
Apple has a secret team working on internet satellites - uptown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/apple-has-top-secret-team-working-on-internet-satellites
======
threeseed
This could be a game changer:

1) No more carriers. They get a consistent, high margin monthly revenue
stream, can have one worldwide SKU and can let illegal imports take care of
situations where there has been the potential for bans e.g. patents or Russia.

2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them
dictate where the industry goes.

3) Further ties customers to Apple in a world where its getting harder to
differentiate on hardware features alone. Instead they can differentiate on
the network e.g. no more roaming charges and offer unique bundles e.g. ATV+
with Apple Internet. And good luck with smaller players being able to launch
their own satellite.

4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding apps
be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing and
killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc.

5) Apple owns the total experience. It's just you and Apple.

~~~
nordsieck
> 1) No more carriers.

This doesn't really work. If you've looked at some of the calculations for
SpaceX's constellation (probably the highest bandwidth one proposed so far),
it is completely insufficient for even medium sized cities.

There is also a question of what sort of antenna the phones will use to
connect with the satellites. My understanding is that modern sat phones are
pretty low bandwidth and aren't really the sleak and slim design we've come to
expect from Apple.

> can let illegal imports take care of situations where there is the potential
> for bans e.g. patents or Russia.

Probably not possible either. They're going to need plenty of base stations,
which are easy to ban with court order.

> 2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them
> dictate where the industry goes.

We'll see. If the problem is with patents instead of technical ability then
this will be easier than I expect.

> 4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding
> apps be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing
> and killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc.

Again, they're going to need base stations. The parts of the world that
regularly do that stuff are usually pretty poor, which means pretty low iPhone
penetration.

If Apple can pull this off, it'd be great for them. I'm not very optimistic.

~~~
sitkack
I don't think you need base stations, given atomic clocks shared between the
network and possibly on some of the client devices, the client devices could
form a large phased array receiver and then mesh the data between the ground
based mesh.

Base stations help, but aren't required.

~~~
test0483836
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the phones form a mesh
on the ground to distribute the data that needs transmission to and from the
satellite. And that the mesh network of devices also synchronize their radios
to act as one gigantic phased array (or in chunks) to communicate with the
satellites.

That's a fantastically crazy idea, in a good way

~~~
dzhiurgis
Every Tesla solar roof thats got fiber could become a base station. Sort of
like Tor.

------
Robotbeat
Not super surprised (because traditional media is bad at specialist topics--
looks like they googled large conventional satellite makers and talked to a
self-described expert, who unfortunately didn't provide a ton of context), but
there was no mention of the obvious company/competitor that has demonstrated
the technology in question: [https://spacenews.com/ubiquitilink-has-
raised-12-million-for...](https://spacenews.com/ubiquitilink-has-
raised-12-million-for-communications-constellation/)

Ubiquitilink (now called just Lynk) demonstrated the ability to communicate
with _existing_ , _unmodified_ cellphones from orbit (the prototype was a
secondary payload on the Cygnus spacecraft, which had resupplied the
International Space Station). This is a remarkable feat and puts the
technology in a completely different camp than it was when large LEO
constellations like Iridium were tried beforehand. Iridium failed to acquire
enough customers before going bankrupt in part because they required an
expensive and clunky handset. Being able to use _existing_ GSM and LTE phones
without bulky antennas (and in spite of the latency being beyond what GSM/LTE
usually tolerates) is a breakthrough.

[https://www.spaceitbridge.com/cell-tower-in-the-sky-
ubiquiti...](https://www.spaceitbridge.com/cell-tower-in-the-sky-ubiquitilink-
is-now-lynk-hiring.htm)

They plan to start with SMS texting (can use very cheap satellites and don't
require very many of them) and then voice/data later on. (Plan is to partner
with existing providers to allow global texting anywhere on the planet.)

The second prototype is a satellite launched on a SpaceX Dragon to the
International Space Station that will be assembled by astronauts:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/11550878931631...](https://mobile.twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/1155087893163118592)

It's a complete gamechanger (possibly even bigger than SpaceX's Starlink).
Doubtless Apple realizes this potential and wants their own in to this. It's a
legitimate way for Apple to use their huge amount of cash to legitimately grow
their revenue significantly. And Apple has the advantage that they can make
modifications to the phones (or tablets or watches or notebooks, etc)
themselves. Apple can also afford multi-billion-dollar investments that take
many years to come to fruition, something Iridium (and Globalstar and others)
couldn't at that time.

~~~
jandrese
I'm not sure how much of a gamechanger it will be to only be able to send SMS,
and probably at a fairly high price point.

It's perhaps a big deal if you're a Yak farmer in remote Sibera and don't
normally have any kind of coverage at all, but most people have some sort of
cell coverage that provides at least SMS.

The comment that the bulky handset killed Iridium is only part of the picture.
The bigger issue is that terrestrial cell antennas went up faster than
Motorola expected, and by the time the system was online its primary use case
had already largely vanished, especially among the kind of people who could
afford the extremely high fees for the service. In the end the market niche
closed down to government people in extremely remote locations who don't
already have some sort of satellite connection.

~~~
Robotbeat
They're not limited to SMS; that's just the minimum viable product. They can
do voice and data as well with the same technology. It also should be a lot
easier and cheaper for Lynk to deploy than it was for Iridium, since launch
costs have gone down significantly (while reliability is higher) and they use
extremely small, cheap satellites (at least initially). They are planning on
providing a fill-in-the-gaps service and are partnering with existing
terrestrial service providers... Providers, at least with the next-generation
version, won't have to provide cell towers (in places where there isn't
otherwise enough demand to justify the large installation and upkeep costs)
purely for gaining complete coverage. This is the sort of thing Iridium was
never capable of.

It should be pointed out that Iridium (post-bankruptcy) became profitable and
has recently finished launching their entire second-generation constellation
(on Falcon 9). Their subscriber base continues to grow.

~~~
jandrese
I'm not so sure. One of the reasons cell phones work at all is that they are
relatively close to the antenna. This service requires to antennas to be at
least 100 miles away and doesn't have any provision to improve the gain on the
client side. SMS may be roughly the limit of what they can provide in the
available bandwidth. The inverse square law is a harsh mistress.

~~~
Robotbeat
There's always the option of increased gain on the serving side as well (both
transmitting and receiving). 5G and related technologies allow beam steering
which may improve gain (and selectivity) on the client side, and it's possible
Apple may be working this angle on their side for whatever they're working on.

In sparsely populated areas where the service could be valuable, I think they
can get away with a lot more (as far as frequency usage) than they could for
mobile in dense areas. So I think it could indeed be useful.

~~~
portillo
It will not work. Their use case is low data rate applications. It's one of
those case where you pick 2 among high number of users, high bandwidth, and
low gain user terminals.

------
Rebelgecko
12 people is not a lot of engineers, considering all the work that needs to be
done on both the modem and satellite side.

Unless they actually go public and file some FCC paperwork soon to actually
get spectrum, I doubt that this is actually going to happen in the next 5
years, it seems like more of an exploratory effort.

I also imagine that this would be brutal for battery life.

~~~
reaperducer
A dozen people could be enough to coordinate the purchase of the companies and
engineers required to pull it off. It's not like Apple invents everything in-
house.

That said, 12 people is clearly an indication that this project is still in
the napkins-and-whiteboards stage.

------
someguydave
My speculation: this ties into thier ultra wideband location technology: a
killer feature would be the ability to LoJack and kill any device globally. As
well as find anything with a UWB sticker attached. Not to mention you can
provision phones and computers without carrier activation.

~~~
techslave
UWB has very short distance, inherent to the technology. it would be unrelated
to this.

~~~
someguydave
That is the case today because of regulation. I’m implying that phones and
iPads and laptops etc. could be turned into UWB-locating relay stations which
report nearby UWB beacons directly to Apple via satellite even if they are
“offline”

------
mberning
Very smart. Even if Apple only take a small bite out of carriers it is still a
huge amount of money. They could end up being Netflix to Verizon and AT&Ts
blockbuster.

------
poopsmithe
Anyone else remember Apple's secret team working on self driving cars?

~~~
mattrp
It does have the appearance of this type of project. You have to assume they
at least need to go through the exercise to ensure that there’s not some
technology combined w/ out of the box thinking that could upend the status
quo.

------
sgt101
When there is power, fibre connectivity and property rights it is better and
cheaper to stick radio kit on a mast. When these things are not so - then a
satellite is a useful alternative.

I think 99% of the global market for comms is less than 1000m from places
where there is or will be shortly power, fibre and property rights.

~~~
reaperducer
_I think 99% of the global market for comms is less than 1000m from places
where there is or will be shortly power, fibre and property rights._

I'd say that is a tremendous overestimation. Even in the United States, the
wireless carriers only advertise that they cover 95% of "Americans." Not
"America," which is a vastly larger space.

And we all know that 95% is, itself, a gross exaggeration.

~~~
sgt101
The USA is a really bad example - there could be a lot more fibre and phone
signal than there is - if the market were "better" arranged.

------
tjpnz
Apple has secret teams working on all manner of things, and not necessarily
only in the US.

~~~
taneq
Honestly, with the size of their cash pile, I wouldn't be surprised if they
were secretly preparing to pivot into space exploration or something. Assume
SpaceX will have the primary transport side of things out to Mars covered with
Starship, and start designing space habitats or preparing for a Mars colony.

------
dzhiurgis
What is Apple’s relationship with Musk?

I really feel Spacex need a good partner for their net.

~~~
reaperducer
Maybe Apple just buys SpaceX's satellite internet system when it's deployed,
and SpaceX goes on to build more constellations for more companies, pivoting
to being purely a space transportation company, and not an internet company.

------
summerlight
If this project can be launched in 5 years, I will be very surprised. Remember
Apple car; this project once had hundreds of engineers over multi-years but
eventually got scrapped.

Meanwhile, given the secretive culture in Apple, I wonder if this "leak" is a
calculated one. It can be from either top-executives or internal politics
though.

------
reaperducer
Well, Wall Street wanted Apple to put out more services. This is pretty much
the ultimate tech service.

But I don't think this will free everyone from mobile carriers, as we would
hope. At least if you don't live in a tent. Those of us who live and work in
skyscrapers will still need cellular and/or WiFi connections.

------
ksec
There is a much higher possibility of Apple having their own Satellites for
Mapping Data, Imagery, Extreme accurate location positioning than whatever
Bloomberg or the 102 comment on HN is dreaming of.

------
neonate
[http://archive.md/Gfn6t](http://archive.md/Gfn6t)

------
Abishek_Muthian
With Apple, I would be worried that it could become an Intranet.

------
pkz
Not anymore. :-)

------
Cyder
Satellite internet is too slow to do much. It reminds me of the dial up days.

------
johnnycab
Your description of the individual missed out, chief caller-outer of _pedo
guys_ who has a penchant for legally smoking a spliff or tweeting under other
influences, whilst eschewing world dominance. However, I am ambivalent, not
only because the person has not yet been exposed as doing 'things' which might
be considered deeply unsavoury ─ even by the lax standards or sexual mores
that define people in this class. But he continues to make some progress, in
the vein of unreasonable people having the will to bend the world around them,
rather than being pliable to it. This is not an endorsement nor does it
express my consent or brings me joy to say it, but _somebody_ has to do it, so
the others can follow.

------
dayaz36
Are all tech companies just copying Elon now?

~~~
threeseed
You do know that Elon didn't invent nor is the first company to have internet
satellites.

They are actually pretty common.

~~~
coding123
Low earth orbit peer-to-peer low cost internet is very different from what the
old guard in this "space" is up to. And it is in that sense that they are
copying Elon. (edit: I thought Facebook was first to announce this, but
apparently it was indeed first inspired by SpaceX).

~~~
jerich
Take a look at what Teledesic was planning in the late 90s. Elon’s a great
guy, but nothing I see about Starlink is innovative over what they were
working on over 20 years ago.

~~~
mft_
This is something I see people misunderstand time and time again; “innovation”
isn’t just inventing an entirely new novel product.

Musk is not about innovation in terms of entirely new products. As other
posters have commented, rockets, electric cars, and Internet satellites have
all been done before.

Where he seems to be special is having the vision to see opportunities to
develop or scale existing products much further than incumbents, and having
the confidence/chutzpah/bloody-mindedness to pull it off.

However, through the development required to meet his challenging goals, his
teams often need to innovate significantly - this innovation is often
exceptional.

And of course, what makes a large-scale global Internet satellite service
viable is actually the ability to reuse launch rockets - one of his other
major innovations.

------
wiredfool
I'm looking forward to Space Grey(tm) internet satellites.

------
smadurange
Didn't you guys get fined for reporting bs recently? I'm gonna just give it a
few more weeks before taking this seriously :p

------
ReverseCold
Why is everyone working on internet satellites? There's no way this is
profitable, and people using competitors' solutions still means they can
access the internet.

Maybe it's easier than starting a regular ISP (to vacuum up data)?

~~~
scarface74
Well, Iridium Communications is profitable

[https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/06/iridium-
communicat...](https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/06/iridium-
communications-new-satellites-are-already.aspx)

~~~
shaklee3
The link you sent says they're not profitable. They had their best quarter,
and it was still a loss.

~~~
scarface74
You are correct.

I looked at this statement.

“On an adjusted basis, Iridium said its operational profit rose 20% from a
year ago to $78.7 million.”

Rookie mistake. I knew better.

------
oaiey
It fits Apple overall thinking of enabling maximum privacy and ownership by
the users. But it will be a walled garden again.

Imagine all iPhones forming one network. The privacy, space based, will be
awesome. But there will be one exit node to the public Internet. In future, as
a website owner I will need a license from Apple, they will review my web page
and want a cut of all transactions.

In summary: no thanks. That is privacy but not freedom.

~~~
m11a
Nothing to suggest that Apple is not in favour of net neutrality.

> "We work hard to build great products, and what consumers do with those
> tools is up to them — not Apple, and not broadband providers," Cynthia
> Hogan, VP of public policy at Apple, said in a comment filed to the FCC.

Yes, Apple regulate their App Store, they control what goes on and they have a
licensing fee. That's also why the App Store is not like the Play Store. Apps
are generally of a higher quality and better designed. They keep a tight lock
on what is on that store. But that's for a specific purpose.

There's nothing to suggest that they would plan to do the same in the browser.

~~~
oaiey
And what will make you think the same reason will not be applied to web pages.
It makes absolutely sense to me.

~~~
m11a
You'll have to explain how it makes sense to you, because it doesn't to me.

If they were going to do it they could do it already. They don't need to be
their own ISP for iDevices to block content. They control the browser and the
OS: they can block content just off the device.

------
bparsons
It will go online 15 years after Starlink with users will claiming it is
revolutionary. Apple will sell the sleek chrome plated antennae for 3000
dollars, but it will only work when you plug it into your network using a 900
dollar proprietary Ethernet standard which will be depricrated after four
years.

