[gonehome]

I’m going to say I called this one at least 8 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23419270

Loon is not competitive in a world with Starlink (even without Starlink it seems).

The business didn’t make strategic sense.

I still really liked their original goal of loon for all and the first video they made for it: https://youtu.be/m96tYpEk1Ao

It’s a little sad they had to downsize and give up. I guess Licklider was right to title the original internet paper an “intergalactic computer network”.

Musk started with interplanetary goals and he’ll at least end up with one that covers the earth.

Loon for all started too small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_Computer_Network

—-

Related:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23419880

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25601473

[jessriedel]

Loon can (could) handle normal LTE mobile phones. Starlink requires a phased array antenna the size of a pizza box which, to my understanding, cannot be fully miniaturized. That's not to say they aren't somewhat competing against each other, but Starlink doesn't strictly dominate as you imply.

[gonehome]

I honestly think SpaceX could give those away in developing areas if they had to.

But yes, you’re right that being able to use LTE and existing phone radios was a point in loon’s favor.

[rrmoelker]

Let's hope so. Though the price might be a hurdle.

The price per base station is quite high right now. Estimates range from $500 - $2500 (based on teardown)[1].

1 https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/kwkep4/tsp_181_star...

[jessriedel]

Ok, but just to be clear, I wasn't trying to make a statement about cost; that can always be folded into the monthly payments or, as you say, philanthropically donated.

[scotcha1]

Wouldn't this be considered 'strategic' to Google b/c it had the potential to provide additional eyeballs & ad revenue to users outside of their normal markets (US/EU)?

[toast0]

Eyeballs without access to terrestrial networking probably don't make a lot of ad revenue.

But, even if so, look at Google Fiber. Google benefits from networking build out, regardless of if they're providing the network; it's just as good for them if someone else builds the network. If starlink can fill the niche that Loon filled, that works just as well for Google, on someone else's capex/opex.

Or if the freespace optics they worked on for Loon can reduce backhaul costs for traditional cell towers, that might help get more deployed in areas that don't have connectivity; which again works well for Google.

[asutekku]

Users who don’t spend are almost worthless to the advertisers. So google most likely will not receive any meaningful amount of money from countries with data coverage but without the customer base willing to pay for products advertised.

[gonehome]

The general idea of a global telecom is a good one.

The strategic failure was not recognizing that starlink’s approach to the problem made way more sense.

They didn’t see that as the existential threat it was.

Instead they downsized their implementation to running the network over poor countries and hand waved a bit about being able to provide connectivity in congested areas.

Loon has no viable future in a world with starlink.

[Dylan16807]

> Loon has no viable future in a world with starlink.

That's a real shame if true, because they solve different problems. Loon is like a super high range cell tower and could fill in a lot of gaps.

[wcoenen]

I wouldn't call this a strategic failure. Google is a big SpaceX investor.

[gonehome]

Well a nine year investment in a company to end in failure isn’t what I’d call a strategic success.

[wcoenen]

A single investment is not strategy though.

Think of the investments in Loon, Taara, SpaceX and Google Fiber as part of a larger strategy to bring internet access with decent bandwidth to a larger number of humans. Some investments will not pan out, others will bear fruit.

[gonehome]

I think we’re talking about different things.

Does this make sense for alphabet? I agree that it does as one of their many bets.

Does it make sense for Loon which spun off as its own company under alphabet with its own leadership and its own stock? That’s the strategic failure I’m talking about, Loon’s not alphabet’s.

[ncallaway]

I agree with wcoenen.

They invested in multiple potential paths to a global internet. It's not surprising that they'd drop the investments that aren't as promising as the investments that are showing significant promise.

It's like saying I applied to multiple colleges, and because I only accepted one application, that the other applications were a failure. But, no, it could just mean that I preferred to go to the college that I accepted, but the others were a hedge against that path not working out.