4 ms·

"The best camera is the one that's with you"

by Axsuul 4y ago

ghaff 4y ago
Yes, but the circumstances where having a satellite connection are most important as opposed to mildly convenient for the most part--like hiking in more remote areas--I'm not strolling around with just my phone. I'm already carrying other safety/etc. gear. Of course, others might care more about just not having the inconvenience of the occasional cell dead spot. To be sure, if your use case is a car breakdown at night on a country road with no cell service, you're probably better off with just using your phone.
- majormajor 4y ago
  There's probably a lot of total utility from getting something out that'll mostly work for the unprepared who go on a hike and don't realize how remote it may or may not be (or take a wrong turn, etc), even if those who plan ahead more thoroughly have better options.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I'm not sure how useful in general an unprepared person being able to call for help necessarily is. There is search and rescue (mostly volunteer) of course. But no one is going to assemble a rescue team at the drop of a hat.
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      I’d say the difference between a full scale search and rescue operation and a “we’ll get someone out to your location lickety-split” text messages is significant. I used to hear on the news about people getting lost all the time on the trails around Phoenix, in flip flops and without water, having to spend the night outside before they could find them. Often enough they would have warnings on the radio and TV about it. Hell, one of the big forest fires a couple years ago was started by a lost hiker trying to signal for help.
      - jonah 4y ago
        Absolutely true. A large search is very personnel and time intensive. Depending on the situation though, even a relatively simple rescue can take a dozen or more people and many hours.
        UncleEntity 4y ago
        If they want to be found and can text their GPS location they probably could just be given directions to the nearest road where a ranger truck can pick them up. I think most people just don’t know how to reorient themselves and as little kids are told “if you get lost just stay where you are and someone will find you”. Give them a little help and they can get themselves out of trouble. Reminds me of the time we were in Jungle School down in Panama. The first day was the land navigation course and a squad from headquarters had their one (and only) compass break. They ended up walking around the jungle for over a week before they found a road and flagged down a passing vehicle. If they had a way to communicate (or could read a frickin’ map) they’d have been back by chow time but, nope, the senior officers were like “they’ll turn up eventually” and didn’t even try to find them.
        ghaff 4y ago
        If they're up on a mountain which tends to be the situation around where I live in New England, there's likely no nearby road to walk to. And failures notwithstanding, a compass and map are a pretty high reliability way not to get totally turned around/lost especially in less challenging terrain.
        jonah 4y ago
        Depending on the situation, helping someone get back to a known trail via phone or text is absolutely a thing that is done. More often than not though, there are confounding factors like fatigue, dehydration, weather, extremely difficult terrain, etc. and it's safer to just come get them rather than risk them getting into deeper trouble.
    - jonah 4y ago
      I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. However, as a member of one of those volunteer search and rescue teams, people absolutely do get themselves into trouble and need help whether it's through being unprepared or injury or etc. If someone is able to call for help when they need it using their cell phone or one of the various satellite based systems - PLB, inReach, the new iPhone or StarLink capabilities, etc. - then we are able to go directly to them and render the necessary aid. That is a rescue. The alternative is their spouse or friend or someone noticing that they haven't returned by the expected time and they then report the person missing. Hopefully the missing person has told someone where they were going and their intended route, but in any case, this becomes a search and we first have to find the person before being able to help them and this can add hours or days to the operation. Depending on the condition of the person that at a time can greatly affect the outcome. In this regard, broader access to communication outside of cell phone coverage is a huge benefit. Now, this isn't discussing whether people are more likely to push themselves further or do things they're not capable of or adventure alone or go out insufficiently prepared if they feel they can just push a button and get rescued if anything happens. that broader question is an important one but for the individual person being able to communicate can absolutely make a difference in whether you survive or not.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Your last point is pretty much the one I was trying poorly to make. Individually, cell phones are a safety feature [1] even if they lead some people to think too much in terms of make a call and someone will zip up the mountain and help them down. [1] In fact, I'd argue that while over-reliance on electronics generally is a poor practice, a cell phone (along with external battery pack) should probably be considered essential safety equipment in most circumstances.
        jonah 4y ago
        Your point about the external battery pack is a good one. Even if you have cell coverage, your phone will do you no good if it's out of battery. "Phone about to die" is a common refrain we hear. You're likely at the edge of coverage and so your phone is using high power and constantly searching for towers and been out longer than you were expecting and now it's dark and you're using your phone as a flashlight..
- prh8 4y ago
  A lot of US national parks have cell phone dead zones. Angel's Landing is wildly popular, and dangerous, and most of it and the trail to it don't have service, or very minimal/broken service. There are PLENTY of areas people go under normal circumstances that don't have sufficient service if there's an emergency.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Angel's Landing is also incredibly crowded. Unless someone is hiking there under inappropriate conditions, no one's remotely by themselves. And that's pretty true of a lot of areas in national parks generally. There are use cases although I wonder how many of the people who wouldn't buy a separate device would pay for a hypothetical satellite subscription. But I'm sure some would.
    - Jcowell 4y ago
      In this case it would’ve be a separate satellite subscription but apart of Apple One’s plan with other incentive offerings
- muststopmyths 4y ago
  Not to mention that the battery life of an inreach or spot is orders of magnitude better.
- eastbound 4y ago
  Most of Australia is out of reach from phone. I remember driving to Broome, and the network suddenly connects 5km from the city, when you have the visual contact. With remote working, if it were possible through satellite, digital native people would populate the unoccupied land (and oceans). The definition of “remote areas” is that you don’t know how populated they would be if network were available.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >With remote working, if it were possible through satellite, It is possible with Starlink where available. You could never have worked from my brother's house with either a hot spot or 1Mbps DSL. With Starlink, while not 100% reliable, it's quite doable. However, I'm making the assumption that for the foreseeable future a sat option for phones would look more like the text messaging of the Garmin devices.

"The best camera is the one that's with you"

by Axsuul 4y ago

"The best camera is the one that's with you"

Yes, but the circumstances where having a satellite connection are most important as opposed to mildly convenient for the most part--like hiking in more remote areas--I'm not strolling around with just my phone. I'm already carrying other safety/etc. gear. Of course, others might care more about just not having the inconvenience of the occasional cell dead spot. To be sure, if your use case is a car breakdown at night on a country road with no cell service, you're probably better off with just using your phone.

majormajor 4y ago
There's probably a lot of total utility from getting something out that'll mostly work for the unprepared who go on a hike and don't realize how remote it may or may not be (or take a wrong turn, etc), even if those who plan ahead more thoroughly have better options.
- ghaff 4y ago
  I'm not sure how useful in general an unprepared person being able to call for help necessarily is. There is search and rescue (mostly volunteer) of course. But no one is going to assemble a rescue team at the drop of a hat.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    I’d say the difference between a full scale search and rescue operation and a “we’ll get someone out to your location lickety-split” text messages is significant. I used to hear on the news about people getting lost all the time on the trails around Phoenix, in flip flops and without water, having to spend the night outside before they could find them. Often enough they would have warnings on the radio and TV about it. Hell, one of the big forest fires a couple years ago was started by a lost hiker trying to signal for help.
    - jonah 4y ago
      Absolutely true. A large search is very personnel and time intensive. Depending on the situation though, even a relatively simple rescue can take a dozen or more people and many hours.
      - UncleEntity 4y ago
        If they want to be found and can text their GPS location they probably could just be given directions to the nearest road where a ranger truck can pick them up. I think most people just don’t know how to reorient themselves and as little kids are told “if you get lost just stay where you are and someone will find you”. Give them a little help and they can get themselves out of trouble. Reminds me of the time we were in Jungle School down in Panama. The first day was the land navigation course and a squad from headquarters had their one (and only) compass break. They ended up walking around the jungle for over a week before they found a road and flagged down a passing vehicle. If they had a way to communicate (or could read a frickin’ map) they’d have been back by chow time but, nope, the senior officers were like “they’ll turn up eventually” and didn’t even try to find them.
        ghaff 4y ago
        If they're up on a mountain which tends to be the situation around where I live in New England, there's likely no nearby road to walk to. And failures notwithstanding, a compass and map are a pretty high reliability way not to get totally turned around/lost especially in less challenging terrain.
        jonah 4y ago
        Depending on the situation, helping someone get back to a known trail via phone or text is absolutely a thing that is done. More often than not though, there are confounding factors like fatigue, dehydration, weather, extremely difficult terrain, etc. and it's safer to just come get them rather than risk them getting into deeper trouble.
  - jonah 4y ago
    I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. However, as a member of one of those volunteer search and rescue teams, people absolutely do get themselves into trouble and need help whether it's through being unprepared or injury or etc. If someone is able to call for help when they need it using their cell phone or one of the various satellite based systems - PLB, inReach, the new iPhone or StarLink capabilities, etc. - then we are able to go directly to them and render the necessary aid. That is a rescue. The alternative is their spouse or friend or someone noticing that they haven't returned by the expected time and they then report the person missing. Hopefully the missing person has told someone where they were going and their intended route, but in any case, this becomes a search and we first have to find the person before being able to help them and this can add hours or days to the operation. Depending on the condition of the person that at a time can greatly affect the outcome. In this regard, broader access to communication outside of cell phone coverage is a huge benefit. Now, this isn't discussing whether people are more likely to push themselves further or do things they're not capable of or adventure alone or go out insufficiently prepared if they feel they can just push a button and get rescued if anything happens. that broader question is an important one but for the individual person being able to communicate can absolutely make a difference in whether you survive or not.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Your last point is pretty much the one I was trying poorly to make. Individually, cell phones are a safety feature [1] even if they lead some people to think too much in terms of make a call and someone will zip up the mountain and help them down. [1] In fact, I'd argue that while over-reliance on electronics generally is a poor practice, a cell phone (along with external battery pack) should probably be considered essential safety equipment in most circumstances.
      - jonah 4y ago
        Your point about the external battery pack is a good one. Even if you have cell coverage, your phone will do you no good if it's out of battery. "Phone about to die" is a common refrain we hear. You're likely at the edge of coverage and so your phone is using high power and constantly searching for towers and been out longer than you were expecting and now it's dark and you're using your phone as a flashlight..
prh8 4y ago
A lot of US national parks have cell phone dead zones. Angel's Landing is wildly popular, and dangerous, and most of it and the trail to it don't have service, or very minimal/broken service. There are PLENTY of areas people go under normal circumstances that don't have sufficient service if there's an emergency.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Angel's Landing is also incredibly crowded. Unless someone is hiking there under inappropriate conditions, no one's remotely by themselves. And that's pretty true of a lot of areas in national parks generally. There are use cases although I wonder how many of the people who wouldn't buy a separate device would pay for a hypothetical satellite subscription. But I'm sure some would.
  - Jcowell 4y ago
    In this case it would’ve be a separate satellite subscription but apart of Apple One’s plan with other incentive offerings
muststopmyths 4y ago
Not to mention that the battery life of an inreach or spot is orders of magnitude better.
eastbound 4y ago
Most of Australia is out of reach from phone. I remember driving to Broome, and the network suddenly connects 5km from the city, when you have the visual contact. With remote working, if it were possible through satellite, digital native people would populate the unoccupied land (and oceans). The definition of “remote areas” is that you don’t know how populated they would be if network were available.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >With remote working, if it were possible through satellite, It is possible with Starlink where available. You could never have worked from my brother's house with either a hot spot or 1Mbps DSL. With Starlink, while not 100% reliable, it's quite doable. However, I'm making the assumption that for the foreseeable future a sat option for phones would look more like the text messaging of the Garmin devices.