[HN Gopher] Emergency SOS via satellite ___________________________________________________________________ Emergency SOS via satellite Author : tosh Score : 449 points Date : 2022-11-15 13:06 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.apple.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com) | ClumsyPilot wrote: | At first I thought that Apple might be using the Gallileo | sattellites put up by EU, but it looks like they have their own | thing going with Globalstar. This kind of makes sense, and near- | earth satellites are easier to reach for a phone. | | https://www.esa.int/Applications/Navigation/Galileo_now_repl... | [deleted] | Kairinz wrote: | Literally just got back from a road trip in southern Greece where | I had reception almost half of the time spent driving. Didn't see | a single car for over 2 hours of driving. Car had a clutch issue, | but things worked out. Can actually see how this becomes useful. | kornhole wrote: | Perhaps the same places that rent out bear cans can offer rental | Iphones for those of us who normally only carry anonymous phones | with burner SIMs. | sschueller wrote: | I am utterly confused why any regular person needs this or is the | infrastructure in the US and Canada so bad that your phone won't | work in every day life? | | If you go hiking or heli-skiing you usually have alternative | methods of contact which is part of your equipment such as an | avalanche kit etc. Sure it might be nice to have this in your | every day device but it's absolute unnecessary for anyone else. | Turing_Machine wrote: | Here in Alaska, once you get outside the Anchorage bowl, you | _might_ get reception in each small town or village, and maybe | a km or two outside. That 's it. | | From your name I suspect you may be German (if you are Austrian | or Swiss, the following still applies, only more so). | | Alaska alone is nearly 5 times the size of Germany, with less | than 1% of the population. | rootusrootus wrote: | That moment when a European finally begins to understand just | how big North America is. I'm surprised it still happens on HN, | but it's so fundamental to many of the discussions here. | There's always someone saying "why does America suck so much" | while thinking themselves so smart, as if there aren't good | engineers across the globe. There's usually a good reason | things are the way they are, and it's not that you're the only | smart person in the world. | fassssst wrote: | You don't need it until you do. | tony_cannistra wrote: | The United States and Canada are really, really big. There are | big swaths of those countries ( _especially_ Canada) where | people regularly live / drive / recreate, but are several | hours driving away from cell phone service. | mastax wrote: | A lot of people go hiking and few of them buy sat phones or | epirbs. It's nice to have. We're well past the point of | diminishing returns for smartphone features, yes. | [deleted] | DMell wrote: | I spend the majority of my time in the mountains here in Estes | Park, Colorado where I carry the following in the winter - for | both climbing and skiing: | | - Probe | | - Shovel | | - Beacon | | - InReach Mini | | I also work SAR and my partner has worked dispatch for the | National Park Service here and it's not uncommon for someone to | be trying to climb something akin to Longs Peak late fall in a | tshirt and shorts - having absolutely no idea what they are | doing but hiking it because they saw it on All Trails. | Cass wrote: | This isn't meant for heli-skiers who go out with a few thousand | bucks of equipment. None of the average hikers I know own a | satellite phone, plenty of them like to hike alone, and an hour | of walking into the woods (hardly a strenuous hike) will | frequently land you somewhere with patchy service (and this is | in a country with perfectly well-functioning infrastructure, | not the middle of the Rocky Mountains.) | | I'm sure this is going to lead to a few spectacular, high- | profile rescues, but I'd bet the average use case is going to | be "saved me three hours of crawling through the woods on a | broken ankle to get back to the last place I had cell service." | ghaff wrote: | I live fifty miles west of a major Northeast city and cell | phone is patchy at my house without WiFi assist. I'm sure | there tons of spots within an hour drive of my house where I | hike that have patchy cell service. | [deleted] | sevenf0ur wrote: | The range of a cell tower is like 5 miles. That's how far you | need to go to lose service... | vel0city wrote: | Turn on and off individual providers on this map. | | https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=... | | Then remember this map is being extremely generous at the | fringes of the coverage areas. Some areas will make a huge | difference which side of a hill you're on, but this coverage | map will show it as covered. | dagmx wrote: | I go on tons of casual-mid level hikes near a major Canadian | city. It's incredibly frequent to have areas with clear sky | visibility and no cell service. | mikestew wrote: | I can only assume that you have never been to the western U. S. | or anywhere at all in Canada much north of the 49th parallel. | It can be quite barren, and even if one had a need to stick a | cell tower in the North Cascades mountains, it won't cover | everything. Hell, I go trail running on local mountains | (Cougar/Squak/Tiger, for Seattle locals) that are within visual | distance of a decent-sized city, and there are still spots | where I don't get cell coverage (and all of those mountains | have cell towers on top). Snap a bone or otherwise become | immobile in the wrong spot, and you won't be calling anyone | despite the fact that it's a ten minute drive to town. And | those trails are _full_ of day hikers on the weekends, many of | which I 'd guess aren't prepared to spend the night if they had | to. | | _If you go hiking or heli-skiing..._ | | I'd bet a paycheck that Apple's use cases did not include those | that jump out of a helicopter to go skiing. Those folks, if | they have any sense, have a dedicated device, as you state. I'm | picturing this being for those like above, who just wanted a | casual Saturday hike and something went wrong. | DMell wrote: | >Those folks, if they have any sense, have a dedicated | device, as you state. | | You'd be shocked at the number of people who carry their | beacon, probe, shovel, etc but not an InReach or Spot device. | With that said, most groups have at least one and are playing | the odds game that it won't be them that has an issue and | can't access it. | ghaff wrote: | There's probably a difference between one-time purchases | and committing to a subscription service (on a device that | is also more expensive). If I did a _lot_ of remote solo | hiking, I 'd probably feel I needed to spring for it, but I | haven't as things stand. | DMell wrote: | >on a device that is also more expensive | | An InReach Mini costs roughly $300 while a Spot device | costs less than $200. An iPhone 14 is $800. | ghaff wrote: | More expensive than the avalanche probe, shovel, and | beacon. I was responding to the following: | | "You'd be shocked at the number of people who carry their | beacon, probe, shovel, etc but not an InReach or Spot | device." | DMell wrote: | You would still require a probe, shovel, and beacon. The | difference comes down to whether you purchase an iPhone | 14 or a device akin to Spot. | ghaff wrote: | For many, the answer will be that they're buying an | iPhone in any case so why buy an additional several | hundred dollar device. | DMell wrote: | Several hundred? It is less than $200 which is cheaper | than upgrading to the iPhone 15k - that's all I'm saying. | In no world is the device more expensive than an iPhone. | [deleted] | [deleted] | theGnuMe wrote: | You'd be surprised. There are plenty of places where LTE isn't | robust enough. | tony_cannistra wrote: | I'm glad to see that they at least talked to some IRL dispatchers | for this press release, which hopefully suggests that they've | been doing it all along. | | But really, I desperately hope that we can find a way to educate | folks on the proper usage of technology like this (which, if you | count things like the Garmin inReach and the Spot devices, has | been available for a decade). | | They're undoubtedly life saving, but they also are taxing mostly | volunteer-run search and rescue organizations with folks who | really probably don't need help, they just needed to bring some | water and a jacket. But they didn't , because they didn't know | better, and now need someone to risk themselves on their behalf. | | It makes me nervous about the longevity of volunteer-run search | and rescue organizations, frankly. It's unfortunate that these | are the majority, at least in the rural parts of USA that draw | lots of outdoor adventurers. | 323 wrote: | How is it different from regular 911/112 abuse? | the_only_law wrote: | 911 operators are not volunteers, at least not to my | knowledge. | criddell wrote: | Maybe not, but the people they dispatch often are. My | hometown fire department is entirely volunteers. | mwint wrote: | Isn't it going to make calls using this feature much easier, if | there's a 10m-accuracy GPS pin around the subject? | whartung wrote: | Well that's the GPS point. Make this more casually available | and folks are likely to more casually use it. | | The problem for the teams isn't necessarily finding the | party, we've had these beacons for years. Rather they have to | climb into the mountains in the first place to solve what | could have, ostensibly, been readily prevented. | | Thus taxing a limited resource even further. | | What should temper that is now there perhaps may be signs | posted telling folks about the service, and that help is | available (or not) but it's likely going to be rather | expensive if they have to come get you. It's never been | suggested that while the S&R teams maybe volunteer, as I | understand the rescued party incurs costs of the operation. | ghaff wrote: | You can be given a bill in some places under a limited set | of circumstances but you mostly won't get charged as I | understand it (at least until you get into the regular | medical system per usual). I would assume if this started | to become a real problem, you might see more charging-- | although I assume S&R teams wouldn't, for the most part, | want people in trouble to hold off on calling for help | because they might get a $10K bill. | jrnichols wrote: | It depends on who shows up. Not every call is going to | get a full blown SAR response, and a lot of the country | doesn't even have SAR teams anyway. | | You'll get the local 911 response units, and it might be | a Sheriff's deputy, fire, or EMS. | | If you're in California you're also likely to get a | rescue helicopter operated by CHP, and if they pluck you | out of a ravine, the bill is $zero. Really, it's taxpayer | funded. We operate with them quite often. | tony_cannistra wrote: | Actually, in many places in the United States, SAR calls | don't cost you anything. | | Usually it's the ambulance / helicopter ride. But even | then, there are helicopter operators (like the U.S. | military, which responds to many SAR calls where I live) | that don't charge. | arrrg wrote: | At least in Germany I know that the perspective on this | is that you never want someone to even think about taking | cost into consideration when they decide to make an | emergency call. | totalZero wrote: | In the US there are people who drive to the emergency | room and wait outside in the parking lot to see if they | get better or if they really need to go inside. Some of | those people have insurance but would pay a deductible. | | I don't have data to support this, but I guess that at | least 40% of Americans would agree with the statement, "I | take cost into consideration when I make a call to | emergency services." | tony_cannistra wrote: | Certainly, yes. My anxiety around the broad adoption of | features like this isn't really the individual calls, because | they're likely to be fairly mundane / close to trail heads. | | Rather, my concern is with the volume. Lots of "I'm Cold, | Please Help" calls could take resources away from rarer but | far more resource-intensive "My leg is broken, and I"m 10 | miles out" calls. | lxgr wrote: | Isn't the same already true for trails that do have cell | signal? | petre wrote: | The info could be used by volunteers such as NGOs with a | 4x4 rescue team. I have a friend in such an org and they | help a lot of naive people who get stuck in the mud/snow. | He got into the NGO by getting stuck and being pulled out | by another volunteer. I was with him and another guy when | that occured. They should be able to help "I'm cold" and | other less severe cases. They always cooperate with | authorities (police, gendarmerie, fire dept) and the | cooperation goes both ways. Also keep in mind that there's | a very thin line between "I'm cold" and potentialy deadly | hypothermia. | mikehotel wrote: | It will make each individual SAR easier, but if more people | rely on this instead of proper planning for a trip, the | overall increased burden on volunteer organizations will be | unsustainable. | [deleted] | xwdv wrote: | It's really not that big of a deal. You could just triage calls | for help and put them in order of priority on who to help first | based on how difficult it would be, severity of the situation, | and probability of success. The lowest level requests like for | some water or a jacket could routinely go unserved. | closewith wrote: | I'm a search and rescue medic and I volunteer (although not in | the States), but would have the exact opposite outlook on this. | Better comms may lead to more shouts but it will definitely | lead to better outcomes for casualties. | | We always prefer calls to come in as early as possible, where | maybe an issue can be resolved with advice or a daylight shout | to an warm, ambulatory casualty in mild distress. That will | always be preferable to a long search for a casualty in | possibly deteriorating weather, losing light, without comms, | with the prospect of a rescue turning into a recovery. | | Mobile phones may have greatly increased the number of SAR | shouts worldwide, but also massively reduced shout lengths. | Searching used to be the largest time sink in every shout, | which is no longer the case. | | Every SAR team has frivolous calls, but that's part of the | game. | ghaff wrote: | I've sort of come around on this after discussing with a | number of search and rescue folks. I'm sure there's some | number of "I'm cold and my jeans are soaked. Come get me." | There's doubtless some of that but, as you say, that's | counterbalanced by by people who have a legitimate issue who | can make an emergency call before the problem is really | serious. | | Part of me doesn't love that there's an increasing | expectation that you're always able to be in contact. But, so | it goes. | [deleted] | CarbonCycles wrote: | I wonder how many ppl will now travel to more remote areas | with a false sense of security (and being woefully under | prepared) that you can "Just call" for help. | | As a paying customer with Garmin's inReach service, I'm | acutely aware of how spotty and unreliable the service can be | based on environment and current surroundings. | zikduruqe wrote: | The same amount that did when the cellphone was invented, | when Selective Availability was turned off, when the safety | match was invented, when the chronometer was invented.... | Kye wrote: | I think it's similar to how injury stats are up in auto | accidents. It looks bad if you misread the data, but it's | wonderful with proper context that safety features, first | response, and treatment are saving more lives. So many of | those shouts are people who would have died in an earlier | era. | tony_cannistra wrote: | That's a good perspective. Undoubtedly better communication | saves time for everyone, and improves outcomes. | | I didn't really communicate this well, but my real fear is | this: that folks who otherwise might not journey out into | somewhat challenging situations because of their lack of | confidence in their self-sufficiency might decide to do so | because they can "call for help if they need it." | | SAR's around the US are experience this in very high volumes. | x13 wrote: | good points. a few things jumped out at me from | https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/11/emergency-sos-via-sat... | | "A $450 million investment from Apple's Advanced Manufacturing | Fund provides the critical infrastructure that supports | Emergency SOS via satellite for iPhone 14 models." | | "Once received by a ground station, the message is routed to | emergency services that can dispatch help, or a relay center | with Apple-trained emergency specialists if local emergency | services cannot receive text messages." | | "In 2021, Apple announced an acceleration in its US | investments, with plans to make new contributions of more than | $430 billion over a five-year period." | | Apple has probably given this some thought. | jrnichols wrote: | I'm a Paramedic in Northern California and am VERY happy about | this feature. Even in some of our SF Bay Area counties, we have a | lot of windy mountain roads with _no cell service_ at all. Our | portable radios don 't even work up in the hills. To have an | iPhone be able to send GPS location to the public safety access | point is fabulous. Our dispatchers can at least drop a pin on a | map and we can route to that location ourselves. This already | happens in a lot of cases but the caller has cell service. We've | been on multiple incidents up in the hills where people have | reported that they had to drive several miles down the mountain | before they were able to get any reception to make a 911 call. | | This will save us a lot of time, and it will save lives. This is | a game changing feature. | fragmede wrote: | > Even in some of our SF Bay Area counties | | Even? no (and you'd probably know better than me) but as a | fellow bay area person, there are tons and tons and tons of | roads and places that aren't covered by cell service, just go | into the mountains a little bit. and then you also have to ask | which cell carrier everybody has. there's a real digital divide | once you get out of the city and the towns that surround it | jrnichols wrote: | right, that's pretty much what I said. We have A LOT of space | that has no cell reception at all. | | We don't have to ask about which carrier, though. That | information will come through automatically along with the | subscriber's information. Even a cell phone with no active | plan can still dial 911, regardless of carrier or model. | whimsicalism wrote: | > and then you also have to ask which cell carrier everybody | has | | Not for emergency services you don't. | fragmede wrote: | Ah you're right. I was still thinking back in the GSM vs | CDMA days where AT&T phones physically couldn't talk to | Verizon towers (and vice versa) so 911 couldn't work | either. | davidw wrote: | It's been a while since there's been a phone feature that I've | really wanted. I spend a lot of time mountain biking outside of | cell range and this would be a nice feature to have. Hope it | makes its way to Android soon. | madrox wrote: | These are the features that, in my opinion, should drive the next | generation of innovation. We don't need VR or blockchain as much | as we need to go the last mile on the promise to connect everyone | _everywhere_ to give them the services they need to raise quality | of life. | monkeydust wrote: | Have to agree. As a hardened Android user it is this type of | feature that would make me consider an iPhone | fortuna86 wrote: | Great technology. Roll it out to more phones than just your | latest model. | fckgw wrote: | How? Push out an OTA update that installs an entirely new | cellular modem with satellite communication frequencies? | fortuna86 wrote: | Most smartphones have GPS built in, are you telling me it was | impossible to utilize existing hardware for this feature? Or | was it a deliberate decision. | | Ok, perhaps not phone calls or text. What about a beacon | feature? | dagmx wrote: | How? I don't think you quite understand how this works or | GPS for that matter. | | GPS is unidirectional. Your phone isn't communicating back | to the satellite. | error503 wrote: | GPS is receive only, the phone doesn't talk to the | satellites, which just broadcast their signal to everyone. | There is certainly a new radio (& ancillary equipment & | antenna) in the latest model to support this feature. | xchip wrote: | What sort of link does the phone use? 5G? | heynowheynow wrote: | The category is NTN: Non-Terrestrial Networks. | yieldcrv wrote: | yeah band 53 via the Qualcomm X65 modem | | you can pretty much tell what an iphone will be able to do | based on what qualcomm is currently able to do | mcculley wrote: | Do you happen to know when Apple will be able to put a modem | into a MacBook Pro? | nickcw wrote: | > LTE Band 53 is a part of the TDD (Time Division Duplex) LTE | spectrum that requires only a single frequency band for both | the uplink and downlink. LTE Band 53 has a frequency range | from 2483.5 - 2495 MHz with a bandwidth of 11.5 MHz. | | From: https://www.everythingrf.com/tech-resources/lte- | bands/lte-ba... | | Quite impressive they can receive that on the satellite with | 1W (guess) of power and a not very directional antenna in the | iPhone. | Jtsummers wrote: | In the earlier videos on it they showed that the phone has | to be pointed a certain way (which makes sense given the | power constraints), but you are guided through the process. | | https://www.apple.com/newsroom/images/product/iphone/standa | r... - Shows the screen you'd see. | totalZero wrote: | > you can pretty much tell what an iphone will be able to do | based on what qualcomm is currently able to do | | Strictly speaking, if that were the case then the iPhone 13 | would have been able to do it. [0] | | The technology (Band 53/n53) and the timeline (end of 2022) | are mentioned in the Sep 2022 SEC filing of the agreement | between Globalsat and Apple. [1] | | [0] https://www.semianalysis.com/p/no-the-iphone-13-does-not- | hav... | | [1] https://investors.globalstar.com/node/14431/html | keepquestioning wrote: | So Back to qualcomm aye? The ghost that can never be killed. | xchip wrote: | you guys are awesome | dboreham wrote: | According to this it's some kind of CDMA: | https://www.globalstar.com/en-us/about/our-technology | binarymax wrote: | It's not clear whether this is for US/Canada customers, or if it | only works in the vicinity of the US and Canada. | | If I'm a US customer but am stranded in the middle of Africa, | will this work? | lotsofpulp wrote: | > Emergency SOS via satellite is available in the US and Canada | starting today, November 15, and will come to France, Germany, | Ireland, and the UK in December. | | I take this to mean the service itself only works within the | stated countries. I wonder if it would work in overseas US | territories like Samoa. | bmicraft wrote: | I'm guessing the only thing limiting it is integration with | existing services | lxgr wrote: | Integrating with local SAR services is one issue, but | Globalstar's coverage is another (contrary to its name, | it's not actually global, since it requires satellites to | have both mobile devices and at least one earth station in | view at all times). | kube-system wrote: | And regulatory approval for transmitting on those | frequencies in that specific locale. | kotaKat wrote: | Works in the specific countries. If you have an iPhone 14 from | another country that isn't supported, it'll work in that | country. | | If you have an African iPhone 14 and are stranded in the middle | of the US, it should work. | homero wrote: | What network are they using exactly | totalZero wrote: | I'm pretty sure it's Globalstar. | | https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-picks-globalstar-sa... | vikR0001 wrote: | How can a little iPhone possibly have enough power to transmit | data all the distance to a satellite? | syncsynchalt wrote: | Not much different than my spot tracker... which transmits my | position to satellites every 10 minutes for 2-3 days with 4xAAA | batteries. | kkielhofner wrote: | When you're going straight up you don't have to deal with | obstructions and the curvature of the earth. | | For OP if you want to see it in action there are plenty of | YouTube videos[0] of amateur radio operators with an HT | (walkie-talkie) contacting astronauts on the ISS - which is 254 | miles up. | | https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3cZe-UASAHs | kawfey wrote: | iPhone satellite SOS communicates to a constellation of 24 | GlobalStar Gen 2 Low Earth Orbit satellites, orbiting somewhere | between 800 and 1000mi[0]. This is the same satellite system | that SPOT messengers talk to (which are also tiny devices)[1]. | | The user points the phone at the satellite (in reality, the UI | tells the user where to put the phone in relation to it's | measured antenna pattern to maximize the gain towards the | nearest satellite), while the satellite has a huge, very very | high gain antenna array to pick up the signal and pass it back | down to a ground station. iPhones can output up to 2 watts of | RF power, which is enough for a tiny <HELP! Here's my LAT/LON & | status> message. It's using 5G NR band 53 [2][3] | | I'm sure someone out there has already run a linkbudget and | posted it to their blog, but I haven't found it yet. | | [0] https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/globalstar-2.htm | | [1] https://www.findmespot.com/en-us/products-services/spot- | gen4 | | [2] https://gearjunkie.com/news/apple-iphone-satellite- | messaging... | | [3] https://itecspec.com/band/nr-band-n53/ | zikduruqe wrote: | Space isn't that far away. It's only 60 miles. | | I've communicated via LEO satellites using only 1 watt of power | from an handheld radio. | Temporary_31337 wrote: | 1 whole watt is a lot by modern, digital standards, but | satellite does not have a directional antenna with gain to | receive your signal. It looks like Garmin InReach transmits | at 1.6Watts. I wonder what the radio is inside the new | iPhones. | Hippocrates wrote: | Apple is building up a nice portfolio of life-saving features. | Currently we have fall detection, a-fib detection, crash | detection, satellite communication. These are all solid value- | adds and differentiators from the competition. I'm not sure if | they amount to a strong selling point for _everyone_ yet, but I'm | sure that's where Apple is headed. | | I am extremely bullish on Apple's ability to measure health | signals in the next 5-10 years, that when fed to AI, will be able | to detect health issues long in advance. This may take more | sensors, more research, more AI development, but we're definitely | headed there. At some point iPhone and Apple Watch will probably | be marketed as the devices you need if you don't wish to die | early. | tyingq wrote: | >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. | yurishimo wrote: | 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. | EUR100~/mo with a EUR400~ deductible per year. Worst case | scenario, I spend EUR1600/yr on healthcare. | googlryas wrote: | How much do you pay when you factor in the taxes you also | pay into the system? | | If one gym had a yearly fee of $40 and then cost $1 every | time you went, and another gym had a $8 yearly fee and cost | $15 everytime you went, it wouldn't make sense to compare | them merely on the per-visit costs. | | Just to short circuit, I'm not trying to defend the | American healthcare system. American healthcare is horrible | on average compared to the average of other rich nations. | | Also, a final note, but even if you have cheap out of | pocket expenses, you aren't getting good value for your | money if you don't visit a doctor for almost a decade. | (Yes, I did e-stalk you for 60s to try to see what country | to figure out average tax burden for healthvare, and ran | across that fact on your intermittent fasting post) | dghlsakjg wrote: | In Canada my income tax rate is about on par with what I | would pay in the states. If I lived in California my | taxes would be higher. | | Our sales taxes are a little higher than a lot of the | states, though. | | I'll take that over the amount of money and time the US | healthcare system siphoned off of me when I was healthy. | paranoidrobot wrote: | In general, the US pays more, and has less effective | healthcare than countries with universal/single-payer | systems[1][2][3]. | | There's plenty of reasons for that. | | [1] https://grattan.edu.au/news/more-expensive-but-less- | effectiv... | | [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal- | health-... | | [3] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue- | briefs/2... | googlryas wrote: | I agree, but that doesn't mean OPs overall burden is | capped at 1600 eur/year | paranoidrobot wrote: | These studies are using total spend - inclusive of | taxation and direct payments. | tyingq wrote: | Yep. If your employer isn't subsidizing it for you, | EUR1600/month (not a year) for a good employee+family plan | would be a bargain in the US. And the deductible would | still be thousands, not hundreds. | GaryNumanVevo wrote: | The Apple watch has literally saved 3 of my older relative's | lives already. It's amazing technology! | blablabla123 wrote: | Yeah I was planning to buy no more Apple products but they do | something really right with the Watch and the iPhone. If you've | ever been in a situation where you need help it turns out it's | on the practical side not so easy | MBCook wrote: | TBF Google had crash detection first, by a few years. | | But I agree. If they can add a cheap part (better | accelerometer) or re-use an existing one (pulse detection for | a-fib) and provide really great possible benefits for some | people? Sounds great. | FireBeyond wrote: | > a-fib detection | | As a paramedic, not a physician, atrial fibrillation is not a | life threatening event. Many people happily live with it for | decades, unmedicated. It is more problematic if you are | diabetic or hypertensive, but still not an acute medical event. | robbiep wrote: | As a doctor, the proliferation of apple (and other) watch | ECGs has done nothing positive but lead to a massive | proliferation of severe health anxiety. Go take a look at | /r/askdocs for anyone curious - dozens of apple and Samsung | ECG questions, people sure they're about to die. They have | nothing. | | I remain entirely unconvinced that putting 'more' health | information at increased temporal frequency to consumers | leads to any health benefit, and instead causes significant | health anxiety and drain on health resources with false and | misleading presentations for bad signals. | dagmx wrote: | 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? | tsimionescu wrote: | 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 the real numbers. | jadams5 wrote: | As a counterpoint, my cardiologist suggested I get an Apple | watch so I could keep a better eye on things and send him | any questionable ECGs. At least some doctors seem to think | there are positives. | tsimionescu wrote: | The very important point is that you probably have a | known heart condition, if your doctor recommended this. | The problem with many of these devices is false | positives. | teeray wrote: | If you're looking for emergency comms where cell service is | unavailable, you can do really well with a 2m/70cm Baofeng UV-5R. | It'll run you like $60 between the technician's license (easy to | get) and the radio, no subscription. From mountains (no service), | I've gotten into repeaters 60 miles away. Knowing the community | on those frequencies, they'll treat your emergency with the same | respect and decorum as those submitted through the SOS feature | (many even train for it through organizations like ARES). | | I certainly don't mean to poo-poo this announcement in HN | commenter fashion---I think it's actually really great to have. | Just wanted to highlight an alternative to shelling out $1k+ for | a capable phone if you don't have one. | swader999 wrote: | That's quite an undertaking to get up to speed on using and | programming one of those. | barbazoo wrote: | That's what I thought too. Definitely a capable radio but | quite a learning curve. | davidwihl wrote: | Getting that sort of range is not common. Most of it is line of | sight. Sat comms work far at sea where VHF is useless. With | ARES, you are relying on an inconsistent volunteer network with | spotty results by location and time. | | I'm a licensed ham and have worked emergency events. I would | not rely upon this if my life depended on it. | ingalls wrote: | I'm also a HAM and work Search and Rescue, I would also never | use this as my primary emergency device unless I had someone | I knew actively monitoring the frequency. Buy something like | a Garmin InReach Mini (~$15 a month subscription free) or a | PLB (no monthly cost) | jmbwell wrote: | 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. | prescriptivist wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | manacit wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | bredren wrote: | 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 | swores wrote: | > _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 wrote: | This seems somewhat contrarian -- what changes can Apple make | to their iPhones that could save millions of lives? | Mistletoe wrote: | 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. | swores wrote: | 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. | bombcar wrote: | 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_ wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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! | makeitdouble wrote: | > 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. | SkyPuncher wrote: | 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. | dang wrote: | Ongoing related thread: | | _Apple's satellite emergency SOS feature: A review and deep-dive | explainer_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611586 - Nov | 2022 (14 comments) | user3939382 wrote: | Wait, what? iPhones are sat phones?? It has the antenna for | that?? Since when? The GPS is a passive receive. I skimmed the | article and didn't see, how on Earth (lol) does this work? Sat | antennas are huge. Maybe these search and rescue SOS beacons have | their own signal? | MarkMarine wrote: | They got around the antenna issue by using a really poor | antenna that requires the user to aim the phone at a passing | satellite, plus a pretty cool UI to help you do that. | MBCook wrote: | New this year. The phone basically guides you to point it at | the satellite (and turn as necessary), which is why it doesn't | need a big antenna. | | It's not as good as a Garmin or some such, but you have it with | you. | stagger87 wrote: | You have to point the phone at the sky for long periods of time | AND track the sat position in the sky while you do it. It's | probably some long spread spectrum approach (lots of processing | gain), as well as I'm sure a bunch of other cool | tricks/techniques. | user3939382 wrote: | There are obviously people out there that are deep experts on | radio, signals, propagation, antennas, etc. That's not me, | but I know enough about it to appreciate that this is | completely amazing. | cookingmyserver wrote: | Does anyone know how they track the position of the | communication satellites? I assume they use GPS for the users | position, the gyro and accelerometer for device orientation, | and then periodically load and update the LEO sat paths on | the device when they are connected. Or is the antenna able to | estimate LEO position via a signal the LEO sats sends out? | CarbonCycles wrote: | The positions of the satellites are well known and | documented. Fun fact..on the Garmin fenix watches, it is | recommended that you synch your watch with your Garmin | Connect app every few days (week) so that you download the | latest satellites position file, which significantly | improves the GPS lock time with the satellites before you | begin an activity. | | As others have stated, I don't think Apple's product will | really erode Garmin's market share for several years. The | lack of detailed topo maps and applications will severely | hamper them. | | With Apple latest shift, I see their ecosystem as a very | strong contender for business travel (international news | reporter?) that requires strong security (lockdown mode), | ability to communicate in many form factors through adverse | conditions (voice, data and now satellite), and has a slew | of safety features (crash detection). | | Garmin has decades of experience regarding outdoor travel | and safety that Apple would always be playing | catchup...IMO. | Scoundreller wrote: | Yeah, no different than a stargazing app where you point | your phone and it labels the stars that show up in the | view. | | Just need the x,y,z, compass and gps coordinates. | alach11 wrote: | This must have been such an exciting feature to develop. It's | great to be able to work on something very likely to save lives | in the near future. And clearly a lot of love was put into the UX | of the product. | kawfey wrote: | As a ham radio evangelist, I'm slightly sad that our radio | service has become a bit more irrelevant as a backcountry backup | or emergency comms solution, thanks to this, the SPOT/inreach | messager, and general LEO satellite broadband internet access, | but more happy that it's here, since these systems are FAR more | accessible, reliable, and easy to use for SOS or way-off-grid | general communications. | | Ham radio still has it's place for first-response communications | relief and health & welfare checks, and search-and-rescue | (generally where other radio or internet systems are offline, | aren't installed, or aren't reliable) as well as just being a fun | hobby. | kube-system wrote: | Ham's greatest advantage is also its greatest weakness: being | strictly non-commercial. | gz5 wrote: | >Satellites move rapidly, have low bandwidth, and are located | thousands of miles away from Earth, so it can take a few minutes | for even short messages to get through. | | Low orbit satellites can be about 500 kilometers / 300 miles so | would be the logical next step? | samcat116 wrote: | Yes which is why you're seeing LEO constelations now. But most | previous ones were in GEO which is much farther away. | COGlory wrote: | 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 decided to walk out | and were able to text me a nav point that I was able to meet them | at (took all day to get there because of the snow and mud, but I | made it and was able to pick them up). The other two stayed up | there, and we sent probably 100 texts back and forth coordinating | what turned into like 3 solid days of fighting to get up there | with snowcats and get them back down. Multiple situational | changes that we would have been hosed without. | | In the end, I spent like $80 on texts, but it was money well | spent. I think it's great for people to have SOS built into their | iPhone, but there needs to be a "use it now, pay later" or no one | is going to activate it and actually have it available when they | need it. The other half of the equation is that you really need | to be able to send texts. The SOS button is very expensive. | Extremely expensive. That will keep a lot of people from using | it. (Yes insurance exists, but hardly anyone has it). Being able | to text your friends for help is substantially more useful. Being | stuck on a backroad with no service, 5, 10, 20 miles from where | anyone can be expected to drive by is a far more common scenario | than breaking your leg at the top of a mountain and needing to be | evacuated. | Buttons840 wrote: | Does InReach require a monthly cost? | | Alternatively, you can spend about $200 one time on a personal | locator beacon that requires no ongoing costs. It can't do two- | way communication but activating it sends out a specific | frequency picked up by satellites and is the equivalent of | calling 911. Rescuers will come to help you. | | All serious hikers and outdoor adventurers should carry a | personal locator beacon. | s0rce wrote: | So far 100% of my inreach use is texting family, I bought it | for emergencies but so far (luckily) haven't needed it for | that. I'm confident that it will work well enough in that | situation that I don't need a PLB. | dont__panic wrote: | Any personal locator beacon recommendations? It's one of | those items that I could very much use during bike touring, | hiking, and bikepacking... but I've never bought one because | it seems like a very large cost for something I won't even | _test_ until it is a matter of life and death. | | Out of curiosity... is there any way to alert your local | emergency department in advance of testing a beacon, so you | can verify that it works? | lxgr wrote: | "Live testing" is discouraged: | https://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emergency_beacon-testing/ | pajko wrote: | This is a quite good writeup with some recommendations: | https://www.greenbelly.co/pages/best-personal-locator- | beacon... | | And answers your question: "Each device has a test mode | that will communicate with the SARSAT satellite network | without sending an alert." | lxgr wrote: | > Each device has a test mode that will communicate with | the SARSAT satellite network without sending an alert. | | That explanation is factually incorrect, then. There | currently is no "test" flag, nor is there the required | infrastructure to check if your test alert went through: | | https://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emergency_beacon-testing/ | | So this "self-test" feature can't be communicating with | actual satellites. No idea what it actually does, but | it's definitely not an end-to-end test. | jzwinck wrote: | I dont own this but it is pretty much the standard: | https://www.acrartex.com/products/resqlink-400/ | | These devices require a new battery every few years and | that service includes a test done by the manufacturer. | There is also a self test button on the device which does | not send a message to the satellites. | | If you really feel the need to send test messages into | space, they do support that but then you need a | subscription (https://www.acrartex.com/406link/). At that | point you may as well buy a different device which has 2 | way messaging included in the subscription. PLB users | generally do trust that their devices work the first time | they're used for real, and this trust is backed up by a lot | of real world use. | ghaff wrote: | >PLB users generally do trust that their devices work the | first time they're used for real, and this trust is | backed up by a lot of real world use. | | Although they are not foolproof. See for example the | story of Kate Matrosova. [1] Basically, mountain shadows | made the location readings erratic which, in combination | with extremely bad weather, meant rescuers couldn't find | her. | | [1] https://www3.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/21/the- | young-woma... | jzwinck wrote: | I only meant that the devices, if properly maintained, | can be trusted to do their job as best they can and not | say "PC LOAD LETTER" and expect you to troubleshoot it. A | successful rescue is never guaranteed. | | Those of us who are programmers usually default to "If | it's not tested end to end, it won't work," and that is | the sentiment I was responding to. | tialaramex wrote: | Note that http://www.catskillmountaineer.com/reviews- | winterhikingKM.ht... for example says Kate did _not_ have | a PLB, but only a SPOT (one of the many commercial | products in this space) | | PLBs are tested down to -40deg so it might have stayed | working for longer as the weather got worse. It is of | course impossible to say if Kate might have survived | under other circumstances except that (not very | interestingly) if she's decided the weather was too awful | and aborted she'd almost certainly live. | ghaff wrote: | It's been a while since I read the book on this. I'm not | sure if it got into the exact equipment or not. Certainly | if SAR had an accurate fix from the beginning there would | have been at least some hope for a rescue. | | The book was interesting mostly for all the SAR detail. | The accident, sadly, was mostly in the category of-- | however fit and well-equipped you are--don't try to beat | a very bad incoming storm on an exposed ridge line in the | middle of winter. If she had turned around at Madison Hut | or wherever she'd have been fine. | tjohns wrote: | The person in that article was using SPOT, not a PLB. | | Actual PLBs ( _not_ SPOT) have a backup strategy in the | event the GPS signal is obscured by mountains. | | If the device can't get a reliable GPS fix, the | satellites will resort to measuring doppler shift as they | pass overhead to locate the transmitter. It's slower | (takes several passes of the satellite, so we're talking | hours) and less accurate, but it will get rescuers to the | general direction. | | From there, PLB devices also transmit a low-power homing | signal on 121.5 MHz (the aviation distress frequency) | that SAR teams can locate using radio direction-finding | equipment. | ghaff wrote: | Thanks for the info. Although, in general, I assume a | device that allows you to have two-way communications | with SAR is preferable even if a PLB might have been | better in this ultimately fatal situation. | jabroni_salad wrote: | For PLB I am pretty sure it's universal. For messengers | (like the inreach), find out what people in your geo use | between iridium or SPOT because satellite coverage can | vary. For example, I have heard that in alaska SPOT's only | geostationary sat is really low on the southern horizon and | anything that breaks LOS will interfere with the device. | | For PLB specifically you cannot test them. Once you | activate them, they continually broadcast and cannot be | canceled except by destroying the device. For messengers, | they hook up to a web service and you can send messages to | personal email or SMS via the sat network as your test. | GekkePrutser wrote: | > I have heard that in alaska SPOT's only geostationary | sat is really low on the southern horizon and anything | that breaks LOS will interfere with the device. | | Any geostationary sat would be low on the southern | horizon in Alaska. That's just how geostationary orbits | work, they are over the equator. Though pretty high above | (35.000km/22.000mi). So it's still visible there but yeah | you need a clear view of the southern horizon. | | But Globalstar which runs the service for SPOT only has | low earth orbit sats which are definitely not | geostationary. They're only at a few hundred kilometers. | | However it could very well be that their orbits are | aligned so that they are always pretty low to the south | from Alaska, yes. | Johnny555 wrote: | _Does InReach require a monthly cost?_ | | Yeah, the cheapest plan is $14.95/mo ($11.95/mo if you pay | for 12 months) and includes 10 "free" text's, $0.50/text | after that. | | I wish they had a non-cost plan (or maybe $10/year) plus | $5/text or something like that for use in an emergency. I | have an InReach, but haven't used it for an emergency (yet), | I've sent a few texts to friends/family while outside of | cellular coverage since they are "free", but would rather | save money and only pay if I need to use it in an emergency | situation. | | Maybe they'll have to get more flexible with their plans now | that the iPhone has this feature, and T-Mobile is reportedly | coming out with Satellite connectivity for phones. | willcipriano wrote: | You can turn it off in the off-season making the annual | cost not quite monthly * 12 | Johnny555 wrote: | My problem is I don't really have an off-season, nearly | all year round I go on at least one hike a month that's | outside of cell coverage (not too hard around here), | which is why I got the InReach in the first place. | lxgr wrote: | > I wish they had a non-cost plan (or maybe $10/year) plus | $5/text or something like that for use in an emergency. | | Given that the outdoor SAR use case is probably the largest | reason for people to get one of these devices in the first | place, I doubt that such a model would be economically | sustainable (unless subsidized by government agencies or | possibly insurances saving money due to spending less on | large-scale search operations). | | Vendors could also bake a free SAR plan into the initial | sales price, I suppose. | chrisshroba wrote: | Yeah, if we conservatively say 1% of InReach users will | need to send an SOS message, then looking at the math: | | Today, 100 InReach subscribers nets Garmin around $144/yr | * 100 people = $14,400 | | If the InReach were free except for when activating the | SOS, the SOS would have to cost $14,000 to make that same | revenue from the same number of users. This would surely | lead to more deaths due to folks waiting way longer to | send an SOS. | | Numbers are estimates but the order of magnitude | shouldn't be too far off. | Johnny555 wrote: | They're going to lose the people like me anyway when | phones can send a SOS by satellite, so their revenue from | me will either go to $0 and I'll sell my InReach on eBay, | or they can get some small amount of revenue (enough to | cover the administrative costs of registering the device) | from me. | lxgr wrote: | Good point - now that the iPhone has satellite SOS, the | market has changed, and the pure SOS use case has become | a lot less compelling. | | Some users still prefer a standalone device, want P2P | messaging functionality (until Apple adds that, too), or | need coverage beyond Globalstar - I'd be curious to see | how much of the market that is, in the end. | noahjk wrote: | I like the way Fi does it, where service can be paused for | 90 days at a time. Just used it on vacation recently after | having it paused for a couple years and it was seamless. I | think I'll end up paying around $30 for the trip. It's a | nice balance imo | GoldenRacer wrote: | The $15 a month for the Garmin in reach is a month to | month plan. You can get it for a single trip then let it | expire for years before getting another month for your | next trip. If you buy a 1 year subscription it ends up | going down to $12/month so if you're using it >=10 months | a year, it's cheaper to commit to that but for most | people, month to month where you can pause whenever you | aren't using it is a good option. | masom wrote: | InReach, and any users (other brands offering competing two- | way communicators) of the Iridium satellite network, have | ongoing fees. They're rather small compared to someone dying | in the wilderness. | Buttons840 wrote: | My point was that you can avoid dying in the wilderness | with an even cheaper PLB. | lxgr wrote: | PLBs are great and definitely better than not carrying | any emergency communications device at all, but they can | ultimately only send out a binary signal: "I need help at | location x/y". | | There's a lot of situations in which I'd appreciate being | able to call help without possibly triggering an | expensive helicopter SAR operation, when sending a park | ranger would be more than sufficient (e.g. a sprained | ankle a mile off the trailhead when solo hiking). | | Another advantage of two-way communicators is being able | to get instructions from the SAR team: It can be vital to | know whether you should e.g. go to higher ground (because | your signal has not been received yet) or conversely seek | shelter from the elements for a couple of hours. Newer | PLBs partially solve that problem though, thanks to | Galileo's "blue light" return channel. | tony_cannistra wrote: | 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 | more likely to get a 1-2 person "hasty" team assigned to them | who can arrive quickly then call in more reinforcements if | necessary. A SAR org. isn't going to put 10 volunteers on a | PLB call that ends up being a rolled ankle, at least not | immediately. | | This has the potential to greatly delay the time to care for | you, especially for more severe emergencies. | widforss wrote: | I'm on a SAR team. We literally deployed 10 people on both | PLB's and Inreaches last winter. SAR people are _cheap_ | tony_cannistra wrote: | Totally. | | It sounds like your team has the advantage of having a | large volunteer corpus. I wish they all did. | biomcgary wrote: | SAR people may largely be volunteers, but helicopters | have fairly expensive operational costs. In time- | sensitive situations, it is better to have two way | communications (because it keeps SAR as inexpensive as | possible). See my sister comment for my wife's | experience. | widforss wrote: | Those two operations were made using snow mobiles, but | yes, as soon as helicopters com into the picture, the | costs skyrocket. | biomcgary wrote: | 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. | subsubzero wrote: | It does, I have the fancier inReach - the one that can make | calls and texts without being tethered to an iphone. The | service runs $15 a month for the basic service and scales up | depending on how many texts a month you want to use. I | wouldn't ditch it for an iphone 14 as it is way more rugged | and in really cold climates(I live near the mountains) a | iphone will rapidly discharge its battery and will be | useless. | | I finally broke down and got my inreach as I was exploring a | canyon way out in the desert and a rockslide almost took out | my ankle. I told my Wife when I got back and she made me get | one as I most likely would have been in serious trouble as | cell signal was not working and nobody was in miles of me. | carabiner wrote: | Which Inreach model allows voice calls? | jms703 wrote: | None of the Inreach devices can make calls. | subsubzero wrote: | you are correct, inReach devices can text by | themselves(with no cell signal) and can be paired with a | cell phone to make calls(I have the 66i), but not make | calls by themselves. | | https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/GUID-6E5DFD2E-EEE | 4-4... | c0nsumer wrote: | 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. | DMell wrote: | Yes there are monthly plans that have different features - | such as number of texts, custom messages, tracking intervals, | etc. | carabiner wrote: | There is no bill for rescues in Montana per | https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/missoula-gallatin-co- | searc.... It's much faster, safer to have professionals with | helicopters to pick them up rather than getting snow cats up | there. | arb-spreads wrote: | Agreed. Similar to the invention of seatbelts and other safety | devices, safer technology induces risker behavior. | | Would be unfortunate to have an over-reliance on emergency | services aided by these tools. | | Offer a few free texts a year and then charge like 5 bucks to | text for a day or something. | jjtheblunt wrote: | No one is asking this but the rest i know about, so i find | myself thinking "what on earth do you do with a rifle-shot-dead | elk?", since I have no suburban-kid idea. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | Leaving aside the option to take a side-by- | side/ATV/snowmobile (with skid or trailer if needed) to solve | the problem with horsepower, or the option of biological | horses instead of petroleum horses: | | 1. You first field dress it - cut from sternum to tail and | pull the entrails, leaving them in a pile in the woods for | scavengers. That takes your elk from 700 lbs (you hope) to | ~450 lbs. | | 2. Quarter it and hang the 4 ~100lbs quarters high in a tree | safe from bears and wolves (but not cougars) and carry them | out one at a time using a backpack with a frame and hip belt. | Be sure to carry the prime cuts (backstraps) out with the | first load. Watch for predators on the return trips. | | 3. It's becoming more common, too, to fully butcher the | animal in the field, removing the bones, which reduces the | load to haul down to about 200 lbs. The skin, ivory, and head | (if you want those) add some weight. | | A Jet Sled in 2" of snow makes it surprisingly easy to haul | an awful lot of elk and gear. As long as you're going across | flat ground or downhill, that is - uphill is no fun at all. | | A whitetail here in Michigan is much easier, even a big one | is only about 100 lbs after field dressing. You just lay it | on a drag/tarp or in a sled (or, if you don't care about the | skin staying pristine and aren't going over super rocky | terrain, just tie a rope to the antlers and front legs) and | drag it out. | COGlory wrote: | Great comment by LeifCarrotson pretty much explains it. I | gutted and skinned it, removing each quarter, and the meat | along the back, ribs, and neck. That took basically all day. | | Then, I put about half the elk on a children's sled, and | pulled it (mercifully downhill or level) about 1.5 miles. | Then, I went and got the other half. She was a cow, so no | antlers to carry. | | Then, I hung all the meat in a frienda garage for about 2 | days, took it home in several coolers, and fought off my dog | while every evening for 4 evenings, I separated the muscle | groups, and/or chunked meat to grind (lower quality meat gets | turned into hamburger or sausage), vacuum sealed eveything, | and froze it. | | I'm originally from Rhode Island, and this is only my third | animal (first was a deer, then an antelope) so it was pretty | overwhelming. | walrus01 wrote: | If you're seriously going to go into the back country in the | rural western US states and Canada, and you have a good paying | professional job, there is no excuse, in my opinion, not to | spend $1000 on a full capability Iridium handset and the | $50/month service plan that goes with it. If you really NEED to | use it you won't care that it costs $1.20 a minute to make a | call. | | https://www.iridium.com/products/iridium-9555/ | | People will happily spend $700 on an Arcteryx jacket and $400 | boots but won't buy an Iridium handset. I truly don't | understand. | prescriptivist wrote: | > The SOS button is very expensive. Extremely expensive. | | With my inReach I pay for the insurance plan [1]. I do | wilderness float/canoe/kayak trips and I have it for peace of | mind in case I or somebody I'm with (or encounter) is | immobilized, as I can walk out of most places I go to if my | legs are working. | | I haven't been able to find any such option for the iPhone, | which, amongst other things, means I'll be keeping my inReach. | Though to be clear I don't know to what degree I would be on | the hook for anything if I _did_ hit the SOS button. | | https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/906397 | DMell wrote: | I encourage people to know the laws in the state they are | exploring as they are different across the board - some are | at no cost to the individual while others have clauses. | | Additionally, know how your device works - end to end - | regardless of what it is. You gain a lot of knowledge and | life saving techniques by knowing the process that is kicked | off, it's timeframe, etc. | lxgr wrote: | > you really need to be able to send texts. | | I'd be surprised if Apple does not launch this as a paid | feature sooner rather than later (possibly as a perk part of | Apple One or one of their other subscription plans). | MarkMarine wrote: | For Emergency services there is no "activate and pay later" | because you don't need to activate, and you don't need to pay. | If you have an iPhone 14 it's supposed to just work if you're | calling 911. | martyvis wrote: | >If you have an iPhone 14 it's supposed to just work if | you're calling 911. | | Did you mean to say "work AS if you're calling 911"? The | emergency message via satellite function has to be explicitly | used instead of just calling 911 | MarkMarine wrote: | Sure, kind of nitpicky, but sure. | | To the average user, they will try to dial 911, the iPhone | won't be able to complete a cellular 911 call and will then | present the user with the UI for sending an emergency | message to first responders. I don't really see the need | for distinction, except between an iPhone 14 and a 13, or | an android, which would fail to make the 911 call and | that's it. | SpikeDad wrote: | No. If you're offgrid and try to call 911 the interface | automatically offers to use Satellite services. | JadeNB wrote: | > For Emergency services there is no "activate and pay later" | because you don't need to activate, and you don't need to | pay. If you have an iPhone 14 it's supposed to just work if | you're calling 911. | | This is nothing special about the iPhone or the version; | every cell phone is supposed to put through calls to 911: | | > All wireless phones, even those that are not subscribed to | or supported by a specific carrier, can call 911. | | https://www.911.gov/calling-911/frequently-asked-questions/ | amscanne wrote: | The parent comment is referring to the iPhone 14's ability | to reach emergency services via a satellite network; this | is indeed something special. | JadeNB wrote: | I was confused, because the parent comment says: | | > For Emergency services there is no "activate and pay | later" because you don't need to activate, and you don't | need to pay. If you have an iPhone 14 it's supposed to | just work if you're calling 911. | | The Emergency SOS seems explicitly to require activation, | and to have a cost (eventually): | | > The service will be included for free for two years | starting at the time of activation of a new iPhone 14, | iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone 14 Pro, and iPhone 14 Pro Max.4 | | So I assumed that the parent was referring to just | calling 911 using the normal cell network, which can | indeed be done, on any mobile phone (that is able to | dial, of course), without activation or payment. | nneonneo wrote: | Activation here refers to the activation of the phone | itself, not the satellite service specifically. A new | phone needs to be activated (registering it with Apple | and maybe your carrier) before you can use it at all. | | The "use and pay later" scheme refers to an emergency | system that is pay-per-use or requires an ongoing payment | (e.g. subscription); the idea would be that if you use | the feature at all it works immediately but will charge | you for that sometime later (kinda like how an ambulance | will pick you up right away but bill you for the | privilege later). | MarkMarine wrote: | It doesn't require "activation, " you try to call 911 and | when you don't have signal, the phone sends an emergency | text message to the satellite network. | | Just read up on the feature, if you're curious. | pests wrote: | What about after the two year free period? | MarkMarine wrote: | Seems like we'll find out in a year or two no? No one | knows right now but I'm not going to bag on a service | that will save lives on the maybe chance that 2 years | from now it might cost something but we don't know what. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | > there needs to be a "use it now, pay later" or no one is | going to activate it and actually have it available when they | need it | | I've been solo hiking, running, kayaking, and biking in areas | without cell service since before cell phones were things | people carried. | | Haven't needed emergency search-and-rescue in 20 years, so it's | just never seemed like a good investment...that's $3600 I could | have 'wasted' on a service I've never needed. But I would | probably buy and carry an InReach if they offered use it now, | pay later plans. I don't carry a PLB, because that would mean | paying for insurance, and I'd more likely need a lift from my | brother in a side-by-side than a helicopter from the sheriff's | office (and the ruinous costs that would entail.... | | I plan to wear my Fenix 6 Pro for another 10 years, but if they | came out with a version with InReach 2-way texts my wife would | buy it RIGHT NOW, express shipping, not even a thought of | waiting for Christmas. | | On the other hand, that's $3600 of profit for | Apple/Garmin/Iridium/Globalstar/Spot that they're loathe to | leave on the table until the one time in 20 years when I really | need it. | dave78 wrote: | Depending on the location, perhaps getting your amateur radio | license and a radio with APRS on it might help fill in some | of the coverage gaps. I've heard (though cannot confirm | personally) that there is often APRS coverage in remote areas | that are otherwise not served by cellular. | error503 wrote: | It depends a lot on the terrain and specific area whether a | typical VHF/UHF ham radio will work. The range is much | longer than cellular, but it is quite LOS, and | repeater/digipeater sites with good coverage tend to be at | established antenna sites for commercical broadcast or | telecom. There'll be some more remote sites of course, but | infrastructure and LOS is still more or less required. With | many popular recreation areas up in uninhabited mountain | valleys with no infrastructure and where building stuff is | often prohibited, the chances of hitting a site aren't | great unless you happen to be below a mountain microwave | site or such. At least without hiking out of the valley, | but that's hardly a condition you want to put on yourself | for an emergency communicator. | | That said, it's not a bad thing to carry in your car, as | there are plenty enough dead spots that would likely be | covered by packet radio. It's just a lot less clear how to | get help. | rcurry wrote: | This. I've been wilderness backpacking for a long time | and still carry a 2m radio just for fun, but the | usefulness is limited in a lot of places. If you're | climbing up a mountain in NH you can pretty much hit a | repeater from anywhere, but if you're trekking around in | Big Bend State Park in Texas you can forget it. Satellite | communication is much better and if you can't afford a | few hundred bucks for some kind of satcom then you | probably shouldn't be going out too deep into some of | these places. | michael1999 wrote: | Would sending your their location have been enough? Because | that seems to be an option in addition to the 911 call. | exabrial wrote: | Interesting observation: You prevented a "uh oh" from turning | into an "we're dying" state. It sounds like your friends are | pretty hardened for the backcountry, and they needed to get | out, but it wasn't life-threatening (at the time). Something we | should consider while designing these systems. I think the | pricepoint of InReach services certainly prevent casual usage | (sending memes, browsing instagram) but allows sufficient | communication at a reasonable price to coordinate safely. | | Also, with 5ft of snow coming down, I have my doubts an iPhone | would be able to reach out and touch a satellite. It'll be | interesting to see some tests. | ingalls wrote: | First off, super glad to hear your friends are out of the field | safe. | | Want to address one point however: "The SOS button is very | expensive. Extremely expensive" | | In my experience on multiple SAR teams (Search and Rescue), | this is almost never the case in North America. Search and | Rescue is one of the few services that is almost uniformly free | [1]. Thousands and thousands of volunteer hours every year keep | it that way. In fact, the two most prominent professional | organizations for SAR (NASAR [2] & MRA [3]) both have | longstanding policies that teams should not charge for rescue. | On a personal level, I can tell you that the majority of the | rescues/recoveries I have worked in the last decade would have | been easier or led to a better outcome if the subject had | called earlier. Embarrassment and fear of cost are the two | primary reasons I have had subjects quote as the reasons they | delayed calling for rescue, even after they knew self-rescue | would not be possible. When you realize self-rescue isn't | possible, call us early. | | [1] The only counties that I know of that charge for rescue are | in Utah: | https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=54909102&itype=CMS... | [2] https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2009/05/billing- | search... [3] https://mra.org/what-is-mras-position-on- | charging-for-search... | akelly wrote: | A friend's 18yo brother was motorcycling in the mountains | with their father, crashed and broke his femur. Ambulance | would have taken hours, they had helicopter rescue insurance, | but the only helicopter company that operated there wouldn't | take it. Got a $25k bill for the helicopter ride and | negotiated down to $16k iirc. | dave78 wrote: | > 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? | LeoPanthera wrote: | The iPhone service sends a pre-written SMS to the 911 | service. They decide whether to deploy rescue services or | not. | ingalls wrote: | 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 that the backcountry is somehow | "safer", I don't know that I've seen this cause an uptick | in callouts for our team. Subjects needing rescue are still | usually hesitant to call for rescue and usually try to self | extricate, even when they should likely initiate a rescue. | Most of our call-outs happen at night for this reason. | | That said, the upside of these devices is significant - | especially in the area of improving our response time and | reducing total callout time. The advent of the E911 Phase 2 | (including location in 911 calls) has made the majority of | our call-outs dramatically simpler & faster. What was | formerly a multi-step process which might involve something | like deploying multiple hasty teams to sweep large areas; | determining subject location; deploying specialized | resources for extraction -- can now jump straight to | deploying a single hasty team for medical while | simultaneously deploying specialized resources given that | the terrain & access is known via the subject's location. | | Edit: I can't edit my above comment, but just got | confirmation from a friend both Grand and Wayne have | revised their rescue policy and now only charge in | exceptional circumstances - | https://www.grandcountyutah.net/734/Donate-to-GCSAR | dave78 wrote: | > Subjects needing rescue are still usually hesitant to | call for rescue and usually try to self extricate | | Someone with the knowledge and foresight to bring along a | Garmin or PLB or something probably has a decent | understanding of what it means to use it - waking people | up and deploying expensive assets - and because of that I | can see why they'd probably hesitate (it surely would | trigger my "I don't want to be a bother" instinct). | | I hope once every iPhone user has the same capability | that it doesn't become an "eternal September"-like moment | and flip too far the other way into overly casual use. | | Regardless, you're much closer to the situation than I am | so I'll defer to your expertise. Clearly, more | communications in an emergency is always going to be | better, so I look forward to seeing stories about how | this new feature saves lives. | | And thanks for your efforts in providing rescue services | to the people who need them! | macNchz wrote: | That decision making process is a key part of what's | taught in a wilderness medicine course: assessing the | situation at hand and deciding whether it's necessary to | evacuate for a higher level of care, and if so, whether | you need a rapid evac like a helicopter, or can walk or | be carried out with fewer resources. | https://blog.nols.edu/2018/02/20/stay-or-go-infographic | | I do tend to agree that this has a pretty good chance of | creating more nuisance calls from people who are not in | actual danger...I read the New York forest rangers | reports now and then, and a big portion of the rescues | involve clueless people who set off alone with no map, an | hour before sunset in October wearing a tshirt and | shorts. | fastaguy88 wrote: | At least those people probably need to be rescued. The | more annoying examples are people who are not lost or in | danger, but just decided they were tired and did not want | to walk back out. | kenhwang wrote: | As someone with a bunch of idiotic friends that always find | themselves needing SAR in North America. The rule of thumb | within the group that has generally held true is: if you're | on federal lands it's fully free, but if you're in resort, | city, or state jurisdiction they'll absolutely try to claw | back the costs. | | The SAR might be technically "free", but they'll categorize | as many things under "medical emergency" as possible and | throw the book of fines at you. | giobox wrote: | While this is great to know, the SOS button is still | fundamentally potentially a completely open-ended liability | if you haven't taken Garmin's 30 buck annual insurance option | for it. Even with that, you are only capped at $50k to best | of my knowledge. Your Utah example illustrates this. | | In a real SOS situation the cost is likely immaterial, but I | can absolutely understand why people would wait a bit longer | than they should before pressing. | bombcar wrote: | Having two-way communications would help tremendously, | because then you can say "well, pressing the button will | cost $100, but the person on the other end will know if I | need rescue now or later". | post_break wrote: | Check this video out about that being free: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u49b-_cWlz8 | jsjohnst wrote: | > Search and Rescue is one of the few services that is almost | uniformly free | | Just wanted to come and confirm based on first hand | experience that this is true and also say a heart felt thank | you for doing what you do! | alach11 wrote: | > The service will be included for free for two years starting at | the time of activation of a new iPhone 14, iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone | 14 Pro, and iPhone 14 Pro Max. | | Interesting to see the hidden in the fine print at the end. Will | they be selling a subscription to the service? | qubex wrote: | As remarked by others this is likely so they can kill it off in | the near future (in a couple of years) if it is an unmitigated | disaster. It's highly unlikely they'll make it into a | subscription service because the optics could be so bad ("man | dies of exposure after Apple declines credit card and | disconnects satellite emergency service"). | aabhay wrote: | No one here has mentioned this here, surprisingly, but the UX on | this feature is absolutely incredible. Clear, thoughtful, | helpful, and deeply integrated with user services. It almost | makes me _want_ to get into trouble, just to be able to use this | service! | dagmx wrote: | There's a demo mode in the settings fortunately | MarkMarine wrote: | There is!!! Awesome! This should be a top comment because I | was worried how I'd teach my parents to use it. | papito wrote: | This is great, but people do still need to keep in mind that this | is not a full replacement of the emergency beacons that use the | Cospas-Sarsat system, which would work anywhere, from pole to | pole. | | If you are going to do extreme hiking in Patagonia, get a real | distress beacon. There is no service charge except for the device | itself. | | This is no joke - I had to use mine in the middle of Death Valley | (of all places) during a seizure-like episode. Saved my life. | RL_Quine wrote: | Yeah, it's no replacement for a dedicated device, but it's with | a whole lot of people all the time. | mrtksn wrote: | Just like with Apple Watch Ultra, Its for people with serious | hobbies but not professionals or those on the extreme end. I | think they have a name for that market segment. | piperswe wrote: | In computer hardware, that market segment is typically called | "prosumer" | heynowheynow wrote: | 406 PLB's - monitored by satellite - Garmin InReach Explorer+ | looks alright and doesn't need a special factory battery | replacement. | | 121.5 ELTs - requiring sar aircraft proximity - are obsolete. | wstrange wrote: | This is really going to eat into Garmin's Inreach market (ditto | for Spot, Zoleo, etc). | | It says free for the first 2 years. I'm curious what the yearly | cost will be after that, and how it will compare to an Inreach | plan. On an ongoing basis, it's the subscription fees that really | add up. | brookst wrote: | I'm not sure it will eat into those markets. Those are device | for people who know they are going off-grid and may need both | emergency comms and who (typically) also want to be able to let | people at home know where they are and how things are going. | | My take is the Apple SOS is for people who are unprepared and | surprised, and who wouldn't have bought a satellite comm device | and paid for the subscription because they weren't expecting | the emergency. | | I'm a happy iPhone 14 user who will get this nice feature, but | I'm not planning to cancel my InReach subscription ($20/month, | pause/resume any time), which I have never used to call for a | rescue but have used a lot to let family know where I am and | that things are fine when overlanding. And Inreach works right | from the dashboard while driving, no need to get situated | perfectly. | | Maybe this is a harbinger and future enhancements will kill | Inreach, but at least for now it feels like a very different | application. | MarkMarine wrote: | One of my buddies does S&R in Marin county, they get called | for people getting lost 300 yards off trail that were going | for a walk CONSTANTLY. Just people out for a walk, no cell | coverage. They never have gear with them. My friend said this | a game changer. | pests wrote: | I notice we have a lot of SAR people in this thread so | question for everyone: | | Is it wrong to call for help when you are lost only 300 | yards off trail like you said? I would be embarrassed - but | is anyone going to be upset? | dghlsakjg wrote: | SAR here in BC Canada vastly prefer that you call at the | first hint of trouble, even if you don't think you | necessarily need help. | | They would much rather be on alert and be stood down, or | assist someone over the phone who called early and is | easy to find and help. The problem is that many people | wait until conditions deteriorate or they are much more | lost. | | Sending a team of a few people to go out and call your | name along a trail during the day in clear weather is | easy. Sending a team of people to find a hypothermic or | injured person at night and extract them is an order of | magnitude more involved and risky. | | In other words, no one will be upset if you call out of | caution. | MarkMarine wrote: | Not wrong, it's never wrong to call for help if you need | help. Call early before you're hypothermic, dehydrated | and your cell battery is dead. | | A lot of my buddies rescues are older people who just got | a little lost, or slipped down a steep embankment and | can't get back up. The worst ones are when that happens, | but it's been 3 days and the chances they find a live | person are more slim. | | The SAR people vastly prefer finding people alive, so if | you need help, give them a chance for a happy ending by | calling. | ghaff wrote: | Yeah, it doesn't take much. People _should_ be in better | shape with smartphones in their pockets but I wonder how | many even think about the compass or have downloaded maps | if they aren 't in cellphone coverage. And it's not like | the commercial map providers are all that good with | mapping trails. | | Absent some combination of map and compass--in some form | --it's super-easy to get totally disoriented absent trail | and landmarks. Long before cell phones, I still remember | going on a casual short off-trail jaunt to a lighthouse | in Nova Scotia and suddenly realizing I really didn't | know where I was. Took a deep breath, carefully figured | things out, and I was fine (the boundaries were pretty | constrained anyway). But it's not hard. | MarkMarine wrote: | From what I've been told, there are a ton of incidents of | just 50-70 year olds that are out for a daily walk and a | couple things go wrong. The service in the hills around | here is pretty poor, so it's not hard for me to imagine | that this was a regular walk, you take a pint of water | and a sweater and that's it. | | I own a PLB that I use for safety when spearfishing from | a kayak in Northern CA, but I don't bother throwing it in | my pocket if I'm just walking the dog in the woods for a | couple minutes. I can see this being a big help. | ghaff wrote: | One can certainly imagine future iterations where you can | text arbitrary people for $1/text or whatever. A dedicated | robust device with long battery life would still have its | niche but that would certainly limit the market even more. | [deleted] | DebtDeflation wrote: | It won't. I have an InReach Mini that I take with me hiking and | mountain biking. I use the capability to send non-emergency | texts almost every time I'm out when not in cell range. I've | never (thankfully) had to use the Emergency capability. What | the Apple function will do is lead to a flood of people | triggering emergency alerts when they drop their water bottle | on a 3 mile day hike in the local park. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Sometimes it is illegal to offer something for free if it | destroys competition in an area you want to compete in. | brantonb wrote: | I was just looking at the Garmin inReach on REI's sale a few | minutes ago. $350 for the device ($50 off right now), $30 | activation fee, and $12/month for two years is $668. Upgrading | my 3 year old phone is $800. Kind of a no-brainer to use the | phone I'd be carrying anyway. | | I'm not looking to use it for weeks-long trips. Mostly trail | running and maybe a few days in the back country. | ghaff wrote: | I've looked at the InReach. If I were doing a lot of solo | remote backcountry travel (whether hiking or something else), | I'd probably feel that buying one and getting a subscription | was the prudent thing to do. However, for occasional use for | mostly day hikes with patchy cell phone coverage? That's hard | to justify whereas I might consider (though won't) upgrade my | phone a bit sooner than I might have otherwise for this | feature. | alphakilo wrote: | Echoing others, I don't think this will have a huge impact as | iPhone SOS is a last resort for those who are unprepared | | Garmin inReach is a robust and rugged satellite communicator | that out classes iPhone emergency SOS greatly | | - inreach doesn't require "tracking" the satellite as it has a | stronger antenna - inreach is more waterproof, dust proof atd | shock resistant (no touch screen) - inreach has higher battery | life, SOS can be activated while the device is off - ability to | send messages, which can be critical if there are no cell | towers that can be boosned/activated | | That said, it is a great innovation; I think the Apple Watch | Ultra will cut more into the diving watch market than the | iPhone into the satellite communicator market | MarkMarine wrote: | I don't see the market for a high end dive watch without air | integration, but with the UX they have. | | The people that don't care about AI dive with a perdix or | tables, but basically require something you can operate with | gloves on. The rest of them with the money for a nice watch | really want AI. | ghostpepper wrote: | "perdix or tables" those are starkly different options. do | you know a lot of people who still dive with tables? | MarkMarine wrote: | Yeah, like everyone that dives with GUE, I plan my dives | and dive tables and a bottom timer. | nradov wrote: | Garmin sells a high-end dive watch without air integration | as the Descent Mk2 / Mk2S. They also have the Mk2i with AI. | They don't release sales numbers so it's not clear how well | those products are doing in the market. | | Personally I use the Mk2 because I mostly do technical | dives and have little use for AI, but divers like me are a | tiny market niche. The latest Shearwater Perdix models do | support AI. If Garmin launches a Descent "Mk3" product line | as expected next year it might include AI as a standard | feature across all models. | MarkMarine wrote: | Ah, yes the garmin watches are nice as well. I swear they | just added the AI to the perdix line to catch the super | rich gear nerd + rec diver market, because who needs a | multi-gas full deco computer and is going to use AI. | tinus_hn wrote: | Just like the best camera is the one you actually have with | you, the best rescue device is the one you actually have with | you. And for many people, that's not going to be a Garmin | inReach because they don't own a device and they don't have a | subscription to the service. | nickpp wrote: | > Garmin inReach is a robust and rugged satellite | communicator | | I own one and when I brought it on a remote expedition I | found it to be a buggy POS: duplicated messages, stuck | connection requiring resets, garbled messages. | | That being said, the current iPhone 14 satellite function | wouldn't have worked at all for my purpose in those | circumstances. | Alex3917 wrote: | The bigger threat to Garmin is probably just the new GPS. There | are probably a lot of folks who will now put off buying their | first bike computer for a couple years now that an iPhone with | Strava is going to be almost as accurate as an Edge 530 or | whatever. Having a real bike computer is still going to be | better, but by significantly less than it was a year ago. | nradov wrote: | Some cyclists do already use iPhones with the Strava app as | bike computers but they don't work very well. The third-party | mounts are kind of janky, battery life is terrible, screen | visibility is poor in some lighting conditions, and they | don't support the ANT+ industry standard for common sensors | such as power meters. An iPhone is adequate for casual use, | but Garmin isn't really trying to target that market anyway. | Those casual cyclists don't care about recording precise GPS | tracks. | | The latest high-end Garmin devices do support multi-frequency | GPS just as accurate as the iPhone 14. Those chips aren't | included in Garmin's mid-range products like Edge 5XX/8XX | series bike computers but will probably be added in the next | refresh. | CarbonCycles wrote: | Garmin has already released the new GPS chipset that uses | multiband (similar to Apples). | | https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=9NWiPDU4gM0JWMfdWFol7A | | The new GPS chipsets are absolutely a beast in challenging | conditions and incredibly accurate/precise over the older | technology. | Matthias247 wrote: | As an enthusiast cyclist I don't think they is a threat to | Garmin and Wahoo. The customers for those are enthusiasts who | ride in all conditions and want a rugged device, a device | with good battery life, a slim form factor that doesn't look | off place on handlebars. Bike computers offer all of those, | while phones do it only in a limited way. That has been | driving cyclists to use bike computers for years, and not the | lack of GPS precision. So I think nothing will change. | | More casual cyclists might use their phones since they | already have those and don't want to buy an extra bike | computer - but that was already true in the past. | petre wrote: | One doesn't need to buy an expensive Garmin model. I've got | an Edge 130 and an older Edge 25 that I've bought second | hand. The 130 came as an upgrade to the older device and is | perfect for my use. Both devices connect with my Forerunner | 245 watch for the HR. Whenever I don't want to use them | (commute or sub 20 km workout), I just use the watch. Dual | frequency GPS is probably going to make its way into cheaper | Garmin models soon enough, maybe thanks to Apple. | | Having a phone on the handlebar/top tube is cumbersome and | annoying, battery life is crap and distractions galore. I | don't want needless phone calls from annoying people | interrupting my workout and distracting me from watching the | road. I've set up my Garmin devices to ignore phone calls and | texts from the phone during workouts. | mikestew wrote: | _I 've set up my Garmin devices to ignore phone calls and | texts from the phone during workouts._ | | As an FYI, if you have an iPhone, you can set a "Fitness" | focus mode that turns on automatically when a workout is | started. From there, you can specify which contacts can pop | a notification during workouts (or none at all). I let my | wife and my parents get through. | | But, like you, not that I'd use a phone as a bike computer | to begin with. | sevenf0ur wrote: | I have both an inReach and an iPhone 14. Haven't made a | decision yet myself if I will keep it. Some pros for the | inReach: | | 1. It's nice to have a backup. 2. The battery life on the | inReach is upwards of a month and it's more rugged. 3. You can | throw it in your pack, forget about it, and somehow it stills | gets a signal. 3. Garmin has a dedicated communications center | (IERCC) that has tons of experience coordinating with first | responders. They will keep your emergency contacts updated | about your rescue. Apple's system is less proven. | brewdad wrote: | I see the InReach as the system to use if you are an avid | outdoors-person. This setup is well suited to the millions | who took up hiking as a way to get out of the house during | Covid and now maybe go out to the wilderness a couple times a | summer but don't fully grasp the risks that can be out there. | | Another use case: The there are two highways between my metro | area and the Pacific coast. Both are pretty remote through | the forest. One has decent coverage with only a couple of | mile long dropouts along the way. The other road has | essentially zero cell coverage for about 20 miles and spotty | coverage for another 20 miles. Winter travelers have gone off | the road and not been found for hours or even days. This | device could certainly save a life in that case. | katbyte wrote: | Spot and zoleo for sure, not sure about garmin yet. I'll be | keeping mine as you can text people with it outside or an | emergency which is super handy. "I'm late don't worry" or "I'm | stuck but ok" | JTbane wrote: | Could this result in false alarms, as people call for help | accidentally or in non emergencies? I know PLBs in aviation have | a very high false alarm rate (98%). | rootusrootus wrote: | You can't use the service without first dialing 911. Hopefully | that will convey to most users the gravity of what they're | doing. | la64710 wrote: | FTA | | " Apple designed and built custom components and software that | allow iPhone 14 to connect to a satellite's unique frequencies | without a bulky antenna." | | Quite mind blowing IMHO. | tyingq wrote: | As someone who grew up in the era before mobile phones, it truly | is strange to see devices that do roughly everything Captain | Kirk's communicator could do. But in my lifetime, and available | to average people. | elboru wrote: | "Available to average people" that's what amazes me. I remember | when I played with an iPhone for the first time. It was an | amazing device, but I thought it was a luxury device for rich | people only. A few years later smartphones got a lot cooler and | cheaper, to the point where it actually helped spread the | internet to sections of the population that weren't able or | didn't want to use a PC. | sitkack wrote: | I used to buy used cars for less than the price of a new top- | end iPhone. They aren't phones, they are pocket | computers/jewelry that sometimes make phone calls. | heynowheynow wrote: | and Dick Tracy. | | We haven't arrived at full tricorder yet though. | DonHopkins wrote: | We're at bicorder, looking forward to quadcorder. | braymundo wrote: | I bet Kirk's communicator couldn't even play games, so it's | wilder. :) | heynowheynow wrote: | No, it was just corporate MDM managed to prevent it. :) | avian wrote: | If it did, Scotty would be working on an adtech backend, | Bones would be researching ways to make games more addictive | and humanity would never have left Earth. | goda90 wrote: | When watching sci-fi movies and TV, I often wonder what | happened with the development of gaming, social media, and | virtual reality in the timeline of the show. It seems like in | most of the cases where they actually get mentioned in sci- | fi, it's kind of dystopian. | piperswe wrote: | Star Trek at least shows using the holodeck for leasure, | though they don't go into the specifics of using the | holodeck for communication (you could be in the "same room" | as someone lightyears away!) or for gaming. | dylan604 wrote: | Didn't Kirk have to cheat to beat Spock's unbeatable game? | Games might not have disappeared, but maybe they changed to | be unrecognizable by people that can only travel at slower | than warp speed. | lancesells wrote: | As dystopian as the keynote for these new emergency features | felt, they are real-life helpful features. 99.99% of people | will never need it but for the small fraction who do it's | amazing. | Watchwatcher wrote: | All the features, and none of the freedom. Kirk and the crew | would have a lot of bad things to say about the iPhone and it's | walled lawn. It's tragic that I can't install an application I | wrote without going through Apple on the thousand dollar | computer that I bought. | SaberTail wrote: | I find it amusing that Star Trek didn't anticipate | communicators or tricorders having a flashlight function like | our phones do. When they need lights, they either carry | special-purpose ones or shoot a rock with a phaser to make it | glow. | | Generously, maybe someone did think of it, but it would have | been too difficult to make a prop with a bright enough light | source. | vel0city wrote: | I use my phone's flashlight a good bit, it is very useful. | That said, if I was going on some away mission where lighting | was going to be questionable, I'd probably bring some kind of | dedicated lighting equipment like a flashlight. | | My flashlights have adjustable beams. They throw out many | times more light than my phone's flashlight. Using the | dedicated flashlight gives a way better lighting experience | than using my phone's flashlight. But it is like cameras, the | best flashlight is the one on you. | freeflight wrote: | As far as I remember the shooting rock with phaser thing was | more about having a source of heat, as not to freeze to | death. | | I can see the communicator on the chest being used as a | flashlight with the powerful LED we have today. | | But 90s TV show prop departments would probably have had one | hell of a time trying to make that work, and practical, so | instead they gave everybody futuristic looking flashlights | aka "palm beacons" [0] | | [0] https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Palm_beacon | Jemm wrote: | Honestly if I could shoot a rock with a phaser to make it | glow, I wouldn't bother with a flash light either. | [deleted] | wongarsu wrote: | And phones like the CAT s61 [1] are well on their way to add | the functionality of Spock's Tricorder into the same package. | | https://www.catphones.com/en-ca/cat-s61-smartphone/ | germinalphrase wrote: | Listed features: | | - thermal imaging - laser assisted distance measurement - | indoor air quality | Kye wrote: | I can do 1/3 with my iPhone already using the lidar and 3/3 | with attachments. | dylan604 wrote: | I don't remember anyone using a tricoder saying, "hang | on. i need to switch attachments to do the thing." | freeflight wrote: | Tho I do remember a whole lot of "We can _reconfigure_ | the tricoder to do the thing " | Kye wrote: | That's because it's science fiction. Imaginary futures | are usually better than reality. | freeflight wrote: | Even more impressive is the fact how it can do all these | things for around the same price as other smartphones, | while being way more rugged. | | Definitely gonna keep those CAT phones in mind for the next | time I need a new one. | xattt wrote: | Growing up during proliferation of mobile devices but in | financially-limited circumstances, there are certain things | that I've relegated to "not for me" because of an imprinted | cost. | | Getting a smartphone and paying a recurring fee for data (when | I was perfectly capable) was still a major point of hesitation | for me. | | Satellite-based communication devices remains as one of the | self-imposed unobtaniums. | vel0city wrote: | An amateur radio license, a $30 handheld radio, and another | $30 of PVC and wires will get you into space communications. | almog wrote: | I think it's great for phones to include to have some of the | functionality of a SEND (Satellite Emergency Notification Device) | front-country situations where cell service is unavailable. These | are some of the reasons why I wouldn't use it as a replacement | for an ad-hoc SEND or PLB (which I use for long distance hiking): | | 1. Short wave length (~2.4GHz iPhone < 1.6GHz SEND < 406MHz PLB). | Shorter wave length are less affected from terrain obstructions. | 2. UX - to send an emergency signal using iPhone, due to its | shorter wave length, one has to point to the approximate LEO | satellite position. Last time I searched on how it would look, it | seemed that an on-screen instruction would guide the user where | to point the phone, I'm not sure if there there is any | accessibility mode that would use voice to do that if for example | the screen is broken (or the user cannot see). If the screen is | broken, would the user even be able to activate the SOS feature? | Using voice? What if you're caught in a super noisy wind storm or | the mic is broken? Perhaps future models will have a physical | trigger to activate it. | | 2. Durability - other than PLB/SEND being much more durable when | it comes to impact and water damage, the battery itself, at least | with PLB is rated up to -40. A phone battery starts to become | unreliable at +30f. | | 3. Latency and reliability: iPhone I believe, due to its short | wavelength only transmit to LEO satellite, where as PLBs does | LEO, GEO and MEO, which means lower latency in some cases, | especially when the sky is obstructed by terrain and even more so | if you're unlucky to be in an east-west canyon that doesn't | follow a LEO satellite orbit, theoretically at least you have a | better chance with GEO satellite. Also, in places such as canyons | where GPS fix is unreliable, COSPAS-SARSAT MEO and LEO satellite | that serve PLBs will use Doppler location approximation. Not sure | if Iridium LEO satellite that serve iPhone do that. | Hippocrates wrote: | I've had a few situations skiing at resorts where I was just a | bit off-piste and found myself struggling through waist-deep | powder. In the dense trees and snow it can be very difficult to | see and hear even a small distance away. Add an injury to the mix | and it's trouble. I would never consider buying a standalone | satellite communicator device for this but having one on my phone | is an awesome value add for me. | | As someone else said "The best camera is the one you have with | you". Same is true for satellite communicators. | pqdbr wrote: | From the article: | | > A text compression algorithm was also developed to reduce the | average size of messages by 300 percent | | I don't think that's how percentages work. | Slartie wrote: | Also, a 75% reduction (which I assume was meant by their 300 | percent) is not that impressive when it comes to text | compression. I'd guess that should be easily reachable with | zstd by just creating a pre-shared dictionary generated from a | bunch of typical emergency messages. Especially when those | messages are partially auto-generated by a wizard-style | questionnaire and will thus adhere to a previously-known | structure and contain a lot of known elements and words. | dont__panic wrote: | You know damn well there's a new "Staff Engineer" at Apple | who fluffed this "algorithm" up as an argument for a | promotion from Senior Engineer. And likely a few product | folks and managers who ballooned this entire project way out | of proportion for their own career advancement. | __turbobrew__ wrote: | Staff engineer at apple discovers gzip | thatfrenchguy wrote: | From my friends who work at Apple, there's a lot less of | that promotion-driven work because most of the engineers | there are at ict4. | kotaKat wrote: | I suspect the algorithm is just the frontloaded questions they | ask you -- of course they can shrink all that down into a | handful of bytes and unpack it on the other end as "car crash, | 3 people, injuries reported, lat/long". | | So the percentage "works", in a way, until you get to the | freeform text. | easygenes wrote: | Is this enabled by the giant satellite that just went up that | astronomers are worried about? | zosoworld wrote: | No, that's the Bluewalker from AST. This is Globalstar. | Mo3 wrote: | Stuff like this is the reason Apple is valued as highly as it is. | nickcw wrote: | From the small print | | > The service will be included for free for two years starting at | the time of activation of a new iPhone 14, iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone | 14 Pro, and iPhone 14 Pro Max. | | Which kind of implies it will be a pay for service after two | years. | pathartl wrote: | I would assume it's rolled into the iCloud subscription after | two years | BoardsOfCanada wrote: | That could be some very bad PR in two years. Imagine "X got | lost and died two days after his apple(tm) subscription | expired". | adrianmonk wrote: | They could just let you use it and charge you a one-time fee. | | And don't require the payment to go through before unlocking | the feature, obviously. There will be some people who you can | never collect payment from, but not that many. | president wrote: | This could be mitigated by not blocking access to the feature | after the 2 years and charging for each use. | sneak wrote: | The product announcement for the iPhone 14 said nothing about | any sort of recurring subscription costs for such a service. | brookst wrote: | Maybe? | | If I were the product manager there, I would fight tooth and | nail to only make a short term commitment to support it at all. | Two years in, if it's un unmitigated disaster costing $1B/year | and generating zero rescues and zero PR, kill it. You can't do | that if you've promised "free for the life of the phone" or | something. | DrBenCarson wrote: | My guess is they're going to keep it free as long as you get a | new phone every 2 years or add some more features and charge | for those. | | Don't think they want to look like they're charging people to | keep their lives. | ausudhz wrote: | Well, the alternative is that other phones don't have it. | | So I think this is an advantage. If, lets say, it costs 4.99 | a year, I think a good percentage of people would do that (me | included, even though I'm not an iPhone user). | Cerium wrote: | $5 a year would feel miserly. A feature like this should be | free or reasonably expensive. If you can do it for free, it | is a benefit of belonging to the top tier phone club. If | you charge a bit you sell it as a lifestyle choice: "I go | places, but I don't need to buy a separate PLB". | lxgr wrote: | This seems more like a legal CYA type of clause to me. I'd be | surprised if emergency SOS ever becomes paid, given the | reputational risk ("lost hiker dies of exposure after being | unable to call SAR due to their credit card declining Apple's | charge a day into their hike"). | | Much more likely they'll just add P2P messaging as a paid | feature. | barbazoo wrote: | As a user I'd 100% expect it to no longer be free after 2 | years. It's pretty clear from the copy and shouldn't surprise | anyone. | | I think it's a shitty thing to do to not at least say what the | cost will be at least given today's information. | stall84 wrote: | that is awesome. I wonder if this (it must be) amounts to a | hardware or software upgrade on satellites already in orbit, | along with updates to the phone's iOS right ? This article just | mentions the 'client-side' changes but .. there has to be some | accounting of the hardware in space being used right? | millzlane wrote: | Yesterday I had a cust. come into the store with a iPhone 14 pro | that was stuck in SOS mode. My tech couldn't resolve the issue | with a restore in AC2. I wonder if this is related or just a | coincidence. | robg wrote: | Really impressed how Apple is leaning into unregulated "safety" | features. Fall detection for grandma, crash detection for | drivers, now this for adventurers. When you're doing as well as | Apple is, small reasons for consumers to buy keep adding up over | the competition. | angrygoat wrote: | If this becomes available in Australia, it would be a decent | reason for me to upgrade my phone. I quite like bushwalking, | and I quite like the idea of more adventurous walks - and | knowing I can text for help would be a real plus. | Nursie wrote: | Yep, extend it to Aus and I have a reason to upgrade from my | 12 pro! | nabaraz wrote: | I wish iphone 14 models still have a sim tray. This is the only | thing keeping me from upgrading. | tosh wrote: | The models in Europe come with a SIM tray. | taylorbuley wrote: | I was digging up and replacing a piece of my well-line, in the | dark because that's always when my well line breaks, and my phone | accidentally called the police through what must have been some | serious jostling. The dispatch seemed understanding, and used the | opportunity to verify that my phone connectivity was coming from | where it said I was. Later that night, two sheriffs show up | around midnight to make sure that everything was OK. It was the | first time that I felt like my personal technology was really | doing its own thing without me. | m463 wrote: | Apple's phone app has one HUGE design failure: touching | anything in the app will dial a number immediately. | | I have accidentally called back phone spammers. It made elderly | parents scared to use their phone. I've had many many friends | butt-dial me. | | There should absolutely be an option that is on, or can be | enabled: confirm before calling. | | In the case of emergency calling, they should figure out how to | confirm before calling. I'm sure apple has some scenario in | mind where it has to be the way it is now, but I think there | should be a way. | | At a minimum, opting into the current behavior should train the | user how calls are initiated and what options are available. | rootusrootus wrote: | > Apple's phone app has one HUGE design failure: touching | anything in the app will dial a number immediately | | Agreed 100%. I hate that I have to be super careful and | really think through each time I press something to make sure | it's not going to be a shortcut that immediately dials a | phone number. I too have called spammers back. | thwayunion wrote: | Can this replace an inReach yet? | Centrino wrote: | The article doesn't mention which satellites or which satellite | provider is used. But Apple invested $450 million in Globalstar. | | https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/11/emergency-sos-via-sat... | CarbonCycles wrote: | Anyone know performance wise between Garmin's use of Iridium | and Globalstar? | | Iridium has been around for soo long...I am getting constant | outages from the status page. Kind of disconcerting at times. | | Ah, I found the following article that somewhat explains the | different technologies w/ | | "The main difference between Iridium and Globalstar is the | relaying mechanism. Iridium requires relaying between | satellites. Globalstar requires relaying between satellites and | earth stations." | | https://www.mobilsat.com/the-best-satellite-phone-globalstar... | ratg13 wrote: | in non-dollar terms: | | Apple is paying for 95% of Globalstar's new satellites and | plans to use 85% of their network capacity. | WhyNotHugo wrote: | I was really wondering what kind of satellite-based emergency | SOS they were using -- mostly because I'd never heard of it | until it was being shipped in a commercial product, which is | something very rare to see. | | So basically, they have their own infrastructure for their own | proprietary 911 service with global coverage? It's really | amazing that we live in a world where we can have such | infrastructure, but at the same time, it's owned and controlled | by a single corporation. | | I notice there's multiple mentions of these satellites working | with the "Find My" service, which keeps track of where a device | is (in order to find it where it's lost). So I guess all this | infrastructure also allows Apple to pinpoint down any user | worldwide -- even if they're off-grid. | 310260 wrote: | >It's really amazing that we live in a world where we can | have such infrastructure, but at the same time, it's owned | and controlled by a single corporation. | | I get this sentiment. Globalstar does have competitors at | least. Iridium and Inmarsat offer comparable services though | not as seamlessly integrated into a popular consumer device. | | I do wonder what happens if you aren't paying for the service | but have an emergency. I guess they just don't connect you at | all? Is there an automatic charge for accessing it? | lxgr wrote: | It's currently free (for the first two years after purchase | of the device), and I suspect that while emergency SOS | messaging will always remain free, they will add paid P2P | messaging soon. | rtkwe wrote: | GPS has always been available to get location information | even offline. What you usually don't get at the user end is a | map of where you are because maps apps don't cache or | download automatically. I've installed OSMAnd+ and downloaded | a lot of maps to avoid that and I wish Google Maps or Apple | Maps made it easier to download a large swath like you can | with OSM. (you can even download POI to still be able to do | some searching for places if you don't have an actual | address) | | As for infrastructure I think Verizon is doing something | similar with Starlink and there are multiple possible | satellite constellations that could be connected too Apple is | just the first to include what I think has to be a new radio | or radio component. | brookst wrote: | I believe it is T-Mobile and Starlink, though very early | stage (just a press release[0] about "a vision to give | customers a crucial additional layer of connectivity" that | "aims to work" with existing phones, far as I can tell). | | And yes, the Apple announcement is just the productization | of a feature in the Qualcomm X65[1]. But I think this is a | case where the technical implementation is the easiest | part; I would be surprised of other X65 adopters also | delivered satellite comms, at least unless/until it's | obvious it's driving phone purchasing decisions. | | [0] https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile- | takes-cove... | | [1] https://9to5mac.com/2022/09/18/iphone-14-satellite- | connectiv... | lxgr wrote: | "Band n53" has been widely reported in the context of | various iPhone satellite rumors, but I still believe that | this was actually just bad reporting: Band n53 is | essentially terrestrial LTE/5G usage of Globalstar's | global spectrum rights in a band that was previously | designated for ground-to-space usage. | | Whatever the iPhone 14 is using to talk to the Globalstar | satellites, I'd be extremely surprised if it looked | anything like LTE or 5G at the physical or logical layer. | | [1] https://investors.globalstar.com/news-releases/news- | release-... | rtkwe wrote: | I think it depends massively on how much it costs the | company to provide. If it's just a chip and a bit more | software I think companies will include it. It's not | clear from the press reports if the money Apple spent on | building up base stations for this are just for them or | if the satellite providers could use them for other | companies phones. | totalZero wrote: | Knowing Qualcomm, there's probably a major royalty cost | involved. | | If Apple spends $450 million to enable the service [0], | that's about $2 per phone sold in 2021 [1]. | | [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/10/apple- | spending-450-million-w... | | [1] | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-11/apple- | exp... | Scoundreller wrote: | > I wish Google Maps or Apple Maps made it easier to | download a large swath like you can with OSM. | | Google Maps on iOS let's you choose squares on the planet | and download offline maps. | | Open the app, click your initial at the top right and | you'll see Offline Maps in the drop-down. | | Driving directions only though. But you can search for POIs | and it will navigate you there. Or you can look at the | maps/streets. | | I use it regularly in USA and Europe when I don't have a | data plan there. Or when I'm low/out of data in Canada | because Canadian telecom sucks. Or when Rogers shits the | bed. | | I also have Kiwix with full copies of Wikipedia (about | 85gb) and a few other resources. And a small solar panel so | when doomsday hits... | rtkwe wrote: | Yeah I've used that in the past on Android and it's been | very sketchy. The app will seemingly let the map expire | and if I don't remember to check every time I go up to | the mountains where I need it I'll usually get stuck | without a working up to date map. It also doesn't seem to | hold that many POI locations so I'm stuck just navigating | to the right town and hoping I get signal eventually to | find the actual place I'm going. OSMAnd+ however just | keeps the data even if it's older so I'll always have at | least some street data. | Scoundreller wrote: | The maps used to expire after 30 days, but is now 365 | days. I agree: it's arbitrary and unnecessary. | | It does background refresh but unsure how great it is. | Right know my maps expire with different dates between | July and November 2023, so I guess it's keeping up to | date enough. | rtkwe wrote: | Maybe it's better now I have haven't travelled much this | year and after downloading the OSM data I haven't | bothered with offline google maps because I have all the | roads and more already. | kotaKat wrote: | It's basically running on the same system as their current | SPOT trackers in the S- and L-band. L-band up, S-band down. | addaon wrote: | Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that | this was running on N53, which is towards the bottom of S | band, both directions. | 310260 wrote: | It's suppose to be on Globalstar's existing network which | would be S-band and L-band but CDMA. It's not 5G-NR just | yet though that's likely where they're headed. | | I think Apple added n53 as part of this deal at | Globalstar's request. Globalstar is trying to lease their | spectrum terrestrially for small cell networks and | network capacity solutions for the carriers. | | https://www.globalstar.com/Globalstar/media/Globalstar/Do | wnl... (PDF warning) Here's a presentation with some | details. | kotaKat wrote: | https://fccid.io/BCG-E8140A | | The "emission type" for the satellite service is 198KG1D | and operates under FCC rule Part 25 (Satellite | Communications). They run 400mW or so up on 1.6GHz | L-band, and ~90mW downlink S-band. | | https://fccid.io/L2V-PT3 | | A Spot Gen3 runs around 200mW on L-band only for both | ways. There's a slightly different emissions type, but | same satellites. | | The ground stations had additional hardware added by | Cobham to support Apple's use on L/S-band. | bmicraft wrote: | > So I guess all this infrastructure also allows Apple to | pinpoint down any user worldwide -- even if they're off-grid. | | Well, they could do that in the past - GPS works (almost) | everywhere. They'd just have to wait with sending the data | back. | mwint wrote: | Looks like it requires consciously deciding to share your | location, and pointing your device where it tells you in the | sky. | | They're not going to burn precious bandwidth on an always- | active tracking thing. | photochemsyn wrote: | This article from LeMonde seems to imply that they're using | Globalstar: | | > "To offer this new feature, Apple had to integrate a | miniature antenna in its smartphone. It captures part of the | signal of satellite constellations without relying on a | satellite dish or a specific telephone handset. The iPhone | manufacturer signed an agreement with Globalstar, one of the | operators of low-altitude constellations, sets of satellites | flying at about 500 kilometers from the Earth, in order to | cover low-coverage areas of the globe. Specializing since 2007 | in professional satellite messaging, Globalstar explained that | it reached an agreement to launch 17 new satellites for 327 | million dollars, 95% of which will be financed by Apple in | exchange for 85% of their bandwidth." | | https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/09/13/apple-a... | brookst wrote: | The "85% of their bandwidth" part is super interesting. It | implies usage for much more than occasional emergencies. | Globalstar has ~12Mhz of global S-Band spectrum[0], which | they describe as "3.7 Billion MHz-POP", a unit I'm not | grokking. | | But I am pretty sure that is a LOT more bandwidth than what | will be used for highly compressed text messages in | emergencies. | | [0] https://www.globalstar.com/Globalstar/media/Globalstar/Do | wnl... | portyllo wrote: | A MHz-POP is just bandwidth times population covered by the | Geographic Service Area (i.e., where the company is | licensed to operate). For example, in the US, they would | have 11.5 MHz x 330 M = 3.79 Billion MHz-POP. | brookst wrote: | Thank you! Doesn't that seem like a weird metric? I would | think MHz/POP would make more sense. I guess the idea is | to assume unlimited and independent channels to everyone | as a first order? | totalZero wrote: | I think multiplying by population serves as a way to | normalize for link speed. Ten people who use a lot of | spectrum are probably bigger customers than ten people | who use a tiny sliver of spectrum, and thus constitute a | bigger user base. | portyllo wrote: | MHz-POP makes the most sense in cell networks, where an | operator (AT&T, T-Mobile,...) wants to acquire a spectrum | license in a particular region of the country. Evaluating | the MHz-POP makes sense as the price they are willing to | pay varies a lot depending on the population density in | that region area. In general, cell networks can reuse | spectrum more easily (deploy more towers, add more | sectors), and they design their network deployment to hit | whatever MHz/customer they are targeting (which mostly | depends on the technology 3G/4G/5G). | | In sat-networks, well, MHz-POP doesn't matter that much, | because, generally, every operator is licensed to operate | in the whole country. As you mentioned, what really | matters is (a) the bandwidth of their license allocation | (e.g., Globalstar is 11.5 MHz), and (b) how efficiently | can they reuse spectrum: | | * how many beams can they land (# satellite x # beams / | satellite)? | | * how much freedom do they have to chunk bandwidth and | allocate it to individual beams based on demand? | | * what type of satellite are they using, bent-pipe or | regenerative payload? | | * how big are these beams? | | * can they allocate resources dynamically or is | everything fixed? | | * how much power does the satellite have? how big are the | terminal antennas? what kind of link-budget can they | close? | | In the end, the MHz/customer they can achieve depends on | the answer to all these questions. | balozi wrote: | Predictions of where this tech goes from here: shall the | satellite SOS infrastructure be adapted into full-blown | satellite-based wireless service for all mobile devices? I am | thinking global 5G capabilities off satellites, untethered from | domestic wireless network carriers. Sort of like how doctors got | pager service in 1950 progressed into the smartphones we have | today. | Scoundreller wrote: | I'm hoping for some low bit rate stuff. | | I suspect coordinating the uplink might be difficult to squeeze | a lot of data through, but downlink could have a linear stream | of repeating data (weather, news) that you could get an update | on at any time by pointing your phone the right way, especially | if you can draw an arc that follows the satellite going past | by. | | And that wouldn't chew battery power either. | | My bandwidth needs are extremely minimal outside of work/home, | so with a tiny bit of bandwidth, some texting and news updates | could make it possible to live a wireless-subscription free | life. | | Something like othernet: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othernet | rapsey wrote: | Eventually absolutely yes. | rootusrootus wrote: | Isn't that exactly what AST is attempting with their BlueWalker | satellite and the planned "bluebird" network? | jabagonuts wrote: | For those wondering... | | > The service will be included for free for two years starting at | the time of activation of a new iPhone 14, iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone | 14 Pro, and iPhone 14 Pro Max. ^4 | | > ^4. Users who purchased an iPhone 14 model before the | availability date of Emergency SOS via satellite will receive two | years of the service free starting from the service availability | date. | bookofjoe wrote: | I think Garmin's VERY afraid of this camel's nose under its | heretofore exclusive tent. | lou1306 wrote: | Uh, care to elaborate? I thought Garmin specialized in GPS and | similar "passive" satellite-based tech, not actual comms? | | Edit: nvm, just googled and found out about the Inreach thing. | tosh wrote: | > the service extends to France, Germany, Ireland, and the UK in | December | | This is new to me. I thought the feature was limited to US + | Canada. Did they mention additional regions in the keynote? | rtkwe wrote: | It'll need to be approved in individual countries so it'll | probably get turned on in a lot more areas. | | In the US there's an explicit exception to life threatening | emergencies that let you use basically any radio frequency I | wonder how many countries have something like that that could | at least allow them to enable the emergency contact portion of | this without the check-in for non emergency situations. | stevewatson301 wrote: | Not in the keynote; this seems to be a recently finalized | expansion. | ryeights wrote: | >"Some of the most popular places to travel are off the beaten | path" | | I think this would imply the path is very well beaten. | knodi123 wrote: | No one goes there anymore because it's too crowded. | Jemm wrote: | Groundbreaking? Hardly. | rootusrootus wrote: | Then you should have no problem pointing me at what other | smartphone already has this ability. | adamredwoods wrote: | Terrestar Genus (2011, now defunct) | https://www.engadget.com/2010-11-23-terrestar-genus-now- | avai... | | Android: https://www.thuraya.com/en/products-list/land- | voice/thuraya-... | | Lynk: https://lynk.world/ | https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/a-virginia- | company-h... | | Add-on for existing phone: https://www.bluecosmo.com/iridium- | go-global-smartphone-acces... | | T-Mobile is planning on it: https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un- | carrier/t-mobile-takes-cove... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-15 23:00 UTC)