4 ms·

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

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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Also, locking all phones to Verizon forcing people to use ATT or T-Mobile if they wanted to use other SIMs during international travel. It is the primary reason I never even considered buying Verizon service.
  - leesalminen 4y ago
    I have a US post-paid VZW plan, but spend 300+ days per year outside of the country. Verizon gets the esim slot, current local country gets a pre paid physical sim. I buy all my phones unlocked from Apple directly. It all works fine.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      I think Verizon changed policy sometime in mid 2010s. And it might not have applied to iPhones because Apple is Apple, but it applied to all other phones that worked on Verizon prior to iPhone coming to Verizon.
lostlogin 4y ago
> Most folks who buy new phones spend most of their time near places with cell connectivity. I’m mostly on wifi. I wonder how common that is, but either way I need to get out more.
tinus_hn 4y ago
They clearly know that if they have rights to 75% of the bandwidth available to these satellites, they are in a great position. They have the means and the drive to create and implement a profitable model for using satellite coverage and then when the also-runs want to come in and copy them they’ll have to compete for the leftover 25%.
SpikeDad 4y ago
Because cellular will never be ubiquitous and in areas with max cell coverage that are still plenty of nature areas without a signal. I live in a big college town but often go for walk in a canyon area 10 minutes from my home with zero coverage of any provider. I will feel a little safer having Sat capabilities. Can someone just buy satellite coverage? Doesn't the equipment need to be specially engineered for the specific sat frequencies and protocols? Apple launched exclusively on AT&T because they were willing to not force Apple to provide user and device data to them for marketing purposes. Other provides jumped on the bandwagon when they saw how much money they were missing which soothed their poor marketing folks who didn't get the data they wanted. Can I speculate that Musk perhaps offered the same choice - use us but we want customer data? Perhaps he wasn't willing to dedicate the large amount of capacity which Apple seems to be capturing. Perhaps Apple didn't want Samsung to share capacity with Apple when Samsung inevitably copies this feature in the next version of their phones? In any even it's not just satellite capacity. If you recall from the presentation Apple has also put in a large human component as the interface between the automated messages and the dispatching of emergency services. So it's a big deal all around.
ylee 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) I helped cover AAPL at a large investment bank. I can confirm the above; we thought that if there was any company with the a) financial resources to build its own network (an MVNO is much cheaper, of course), and b) brand presence/credibility to immediately gain market traction, it was Apple.

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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 4y ago
Also, locking all phones to Verizon forcing people to use ATT or T-Mobile if they wanted to use other SIMs during international travel. It is the primary reason I never even considered buying Verizon service.
- leesalminen 4y ago
  I have a US post-paid VZW plan, but spend 300+ days per year outside of the country. Verizon gets the esim slot, current local country gets a pre paid physical sim. I buy all my phones unlocked from Apple directly. It all works fine.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I think Verizon changed policy sometime in mid 2010s. And it might not have applied to iPhones because Apple is Apple, but it applied to all other phones that worked on Verizon prior to iPhone coming to Verizon.

lostlogin 4y ago

> Most folks who buy new phones spend most of their time near places with cell connectivity. I’m mostly on wifi. I wonder how common that is, but either way I need to get out more.

tinus_hn 4y ago

They clearly know that if they have rights to 75% of the bandwidth available to these satellites, they are in a great position. They have the means and the drive to create and implement a profitable model for using satellite coverage and then when the also-runs want to come in and copy them they’ll have to compete for the leftover 25%.

SpikeDad 4y ago

Because cellular will never be ubiquitous and in areas with max cell coverage that are still plenty of nature areas without a signal. I live in a big college town but often go for walk in a canyon area 10 minutes from my home with zero coverage of any provider. I will feel a little safer having Sat capabilities. Can someone just buy satellite coverage? Doesn't the equipment need to be specially engineered for the specific sat frequencies and protocols? Apple launched exclusively on AT&T because they were willing to not force Apple to provide user and device data to them for marketing purposes. Other provides jumped on the bandwagon when they saw how much money they were missing which soothed their poor marketing folks who didn't get the data they wanted. Can I speculate that Musk perhaps offered the same choice - use us but we want customer data? Perhaps he wasn't willing to dedicate the large amount of capacity which Apple seems to be capturing. Perhaps Apple didn't want Samsung to share capacity with Apple when Samsung inevitably copies this feature in the next version of their phones? In any even it's not just satellite capacity. If you recall from the presentation Apple has also put in a large human component as the interface between the automated messages and the dispatching of emergency services. So it's a big deal all around.

ylee 4y ago