4 ms·

Set backcountry search and rescue aside for a second. Seems to me this is for ordinary people doing ordinary things outside cell range, and finding they need h

Set backcountry search and rescue aside for a second. Seems to me this is for ordinary people doing ordinary things outside cell range, and finding they need help. A family member has a heart attack. A collision with a moose. Who knows what. Less “should’ve brought water and a jacket” and more “we’ve been on route 9 for two hours, a moment ago everything was fine, now he’s not breathing, we have no bars, and we have no idea where the nearest hospital is.” Besides, even if this feature only saves a single life, seems worth it to me.

swores 4y ago
> Besides, even if this feature only saves a single life, seems worth it to me. Not that I think it will only save a single life, but if that really were the full extent of its benefit that of course it wouldn't be worth it - think of the millions Apple have spent on R&D plus the (presumably tiny but it adds up when selling millions of devices) extra cost per device - there are many ways that money could have been spent as a PR move by Apple to save thousands if not millions of lives.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  This seems somewhat contrarian -- what changes can Apple make to their iPhones that could save millions of lives?
  - swores 4y ago
    That doesn't seem relevant to the question of whether it's worth spending a huge amount of money on saving a single life? When I talked about spending money as a PR move I meant non-product related, the way companies donate to charities, or do charitable research, or hell they could've even invested in for-profit health startups that would have a higher expectation than saving a single life.
    - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
      Apple is a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. Building products that saves lives will increase sales, because people want to be safe, thus increasing profits. How does donating to charity increase profits? It doesn't, so why would Apple spend money there? Apple is not in the business of saving lives, they're in the business of building tech products. If those tech products can also save lives, that's the most life-saving we can expect from a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. I don't understand why you're expecting Apple to save lives at a loss.
      - swores 4y ago
        > I don't understand why you're expecting Apple to save lives at a loss. I wasn't saying that at all, and I think if you reread both my comments and the context of the thread you'll see that. I was replying specifically to the claim that if it would save a single life it would have been worth Apple doing. And if it were only to save a single life, Apple would have wasted a huge amount of money on that single life, when they could have redirected it towards other ways to waste their money but saving more lives. I was purely pointing out that nobody should think it worth it "if it just saved one life". Not arguing for how Apple should spend money in other areas, just discussing in the context of if Apple were spending money on saving lives. But... while you ask - it's actually very common for companies, big and small, to spend money on charities, usually because they think the public image benefit outweighs the cost. Apple DO spend money on, for example, donating money to HIV charities through their PRODUCT(RED) scheme. https://www.apple.com/uk/product-red/ https://www.apple.com/uk/product-red/ And they spent money on this new feature being discussed in this thread (I assume because they expect it to save more than a single life!).
      - threeseed 4y ago
        > Apple is a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. Also having worked there they are also a bunch of people who like to build great products. And aren't motivated by the bottom line of the company.
  - Mistletoe 4y ago
    I wonder how much waste and greenhouse gases are caused by people constantly upgrading their phones. And the most important thing- money. Apple has 200B in cash and investments in the bank and the 2024 National Cancer Institute’s budget is 10 billion.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    I daresay having them turn themselves off when the GPS detects they're moving at "driving speeds" would save some lives. Sure it has "driving mode" but you can still override it.
    - Matt3o12_ 4y ago
      So when I ride the bus or train, I'm allowed to use my phone? What about when I use an uber (or lift or any of the many many other local alternatives)? Not everyone that moves at driving speeds is driving, especially in places outside of America.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Oh, sure, there's tons of annoying cases, and it'll probably never be done, but it's certainly a feature that would save lives.
        Retric 4y ago
        It would also cost lives. In a serious emergency you can start driving someone to the hospital and call 911. In rural areas when ambulances can take 45+ minutes being unable to call and drive can be a big issue. That’s just one of many edge cases where disabling cellphone service for moving callers is downright dangerous.
        bombcar 4y ago
        Oh sure - there’s tons of reasons it hasn’t been done. But it would be an option - even if you could only dial 911 whilst moving or something. Maybe make it an insurance lock feature!
manacit 4y ago
This is definitely not an extremely serious backcountry device, but for someone (like me) that is a casual hiker and skier, it was the primary reason I bought an iPhone 14 Pro. It's very easy in the US West to get out of cell service very quickly - at that point, even just throwing an ankle or tripping can put you at the mercy of your hiking companion or random strangers on the trail. If you're going somewhere less traveled, this is just a nice thing to have in your pocket. This feature isn't going to save you after you've been buried in an avalanche, but it's going to get search and rescue to carry you out when you're 10 miles from the parking lot. Worth the cost.
- SomeCallMeTim 4y ago
  Yeah, this is the first Apple feature announcement for a long time that I'm actually impressed by. Not the biggest Apple fan, but I have to let them have this one. If I weren't so invested in the not-Apple ecosystem, I'd consider switching.
- MarkMarine 4y ago
  I own a PLB, and I don't bring it on every hike with the dog or walk in the woods. I will always have my iPhone though, I think this feature is amazing for the broad coverage and you have it on your iPhone 14 (and later) by default, attempt to call 911 and if you don't have service it's going to walk you through it. I've loaned my PLB to family members, and there was a lengthy instruction period about how to use it. This comes with none of that baggage, it's easy to use and you already have it in your pocket.
makeitdouble 4y ago
> even if this feature only saves a single life, seems worth it to me. Would the corollary of this be “if a feature causes a single death it’s not worth it” ? That would be an interesting angle to look at when Apple revamps its lock screen, changes privacy policy settings on GPS tracking etc.
prescriptivist 4y ago
Yeah. I mean there are large swaths of New England where there isn't any cell service at all, let alone multi-carrier coverage. And these aren't just logging roads or whatever, they are paved roads that people commute and travel on every day. This is an unalloyed good for anyone anywhere in areas like this.
- ghaff 4y ago
  On the rare times when I take the commuter rail into Boston from the west, there's one section around Concord and Lincoln (expensive suburbs--wouldn't shock me if locals opposed additional cell phone towers) where my connection always drops.
SkyPuncher 4y ago
My wife and I frequently drive through Michigan's upper peninsula. Weather can be extremely rough in the winter time with many spots of poor/no service. While we hope to never use it, we think this feature is a game changer for rural travel.
bredren 4y ago
This reminds me of the unfortunate death of CNET reporter, James Kim in 2006. Kim and his family were stranded on a rural route traveling from Portland to San Francisco. He went out in search of help and succumbed to hypothermia. It was unusual, however there are "backcountry" incidents that don't necessarily involve intentionally setting out into remote areas. I suspect, being a tech reporter, Kim would have had a satellite SOS enabled smartphone if it had been on the market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim#Snowbound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim#Snowbound
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  I remember that. Basically the origin of the phrase "don't rely on Google maps"
  - bagels 4y ago
    The survivors say they were using paper maps.
- watersb 4y ago
  Yeah. That was awful. It occurs to me that anyone lost in the wilderness, due to reliance on incomplete navigation info, is probably not prepared for adventure. I might not have thought to bring a satellite-capable Personal Locator Beacon (PLB), but I have my cell phone with me.

swores 4y ago

> Besides, even if this feature only saves a single life, seems worth it to me. Not that I think it will only save a single life, but if that really were the full extent of its benefit that of course it wouldn't be worth it - think of the millions Apple have spent on R&D plus the (presumably tiny but it adds up when selling millions of devices) extra cost per device - there are many ways that money could have been spent as a PR move by Apple to save thousands if not millions of lives.

dpkirchner 4y ago
This seems somewhat contrarian -- what changes can Apple make to their iPhones that could save millions of lives?
- swores 4y ago
  That doesn't seem relevant to the question of whether it's worth spending a huge amount of money on saving a single life? When I talked about spending money as a PR move I meant non-product related, the way companies donate to charities, or do charitable research, or hell they could've even invested in for-profit health startups that would have a higher expectation than saving a single life.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    Apple is a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. Building products that saves lives will increase sales, because people want to be safe, thus increasing profits. How does donating to charity increase profits? It doesn't, so why would Apple spend money there? Apple is not in the business of saving lives, they're in the business of building tech products. If those tech products can also save lives, that's the most life-saving we can expect from a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. I don't understand why you're expecting Apple to save lives at a loss.
    - swores 4y ago
      > I don't understand why you're expecting Apple to save lives at a loss. I wasn't saying that at all, and I think if you reread both my comments and the context of the thread you'll see that. I was replying specifically to the claim that if it would save a single life it would have been worth Apple doing. And if it were only to save a single life, Apple would have wasted a huge amount of money on that single life, when they could have redirected it towards other ways to waste their money but saving more lives. I was purely pointing out that nobody should think it worth it "if it just saved one life". Not arguing for how Apple should spend money in other areas, just discussing in the context of if Apple were spending money on saving lives. But... while you ask - it's actually very common for companies, big and small, to spend money on charities, usually because they think the public image benefit outweighs the cost. Apple DO spend money on, for example, donating money to HIV charities through their PRODUCT(RED) scheme. https://www.apple.com/uk/product-red/ https://www.apple.com/uk/product-red/ And they spent money on this new feature being discussed in this thread (I assume because they expect it to save more than a single life!).
    - threeseed 4y ago
      > Apple is a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. Also having worked there they are also a bunch of people who like to build great products. And aren't motivated by the bottom line of the company.
- Mistletoe 4y ago
  I wonder how much waste and greenhouse gases are caused by people constantly upgrading their phones. And the most important thing- money. Apple has 200B in cash and investments in the bank and the 2024 National Cancer Institute’s budget is 10 billion.
- bombcar 4y ago
  I daresay having them turn themselves off when the GPS detects they're moving at "driving speeds" would save some lives. Sure it has "driving mode" but you can still override it.
  - Matt3o12_ 4y ago
    So when I ride the bus or train, I'm allowed to use my phone? What about when I use an uber (or lift or any of the many many other local alternatives)? Not everyone that moves at driving speeds is driving, especially in places outside of America.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Oh, sure, there's tons of annoying cases, and it'll probably never be done, but it's certainly a feature that would save lives.
      - Retric 4y ago
        It would also cost lives. In a serious emergency you can start driving someone to the hospital and call 911. In rural areas when ambulances can take 45+ minutes being unable to call and drive can be a big issue. That’s just one of many edge cases where disabling cellphone service for moving callers is downright dangerous.
        bombcar 4y ago
        Oh sure - there’s tons of reasons it hasn’t been done. But it would be an option - even if you could only dial 911 whilst moving or something. Maybe make it an insurance lock feature!

manacit 4y ago

This is definitely not an extremely serious backcountry device, but for someone (like me) that is a casual hiker and skier, it was the primary reason I bought an iPhone 14 Pro. It's very easy in the US West to get out of cell service very quickly - at that point, even just throwing an ankle or tripping can put you at the mercy of your hiking companion or random strangers on the trail. If you're going somewhere less traveled, this is just a nice thing to have in your pocket. This feature isn't going to save you after you've been buried in an avalanche, but it's going to get search and rescue to carry you out when you're 10 miles from the parking lot. Worth the cost.

SomeCallMeTim 4y ago
Yeah, this is the first Apple feature announcement for a long time that I'm actually impressed by. Not the biggest Apple fan, but I have to let them have this one. If I weren't so invested in the not-Apple ecosystem, I'd consider switching.
MarkMarine 4y ago
I own a PLB, and I don't bring it on every hike with the dog or walk in the woods. I will always have my iPhone though, I think this feature is amazing for the broad coverage and you have it on your iPhone 14 (and later) by default, attempt to call 911 and if you don't have service it's going to walk you through it. I've loaned my PLB to family members, and there was a lengthy instruction period about how to use it. This comes with none of that baggage, it's easy to use and you already have it in your pocket.

makeitdouble 4y ago

> even if this feature only saves a single life, seems worth it to me. Would the corollary of this be “if a feature causes a single death it’s not worth it” ? That would be an interesting angle to look at when Apple revamps its lock screen, changes privacy policy settings on GPS tracking etc.

prescriptivist 4y ago

Yeah. I mean there are large swaths of New England where there isn't any cell service at all, let alone multi-carrier coverage. And these aren't just logging roads or whatever, they are paved roads that people commute and travel on every day. This is an unalloyed good for anyone anywhere in areas like this.

ghaff 4y ago
On the rare times when I take the commuter rail into Boston from the west, there's one section around Concord and Lincoln (expensive suburbs--wouldn't shock me if locals opposed additional cell phone towers) where my connection always drops.

SkyPuncher 4y ago

My wife and I frequently drive through Michigan's upper peninsula. Weather can be extremely rough in the winter time with many spots of poor/no service. While we hope to never use it, we think this feature is a game changer for rural travel.

bredren 4y ago

This reminds me of the unfortunate death of CNET reporter, James Kim in 2006. Kim and his family were stranded on a rural route traveling from Portland to San Francisco. He went out in search of help and succumbed to hypothermia. It was unusual, however there are "backcountry" incidents that don't necessarily involve intentionally setting out into remote areas. I suspect, being a tech reporter, Kim would have had a satellite SOS enabled smartphone if it had been on the market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim#Snowbound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim#Snowbound

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
I remember that. Basically the origin of the phrase "don't rely on Google maps"
- bagels 4y ago
  The survivors say they were using paper maps.
watersb 4y ago
Yeah. That was awful. It occurs to me that anyone lost in the wilderness, due to reliance on incomplete navigation info, is probably not prepared for adventure. I might not have thought to bring a satellite-capable Personal Locator Beacon (PLB), but I have my cell phone with me.