3 ms·

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!

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!