlink is more likely.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Starlink and Kupiter already bought up all available launch for the next 5 years. Not to mention a number of other providers trying to sneak in there. Would make no sense for Apple to do anything like that.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  That's not Apple's way. They don't try to compete on commodities, they don't fab their own chips, they don't design/make their own displays, they won't launch a satellite constellation. Even on the car project I'd expect them to partner with an existing car maker or the entire car project has been (or turned into) about providing the infotainment software (look at the new CarPlay stuff) similar to Android Automotive (not to be confused with Android Auto :rolleyes:).
- SpikeDad 4y ago
  I'm constantly surprised at how people don't understand Apple. They don't even make wireless routers any more and you think they should start launching satellites? Apple will leverage their immense power in the market to get preexisting services to accommodate their specific needs. Why reinvent the wheel?
snowwrestler 4y ago
There were similar articles when Apple launched the iPhone exclusively on AT&T. We can clearly see now that a) Apple had no interest in controlling the network provider (many people thought they would eventually launch their own MVNO or even network), and b) the overall effect was hugely positive even for networks considered “competitors” at the time, like Verizon or T-Mobile. The iPhone drove demand for mobile data through the roof, which in turn made network operators lots of money and opened up market space for new investment and lots of new handset competitors. I bet that over time, we’ll see similar results here. Apple will be happy to buy satellite connectivity from anyone with birds, including SpaceX. This feature will work best the more satellites it can talk to. And their marketing of the feature will help competitors by driving up overall demand. All that said, I question the total available market for this feature. Most folks who buy new phones spend most of their time near places with cell connectivity. It seems like the old fixed wireless broadband market: sounded good on paper but most customers were already passed by cable, copper, or fiber. I have to wonder if Apple knows something we don’t. 5G is going to use smaller cells both to increase bandwidth and to compensate for the greater interference with higher frequency bands. I wonder if Apple is introducing satellite connectivity because they expect the overall cellular coverage footprint to decrease.
- BenjiWiebe 4y ago
  5G can use smaller cells. It can also use cells the same size (or sightly larger) then 4G. 5G isn't all mmWave. Most of the coverage area will probably be the large cells, with mmWave reserved for high density areas.
  - Someone 4y ago
    And most users will be in areas with smaller cells. That’s good, as smaller cells means less interference with data from other users. The only problem areas will be those were many people meet for a short period such as festivals. That’s not different than it is now, though. Providers will temporarily provide smaller cells at such locations.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  > There were similar articles when Apple launched the iPhone exclusively on AT&T. We can clearly see now that a) Apple had no interest in controlling the network provider (many people thought they would eventually launch their own MVNO or even network), and b) the overall effect was hugely positive even for networks considered “competitors” at the time, like Verizon or T-Mobile. It was also good for the customers of those competing networks. Cast your mind back to how Verizon did business before Apple forced them to open up. >Verizon Wireless customers in California are suing the Bedminster, N.J.-based mobile phone operator for disabling some of the Bluetooth capabilities in a Motorola Inc. handset. Verizon Wireless has disabled the file-sharing capability, which allows users to transfer photos or other files via Bluetooth to their PCs, printers or other devices. Motorola, for its part, said the decision over what Bluetooth capabilities to include in handsets is solely up to the wireless operators. https://www.eweek.com/mobile/verizon-wireless-users-sue-over-disabled-bluetooth-features/ https://www.eweek.com/mobile/verizon-wireless-users-sue-over... Customers were forced to pay Verizon for file transfers instead.
ryzvonusef 4y ago
Knowing Musk, I wondered if he had tweeted something about it, and he had, just yesterday: > https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1567930757473091584 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1567930757473091584 > We’ve had some promising conversations with Apple about Starlink connectivity. iPhone team is obv super smart. > For sure, closing link from space to phone will work best if phone software & hardware adapt to space-based signals vs Starlink purely emulating cell tower. The Verge apparently didn't bother doing the bare minimum research, for shame.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Not sure Apple is happy saying anything about them in public.
- SpikeDad 4y ago
  That's the Verge modus operandi. We shouldn't even let links to them here.
_fat_santa 4y ago
As someone who goes out hiking a ton in places without cell service, this feature has me thinking if I should upgrade from my iPhone 11. One gripe I do have is that it only allows for emergency communications. I wish Apple would just let you pay extra every month and get X number of messages or minutes of satellite service. I'm also considering the Garmin InReach but one thing that concerns me about that is that it has to be tethered to your device to work. Not that it's a major concern but makes me think if I'm getting a standalone device, I might as well get one that is fully standalone. If anyone has product recommendations in this area I would really appreciate it.
- sithadmin 4y ago
  My Garmin InReach 2 needs to be paired to a phone for setup, and there are some app-only extra features (e.g. path tracing on a map), but it doesn't need to be actively connected to a mobile device to 'work' as intended in the field.
- biomcgary 4y ago
  My wife hikes a LOT and takes her InReach every time. She has already saved the life of one person that she met on the trail who was in very bad shape. Doctors said that the rescued woman had less than an hour left without intervention, which wouldn't have happened in time with a traditional emergency beacon (which can't text). I strongly recommend it (and the helicopter insurance too) for anyone in the back country on a semi-regular basis.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  > I wish Apple would just let you pay extra every month and get X number of messages or minutes of satellite service. Texting is extremely pricey with Garmin's plans. 40 texts a month for a monthly fee of $35 or 10 texts a month for $15, in addition to a $29.95 activation fee.
- SpikeDad 4y ago
  >One gripe I have is that it allows only for emergency communications Sorry that's not true. You didn't watch the presentation did you? Apple specifically noted that the service would be available for "more casual" communications.

Bets that Apple switches to SpaceX by 2030.

johnflan 4y ago
or buys them
- Tuna-Fish 4y ago
  Not for sale. It's a private company where one person owns more than two thirds of the vote share. Can't be bought for love or money.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    If you offered Musk the CEO job of the merged company he would be happy to accept a buy out.
    - mandeepj 4y ago
      Tim Cook already hung up on that idea :-)
    - lajamerr 4y ago
      Maybe for Starlink as a spun off company. But not SpaceX. That's his passion project. He would want to make sure he's in majority control the entire time.
  - mandeepj 4y ago
    FWIW - Starlink has IPO plans
  - xnx 4y ago
    Everything has a price
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      SpaceX is one of the few things that might not actually have a practical price.
    - msh 4y ago
      When the owner of the thing you are seeking to buy is the richest guy in the world that might not be true
    - sneak 4y ago
      Sometimes the price is tonnage to Mars and not money, however. It seems clear to me that SpaceX is not a business in the traditional sense; the revenue is an essential prerequisite but ultimately a side effect of pursuing its goal (which is not money at all).

Apple has the capital to develop and launch connectivity satellites all around the world. Instead of building a car they should focus on this IMO.

michelb 4y ago
They won't be building a car, and they probably won't build satellites. A deal with Starlink is more likely.
panick21_ 4y ago
Starlink and Kupiter already bought up all available launch for the next 5 years. Not to mention a number of other providers trying to sneak in there. Would make no sense for Apple to do anything like that.
joshstrange 4y ago
That's not Apple's way. They don't try to compete on commodities, they don't fab their own chips, they don't design/make their own displays, they won't launch a satellite constellation. Even on the car project I'd expect them to partner with an existing car maker or the entire car project has been (or turned into) about providing the infotainment software (look at the new CarPlay stuff) similar to Android Automotive (not to be confused with Android Auto :rolleyes:).
SpikeDad 4y ago
I'm constantly surprised at how people don't understand Apple. They don't even make wireless routers any more and you think they should start launching satellites? Apple will leverage their immense power in the market to get preexisting services to accommodate their specific needs. Why reinvent the wheel?

snowwrestler 4y ago

There were similar articles when Apple launched the iPhone exclusively on AT&T. We can clearly see now that a) Apple had no interest in controlling the network provider (many people thought they would eventually launch their own MVNO or even network), and b) the overall effect was hugely positive even for networks considered “competitors” at the time, like Verizon or T-Mobile. The iPhone drove demand for mobile data through the roof, which in turn made network operators lots of money and opened up market space for new investment and lots of new handset competitors. I bet that over time, we’ll see similar results here. Apple will be happy to buy satellite connectivity from anyone with birds, including SpaceX. This feature will work best the more satellites it can talk to. And their marketing of the feature will help competitors by driving up overall demand. All that said, I question the total available market for this feature. Most folks who buy new phones spend most of their time near places with cell connectivity. It seems like the old fixed wireless broadband market: sounded good on paper but most customers were already passed by cable, copper, or fiber. I have to wonder if Apple knows something we don’t. 5G is going to use smaller cells both to increase bandwidth and to compensate for the greater interference with higher frequency bands. I wonder if Apple is introducing satellite connectivity because they expect the overall cellular coverage footprint to decrease.

BenjiWiebe 4y ago
5G can use smaller cells. It can also use cells the same size (or sightly larger) then 4G. 5G isn't all mmWave. Most of the coverage area will probably be the large cells, with mmWave reserved for high density areas.
- Someone 4y ago
  And most users will be in areas with smaller cells. That’s good, as smaller cells means less interference with data from other users. The only problem areas will be those were many people meet for a short period such as festivals. That’s not different than it is now, though. Providers will temporarily provide smaller cells at such locations.
GeekyBear 4y ago
> There were similar articles when Apple launched the iPhone exclusively on AT&T. We can clearly see now that a) Apple had no interest in controlling the network provider (many people thought they would eventually launch their own MVNO or even network), and b) the overall effect was hugely positive even for networks considered “competitors” at the time, like Verizon or T-Mobile. It was also good for the customers of those competing networks. Cast your mind back to how Verizon did business before Apple forced them to open up. >Verizon Wireless customers in California are suing the Bedminster, N.J.-based mobile phone operator for disabling some of the Bluetooth capabilities in a Motorola Inc. handset. Verizon Wireless has disabled the file-sharing capability, which allows users to transfer photos or other files via Bluetooth to their PCs, printers or other devices. Motorola, for its part, said the decision over what Bluetooth capabilities to include in handsets is solely up to the wireless operators. https://www.eweek.com/mobile/verizon-wireless-users-sue-over-disabled-bluetooth-features/ https://www.eweek.com/mobile/verizon-wireless-users-sue-over... Customers were forced to pay Verizon for file transfers instead.

ryzvonusef 4y ago

Knowing Musk, I wondered if he had tweeted something about it, and he had, just yesterday: > https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1567930757473091584 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1567930757473091584 > We’ve had some promising conversations with Apple about Starlink connectivity. iPhone team is obv super smart. > For sure, closing link from space to phone will work best if phone software & hardware adapt to space-based signals vs Starlink purely emulating cell tower. The Verge apparently didn't bother doing the bare minimum research, for shame.

panick21_ 4y ago
Not sure Apple is happy saying anything about them in public.
SpikeDad 4y ago
That's the Verge modus operandi. We shouldn't even let links to them here.

_fat_santa 4y ago

As someone who goes out hiking a ton in places without cell service, this feature has me thinking if I should upgrade from my iPhone 11. One gripe I do have is that it only allows for emergency communications. I wish Apple would just let you pay extra every month and get X number of messages or minutes of satellite service. I'm also considering the Garmin InReach but one thing that concerns me about that is that it has to be tethered to your device to work. Not that it's a major concern but makes me think if I'm getting a standalone device, I might as well get one that is fully standalone. If anyone has product recommendations in this area I would really appreciate it.

sithadmin 4y ago
My Garmin InReach 2 needs to be paired to a phone for setup, and there are some app-only extra features (e.g. path tracing on a map), but it doesn't need to be actively connected to a mobile device to 'work' as intended in the field.
biomcgary 4y ago
My wife hikes a LOT and takes her InReach every time. She has already saved the life of one person that she met on the trail who was in very bad shape. Doctors said that the rescued woman had less than an hour left without intervention, which wouldn't have happened in time with a traditional emergency beacon (which can't text). I strongly recommend it (and the helicopter insurance too) for anyone in the back country on a semi-regular basis.
GeekyBear 4y ago
> I wish Apple would just let you pay extra every month and get X number of messages or minutes of satellite service. Texting is extremely pricey with Garmin's plans. 40 texts a month for a monthly fee of $35 or 10 texts a month for $15, in addition to a $29.95 activation fee.
SpikeDad 4y ago
>One gripe I have is that it allows only for emergency communications Sorry that's not true. You didn't watch the presentation did you? Apple specifically noted that the service would be available for "more casual" communications.