holy **** could apple have bought a Mobile Satellite System ???
January 4, 2002 5:31PM
Future Apple Hardware
edited January 2014
Mobile Satellite System Globalstar (similar to Iridium) just declard bankruptsy in November.
satellites are "future hardware" right?
Reply 1 of 29
January 4, 2002 5:34PM
Wow.. it's amazing how many different rumors we have this year. This show had better be good!
The satelite idea is interesting, but I'm convinced.
Reply 2 of 29
January 4, 2002 5:35PM
Then steve announces that Airport 3 will allow you to link direct......he he he.... I like it.
Reply 3 of 29
January 4, 2002 5:46PM
You'd need some
bandwidth to have millions of users using this sattelite based system. Can the infrastructure support this?
Reply 4 of 29
January 4, 2002 5:59PM
I don't think it will happen but it would be the best thing I could get with a new computer. I'm leaving in about an hour for a cabin in the mountains. I can barely get a cell phone call through with an external antenna on a bag phone much less an internet connection within 10 miles.
Also, would be interesting selling access to pc users at a higher rate (I would assume there is a charge) using the earthlink ties they have. It would give earthlink a huge boost over AOL.
Reply 5 of 29
January 4, 2002 6:06PM
A satellite system is the worst idea Apple could come up with. Apple is not going to try something they could easily lose billions in. There is no company that has made money in it thus yet not to mention that it is incredibly capital intensive. They'll have better luck launching a PDA than that.
Reply 6 of 29
January 4, 2002 6:11PM
[quote]They'll have better luck launching a PDA than that. <hr></blockquote>
Of course. If Mac users will spend $400 on an Mp3 player, they'll definitely buy a new Apple PDA.
Reply 7 of 29
January 4, 2002 6:19PM
Just passing on this link I saw in a couple other threads, in case you haven't seen it, it is quite interesting.
; target="_blank">Click Here.</a>
Reply 8 of 29
January 4, 2002 6:21PM
[quote]Originally posted by killboy:
<strong>Mobile Satellite System Globalstar (similar to Iridium) just declard bankruptsy in November.
satellites are "future hardware" right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
have none of you YET read about the SkyCorp deal?
it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is what apple is going to announce. I mean, come on, how much more "To boldy go where no PC has gone before" can you get?!?!
Reply 9 of 29
January 4, 2002 6:25PM
This just ssooooo has to be related to MWSF considering todays tagline.
I saw this a couple of weeks ago and passed it over!!!!!!!. Shit I could have made millions
Reply 10 of 29
January 4, 2002 6:27PM
"Telecommunication services; cellular telephone communication; Communication by
computer terminals, communication by telephone, facsimile transmission; providing of
electronic mail (E-Mail); computer aided transmission of messages and images; communication
between computer peripherals and devices; information about telecommunication."
"To boldly go where no PC has gone before".
Reply 11 of 29
January 4, 2002 6:41PM
Okay enough of this. Time for The Sane to set things straight
The SkyCorp project is a very interesting one. I even volunteered (if you can call trying out something as cool as this voluteering) myself half a year ago. But what they are planning is not 554
in space routing packages from one place of the earth to another on a constant basis. They are meant as
delivering information stored on them when asked for. And they don´t plan on doing that cheaply. Esp. not if you want to update the info often. Look at this price table:
I´ll try finding a link where the project is described more thorougly
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
Reply 12 of 29
January 4, 2002 6:51PM
[quote] Six months to a year after that, SkyCorp plans to fill the sky with Power Mac G4 Web servers. With 544 Power Mac G4s circling the globe, there will be no place on Earth without wireless Internet access. For people living and working in remote areas, it?s an idea that?s out of this world.
Very interesting stuff! From <a href="
I think Apple may talk a little about this on Monday but I don't think it'll be ready yet (if it all goes ahead) unless they're far ahead of schedule.
What if apple.com's tag line tomorrow reads:
it?s an idea that?s out of this world.
Reply 13 of 29
January 4, 2002 7:20PM
Reply 14 of 29
January 4, 2002 10:07PM
NASA and Skycorp have (if they've stuck to their schedule) had their G4 + satellite parts aboard the International Space Station since October. They've had three months to work on this.
Gotta check one more thing. Back soon.
Reply 15 of 29
January 4, 2002 10:12PM
Went to see if I could quickly find where the ISS will be at Keynote time. Couldn't do it.
Would it be cool if Steve spoke with the Astronauts aboard the ISS about the Skycorp Net?
I think it would be cool.
Reply 16 of 29
January 5, 2002 6:39AM
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>Latency, latency. latency. Just watch CNN coverage in Afghanistan for a rock solid civilian demonstration of two way satellite communications latency. Now inmagine adding that latency to EVERY net packet you send/receive on top of all other routing delays. Avoiding a geosyncronous satellite will help a little but then you need constellations of at least 24-30 satellites just to get reasonable continuous coverage, then add spares. Fine for e-mail, but maddening to impossible for anything else.
SkyCorp is a great proof of concept, but there are a lot of issues before it could be commercially viable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To be honest, latency is a non-issue for standard web surfing and downloading. Once the connection is made, then the stream is continuous.
The latency is from trying to send a signal from the ground up, and then down to the ground again. All of that distance and switching takes time. <I'm making this up>You wouldn't necessarily be sending individual packets to the satellite. That would be done later.</I'm making this up>
The issue is if someone's trying to frag someone. By the time you click your mouse, you're pushing daisies in a cyberpatty somewhere.
Reply 17 of 29
January 5, 2002 9:45AM
Like Garden said latency really does not matter when you ate surfing using e-mail, or watching a stream. Gaming would be very limited, but for getting off my 56k, I would willingly make that sacrifice.
Reply 18 of 29
January 5, 2002 10:08AM
Why is there such latency, dont radiowaves travel at 186,000 miles per second. Is not a low flying satellite about 50miles up?
Reply 19 of 29
January 5, 2002 11:05AM
Why is people ignoring my post
Let me tell you something about latency. According to the article I read about this thing if you sent a email at 9 am it would take some time before the sattelite is above your head and until then your mail is waiting in your computer. So maybe at 9.10 the message is sent to the cube in space. Then it has to find a base station where it can unload its information (remember its very close to the earth and can´t just route it right away to a base station hundreds of miles away). That could take another five minutes. A moment after it is recieved. The same with requesting a webpage. First the request was recieved by one sattelite (the first one over your house). It then would unload your request to a base station. The page would then be sent to the next sattelite that will go over your place and you recieve it. All this would certaintly take some time.
As I said before: This is more like servers than routers in space.
The only online game that would make sense would be Chess
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
Reply 20 of 29
January 5, 2002 11:06AM
[quote]Originally posted by MarcUK:
<strong>Why is there such latency, dont radiowaves travel at 186,000 miles per second. Is not a low flying satellite about 50miles up?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, about 200 miles or above, and that is when it is directly overhead, it can still be in line of sight several thousand miles away.
Main point, however, is that the low earth orbit satellites that are (going) up, are not broadband, and the Mac powered ones are not routers. The reason Iridium went bankrupt, essentially, is that they are telephone connections,(about 8Kb/s), so once mobile become widely adopted using terrestrial transmitters, they could'nt diversify. The Mac powered satellites are web servers, not routers, no use for ISPs. And don't mention the power requirements for the uplink, definitely not suitable for a permanent conection. Won't fly, people.
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: mmicist ]</p>