> it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover

In a nutshell: they're serving a market that has less money to spend using more expensive tech than the current industry leaders. Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't scream "massive profit".

▲ hattmall 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I think Airplanes are going to be pretty profitable. They are sort of running a market cornering operation there. But, there will be competition eventually. Starlink is way faster than the alternatives so most airlines have switched and Starlink has rapidly increased their prices for aviation. Idk if it's enough though, they are definitely running lots of promos for home customers.

▲ dotancohen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

  > I think Airplanes are going to be pretty profitable.

Anything at sea, too. Going on a cruise? The cruise ship can offer you Wifi backed by Starlink for another few bucks. Or even your cell provider could get you hooked right up to Starlink for some phones.

Container ships, military vessels, even fishing expeditions could enjoy an internet connection and cell service.

▲ jaccola 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Amazon Leo just signed delta as a customer so competition is indeed close behind.

I think SpaceX is an incredible company but at this valuation I’d expect it to have something as pervasive as the iPhone or Nvidia chips. It seems to have only small niches.

	▲	laughing_man an hour ago \| parent [-]
		But you're just looking at internet. SpaceX has the lion's share of the world's launch market, if you include Starlink. https://x.com/FutureJurvetson/status/2038811249232732275

▲ raw_anon_1111 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Delta’s ViaSat based Wireless is fine. The latency is hire. But it really isn’t a competitive disadvantage.

▲

telotortium 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If Starlink becomes common enough on flights, I absolutely believe it will be a competitive disadvantage.

▲

raw_anon_1111 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have been flying a lot post Covid between it being a hobby of ours and consulting - I’m currently Platinum Medallion on Delta.

Frequent flyers choose their airlines for a lot of reasons - which airline has the most direct flights from their city, who has the best frequent flyer program, etc. The latency of the Internet is seldom a factor or the difference between 10Mbps and 50Mbps.

Non frequent flyers just buy the cheapest flights. The major three airlines make money off of business travelers, business and first class flights and credit cards.

▲

8note 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

would you choose a flight that's $200 more expensive because it has starlink?

▲

telotortium an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If I’m flying for work and Starlink is that much better, quite possibly. My wife’s experience with other in-flight WiFi providers has been quite poor, often to the point that it barely works. Having said that, neither of us has been on a flight with Starlink yet.

▲

wnc3141 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No but the airline might choose starlink. I think a gogo business install is on the hundreds of thousands and annual costs in the tens of thousand for their Eutelesat based system.

▲

koolba 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe not $200, but $20-$50 for a cross country flight for sure.

	▲	kalleboo an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If a flight had in-flight Wi-Fi that cost $50 you'd pay for it? Most people I know balk at $10 even on an intercontinental flight
	▲	ghaff 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I wouldn’t. I have literally never bought WiFi on a flight in the course of probably hundreds of flights. Good opportunity to unplug.