Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pseudopad t1_j6iv0yh wrote

Out of 24000 calls. So 0.4% of all calls.

Doesn't seem like a huge deal.

631

Jelr112 t1_j6j0rlv wrote

Negligible operating cost, if the other 99.6% resulted in medical attention reaching those needing it.

214

krectus t1_j6khfjc wrote

The 24000 weren’t from iPhone crash detection. They don’t give those numbers. They were the total calls.

58

murrtrip t1_j6ki4bk wrote

Then what were they from? Regular calls? No. That would be a false call.

So, it's from legitimate circumstances where the phone detects a crash and calls emergency services. Of 24,000 calls, 100 were not warranted. Pretty darn good.

−28

krectus t1_j6kof8j wrote

Yes they were from regular calls.

The number from crash detection is 919. 134 were false calls.

https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/general-news/20230129-87465/

52

GrowChoccolate t1_j6m2k63 wrote

Even that is good, considering 800 people might not have been able to call else at all.

16

X0AN t1_j6pjh69 wrote

To be fair your phone does ask if you've been in a crash and makes a lot of noise.

Not particularly hard to tell your phone that's you're ok and not to call the emergency services 😂

3

Macshlong t1_j6jalxa wrote

It isn’t but it draws out the apple bashing crowd in their masses for clicks and karma.

67

garry4321 t1_j6jhbth wrote

I'll bash Apple on all kinds of stuff (anti-competition, breaking older phones intentionally using software, gouging customers, etc.).

A product making false calls that need a simple "it was a mistake" discussion for a feature that has saved MANY lives, is not something bashable.

57

msgnyc t1_j6jrlos wrote

my favorite was "You're holding it wrong" 🤣

22

garry4321 t1_j6jsscy wrote

What about making a pocket phone that bends easily when in a pocket?

5

msgnyc t1_j6jtafi wrote

unfortunately that's the consequences of them (edit: as in Phone manufacturers, not just Apple) wanting to make thinner n thinner n thinner phones.

6

YnotBbrave t1_j6kr3u7 wrote

so out of the 113 calls how many times were the 911 unable to call back, have the guy pick up and phone and say "no, I'm ok"? because 15% extra overhead of a phone call per real 911 call isn't much, even before the apple fix. If that doesn't work, and police is sent... that's much more expensive

1

garry4321 t1_j6oeyqh wrote

Id rather the police go out than someone be dead and they didnt go to cut "cost".

1

tawtaw6 t1_j6mwr6a wrote

Do you not remember the apple phone with the exploding battery that needed to be recalled?

1

garry4321 t1_j6n7pqg wrote

Do you think I have a Samsung? I have an Iphone, just like I have EA games. Doesnt mean I support their actions.

1

Terrible_Use7872 t1_j6k32zr wrote

I wonder how many Pixels have accidentally called?

Why am I getting down voted? It's a genuine question, I love my Pixel phone and do wonder how many accidental 911 calls they've made.

5

MyNameIsRay t1_j6j3p07 wrote

Well, yea, frame it that way and it does seem small.

Frame it against total false calls and market share, and it looks like a much bigger issue.

Total false calls was 919, so this feature on the iPhone14 accounts for nearly 15% of them. A 15% growth in false calls due to a phone feature is noteworthy.

iPhone14 is pretty new and only has about 1% of the total mobile market. Assuming this issue is constant and the 14 gains the same share as predecessors, this might actually become the majority of false calls.

40

bradland t1_j6jgeoi wrote

Replying to you because this seems like a good injection point, but these comments aren't necessarily meant as a rebuttal to anything you said :)

There's definitely a larger scope to assess here, but it extends even beyond a basic analysis of call volume. The analysis of systems designed to make automated calls to emergency services not only requires assessment of false-report calls, but also an analysis of the positive-report calls, as well as outcomes.

Ultimately, the objective is to save lives. A small-to-moderate increase in false-report calls is acceptable if there is a significant increase in the number of positive-report calls that wouldn't have otherwise been made in time. That analysis is way more complicated than simply looking at call volume though. You need to know:

  • How many false report calls were placed.
  • How many positive-report calls were placed.
  • The percentage of the positive-report calls that were duplicates.
  • The temporal proximity of the duplicative calls.
  • The ultimate outcome of the positive-report calls.

Using this data (and likely more), you'd want to build a complete picture of the correlation between automated reports and the desired outcome: lives saved in cases where other options would have failed. For example, consider two scenarios:

Your tire blows while driving home from your shift that ended at 2am and you veer into a ditch. You're knocked out on impact, but your iPhone calls 911 and emergency services can tell where you are from the GPS coordinates transmitted by your phone. They arrive and find you badly injured, but are ultimately able to save your life.

Here, the automated call to 911 was critical, and because it was so late, and because you were in a ditch out of sight, the automated call clearly saved your life.

You are texting while driving and rear-end a car that has come to a stop in front of you. Your phone goes flying out of your hand as the airbag deploys and is out of reach. The automated call is made to 911, but four other people who saw the accident have also called in within 60 seconds of seeing the accident.

Here, the automated call was superfluous. There's no way for the device to know, but it results in an extra call to 911 that was unecessary.

There will always be a cost associated with emergency response. It will also be impossible to optimize any automated system to achieve a 0% false-report rate, but that's not a license to be cavalier with the approach taken.

The iPhone isn't the only device designed to make automated calls to emergency services. For example, seniors who are at risk for falls will often buy a device with a remote that they wear around their neck or on their wrist that will call emergency services when a button is pressed.

These systems don't call 911 directly though. Instead, they call a call center. The call center agent answers and inquires about the individual's status. If the person is unable to respond, the agent initiates the pass through call to 911. If the person is able to respond, they assess whether emergency services are needed.

The systems work this way because 911 operators around the world are often short-staffed and cannot handle a deluge of false-report calls. As the number of iPhones in use grows, Apple will be forced to make closer evaluations of the usage data to determine what changes are required. I'd be surprised if this isn't a net positive for public safety though. It's just going to require some tweaks.

17

Sp3llbind3r t1_j6mbdbk wrote

I think the point you are missing is that it‘s not just the call center.

If an ambulance or a fire brigade goes out, those are occupied until they found out it was a false call. And that is way worse, because they will not be at an other place where they would be needed, someone could die because of that.

2

Drachefly t1_j6n33xo wrote

That seems like a part of the analysis they said would have to be done, so it's merely something they didn't mention, rather than actually missing.

1

ConciselyVerbose t1_j6p3jlu wrote

Let’s say, hypothetically, that it was as bad as 50% false calls, 50% calls that wouldn’t have been made, and that every false call is missing a real call. That’s break even. That means 1 person loses access to emergency services and 1 person gains.

Any better than that and you’re helping more people than you hurt. Obviously the ideal is perfection, and not having any false calls, especially ones that take resources from real people. But it doesn’t take amazing accuracy to improve the net outcome.

If you get data that they’re more likely to be incorrect than a normal call, you can change your prioritization to prioritize a human speaking. Apple can continue to improve their accuracy to minimize false positives. But those improvements are from a situation that’s already better than it not existing.

1

Mattidh1 t1_j6kk9lf wrote

Statistics can be framed in many different way, some misleading - which this is.

Considering its 24k calls, 134 were false. We don’t know the amount caused by the iPhone, both real and false. The data in the article really cannot be used for anything.

The only remotely useful thing is the statement by the firefighter “a firefighter said, "we can’t ask users to turn it off,” as it is beneficial in actual serious emergencies.” And a reported influx in false emergency calls from iPhone 14.

It’s scuffed that OP’s title is a big bait.

3

krectus t1_j6ki25o wrote

Not sure where you’re getting that number from but is says it is responsible for most of the false calls.

0

BigCommieMachine t1_j6jj5wt wrote

It is worth mentioning, integrated car system do this ALL THE TIME. My dads Toyota literally puts the SOS button next to the interior light button.

4

ShaderzXC t1_j6k6xvm wrote

This is why there’s normally a push to flip cover on the SOS button

3

DigitalSteven1 t1_j6l9wjn wrote

Depends on what the operators could be doing while dealing with a false call from the system.

1

zebrahdh t1_j6j30j1 wrote

And some of those calls save peoples lives… the others just inconvenienced emergency services with an unnecessary call. Like a baby hitting the wrong buttons on a locked smart phone.

−8

NeverLookBothWays t1_j6jbm0r wrote

The question really becomes, who is liable for associated fees with unnecessary calls? The phone's owner? Or Apple?

5

[deleted] t1_j6k8o57 wrote

[deleted]

3

NeverLookBothWays t1_j6kii0c wrote

The United States, and the severity is dependent on state and local agency. You will get fines for false alarms in many cases…so my question is, who would be ultimately liable?

(It’s a court based question so more rhetorical here)

(Edit: for those downvoting, take a look at Port St. Lucie who has introduced fines for repeated MISTAKE calls. And this was before the problem of SOS mode which has increased the strain of mistake calls)

−4

Nickjet45 t1_j6kme3o wrote

You get fines for intentional false calls.

There’s a difference between prank calling 911, and calling 911 because you misunderstood the severity of a situation. Now let the latter happen multiple times, they may fine you.

2

NeverLookBothWays t1_j6kn970 wrote

(Edit: Not sure why this is being downvoted, accidental 911 calls have been enough of a strain that some cities have introduced fines for repeat offenders. SOS has increased these incidents even further.)

Intentional as well as repeated "mistake" calls.

There's a threshold for when it becomes problematic for emergency responders, so don't doubt that action will be taken at some point on these. (take a look at Port St. Lucie as an example of this). But this also makes me think the FCC might go after Apple on this one when it does get to that point.

−2

miraculum_one t1_j6l1568 wrote

Not just fees. If there is a real emergency when one first responder is responding to a fake one, someone might not get saved. It seems that false alarms are somewhat common in a concentrated area (ski resorts) so this is not implausible.

1