I don't think this is very likely, but I would love to see the MacBooks support Satellite Connectivity. It is a portable device, and if it's the only one on hand, Satellite Connectivity could prove to be useful.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Next-generation MacBooks should support Satellite Connectivity
- Thread starter TheAppleFan2004
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It would be expensive and hard to do on a macbook. Get yourself a real portable satellite internet setup. It's going to cost though! Heck, the Macbook has enough trouble with bluetooth and wifi that there's no way you could to it internal...
They gotta do cellular first man.... I think a MBP with a 5G modem supporting esims would be legitimate power move - but Satellite comms? I only had that on a military toolkit for a very specialized need. No way the user base is there for Apple.
I can't imagine a regular user would really need this, unless you live in the middle nowhere. WHich is what StarLink is helping to provide for cell phones. Otherwise satellite connectivity isn't that more for commercial and military use.
Considering the size of satellite phones compared to most cellular phones, it would be worse than trying to cram an Mx Ultra SoC into a laptop in terms of how thick and heavy such a laptop would be. Also, with hotspot capabilities on the majority of cellular phones and cellular plans, it would be largely redundant.
Let's try to convince Apple to add a terrestrial modem first. Qualcomm has the goods, even a hybrid cellular + satellite modem, but Apple says no.
This one’s always seemed like something they’ll only do if they make the modem themselves. I can’t imagine they’re interested in paying a similar % of each Mac that they do for phones due to having modems in.
A satellite modem+antenna with a usable internet connection via satellite would not fit into the chassis. There is a reason why the iPhone's Emergency SOS via Satellite can only transmit text (no images) and no special characters. The bandwidth there is very limited. Compare that with a much larger Starlink setup.
Honestly, if anything they should give us the option to configure MBPs with a 5G modem, that could come in handy for some select groups of people. But anybody who needs satellite connectivity is going to have to resort to third party, external solutions.
Honestly, if anything they should give us the option to configure MBPs with a 5G modem, that could come in handy for some select groups of people. But anybody who needs satellite connectivity is going to have to resort to third party, external solutions.
Ye it might be usful but how much would you pay for it? And also, the data rate would be almost othing unless you had and antenna the size of a Starlink terminal that was outdoors with a clear view of the sky.
I've used low-end sat links and they are good only for text messages. I can send a short text and then I wait about 30 minutes for it to go out. Some time later, an hour, maybe I get a reply. But even this costs $30 per month.
I'll do you one better:
Name 1 situation where someone got lost in the wilderness and had a laptop but not a cell phone and would have benefited from having the laptop have satellite connectivity *and* would have easily been able to use the laptop. (you can use a phone one handed while hanging upside down if you fall into a ravine. Not true of a laptop)
Most people don't wait until they are lost or injured in the woods to use a sat phone. The normal use case is that they plan to go someplace that lacks cell coverage and want to continue communicating as they normally do.
I have been out of cell range intentionally many times, either a sailboat (the horizon is only about 12 miles away) and also backpacking in the Sierras, many times there is no coverage even at the trailhead. I actually like being away from cell coverage but I've been with others who bring the satellite gear. We have never had an emergency but they just send texts and photos
Backpacking with a notebook would be nuts because of the weight of the computer and extra battery but it would work well on a sailboat. if you are gone for a week or so you could still send emails and importantly, even check the weather.
But a better why to do this is with a satilite-to-bluetooth bridge. This little device connects to a phone (or maybe a computer) via BT and then to the satilite network. You pay $300 or $400 for the device and then maybe $30 per month for a very-low-speed link.
The other solution that would work well on a sailboat is Starlink. You pay $500 for the device and then about $100 a month for a multi-megabit connection.
The conventional connection for boats in HF radio. It has nearly worldwide coverage and does not need a satellite but it requires conciderable skill to use.
So points are (1) these are typically NOT use fr emergencies, just normal stuff. and (2) You can buy it already.
I have been out of cell range intentionally many times, either a sailboat (the horizon is only about 12 miles away) and also backpacking in the Sierras, many times there is no coverage even at the trailhead. I actually like being away from cell coverage but I've been with others who bring the satellite gear. We have never had an emergency but they just send texts and photos
Backpacking with a notebook would be nuts because of the weight of the computer and extra battery but it would work well on a sailboat. if you are gone for a week or so you could still send emails and importantly, even check the weather.
But a better why to do this is with a satilite-to-bluetooth bridge. This little device connects to a phone (or maybe a computer) via BT and then to the satilite network. You pay $300 or $400 for the device and then maybe $30 per month for a very-low-speed link.
The other solution that would work well on a sailboat is Starlink. You pay $500 for the device and then about $100 a month for a multi-megabit connection.
The conventional connection for boats in HF radio. It has nearly worldwide coverage and does not need a satellite but it requires conciderable skill to use.
So points are (1) these are typically NOT use fr emergencies, just normal stuff. and (2) You can buy it already.
Do people still care about modems in a laptop? Seems like a 2008 problem. Today, every cell phone can act as a hotspot.
Sure, you can have niche use cases like weird business travel where you absolutely can't use the phone as a hotspot.
Also, 5G modems have royalties, no? That means Apple would probably have to pay Qualcomm/someone else a portion of the MBP revenue. Even if Apple makes their own modems, there might still be some licensing.
Apple did buy Intel's cellular modem business a few years ago. Whether they have actually done anything with it is another question entirely...
Maybe there’s still some small royalties to be paid even with the Intel business.
Who knows.
But the demand for modems in laptops have cratered. Not even businesses care anymore.
I remember back in early 2010s, having a modem in a laptop was worth it for many business users. I just can’t imagine needing it now. Heck, chances are, the modem in your phone is better than modems in laptops because phones have the latest and greatest.
Most phone plans even have dedicated hotspot data.