Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon Files for 5,105-Satellite Network That Will Power iPhone Satellite Features
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Numbah One
macrumors regular
I wish was possible for the user to select which (if any) satellite system to use in the same fashion as a cell network provider can be selected.
You would think then a partnership between companies that rely on these networks would form. Seems dumb to try to go it alone and be saddled with this massive (depreciating) CapEx. Hmmm, where are we seeing this now 🤔
this "wouldn't this be cool!!!!" factor of ideas like this and ideas like direct-to-cell satellite communications are one of several reasons why SpaceX is way, way, way overvalued.
Apple wanted to eventually charge for this emergency satellite service. Nobody wants to pay for it. And its use is too rare for a signficant portion of phone users to add $10 to their bill. So it becomes a loss-leader for Apple et al; a nice service to have, but not one that generates revenue.
The SpaceX fanboys and the institutional vendors trying to prop up SpaceX nonsensical valuations so they can make money off of financing the grandiose capex are trying to sell a narrative that doesn't exist.
...and don't get me started on the nonsense of the Starlink TAM. I live in Guatemala where yes, a market exists for Starlink...but it's a market that shrinks every day as large corporations are building out broadband and cell service that better serves the rural markets for cheaper.
Apple wanted to eventually charge for this emergency satellite service. Nobody wants to pay for it. And its use is too rare for a signficant portion of phone users to add $10 to their bill. So it becomes a loss-leader for Apple et al; a nice service to have, but not one that generates revenue.
The SpaceX fanboys and the institutional vendors trying to prop up SpaceX nonsensical valuations so they can make money off of financing the grandiose capex are trying to sell a narrative that doesn't exist.
...and don't get me started on the nonsense of the Starlink TAM. I live in Guatemala where yes, a market exists for Starlink...but it's a market that shrinks every day as large corporations are building out broadband and cell service that better serves the rural markets for cheaper.
Last edited:
Most Telephone Companies use terrestrial or land based cell towers and transmissions so they are out of their element here!
As others have mentioned it's the cost to build & maintain these networks. IIRC, Apple bought something like 75% of Globalstar's capacity, and they aren't really offering much at this point. To get them to be useful is going to require a lot of investment.
Genelec8341
macrumors 6502
Osxguy
macrumors 6502
I mean.. Walle could be correct about all that sat coverage..
wallethemovie.fandom.com
Earth
Earth is the planet that housed humans before operation cleanup. Earth is the place that the Earthlings polluted making the Earthlings leave to the axiom ships, leaving WALL-Es to clean up the mess. After a while, all WALL-Es are destroyed except for one. As Buy N Large continued to grow and...
Attachments
nateo200
macrumors 68040
It’s included in my T-Mobile plan for free. I don’t think Starlink is going to lose relevance for tons of people think of 3rd world countries with zero infrastructure or low reliability broadband.
didn't read my whole comment, right? Where I mentioned I live in Guatemala and refute the idea that these so-called third world countries justify the ridiculous valuation of SpaceX?
nateo200
macrumors 68040
I prefer a cell tower over a satellite whenever possible. Better latency, in building coverage, etc. it’s like saying whatever are car manufacturers going to do when planes take off, different purposes.
zarmanto
macrumors 65816
I sincerely hope you're wrong.
I built a house in a rural area, and satellite is the only broadband option available to me.* So as far as I'm concerned, competition with Starlink is more than just "a good thing"... it's absolutely critical. The predatory prices that they charge are not acceptable, and the vast majority of their customer base is an entirely captive audience, who -- for now -- can't do a damned thing about price increases.
Me. I did. Just now, actually. And I'm by no means the only one. In addition to my residential broadband woes, I also have to deal with cellular dead zones during about a third of my daily commute. A satellite based supplement for my iPhone would be fantastic.
* Supposedly our region is getting fiber internet eventually... but it's been "just around the corner" for long enough that my optimism is dwindling.
DaveWotzit
macrumors regular
Why didn’t Apple start their own service with their own Satellites? Perhaps if they didn’t keep flogging the dead horse that is Vision Pro and it’s cut down successor perhaps they’d move forward. What would Steve Jobs have done?
It makes no sense to keep reinventing every wheel. You pick areas where you can add unique value and leverage others for the rest. They don't fab their on chips either. They don't manufacture their own display. And the list goes on.
Kirkster
Contributor
I mean predatory pricing is not just a Starlink thing. I use Starlink and Comcast (watever they are called now) to beat down FIOS as they were charging as much as Starlink. And my parents pay more than that for their sole source internet provider in Snottsdale AZ.
rchaser
macrumors 6502
I used offline maps with navigation (hiking) over the Weekend. Was great.
Just glad to have off-line maps.
Same here. I can use/navigate with offline maps just fine with no signal. Maybe he just had some odd app glitch that required a restart or something.
throAU
macrumors G4
Or just buys starlink.
to be fair though, why would they do that, they’re not in the business of owning and maintaining a satellite network.
Good luck - SpaceX has been on a multi BN tear to buy specrum from Echorstar - I knew I should have held another 20 shares back.
zarmanto
macrumors 65816
I'm not sure if we are comparing apples to apples... but what you seem to be suggesting is certainly true: if there is no competition, whichever provider happens to be the lone option jacks up the prices, and even with competition, you sometimes have to advocate for yourself to get them to come back down off of their so-called "standard" prices to something more reasonable. It just so happens that Starlink is almost always a second option, if you have any kind of a wired provider at all. Things fall all to crap when the "fall back option" is the only option.
I lived in a FiOS early adopter neighborhood prior to moving. Like you, we had other competitive wired providers at hand, and Verizon knew full well that the customer base in that area was both willing and able to switch providers, so they rarely messed around with us. Over the years, I think I paid a slowly increasing price of about $40 to $70 for my internet-only FiOS connection. I just now checked their website, and the current FiOS price at my old address is $45 for 300Mbps with upgrade options above that. (That's not even the promotional rate; that's apparently $20!)
Contrast that with what I'm subscribed to now: Starlink Residential Max at $130... and while it's advertised at 300Mbps, I get maybe as much as 100Mbps on a good day, even though I have a perfectly clear view of the sky according to the app. And no... Starlink doesn't even offer their less expensive tiers in my area.
Competition cannot come to my neighborhood nearly soon enough.
How do you determine that $130/month is predatory? Seems pretty reasonable to me, considering they have to launch satellites into space & maintain them to offer the service. My cable internet runs $90/month for slightly higher speed than that. A ~50% premium doesn't seem crazy to me. Glad they provide service in your area and allow you to have internet access in an area that no one else even serves.
But I do hope that someone else offers service soon, so you can hopefully get a better price or higher speed.
zarmanto
macrumors 65816
It wouldn't be predatory, if that were simply the cost for Starlink to do business in an otherwise unserved community. What makes it predatory is a combination of factors, not the least of which is their recent financial statements; their profits in 2025 were $4.42 billion... and they raised rates on all customers from $120 to $130 per month
It also doesn't help that -- as I had alluded previously -- they have declared that connections in my area are ineligible for either of their lower priced tiers, even though I can only get speeds comparable to their lowest tier, the $55 dollar plan. If I had a competitor to which I could switch, I think it's a pretty good bet that I would magically become eligible for that lower tier, the very second that I called them to cancel. I think that is the very epitome of predatory pricing.
Last edited: