SpaceX is reportedly showing investors a phone prototype, months after Musk said "we are not developing a phone"

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,012   +59
Staff
Rumor mill: SpaceX has begun showing investors a prototype of a handset-style device, giving them an early look at how the company envisions people using its AI tools. The prototype, which resembles a slim smartphone and is thinner than an iPhone, is designed to run a proprietary OS and integrate AI technology from xAI, Elon Musk's AI company.

The device is still in the early stages of development. SpaceX has told some investors that the design could change and that it is not yet clear whether the product will ultimately come to market. Representatives for SpaceX and Qualcomm did not respond to requests for comment.

Even so, the project shows how Musk is trying to control both the hardware and software behind his AI services. Right now, xAI's chatbot is largely accessed through iOS and Android devices, which means distribution depends on platforms Musk does not control. Building a dedicated device could give SpaceX a more direct path to users.

Some investors in SpaceX and Tesla have been told that Musk has long been interested in creating a consumer device that ties together his various companies. The aim is a single platform that handles AI tools, communication, and other services, so Musk relies less on other companies' systems.

That thinking overlaps with Musk's push for an "everything app," a concept he has promoted since acquiring Twitter, now X, in 2022. According to people familiar with the prototype, the device reflects that same approach. The goal would be to combine multiple functions – such as messaging, payments, and services – into one unified system.

This model has already taken hold in parts of Asia. Apps like WeChat and Alipay allow users to handle a wide range of tasks without switching between different platforms. More recently, companies have started layering AI into these systems, using them to manage tasks and act as a central interface.

SpaceX's approach appears to combine that software model with dedicated hardware. The company already operates the Starlink satellite network, which provides internet access and limited cellular service in partnership with carriers such as T-Mobile. A device built around that network could eventually connect users directly to SpaceX's infrastructure.

Musk has sent mixed signals about entering the phone business. In February, he pushed back on reports that SpaceX was developing a phone, writing on X: "We are not developing a phone." He has also expressed reluctance about the idea more broadly. "The idea of making a phone makes me want to die," Musk said last October. "But if we have to make a phone, we will."

Breaking into hardware would not be easy. The smartphone market is dominated by a few major players, and new entrants face challenges around manufacturing, software ecosystems, and developer support.

Other companies are moving in a similar direction. OpenAI is working on its own AI-focused devices, while ByteDance has released a smartphone built around its Doubao AI model.

For now, SpaceX's device remains a concept. But it shows how competition in AI is starting to extend beyond software into the hardware people use every day – and how companies are looking for ways to control both.

Permalink to story:

 
A quick search reveals that, as of Jul 4, 2026, Qualcomm has a market cap just shy of $190 Billion. Elon, or, xAi, could easily (or at least, more easily than a direct competitor) just buy them.
 
If sticking with the x naming I guess it'd be the xPhone. At least that naming would be entertaining considering iPhones...

Personally I wouldn't want a single company in control of one of the largest social media platforms have an everything app including AI that people ask everything and the hardware to boot. How much of control would you like to fork over to a single entity - All of it?
 
Some important context is being missed here. SpaceX wants to become its own International phone carrier through the satellite network, and they want to use new spectrum for that. That means developing communication hardware for phones, and several phone manufacturers would need to support that. The phones should also fall back on cell towers in highly urbanized areas.

Anyways, building a phone CARRIER better explains Qualcomm’s involvement. SpaceX recently bought EchoStar spectrum for this purpose and has trademarked Starlink Mobile: https://marketwise.com/investing/starlink-mobile-elon-musk-spacex/
 
Personally I wouldn't want a single company in control of one of the largest social media platforms have an everything app including AI that people ask everything and the hardware to boot. How much of control would you like to fork over to a single entity - All of it?
Why not?
It would be concerning if that control were somehow (close to)exclusive. However, there are many social media platforms, many mobile operators ... but not many mobile OSs / appStores. The latter is the thing to be concerned about. Both Google and Apple often engage in censorship and block apps from their devices / appStores. Both are still heavily infested with wokism - no matter that levels today are far below peak id1ocy. Having a third alternative is vital.
 
Why not?
It would be concerning if that control were somehow (close to)exclusive. However, there are many social media platforms, many mobile operators ... but not many mobile OSs / appStores. The latter is the thing to be concerned about. Both Google and Apple often engage in censorship and block apps from their devices / appStores. Both are still heavily infested with wokism - no matter that levels today are far below peak id1ocy. Having a third alternative is vital.
How often has a massively integrated ecosystem worked out in favor of customers?

Closest current comparison I can think of is Apple which when left to do things as they wish results in.
* No alternative browsers (just wrappers around Safari)
* No alternative email clients (just wrappers around their own)
* No alternative payment options (because they want their 30%)
* No alternative App Stores/source of software (because it might affect their bottom line - so you're stuck with whatever they approve)
* Private APIs that only their own devices have access to (Airpods/Apple watch)

There's a reason why I don't own an iPhone - I like freedom of choice and by being dependent on / handing control over to a single company you don't get that.
 
When the disruption is complete, they always flounder to sustain. Keep crunching those social media analytics to find out what you'll be selling next year.
 
How often has a massively integrated ecosystem worked out in favor of customers?

Closest current comparison I can think of is Apple which when left to do things as they wish results in.
* No alternative browsers (just wrappers around Safari)
* No alternative email clients (just wrappers around their own)
* No alternative payment options (because they want their 30%)
* No alternative App Stores/source of software (because it might affect their bottom line - so you're stuck with whatever they approve)
* Private APIs that only their own devices have access to (Airpods/Apple watch)

There's a reason why I don't own an iPhone - I like freedom of choice and by being dependent on / handing control over to a single company you don't get that.
I was like that, I disliked Apple for their closed ecosystem.
Now I see it as an advantage.
Any interoperability increases the attack surface of the device and makes it more vulnerable. I don't want my iPhone to have alternative whatever. I don't want it to be opened to third party browsers, email clients, payment options, app stores or anything, because this drastically reduces the level of security.

For me, security comes first. Freedom of choice is a very distant second. I don't mind iPhones being opened, if I can opt-out of it and keep it closed for myself. Making iPhones opened by default is a security nightmare.
 
I was like that, I disliked Apple for their closed ecosystem.
Now I see it as an advantage.
Any interoperability increases the attack surface of the device and makes it more vulnerable. I don't want my iPhone to have alternative whatever. I don't want it to be opened to third party browsers, email clients, payment options, app stores or anything, because this drastically reduces the level of security.

For me, security comes first. Freedom of choice is a very distant second. I don't mind iPhones being opened, if I can opt-out of it and keep it closed for myself. Making iPhones opened by default is a security nightmare.
You wouldn't be any less safe with 'real' Thunderbird and Firefox. If anything with the right extensions you might actually be safer.
Alternative payment options don't need to be any less safe, there isn't many providers in the world - just need a whitelist.
Alternative software sources, yeah... but disallowing it by default and having a toggle (with warnings) and you have the best of both worlds.

If your API is unsecure (be it private or not) you did it wrong.

Security is just an easy excuse for companies (Apple) to get away with pulling security unfriendly moves a lot of the time. If you want to get away with something it's always "to protect the children" or "to increase security" (they seem to have dropped the 'to combat terrorism' act).
 
You wouldn't be any less safe with 'real' Thunderbird and Firefox. If anything with the right extensions you might actually be safer.
Alternative payment options don't need to be any less safe, there isn't many providers in the world - just need a whitelist.
Alternative software sources, yeah... but disallowing it by default and having a toggle (with warnings) and you have the best of both worlds.

If your API is unsecure (be it private or not) you did it wrong.

Security is just an easy excuse for companies (Apple) to get away with pulling security unfriendly moves a lot of the time. If you want to get away with something it's always "to protect the children" or "to increase security" (they seem to have dropped the 'to combat terrorism' act).
How do you know I wouldn't be less safe with extra apps available on my device? I surely can't be more safe, right?
Any additional app increases the attack surface.
I love Firefox, I've never used another browser on Windows, but I don't want my phone to be natively opened to third party browsers, or, for that matter, to third party anything.
 
Personally I wouldn't want a single company in control of one of the largest social media platforms have an everything app including AI that people ask everything and the hardware to boot.
You mean like Google controls the hardware (Pixel phones and Chromebook), the browser (Chrome, along with the Chromium engine in most other browsers), apps like Google Maps, Google Docs and Google Chat, platforms like Youtube -- and the search engine and AI behind it all?
 
Why not?
It would be concerning if that control were somehow (close to)exclusive. However, there are many social media platforms, many mobile operators ... but not many mobile OSs / appStores. The latter is the thing to be concerned about. Both Google and Apple often engage in censorship and block apps from their devices / appStores. Both are still heavily infested with wokism - no matter that levels today are far below peak id1ocy. Having a third alternative is vital.
As if any one ism, was the best way for everyone to live. What of the censorship in this administration? Who has "woke" hurt, besides the feelings of people with thin skin who want everyone to live like they do?
 
How do you know I wouldn't be less safe with extra apps available on my device? I surely can't be more safe, right?
Unless someone forces you to install those apps - no harm done.
If you don't want third party apps - stick to a dumb phone the app store is full of them after all.
Any additional app increases the attack surface.
If you could use 'real' Firefox you'd be a minority and a less interesting target. Assuming Firefox is as safe as Safari you'd then be a less likely target.
Running a bunch of adblocking/scriptblocking etc extensions that allow deeper / more fine grained control than Safari does would also make you safer.

Theoreticals btw, even in the EU where third party browser engines are allowed on iOS - Mozilla hasn't bothered. I guess it came so late that by now Firefox's market share has shrunk so much they no longer have the resources to create a proper iOS version

You mean like Google controls the hardware (Pixel phones and Chromebook), the browser (Chrome, along with the Chromium engine in most other browsers), apps like Google Maps, Google Docs and Google Chat, platforms like Youtube -- and the search engine and AI behind it all?
Is there any Chromebook from Google themselves? Thought they were all by other OEMs (The whole concept of such a limited device never had my interest so not really something I keep myself informed about).
But yeah I'm not comfortable with the worlds biggest advertising company also having the worlds most popular browser and running several of the worlds most popular websites, thus I use Firefox on my Android phone*.
imo the abuse of their position is already visible with the adblock restricting manifestv3 changes and their sites using certain techniques that seem explicitly aimed at giving their own browser a leg up.

*At the moment I am no longer required to use certain apps restricting me to Android so my next phone might be running Sailfish OS if prices aren't too crazy.
 
As if any one ism, was the best way for everyone to live. What of the censorship in this administration?
You mean the FBI paying social media firms to censor true but politically damaging posts? Coercing them into banning the accounts of those with whom they disagreed? That was the last administration? Or perhaps you meant the government spying on political opponents, along with 100+ reporters -- and sometimes the friends and parents of those reporters -- as happened during the Obama Administration?

Who has "woke" hurt
Ask all the young women and girls who had their hopes and dreams of shattered by a male posing as female to steal trophies and awards? Or the far larger number who were sexually harassed and sometimes assaulted and raped by men improperly allowed into their showers, restrooms, and locker rooms.
 
I’ve said this a million times, the first company to turn a phone into a full fledged computer will have my full paycheck. The Apple Neo proves that a mobile processor is capable of running a desktop OS, now it just needs to be a phone in my pocket that I connect to a monitor, and it does everything the desktop OS does. If Elon Musk does it first, he has my money. It’s all possible now, we just need the CEO clowns to make it happen.
 
You mean the FBI paying social media firms to censor true but politically damaging posts? Coercing them into banning the accounts of those with whom they disagreed? That was the last administration? Or perhaps you meant the government spying on political opponents, along with 100+ reporters -- and sometimes the friends and parents of those reporters -- as happened during the Obama Administration?


Ask all the young women and girls who had their hopes and dreams of shattered by a male posing as female to steal trophies and awards? Or the far larger number who were sexually harassed and sometimes assaulted and raped by men improperly allowed into their showers, restrooms, and locker rooms.
as you obviously know all about trans people can you enlighten us all as to precisely how many young girls have had their winner trophies & awards stolen? precisely how many women have been sexually harassed, assaulted & raped? can you supply these precise numbers or will your ridiculous assertions disappear like your thought bubble regarding antifa masks?
 
Back