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

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

theverge.com

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.

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.

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.

> 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...

Customers were forced to pay Verizon for file transfers instead.

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.

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.

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.

Yet Apple disabled FM radio even though the hardware supported it because they wanted to sell music.

Good.

It’s bad enough hearing shitty cellphone music coming out peoples phones. Hearing radio DJs too would push me over the edge.

Rant aside, is profit 100% the reason they blocked it?

It was more a coincidence that they had some of the hardware needed for FM than a deliberate thing of them screwing over customers. It was the same chip that supported bluetooth and wifi. You also need an appropriate antenna to use a different radio frequency (or frequency range), I don't think they ever had that. The FM hardware was removed by the time of the iPhone 7.

While some bluetooth/wifi chips included FM radio functionality, carriers are not interested in providing smart phones with FM radio. The iPhone 6s was the last Apple model to include this chip, and even Samsung, that had models that enabled FM, ultimately also disabled it. But beyond the chip, the iPhone 6s didn't include an FM antenna, radio filter nor an amplifier, so even if it was enabled, it could never work. Regardless, newer iPhone models don't have that chip, so Apple can't possibly comply with Ajit Pai's irrational demands.[1]

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/28/whose-fcc-is-this/

There's a small difference between forcing a handset maker to disable a feature that already works, and a device that never supported a given feature at all... and no, "the modem chip could have supported it" isn't the same thing.

> 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.

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%.

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.

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.

Knowing Musk, I wondered if he had tweeted something about it, and he had, just yesterday:

> 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.

Not sure Apple is happy saying anything about them in public.

That's the Verge modus operandi. We shouldn't even let links to them here.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

>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.

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.

They won't be building a car, and they probably won't build satellites. A deal with Starlink is more likely.

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.

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:).

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?

Bets that Apple switches to SpaceX by 2030.

or buys them

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.

If you offered Musk the CEO job of the merged company he would be happy to accept a buy out.

Tim Cook already hung up on that idea :-)

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.

FWIW - Starlink has IPO plans

Everything has a price

SpaceX is one of the few things that might not actually have a practical price.

When the owner of the thing you are seeking to buy is the richest guy in the world that might not be true

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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com