Hacker News Reader

5G can use smaller cells. It can also use cells the same size (or sightly larger) then 4G. 5G isn't all mmWave. Most of the coverage area will probably be the large cells, with mmWave reserved for high density areas.

And most users will be in areas with smaller cells.

That’s good, as smaller cells means less interference with data from other users.

The only problem areas will be those were many people meet for a short period such as festivals. That’s not different than it is now, though. Providers will temporarily provide smaller cells at such locations.

Because cellular will never be ubiquitous and in areas with max cell coverage that are still plenty of nature areas without a signal. I live in a big college town but often go for walk in a canyon area 10 minutes from my home with zero coverage of any provider.

I will feel a little safer having Sat capabilities.

Can someone just buy satellite coverage? Doesn't the equipment need to be specially engineered for the specific sat frequencies and protocols?

Apple launched exclusively on AT&T because they were willing to not force Apple to provide user and device data to them for marketing purposes. Other provides jumped on the bandwagon when they saw how much money they were missing which soothed their poor marketing folks who didn't get the data they wanted.

Can I speculate that Musk perhaps offered the same choice - use us but we want customer data? Perhaps he wasn't willing to dedicate the large amount of capacity which Apple seems to be capturing. Perhaps Apple didn't want Samsung to share capacity with Apple when Samsung inevitably copies this feature in the next version of their phones?

In any even it's not just satellite capacity. If you recall from the presentation Apple has also put in a large human component as the interface between the automated messages and the dispatching of emergency services. So it's a big deal all around.

> There were similar articles when Apple launched the iPhone exclusively on AT&T. We can clearly see now that a) Apple had no interest in controlling the network provider (many people thought they would eventually launch their own MVNO or even network), and b) the overall effect was hugely positive even for networks considered “competitors” at the time, like Verizon or T-Mobile.

It was also good for the customers of those competing networks. Cast your mind back to how Verizon did business before Apple forced them to open up.

>Verizon Wireless customers in California are suing the Bedminster, N.J.-based mobile phone operator for disabling some of the Bluetooth capabilities in a Motorola Inc. handset.

Verizon Wireless has disabled the file-sharing capability, which allows users to transfer photos or other files via Bluetooth to their PCs, printers or other devices.

Motorola, for its part, said the decision over what Bluetooth capabilities to include in handsets is solely up to the wireless operators.

https://www.eweek.com/mobile/verizon-wireless-users-sue-over...

Customers were forced to pay Verizon for file transfers instead.

Also, locking all phones to Verizon forcing people to use ATT or T-Mobile if they wanted to use other SIMs during international travel.

It is the primary reason I never even considered buying Verizon service.

I have a US post-paid VZW plan, but spend 300+ days per year outside of the country.

Verizon gets the esim slot, current local country gets a pre paid physical sim.

I buy all my phones unlocked from Apple directly.

It all works fine.

I think Verizon changed policy sometime in mid 2010s. And it might not have applied to iPhones because Apple is Apple, but it applied to all other phones that worked on Verizon prior to iPhone coming to Verizon.

Yet Apple disabled FM radio even though the hardware supported it because they wanted to sell music.

Good.

It’s bad enough hearing shitty cellphone music coming out peoples phones. Hearing radio DJs too would push me over the edge.

Rant aside, is profit 100% the reason they blocked it?

It was more a coincidence that they had some of the hardware needed for FM than a deliberate thing of them screwing over customers. It was the same chip that supported bluetooth and wifi. You also need an appropriate antenna to use a different radio frequency (or frequency range), I don't think they ever had that. The FM hardware was removed by the time of the iPhone 7.

While some bluetooth/wifi chips included FM radio functionality, carriers are not interested in providing smart phones with FM radio. The iPhone 6s was the last Apple model to include this chip, and even Samsung, that had models that enabled FM, ultimately also disabled it. But beyond the chip, the iPhone 6s didn't include an FM antenna, radio filter nor an amplifier, so even if it was enabled, it could never work. Regardless, newer iPhone models don't have that chip, so Apple can't possibly comply with Ajit Pai's irrational demands.[1]

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/28/whose-fcc-is-this/

There's a small difference between forcing a handset maker to disable a feature that already works, and a device that never supported a given feature at all... and no, "the modem chip could have supported it" isn't the same thing.

>There were similar articles when Apple launched the iPhone exclusively on AT&T. We can clearly see now that a) Apple had no interest in controlling the network provider (many people thought they would eventually launch their own MVNO or even network)

I helped cover AAPL at a large investment bank. I can confirm the above; we thought that if there was any company with the a) financial resources to build its own network (an MVNO is much cheaper, of course), and b) brand presence/credibility to immediately gain market traction, it was Apple.

They clearly know that if they have rights to 75% of the bandwidth available to these satellites, they are in a great position. They have the means and the drive to create and implement a profitable model for using satellite coverage and then when the also-runs want to come in and copy them they’ll have to compete for the leftover 25%.

> Most folks who buy new phones spend most of their time near places with cell connectivity.

I’m mostly on wifi. I wonder how common that is, but either way I need to get out more.