[Updated] Far Out Stuff - Apple September 2022 Event Thread, Expectations, Reality and stuff.

[seon123]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Please elaborate.

What is the maximum data transmission rate that the iPhone 14 will be able to have to satellites according to the Shannon-Hartley theorem?

I brought it up to illustrate why they can't increase the bitrate from what they use for the satellite SOS (likely in the hundreds of bps in ideal conditions) to what people expect from mobile data (thousands of times faster). The channel bandwidth is limited, satellites can't move much closer, antenna gain is limited by how accurately people can point their phone and the size of the phone, and they can't reduce the noise easily. If they wanted to increase the bitrate, they would need to increase the transmission power beyond reasonable levels, which is not something they are going to do.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Yeah I know. It was a rhetorical question because I have a suspicion that seon123 just threw that theorem out there to sound smart.

No one needs to do anything to sound smart when your presence makes everyone around you seem like a genius.

[tim0901]

1 minute ago, saltycaramel said:

On the other hand they also showed (by committing long term to pay for the Globalstar expansion) they’re in this for the long run and being Apple they have all the money in the world to pursue their vision, some that couldn’t be said about the LG Prada.

Again, disagree - LG was a proven phone manufacturer and top-100 company back in 2006, while Apple was a complete nobody in the phone industry and barely scraping in as a top-500 company, with a global revenue of barely a quarter that of LG. If either company had "all the money in the world to pursue their vision" it was definitely LG.

 

And the Prada did really well as a product, selling well over a million units and winning multiple awards and spawning multiple successors - it was hardly a flop. The public just doesn't remember it next to the revolutionary iPhone.

[saltycaramel]

20 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Again, disagree - LG was a proven phone manufacturer and top-100 company back in 2006, while Apple was a complete nobody in the phone industry and barely scraping in as a top-500 company, with a global revenue of barely a quarter that of LG. If either company had "all the money in the world to pursue their vision" it was definitely LG.

 

And the Prada did really well as a product, selling well over a million units and winning multiple awards and spawning multiple successors - it was hardly a flop. The public just doesn't remember it next to the revolutionary iPhone.

 

Few companies in history are comparable to the nation-state that is Apple today and the sheer scale at which it can operate when it choose to move into a new sector (namely satellite connectivity in this instance), not even Lg back in 2006.

 

And this whole Lg Prada digression is pretty superficial, it was just notable being a “slab style” all-screen phone in terms of design. Barely a smartphone, more of an advanced feature phone. I was around back then. Much ado about nothing, it being compared to the iPhone was mostly a meme fueled by Apple haters trying to prove Lg somehow figured out that general design first. 

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

So the CD quality things were originally mastered that way, so as far as we're concerned they are exactly the same as buying the CD, which is the point. 24-bit/192khz, is better, but generally the only people who will actually notice that are people with the equipment to do so. You're not going to notice the difference on earbuds, and definitely will not on wireless/bluetooth headsets of any kind, because the wireless devices are always going to be lossy, because the devices do not have 4.7MB (that's MegaBYTES)'s of bandwidth to decode the maximum theoretical audio channel configuration (7.1 channels.)

Well one can argue that 24 bit is better, which probably is...but 48khz to 192 khz I think no one realistically could hear a difference.  At 48 khz the waveform is produced at max 0.02ms vs 192 khz max 0.005ms.  Not something that would make a whole lot of difference.  We are attuned to audio changes, but I doubt any general population even with the best equipment can hear a delay of 0.02 ms.  With that said as well, we can only hear up to 20khz (but music is typically well below that), so 40 khz is the minimum to reproduce it accurately (with 48 khz being good to be able to account for analog filters at 24khz).

 

Your math is slightly off though, it's actually closer to 4.39 MiB/s.  With headphones of course only 2 channels matters though, so it's only about 1MiB/s. 

Even assuming the 40% compression that's 0.6MiB/s which is within bluetooth.  So lossless over headsets would be possible...especially if they subsample the 192 khz down to the reasonable 48 khz. (Yes very very strictly not lossless, but realistically it's lossless)

 

1 hour ago, saltycaramel said:

Maybe also (not_free)-SMS-also-for-fun? Maybe international expansion? Maybe limited data for some basic services and calls?

Given how their presentation requires line of sight and pointing the device at a certain direction, I really wouldn't feel confident in them being able to pull off voice/data anytime soon.  They even talked about using compression for SMS messages.  That to me pretty much screams that even with all that it's barely able to send a signal to the LEO.

 

21 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

On the other hand they also showed (by committing long term to pay for the Globalstar expansion) they’re in this for the long run and being Apple they have all the money in the world to pursue their vision, some that couldn’t be said about the LG Prada.

They pretty much had to as Globalstar hasn't made a profit in the last 6 years.  They wouldn't have been able to deploy enough sats. to do what Apple is asking.

 

22 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I really don't get all this "who did it first" nonsense. What actually matters is who did it first properly with a solid user experience, and more often than not, this was Apple. The MP3 player is a prime example.

Don't confuse making something that was "popular" vs creating a "first properly with a solid user experience".  They were just large enough to properly "pull it off" so to speak.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

While satellite connectivity is cool, I can't help but feel like it is a gimmick.

For some people it might be great, but I suspect that 99,99% of iPhone users will never need it. Most people who use it will just use it to try it out, and then never use it again.

The way Apple is proposing it, yea I don't think it will have too many uses.  It would be different if it was a lot more of a seamless transition between sat and phone based operations...but given that they are talking about pointing it towards a sat. it makes me think they are on the edge of what they think might be possible with the tech they are installing.

 

If the tmobile and Starlink pull off what they are talking about though, I think a lot more people will end up using it.  (Even if it's a once in a lifetime kind of thing).  There are lots of people who go hunting still (without cell coverage), and a simple checking in with the family is a huge benefit (but doesn't justify having a sat. phone).

 

 

Actually, what will be interesting is to see if Apple will drag their feet on supporting t-mobile/Starlink with this...as Apple will have quite a bit of money invested in it (and by the looks of it, they are wanting to monetize it later on).  I could see this being another rcs, where they drag their heels or maybe even sandbag the performance on the iPhone claiming their tech is just better.

[Dracarris]

25 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Don't confuse making something that was "popular" vs creating a "first properly with a solid user experience".  They were just large enough to properly "pull it off" so to speak.

At the time of the first iphone and even more so ipod, Apple wasn't nearly as large as they are today. They have simply shown over and over again that they can take promising concepts and reshape/improve them in a way that offers a quite dramatically different user experience.

They didn't just popularize these concepts because Apple. They actually managed to provide a solid and enjoyable user experience that others, with much more money to throw at problems at the time, plain did not. I know that's a hard pill to swallow for some folks.

 

cf this:

45 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Again, disagree - LG was a proven phone manufacturer and top-100 company back in 2006, while Apple was a complete nobody in the phone industry and barely scraping in as a top-500 company, with a global revenue of barely a quarter that of LG. If either company had "all the money in the world to pursue their vision" it was definitely LG.

 

[Spindel]

AWU got me really tempted. 

 

If it was time to upgrade my AW6 the AWU would be a no hesitation choice. 

 

But as it is now my AW6 is still going strong so I'll keep it at least another year (or two) before considering switching. 

 

The price is reasonable too, I have a titanium AW6 and it cost more than the AWU.

[Kisai]

39 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

 

Your math is slightly off though, it's actually closer to 4.39 MiB/s.  With headphones of course only 2 channels matters though, so it's only about 1MiB/s. 

Even assuming the 40% compression that's 0.6MiB/s which is within bluetooth.  So lossless over headsets would be possible...especially if they subsample the 192 khz down to the reasonable 48 khz. (Yes very very strictly not lossless, but realistically it's lossless)

And there is the crux of the problem. People will go "that's not lossless", when it's pretty much the only solution if they want it to be wireless. The only way you get lossless "Wireless", assuming you have absolutely nothing competing on the same frequencies, is by sacrificing the bandwidth for error correction. This is why I'll never buy wireless headphones/headsets. For the amount of time I spend at the computer, I need 12+ hours, and since I'm right at the computer. 4 hours is commuter time you spend on the bus.

 

39 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Given how their presentation requires line of sight and pointing the device at a certain direction, I really wouldn't feel confident in them being able to pull off voice/data anytime soon.  They even talked about using compression for SMS messages.  That to me pretty much screams that even with all that it's barely able to send a signal to the LEO.

 

Satellite communications always requires a south-facing unobstructed line of sight. It's not like WiFi which shotguns the signal into the surroundings. Receiving a signal is easier than sending one. So it's very likely the bandwidth available and the timeslots available would restrict a device to bandwidth similar to an old ISDN connection. Consider that satellite GPS does not work well inside vehicles (your phone uses A-GPS, which uses cellular) without that line of site (your windshield and car room may as well be opaque,) and if you have certain types of tinted/coated glass, the GPS doesn't work period, because it absorbs all wireless signals.

 

39 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

 

Don't confuse making something that was "popular" vs creating a "first properly with a solid user experience".  They were just large enough to properly "pull it off" so to speak.

 

People always drag out the corpse of "who copied who" when it has never mattered. It's not like the ghost of Ghost Jobs stealing Xerox's work is what the entire company was built on. Patents exist for a reason, and if you don't patent it, then you don't get to complain when someone makes something nearly identical in nature.

[vetali]

13 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

At the time of the first iphone and even more so ipod, Apple wasn't nearly as large as they are today. They have simply shown over and over again that they can take promising concepts and reshape/improve them in a way that offers a quite dramatically different user experience.

 

cf this:

It wasn't just the phone though. It was Apple telling cellular providers (at the time AT&T) to f-off and allowed Apple to control the updates, software, and UI. AT&T was the only one that wanted to. Other carriers saw the success and allowed Apple to put their phones on their networks once the exclusivity contract with AT&T ended.

 

This is what drew me to Apple back when I first got into smartphones. I held onto my LG Env3 until the thing was practically dying. Because I loved the physical keyboard. I decided to get a Samsung Galaxy Nexus as my first smartphone. Bought it through my carrier (Verizon) because I was just out of high school and didn't have much money. Was able to remove most bloat. The thing that ultimately killed the experience for me was the carrier controlling updates. One day I got a pretty minor update. I think it was right after jelly bean came out. My phone was insanely slow, and turned into a pocket warmer that lasted about 3 hours on a charge.

 

Figured it was a bad update and started looking up rooting. It was barely possible on Verizon phones due to the locked bootloader. Any solution I searched for gave me "jUsT RoOt iT" answer. Which was an unacceptable solution because a 400 dollar device shouldn't rely on the community to be usable. Did some digging and finally found a thread on the google support forums where this person was having the same issue I had. Verizon had pushed out the update with the wrong spec of RAM on the phone. The software thought it had more RAM than the device physically had. It was a simple fix once found. I don't think the device ever got updated to fix the issue from Verizon.

 

After that I went iPhone with the 5s. I've messed with Android a bit since. Things have improved greatly since then with less solutions to issues being "jUsT RoOt iT," but you are still at the mercy of the carrier for software updates and bloat if you buy a locked phone. Which many people still do here... including my family unfortunately.

[WhitetailAni]

19 hours ago, vetali said:

Apple Watch still using a proprietary charger. I don't know why this doesn't get more hate like the phones still using lightning.

All Apple Watches ship with a charger, and Apple Watches don't have as high of a market share as iPhones.

[vetali]

20 minutes ago, FakeKGB said:

All Apple Watches ship with a charger, and Apple Watches don't have as high of a market share as iPhones.

Point is, its unnecessary. Even the Airpods pro 2 case supports magsafe (Qi) and the apple watch charger. I can put my watch on the magsafe charger and it holds it centered, but wont charge. They could've done magsafe charger that supported apple watch charging along with Qi charging. If I could eliminate one charger on my desk that'd be great.

 

Also at the time of posting that I thought galaxy watches supported standard Qi, but they don't despite accepting reverse wireless charging from Samsung phones.

[saltycaramel]

14 minutes ago, vetali said:

Point is, its unnecessary.

 

If you look at a teardown of a 41mm watch and at how small that coil is you’ll realize that it’s not that simple.

 

The Airpods Pro 2 case has room to spare and can more easily accomodate multiple charging systems.

 

Watches, not so much.

 

If it was feasible, I’d think they would have done it on the new Watch Ultra. Not even on the big Ultra were they able to pull off Magsafe support. Let alone the 41mm.

 

Also, what happens when even smaller/thinner wearables are available? Like glasses or an actual redesign of the non-Ultra watches? You’ll always need a smaller charging interface for small devices. Or at least the relatively big Qi/Magsafe cannot be the one-size-fits-all. 

[vetali]

2 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

 

If you look at a teardown of a 41mm watch and at how small is that coil you’ll realize that it’s not that simple.

 

The Airpods Pro 2 case has room to spare and can more easily accomodate multiple charging systems.

 

Watches, not so much.

 

If it was feasible, I’d think they would have done it on the new Watch Ultra. Not even on the big Ultra were they able to pull off Magsafe support. Let alone the 41mm.

 

Also, what happens when even smaller/thinner wearables are available? Like glasses or an actual redesign of the non-Ultra watches? You’ll always need a smaller charging interface for small devices. Or at least the relatively big Qi/Magsafe cannot be the one-size-fits-all. 

Air Power was essentially small coils that allowed for both phone and watch charging. The problem with Air Power was it had to charge multiple devices at once while being anywhere on the mat creating a ton of redundant components that generated a lot of heat. I don't see why they couldn't incorporate that into magsafe where you are only charging one device at a time in one position on the charger. Regardless if iPhone was USB-C I'd still have to travel with or keep two chargers on my desk due to the watch. A Magsafe revision would be the only way to make it possible to charge both with one charger.

 

Smaller watches would actually be easier to do with this method. I imagine the ultra wouldn't work due to the bigger size outside of the sensor array. Other wearables is probably gonna require another proprietary charger taking up space.

[saltycaramel]

I was thinking about the LTT video and its funny/clickbaity title ("Get an iPhone 14 or literally die") and it dawned on me that in the coming months (after November) at least someone in North America is gonna literally die out in the woods because they picked Android over iPhone and can't satellite-SMS for help. Sooner or later it's gonna happen. 

 

Yeah a small percentage of the user base will actually use the feature, but it's a "just in case" feature, like airbags on cars. And on iPhones it's now "a given", for ever and ever. It's now forever an integral part of the whole "smartphone" package. My smartphone "ought to" have that lifesaver satellite-SMS function from now on. And I'd also want the smartphones of my travel companions to have it as well, should my smartphone become unavailable. When will Android phones catch up to this new reality? For how long will this be an exclusive selling point of iPhones? 

[saltycaramel]

1 minute ago, vetali said:

Air Power was essentially small coils that allowed for both phone and watch charging. The problem with Air Power was it had to charge multiple devices at once while being anywhere on the mat creating a ton of redundant components that generated a lot of heat. I don't see why they couldn't incorporate that into magsafe 

 

That's a neat idea. 

Not sure if technically sound and economical though, given how Air Power hit a brick wall as you mentioned. 

[Blademaster91]

10 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

That's sort of Apple's MO. They may sometimes do things very late, but they make the implementation so well thought out, that it becomes the unsaid rule from then on for all competitors.

Especially with Dynamic Island - which basically turned a notch into a fun, user interactable, functional design item.

They always do things late, copying things that already existed, or even stealing apps from appstore developers and claiming it as their own thing. Android phones have had an always on display for years, now that Apple has it people are hyping it up because of marketing fluff like always on backgrounds, which isn't something you'd want on all the time on an OLED display if you care about the screen lasting more than a few years.

And the "dynamic island" isn't anything new either, Android phones have had the ability to display icons around the front camera hole for a while.

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I really don't get all this "who did it first" nonsense. What actually matters is who did it first properly with a solid user experience, and more often than not, this was Apple. The MP3 player is a prime example.

Because people in this thread want to act like Apple invented the satellite phone, its a weird gimmick as people that need a satellite phone are going to need something more durable than an iphone as it would only be needed in an emergency.

And the MP3 player isn't a good example IMO, there were plenty of solutions before the ipod, and didn't require proprietary software to load music onto the device.

[RedRound2]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

They always do things late, copying things that already existed, or even stealing apps from appstore developers and claiming it as their own thing.

And the "dynamic island" isn't anything new either, Android phones have had the ability to display icons around the front camera hole for a while.

Why do you have this urge of coming into Apple threads and just commenting some random nonsense.

 

For your claim of them being always late - yes, its true for some features. But they've always done it better - like widgets, AOD, refresh rates. And there are many things they do first and properly as well like biometrics, security first approach, haptics, ecosystem features (continuity, handoff, desk view, interoperability, find my, etc) - all of which are miles superior to what anyone else has

 

Copying this that already existed - Just because you took an idea and made an implementation that's basically trash - doesn't give you any written rule of some sort of entitlement to be bestowed upon from the likes of people like you. Getting and doing something right in itself is an innovation. Looks like you don't have any proper background in engineering or problem solving to know that. 

 

Dynamic Island is not "putting icons around the notch". I suggest you take a look at the promotional video again. It's a simple thing for someone like Apple to implement and the fact that nobody thought about it until now is bewildering and that includes you and me as well). But that simple implementation basically turned "eww notch" conversation into a sensational feature overnight and that deserves credit. An actual usable feature, that does not exist on other phones thoughtfully implemented that will definitely be useful for literally everyone who gets the new iPhone (and this especially arrives in the time when people are starting to feel like iOS is getting too complicated with too many sort of hidden features)

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

Because people in this thread want to act like Apple invented the satellite phone

Have you seen a satellite phone?? How oblivious are you literally anything Apple does well.

 

It's a nice feature to have for emergency. And that takes a lot of skill, R&D and engineering to pull off initially. But since someone has figured it out now, I can fucking guarantee you, all phones will be capable of this in like 4-5 years' time, making it a standard safety feature - similar to how Apple has done literally a million times to the industry now.

[Dracarris]

30 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Because people in this thread want to act like Apple invented the satellite phone

As usual, nobody actually did that.

30 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

its a weird gimmick as people that need a satellite phone are going to need something more durable than an iphone as it would only be needed in an emergency.

As usual, you manage to belittle and talk down any features that Apple gets well as useless. There will be people in emergency situations without a dedicated satellite phone (which frankly happens all the time) but an iphone.

32 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

And the MP3 player isn't a good example IMO, there were plenty of solutions before the ipod, and didn't require proprietary software to load music onto the device

Yeah, I owned those. The user experience and build quality was horrible and pure trash. They sucked. Which is EXACTLY my point. But yeah you could use them as mass storage device which is all that matters. If you need itunes everything else automatically becomes nil and unusable. The brain gymnastics again at play here.

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, FakeKGB said:

All Apple Watches ship with a charger, and Apple Watches don't have as high of a market share as iPhones.

Well no. Watches ship with the proprietary cable and iphones ship with a USB-C lightning cable. So both only contain the charging cable but not the actual charger itself (the wall plug).

[Commodus]

4 hours ago, tim0901 said:

You could, but IMO that's not a good thing. For example, take the LG Prada - the first touch-screen smartphone. Nobody cares about that device beyond its claim as the first touch-screen phone, people care about the original iPhone that released a month later, which went on to define smartphones as we know them today. The same was true with the iPod - it was hardly the first MP3 player in the world, but it ended up defining and dominating the category.

 

While Apple may be first to the party here, their solution is limited in its utility and unavailable to the vast majority of people and so most - especially outside the US - won't give a shit about it. The first company to bring a product to market that people actually care about - be that SpaceX/T-Mobile or whoever - will be the one that's remembered for 'mass deploying mobile satellite connectivity' in the same way that Apple is lauded for inventing the smartphone, even if strictly speaking they weren't the first to bring the concept the table.

To elaborate on what others have said: the Prada really wasn’t a smartphone. There’s been a bit of revisionist history going on where LG and Samsung were credited for things they didn’t really do.

 

The Prada was a basic cellphone that happened to have a touchscreen. It had a WAP browser and very little that pushed the boundaries. The iPhone had some cosmetic similarities and didn’t yet have a real app platform, but it was a sea change in terms of functionality for phones.

 

A side note: I still remember how LG sued Apple over the claim the iPhone was a Prada copy… that lawsuit disappeared very quietly as it became clear this was more sour grapes than anything substantial.

[Spindel]

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Well no. Watches ship with the proprietary cable and iphones ship with a USB-C lightning cable. So both only contain the charging cable but not the actual charger itself (the wall plug).

Only holds true for the aluminium watches.

 

SS, Hermes and Edition AW ships with both cable and brick (also the charge puck as a "higher quality" feeling being made of metal).

 

 

[Dracarris]

18 minutes ago, Spindel said:

SS, Hermes and Edition AW ships with both cable and brick (also the charge puck as a "higher quality" feeling being made of metal).

Apples website says otherwise. Below is identical charger-wise for every watch I checked

[vetali]

The Ultra does get a braided charger cable. You have to look really close on the image. No brick however.

[Spindel]

6 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Apples website says otherwise. Below is identical charger-wise for every watch I checked

Yeah I realize that they’ve changed that now  wasn’t like that earlier.

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

People always drag out the corpse of "who copied who" when it has never mattered. It's not like the ghost of Ghost Jobs stealing Xerox's work is what the entire company was built on. Patents exist for a reason, and if you don't patent it, then you don't get to complain when someone makes something nearly identical in nature.

I don't like the concept of people giving Apple credit for things that they did not necessarily do.  I think patents in software is a terrible thing, and I like it when tech isn't patented, what I don't like is companies like Apple who drag their heels on implementations because they are "better", or cases where Apple literally steals a product type (airtags) and inhibits it's competitors because they like their own version better (e.g. tile, using volume button as a camera trigger, etc.). 

 

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

And there is the crux of the problem. People will go "that's not lossless", when it's pretty much the only solution if they want it to be wireless. The only way you get lossless "Wireless", assuming you have absolutely nothing competing on the same frequencies, is by sacrificing the bandwidth for error correction. This is why I'll never buy wireless headphones/headsets. For the amount of time I spend at the computer, I need 12+ hours, and since I'm right at the computer. 4 hours is commuter time you spend on the bus.

Well it is in effect lossless.  When wearing headphones, 2 channels is all you really need at 48khz sample rate.  That in effect would be lossless in my mind; and quite achievable as it's only 2.3 mbps (bits) without compression.  You have to remember as well, the more channels you have, the more likely you are to be able to compress data more as well (as there will be more repetitions amongst the channels).

 

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Satellite communications always requires a south-facing unobstructed line of sight. It's not like WiFi which shotguns the signal into the surroundings. Receiving a signal is easier than sending one. So it's very likely the bandwidth available and the timeslots available would restrict a device to bandwidth similar to an old ISDN connection. Consider that satellite GPS does not work well inside vehicles (your phone uses A-GPS, which uses cellular) without that line of site (your windshield and car room may as well be opaque,) and if you have certain types of tinted/coated glass, the GPS doesn't work period, because it absorbs all wireless signals.

Nope, that's wrong.  You don't "always require a south-facing unobstructed los".  You can even look at what happens with Dishy, it literally changes it's dish tracking the satellite.  For things like satellite TV and stuff, the reason why it's a fixed angle is because the sats are in geosynchronous orbits so they remain in the same position (e.g. if you face it south, but you go more south, you will slowly have to change the angle until you eventually need full up/down alignment).

 

GPS also works decently well in vehicles, buildings/concrete are what blocks the GPS signals.  Cell phones actually operate within the GPS signals ranges as well (with the GPS ranges still separated so there isn't as much leakage).  A-GPS still utilizes the GPS sats.  It's just that it downloads the sat. information from a server of the trajectory and such of the sat as that information can take quite some time (which means if you download it from cell which has a higher bandwidth you can start locating faster).  It's why GPS devices when turned on can take a minute or two to start working, because it needs to figure everything out first.

 

The tl;dr anything that affects gps signals is also likely to affect cell signals as well.

 

It's like what I said, the practicality of what Apple is saying it will be able to do is pretty useless unless you are in an emergency and have a line of sight to the sat.  At least the t-mobile and spacex one speculate that it will even work in a vehicle (they have a really really large antenna).

 

57 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

It's a nice feature to have for emergency. And that takes a lot of skill, R&D and engineering to pull off initially. But since someone has figured it out now, I can fucking guarantee you, all phones will be capable of this in like 4-5 years' time, making it a standard safety feature - similar to how Apple has done literally a million times to the industry now.

You are giving Apple too much credit in terms of making it a standard safety feature.  Having an SOS caller on phones has been nothing new.  Having an SOS caller on sat phones specifically isn't anything new.  The fact is there has been rumors for years now of Starlink, and other companies literally coming up with this tech and trying to get it established.  They spent all that R&D work, and yet they can't figure out to implement RCS...and industry standard.

 

On an unrelated note, Cook essentially said that they don't care about supporting the RCS standard and the whole "buy an iPhone" as a solutions to me is a bit disgusting.  That response was essentially when asked about better support with texting with Android phones (because sending a photo to Android sucks from iPhone)

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/08/apple-ceo-tim-cook-jony-ive-laurene-powell-jobs-panel-interview.html

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

but 48khz to 192 khz I think no one realistically could hear a difference.  At 48 khz the waveform is produced at max 0.02ms vs 192 khz max 0.005ms.  Not something that would make a whole lot of difference.  We are attuned to audio changes, but I doubt any general population even with the best equipment can hear a delay of 0.02 ms.  With that said as well, we can only hear up to 20khz (but music is typically well below that), so 40 khz is the minimum to reproduce it accurately (with 48 khz being good to be able to account for analog filters at 24khz).

These ridiculously high sampling rate isn't about enabling the production of higher frequency sound. Super high sampling rates (like 192kHz) exists for a different reason.

 

A digital signal can't represent a frequency above the Nyquist frequency. That's why we need low-pass filters to remove any samples above the Nyquist frequency.

What happens if we don't remove those samples? They get folded into the representable frequency domain, which results in aliasing.

 

When creating a low-pass filter, it needs to be able to remove all frequencies above the Nyquist frequency, but it also needs to be very careful as to not remove any of the audible frequencies.

The narrower the gap is between the audible range, and the Nyquist frequency, the more difficult the low-pass filter is to create. The narrower the gap, the more likely you are to have a low-pass filter remove audible frequencies, or miss removing frequencies above the Nyquist frequency (which again, results in aliasing).

 

 

If your sampling rate is 48kHz, your low-pass filter has to keep all frequencies below 20kHz intact, but not allow any frequencies above 24kHz. There is not a whole lot of room for errors. 4kHz to be precise. If it fails to remove a sample at let's say 25kHz, it will result in aliasing.

If your sampling rate is 192kHz, your low-pass filter has a much bigger range to play with. It has to keep frequencies below 20kHz intact, and remove frequencies above 96kHz. Failure to filter out a 25kHz frequency for example won't result in aliasing, since our Nyquist frequency is 96kHz.

 

 

Super high sampling rates is not used to create sounds that are inaudible to humans. It's to help hardware and software not affect sounds we can hear.