iPhone 18 Pro Rumored to Support Full 5G Satellite Internet

[svish]

Nice if possible. However such features will not be available in many countries and that too international expansion might be at least few years away.

 

[germanbeer007]

Well if it wasn't Starlink in the first place, no problem.

The hypothetical assumes it's Starlink.

 

[rukia]

Currently Starlink requires a relatively large antenna with direct line of sight. Even the smallest Starlink Mini draws about 40 watts of power. An iPhone's antenna is very small and the phone works in the mW range. I get that the next gen of Starlink satellites will have a lower orbit to facilitate this but T-mobile's current DTC implementation gets very low bandwidth even under ideal conditions. It's fine if you're in the middle of nowhere but I'm doubtful anyone in an urban setting would find DTC satisfactory compared to terrestrial towers. I just don't see anyone who has access to service wanting to use Starlink as their sole provider.

 

[CalfCanuck]

Tell me something I don't know?



They lose their moat. #1 reason why prospective EV owners would refuse to buy a non-tesla is the supercharger network. They make less money long term since people don't need to buy a Tesla to access the Supercharger network which means they lose out on upselling other packages (premium data, FSD, insurance, service, etc...).

How are they at a disadvantage when Tesla controls pricing? Some early Tesla buyers purchased their evs with free access to the supercharger network - that was the early adopter bonus for the high price of the cars.

Tesla sets the rates for each group of users, and you always need an app, with a user account, to get power from any charging network where you are pre- identified by car model. So like every other business that can price discriminate among its users, Tesla can provide (and make a lot of money) access to non-Tesla evs at high prices per kwH while still providing an incentive for drivers to buy a Tesla and access the supercharger network at reduced, or even free, prices.

The reality is that most of us do 90-95% of our charging at home on a level 2 charger with our regular residential price per kWH, because it is a fraction of what ANY Level 3 network charges.

There’s tons of money that will be made providing electricity to high speed charging locations in the future, and I suspect many of these will bypass the grid entirely. Why sell bulk electricity from a large solar farm to your local utility at $.04/kwH when you can built a few hundred miles of transmission lines and sell it at $.34/kwH to drivers on the highways at large supercharging locations?

 

[germanbeer007]

How are they at a disadvantage when Tesla controls pricing?

I already explained: people will buy their cars less. Lifetime of additional profits from supercharging (and charging a higher price) on non-Tesla EVs won't make up for the lost potential profits of people buying Tesla cars.

Some early Tesla buyers purchased their evs with free access to the supercharger network - that was the early adopter bonus for the high price of the cars.

I don't see the relevance here.

Tesla sets the rates for each group of users,

I'm aware of how it works. I have a Tesla. Their V4 stalls show $0.60/kWh on the screen but when I plug in my Tesla, I'm charged $0.42/kWh.

There’s tons of money that will be made providing electricity to high speed charging locations in the future, and I suspect many of these will bypass the grid entirely. Why sell bulk electricity from a large solar farm to your local utility at $.04/kwH when you can built a few hundred miles of transmission lines and sell it at $.34/kwH to drivers on the highways at large supercharging locations?

There's a ton more money selling the actual car since Tesla would profit from Teslas using Superchargers and selling services to the Tesla owners. But now that people don't need to buy a Tesla to access the Supercharger network, people are free to buy non-Tesla cars.