Hacker News Reader

Comment by therealmarv | Hacker News Reader

After 2 years: I hope they offer a "pay later" option (does not mean it has to be cheap). You never know when you are in emergency situations and you maybe need this kind of new technology.

Imagine people could be saved in theory (and die) but not in practice because they did not paid their emergency subscription.

And even worse: Imagine you could pay later but you don't use that option because you want to save money oO

A lot of ethical problems in my opinion.

View on HN

You have to look at the business side of things, too. Apple has to pay a lot of money to whoever is managing and maintaining the satellites behind this and if you only ever pay when you need it you might not never pay at all. The correct mindset to have about this is that it's like insurance — you can't pick up insurance only after the fact when you need it, otherwise all insurance providers would be broke.

Not just the satellites, but they also said that, due to the slow speeds involved in the satellites, Apple will employ people who will be able to step in the middle of you and EMS, to help get information to them faster and answer relevant questions, without having to rely on you receiving/answering them using your device. The cost of this team alone will be huge.

This is probably an expansion of the same Globalstar team that services SOS messages from their own SPOT satellite messengers, which also use the same satellite network.

The SPOT plans and the competing Garmin inReach plans are not cheap:

https://www.findmespot.com/en-us/products-services/service-p...

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/837461

And if you make a SPOT call nobody may be out there for a while. I looked into getting one just in case. Where I like to camp, in BLM land, SPOT calls the "local" 911 responder which is 2.5 hours away and run by CHP. Back then they said it can take up to 72 hours for someone to get a team together to look for you. The owners of the backpacking store I went to, whom I know, said it wouldn't be worth my money.

I imagine there's better coverage in a national park though.

Even in a national park, it will take time to respond to a satellite call.

Contrary to popular belief, search and rescue doesn't always send a helicopter. It's still common to send a ranger on foot and help walk somebody out on the trail. Or if that's not possible, to take a team of humans and carry someone out on a litter.

More generally... From what I was trained, ~12 hours is considered a fast rescue. The average time (according to the FAA's pilot survival training) is 31 hours, even with a known good location fix. 72 hours is very possible if there's inclement weather or difficulty locating someone.

It seems like this is a big advantage of the inreach in that you can text with EMS to convey if it is an urgent situation. You can also text friends/family to make alternate arrangements if the regular rescue people aren’t going to be fast enough.

Sounds like the Apple version lets you send some info also. And I would generally expect search and rescue to be able to get to you faster than friends.

That's true, it apparently has some multiple choice questions you can answer, which is definitely better than just hitting the big red button and letting rescuers guess what the nature of the situation is based on you position.

Being two-way, the other advantage of the inreach is that rescuers can ask you questions and tell you when they expect to arrive etc.

That said, the delta in functionality between what the iphone will offer and what an inreach offers in an emergency situation is probably not enough for the vast majority of people to want to purchase an inreach and a subscription, unless they also have a use for non-emergency communication outside of cell coverage.

Also, at least where I am from, search and rescue never sends helicopters in the night, because it is too dangerous.

Likewise if the weather is less than perfect, which occurs frequently in mountainous areas.

At that point I wonder when quadcopters or fixed-wing UAVs will be feasible to at least establish visual contact with the sender of an emergency signal and/or drop off a sat-phone for bidirectional contact - there have been model aircraft capable of crossing the Atlantic [1] after all, and modern quadcopters like the DJI Matrice have something like an hour of flight time and 80 km/h speed so these could carry emergency supplies as well, no matter the terrain.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_5

[2] https://www.diyphotography.net/djis-new-matrice-300-rtk-dron...

It’s already being done in a few places. But think bigger- the Royal Navy has done sea trails where they use drones to drop life rafts to sailors overboard. These aren’t little DJIs - look at the Malloy T150 and 400. The latter can also carry people and cargo up to 180kg (65kg for the former). These are in military service today with the Royal Marines and in Ukraine.

UK Border Force also uses a Tekever AR5 UAS over the English Channel to look for people crossing. It could be pretty useful in a SAR-situation though; 20 hour endurance carrying 50KG.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-border-agency-tasked-dron...

Think bigger also automatically means "think way more expensive". I was more thinking about something that can be placed in a small charging pod around the entrances of popular but dangerous areas.

72 hours is way better than never if you’re incapacitated or lost. Risk/reward probably depends on what you like to do and where you like to go.

imho with an inreach its mostly that i can message friends and family if something happens from deadly serious to "my truck broke down 100km down a FSR, please send a tow truck!" to "we are running late but OK". inreach has proven to be worth every penny and them some.

In the backcountry help is farther away than it is in the city. That applies no matter how you call for help. I've got an inReach but I would expect it to be hours from pushing the button to help showing up unless it was something very urgent and there happened to be a chopper around that could reach where I was. On top of the highest peak in the area I wouldn't be surprised at help taking 8 hours to arrive.

As for whether it's worth it--it depends on what you're doing. As a backcountry hiker that often goes solo I consider it essential insurance. If something happens that's likely the only way I would get help rather than ending up like the guy on our local mountains that disappeared a couple of weeks ago--certainly dead by now (there's no water to be had) but his body hasn't been found.

What you would hope is that there is a small monthly fee (say a few bucks) to have the service and then a "usage fee" for the random unlikely time you use the service. So imagine paying $2 a month to have the service on and then $75 each time you use it. Use it once every 3 years (which seems like a lot for the intended user base) and it's only ~$4 a month.

And that seems about right compared to SPOT monthly pricing, considering it's intended for much greater usage than one time every 3 years.

I pay spot ~$12/month for unlimited satellite tracking on a 10 minute interval on what I believe is the same network.

The garmin gps you can pay only the months you need it.

I'm assuming this will be the same – a monthly subscription that you can pause whenever and turn on for months when you are hiking in the wilderness, on your boat etc.

It’s a bit different from insurance, in that the benefit to the user of contacting police/rescue could be nearly infinite, while the marginal cost to Apple is small. So as long as the after-the-fact charge is high enough, Apple can amortize their costs. The main issue is it’s terrible PR for Apple to be sending $1000 bills to people who’ve been mauled by bears or gotten lost in the mountains, many of whom wouldn’t be able to pay anyway.

> The main issue is it’s terrible PR for Apple to be sending $1000 bills to people who’ve been mauled by bears or gotten lost in the mountains, many of whom wouldn’t be able to pay anyway.

Just hook it up to Apple Pay.

“Pay $1000 to make an emergency call”

Hard to authorize payment with Face ID when your face has been eaten by a bear.

Launch 2025: BearID

Yet people still think FaceId is a good authenticating tool.

> The main issue is it’s terrible PR for Apple to be sending $1000 bills to people who’ve been mauled by bears or gotten lost in the mountains

Is it any better PR if there are stories out there of bodies found starved to death in the wilderness equipped with an iPhone that has the hardware capabilities to contact emergency services, but couldn't because the person didn't pay Apple life insurance

They could charge $50k for 1 day of use after the fact, and people would still be happy for that option. Rescues are not cheap to begin with.

Haha no, they would call the literally space-age thing that saved their lives "price gouging" and point as Apple's profits as evidence that every human is entitled to this service for free.

Every human is entitled for this service. This should be free, like GPS.

If the government was running it, maybe.

Even government-run services cost money (usually much more than private ones). And the government gets its money from us, not from the sky.

Yeah, but the government can collect money via taxes, which allows it to solve coordination problems that would be more difficult for private companies to solve.

The birds aren't cheap, the rescue coordination centers (they know who to talk to, they have no ability to actually go into the field--although that's not always needed. Garmin recently mentioned one--SOS comes in "found lost child". 25 minutes later, SOS comes in "lost child"; all they had to do is direct them to where the other was) have to be staffed--and both are private.

Gov should subsidise it for everyone, not just Apple and Globestar. Emergency beacons should be given for free at every park. Thats a massive cost saving in terms of search and lost lives.

It might lead to _more_ search costs; people head off into sketchy situations safe in the knowledge that if they press a little button a SAR helicopter will be scrambled.

Which it almost certainly won’t be. A SAR team will probably be dispatched when it is safe to do so. Which may take a day or more. It’s a limitation of a personal locator beacon. It had better be a real emergency and even then you have to wait. Location fixes may also not always be reliable.

I don't think that comparison holds. What Apple is doing is making a crucial rescue tool, the distress beacon, near-ubiquitous. In a few years, any major-ish emergency involving people rich enough to own iPhones will have a working distress beacon around. This isn't like an InReach that you get and subscribe because you expect you might end up in an emergency, this is something that'll be around without even an awareness of danger and the optics of letting that potential go to waste carry a cost as well. Imagine a plane goes down in a remote area, a dozen iPhones on board but no one got the subscription. They might even end up eating the costs for genuine distress calls just for the marketing value of the iPhone saving hundreds of lives a year, or they might just charge a large sum for non-subscription distress calls and eat the cost in case the bear got there first.

Besides, if they included a few tweet-sized non-emergency text messages and location updates a day in a reasonably priced subscription, I bet that would sell like hotcakes in outdoorsy circles. People bring their phone anyway, so 2-3 iPhones on your party might make the InReach redundant. I'd love that.

I wouldn't say it would make the inReach redundant, although it's going to take a substantial bite out of the low end of the market. I pay extra for unlimited pings on a 10 minute interval--even if I can't call for help when I'm reported overdue they'll know where I am.

I also think my inReach can take a lot more abuse than an iPhone.

I also think it will drive the satellite guys to offer a different service--SOS only, you pre-pay a fixed price that doesn't expire. (Actually, we already have a limited version of this--personal locator beacons have no monthly cost but have to be sent in for refurbishment if used. They are highly reliable but carry nothing but ID and GPS, you can't alter the message.)

T-Mobile and Starlink announced a partnership to offer call/texting/data usage when outside of cell coverage. They mentioned this would be free for premium plans and paid for lower cost plans.

Apple uses high orbit satellites for SOS and "Find My" limited to iPhones; Starlink/T-Mobile would use low orbit satellites not limited to for SOS/calling/texting/data ("Find My") for any brand/model phone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHydPCYHmLE

Yup, the big difference is that Apple's high orbit sats are currently already there via Globalstar, with service starting in November. Whereas T-Mobile + Starlink is "sometime" and we're not sure exactly when as far as I can see. It'll be cool when it is available though!

That’s already the case with most types of insurance. It ran out? You haven’t paid bills? and your house was hit by a tornado right after it ran out? Tough luck.

That said it may have a “using this feature binds you to a new agreement where you pay for all the time you discontinued our service”

I don’t think insurance is a good analog because insurance has very high payouts.

Not sure the cost for this feature but the marginal cost is likely really low. So a day of coverage would maybe cost a few cents or dollars since they are already including 2 years free without raising the price.

This is very different from a day of homeowners insurance where the payout is hundreds of thousands or millions. The marginal cost on insurance is very high.

This is different from insurance in that insurance has very few, but large payouts shared by many small cost subscriptions.

But it is like insurance in that it is a (likely very) large upfront cost for Apple that needs to be shared by many small subscriptions.

If no one has to pay for it until they need it, the venture from Apple's side goes in the red.

Disclaimer: Speculating on the likely economy of it, I don't know.

Insurance is to make you whole financially after the fact not to response to a life and death emergency in the moment. This theory has been tried in at least one location wherein you were expected to pay annually for fire service or the fire department wouldn't put out your house and would instead insure that the fire didn't spread to the paying customers while they watched your home burn.

It's abhorrent. We ensure cell phones can always call 911 even without a plan for instance which unlike insurance is a nearly identical situation. The logical thing to do is just take it out of the hands of service providers by always requiring carriage of such a call in all circumstances and expecting OEMs/service providers to make back that money on device or service wherein such a device includes that function.

I would accept your argument if all handsets had this functionality built in. As it is now, only forthcoming devices from one MFG is availing this as an additional paid service with free introductory period.

If I had an Iridium handset and the sub ran out and I was adrift, would I still be able to make an emergency call?

On the other hand maybe let it fallback as a PLB.

If the law said you must provide carriage for that call as it does for terrestrial 911 you would have the option of exiting the US market or doing it.

I'd equate this more to not paying your phone bill.

Your phone can still call emergency services, even without a SIM card.

Our inReaches and SPOTs can't. No service, they're little more than bricks.

i doubt they'll start charging in two years. they're just avoiding making the promise of "free forever" if it turns out nobody cares about this feature and they decide to drop it from future iPhones.

in two years, it'll either continue to be free, or it will be discontinued (or transitioned to an "if you want it, go pay money to globalstar" model)

Or it will be part of “Apple one” or whatever

My assumption is that it'll just be another thing they add to entice you to sign up for Apple One/Premier

Apple: Certainly, you can pay another two years, by buying an iPhone 16 Pro.

Plus 3 months of Apple TV

Even a “pre-pay for a day of help” would be great. You could spend $100 in January, and keep that credit on file; then, if you need help in September, you can start up your 24-hour window.

But given the era of recurring subscription revenue above all else, I think we know how Apple will handle this.

So basically, pre-pay your home insurance for a day of fire?

It's more like pre-pay your fire insurance or fire fighters will let your house burn which has already been tried.

I agree that insurance is maybe not the best analogy. You need satellite capacity to send one text message. When your house burns down, you need potentially hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

The satellites are expensive, of course, but most traffic is not cell phone users needing to be rescued.

Putting up Satellites is pretty much a fixed cost. It's not like insurance. Apple is not paying for your rescue. The text costs maybe $0.25 to send.

A 1 time upfront access fee, to cover satellite fixed costs, plus a per-use fee to cover marginal costs.

Subscription-only leaves money on the table.

Also, you know, it is possible to pre-pay insurance. Right?

It's a viable insurance model, although typically only seen with warranties.

Once it's viable because people are paying for other sat services, we can legislate that emergency sat calls be free no matter what, just like 911 / 111 / etc are now. (which is possible because people pay for other cell services, and don't solely use 911)

> And even worse: Imagine you could pay later but you don't use that option because you want to save money oO

If someone makes this choice in a legitimate emergency, I would refer to it as a shot of chlorine in the gene pool.

That issue already exists--without a subscription my inReach becomes nothing but an inferior GPS. When it powers up it even warns you that the SOS capability does not work without a subscription.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com