I think the cost of maintaining Starling would be higher than the monthly income.
Well, of course you can think of it, but do you think it’s based on numbers or entirely on your perception? This time There are already about 250,000 subscribers, Which is good for 25 million cash flow per month + 125 million to one time deposit. Then it is not even available in many places. It may not have tens of thousands or hundreds of millions of customers, but there will be millions and each million customers will have more than 1 billion in revenue – for which you can create and launch a lot of products.
In addition, Musk is definitely someone with dozens (financial) experts around him, I do not know you, but dare you say you have more knowledge?
You also need to keep in mind that places without good internet are the reason for not having good internet;
Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense, does it? The reason for the lack of internet (fiber optic) is that it is not possible to lay cables, which is the whole advantage of satellite internet …
By the way, do you know how many people now want to leave the cities and how many digital nomads are in Europe alone? The only thing they don’t have is a good internet. Now Starling is available in northern Spain, there are suddenly 10 times (cheaper) distant houses in the mountains that interest me. Even if the costs go up to 150 euros a month (100 more than I pay now), this difference will be offset by my lower mortgage. Even better, if they would soon allow me to use such a system in a motor home, I would not have to have a house.
Again, everyone can have their own opinion, but I feel like yours is based on a pretty short view.
“Award-winning beer geek. Extreme coffeeaholic. Introvert. Avid travel specialist. Hipster-friendly communicator.”