Apple has a secret team working on internet satellites(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Apple has a secret team working on internet satellites
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/apple-has-top-secret-team-working-on-internet-satellites
127 comments
> 1) No more carriers.
This doesn't really work. If you've looked at some of the calculations for SpaceX's constellation (probably the highest bandwidth one proposed so far), it is completely insufficient for even medium sized cities.
There is also a question of what sort of antenna the phones will use to connect with the satellites. My understanding is that modern sat phones are pretty low bandwidth and aren't really the sleak and slim design we've come to expect from Apple.
> can let illegal imports take care of situations where there is the potential for bans e.g. patents or Russia.
Probably not possible either. They're going to need plenty of base stations, which are easy to ban with court order.
> 2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them dictate where the industry goes.
We'll see. If the problem is with patents instead of technical ability then this will be easier than I expect.
> 4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding apps be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing and killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc.
Again, they're going to need base stations. The parts of the world that regularly do that stuff are usually pretty poor, which means pretty low iPhone penetration.
If Apple can pull this off, it'd be great for them. I'm not very optimistic.
This doesn't really work. If you've looked at some of the calculations for SpaceX's constellation (probably the highest bandwidth one proposed so far), it is completely insufficient for even medium sized cities.
There is also a question of what sort of antenna the phones will use to connect with the satellites. My understanding is that modern sat phones are pretty low bandwidth and aren't really the sleak and slim design we've come to expect from Apple.
> can let illegal imports take care of situations where there is the potential for bans e.g. patents or Russia.
Probably not possible either. They're going to need plenty of base stations, which are easy to ban with court order.
> 2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them dictate where the industry goes.
We'll see. If the problem is with patents instead of technical ability then this will be easier than I expect.
> 4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding apps be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing and killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc.
Again, they're going to need base stations. The parts of the world that regularly do that stuff are usually pretty poor, which means pretty low iPhone penetration.
If Apple can pull this off, it'd be great for them. I'm not very optimistic.
I don't think you need base stations, given atomic clocks shared between the network and possibly on some of the client devices, the client devices could form a large phased array receiver and then mesh the data between the ground based mesh.
Base stations help, but aren't required.
Base stations help, but aren't required.
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the phones form a mesh on the ground to distribute the data that needs transmission to and from the satellite. And that the mesh network of devices also synchronize their radios to act as one gigantic phased array (or in chunks) to communicate with the satellites.
That's a fantastically crazy idea, in a good way
That's a fantastically crazy idea, in a good way
> I don't think you need base stations, given atomic clocks shared between the network and possibly on some of the client devices, the client devices could form a large phased array receiver and then mesh the data between the ground based mesh.
Are you suggesting that no person with an iPhone ever makes/takes a call with a non-iPhone user?
Are you suggesting that no person with an iPhone ever makes/takes a call with a non-iPhone user?
Do you have any links and resources on those calculations about starlink?
If apple is working on this id have guessed the viability is arguably roadmaped? If not it feels like throwing money around to see what sticks. .
> If apple is working on this id have guessed the viability is arguably roadmaped?
The explanation could be as simple as: they have huge piles of cash and don't know what to do with them. Satellite internet (for busses and bigger) seems like a decent use for it. It's true that SpaceX is ahead and has cheaper launch prices than anyone, but Apple might believe they can just outspend everyone else.
The explanation could be as simple as: they have huge piles of cash and don't know what to do with them. Satellite internet (for busses and bigger) seems like a decent use for it. It's true that SpaceX is ahead and has cheaper launch prices than anyone, but Apple might believe they can just outspend everyone else.
Like AirPower.
With point 4) I don't think Apple intends to ignore the ruling of governments in that way. Much of Apple's business remains in the hardware market, and indeed this service would require hardware also (perhaps even be limited to iDevices). Such countries could just ban the sale of Apple devices.
Besides, there's much more profit in Apple co-operating with countries like China vs trying to ignore their will and do their own thing on their land anyway. Either way, it's hard to imagine that a country like China wouldn't be able to create some blockers for Apple's telecoms.
Apple stands up for citizens rights in accordance with the law. It does not generally stand up for circumventing the law in countries, even if it might disagree with that law.
Besides, there's much more profit in Apple co-operating with countries like China vs trying to ignore their will and do their own thing on their land anyway. Either way, it's hard to imagine that a country like China wouldn't be able to create some blockers for Apple's telecoms.
Apple stands up for citizens rights in accordance with the law. It does not generally stand up for circumventing the law in countries, even if it might disagree with that law.
Indeed. The term you are looking for in 4) is Lawful Interception [0]. Existing satellite networks like Iridium that support satellite crosslinks and could theoretically get around this are not legally allowed to do so [e.g. 1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception
[1] https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08528.html
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception
[1] https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08528.html
Latency will restrict it to niche use cases, the most likely of which is probably #4. No Great Firewall can stop this, unless it morphs into a Great Faraday Dome.
I assume public transportation wouldn't be practical because of the costs of keeping a dish pointed in the right direction when in motion.
Edit: expanded concept.
Edit: expanded concept.
> No Great Firewall can stop this[...]
True, but the great Surface-to-Space anti-satellite missile can, and China has very publicly demonstrated this capability. So Apple will still have to comply with onerous request from some space-faring nation's.
True, but the great Surface-to-Space anti-satellite missile can, and China has very publicly demonstrated this capability. So Apple will still have to comply with onerous request from some space-faring nation's.
And if said missiles is greater in cost (manufacture/maintenance/launch) than the satellites (manufacture/maintenance/launch)?
I'm thinking there are much more cost effective[0] ways to go about such possible ends any given space-faring nation may be seeking…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_...
I'm thinking there are much more cost effective[0] ways to go about such possible ends any given space-faring nation may be seeking…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_...
The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. Rather, what matters is the "cost" of someone poking holes in the Great Firewall (which itself cost(s) no small amount). What price would China pay to maintain "social cohesion"? My guess is "a lot", especially if they are setting a public example. The mere threat to destroy a hostile satellite would likely be enough to activate censorship, if economic incentives have failed. Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground
>The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon.
With thinking like this, this is how one looses in the game of attrition warfare (setting aside the technical difficulties shooting down satellites that are trying to active evade such, rather than some boisterous demo on one that isn't). If the Chinese can't maintain "social cohesion" at a cheap of enough cost, it would be only be ruinous in the long run.
"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" - Sun Tzu
>Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground
Well this certainly sounds like a cheaper alternative that seems way more sustainable and wont be as burdensome on the resources of a population. However, any ground station that has LOS into china from outside its borders) and powered high enough would evade such, then we're talking about the cat and mouse game of trying to impede beam paths. Maybe they'd have to purse something on the device level via the manufactures to block such things.
With thinking like this, this is how one looses in the game of attrition warfare (setting aside the technical difficulties shooting down satellites that are trying to active evade such, rather than some boisterous demo on one that isn't). If the Chinese can't maintain "social cohesion" at a cheap of enough cost, it would be only be ruinous in the long run.
"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" - Sun Tzu
>Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground
Well this certainly sounds like a cheaper alternative that seems way more sustainable and wont be as burdensome on the resources of a population. However, any ground station that has LOS into china from outside its borders) and powered high enough would evade such, then we're talking about the cat and mouse game of trying to impede beam paths. Maybe they'd have to purse something on the device level via the manufactures to block such things.
I'm sorry, but this is getting too abstract for me: China will not fight a war of attrition against Apple, Inc. over internet satellites.
Just like the US or Russia, or any other major power, China does not need to play a game of cat and mouse over an entity acting in a way perceived as harmful to its populace. I'd like to think they are able to perform attribution, and have a range of options on how to apply pressure (diplomatic, financial / economic, or electronic - remember N. Korea vs Sony Films?)
Just like the US or Russia, or any other major power, China does not need to play a game of cat and mouse over an entity acting in a way perceived as harmful to its populace. I'd like to think they are able to perform attribution, and have a range of options on how to apply pressure (diplomatic, financial / economic, or electronic - remember N. Korea vs Sony Films?)
Could you explain how you come up with your increased latency numbers vs ground based fiber?
1000 miles is about 5ms.
1000 miles is about 5ms.
Even the best case LEO satellites adds tens or close to hundreds of ms to latency. In the days of 5G where everyone is working tirelessly to get rid of the last 5 - 10ms in their system, I hardly see this to be an improvement.
Neither one of the responses showed the math where the supposed increase in latency comes from. The current application latency is already dominated by server response time within the geographic region serving the application. The phrase "get rid of the last 5 - 10ms" doesn't make sense, and in those regimes, it is mostly isolated to HFT.
Satellite Internet has always been plagued by high latency, in the order of hundreds of milliseconds, plus slow uplinks and generally high costs.
Unless of course I missed some new development, which I think is unlikely because it would have made big news everywhere.
Tons of Apple money can solve the cost and speed problems, probably something can also be done about latency by keeping everything in house therefore reducing the number of hops, but IMO it would still be too much say for online gaming, and barely usable for realtime VoIP.
If they're doing LEO satellites like SpaceX, the latency is typically under 100ms. The super high latency satellite internet is from satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
There's a proposed law in Russia that will fine people for using foreign satellite internet. Also, how do you think people will get iPhones, smuggling?
You mean like how Russians got most Western products only a few decades ago? No, I think they will get their grey market product from eBay like everyone else does.
Yes, smuggling. The same way that they got iPhones before they were officially available in Russia.
Just because the sickle and hammer aren't on every flagpole doesn't mean smuggling has ceased in the new Russia.
Just because the sickle and hammer aren't on every flagpole doesn't mean smuggling has ceased in the new Russia.
[deleted]
none of those things are possible. Apple would have to be king of the world to make it happen and even then, satellites alone will not work.
even if there could be a tiny ecosystem of apple wireless, nobody would interconnect to it.
even if there could be a tiny ecosystem of apple wireless, nobody would interconnect to it.
Very well said, you nailed it! I think this is super interesting if they are looking this way, I'd go with Apple for the reasons you mentioned in a heartbeat.
Who will buy this?
Americans who have cell phones :)? Anyone on GoogleFi? People who travel and don't want to switch phones?
If Apple can deliver something at $25 to $80 a month like carriers who wouldn't want it?
If Apple can deliver something at $25 to $80 a month like carriers who wouldn't want it?
People in Europe who pay 10€/month for mobile internet.
I'm in Europe and that is a basic plan, but a lot of people pay more. I am guessing at 10 euros a month you might get 1GB a month, which is not enough for most things.
At least in Austria 10€/month will provide you with more than just a basic plan. With 9.90€/mo, you could get a plan with 15GB/500SMS/500min, without charging annual service fees or minimum term of contract.
I pay 13.90€ and get 30GB/500SMS/500min with 5.19GB available for Roaming and I'm absolutely pleased with its cost-effectiveness and support.
A little bit context about the Austrian mobile market: Until 2012 we had four different carriers: Orange, T-Mobile, A1 and Drei (Hutchinson). December 2012 the EU commision approved the merger of Orange into Drei under a few conditions so that competition will not be hindered. One of those conditions required Drei to open its network for up to 16 MVNOs [1]. If I remember correctly, prices soared slightly, but after some MVNOs were successfully established, the other carriers opened up their networks too and the additional competition led to plummeting prices. It seems like it's not even that expensive to set up a MVNO. The request for dialling codes is free at the telecom regulatory body [2] and Drei's reference offer seems reasonable, even without negotiating better conditions[3]
[1]: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_12_... [2]: https://www.rtr.at/de/tk/Rufnummern [3]: https://www.drei.at/de/business/wholesale/mvno-and-reselling...
A little bit context about the Austrian mobile market: Until 2012 we had four different carriers: Orange, T-Mobile, A1 and Drei (Hutchinson). December 2012 the EU commision approved the merger of Orange into Drei under a few conditions so that competition will not be hindered. One of those conditions required Drei to open its network for up to 16 MVNOs [1]. If I remember correctly, prices soared slightly, but after some MVNOs were successfully established, the other carriers opened up their networks too and the additional competition led to plummeting prices. It seems like it's not even that expensive to set up a MVNO. The request for dialling codes is free at the telecom regulatory body [2] and Drei's reference offer seems reasonable, even without negotiating better conditions[3]
[1]: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_12_... [2]: https://www.rtr.at/de/tk/Rufnummern [3]: https://www.drei.at/de/business/wholesale/mvno-and-reselling...
You can easily get a prepaid SIM with 3 GB of LTE for 10€/month in Western Europe. 5+ GB is possible if you're willing to go with one of the less extensive networks (e.g., Vodafone), or if you're willing to sign a contract (i.e., not prepaid).
Got a link?
I've seen some pre-paid plans that did, but super discount carriers I didn't trust too much on speed / EU roaming agreements to other countries.
I've seen some pre-paid plans that did, but super discount carriers I didn't trust too much on speed / EU roaming agreements to other countries.
I don't want to advertise anything, but this website has a pretty extensive comparison of options in Germany: https://www.check24.de/handytarife/vergleich?data_included=3...
The cheapest plans are on the Vodafone and O2 networks, which aren't as good as the Telekom (former state-owned) network. There are, however, plans with 3 GB for less than 10€ on the Telekom network. If you're willing to go with one of the shoddier networks, you can save a few more Euros each month.
The cheapest plans are on the Vodafone and O2 networks, which aren't as good as the Telekom (former state-owned) network. There are, however, plans with 3 GB for less than 10€ on the Telekom network. If you're willing to go with one of the shoddier networks, you can save a few more Euros each month.
Nice, I stand corrected, how does that limit of 22.6mb stack up to the big ones?
It looks like there are plenty of cheap plans with 50 Mbit/s.
It would be interesting to know what European countries have done differently from the US to foster competition in mobile providers.
It would be interesting to know what European countries have done differently from the US to foster competition in mobile providers.
Last year I walked into various grotty shops and sim cards in that price range were readily available in the UK and France. Usually 4g occasionally 3g. They were prepaid.
Right, but what’s the competitive edge? Why would you want a company famous for having a black hole for a ticket system running a service you depend on? Honest question, not trying to knock apple, it just seems like a strange move, I don’t see them substantially improving on the problems with existing carriers from a customer perspective.
1) who are you comparing with, ATT and Comcast?
2) I think most customers don’t even know what a ticket system is, or care. Apple is famous for very different things with consumers.
I was comparing with mobile carriers which you could improve in a lot of ways. I can’t imagine satellite internet could compete speed, bandwidth, or latency wise with modern metro area infrastructure, even in the next few years, even with significant investment. For rural areas, and internationally, it’s a real possibility. But my point wasn’t rhetorical, I am actually wondering which parts they’re aiming to improve upon—allowing tethering would be an obvious way.
Ya but Apple could blanket urban areas with 5g no problem, or rent space like FI, especially depending on how antitrust investigations go over the next 5 years.
Could the same hardware for satellite modems work with 5g?
Not super surprised (because traditional media is bad at specialist topics--looks like they googled large conventional satellite makers and talked to a self-described expert, who unfortunately didn't provide a ton of context), but there was no mention of the obvious company/competitor that has demonstrated the technology in question:
https://spacenews.com/ubiquitilink-has-raised-12-million-for...
Ubiquitilink (now called just Lynk) demonstrated the ability to communicate with existing, unmodified cellphones from orbit (the prototype was a secondary payload on the Cygnus spacecraft, which had resupplied the International Space Station). This is a remarkable feat and puts the technology in a completely different camp than it was when large LEO constellations like Iridium were tried beforehand. Iridium failed to acquire enough customers before going bankrupt in part because they required an expensive and clunky handset. Being able to use existing GSM and LTE phones without bulky antennas (and in spite of the latency being beyond what GSM/LTE usually tolerates) is a breakthrough.
https://www.spaceitbridge.com/cell-tower-in-the-sky-ubiquiti...
They plan to start with SMS texting (can use very cheap satellites and don't require very many of them) and then voice/data later on. (Plan is to partner with existing providers to allow global texting anywhere on the planet.)
The second prototype is a satellite launched on a SpaceX Dragon to the International Space Station that will be assembled by astronauts: https://mobile.twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/11550878931631...
It's a complete gamechanger (possibly even bigger than SpaceX's Starlink). Doubtless Apple realizes this potential and wants their own in to this. It's a legitimate way for Apple to use their huge amount of cash to legitimately grow their revenue significantly. And Apple has the advantage that they can make modifications to the phones (or tablets or watches or notebooks, etc) themselves. Apple can also afford multi-billion-dollar investments that take many years to come to fruition, something Iridium (and Globalstar and others) couldn't at that time.
Ubiquitilink (now called just Lynk) demonstrated the ability to communicate with existing, unmodified cellphones from orbit (the prototype was a secondary payload on the Cygnus spacecraft, which had resupplied the International Space Station). This is a remarkable feat and puts the technology in a completely different camp than it was when large LEO constellations like Iridium were tried beforehand. Iridium failed to acquire enough customers before going bankrupt in part because they required an expensive and clunky handset. Being able to use existing GSM and LTE phones without bulky antennas (and in spite of the latency being beyond what GSM/LTE usually tolerates) is a breakthrough.
https://www.spaceitbridge.com/cell-tower-in-the-sky-ubiquiti...
They plan to start with SMS texting (can use very cheap satellites and don't require very many of them) and then voice/data later on. (Plan is to partner with existing providers to allow global texting anywhere on the planet.)
The second prototype is a satellite launched on a SpaceX Dragon to the International Space Station that will be assembled by astronauts: https://mobile.twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/11550878931631...
It's a complete gamechanger (possibly even bigger than SpaceX's Starlink). Doubtless Apple realizes this potential and wants their own in to this. It's a legitimate way for Apple to use their huge amount of cash to legitimately grow their revenue significantly. And Apple has the advantage that they can make modifications to the phones (or tablets or watches or notebooks, etc) themselves. Apple can also afford multi-billion-dollar investments that take many years to come to fruition, something Iridium (and Globalstar and others) couldn't at that time.
I'm not sure how much of a gamechanger it will be to only be able to send SMS, and probably at a fairly high price point.
It's perhaps a big deal if you're a Yak farmer in remote Sibera and don't normally have any kind of coverage at all, but most people have some sort of cell coverage that provides at least SMS.
The comment that the bulky handset killed Iridium is only part of the picture. The bigger issue is that terrestrial cell antennas went up faster than Motorola expected, and by the time the system was online its primary use case had already largely vanished, especially among the kind of people who could afford the extremely high fees for the service. In the end the market niche closed down to government people in extremely remote locations who don't already have some sort of satellite connection.
It's perhaps a big deal if you're a Yak farmer in remote Sibera and don't normally have any kind of coverage at all, but most people have some sort of cell coverage that provides at least SMS.
The comment that the bulky handset killed Iridium is only part of the picture. The bigger issue is that terrestrial cell antennas went up faster than Motorola expected, and by the time the system was online its primary use case had already largely vanished, especially among the kind of people who could afford the extremely high fees for the service. In the end the market niche closed down to government people in extremely remote locations who don't already have some sort of satellite connection.
They're not limited to SMS; that's just the minimum viable product. They can do voice and data as well with the same technology. It also should be a lot easier and cheaper for Lynk to deploy than it was for Iridium, since launch costs have gone down significantly (while reliability is higher) and they use extremely small, cheap satellites (at least initially). They are planning on providing a fill-in-the-gaps service and are partnering with existing terrestrial service providers... Providers, at least with the next-generation version, won't have to provide cell towers (in places where there isn't otherwise enough demand to justify the large installation and upkeep costs) purely for gaining complete coverage. This is the sort of thing Iridium was never capable of.
It should be pointed out that Iridium (post-bankruptcy) became profitable and has recently finished launching their entire second-generation constellation (on Falcon 9). Their subscriber base continues to grow.
It should be pointed out that Iridium (post-bankruptcy) became profitable and has recently finished launching their entire second-generation constellation (on Falcon 9). Their subscriber base continues to grow.
I'm not so sure. One of the reasons cell phones work at all is that they are relatively close to the antenna. This service requires to antennas to be at least 100 miles away and doesn't have any provision to improve the gain on the client side. SMS may be roughly the limit of what they can provide in the available bandwidth. The inverse square law is a harsh mistress.
There's always the option of increased gain on the serving side as well (both transmitting and receiving). 5G and related technologies allow beam steering which may improve gain (and selectivity) on the client side, and it's possible Apple may be working this angle on their side for whatever they're working on.
In sparsely populated areas where the service could be valuable, I think they can get away with a lot more (as far as frequency usage) than they could for mobile in dense areas. So I think it could indeed be useful.
In sparsely populated areas where the service could be valuable, I think they can get away with a lot more (as far as frequency usage) than they could for mobile in dense areas. So I think it could indeed be useful.
It will not work. Their use case is low data rate applications. It's one of those case where you pick 2 among high number of users, high bandwidth, and low gain user terminals.
The full picture of what killed Iridium is written up in great detail in "Eccentric Orbits". I'm only part of the way through the book, but lots of interesting stuff in there so far.
https://www.amazon.com/Eccentric-Orbits-Iridium-John-Bloom/d...
https://www.amazon.com/Eccentric-Orbits-Iridium-John-Bloom/d...
I don't think it's going to be a fairly high price point. Satellites are becoming commodities, Space X drove the price of launching down, and with the current technologies a small computer can process a lot, especially if you don't have to care about heat dissipation. Quite the contrary, you don't need to construct many towers in cities to get coverage, with all the legal burdens that implies and all the maintenance it requires. You will cover a much broader space, so your potential customer base is bigger for the investment, and you can even cover places that would have not been before. In fact, you can even have better signal for moving people like in trains, cars or... boats and planes !
Of course this is all speculations, but it has a lot of potential.
Of course this is all speculations, but it has a lot of potential.
[deleted]
> The comment that the bulky handset killed Iridium is only part of the picture. The bigger issue is that terrestrial cell antennas went up faster than Motorola expected
A large percentage of those terrestrial base stations were built and sold by Motorola; they did pretty well overall. During that period of time, Motorola had low base station market share in the US and Europe - almost all of their business was in the locations that Iridium was built to serve.
The experience in designing, building and maintaining a large array of satellites (in Arizona, I think) most likely paid for itself in government contracts many times over.
A large percentage of those terrestrial base stations were built and sold by Motorola; they did pretty well overall. During that period of time, Motorola had low base station market share in the US and Europe - almost all of their business was in the locations that Iridium was built to serve.
The experience in designing, building and maintaining a large array of satellites (in Arizona, I think) most likely paid for itself in government contracts many times over.
Satellite beacons using the Iridium network are getting more popular with outdoor recreationists. The inReach https://explore.garmin.com/en-US/inreach/ works incredibly well, well worth the money if you do harder trips in the backcountry.
Right. And now you'll be able to do the same thing with just a service add-on. All of a sudden, your potential service base is huge, literally billions of devices.
I don’t see this as a game changer. It may be revolutionary in terms of technological achievement, but what’s the “killer app” for this? SMS is ok, because it is already unreliable on traditional cellular networks and there’s no saying how long a message would take to reach. Voice and data seems to be a fantasy, especially if it has to scale. Latency and packet loss (presuming it’s all going to be IP based) would make this almost as good as existing satellite Internet services or somewhat better than them. What’s new here that would make it work significantly better than current technology for voice and data, and how are the limits of physics being tested or worked around?
If Apple wants to launch satellites that can communicate with phones directly, I’d prefer that the work go into better maps and better real time navigation (though I’m not sure how the latter could be helped much with satellites). Apple users need this more than anything novel and fancy if Google’s lead on this needs to be narrowed.
If Apple wants to launch satellites that can communicate with phones directly, I’d prefer that the work go into better maps and better real time navigation (though I’m not sure how the latter could be helped much with satellites). Apple users need this more than anything novel and fancy if Google’s lead on this needs to be narrowed.
I am no expert, but having normal cell phone speeds available most of the time, then backing off to 'IP-over-SMS (IoTXT?)' speeds when off the cell phone network carries a lot of value for me, not just in search and rescue scenarios, but maritime use, use in the back 40, and so on.
Sure, we won't be able to stream media, but having slow and steady wireless communications vs. no signal at all is like comparing a running, rusty 1985 Volvo station wagon to a 2021 Porche 911 GTS with no wheels: one will move you from place to place, albeit at a stately pace and in no style, the other is super cool, and at this exact second in time, is unfit for the purpose of transporting a body from place to place.
Sure, we won't be able to stream media, but having slow and steady wireless communications vs. no signal at all is like comparing a running, rusty 1985 Volvo station wagon to a 2021 Porche 911 GTS with no wheels: one will move you from place to place, albeit at a stately pace and in no style, the other is super cool, and at this exact second in time, is unfit for the purpose of transporting a body from place to place.
On-board global SMS would probably destroy a good chunk of the SPOT GPS beacon market. The only advantage GPS beacons/emergency locators might have at that point is battery life, and someone like Apple could probably take that part of the market too with a “low power tracking” mode that only fired up briefly every 10 minutes to transmit your current location.
> to a self-described expert, who unfortunately didn't provide a ton of context),
Are you questioning the expertise of Tim Farrar? If that is the case, you couldn't be more wrong. Check his blog and you will see he has been doing this thing for more than 20 years...
Also, lynk will never be able to provide enough bandwidth to deliver internet connectivity. It is envisioned to be used for short messages.
Are you questioning the expertise of Tim Farrar? If that is the case, you couldn't be more wrong. Check his blog and you will see he has been doing this thing for more than 20 years...
Also, lynk will never be able to provide enough bandwidth to deliver internet connectivity. It is envisioned to be used for short messages.
If you're getting those latter two sentences from following his blog, you will understand why I said what I said.
Lynk explicitly envisions the technology expanding beyond just text messages. They mention the speed over the LTE protocol of their satellite service is 180kbps, plenty for email, voice, streaming music, and some web browsing: http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956
Lynk explicitly envisions the technology expanding beyond just text messages. They mention the speed over the LTE protocol of their satellite service is 180kbps, plenty for email, voice, streaming music, and some web browsing: http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956
While from the articles Lynk is doing interesting and perhaps technically impressive work, I think they are going to struggle with competing with the deep pockets of the likes SpaceX, OneWeb, Blue Origin and now Apple and others.
I see from the articles linked and their site that their business model is different, but I doubt they could sell enough service to cover the cost of launching and maintaining their own constellation. Their best hope (and plan) might be to get absorbed by one of the bigger players.
It is hard to compete against a well-funded company that makes its own rockets and payloads and has access to hundreds of experienced engineers in their own and sister companies.
I am not even that convinced that Lynk's idea would work from a technological point of view. A quick look at Wikipedia states that: "A low Earth orbit (LEO) is an Earth-centered orbit with an altitude of 2,000 km (1,200 mi) "
I don't think you're getting a cell-signal to remain above the noise threshold/detectable level that far, especially under unfavorable atmospheric conditions. Yes, the satellite could have some impressive high-gain antenna, but the average cell phone is not going to transmit enough power to go more than 50 miles, let alone over a 1000. I'd genuinely love to see some data that contradicts me as I find the concept intriguing.
I see from the articles linked and their site that their business model is different, but I doubt they could sell enough service to cover the cost of launching and maintaining their own constellation. Their best hope (and plan) might be to get absorbed by one of the bigger players.
It is hard to compete against a well-funded company that makes its own rockets and payloads and has access to hundreds of experienced engineers in their own and sister companies.
I am not even that convinced that Lynk's idea would work from a technological point of view. A quick look at Wikipedia states that: "A low Earth orbit (LEO) is an Earth-centered orbit with an altitude of 2,000 km (1,200 mi) "
I don't think you're getting a cell-signal to remain above the noise threshold/detectable level that far, especially under unfavorable atmospheric conditions. Yes, the satellite could have some impressive high-gain antenna, but the average cell phone is not going to transmit enough power to go more than 50 miles, let alone over a 1000. I'd genuinely love to see some data that contradicts me as I find the concept intriguing.
They actually demonstrated the link. LEO goes down to 200-400km altitude. Their prototype was at 400km altitude.
What makes their technology impressive is the ability to work beyond the usual ~20 mile limit without modifying user hardware.
A good article:
"For example, a standard cell phone connected to a terrestrial tower generally has a range limited to around 35 kilometers (21 miles) if the line-of-sight is not interrupted by hills, buildings, or foliage. The phone signal can travel further, but the reception range is artificially limited by the highly accurate time frames of the cell phone protocol.
To get the phone to connect to a satellite flying 500 kilometers (310 miles) overhead, Lynk’s software at the satellite overcomes the built-in time-frame distance limit built into standard phone protocols." http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956
What makes their technology impressive is the ability to work beyond the usual ~20 mile limit without modifying user hardware.
A good article:
"For example, a standard cell phone connected to a terrestrial tower generally has a range limited to around 35 kilometers (21 miles) if the line-of-sight is not interrupted by hills, buildings, or foliage. The phone signal can travel further, but the reception range is artificially limited by the highly accurate time frames of the cell phone protocol.
To get the phone to connect to a satellite flying 500 kilometers (310 miles) overhead, Lynk’s software at the satellite overcomes the built-in time-frame distance limit built into standard phone protocols." http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956
> Ubiquitilink (now called just Lynk) demonstrated the ability to communicate with existing, unmodified cellphones from orbit
I spent way too long picturing a Samsung Galaxy drifting out of the cargo bay of a launch vehicle before realising you meant a satellite in orbit could connect to a standard phone on the ground.
I spent way too long picturing a Samsung Galaxy drifting out of the cargo bay of a launch vehicle before realising you meant a satellite in orbit could connect to a standard phone on the ground.
12 people is not a lot of engineers, considering all the work that needs to be done on both the modem and satellite side.
Unless they actually go public and file some FCC paperwork soon to actually get spectrum, I doubt that this is actually going to happen in the next 5 years, it seems like more of an exploratory effort.
I also imagine that this would be brutal for battery life.
Unless they actually go public and file some FCC paperwork soon to actually get spectrum, I doubt that this is actually going to happen in the next 5 years, it seems like more of an exploratory effort.
I also imagine that this would be brutal for battery life.
A dozen people could be enough to coordinate the purchase of the companies and engineers required to pull it off. It's not like Apple invents everything in-house.
That said, 12 people is clearly an indication that this project is still in the napkins-and-whiteboards stage.
That said, 12 people is clearly an indication that this project is still in the napkins-and-whiteboards stage.
Thank you for putting this into perspective. Apple would want to have a few people working on just assessing the risks and opportunities those other constellation projects have on their business and that would include wargaming "what if we made our own" scenarios.
12 is few enough that they might actually produce something of value. Besides, Steve Jobs originally wanted to sidestep the telcos and build his own network. I’m sure the thought kept living inside Apple and now they have the cash to do it.
My speculation: this ties into thier ultra wideband location technology: a killer feature would be the ability to LoJack and kill any device globally. As well as find anything with a UWB sticker attached.
Not to mention you can provision phones and computers without carrier activation.
My guess would be along similar lines a sort of always on, low bandwidth, side channel. So activation and a bootstrap for the next generation of weird protocols apple would love to cook up. I don’t know at all how airdrop works, but you could see it brokered through the apple network. Or like you mentioned a find my iPhone(and lock) that works globally without needing the phone to register to wifi/cell network. Or this p2p networking they’ve been talking about, that whole thing is a lot easier with a guaranteed signal to broker the nodes.
UWB has very short distance, inherent to the technology. it would be unrelated to this.
That is the case today because of regulation. I’m implying that phones and iPads and laptops etc. could be turned into UWB-locating relay stations which report nearby UWB beacons directly to Apple via satellite even if they are “offline”
Very smart. Even if Apple only take a small bite out of carriers it is still a huge amount of money. They could end up being Netflix to Verizon and AT&Ts blockbuster.
Anyone else remember Apple's secret team working on self driving cars?
It does have the appearance of this type of project. You have to assume they at least need to go through the exercise to ensure that there’s not some technology combined w/ out of the box thinking that could upend the status quo.
When there is power, fibre connectivity and property rights it is better and cheaper to stick radio kit on a mast. When these things are not so - then a satellite is a useful alternative.
I think 99% of the global market for comms is less than 1000m from places where there is or will be shortly power, fibre and property rights.
I think 99% of the global market for comms is less than 1000m from places where there is or will be shortly power, fibre and property rights.
I think 99% of the global market for comms is less than 1000m from places where there is or will be shortly power, fibre and property rights.
I'd say that is a tremendous overestimation. Even in the United States, the wireless carriers only advertise that they cover 95% of "Americans." Not "America," which is a vastly larger space.
And we all know that 95% is, itself, a gross exaggeration.
I'd say that is a tremendous overestimation. Even in the United States, the wireless carriers only advertise that they cover 95% of "Americans." Not "America," which is a vastly larger space.
And we all know that 95% is, itself, a gross exaggeration.
The USA is a really bad example - there could be a lot more fibre and phone signal than there is - if the market were "better" arranged.
Apple has secret teams working on all manner of things, and not necessarily only in the US.
Honestly, with the size of their cash pile, I wouldn't be surprised if they were secretly preparing to pivot into space exploration or something. Assume SpaceX will have the primary transport side of things out to Mars covered with Starship, and start designing space habitats or preparing for a Mars colony.
What is Apple’s relationship with Musk?
I really feel Spacex need a good partner for their net.
I really feel Spacex need a good partner for their net.
Maybe Apple just buys SpaceX's satellite internet system when it's deployed, and SpaceX goes on to build more constellations for more companies, pivoting to being purely a space transportation company, and not an internet company.
Cloudflare would be a good match for SpaceX.
If this project can be launched in 5 years, I will be very surprised. Remember Apple car; this project once had hundreds of engineers over multi-years but eventually got scrapped.
Meanwhile, given the secretive culture in Apple, I wonder if this "leak" is a calculated one. It can be from either top-executives or internal politics though.
Meanwhile, given the secretive culture in Apple, I wonder if this "leak" is a calculated one. It can be from either top-executives or internal politics though.
Well, Wall Street wanted Apple to put out more services. This is pretty much the ultimate tech service.
But I don't think this will free everyone from mobile carriers, as we would hope. At least if you don't live in a tent. Those of us who live and work in skyscrapers will still need cellular and/or WiFi connections.
But I don't think this will free everyone from mobile carriers, as we would hope. At least if you don't live in a tent. Those of us who live and work in skyscrapers will still need cellular and/or WiFi connections.
There is a much higher possibility of Apple having their own Satellites for Mapping Data, Imagery, Extreme accurate location positioning than whatever Bloomberg or the 102 comment on HN is dreaming of.
With Apple, I would be worried that it could become an Intranet.
Not anymore. :-)
Satellite internet is too slow to do much. It reminds me of the dial up days.
Your description of the individual missed out, chief caller-outer of pedo guys who has a penchant for legally smoking a spliff or tweeting under other influences, whilst eschewing world dominance. However, I am ambivalent, not only because the person has not yet been exposed as doing 'things' which might be considered deeply unsavoury ─ even by the lax standards or sexual mores that define people in this class. But he continues to make some progress, in the vein of unreasonable people having the will to bend the world around them, rather than being pliable to it. This is not an endorsement nor does it express my consent or brings me joy to say it, but somebody has to do it, so the others can follow.
xedeon(1)
Are all tech companies just copying Elon now?
Elon God Musk. Sole inventor of online payments, solar panels, electric cars, tunnels and satellites.
Silicon Valley hubris at its best
Silicon Valley hubris at its best
I don't think Elon claims any of those things. I think what he brings is a unique clarity that is hard for others to replicate when looking at ideas that already exist.
By leveraging this clarity he can Get Things Done™, and we've seen tangible proof of that already with Tesla and SpaceX.
By leveraging this clarity he can Get Things Done™, and we've seen tangible proof of that already with Tesla and SpaceX.
Elon may not, but his followers do. And Elon takes advantage of his Tony Stark persona people have made for him greatly. I don't blame him for that, of course.
For everything he does deliver, there's 5 promises that he didn't. Humans on Mars by 2024, infrastructure on Mars by 2022? Model 3 was greatly delayed. $35k price point promise?
I'm not anti-Elon, the opposite actually; he does great work and his companies have contributed a lot and indeed solved many problems. But I really do wish people would tone down the hype over him sometimes. Half of what he says isn't even in realistic development, it just sees a trailer, and the next thing you know there's another product announced and people have forgotten all about that one.
For everything he does deliver, there's 5 promises that he didn't. Humans on Mars by 2024, infrastructure on Mars by 2022? Model 3 was greatly delayed. $35k price point promise?
I'm not anti-Elon, the opposite actually; he does great work and his companies have contributed a lot and indeed solved many problems. But I really do wish people would tone down the hype over him sometimes. Half of what he says isn't even in realistic development, it just sees a trailer, and the next thing you know there's another product announced and people have forgotten all about that one.
You do know that Elon didn't invent nor is the first company to have internet satellites.
They are actually pretty common.
They are actually pretty common.
Low earth orbit peer-to-peer low cost internet is very different from what the old guard in this "space" is up to. And it is in that sense that they are copying Elon. (edit: I thought Facebook was first to announce this, but apparently it was indeed first inspired by SpaceX).
Take a look at what Teledesic was planning in the late 90s. Elon’s a great guy, but nothing I see about Starlink is innovative over what they were working on over 20 years ago.
This is something I see people misunderstand time and time again; “innovation” isn’t just inventing an entirely new novel product.
Musk is not about innovation in terms of entirely new products. As other posters have commented, rockets, electric cars, and Internet satellites have all been done before.
Where he seems to be special is having the vision to see opportunities to develop or scale existing products much further than incumbents, and having the confidence/chutzpah/bloody-mindedness to pull it off.
However, through the development required to meet his challenging goals, his teams often need to innovate significantly - this innovation is often exceptional.
And of course, what makes a large-scale global Internet satellite service viable is actually the ability to reuse launch rockets - one of his other major innovations.
Musk is not about innovation in terms of entirely new products. As other posters have commented, rockets, electric cars, and Internet satellites have all been done before.
Where he seems to be special is having the vision to see opportunities to develop or scale existing products much further than incumbents, and having the confidence/chutzpah/bloody-mindedness to pull it off.
However, through the development required to meet his challenging goals, his teams often need to innovate significantly - this innovation is often exceptional.
And of course, what makes a large-scale global Internet satellite service viable is actually the ability to reuse launch rockets - one of his other major innovations.
Global high speed satellite internet is "pretty common"? Cool. Where do I sign up?
Musk's playbook is actually much more likely based on Apple's than vice versa. Apple doesn't make entirely new things, they spot emerging fields and finesse the state of the art until it looks like an entirely new product. The original (Apple / Macintosh / MacBook / iPod / iPhone) didn't do anything that other X couldn't do, it was just better integrated and slicker.
Yeesh, the Elon idolizing is getting tedious.
Idolizing? The idea that some skunkworks segment of Apple is copying him is not a statement about whether his ideas are good or bad.
I'm looking forward to Space Grey(tm) internet satellites.
Didn't you guys get fined for reporting bs recently? I'm gonna just give it a few more weeks before taking this seriously :p
Why is everyone working on internet satellites? There's no way this is profitable, and people using competitors' solutions still means they can access the internet.
Maybe it's easier than starting a regular ISP (to vacuum up data)?
Maybe it's easier than starting a regular ISP (to vacuum up data)?
Well, Iridium Communications is profitable
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/06/iridium-communicat...
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/06/iridium-communicat...
The link you sent says they're not profitable. They had their best quarter, and it was still a loss.
You are correct.
I looked at this statement.
“On an adjusted basis, Iridium said its operational profit rose 20% from a year ago to $78.7 million.”
Rookie mistake. I knew better.
I looked at this statement.
“On an adjusted basis, Iridium said its operational profit rose 20% from a year ago to $78.7 million.”
Rookie mistake. I knew better.
The process of running wires in the US is a massive uphill battle of regulations and monopolies.
With junk like this it's easy to see the appeal of wireless:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2017/11/22/judge-rule...
https://m.slashdot.org/story/313165
With junk like this it's easy to see the appeal of wireless:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2017/11/22/judge-rule...
https://m.slashdot.org/story/313165
To add to your point about how satellite internet connected smartphones negate the problems with building physical networks in the US, this could also have major effects for how US software services can reach foreign markets.
In developing areas without stable cellular backbone like parts of Africa, South America, Central Asia etc anyone with a smartphone can get access to Google, Facebook, or Twitter as long as they're within line of sight of a satellite. More people using US software, more data to mine and more profits.
But even more interesting is that now US software services can't be censored in places like China, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Anyone with a smartphone can access US internet satellites without going through the firewalled cellular backbone of their home country. The CIA and NSA would have a field day with the data they could mine and media they could push. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of government money being funneled towards development of a uncensorable satellite network to defray R&D costs or keep it running even if it never makes a profit.
The key to making this work though would be to have an internet satellite network where the satellites can do all the beamforming and signal processing well enough that smartphone antennas don't have to be significantly more powerful than they are today.
In developing areas without stable cellular backbone like parts of Africa, South America, Central Asia etc anyone with a smartphone can get access to Google, Facebook, or Twitter as long as they're within line of sight of a satellite. More people using US software, more data to mine and more profits.
But even more interesting is that now US software services can't be censored in places like China, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Anyone with a smartphone can access US internet satellites without going through the firewalled cellular backbone of their home country. The CIA and NSA would have a field day with the data they could mine and media they could push. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of government money being funneled towards development of a uncensorable satellite network to defray R&D costs or keep it running even if it never makes a profit.
The key to making this work though would be to have an internet satellite network where the satellites can do all the beamforming and signal processing well enough that smartphone antennas don't have to be significantly more powerful than they are today.
A satellite will not have that amount of bandwidth. Period. It is all based on science too, check out information theory. You either need to beam in multiple specific direction resulting in technical challenges and impossible energy cost. Or you’re limited to one large broadcast where your signal to noise ratio dictate the upper cap of amount of information you can transfer - its going to look like a wifi that had one million people connected to it. Imagine the speed.
I'm pretty sure it would be censored in China, they would simply threaten to shoot down the satellites.
It fits Apple overall thinking of enabling maximum privacy and ownership by the users. But it will be a walled garden again.
Imagine all iPhones forming one network. The privacy, space based, will be awesome. But there will be one exit node to the public Internet. In future, as a website owner I will need a license from Apple, they will review my web page and want a cut of all transactions.
In summary: no thanks. That is privacy but not freedom.
Imagine all iPhones forming one network. The privacy, space based, will be awesome. But there will be one exit node to the public Internet. In future, as a website owner I will need a license from Apple, they will review my web page and want a cut of all transactions.
In summary: no thanks. That is privacy but not freedom.
Nothing to suggest that Apple is not in favour of net neutrality.
> "We work hard to build great products, and what consumers do with those tools is up to them — not Apple, and not broadband providers," Cynthia Hogan, VP of public policy at Apple, said in a comment filed to the FCC.
Yes, Apple regulate their App Store, they control what goes on and they have a licensing fee. That's also why the App Store is not like the Play Store. Apps are generally of a higher quality and better designed. They keep a tight lock on what is on that store. But that's for a specific purpose.
There's nothing to suggest that they would plan to do the same in the browser.
> "We work hard to build great products, and what consumers do with those tools is up to them — not Apple, and not broadband providers," Cynthia Hogan, VP of public policy at Apple, said in a comment filed to the FCC.
Yes, Apple regulate their App Store, they control what goes on and they have a licensing fee. That's also why the App Store is not like the Play Store. Apps are generally of a higher quality and better designed. They keep a tight lock on what is on that store. But that's for a specific purpose.
There's nothing to suggest that they would plan to do the same in the browser.
And what will make you think the same reason will not be applied to web pages. It makes absolutely sense to me.
You'll have to explain how it makes sense to you, because it doesn't to me.
If they were going to do it they could do it already. They don't need to be their own ISP for iDevices to block content. They control the browser and the OS: they can block content just off the device.
If they were going to do it they could do it already. They don't need to be their own ISP for iDevices to block content. They control the browser and the OS: they can block content just off the device.
> privacy but not freedom
Freedom does not guarantee ROI. Limiting user's choices and lock-in somewhat does. This conflict of interest seems impossible to resolve with an organization whose raison d'être is making money.
Freedom does not guarantee ROI. Limiting user's choices and lock-in somewhat does. This conflict of interest seems impossible to resolve with an organization whose raison d'être is making money.
Yeah. I never doubt that. That is the reason I believe this will actually happen. It makes sense.
It will go online 15 years after Starlink with users will claiming it is revolutionary. Apple will sell the sleek chrome plated antennae for 3000 dollars, but it will only work when you plug it into your network using a 900 dollar proprietary Ethernet standard which will be depricrated after four years.
1) No more carriers. They get a consistent, high margin monthly revenue stream, can have one worldwide SKU and can let illegal imports take care of situations where there has been the potential for bans e.g. patents or Russia.
2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them dictate where the industry goes.
3) Further ties customers to Apple in a world where its getting harder to differentiate on hardware features alone. Instead they can differentiate on the network e.g. no more roaming charges and offer unique bundles e.g. ATV+ with Apple Internet. And good luck with smaller players being able to launch their own satellite.
4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding apps be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing and killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc.
5) Apple owns the total experience. It's just you and Apple.