The quick maths indicates that to achieve this, they’d have to launch 22.5 satellites per week every week for the next 18 months until that deadline. SpaceX seems to be launching at nearly twice that rate, having launched [1565 satellites](https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/10/30/live-coverage-spacex-t....) in the first 10 months of this year.
> I am sure it's doable if all the space providers work together and there aren't any showstoppers.
Are you living in a different world that me?
NO company or Government on Earth outside SpaceX has the capability to launch more than about 15 orbital rockets per year. Most are in the 5-10 per year range.
That's why I said "if all the space providers work together". That obviously includes SpaceX - they would be doing the heavy lifting here (mind pun intended).
> NO company or Government on Earth
Not that it's a possibility for Kuiper, but China had 67 launches in 2023.
A phone is just a computer. Why should they not be allowed to sell a computer that is locked down? There are lots of other computers for sale, some of which are locked down some of which are not. There’s nothing inherently or obviously anti-competitive about selling a computer that has lots of guardrails, and, in fact, that’s how they have distinguished their product from others.
Apple (or anyone else) should not be allowed to violate / subsume consumer rights for its own business interests. Consumers should have access to the system literature of a device and be able to unlock the bootloaders and install any other OSes on it.
Locking down a system is also the way to prevent people from installing rootkits, fraudulent banking apps, bypassing the CSAM filter or defeating DRM.
I think it's delusional to expect governments to blanket ban locking down computers. Most governments would likely try to gain that kind of power themselves.
Counterpoint: Users should have the right to the same level of control over code execution as the manufacturer after the sale. Does Apple have the technical ability to control all iDevices? Yes. They have the private keys used to sign the OS and firmware for all their parts. Therefore users should have that same degree of control over everything, including TZ/Secure Enclave.
This shouldn't just apply to Apple or even phones in general. It has to be a universal regulation for all devices sold on the market for any purpose. If it runs code, it should be subject to that rule.
Is Hyper next? Makes me a bit worried about Pydantic too, and a several other open source dev tools (like ruff, and all HTTP GUI clients) that have taken VC money.
Do you not consider the software part of the product? By any reasonable measure, the software is the product, and the hardware enables that product to operate.
> Do you not consider the software part of the product?
No.
> By any reasonable measure, the software is the product, and the hardware enables that product to operate.
That's what they want people to believe. It's actually just a general purpose computer. They put "IP" on it and suddenly they own it forever and control everything people do and if you resist it's felony contempt of business model.
