Let them eat starlink!
Let them eat starlink!
252 comments
-
Starlink was never a viable business prospect. It never will be. Anybody who signed up to Starlink was just waiting for this to happen without knowing it.
-
It is a viable business product, latest estimates are Starlink will bring in a revenue of 12 billion in 2025 with about 2 billion being profit. Of course it's not a public company so we don't get official numbers, but you're flat out wrong.
-
It is absolutely not a viable business product. All those numbers don't hold up to even a giggle test when you count the costs of launches alone, not to mention ground operations, etc. Currently Starlink is alive only because of subsidies on these items. When (not if) the subsidies end, Starlink will return to losing hundreds of dollars on every terminal sold.
The fact that prices are jumping up now already kind of hints that it's entering a sales death spiral. Costs go up. Customers go down. Income goes down. Costs go up. Etc. etc. etc.
Starlink is a failure as a business, and as is usual for a Kaptain Ketamine company the "numbers" they cite range misdirection to flat-out fiction.
-
You keep showing how you don't know anything about this, there are no subsidies on these items. Starlink is owned by SpaceX, so it is essentially free to launch besides the fuel it costs to launch. They are going to spend the money on operations, no matter what. If you want to call that a subsidy fine, but it's a subsidy that's never going away.
Secondly, prices have not gone up for the most popular plan that normal folks have. Prices were only raised for customers that do not have a fixed location, such as people who use their dish on a boat or RV.
Third, It's funny how confident you are when the fact is that this is such a good business model that other companies are desperately trying to fill the space as competitors.
Amazon's Kupier just starter launching their network, and have significantly greater launch costs than starlink because they do not own the launch vehicles, still Kupier will print money for Amazon in 10 years. You are talking out of your ass.
I see you responding to many of my comments, it shows you are unreasonably upset about something that shouldn't upset you. Yes Elon musk is a horrible person that will hopefully die soon, doesn't change the fact SpaceX and Starlink are both incredibly successful and will continue to be in the future.
Also last I read the cost to manufacture a terminal was now lower than the cost they sell them at, and that will continue to drop as production scales up (because there is significant demand despite what you may believe)
-
You've got your head so firmly placed up your ass you've adapted to breathing methane directly.
-
-
-
When it's all finished, and operating, that's when the next Democratic government should take it from him. One person, especially one demonstrated to be mentally unstable, should not control the world's Internet.
-
-
well it might’ve worked if he didn’t turn out to be a fascist… but since most people don’t want to support that, kinda fucks up the business model.
perpetually burning up satellites in the atmosphere is a pretty shitty business though.
-
perpetually burning up satellites in the atmosphere is a pretty shitty business though.
Exactly. The business isn't remotely sustainable. All that money being invested into new satellites will, by next year, need to be invested constantly to keep the network at the same size.
Starlink needs run as fast as it can, just to stay in the same place, and the investment money is finite when people see it's not going to grow.
-
-
What was the life expectancy of each satellite? I think I read something like 5 to 7 years. If we were talking about dozens of satellites I would say no problem, but thousands?
-
On https://satellitemap.space/ you can see the numbers pretty accurately under "status over time". The current launch cadence is steady since mid 2022, and the burn rate is climbing to match. It seems to have a 5 year delay, but it's possible the new satellites will last a little longer.
Which means that by mid 2027 earliest and mid 2029, the current "investment" in "growth" will have become the regular maintenance spending. And up to that point, maintenance costs will continue to climb to consume the entire investment budget.
-
-
Starlink is already making more money than it costs to expand and operate, you are wrong. This is sustainable (financially) and counter to your beliefs over the next 10 years I'd wager the starlink network will balloon to many times its current size, 20,000 plus satellites in orbit.
SpaceX is the most successful company/entity in history that does space launch, it doesn't cost them a whole lot of money to launch new batches of Satellites and that cost will continue to decrease as the Falcon 9 program continues to improve and as starship becomes operational over the next few years.
-
What do penny loafers taste like when you lick them?
Or are you more in favour of licking jackboots?
-
With how many government handouts though?
-
Starlink is already making more money than it costs to expand and operate, you are wrong.
Honestly, there are no realistic, reliable figures either way. There are plenty of guesstimates, and they show a profit now, but that with a very significant investment in growth. And that investment comes in large part from external sources, which means that when the happy time ends and the satellites fail at the same rate as they're currently launches, they need to either make WAY more money, or rely on external funding.
and counter to your beliefs over the next 10 years I'd wager the starlink network will balloon to many times its current size, 20,000 plus satellites
Definitely, they're on track to stabilize at around 36.000 with the current launch cadence. That's where every new satellite is a replacement. But that doesn't count money, which is the problem, and will be more of a problem when expenses replace growth.
and that cost will continue to decrease as the Falcon 9 program continues to improve and as starship becomes operational over the next few years.
Eh, I wouldn't be too sure of that. Falcon 9 costs haven't gone down in years. Falcon Heavy is supposed to be cheaper per ton, yet somehow is almost never used for Starlink or anything else. Starship isn't even projected to be cheaper than Falcon 9 (I except in what are basically ads).
-
-
-
-