Apple is Buying 20% of Its iPhone Satellite Services Partner

Apple is taking a 20 percent stake in its iPhone satellite connectivity partner GlobalStar -- a stake worth $400 million -- as part of an expansion of its deal with the company. From a report: GlobalStar will also receive a prepayment of $1.1 billion from Apple that is intended to improve satellite infrastructure.

Apple relies on GlobalStar's satellites to enable to send emergency text messages, iMessage reactions, and more through the skies in areas with no cell signal. GlobalStar disclosed the details of the deal expansion in an SEC filing, which includes "a new satellite constellation, expanded ground infrastructure, and increased global [mobile satellite services] licensing."

Most satellite services live hand-to-mouth

[kriston]

It's a good thing. Most satellite services still live hand-to-mouth, barely breaking even.

Re:

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

Until Musk came in and revolutionized the entire industry.

Re:

[Powercntrl]

Until Musk came in and revolutionized the entire industry.

If you live somewhere with no other broadband providers. My father lives up in the middle of nowhere in North Carolina and for him Starlink certainly was a game changer. I live in civilization in central Florida and Starlink costs pretty close to twice of what Spectrum charges here for cable broadband with no data cap. So while it's certainly useful that the technology is available to people with no other options, it's still not cheap.

And therein lies my primary concern about Apple's satellite features.

Re:

[EvilSS]

While they're presently available on compatible devices for free, at some point Apple is going to want to make a profit on the money they've invested

Apple makes money on hardware. I imagine they will keep it free on new devices for x years, timing it to the common upgrade cycle for most of their buyers. After all, $1.5B isn't a massive investment for Apple. They could write that off internally as additional marketing costs for current and future iphones instead of an 'investment' and it wouldn't be out of line.

Re: Most satellite services live hand-to-mouth

[saloomy]

They make that much in profit over a weekend. I wonder why they didnâ(TM)t just buy it outright and forget the prepayment

Re:

[tlhIngan]

And therein lies my primary concern about Apple's satellite features. While they're presently available on compatible devices for free, at some point Apple is going to want to make a profit on the money they've invested, and the satellite features will become a paid service. Probably a very expensive paid service.

Well, right now it's emergency services only.

Chances are Apple will likely keep those free because those bring positive press more than what charging someone for emergency services would cost. Like

Re:

[backslashdot]

It was WorkdVu (Oneweb) that went to Musk in 2014 for launch services and he told them to fuck off and stole their idea. Reference: https://spacenews.com/41755wor... [spacenews.com]

What you thought it Elon had the idea on his own?

Re:

[spire3661]

SpaceX did that. Stop attributing the work of thousands to one.

Apple has too much money

[SmaryJerry]

Spending $400 million for 20% plus prepaying a billion on this is quite the commitment when you have huge competition coming from the leader in the field, SpaceX, who just tested their satellite phone service during the recent hurricane. I guess the networks/phones will probably be compatible anyways but man, seems like $400 million is about to be flushed down the drain.

Re:

[blahbooboo2]

Apple and Tim have historically chosen wisely on companies they choose to buy and/or investment in. I suspect they know a bunch of things we don't...

Re:

[dgatwood]

Apple and Tim have historically chosen wisely on companies they choose to buy and/or investment in. I suspect they know a bunch of things we don't...

Mostly that Globalstar is going to start launching a new constellation for Apple in 2025 [spacenews.com], using SpaceX to put the satellites up there.

But yeah, I have no idea what the point of this is. In my mind, a hardware vendor is a poor match, and such a project would be a better match for a cell service vendor like AT&T or Verizon, but hey, if they can somehow massively improve the iPhone satellite experience so that it becomes hands down the best cell phone on the market regardless of what network you're on, ma

Re:

[Local ID10T]

By taking an ownership stake in the company providing the service, they have a say in the quality & longevity of that service.

Vertical monopolies are monopolies.

[PubJeezy]

Vertical monopolies are monopolies. This is bad for consumers. Apple is a career criminal and recidivist offencer. They should be entirely bared from all forms of mergers or acquisitions.

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/apple-inc

25 fines in the past 24 years for a total of over $1.4 Billion. $1.2 Billion of that is for competition and consumer-protection violations. Why is this scammer still allowed in the casino? Black list. Burn the charter. Create a public option with their resources. Easy Peasy. Problem solved.

Re:

[backslashdot]

For right now, this isn’t a full acquisition and may actually help consumers. Globalstar still has to serve their 80% non-Apple shareholders. Having alternatives to Starlink is a good thing. This funding will help Globalstar fund a megaconstellation. You really think the world is better off with Starlink being the only choice?

By the way, you can hate on Apple but they have funded companies that are in their supply chain so that those companies can increase capital expenditure and capacity. That actual

Re:

[backslashdot]

Public option? You think some government bureaucrat knows how to run a tech company? You think that’s good for consumers LOL. A government monopoly with zero competition.

Re:

[PubJeezy]

If you don't think the private sector can compete with an incompetent bureaucrat then you also believe that the private sector is incapable of doing the job. Your comment is based on two, mutually exclusive assumptions. It doesn't seem like a realistic opinion.

It's also interesting to note that my comment included a proposed solution and yours didn't. It's almost like you don't actually care about the problem.

This is great for people.

[Inoshiro]

Are you kidding me?

Apple has been driving telecommunications forward since the introduction of the original iPhone.

Lest we forget the AT&T deal which gave unheard of data caps in the 2000s; most companies were charging by the *KILOBYTE* for cellular data, and here's an iPhone with 6 *GIGABYTES* of data.

In 2024, in Canada, you can get unlimited data with highspeed (3Gbps) mmWave 5G+ for the same price. I doubt that'd have happened if Apple hadn't fought for 6GB in 2000s.

Remember that story about datacaps

Re:

[PubJeezy]

"Seriously, this is what is decent about capitalism"

I think it's funny that you went back 20 years to find an example of Apple actually helping consumers. Just last year they were fined $300m for violating consumer protections: https://violationtracker.goodj... [goodjobsfirst.org]

And I only had to go back 2 years to find a massive fine for anti-competitive practices: https://violationtracker.goodj... [goodjobsfirst.org]

Any argument in favor of Apple's market dominance is either based on the distant past, or a hypothetical future. But if