9 ms·

> Apple has apparently used a very very high gain (i.e. highly directional) antenna. That's how they got around having that big external antenna found on compet

by vageli 4y ago

> Apple has apparently used a very very high gain (i.e. highly directional) antenna. That's how they got around having that big external antenna found on competitive hand-helds. > I quite like the idea of aiming it by hand using software as the guide. In the event of an emergency, fumbling with my phone to find service sounds like a nightmare.

reaperducer 4y ago
But it will probably reduce the number of casual pranksters. Also, difficult-to-use is better than zero connectivity, which is the current situation.
- kylehotchkiss 4y ago
  The tens of thousands billed for a frivolous rescue request probably will stop the casual pranksters too, getting a helicopter out to wherever you're stuck isn't a free service. If you're really out in remote places often, you probably know this well enough to get rescue insurance.
  - ar_turnbull 4y ago
    Actually it depends. In Canada, many rescue services are free (North Shore Vancouver is a well known one here) as well as in the National Parks (the cost is essentially insurance paid for by the park pass fee) and many provincial parks. There is an argument that pay for rescue causes people to hesitate to call and that can lead to worse outcomes and/or more dangerous rescue scenarios.
    - happyopossum 4y ago
      There is also an argument that free rescues lead to reckless behavior and worse outcomes, because if the worst happens you can always get a chopper to pick you up….
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    In my state, the bill will be in the five or six figures -- but if you were legitimately in real danger, they will usually opt not to charge you. If you called them by mistake or as a prank, you'll pay.
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      And rescue insurance would not cover pranks either by the way. So be careful :)
TillE 4y ago
I don't know what the current state of the art is, but it sounds considerably easier to use than old satellite phones. Plus you don't have to lug around a satellite phone.
- detaro 4y ago
  It sounds worse than current dedicated emergency beacons (which afaik usually are both satellite uplink and lower-frequency beacon), and I'd expect many/most people using them today will continue to carry them. But many people don't, and even if you do it is another fallback.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    I carry an InReach mini in my airplane when flying over wilderness areas. Unfortunately I don’t think I could trust the iPhone. With the Garmin you can press one button and it’ll send out an emergency beacon without having to aim it.
    - ar_turnbull 4y ago
      To be fair I barely trust my InReach either. Overcast days, canyons, and any kind of tree cover consistently result in delayed or failed messages. And even if they report as "sent" on the device sometimes the recipient doesn't get them. And for a dedicated device, the tracking feature is laughably bad with worse accuracy than my friend's watch. Better than nothing in case of emergency but the reliability leaves a lot to be desired.
      - detaro 4y ago
        Are the messaging and emergency functions the same with those? For emergency beacons there is also a ~400Mhz frequency that is monitored independently (vs satellite communication at higher frequencies)
        GekkePrutser 4y ago
dewey 4y ago
> In the event of an emergency, fumbling with my phone to find service sounds like a nightmare. It doesn't have to be perfect, compared to the current alternative of 1) Having nothing to fumble around or 2) Be one of the few people with a full on expensive satellite phone I think it's a valuable addition. Similar to how Chase Jarvis said "the best camera is the one you always have with you", this is also the case for emergency equipment.
- midasuni 4y ago
  The other option is 3) a satelite distress beacon, but most people don’t have them
midasuni 4y ago
If you’re in the middle of nowhere and have an emergency where seconds count, you’re dead anyway. This is the difference between rescue in 2 hours and 2 days (or even 2 weeks). Spending 5 minutes finding the transmitter isn’t a problem if you’re stuck with a broken leg. If you’re struggling to control critical bleeding or are doing CPR and are on your own (thus you can’t spend the 5 minutes finding a signal) then you’re screwed anyway.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  In my state, emergency services point out that if you use an emergency locator such as a Garmin, you should expect that it may be a couple of days before rescue comes anyway. It depends on exactly where you are, of course.
  - midasuni 4y ago
    Matthew Power and his expedition had a proper kit, satellite phone, etc. They tried getting helicopter evacuation but even that took hours he didn’t have.

by vageli 4y ago

reaperducer 4y ago

But it will probably reduce the number of casual pranksters. Also, difficult-to-use is better than zero connectivity, which is the current situation.

kylehotchkiss 4y ago
The tens of thousands billed for a frivolous rescue request probably will stop the casual pranksters too, getting a helicopter out to wherever you're stuck isn't a free service. If you're really out in remote places often, you probably know this well enough to get rescue insurance.
- ar_turnbull 4y ago
  Actually it depends. In Canada, many rescue services are free (North Shore Vancouver is a well known one here) as well as in the National Parks (the cost is essentially insurance paid for by the park pass fee) and many provincial parks. There is an argument that pay for rescue causes people to hesitate to call and that can lead to worse outcomes and/or more dangerous rescue scenarios.
  - happyopossum 4y ago
    There is also an argument that free rescues lead to reckless behavior and worse outcomes, because if the worst happens you can always get a chopper to pick you up….
- JohnFen 4y ago
  In my state, the bill will be in the five or six figures -- but if you were legitimately in real danger, they will usually opt not to charge you. If you called them by mistake or as a prank, you'll pay.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    And rescue insurance would not cover pranks either by the way. So be careful :)

TillE 4y ago

I don't know what the current state of the art is, but it sounds considerably easier to use than old satellite phones. Plus you don't have to lug around a satellite phone.

detaro 4y ago
It sounds worse than current dedicated emergency beacons (which afaik usually are both satellite uplink and lower-frequency beacon), and I'd expect many/most people using them today will continue to carry them. But many people don't, and even if you do it is another fallback.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  I carry an InReach mini in my airplane when flying over wilderness areas. Unfortunately I don’t think I could trust the iPhone. With the Garmin you can press one button and it’ll send out an emergency beacon without having to aim it.
  - ar_turnbull 4y ago
    To be fair I barely trust my InReach either. Overcast days, canyons, and any kind of tree cover consistently result in delayed or failed messages. And even if they report as "sent" on the device sometimes the recipient doesn't get them. And for a dedicated device, the tracking feature is laughably bad with worse accuracy than my friend's watch. Better than nothing in case of emergency but the reliability leaves a lot to be desired.
    - detaro 4y ago
      Are the messaging and emergency functions the same with those? For emergency beacons there is also a ~400Mhz frequency that is monitored independently (vs satellite communication at higher frequencies)
      - GekkePrutser 4y ago

dewey 4y ago

> In the event of an emergency, fumbling with my phone to find service sounds like a nightmare. It doesn't have to be perfect, compared to the current alternative of 1) Having nothing to fumble around or 2) Be one of the few people with a full on expensive satellite phone I think it's a valuable addition. Similar to how Chase Jarvis said "the best camera is the one you always have with you", this is also the case for emergency equipment.

midasuni 4y ago
The other option is 3) a satelite distress beacon, but most people don’t have them

midasuni 4y ago

If you’re in the middle of nowhere and have an emergency where seconds count, you’re dead anyway. This is the difference between rescue in 2 hours and 2 days (or even 2 weeks). Spending 5 minutes finding the transmitter isn’t a problem if you’re stuck with a broken leg. If you’re struggling to control critical bleeding or are doing CPR and are on your own (thus you can’t spend the 5 minutes finding a signal) then you’re screwed anyway.

JohnFen 4y ago
In my state, emergency services point out that if you use an emergency locator such as a Garmin, you should expect that it may be a couple of days before rescue comes anyway. It depends on exactly where you are, of course.
- midasuni 4y ago
  Matthew Power and his expedition had a proper kit, satellite phone, etc. They tried getting helicopter evacuation but even that took hours he didn’t have.