5 ms·
Good for Apple for helping to save lives. As someone who's had to wait for an ambulance while someone is dying I understand how horrible that wait is and how de
by ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
Good for Apple for helping to save lives. As someone who's had to wait for an ambulance while someone is dying I understand how horrible that wait is and how desperately you want them to get to you as quickly as possible. The second part of this however is to ensure it's not open to abuse (by criminals or the government) for non emergency calls.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoI’d like to see Apple help subsidize the cost of upgrading the software required in rural emergency call centers if it’s required to interoperate with this new feature (perhaps coming out of their corporate social responsibility budget).
- Rotten194 8y agomaybe apple could actually pay taxes and those could be used for the same benefit ;)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- abritinthebay 8y agoApple does pay taxes. Want them to pay more? Vote.
- dpark 8y agoI mean, sure, if Apple wants to spend their money upgrading rural 911 call centers, good for them. But do you feel that it's reasonable to expect this, and if so, why?
- toomuchtodo 8y agoBecause without the call center support, their marketing of it as a feature in iOS 12 is a moot point. “Look at this awesome life saving feature that only works in wealthy parts of the US!”
- dpark 8y agoI don't grasp this logic. Apple builds a feature to help with 911 services so they should fund 911 services? Apple also implemented Amber Alert support. Should they fund the Amber Alert system, too? Aren't emergency services pretty clearly the government's job? You already pay a fee on your cell bill specifically to cover the cost of 911 services to your local and state governments.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoEdit: Benjammer’s response is superior to mine. Yes, large device manufacturers should help fund the infrastructure they build product support into their products for. You might disagree with my opinion, but I don’t see the opinion as being wildly out of line. If Apple doesn’t fund it, and per mobile line 911 taxes don’t cover it, everyone’s taxes have to go up to support Apples enhanced feature and the marketing goodwill they’ll receive. Does that seem fair?
- dpark 8y agoI'm just at a loss. This is literally what taxes are for. If you want to argue that Apple et al should have to pay for their use of, e.g., GPS, I could understand that. (Not agree, but understand.) GPS has enabled high-value features to be built into Apple's products. On the other hand, Amber alert and 911 service support are literally mandated by the government. Apple cannot choose to not include them. (Though in this case, they could choose to not support RapidSOS, at least until it's mandated as well.) Edit: And yes, it seems entirely fair that taxes could go up to enable additional government services.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago> This is literally what taxes are for. It is, but everyone has been avoiding taxes, so here we are with a supposedly first world country with third world infrastructure. Hence, my suggestion. You have to engineer for the world we have, not a perfect world.
- Benjammer 8y agoSurprising but not surprising that this is getting so much hate on HN... So many people acting like public 911 municipal services should be expected to "out-compete" Apple, treating this like just another biz dev case study, like "Well, then why doesn't _the useless government_ upgrade their 911 to be as good as _Apple_ then, huh??