Danke für den Beitrag und den Link.
Der dahinter liegende Beitrag bestätigt mich in meiner Einschätzung der Apple"lösung" als ziemlich offensichtlichem Marketing-Gag.
Zitat aus der Conclusion des Artikels.
...
In our tests, iPhone messages on Globalstar were less reliable than those sent through dedicated Iridium-based devices.
The Globalstar network provides regional coverage, operating primarily in areas between 70° N and 70° S latitudes (i.e., excluding polar regions). Satellites in the Globalstar network do not have inter-satellite links. Therefore, messages are relayed only when a satellite is in direct line of sight with a ground station. In addition, gaps in coverage may occur in remote areas far from ground stations or under obstructions (e.g., dense forests). When using satellite messaging devices on the Globalstar network in mountainous regions, we’ve commonly experienced message delays of several minutes, with a much higher incidence of delivery failures than Iridium devices. In particular, the small (low-power) antenna used in iPhones requires a directional orientation of the phone towards the satellite to maximize data throughput speeds. The iPhone software guides you to turn the phone during this process. Sometimes, as one satellite leaves the sky view and another one enters, this directional change could be dramatic. The process is inconvenient at best, and results in frequent message send failures if you ignore it.
The Iridium network provides global coverage (including the poles), utilizing a low-earth orbit constellation of satellites arranged in overlapping paths. Satellites are cross-linked, allowing for more reliable and faster communication in more remote or obstructed areas (e.g., canyons, forests). When compared side-by-side with Globalstar devices (we used Spot X and Apple iPhone in our tests), Iridium devices (Garmin inReach and Zoleo) were consistently faster and more reliable.
, 
