Apple and Globalstar Rumored to Announce Satellite Connectivity Feature for iPhone 14 at September 7 Event

[BWhaler]

Making a long story short - Apple's proposed CSAM-scanning works locally on your device whether you like it or not whenever you download an image to iCloud; it will result in both false positives and false negatives, and false positives will be reviewed by a human being who would see your private pictures; and would be easily circumvented by editing of images. Also, any system that can be used to identify CSAM material can also identity political material like flags, memes, written statements and even words in audio files and could therefore be abused. Apple's system opens the door to real-time local monitoring/surveillance by machine algorithms - a digital Big Brother in your pocket. Honestly I don't think Apple should do any scanning unless there is a search warrant, and then it should do it server side and not in the iPhone. Otherwise it is a slippery slope. Just my 2 cents.

I do agree though, that this possible new emergency feature for iPhones would be amazing and potentially life-saving. I would be tempted to break my boycott if Apple puts the emergency satellite communication in the next iPhone.

I disagree, because I think the trade-off in privacy is worth protecting children. We make lessor trade offs everyday just for “free” services.

But I understand your considered ping-of-view. I care a great deal about privacy, and loath Facebook and Google and the data harvesting industry. I have friends who couldn’t care less, and it upsets me. So I also understand there must also be others like you who care more about other types of scanning which don’t bother me.

These are interesting debates, and finding the right balance for all of us is hard. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[dwaltwhit]

I'm guessing that your reception is generally good in most places that you go. This isn't the case for about 100 million Americans.

So would it replace/supplement current terrestrial systems like cell phone towers for normal data usage? Or is this just for emergency services?

 

[paradox00]

Valid points, particularly regarding battery life, but doesn't InReach already use mobile phone apps for typical text input (text input on the InReach device itself seems to be painful, like trying to enter text on a smart TV with a remote controller)? I think it would be more efficient to have everything on one device.

On my part, I wish Apple would make a ruggedized version of the iPhone with a huge battery and sat communications for those of us who like or need to spend time outdoors in place that have neither WiFi nor cell phone reception. And of course there is always the argument about disasters that might cut those services off. I know, I know. Such an iPhone will never happen, but I can wish, can't I?

Is one device with inferior satellite capability, battery life, worse emergency response routing, lack of automated position reporting, etc. still preferable? I didn't want to start listing stuff like this because Apple's device is an unknown, so how it actually stacks up in all these areas is tbd. Some of that won't be true, but I really doubt Apple is going to match up in every area. they just aren't deeply focused on the backcountry.

inReach isn't just a texting device, and people who think satellite connectivity is going to let them use imessage as they do in a cell network are likely in for a big surprise. Communication isn't always instantaneous (you need a satellite overhead and an unobstructed view of it). The size of the antenna, power you can direct to it, and network you're connecting to are going to matter a lot. An underappreciated benefit of separating the antenna from the phone means you can place your inReach in ideal spot to communicate with satellites while you and your phone are somewhere else within bluetooth range.

Even if Apple were to chase out inReach hardware completely, every new iPhone would be an eligible device for the inReach service itself, which can run on any iPhone with network connectivity already. Satellite capability would further enhance this. As an anecdote, I know that the iPhone I lost in a river in SE asia went over a waterfall because the inReach app was running with tracking turned on, and it somehow had cell service while bouncing along the bottom of the river (its last reported position was just before the falls). It's vastly superior to Find My and Apple routing your emergency text to some random 911 center nearby may not actually benefit you in the wilderness. If Apple brings in satellite connectivity, that's awesome, but any RIP inReach claims are certainly premature. I'd love to rid myself of this subscription but we still have to see how an apple alternative matches up.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I disagree, because I think the trade-off in privacy is worth protecting children. We make lessor trade offs everyday just for “free” services.

But I understand your considered ping-of-view. I care a great deal about privacy, and loath Facebook and Google and the data harvesting industry. I have friends who couldn’t care less, and it upsets me. So I also understand there must also be others like you who care more about other types of scanning which don’t bother me.

These are interesting debates, and finding the right balance for all of us is hard. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

There are some inaccuracies in that, though. First, it only runs locally on the device IF the device is uploading images to iCloud. If iCloud uploading of pictures isn’t enabled, it’s not on. If it is on, there have to be thirty “potentially false” matches before anything gets reported and and even 1 false match using Apple’s method is VERY hard to attain. 30’s 30 times harder than that. If there are 30 matches, Apple’s provided a low res version of the image to verify before reporting further.

For anyone concerned about the hash matching algorithm, it’s geared just to find these specific images. I’m thinking Apple chose the method because it’s actually very poor at finding anything but an exact pixel for pixel match. It wouldn’t be possible, say, to find a person’s face in a photo of a crowd, it would only be able to match the same picture of the crowd that the hash was made from. If you feed it 100 pictures of an individual, it will be able to find those exact 100 pictures in the context they exist, it wouldn’t be able to be used to find any NEW photos that were taken.

There are those that would say, “This is just what Apple’s telling us, it would actually do far more than that!” If that’s the case, then Apple has also told us stuff about the Secure Enclave, Messages, eMail and a number of other things where they’re indicating their privacy stance. If we’re questioning Apple’s activities in all these areas, then it really doesn’t matter WHAT this particular scanning does, they could already be providing huge swaths of information to any government that wants it. Those governments don’t need this fuzzy hashing algorithm because they’ve already got Apple scanning the entire iCloud store using far better tools than a fuzzy hash for flags, memes, written statements and even words in audio files. This currently not-implemented system doesn’t open the door to real-time local monitoring, real time local monitoring could already be in effect, and of course Apple wouldn’t say that there’s already a digital Big Brother in your pocket.

As to WHY Apple would want to do this, scanning in the cloud means Apple MUST have full access to all images in order to perform a scan. As Apple has access to the images, if the authorities have a warrant to request a customer’s images, Apple has access, Apple can provide. IF they perform a fuzzy hash match on a device and 30 matches aren’t found, they can encrypt that customers images such that not even Apple has the key. Any authority requests would be met with, “You’ll have to contact the customer for that as only they can access those images”. But again, this is only if Apple’s doing what they say they’re doing, if they’re not, then they’re not all over the place and there’s effectively no privacy anyway, there’s nothing that a widely publicized is going to make available that’s not already available by all the other products they say are private.

 

[riverfreak]

Ideally someone going out to the ocean, forest, mountains etc. would purchase a personal locator beacon but since most people don’t it might be a lifesaver to have the ability to send out an SOS and coordinates if someone ever finds themselves in such a predicament.

Locator beacons like Spots are useless. You need to be able to convey what the nature of an emergency is, not just where you are.

 

[riverfreak]

Is one device with inferior satellite capability, battery life, worse emergency response routing, lack of automated position reporting, etc. still preferable? I didn't want to start listing stuff like this because Apple's device is an unknown, so how it actually stacks up in all these areas is tbd. Some of that won't be true, but I really doubt Apple is going to match up in every area. they just aren't deeply focused on the backcountry.

inReach isn't just a texting device, and people who think satellite connectivity is going to let them use imessage as they do in a cell network are likely in for a big surprise. Communication isn't always instantaneous (you need a satellite overhead and an unobstructed view of it). The size of the antenna, power you can direct to it, and network you're connecting to are going to matter a lot. An underappreciated benefit of separating the antenna from the phone means you can place your inReach in ideal spot to communicate with satellites while you and your phone are somewhere else within bluetooth range.

Even if Apple were to chase out inReach hardware completely, every new iPhone would be an eligible device for the inReach service itself, which can run on any iPhone with network connectivity already. Satellite capability would further enhance this. As an anecdote, I know that the iPhone I lost in a river in SE asia went over a waterfall because the inReach app was running with tracking turned on, and it somehow had cell service while bouncing along the bottom of the river (its last reported position was just before the falls). It's vastly superior to Find My and Apple routing your emergency text to some random 911 center nearby may not actually benefit you in the wilderness. If Apple brings in satellite connectivity, that's awesome, but any RIP inReach claims are certainly premature. I'd love to rid myself of this subscription but we still have to see how an apple alternative matches up.

Great post. From a long time heavy inreach user, clear you know what you are talking about.

Still, gotta say that the GPS functions of the InReach devices are horrid. I don’t know if it’s because they tie positioning to their messaging satellites, but their tracking is terribly coarse and inaccurate.

Far better to use the EarthMate app but with your iPhone GPS, and use the inreach just for messaging.

 

[riverfreak]

So would it replace/supplement current terrestrial systems like cell phone towers for normal data usage? Or is this just for emergency services?

Initially? No.

Eventually? Yes.

 

[VulchR]

Is one device with inferior satellite capability, battery life, worse emergency response routing, lack of automated position reporting, etc. still preferable? I didn't want to start listing stuff like this because Apple's device is an unknown, so how it actually stacks up in all these areas is tbd. Some of that won't be true, but I really doubt Apple is going to match up in every area. they just aren't deeply focused on the backcountry.

inReach isn't just a texting device, and people who think satellite connectivity is going to let them use imessage as they do in a cell network are likely in for a big surprise. Communication isn't always instantaneous (you need a satellite overhead and an unobstructed view of it). The size of the antenna, power you can direct to it, and network you're connecting to are going to matter a lot. An underappreciated benefit of separating the antenna from the phone means you can place your inReach in ideal spot to communicate with satellites while you and your phone are somewhere else within bluetooth range.

Even if Apple were to chase out inReach hardware completely, every new iPhone would be an eligible device for the inReach service itself, which can run on any iPhone with network connectivity already. Satellite capability would further enhance this. As an anecdote, I know that the iPhone I lost in a river in SE asia went over a waterfall because the inReach app was running with tracking turned on, and it somehow had cell service while bouncing along the bottom of the river (its last reported position was just before the falls). It's vastly superior to Find My and Apple routing your emergency text to some random 911 center nearby may not actually benefit you in the wilderness. If Apple brings in satellite connectivity, that's awesome, but any RIP inReach claims are certainly premature. I'd love to rid myself of this subscription but we still have to see how an apple alternative matches up.

I guess we'll see what the capabilities, limitations, and costs of the Apple system are - if it even exists. Still, for emergency use it makes sense and it will stimulate the market if it does exist. That might bring costs down. Right now I am balking at the £350 cost of the InReach Mini II plus the additional subscription and activation fees. I am going to hold on to my primitive but effective PLB until the battery reaches its expiry data and then see what's available.

 

[VulchR]

Locator beacons like Spots are useless. You need to be able to convey what the nature of an emergency is, not just where you are.

Spots are more than locator beacons, - they are capable of sending messages. And PLB's like the ones from ACR are more robust than sat communicators and tend to have a more reliable signal from what I understand (including a radio signal that emergency teams can home in on). The issue about PLB's not being able to communicate the nature of the emergency is simply resolved: Use the PLB if it is life or death, don't otherwise. And everybody should be prepared (water, food, shelter, first aid kit, whistle) to wait hours, if not days, in the event of an emergency in a wild area. The main advantage of the more advanced sat communicators are things like fall detection and tracking so far as I can tell. These can be implemented on iPhone if Apple decides to do that.

 

[riverfreak]

Spots are more than locator beacons, - they are capable of sending messages. And PLB's like the ones from ACR are more robust than sat communicators and tend to have a more reliable signal from what I understand (including a radio signal that emergency teams can home in on). The issue about PLB's not being able to communicate the nature of the emergency is simply resolved: Use the PLB if it is life or death, don't otherwise. And everybody should be prepared (water, food, shelter, first aid kit, whistle) to wait hours, if not days, in the event of an emergency in a wild area. The main advantage of the more advanced sat communicators are things like fall detection and tracking so far as I can tell. These can be implemented on iPhone if Apple decides to do that.

People are really bad at assessing what is “life or death”, most often to their detriment. Therein lies the problem with both the original and subsequent spots. For anyone who has prepared to spend “hours, if not days” in “wild areas” while also desiring the potential of outside rescue, they are really unlikely to activate Spot.

With an inreach you can explain the situation. Spots I’ve seen only allow canned messages. Has that changed?

Are there “advanced sat communicators” that have fall detection? As someone who “falls” regularly in extremely remote locations, that’s about the LAST feature I would want.

All of this is entirely a moot point anyways. We are just years away from every cell phone working at any point on the globe for both data and voice anyways.

 

[DailySlow]

Apple may announce its long-rumored satellite connectivity feature for the iPhone 14 next month, according to Tim Farrar, a satellite communications consultant at California-based research firm Telecom, Media and Finance Associates.

In a series of tweets, Farrar said T-Mobile's and SpaceX's satellite connectivity announcement yesterday was likely intended to pre-empt Apple's announcement of its own satellite connectivity feature for the iPhone in partnership with Globalstar. Apple is holding a media event at Steve Jobs Theater on September 7, and the event's "Far Out" tagline and starry sky artwork have fueled speculation about a satellite connectivity announcement.

In February, Globalstar announced that it acquired 17 new satellites to provide "continuous satellite services" to a "potential customer," which might be Apple.

Farrar said Apple's service will be offered free of charge for two-way text messaging only at launch and will use existing satellite spectrum, with no rule changes from the FCC required. By comparison, T-Mobile and SpaceX plan to leverage T-Mobile's mid-band 5G spectrum and support SMS text messages, MMS, and select messaging apps, but Farrar believes this more ambitious approach will face regulatory hurdles around the world.

Bloomberg's Mark Gurman first reported that Apple was working on satellite connectivity for iPhones in December 2019. Earlier this year, Gurman said Apple was still working on the feature and said it could be ready for the iPhone 14 later this year. Gurman claimed the feature would be intended for use in emergency situations, allowing iPhone users to report emergencies to authorities and send short text messages to emergency contacts, and he added that the functionality could also be available on a new Apple Watch.

iPhones would need a special modem chip to connect to satellites, according to Gurman, suggesting the feature might be compatible with the iPhone 14 and newer only. By comparison, T-Mobile said the "vast majority of smartphones" already on its network would be able to connect to SpaceX's satellites with their existing cellular chips.

Additional details about Apple's rumored satellite connectivity feature, such as whether the feature will be limited to the U.S. or available globally, remain unknown. Apple's media event begins on September 7 at 10 a.m. Pacific Time and MacRumors will have comprehensive coverage of everything announced, so be sure to follow along then.

Article Link: Apple and Globalstar Rumored to Announce Satellite Connectivity Feature for iPhone 14 at September 7 Event

Today the UK is rolling out it’s new PM. And in more obscure tech news, Apple/Globalstar & T-Mobile/Musk schemes now will face a new UK satellite capable system that will be globally available. It’s tagged the ”Bullitt phone system https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62796363

 

[IlluminatedSage]

One of the crazy things is that globalstar's sat phone network has been kind of crappy. I've tried to use it. not exceptional. wish apple could have tapped into Iridium or possibly ... Starlink!

oh well. at least they are trying, but there are better satellite systems. here it seems like apple is picking one which ... is cheaper and one which they can be primary customer for and have serious leverage.

oh well. if it was a different system ... the reception and service would be better on it. to be honest, don't be surprised when iPhone users start reporting hard time's connecting and finding satellites to use.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

oh well. if it was a different system ... the reception and service would be better on it. to be honest, don't be surprised when iPhone users start reporting hard time's connecting and finding satellites to use.

The “service” is for emergencies. For the vast majority, they’ll never find themselves in a situation where the satellite service is needed. And, if they do, regardless of what carrier the phone was purchased with, it’ll have just enough satellite service to provide aid.

 

[VulchR]

The “service” is for emergencies. For the vast majority, they’ll never find themselves in a situation where the satellite service is needed. And, if they do, regardless of what carrier the phone was purchased with, it’ll have just enough satellite service to provide aid.

One hopes.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

One hopes.

Indeed! And there are also those that hope Starlink’s connection with T-mobile actually appears in 2023. Fingers crossed all ‘round!

 

[IlluminatedSage]

One hopes.

Right and if there is a need in an emergency, one would hope Apple would pick a reliable Sat partner with a better network. this is literally picking the worst sat network and saying they will essentially be able to dictate 90% of Globalstar's business. if they used a better network, functionality could expand and so would reliability. time will tell, but if you have used sat phones it's a no brainer. Globalstar isn't anyone's pick to use for a reason.