Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GodsendNYC t1_j367f1k wrote

I rarely leave NYC so coverage hasn't been an issue for me with T-Mobile but it would be nice for hikers and global travelers to have access to that. Maybe some kind of new application would benefit from investment in new tech as well.

153

Zendog500 t1_j36s3du wrote

I purchased a bunch of Iridium shares 10 years ago on the hope that its satellites would be worth something. They went into bankruptcy and lost it all.

69

jqubed t1_j375hbh wrote

So, the same functionality Apple added to the iPhone 14? Does Apple also use Iridium?

17

Maniac618 t1_j37agm4 wrote

Does this mean Google's Pixel phones don't get it then as they're not Qualcomm?

5

beastpilot t1_j37jkjg wrote

Replying to Zendog500 (#1,294,951)

Iridium went bankrupt 23 years ago, before Clinton was impeached, while Yeltsin was still in power in Russia, before Lil Nas X was born, and before we saw dead people in the Sixth Sense.

12

doxx_in_the_box t1_j37uig7 wrote

Replying to jqubed (#1,295,486)

Apple uses globalstar.

The confusing part is Iridium states it’ll be faster because “it does not require a ground station”, but everything I’ve heard about Iridium is the opposite that it takes like 10x longer to get a response, because they relay the message between satellites instead of just beaming it directly back to the ground (how globalstar does it)

They say going between satellites will make service faster but this makes zero sense since the emergency service is ON THE GROUND, eventually the signal needs to reach earth and back again.

12

Empathetic_Orch t1_j37vwqu wrote

Being able to use any phone from any place on the planet is amazing, but I also feel like we're putting way too much shit into our atmosphere. We're one disaster away from being trapped on our world sans satellite networks, for hundreds of years.

−4

tshungus t1_j37x59a wrote

Replying to doxx_in_the_box (#1,296,633)

Oh, I see now. My mistake for not immediately recognizing the brilliance of your statement. Of course, it makes complete sense that Apple, a company known for its innovative and forward-thinking technology, would choose a satellite communication system that is slower, less reliable, and provides worse global coverage. I mean, who wouldn't want a service that takes 10 times longer to get a response and can't even communicate directly with the ground? It's a no-brainer. Apple's decision to use Iridium, a company that actually provides fast, reliable, and global coverage, must have been a complete accident. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

−18

doxx_in_the_box t1_j382rcr wrote

Replying to tshungus (#1,296,740)

Apple doesn’t like having to bend over backwards making it more difficult to offer a unique solution. Globalstar was perfect because they were able to make it whatever they wanted, and have 85% of the network bandwidth for future development.

All I’m saying is what I’ve heard about Iridum, that it’s slower getting a message to ground, where SOS matters.

4

dnick t1_j38c90i wrote

Replying to doxx_in_the_box (#1,296,633)

I would assume that the time it takes to broadcast between satellites is negligible in the overall process (milliseconds?). If you could somehow save a second or two in overall connection time (on ground relays, finding a site that could route it more seemlessly, whatever), it wouldn't matter if you had to beam it back and forth between satellites 100 times to get it there, it could still be faster.

​

you could be right that the overall service might be way worse, but doubtful that 'beaming between satellites' vs direct ground retransmission would make any difference except in slight audio quality vs 'speed of emergency services being services being dispatched'.

3

doxx_in_the_box t1_j38drfl wrote

Replying to dnick (#1,297,389)

I agree - but I’ve always heard Iridium is slower because of the processing time or whatever occurs when linking satellites. I could have misheard

But if you read Iridium’s statement they say: faster than globalstar because we don’t require ground stations. That part makes zero sense.

1

bergsteroj t1_j38egm2 wrote

Replying to damifynoU (#1,296,753)

It was Motorola who was going to crash the satellites rather than keep maintaining them. They spent tons of money develop h the system for the completely wrong market (which was completely taken over by widespread cell phones).

Iridium is the name of the satellite constellation as well as the company that was eventually formed to save the satellites (was a mess getting funding and insurance agreements that Motorola would accept). The system is still highly used for remote wildness communication (such as Garmin InReach), satellite phones by military and other expeditionary groups, and making inroads to take marker share from companies like IMARSAT for cruise ships and airlines.

The satellites are still very much functioning and in use and new ones being launched.

5

Brieble t1_j38hzid wrote

So after that, Android users can claim that Android dit it years before Apple /s

−4

eric987235 t1_j38sw42 wrote

Iridium? There’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time! I figured they went under back in the early 2000’s.

3

HiddenEmu t1_j38t5qk wrote

Our local highway lacks cell coverage for the majority of it. Accidents turn deadly because the environment is harsh and you can't call for help without a satellite phone.

In our area (BC, Highway 16, West from Smithers onwards). Improved cell coverage on the highway is a talking point and stuff like this will help.

2

ahecht t1_j38uu4m wrote

Replying to doxx_in_the_box (#1,298,078)

The difference in latency caused by the time it takes light to travel to a satellite 500 miles up vs 900 miles up is fractions of a second, and meaningless compared to human reaction time when talking about an emergency response.

1

dnick t1_j38z7hm wrote

Replying to doxx_in_the_box (#1,297,468)

Hmm, maybe Iridium can only transmit straight back down, and it has to go through terrestrial switching stations to get to a central processing location, that then goes back out and activates EMS, rather than one or two steps through line-of-site satellites and directly to a central location?

Not sure, but if their claim is that ground stations are a bottleneck, getting more information on that seems like the question rather than just saying 'hmm, I don't know about that...'.

1

doxx_in_the_box t1_j392fr9 wrote

Replying to dnick (#1,298,280)

> if ground stations are the bottleneck

You’re half way right and I think this is why Iridium is claiming speed - they’re reusing marketing material without specifying which conditions hold true.

Ground stations are the bottleneck in two situations:

  • example: customer is in Australia tracking a product on other side of planet. It needs to somehow get the data back to Australia.
  • example: a user wants to send an emergency message to another user, like using Garmin SOS device.

But with emergency SOS the ground station nearest you will be the one handling your request, so beaming across multiple satellites is pointless.

Also iridium has less total number of ground stations, so less coverage on earth, they just make up for it with better satellite-to-satellite coverage

1

doxx_in_the_box t1_j395put wrote

Replying to ahecht (#1,298,151)

And speed isn’t always defined by distance. It’s just the time it takes to get from A to B, units can be anything I.e 100MB/S (gasp!)

The time it takes a message to be received, according to Iridium, up to 10 seconds. 6 messages per minute for the pedantic

1

GodsendNYC t1_j3978x8 wrote

Replying to ramriot (#1,295,304)

I've read about it and it's pretty interesting. I'd like to know more about the technical details of how that could work. You can pick up a satellite signal on a phone without much of a problem because it's a powerful transmitter but how does the return signal get to the satellite since it's a small device with a low-power transmitter designed for local communications? SAT phones usually are larger and have a much bigger external antenna so how can they do it on a normal smartphone is very interesting.

6

ErnestT_bass t1_j39keea wrote

wow what year is this i havent heard that name in years...those phones are HUGE.

1

Randomthought5678 t1_j39rjkz wrote

Replying to T8ortots (#1,299,176)

When I go hiking I like to be off grid as much as possible. The best hiking around me is in the Olympic mountain range of Washington State. If phones start working in the middle of nowhere it's just a matter of time until people use it frivolously and I'll be sad.

6

Beginning_Ad_5381 t1_j3bbolc wrote

Replying to T8ortots (#1,299,353)

To be fair "The Olympics" in this context, when referencing wilderness areas, would be easily recognized as referring to the mountains by anyone interested in wilderness related activities as it is a colloquialism common within these communities. Much like saying "The Rockies".

2

general_3d t1_j3jw4x8 wrote

Replying to SweetPenalty (#1,300,678)

Oof, beat em by 3 years. It's kind of funny that Apple people still think they're first to everything just because the advertising wasn't shoved down their throat when it happened.

Also: in before apple releases the first ever vr headset!

1

beastpilot t1_j402xry wrote

Replying to Zendog500 (#1,338,981)

None of that makes any sense. Iridium was a private company between 1999 and 2008. You could not buy shares in 2007.

It IPO'd in 2008 for $9 per share and has only gone up from there to $60 today.

1