2 ms·

I assume the problem here is Iridium's airtime rates are some of the highest in the world for being a pole-to-pole satellite system. OEMs are balking at whateve

I assume the problem here is Iridium's airtime rates are some of the highest in the world for being a pole-to-pole satellite system. OEMs are balking at whatever rates Iridium is throwing them that they then have to pass onto consumers making it an inelegant cost to eat all around. Globalstar, being a North American system and designed fairly more simply than Iridium, has a significant cost advantage for low cost burst data that makes it appealing for Apple to be able to offer at little to low cost. Both of these systems have their own technical baggage in protocols and standards that make it slightly more complex to integrate in the first place. Meanwhile, companies like Skylo are starting to hit the ground running with their bent-pipe 3GPP NTN deployment (which is, essentially, 5GNR/LTE with extra satellite extensions) and I think we're going to see more a pivot to NTN-style tech.

lxgr 3y ago
Globalstar is a bent-pipe system too, right? For all we know, Apple’s solution could already be based on 5G NTN. Skimming some of the 3GPP meeting notes, Globalstar definitely seems interested in getting an official 5G frequency identifier for their spectrum. Apple has heavily invested into Globalstar earth stations; I wouldn’t be surprised if they were running their own RF hardware on some of Globalstar’s spectrum.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Apple's solution is Globalstar. You can tell because their SOS has the same limitation of no responses. It is impossible to do NTN without new satellites. Starlink is launching new satellites with huge dishes that can do LTE to the ground.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    > You can tell because their SOS has the same limitation of no responses. No, Apple's solution is two-way. The SOS chat is bidirectional. Globalstar's second generation of satellites don't have the problem with failing S-band amplifiers that has made the first generation an effectively unidirectional constellation. > It is impossible to do NTN without new satellites. You can definitely do NTN on existing bent-pipe satellites. For example, Skylo (used e.g. by "Motorola Rugged" satellite messengers and Android phones) is doing NTN on satellites launched more than a decade ago.

lxgr 3y ago

Globalstar is a bent-pipe system too, right? For all we know, Apple’s solution could already be based on 5G NTN. Skimming some of the 3GPP meeting notes, Globalstar definitely seems interested in getting an official 5G frequency identifier for their spectrum. Apple has heavily invested into Globalstar earth stations; I wouldn’t be surprised if they were running their own RF hardware on some of Globalstar’s spectrum.

ianburrell 3y ago
Apple's solution is Globalstar. You can tell because their SOS has the same limitation of no responses. It is impossible to do NTN without new satellites. Starlink is launching new satellites with huge dishes that can do LTE to the ground.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > You can tell because their SOS has the same limitation of no responses. No, Apple's solution is two-way. The SOS chat is bidirectional. Globalstar's second generation of satellites don't have the problem with failing S-band amplifiers that has made the first generation an effectively unidirectional constellation. > It is impossible to do NTN without new satellites. You can definitely do NTN on existing bent-pipe satellites. For example, Skylo (used e.g. by "Motorola Rugged" satellite messengers and Android phones) is doing NTN on satellites launched more than a decade ago.