• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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).