this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
96 points (98.0% liked)
Apple
17494 readers
103 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It sucks because this is one of those things you don’t need them until you really do. Pay as you go model would be ok for me. Emergency? Sure, take a 100€ from my credit card just get me the hell out of here.
What if that number was 10 grand? Higher?
That's more in line with what covering the costs with "only pay if you actually have to connect" looks like. Actual forest services offer similar programs in some places, where you pay a small annual fee as "insurance" against being liable for needing to be rescued if you're negligent and need it. Capacity is expensive and use of these types of services is simply not common enough to benefit from economies of scale. You can't make your costs back that way without charging out the ass when it's needed.
I can't imagine that Apple pays $10k per-incident to allow their phones to connect to a third party's satellite network. As you point out, rescue services are a different story, but that's independent of whether you contact them via satellite or standard cellular.
They're probably not paying per incident, because that model doesn't work. They're paying per authorized device.
A dedicated satellite device like inReach is $144/year for unlimited SOS and 10 standard text messages
I think you’re overestimating the cost of data
Less than "unlimited" isn't meaningfully cheaper to provide. It's $144/year and not thousands per use exactly and exclusively because you can't buy it when you need it.
If you could buy it on demand, 99.999% of revenue disappears because there's no reason to pay for a subscription, and you have to massively raise the price per use for the service to break even.
I can just tell you we’re paying them ~30% of the consumer price per device in a B2B deal, and I suspect Apple can demand a significantly lower rate when almost none of their devices will ever connect
It doesn't matter that very few devices connect. That's the only reason they have to volume to be affordable at all.
If you took the total cost of having satellite coverage available and divided by the amount of satellite assisted rescues needed per year, the amount that a satellite company would need to charge just to break even would absolutely be thousands. Satellites are expensive. Rescues are rare.
The only reason it's able to be something regular people can pay is because there are hundreds or thousands of people who don't ever use it paying into the pot. Without those people, the economics don't work. "Unlimited SOS" isn't any impact to the network at all, because frivolous use gets punished by other people.
Apple being able to get you literally any discount at all is already a value add. (And they've completely footed the bill so far).
Yep. I agree. And most people have a card attached to their Apple ID so that may work.