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

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, seon123 said:

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.

But why bring it up if you don't actually know if it applies?

Does the Shannon-Hartley theorem actually prove that the iPhone is incapable of transmitting data at a higher speed? 

 

It's like saying "there is no way a human can run at 10 km/h. Ever heard of this thing called gravity? It doesn't allow us to go that fast". Gravity will limit how fast a human can run, just like the Shannon-Hartley theorem will tell us the physical limit of data transmission. But bringing up either of these things without knowing the actual limit or how close we are to the limit just seems pompous. Especially when you are condescending and telling others that they believe Apple works with magic.

 

 

We already have other vendors talking about offering MMS and some data for "select messaging apps".

I think we will see quite a bit of progress in this field over the next 5-10 years. I don't think the iPhone 14 is already capped at what the laws of physics allows.

Remember, the technology used for the iPhone 14 is essentially built on a very limited number of satellites that were built like 15 years ago. The jump from gen 1 to gen 2 GlobalStar satellites bumped up the speed from 9.6kbps to 256kbps. An increase of 2566% in 10 years. 

[wanderingfool2]

57 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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.

That's only in the production of the media that it might come into play.  After which, downsampling to lower realistically will not make a difference.

 

I am well aware of Nyquist-Shannon theorem, but that doesn't mean distributing a 192 kHz makes any sense; as by that stage you already have filtered out any frequency higher than 20khz.  4 kHz buffer actually isn't that bad either, and is even bigger when you realize that anything over 16 kHz the loudness of a signal to be audibly heard goes through the roof...so you could effectively have a filter from 16 khz and higher and you wouldn't notice.

 

Even ignoring that though, I get back to the point that 48 kHz is all you need to reproduce any frequency that we could hear.  There is no real benefit from releasing it as 192 kHz, but not down-converting to 48 kHz.  In a perfect world (where you could store numbers more than 24-bits) it makes no difference, as if you look at a Fourier transform of the 192 kHz signal, you shouldn't be getting any frequencies above 20kHz.  48 kHz/44.1 kHz was chosen back in the day because the filters they used could work effectively within that range.

 

  

44 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

We already have other vendors talking about offering MMS and some data for "select messaging apps".

I think we will see quite a bit of progress in this field over the next 5-10 years. I don't think the iPhone 14 is already capped at what the laws of physics allows.

Remember, the technology used for the iPhone 14 is essentially built on a very limited number of satellites that were built like 15 years ago. The jump from gen 1 to gen 2 GlobalStar satellites bumped up the speed from 9.6kbps to 256kbps. An increase of 2566% in 10 years. 

The antenna will be the biggest limiting factor.  In theory I guess they can create almost a synthetic antenna based on multiple sats...but I doubt that that will happen.  That requires a lot more computing.  Given how they are talking about compressing text messages in order to send stuff, I think it's safe to assume that Apple's implementation is limited by what is possible to reliably be sent.

 

The thing is when referring to the other vendors.  The LEO sats that will be launched by the competitor will have a really huge antenna, which compensates for the smaller signal from the cell phone.  The cell phone will be limited legally how strongly it could broadcast at.

 

*edit* Side note, looking it up GlobalStar's sats are 7.5 year lifespans but instead of de-orbiting they move them into a graveyard orbit.  That is pretty bad.  On another note, the LEO is 1500km vs the competitors is sub 600km apparently.  So that is also how the competitors are able to get away with higher bandwidth.

[saltycaramel]

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The thing is when referring to the other vendors.  The LEO sats that will be launched by the competitor will have a really huge antenna, which compensates for the smaller signal from the cell phone.  The cell phone will be limited legally how strongly it could broadcast at.

 

The competitor: "we had promising talks; optmizing hw&sw goes a long way compared to just idly emulating cell towers"

 

https://www.macrumors.com/2022/09/08/elon-musk-apple-starlink-promising-conversations/

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

The "dynamic island" looks surprisingly neat

[RedRound2]

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

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

However, this is not just a "regular" SOS caller. Satellite SOS caller on a regular everyday smartphone is the new thing. Again, if you don't know the kind of engineering skills that takes to pull this off, I'm sorry. We're not talking about Starlink here. That was more of a top-down approach than a bottom-up approach like what Apple did here.

 

Umm, Apple trying to implement satellite communication has been rumored for many years at this point. And what you think they have the ability to get into other company's R&D labs and steal their tech and implement it on their own product before those companies can come out with anything? This is some seriously mind-numbing way to somehow undermine what Apple achieved here.

 

Besides, Elon has been in talks with Apple recently about implementing Starlink directly on phone. And he himself said that the phone actually being able to know how to talk to satellite is obviously much better than Starlink trying to be cell tower.

 

Quote

yet they can't figure out to implement RCS...and industry standard.

They can't figure out how to implement RCS? What? 

Why would they want to implement a clearly inferior technology to their product. And RCS is not the standard by any stretch of the imagination. All it has done is increased the number of spam ads people were getting in some countries. It's not end-to-end encrypted by default, and we all know Google reputation of creating and killing chat apps like there's no tomorrow

 

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

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

Maybe, but RCS currently in its form is so bad that I can't really fault Apple for not having any interest in the tech. Make a solid, good user experience that focuses on privacy chat standard with spam and malware protections and then push Apple to adopt it. Then I will support the move along with you.

[Yeroh]

Man, the pricing is absolutely nuts in Europe.

 

I get the exchange rate fluctuation, but the 14 Pro Max now starts at 1450€. That's pricing that was previously reserved for bleeding edge technology like the Samsung Fold devices. If you want even just a little bit more storage you're looking at 1500€+ for a Pro iPhone, and the 14 Pro Max goes all the way to 2100€. Even the most basic iPhone 14 with 128 GBs now costs 1000€.

 

That has to cost them a lot of market share over the mid to long term. Many companies have stricter approval processes for investments starting at 1000€ and for the average consumer, breaking the 1000€ barrier with the bog standard iPhone will also be a reason to reconsider. In the past, the standard models were an easy choice for anyone wanting a modern iPhone without having to spend four figures on a smartphone. And they didn't even lower the pricing of the existing iPhone 13 lineup, that still starts at 800€.

 

I mean I get it, they want to keep their high margins in the current high inflation environment. But there has to be a point at which the loss in the number of total sales will eclipse the benefit of the higher margins, and I think they're about to find out where that point is.

[saltycaramel]

We have to live with the fact that the € lost like 18% against the $ in the last 12 months, there’s no easy way around it. Good for Americans travelling here, bad for iPhone prices. 

Also US prices are before taxes and EU prices are after (often higher) taxes. 

 

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Umm, Apple trying to implement satellite communication has been rumored for many years at this point. And what you think they have the ability to get into other company's R&D labs and steal their tech and implement it on their own product before those companies can come out with anything? This is some seriously mind-numbing way to somehow undermine what Apple achieved here.

And you are mind numbing if you decide to clip out the last bit of the sentence.  I'm saying they are dumping all this R&D money, yet they can't implement RCS...because it's not a "high enough of a demand", and "tell them to buy an iPhone" is literally the excuse being used for not being able to send a photo.  When they announce a feature like this, and they refuse to implement something that is affecting people daily, it speaks volumes to what they truly believe.  This isn't about saving people, it's about trying to lock people into another ecosystem (and eventually charge people for it)

 

2 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Besides, Elon has been in talks with Apple recently about implementing Starlink directly on phone. And he himself said that the phone actually being able to know how to talk to satellite is obviously much better than Starlink trying to be cell tower.

Guess what though, it's not going to be Apple championing the way like you are trying to make it out to be.  Does dedicated hardware help, yea, but that's not the point.  The point is that it's not really Apple leading the way again, it's something that has been coming to fruition for a really long time (technology was just catching up).

 

10 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

The competitor: "we had promising talks; optmizing hw&sw goes a long way compared to just idly emulating cell towers"

 

https://www.macrumors.com/2022/09/08/elon-musk-apple-starlink-promising-conversations/

That doesn't change the physics at all.  The distance is nearly 3 times from Starlink, there will be less satellites and like I said it will be limited in the power they can transmit.  The fact is what Apple is proposing is going to be significantly worse than what Starlink/T-Mobile will be able to provide.

 

2 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Why would they want to implement a clearly inferior technology to their product

You know, so that people can actually communicate with Android users properly.  They literally are using not supporting it as a selling point to not lose customers.  Part of the history of why it was so "inferior" was because Apple was using their power with the cell providers to mess up early implementation of it.  RCS has never been given a fair chance simply because Apple's refusal to support it.

 

[saltycaramel]

41 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That doesn't change the physics at all. 

It does change the physics a little bit if

1) you create a software user experience that guides the user in pointing the device to the satellite 

2) you design the hardware of the phone with the specific purpose of satellite connectivity, coming just short of adding an unwieldy external antenna nub

 

As opposed to trying to connect a random run-of-the-mill T-mobile Android phone to Elon's sats and praying for the best. 

[Blademaster91]

Being able to connect any Android phone to a Starlink LEO satellite is a much better solution, it would also mean you'd be able to have an emergency connection on any phone. What T-Mobile and Starlink is going to provide is much better than a satellite with lower power, and only available to iphone users that have a phone with the satellite hardware.

[AnonymousGuy]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You know, so that people can actually communicate with Android users properly.  They literally are using not supporting it as a selling point to not lose customers.  Part of the history of why it was so "inferior" was because Apple was using their power with the cell providers to mess up early implementation of it.  RCS has never been given a fair chance simply because Apple's refusal to support it.

 

I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually.  The math is probably "half the US is already iphone, and only 1/3 of the android users would have the updates to support RCS, and they're using whatsapp anyways".

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That's only in the production of the media that it might come into play.  After which, downsampling to lower realistically will not make a difference.

 

I am well aware of Nyquist-Shannon theorem, but that doesn't mean distributing a 192 kHz makes any sense; as by that stage you already have filtered out any frequency higher than 20khz.  4 kHz buffer actually isn't that bad either, and is even bigger when you realize that anything over 16 kHz the loudness of a signal to be audibly heard goes through the roof...so you could effectively have a filter from 16 khz and higher and you wouldn't notice.

I kind of agree that 192kHz distribution is kind of unnecessary, but whenever someone brings up "humans can only hear up to 20kHz anyway" there is bound to be some misunderstandings of why we need higher sampling rates. 

 

I disagree with you on three points though (if I understand your point correctly, feel free to elaborate and correct me if I misinterpret you):

1) That aliasing above 16kHz is not a big deal because people won't hear it. I strongly believe this could be an issue in some cases, because I have heard it myself. Put a cymbal or some string instrument near a capacitor microphone and you will most likely get some aliasing.

2) Building a low-pass filter that takes care of everything above 24kHz but nothing below 20kHz isn't easy. It's damn near impossible at the encoding stage.

3) That downsampling is when mixing will not make any difference, so you should just distribute the audio at 44.1kHz. There is plenty of software out there that doesn't handle sample-rate conversion all that well. Most software does a good enough job with it and won't cut off any audible frequencies, but it is still not a perfect conversion. In the case of for example Foobar, if we downsample from 96kHz to 44.1kHz we should see frequencies up to 22.05kHz, right? In reality, the highest frequency we will see is somewhere around 21.8KHz. FL Studio also cuts off a few hundred Hz when downsampling. r8brain free is probably the worst I could find. When downsampling in that program it will cut off everything above 1800kHz, and that will be audible for sure.

 

These super high fidelity formats isn't really about making things "good enough". It is possible to make something sound 99,9% as good at like 1/3 the file size, but those high sample rate formats are for the people who want 110% quality so that the format is better than what they can hear, just to minimize the risk of noticing that 0,1% that is missing.

 

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The antenna will be the biggest limiting factor.  In theory I guess they can create almost a synthetic antenna based on multiple sats...but I doubt that that will happen.  That requires a lot more computing.  Given how they are talking about compressing text messages in order to send stuff, I think it's safe to assume that Apple's implementation is limited by what is possible to reliably be sent.

 

The thing is when referring to the other vendors.  The LEO sats that will be launched by the competitor will have a really huge antenna, which compensates for the smaller signal from the cell phone.  The cell phone will be limited legally how strongly it could broadcast at.

 

*edit* Side note, looking it up GlobalStar's sats are 7.5 year lifespans but instead of de-orbiting they move them into a graveyard orbit.  That is pretty bad.  On another note, the LEO is 1500km vs the competitors is sub 600km apparently.  So that is also how the competitors are able to get away with higher bandwidth.

My point was just that I don't think we will be stuck with this bandwidth forever because going faster would "break the laws of physics". 

We don't even have all the measurements necessary to apply the Shannon-Hartley theorem in this case so I don't get why it was brought up. Or well, I get why it was brought up, because it sounds smart.

It seems like GlobalStar's satellite network is near capacity and the limiting factor right now seems to be the satellites themselves. Not the laws of physics. There are most likely plenty of areas that can be improved in the coming 5-10 years that will improve speeds tremendously. 

 

 

@seon123 Are you going to keep marking my posts as "funny" because I called you out? That's kind of petty of you.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

 

Guess what though, it's not going to be Apple championing the way like you are trying to make it out to be.  Does dedicated hardware help, yea, but that's not the point.  The point is that it's not really Apple leading the way again, it's something that has been coming to fruition for a really long time (technology was just catching up).

 

 

 

There is no point in arguing this.  Some people simply refuse to accept the evidence and for whatever reason they would rather believe apple invented everything and all other companies are just copycat schmucks.    Anyone with an ounce of insight into the tech industry knows that satellite connected smartphones are not new and it has been in the pipeline for wide spread adoption for more than a decade now.  But hey, apple only announced it a few weeks ago so they must have invented it right? 

[Dracarris]

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Anyone with an ounce of insight into the tech industry knows that satellite connected smartphones are not new

Hmm looks like you are right, how could we all miss this. There is clearly a wide variety of satellite connected smartphones available. Affordable and with no compromises on the rest of the smartphone experience. Top-notch features and they even don't need a bulky antenna, just like the new iphones. Yeah, there really is absolutely no significant difference here, basically you could buy any of these and the user experience would be pretty much the same compared to one the new iphones. Again, Apple only did something that others had years before already and just put some fancy marketing on it.

[mr moose]

44 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Hmm looks like you are right, how could we all miss this. There is clearly a wide variety of satellite connected smartphones available. Affordable and with no compromises on the rest of the smartphone experience. Top-notch features and they even don't need a bulky antenna, just like the new iphones. Yeah, there really is absolutely no significant difference here, basically you could buy any of these and the user experience would be pretty much the same compared to one the new iphones. Again, Apple only did something that others had years before already and just put some fancy marketing on it.

Seems like a really poor way to justify all the silly claims that apple are leading the way.

[Dracarris]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Seems like a really poor way to justify all the silly claims that apple are leading the way.

a) nobody claims that

b) yet you still fail to come up with comparable products from other brands - or: who is leading the way, and why and how?

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

Hmm looks like you are right, how could we all miss this. There is clearly a wide variety of satellite connected smartphones available. Affordable and with no compromises on the rest of the smartphone experience. Top-notch features and they even don't need a bulky antenna, just like the new iphones. Yeah, there really is absolutely no significant difference here, basically you could buy any of these and the user experience would be pretty much the same compared to one the new iphones. Again, Apple only did something that others had years before already and just put some fancy marketing on it.

You're really missing the point, people that need a satellite connected phone aren't going to care about the "user experience". Those that need a satellite phone are either out in the woods or accidentally got lost, when you need to call to get rescued the "smartphone experience" doesn't really matter.

And yeah apple is doing something that other companies have been doing for years, yet people want to champion apple acting as if they invented the satellite phone.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

a) nobody claims that

Yes they are.

 

11 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

b) yet you still fail to come up with comparable products from other brands - or: who is leading the way, and why and how?

Actually, so far all I have claimed is that satellite connected smart phones is not new and have proven that.

 

The point you seem to have missed is that it is only the apple fanboys who are concerned with making it about one company leading the way.

 

 

 

 

[SansVarnic]

I'm not impressed with the satellite integration, nothing new. First to implement on a larger scale sure but yeah that has been around for sometime now and is a niche market. Reason they have large antenna is due to where the satellite orbit and the analog signal they use. With use of starlink satellites this is possible to switch to digital and that has been on the books for sometime as well. Nothing breakthrough here and it will remain a niche use thing. Android will follow suit down the road and eventually low end phones will have it. Nothing different than how mobiles went from analog to digital, it starts somewhere. Apple remains the "innovator" they are, knowing that we know they aren't. Again nothing changes. Apple appearing to being the first to use doesn't make them the innovator. Food for thought.

Edited September 11, 2022 by SansVarnic
Corrected a typo.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

 

And yeah apple is doing something that other companies have been doing for years, yet people want to champion apple acting as if they invented the satellite phone.

It's always the same story,  Do people really think that apple is the only company that has put any thought or R+D into satellite connected smart phones over the last decade?

[RedRound2]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you are mind numbing if you decide to clip out the last bit of the sentence.  I'm saying they are dumping all this R&D money, yet they can't implement RCS...because it's not a "high enough of a demand", and "tell them to buy an iPhone" is literally the excuse being used for not being able to send a photo.  When they announce a feature like this, and they refuse to implement something that is affecting people daily, it speaks volumes to what they truly believe.  This isn't about saving people, it's about trying to lock people into another ecosystem (and eventually charge people for it)

And you ignored pretty much threw away the conversation about satellite SOS and switched to RCS, even though I had a dedicated paragraph for it. Speaks volumes when you just ignore valid points.

 

To quote my response earlier

Quote

They can't figure out how to implement RCS? What? 

Why would they want to implement a clearly inferior technology to their product. And RCS is not the standard by any stretch of the imagination. All it has done is increased the number of spam ads people were getting in some countries. It's not end-to-end encrypted by default, and we all know Google reputation of creating and killing chat apps like there's no tomorrow

 

Also are you comparing an SOS feature with a messaging app when basically everyone in the world has already settled among iMessage/Whatsapp/Snapchat/Instagram/Wechat, etc. 

 

You talk about RCS like its some feature that grants life essentials to people. The general public largely isn't even aware about it. And it's by all measure a clearly inferior platform compared to literally everything else that has been established in the last 10 years

 

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Guess what though, it's not going to be Apple championing the way like you are trying to make it out to be.  Does dedicated hardware help, yea, but that's not the point.  The point is that it's not really Apple leading the way again, it's something that has been coming to fruition for a really long time (technology was just catching up).

Who? That's like saying yeah in 1956 we were eventually going to get touch screen phones at some point in the next 500 years. Its like saying rn at some point in next 100 years we will have level 5 autonomous cars. Whoever does it first and does it well - will definitely get credit where credit is due. These are not things you can pull out of your ass while you sit in the toilet.

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You know, so that people can actually communicate with Android users properly.  They literally are using not supporting it as a selling point to not lose customers.  Part of the history of why it was so "inferior" was because Apple was using their power with the cell providers to mess up early implementation of it.  RCS has never been given a fair chance simply because Apple's refusal to support it.

 

Oh so you are not aware about Whatsapp or facebook apps, or etc, you know the way people have been communicating among others for years.

 

I'm sorry iMessage today is popular because Apple did it well back then. If the competition could've kept up back then, maybe people would be more open to other apps. In other parts of the world where iPhones are less common, WhatsApp and Facebook apps are the go to standards. They all work well enough currently and I don't see any reason why RCS needs to be a thing, especially in its current form where messages are not encrypted and its plagued with spam.

 

And also, I'm an Apple user and I dont pay for a single Apple service. Please tell me how Apple is leeching money off of me. In fact I have saved money using Apple products because of how much more productive I am with ecosystem features and the typically longer lasting nature of their products. 

 

Do I have problems with Apple, definitely. And I criticize them for it as well. But trying to bloody muddy literally anything they do (even the good and the great ones) is just pathetic

[RedRound2]

11 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

I'm not impressed with the satellite integration, nothing new. First to implement on a larger scale sure but yeah that has been around for sometime now and is a niche market. Reason they have large antenna is due to where the satellite orbit and the analog signal they use. With use of starlink satellites this is possible to switch to digital and that has been on the books for sometime as well. Nothing breakthrough here and it will remain a niche use thing. Android will follow suit down the road and eventually low end phones will have it. Nothing different than how mobiles went from analog to digital, it starts somewhere.

Its very niche. Its not useful in its current form unless you get lost in thew wilderness. But it starts the ball rolling for sat based comm for next few years. Similar to how biometrics is now a thing in literally any phone you get. That's the point. And more and more features will get added later on and I would also presume legislation will make at least essential services like SOS free.

11 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Apple remains the "innovator" they are, knowing that we know they aren't. Again nothing changes. Apple being the first to use doesn't make them the innovator. Food for thought.

"Innovation" != "First to come up with the idea". Innovation also covers improving existing technology and making it accessible and usable.

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's always the same story,  Do people really think that apple is the only company that has put any thought or R+D into satellite connected smart phones over the last decade?

No. But are they the first company to basically make it a standard finished product feature on a device that sells in millions every month. Yes. That's the difference.

 

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yes they are.

Quote. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

 But are they the first company to basically make it a standard finished product feature on a device that sells in millions every month. Yes. That's the difference.

Who cares if they are the first to sell it to a million people.  That doesn't make them the innovator and industry leader people are championing.   The argument people have been making has now been reduced to "but apple will sell it to millions of people"  which means literally nothing against the original claims of them being the first.

 

3 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Quote. 

This thread and every other damned thread that mentions it.

 

I swear it is not possible to read about anything new any more because if apple didn't invent it we have to hear about how they did, and if they did do something good we have to hear about how everyone else is just a copy cat and how shit their implementation will be.  It makes legitimate discussion impossible,  having to sift through a million pointless fanboy posts hoping to read something that is actually worth reading is nothing short of frustrating.  

 

I don't care if you like apple, I want to read about what is happening and peoples take on the technology, not some idolized perception of a company and the pointless rhetoric that flows on from it.

[Dracarris]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yes they are.

Where? Who?

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Actually, so far all I have claimed is that satellite connected smart phones is not new and have proven that.

Where? Link to a comparable product?

22 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Apple being the first to use doesn't make them the innovator.

That's plain wrong.

 

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's always the same story,  Do people really think that apple is the only company that has put any thought or R+D into satellite connected smart phones over the last decade?

How exactly is that relevant? Again, comparable products, where? Up-to-date current smartphone with the features you can expect, with integrated satellite connectivity.

36 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

And yeah apple is doing something that other companies have been doing for years, yet people want to champion apple acting as if they invented the satellite phone.

Same question for you: Link to comparable, existing products.

37 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

champion apple acting as if they invented the satellite phone.

Nobody here does.

37 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

You're really missing the point, people that need a satellite connected phone aren't going to care about the "user experience". Those that need a satellite phone are either out in the woods or accidentally got lost, when you need to call to get rescued the "smartphone experience" doesn't really matter.

You really are missing the point. Full-blown satellite phones are insanely niche and expensive, very little people own one. Combining basic satcom in a widely sold smartphone is the key here (again, comparable, existing products: where?). People do care about the smartphone experience in everyday life. People do care about Satcom SOS when they get accidentally lost - which is exactly when they don't have a full-blown satphone with them.

[Dracarris]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The argument people have been making has now been reduced to "but apple will sell it to millions of people"  which means literally nothing against the original claims of them being the first.

The literal only claim made was "first to integrate in a mainstream smartphone in a non-obtrusive way with no compromises to the smartphone experience otherwise". Nobody claimed Apple invented satellite phones. Nobody.

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This thread and every other damned thread that mentions it.

Either quote the very reply or stop making up this random, baseless BS.

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

if apple didn't invent it

The only people that use the word "invent" in regards to Apple is people like you, i.e., blind haters that are so deep down the anti-Apple hole that they lost all ability to think straight in those regards.

Nobody, including Apple, themselves, claims that they invented anything. Inventing and innovating are two very different things that sometimes overlap, but more often do not.