Apple iPhone 13 Rumors Go Sky-High With Satellite Connection (fiercewireless.com) 70
With Apple's latest iPhone just around the corner, reports suggest that it will include support for satellite communications, which consumers could use when terrestrial-based 4G and 5G are not available. The one getting most of the glory: Globalstar, the once-embattled satellite company. From a report: Globalstar shares shot up more than 40% at one point today. Shares in satellite companies Iridium and AST SpaceMobile also rose, more than 9% and 4%, respectively. One report tracks to TF International Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who, as MacRumors explained, discussed how the iPhone 13 lineup will feature hardware that is able to connect to low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, which could allow iPhone 13 users to make calls and send messages. The MacRumors report notes that the upcoming iPhone 13 supposedly features a customized Qualcomm X60 baseband chip that supports satellite communications; other smartphone brands reportedly are waiting until 2022 for the X65 baseband chip for turning on satellite communications functionality. While there are ample ways to support LEO connectivity in handsets, the bottom line is: The "simplest scenario" for providing LEO communications to users is if network operators work with Globalstar, according to the Kuo-based report. That raised some eyebrows, rightly so.
Big if True (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds like one of those silly rumors Apple lies to their employees about in order to weed out moles!
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like it. Globalstar has been in serious trouble since its inception many years ago.
Maybe their protocol is compatible enough with Starlink to survive?
Re: Big if True (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, this smells like another Wall Street hype-it that no one who's paying attention falls for (sapphire for a screen? really?). The rumor is they're going to break into a market where the hardware is 600-1200 minimum?
Say anything you like about apple, but there are some things that you can't deny -- they never ge
Satellite phones require a large antenna (Score:2)
How will that square with apples parsimony over size? Theres simply no way it'll be feasible to fit it into the phone body so it'll almost certainly be a $$$$ add on. Probably coupled with a talk time of less than an hour before the battery dies. No much use if you're really in the middle of nowhere.
Re:Satellite phones require a large antenna (Score:5, Funny)
> How will that square with apples parsimony over size?
We've been through this before. You just need to "hold it correctly".
Re: (Score:2)
What makes this less believable is the lack of specifics about where Apple will buy or build the capable modem, or if such a thing actually exists.
Re:Satellite phones require a large antenna (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was any genius in designing the iphone it was recognizing (correctly) that the hardware and data networks had matured enough that a mobile device that blended computer features like a real web browser with the above phone stuff would catch on with consumers rather than just business people.
Re: Satellite phones require a large antenna (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most all of them were far worse phones than the iphone, at least when it came to the dialpad and battery life
Phones prior to the iPhone had bad battery life, and dialpad? You and I remember history very differently. Of all wonders that the modern smartphone introduced and developed and perfected over the many years, the dial pad and battery life *still* doesn't hold a candle to a phone with actual buttons and a battery that would last weeks on standby.
Re: (Score:3)
It’s not like a phone needs a functional antenna anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not sending data to a satellite a few hundred kilometers away with an antenna inside an iPhone no matter how shitty of a signal you're willing to accept.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about transmission?
Free-space path loss would define that dBm would have be high enough to crank up the dB following gain to travel to LEO.
The peak to peak power rating could of course be increased if the frequency is low enough, but that leads to multiple other prob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"How does your statements counter his point that, yes, satellite phones today require larger antennas compared to a regular cell phone?"
Sure, to get 1GB throughput, but to call 911 with low quality, it should work, SMS anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a solution in search of a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
For the vast majority of us, there's no real need for this. Ground based cellular service can reach most areas without any real issue, and if you think you're getting raped by your cellular carrier, just wait until you see the rates for satellite service. Even if you assume people working on those giant cargo container ships, seems like it'd be cheaper and easier to just install some hotspots on the ship which then link to a central satellite uplink.
So what does that leave you with? People who own smaller boats and go out fishing on the ocean or the middle of a lake who want to have a backup in case the radio on the ship goes out? Maybe people who have some small hunting cabin out in the middle of nowhere. Is there really enough people like that to justify the costs involved? And if this were something that was coming, don't you think people would have found traces of it in the iOS 15 betas by now? Seems like it would be hard to hide support for a new modem chip and there would be other signs of it scattered throughout.
Re: Seems like a solution in search of a problem (Score:3)
Although terrestrial service is present in most areas having satellite fallback would mean it would be available in all areas. Some of us want that!
If the service is PAYG and not monthly I would be happy to pay for it so I can use messages/slack/teams anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
so work can expect me to use messages/slack/teams anywhere
FTFY. Hard pass.
If your boss expects you to work outside business hours, just change your boss. No need to bold your Slashdot comments.
Re: Seems like a solution in search of a problem (Score:2)
I'm definitely not a fan of Apple or iPhone, but I'll give credit where credit is due. One of the revolutionary things with the first iPhone was the kind of deal Apple was able to strike with, was it AT&T, where everybody got unlimited data and didn't have to worry about turning data off and on. Those days of unlimited are gone, but it gave everyone appetite for data in a true "first one is free" classic offer.
Unless this comes with similar game changing operator plans, I don't think it will make much o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so, but I needed this rumor! I bought GSAT hoping the NOK rumors would pull it up, and they didn't, but I finally got out from under it with 46% profit today!
Thank you, Appleheads! Beam me up!
There are way more than you think (Score:4, Insightful)
?For the vast majority of us, there's no real need for this
Spoken like someone who never leaves a major city.... I don't think you are aware of how many people travel outside, or live outside of major cities? How bad cellular connections can get even close to cities in some locations, depending on terrain?
The way in which there is a very real use for this is that you could replace the entire market for emergency satellite SOS devices, for people who travel in areas where cell connection might be very spotty and they need to be able to contact help.
Imagine how many lives this could save just from road accidents alone in places where cell connection does not work.
I have an emergency satellite contact device that I can use to send a message from anywhere in case of problem, but last I checked to activate service for it is $30 a month alone, for just a handful of messages and the ability to send regular location updates to someone at home. It would be amazing if all I had to have with me was my phone... (and an emergency backup external battery).
This would be amazing if true, and depending on the scenarios in which you can connect to the satellite connection.
Re: (Score:3)
you could replace the entire market for emergency satellite SOS devices
This is the first thing I thought of. I have a Spot that I take when I hike in the back country and would upgrade my cell if I could just take it instead.
Especially if Apple used their clout to make the service pay-per-use so I didn't have to pay for a month. I don't see Globalstar doing that, since it would put a big dent in the Spot sales. Unless Apple just buys them.
Yes, per use wold be great (Score:1)
Especially if Apple used their clout to make the service pay-per-use so I didn't have to pay for a month.
That's the big question, if Apple has it so that you can opt to pay per use it would be perfect, even if they made it fairly expensive. There are some cases where paying $10 to send a text in an emergency would be well worth it. Or maybe they would even make it free for 911 style uses.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't even need "back country".
Where I am, SAR is called regularly, and often from reasonably easy to access parks that are in marginal
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems like a solution in search of a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
For the vast minority of us there is a need. I go hiking alone in remote areas and this has the possibility to make this a safer and more enjoyable activity. I currently use a SPOT satellite device that only sends a canned message or an SOS and is very slow but gives me and my family a little peace of mind. I'm sure there would be a group of new apps and improvements in existing apps that would spring up over night.
I'm sad that you are not able to enjoy to enjoy nature except in places near cell phone service.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'll pardon a small pun, you're missing the forest for the trees. How much does it cost Apple, per unit, to add this functionality. Then consider if there are enough people who will make use of it to justify that expense. My guess is when you do the math, it doesn't pencil out in favor of adding this feature.
Apple likely knows as well as any other manufacturer of consumer oriented goods that you can only push the price envelope so far. They're already charging upwards of $1K US for some models, and if
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is when you do the math, it doesn't pencil out in favor of adding this feature.
If you judge a phone by only the features which are being used then they are all effectively worthless. OTOH having this as a marketing feature alone would make it worthwhile.
If the rumours were true (which I doubt, and you'd understand why if you've ever seen an antenna design on a satellite phone).
Re: (Score:2)
This is a great deal for you then. Millions of iPhone buyers are about to subsidise this tech for you. They won't have any use for it themselves, but the phone includes it and they are paying for it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"Vast minority" is not the impressive term you think it is. In fact, it makes the OP's point entirely. I'm sad that you are not able to understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have to agree with him that someone would probably have spotted some code by now if the feature is actually as close as iOS 15.
Re: (Score:2)
For the vast majority of us, there's no real need for this. Ground based cellular service can reach most areas without any real issue
I go hiking and camping where there is no cell service whatsoever, If this is true, it's awesome! I hope an Android phone comes out with it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Android had had devices that can use GSM and satellite tech for calls since 2018
https://www.thuraya.com/en/pro... [thuraya.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I recently ran out of gas in an area with no cell phone service.
Fortunately, my hitchhiking efforts were quickly rewarded, but if I were a fuckable female, being able to make a quick sat phone call would have been a feature I could be interested in.
Re: (Score:2)
And how often do you run out of gas in areas with no cell service? For a while I had basic towing services as part of my car insurance, but I dropped it because I had only used it a single time in probably around a decade of having it. So I reasoned that I could just save the $5/mo or whatever it was I was paying for it and put it into a special slush fund. Once it gets to a couple hundred dollars I just pocket the rest as profit.
The point I was making, which you seem to have missed, is that the number of p
Re: (Score:2)
The point I was making, which you seem to have missed, is that the number of people who would use this function on any kind of regular basis likely is far less than is needed to make it break even for Apple, let alone be profitable.
No, they want people to not use it, that is what makes it profitable. Think of it more like insurance. Most people are totally fine with paying for various types of insurance they will never use, which is why insurance is generally quite profitable as an industry. I would not switch to Apple for this feature, but when it comes to Android I'd be willing to buy that "emergency while no cell service" insurance for the right price point. A lot of people will still see value in paying a few bucks a month for
Re: (Score:1)
And how often do you run out of gas in areas with no cell service?
Right off the bat, without even thinking about it, at least 3 times. Kentucky, North Dakota, and Alaska. That's in reverse order of recency. If I thought about it some, I could probably come up with some more instances.
For a while I had basic towing services as part of my car insurance, but I dropped it because I had only used it a single time in probably around a decade of having it.
I have AAA. I've used it twice in the last two months (once to get towed over 100 miles home, once to get towed to dealer). I also used it in November (towed to dealer). I used the towing assistance via State Farm Insurance to get towed to the dealer twice in a 2 year period a couple of ye
Emergencies (Score:3)
I think a lot of people might want to get something like this for emergencies like a natural disaster. There are quite a few people without cell coverage in New Orleans right now and I'm sure most of them would at least like the ability to make a call should they absolutely need to make one.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the US, you don't need to go in the "middle of nowhere" to find places with no cellphone signal. Half a mile off the highway over a moderate hill, and you're there. I just spent a weekend camping at a ren faire on a farm field surrounded by suburbs. No signal most of the time, so it was difficult to coordinate meeting people etc. Having some other a way to even just send text messages would have been really convenient. Higher data rates on cellphones means shorter range, so this problem will lik
Re: (Score:2)
So what does that leave you with? People who own smaller boats and go out fishing on the ocean or the middle of a lake who want to have a backup in case the radio on the ship goes out? Maybe people who have some small hunting cabin out in the middle of nowhere. Is there really enough people like that to justify the costs involved?
Plus: anyone who goes hiking. I currently pay a subscription to SPOT satellite barebones service -- it sends out GPS coordinates to my followers, and has a button for SOS. Last time I went car-camping we didn't have reception even at the ranger station at the entrance to the Olympic National Park, so I couldn't bring up the receipt on my phone to prove that I'd paid for entry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The middle of nowhere is closer than you think. Roughly 20 miles from the outskirts of Phoenix, AZ, there's an area with no cellular coverage at all. In fact, there are a lot of RF black holes in Arizona and they are closer to civilization than you think and yes people do go there frequently.
Re: (Score:2)
So what does that leave you with? People who own smaller boats and go out fishing on the ocean or the middle of a lake who want to have a backup in case the radio on the ship goes out? Maybe people who have some small hunting cabin out in the middle of nowhere. Is there really enough people like that to justify the costs involved? And if this were something that was coming, don't you think people would have found traces of it in the iOS 15 betas by now? Seems like it would be hard to hide support for a new modem chip and there would be other signs of it scattered throughout.
I think you don't watch "I shouldn't be alive"; it's normal people who take a trip to a remote desert/jungle/island and get lost. Most people will be ok to pay a little insurance like fee for satellite access (just to send SOS, gps-beacon kind of thing) in case of emergency. That is for 99% of times you use only the cellular towers but in a rare situation you have access to satellite.
Re: (Score:2)
"Need"? How does "need" come into the equation?
It's some feature the competitors don't have. That's all that counts. Have you looked at the features of various electronic gadgets recently? They're loaded with gimmicks nobody will ever really need. But they are a bullet point to tick off that the device next to it doesn't have ticked, and this product here has 8 bullet points while that one over there only has 7, so the one with the 8 is better.
Because I need that one feature the other one doesn't have? How
Garmin Mini (Score:1)
Apple's Future Wireless Silicon (Score:2)
Adding LEO satellite comms makes the process of getting Apple's own 3/4/5G silicon into iPhones all the more complicated.
It wouldn't be a good look if the iPhone 13 & 14 had LEO satellite support but the iPhone 15 or 16 had to drop it.
Apple can really only add additional comms tech into current iPhones features that they are confident their own in house silicon guys can replicate.
Re: Apple's Future Wireless Silicon (Score:2)
Adding more antennae and bands to a programmable radio is simple. The question is whether it will be useful and how well it scales.
There is only so much bandwidth available to LEO satellites and physics puts severe limits on small 2W devices. It is great for broadcast but 2-way unicast?
It won't be cheap (Score:3)
Bandwidth comes at a premium when it comes to space terrestrial downlinks and the satellites themselves. An SMS service is something on the order of 200$ a year and a single text can be tens of dollars. If the service pans out, you can probably expect pricing like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not if you only want to send a single text, there are some services that I looked a year or two back that offer single texting and it's quite expensive
Reasons why this won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Globalstar are smart enough to know that they don't want to be in the business of building custom baseband chips, so they designed their network to use over-the-air signalling that's available from other people's chips. I'm guessing that there are hundreds of millions of phones out there containing chips that, with the right external components and antennas, could talk to Globalstar's network. But they don't. In all probability, neither will the iPhone 13.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention the fact that transmitting signals that a satellite can receive from an antenna that fits inside a phone's body and can be in any arbitrary orientation uses a very large amount of power.
It might be okay for the odd emergency text message, but not for anything else. Maybe that's what they are planning for, some kind of emergency service. A few headlines about people in very remote places using it, but of little utility to most consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also imagine that the cell phone carriers wouldn't like the ability for people to make calls or send data off of their network. They're not going to support this, especially because promoting the feature would force them to admit that their network has dead zones where their service doesn't work. NO cellular network likes to talk about that issue in their advertising, unless it's about their competitor.
The implications? (Score:2)
bloomberg confirming (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Technically possible, I think, but quite a project (Score:2)
From what I understand of the limitations of terrestrial mobile communications (admittedly limited) there isn't any technical reason why it wouldn't work. Terrestrial cell towers can apparently reach as far as 45 miles, and at least part of that limitation is due to line of sight and atmospheric interference. Putting the "towers" in LEO gets rid of the line of sight issue and a decent part of (at least some) of the atmospheric issue. From there you're probably just talking about some specialized antenna
Decade late better than never (Score:2)
Taking TXT to Satellite for coverage in carrier dropzones is indicative carriers can’t do terrestrial. SO Starlink, OneWeb and Swarm have runway to a mulit-mux future
SteveJobs could have built an Apple network when ATT launch stumbled and was fraught with node saturation with QoC dropoffs by 2010. Instead Apple chose to deprecate call handoff from cellular to WiFi to accommodate ATT and handoff was never to be seen again.
Good to see Apple coming back to first principles beginning with TXT. Starlink ha