Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jmich96 t1_j6v9gz7 wrote

It's a unique feature that serves a very niche purpose, with potential to save lives.

I know we (yes, myself included) like to hate Apple, but Samsung is no saint company either. Apple has the added benefit that the entirety of their user base is using a set iPhone _. Android has thousands of phones, across various manufacturers. Samsung is one of the largest in the US, but the effort to add such a feature would likely not yield enough prais (and thus profit) to benefit share holders. And we all know that satisfying shareholders and bigger CEO bonuses are all these companies strive for today.

147

Malice_n_Flames t1_j6w526w wrote

An established English actor went missing just outside LA about 2 weeks ago. He was hiking in Angeles National Forest. Snowy and dangerous. If he had this feature on his phone (and knew how to use it) he would have been found by now. Instead it looks like he is dead. Just got lost on a hike less than an hour from Downtown LA.

25

Zestyclose_Pickle511 t1_j6wa8gq wrote

Uh... Why didn't he just call someone then? Why not use cell triangulation? Why would the iPhone save him more than any other phone? The SOS has to be activated, right?

Are you proposing that there is no service there? 1 hr from LA?

22

mofa90277 t1_j6x9t6a wrote

He (Julian Sands) is lost on Mt Baldy. Mountains have crags and gullies and crevices. Radio signals operate line-of-sight, so they’re built where they’ll cover as much (but not all) area as possible.

Apple’s satellite feature uses a constellation of satellites, which orbit the earth and create a mesh pattern, giving essentially 100% coverage.

50

drunkendrake t1_j6y2ygb wrote

They are giving it for free for two years, after that you'll have to subscribe to it. Realistically, who will subscribe to it?

9

needlesfox OP t1_j6ygbti wrote

I also wonder if Apple will keep doing that. Like if you go from an iPhone 14 to an iPhone 16, are you going to get another two years free?

16

Jake0024 t1_j6z191n wrote

Most people don't keep phones longer than that.

7

apathyduck t1_j6yg5qj wrote

It is not "essentially 100% coverage" - far from it.

0

Jake0024 t1_j6z16pt wrote

Then he shouldn't be hiding in a cave while trying to make phone calls. Satellite SOS probably wouldn't work in there either. If he's dead and can't get out of the cave, neither feature is useful.

−6

joremero t1_j6zjlxw wrote

>Radio signals operate line-of-sight

wut???

did you learn that in facebook university?

−9

mofa90277 t1_j7013oo wrote

Physics degree, Caltech, then over thirty years designing airborne radars, including five years designing satellite radar & satellite communications networks (i.e., X- and Ku bands). At those wavelengths, signals transmitted by your phone (a critical part of all this) are not going more than 10-20-ish centimeters deep in the best conditions. So, from the perspective of mountains, RF signals are “line of sight” in that mountains are opaque to RF signals.

This is different from wireless signals getting through house or apartment walls, because they’re basically made of air. (And signals are aided by reflections from a myriad other surfaces around typical homes).

17

joremero t1_j725hlf wrote

I see, so it was an oversimplification.

−2

freakasaurous t1_j7650gv wrote

Line of Sight propagation is an actual concept. No simplification of anything

1

Twombls t1_j6x5bep wrote

The Angeles national forest is in the mountains and the mountains tend to block cell service. LA is actually really interesting because its basically city. And then wilderness immediately next to it. Go over the first mountain ridge and into federally protected nature reserve and there will be no towers on the other side.

Keep in mind this isn't just like a tiny hiking area. Its a very large desolate mountain range

I live in a city in northern new england and an hour drive could easily bring me to some inhospitable wilderness with no cell service.

19

Zestyclose_Pickle511 t1_j6xklhl wrote

Yeah, I'm thinking a cell phone satellite Sos system isn't to blame, still. But thanks.

−16

Rigruften t1_j6zdb45 wrote

When presented with facts as to why he couldn’t call help, your only rebuttal is “yeah well /I/ dont think so”?

In case you don’t live in the area, the West Coast has many large expanses of land that have zero cellular service. Emergency SOS via satellite (be it from an iPhone or any other device) is one of, if not the only, direct ways to call for help in a place like that.

Dude could’ve died without the chance to send an SOS, I’ll give you that… but it’s totally ignorant to ignore why it’s invaluable to people who need it.

9

mollypatola t1_j703ym5 wrote

I can’t help but lol at the “you’re saying there no cell service 1 hr from LA.” If they think that’s shocking then I guess Seattle will probably throw them for a loop 😅 easily no signal within even a half hour drive

3

Tsarinax t1_j6whqmx wrote

I’m not arguing this case since I know nothing about it, but you could easily lose signal an hour out of LA. You quickly get into desert like areas or into the hills and cell service gets spotty really quick. At least when I lived there it did, I’m sure it’s better but I could still see some blind spots especially in hills where folks go hiking.

13

MorRobots t1_j6wnu46 wrote

This is something I wish there were PSA's about:

When you have no Service, you likely may still be able to call 911.

911 calls rides on all carriers and is given priority by the towers regardless of the subscribers service provider. It also rides on all the cellphone standards as well.

The tower will actually drop subscribers to ensure the 911 call gets connected.

18

Twombls t1_j6x5ulk wrote

Its very possible there was just no service at all.

8

Zestyclose_Pickle511 t1_j6whvwd wrote

Yeah, I guess the landscape does change fairly rapidly there.

−2

Twombls t1_j6x92ho wrote

Yeah something people dont realize is a lot of big cities on the American west are built right at the foot of huge mountain ranges. People tend to get themselves onto shit because there will be expanses of wilderness the size of a small European countries that are easily accessible from a trailhead in a realitivley suburban area.

It will be a warm summer day at the trailhead but once you pop over the first ridge it will be a blizzard. The place where the donner party happend. One of the snowiest places in the usa. Is like just over an hour from Sacramento

4

Jake0024 t1_j6z1i1w wrote

> just over an hour from Sacramento

Not by wagon

3

acroman39 t1_j708fv7 wrote

The SOS function activates automatically.

2

WingedGeek t1_j71niv6 wrote

I live on the west side of Los Angeles and none of the three carriers can get me more than 1 bar of degraded (e.g., LTE) service in my home or on the grounds. It's a fluke of topography (I only get a couple of FM stations and no OTA television). I'm ~3 minutes from the 10 and 405 freeways. It's very possible in the mountains there's no service, 1 hour from LA.

1

chickenlittle53 t1_j72o6cy wrote

This is nothing new and there are better devices for the actual price of subscription that yes apple will be charging folks and less reliable than these better options that a fraction of the cost if a phone withba shit to better reliability if you're worried about your actual life.

This just isn't some mind blowing deal. They are literally just using someone else's service that has existed for quite some time, but in a less reliable fashion. You can already use similar services like Garmin and use your phone for more in depth features.

I don't really care what phone you choose, but it's weird folks think this is some new technology that apple came up with. It's a okay nice to have if you're already getting a new iPhone, but is pretty silly to buy a new phone for in most cases when better more accurate and depth tech already exists that saves your life much more reliably and cheaper exists. Especially, with alternatives being more polished and tested.

2

Hmm_would_bang t1_j73e97f wrote

1 device > 2 devices in most instances.

If people were always prepared for everything the world would be a much better place. But they aren’t, and apple’s SOS feature will likely save lives

1

chickenlittle53 t1_j73sbwt wrote

1 device that is far superior in saving lives > less superior device.

When it comes to saving lives no one cares you brought some super lightweight device with you that won't effect you at all in movement or cause discomfort really. We just care about being able to save pur lives as effectively as possible. No such thong as being ready for everything, but having even better devices to prepare you makes it much more effective and can save even more lives.

1

Hmm_would_bang t1_j73sljk wrote

Let me phrase it a different way.

For the majority of people that are getting lost on a hike, how many of them do you think are well prepared? How many of them do you think have their cellphone on them?

2

chickenlittle53 t1_j756bej wrote

Let me also phrase it a different way, for those that are interested in any of this to begin with do you not think they wouldn't want the best chance of survival in caw of emergencies? If this matters to folks then they want the best and can make sense to then get the best instead. Simple really.

1