True, but note the GPS data transmission rate is only 50 bps; yes, just 50 bits per second. The signal is so week and so slow that after headers and error correction you get less than 4 bytes of data per second.
When comparing satellite reception it's not so much if you can receive data or not, but at what bandwidth. By contrast, data rates for Starlink are roughly 50 to 100 megabits per second; a million times greater than GPS.
So that's why the Starlink dish and electronics are orders of magnitude larger than a phone. Or to put it another way, that's why mobile phones can handle GPS data but not Starlink data.
> Apple has created a mechanism that will ask users to be outdoors and walk in a certain direction to help the iPhone connect to a satellite. Linking to a network also won’t always be instantaneous, with testing of the feature indicating that it could sometimes take up to one minute to work.
While that's in the style of a pull-quote, it is not a pull-quote. It's a quote from the Bloomberg article that the author of this article is generally disputing.
Back in the days there were stories about Bloomberg writers getting paid more if their stories move the markets [1]. According to the linked article this one really did the job, "Globalstar, a satellite services business, had their shares soar 90% from mid-August lows"
When comparing satellite reception it's not so much if you can receive data or not, but at what bandwidth. By contrast, data rates for Starlink are roughly 50 to 100 megabits per second; a million times greater than GPS.
So that's why the Starlink dish and electronics are orders of magnitude larger than a phone. Or to put it another way, that's why mobile phones can handle GPS data but not Starlink data.