Starlink has stated publicly that it is LTE (4G) only, not NR/5G, and will work with all existing LTE handsets, so it's not anything special.
Time will tell, but I'm not so sure. Starlnk D2D is of course going to require a device OS update, but I'd also bet its going to have a dedicated "satellite mode", and I'd also bet that the production service its going to require 5G enabled devices. (As with every new technology, it's pretty hard to actually justify significant backward compatibility.)
I have no idea what Apple is using, but it is hardware dependant, so perhaps a specific antenna, or even directional phased array antenna array is built into the iPhone 14/15 and associated modem.
Apple is using Globalstar's satellite network and corollary user frequencies which are no secret: L-band and S-band. (FWIW Iridium is right next to Globlastar in L-band). There's no evidence of special antennas based on teardowns, and that checks out logically anyway--mobile phones all have a set of pretty wideband antennas that already work with lower frequencies (mobile down to hundreds of MHz) and higher frequencies (wifi, bluetooth, etc.). It's possible Apple tuned amplifiers and such for the specific frequencies they're using here, but that would just be an efficiency thing, not some material architecture change.
It's really a very efficient present day solution to the problem. No crazy upgrades to the phone, operates on approved space mobile spectrum, Apple-ized protocol that's way more efficient than terrestrial protocols (they say something like 1/3 the bits).
SX's abstract "its just a cell tower in the sky" using authorized terrestrial mobile frequencies from space is aspirationally elegant, but its going to require a lot of head-banging to bring to bear and it is most certainly going to fall short of corollary expectations for many. It will be slow to roll out and not at all frictionless to use.
It's good to have some competition though. In Canada, Rogers is teaming up with Lynk as well as Starlink (and have tested with Lynk already), meanwhile in the USA AT&T has bet on AST SpaceMobile - as may Telstra according to a rumour. I don't think AST has a satellite up there yet, but they have funding. Optus has already signed with Starlink, which might just make me move from Telstra after 20 years when it goes live. It's supposed to go beta late this year in US, and Optus have also said late 2024 on their website, but so far Starlink only have about 30-odd satellites launched.
FWIW, I don't see AST (or any others beyond SX) as being long term viable. The financial commitment to those entities from various global MNOs is a fraction of what's needed to actually build out infrastructure. ATT giving AST some token love, for instance, is really just ATT hedging their bets that
somebody is going to emerge the winner, and they might as well get some PR in the meantime (see: the Ben Stiller commercial). Hell, ATT is probably spinning the investment as a development write-off too...
(Also FWIW, AST does have a small demo sat on orbit).
So it's hard to see where Apple fits in
I think the thought experiment is valuable in the other direction as well. Where does SX D2D actually fit in? For D2D, SX is internally footing the infrastructure bill which is of course the same as they did with Starlink. The difference is that with Starlink there was a known customer/revenue base. Starlink was always going to be fundamentally successful, because the business model was already proven successful. All Starlink had to do was offer better service at similar or lower prices and then wait for their investment to come good. (SX is looking to grow into the unknown--beyond that expected success--but that's another conversation...)
For D2D there's no proven business model; there's no obvious future where the end users and the MNOs shell out enough money so the MNOs and SX are financially satisfied year over year. (The only business models we have have are all less than succesful--Iridium, Globalstar, Terrestar, ICO...). Not to mention that uncertainly is even before one factors in the "users are getting satellite connectivity already with their iPhones" aspect. What Apple's service really means to SX is that SX D2D revenue is going to come from 1) non-iphone users and 2) [all] mobile users willing to pay for a premium experience.
1) is pretty much SX's whole bet here. They successfully killed snapdragon, and SX is hoping that phone makers don't get [back] into a
keeping up with the Joneses arms race [with Apple] like we see every year with camera resolutions and display sizes and such. SX is hoping those phone manufacturers make it a MNO problem to solve, and then are hoping that there are enough MNOs around the world to pay SX enough scrilla between a) whatever incremental upcharge those MNO's can broad brush on their subscription packages and b) whatever recurring monies those MNOs are willing to eat as a function of their own The Joneses. (If TM goes live, for instance, of course Verizon is going to pay up to also go live regardless if it's coming out of their pocket or their customer's pockets). This is all a tough spot for the Samsungs, etc, of the world, because if SX D2D doesn't come good, they're all way behind Apple...but...Not SX's problem...
For 2), D2D premium service is going to be largely a marketing exercise, similar to how auto manufacturers attract customers with their high line products but their quarterlies are mostly a function of downmarket quantities. (SX D2D will NOT be the inverse of that, like we see in the airline industry, where significant revenue and margin comes from premium products). Of course there will be a small number of folks that will pay for (and love) that premium service, but for SX it will be analogous to what the X and S bring to Tesla. There simply aren't enough people out there that are willing to pay for what will mostly be a very infrequent use case for premium service to be a material revenue generator.
Another interesting twist here is that D2D demand is necessarily stunted by virtue of the fact that the MNO's are going to get very useful data on where their user base is off grid and what level of service they're using. It will be a pretty rudimentary cost benefit analysis whether or not to drop a tower in that place that's getting a lot of satellite traffic, and that new tower incrementally reduces overall demand for the satellite service in the first place.
Apple OTOH doesn't need to 'follow the money' the way SX + MNOs must do for SX D2D. Apple really is just doing
business as usual. As a matter of time moving on Apple (like everyone) keeps improving the technology within their products. They're not looking to explicitly recover cost of the satellite services from the user just as they're not recovering the cost of that three-axis camera or whatever else gets added to the iphone year over year. Hero iPhones are still $1000 as they have been forever, and Dear Tim letters make for excellent PR.
After all that, its worth noting that, much like Teslas and 3rd party charging infrastructure, Apple's in a position to win here regardless the future. If SX D2D falters, Apple is the clear leader in the D2D space and iPhone users win. If SX D2D takes off with MNOs and obsoletes Apple's service...iPhone users win.
