Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Emergency SOS via satellite

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 479 posts

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#381

Post by dagmx »

tsimionescu wrote: post #358
dagmx wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you reconcile your views on “nothing positive” when there are multiple reported accounts of it leading to early diagnosis events for serious issues?

It can be easily reconciled if there are far more instances of false positives than true positives. Remember that a 99% accuracy for a condition that 0.1% of the population has still means 10 false positives for each 1 early diagnosis. I don't what the numbers are for the conditions that the Apple Watch can detect, just discussing the general principle. Whether it's more useful or more harmful depends crucially on th…

Their post said “nothing positive”. That’s different than “not a net positive”.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#382

Post by modeless »

I'm surprised there isn't much discussion here about the similar capability announced by SpaceX and T-Mobile (first of many carrier partners) earlier this year. It will not be exclusive to emergencies, and will work with unmodified existing phones, not requiring you to hold the phone a special way, other than generally having a decent view of the sky. Even if SpaceX is delayed, there are competitors working on similar services, so it seems like this special hardware won't be necessary a few years from now.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#383

Post by jiggawatts »

It's a bit sad that there's no mention of support for this feature anywhere outside of EU & US.

The irony is that this feature is especially useless in Europe, which is so built up that it's a challenge to find a location that isn't covered by mobile networks, or within walking distance of civilization.

Meanwhile in Australia you can find yourself 100 km from the next nearest human by accident. My coworker for example went driving in north Queensland and got his 4WD stuck in mud. That can be a life & death situation in a place like that, but just an inconvenience in most of Europe.

Even if Apple can't get the emergency services integration organised in every nation, the "send my location via satellite" feature would still be useful. That way you could get your friends or relatives to organise help on your behalf.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#384

Post by [deleted] »

COGlory wrote: post #123

I was just on the ground coordinating with 4 friends that got buried in 5+ foot of unexpected snow in the mountains (forecast said 1"-2" when they went up) for the rifle opener in Montana. I wound up getting sick so I stayed home (hilariously I was the only one who got an elk) but I sent them up with my InReach. All I can say is THANK GOD that I did, because it turned into over a week long effort to get them out. Two…

[deleted]

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#385

Post by oofbey »

biomcgary wrote: post #295
tony_cannistra wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I'm not sure this is good advice. Two-way commiunicators are vastly preferred by Search and Rescue organizations. The reason for this is that they can learn about what they need to do and who they need to send to you, because they can ask you. If you have a broken leg, they'll send in 10 people to get you out. Dehydrated? Two responders and water. Calls that come in from "dumb" communicators like PLBs are m…

My wife has an InReach. While hiking in Colorado, she encountered a woman who started going into shock (for no obvious reason!). Because of the satellite-based texting, SAR determined that Medivac chopper was more appropriate than land based rescue. Doctors said that the woman had 1-2 hours before death / permanent injury, so the most likely outcome of only having an emergency beacon would have been her death.

This is a very telling example, and probably not uncommon.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#386

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

bredren wrote: post #261
jmbwell wrote: post #120

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…

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 s…

I remember that. Basically the origin of the phrase "don't rely on Google maps"

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#387

Post by jrochkind1 »

ingalls wrote: post #290
dave78 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Search and Rescue is one of the few services that is almost uniformly free [1]. I wonder if this will remain true once everyone with an iPhone has access to it. The increase in volume could easily overwhelm the volunteers, no?

The next couple years will give us more concrete numbers, but based on my personal experience, I doubt this will change call volume significantly. We're mostly seeing dramatically increased call volume due to more people being involved in backcountry recreation and less so due to increased comms coverage through cell or satellite devices. While there is the argument that these devices give increased peace of mind tha…

> We're mostly seeing dramatically increased call volume due to more people being involved in backcountry recreation and less so due to increased comms coverage through cell or satellite devices.

I wonder if part of the reason more people are involved in backcountry recreation is due to it not feeling as dangerous as it used to because people figure (rightly or wrongly) they can always get help from my phone.

Anyway, I agree with your reasoning that it's important that backcountry rescue be free, becuase of people not calling as early as they should because of worry of cost, and resulting injury, death, or just more complicated rescue... but even though you're assuring me of it, I'm still not sure it's true! I feel like I hear stories all the time (which googling seems to confirm?) of people being charged when someone determines they deserved it or something, depending on who ends up responding... which would make me reluctant to SOS too. I believe you the outfits you work with never charge, but when I'm in an emergency or possible-emergency, I have no way of knowing if it's going to end up being that situation or not... which is a problem.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#388

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

yurishimo wrote: post #296
tyingq wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At some point iPhone and Apple Watch will probably be marketed as the devices you need if you don't wish to die early. Or you'll have to turn over your data to get the reasonable health insurance rates and not fall in the risky rate bucket.

God forbid the US become a civilized nation and offer a real competitive national healthcare options. I live in one of the more expensive European nations when it comes to healthcare. €100~/mo with a €400~ deductible per year. Worst case scenario, I spend €1600/yr on healthcare.

Is that one of those "civilised" countries that denies parents the right to take their child out of country to get medical help, even when there's no cost to said "civilised" country?

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#389

Post by c0nsumer »

subsubzero wrote: post #376
c0nsumer wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure of that? I can find no info nor claims of inReach devices doing anything voice-wise, even when paired with a phone.

I think I didn't write that clear enough :) I haven't used mine like this so far.. but you can pair the garmin to a phone(via the connect app) and make a call from the phone using the garmin as an antenna so to speak, you cannot talk or hear anything on it(the garmin inReach).

Can you point me to the docs on that? As far as I knew the inReach is a data-only thing, even when paired to the phone.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#390

Post by swores »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #379
swores wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 t…

> 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/

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!).

Post reply on HN