Amazing technology and a big step but is it really “huge” as many commentators claim?
Personally, in the UK at least, I find the 4G network to be very good and pretty much available everywhere. I can’t see it would offer any manor benefit to me but let me know if you can see really use cases for the average user.
Of course, for sailors, mountaineers and remote explorers this is absolutely huge and will no doubt save many lives. Don’t get me wrong - the technology is awesome, I just wonder if many users will appreciate or even notice it.
I can drive 45 minutes out of my city limits and not get cel coverage due to the dense rock hills in the area. This would definitely find use in the US. Of course it would mean when hiking in every Wilderness area I would now be serenaded with the dulcet tones of YouTube bloggers that someone else just can’t live without.
I hate to break this to you, but sat phones don’t really work very well in amongst rock hills, in a valley, amongst trees, in a building or even in the rain. You would need to on the tops of your rock hills to get LOS service.
That said, the handset tech is so old Apple could look like a totally badass disruptive paradigm shifter just by releasing an up to date smartphone with sat capability. Just add an external case with a big fat aerial.
Sat phones are very needy in terms of constellation visibility, but I'm sure this is not about voice communications. If it happens then it's going to be text-based transmission and reception of burst-mode data, which works just fine with a pretty limited view of the sky - it just waits for the satellites to come into view.
This would be a big deal if Apple can pull it off. Maybe the iPhone could be designed with some sort of Smart Connector with a special case with an embedded satellite antenna and amplifier. A smart connector on the iPhone might open up a world of smart case opportunities.
This is the first rumor I’ve heard about the iPhone 13 that piques my interest. Every iPhone since the 4s has a camera that more than meets my needs, and that seems to be where the bulk of functional updates seem to be concentrated.
This sounds cool at first blush but, what features or functionality would this add? How useful would it truly be and how would it be limited? How available would it be and how much would it cost?
If you can only get 200 kbps bandwidth and 750 msec latency with a completely clear view of the sky with no clouds at an extra $40 per month on 1 specific network then it's going to be next to useless for most people. On the other hand if it is an automatic supplement to fill in gaps in your mobile network robust enough to allow voice effective communication or reasonably low bandwidth data it may make a big difference.
Amazing technology and a big step but is it really “huge” as many commentators claim?
Personally, in the UK at least, I find the 4G network to be very good and pretty much available everywhere. I can’t see it would offer any manor benefit to me but let me know if you can see really use cases for the average user.
Of course, for sailors, mountaineers and remote explorers this is absolutely huge and will no doubt save many lives. Don’t get me wrong - the technology is awesome, I just wonder if many users will appreciate or even notice it.
I can drive 45 minutes out of my city limits and not get cel coverage due to the dense rock hills in the area. This would definitely find use in the US. Of course it would mean when hiking in every Wilderness area I would now be serenaded with the dulcet tones of YouTube bloggers that someone else just can’t live without.
I hate to break this to you, but sat phones don’t really work very well in amongst rock hills, in a valley, amongst trees, in a building or even in the rain. You would need to on the tops of your rock hills to get LOS service.
That said, the handset tech is so old Apple could look like a totally badass disruptive paradigm shifter just by releasing an up to date smartphone with sat capability. Just add an external case with a big fat aerial.
Sat phones are very needy in terms of constellation visibility, but I'm sure this is not about voice communications. If it happens then it's going to be text-based transmission and reception of burst-mode data, which works just fine with a pretty limited view of the sky - it just waits for the satellites to come into view.
This is a 1.0 use case that I see as actually being valuable. Just being able to get a text message or a location beacon sent from a remote area using the device that's already in your pocket becomes a selling point. It then becomes a toe-hold in the more robust, but undefined future possibilities for satellite communication.
This sounds cool at first blush but, what features or functionality would this add? How useful would it truly be and how would it be limited? How available would it be and how much would it cost?
If you can only get 200 kbps bandwidth and 750 msec latency with a completely clear view of the sky with no clouds at an extra $40 per month on 1 specific network then it's going to be next to useless for most people. On the other hand if it is an automatic supplement to fill in gaps in your mobile network robust enough to allow voice effective communication or reasonably low bandwidth data it may make a big difference.
That's similar to my thinking.
The business case for this rumour would be useful. Is this capability for 1) low-bandwidth text messages (or even voice) ANYWHERE (that you see sky) (similar to Iridium), or 2) high-bandwidth data for the situations/areas that have no data coverage (similar to Starlink)?
The former case would require a much smaller antenna than the latter. And Iridium covers the earth's poles, while Starlink does not. With exotic meta-materials, maybe, just maybe a low bandwidth antenna could be in the phone housing. Then paired with an Apple Watch, you can broadcast an emergency signal literally anywhere on earth.
I just checked: Globalstar offers services similar to Iridium.
Amazing technology and a big step but is it really “huge” as many commentators claim?
Personally, in the UK at least, I find the 4G network to be very good and pretty much available everywhere. I can’t see it would offer any manor benefit to me but let me know if you can see really use cases for the average user.
Of course, for sailors, mountaineers and remote explorers this is absolutely huge and will no doubt save many lives. Don’t get me wrong - the technology is awesome, I just wonder if many users will appreciate or even notice it.
I can drive 45 minutes out of my city limits and not get cel coverage due to the dense rock hills in the area. This would definitely find use in the US. Of course it would mean when hiking in every Wilderness area I would now be serenaded with the dulcet tones of YouTube bloggers that someone else just can’t live without.
I hate to break this to you, but sat phones don’t really work very well in amongst rock hills, in a valley, amongst trees, in a building or even in the rain. You would need to on the tops of your rock hills to get LOS service.
That said, the handset tech is so old Apple could look like a totally badass disruptive paradigm shifter just by releasing an up to date smartphone with sat capability. Just add an external case with a big fat aerial.
Sat phones are very needy in terms of constellation visibility, but I'm sure this is not about voice communications. If it happens then it's going to be text-based transmission and reception of burst-mode data, which works just fine with a pretty limited view of the sky - it just waits for the satellites to come into view.
This is a 1.0 use case that I see as actually being valuable. Just being able to get a text message or a location beacon sent from a remote area using the device that's already in your pocket becomes a selling point. It then becomes a toe-hold in the more robust, but undefined future possibilities for satellite communication.
Agreed - I actually think it would be a very significant development, with a huge impact on the industry. I frequently use text-based satellite communications, and while the fraction of iPhone users who need it regularly is likely very small, the capability for communications outside cell coverage, even if only for emergencies, would be a game changer.
It has no separate antenna, so at least for the purposes of sending an emergency alert and location data, that's a problem long since solved. If Apple incorporated no more than this into an iPhone, it would still be of major worth to a lot of people: hikers, climbers, motorists who didn't question their sat-nav's advice to drive a long way down an unpaved road across the mountains — you get the drift.
This would not be for your TikTok and Instagram posts.
I am totally ignorant of the tech involved so I'm amazed that an iPhone would have enough power to transmit a signal that can reach a satellite. Even one on low earth orbit.
Fake news. This sat capable Qualcomm sensor may be in the new iPhone but there is almost no chance they will partner with global star… Global star launched their array of 48 sats in 1999, and estimates their max capacity as 10,000 concurrent calls.. to put that into perspective, Space X has 1,600 satellites currently… Global star is a dead company with outdated useless tech. Apple would never pair up with them
An external antenna is not problem . They can just plug it into the headphone jack...oh right. LOL
The Lightning port has better data capability and is still right there if needed. My Garmin 66i doesn’t have a headphone jack.
You can’t plug an antenna into a headphone jack without messing up both functions. They’re completely different.
So, decades of all those portable transistor radios using the headphone jack for their antenna were just imagining that they worked?
There’s a big difference between an analog jack with an analog signal where the ground can be use for signal pickup, just as holding the device tightly in your hand, and a digital device where the antenna is a completely separate circuit. And those devices didn’t work very well with that cheap arrangement. Better devices had a dedicated antenna connection.
…and just two weeks later, that’s a big Nope to Kuo’s prediction of a satellite communications function on iPhone 13 or 13 Pro.
Seriously, for an analyst who’s supposedly looking at supplier pipelines, etc., missing a major pick two weeks from the dog-and-pony show should count as a solid miss. These things are already boxed up and packed in shipping containers. Some have already been out in the wild, shooting pictures and video for the announcement.
Nevertheless, watch next for the upcoming revised note from the oft-promoted Kuo, placing the satellite function in next year’s iPhone. If that function ever turns up, presumably all the prior predictions count as practice swings, and the last one as a hole-in-one, adding to Kuo’s reputation and clams to be more correct than all the others.
Comments
If you can only get 200 kbps bandwidth and 750 msec latency with a completely clear view of the sky with no clouds at an extra $40 per month on 1 specific network then it's going to be next to useless for most people. On the other hand if it is an automatic supplement to fill in gaps in your mobile network robust enough to allow voice effective communication or reasonably low bandwidth data it may make a big difference.
Actually, the Lightning connector would offer a lot more options and flexibility.
It has no separate antenna, so at least for the purposes of sending an emergency alert and location data, that's a problem long since solved. If Apple incorporated no more than this into an iPhone, it would still be of major worth to a lot of people: hikers, climbers, motorists who didn't question their sat-nav's advice to drive a long way down an unpaved road across the mountains — you get the drift.
This would not be for your TikTok and Instagram posts.