Hacker News Reader

Comment by wildzzz | Hacker News Reader

I'm not a backcountry skier or much of a hiker but if I was, I'd much rather have a rugged device that can survive much better than an expensive piece of glass. I've damaged phones in the past by them getting bent in my pocket during rigorous activities. If my crumpled body is laying at the bottom of a cliff, I doubt my phone fared much better. A solid body device with a simple interface could be the difference in me being found in a couple hours or a couple weeks.

Direct to phone satcom is neat and I can see plenty of applications for it but I know that I wouldn't stake my life on it simply due to it being a consumer-grade phone.

View on HN

I do a lot of hiking and have never broken my phone in the wilderness (or in town either, I've scratched and cracked the screen, but never enough to make the phone inoperable). I generally travel with someone else, so it's even less likely that we'll all break our phones at the same time -- if I were hiking by myself, I'd be a lot more worried about having an injury prevent me from calling for help rather than having a broken phone prevent it.

I do carry an InReach when I hike in remote areas but if my phone could make satellite emergency communications, I'd stop paying $144 a year for the InReach.

If InReach dropped the price to $50/year, then I'd consider still subscribing to it.

100% - They don't make phones strong enough to be reliable as a life safety device. As an active person I've broken my pocketed phone several times in incidents that were otherwise unmemorable as they were minor spills.

I laughed at that picture of the mountaineer in full Alpine climbing attire, on a tablet.

What's he doing on it, checking his email? The view behind him isn't good enough?

I'm thinking the same.. if I've fallen off a cliff or crashed my bike and broken my leg, possibly in shock too, I want something rugged & simple to activate like a PLB

I do trail-running, backpacking and skiing in the Colorado backcountry. I'd never trust my safety to a cell phone due to the fragility, temperature sensitivity and poor battery life. I carry an inReach and have used the SOS feature. That thing is bullet proof and can tether to my cell phone anyway if I want the convenience of the phone for typing messages etc.

So I went looking for stats to validate how reasonable this concern was and looking at what on average kills folks https://www.projectuntethered.com/hiking-statistics/#:~:text...

I think your concern is warranted as vehicle accidents and falls may call into question the durability of the device in question however based on the mix of accidents and especially the prevalence of medical misadventures its probably a worthwhile feature even if you don't opt for something desired for extra durability.

Another logical concern is battery life. A huge chunk of non-fatal misadventures are day hikers and the dominant cause is actually dummies wandering off trail as opposed to injury.

I literally just destroyed an iPhone which was in my pocket, in a case, and I apparently smashed it into a rock (which I wasn't even really aware of except it was rugged hiking generally). Probably protected my thigh.

I do carry a spare battery etc. I suppose I could keep my phone in a rugged case in my pack and use something else for pictures and maps but that's sort of getting away from the idea of one device you always have right with you.

> I've damaged phones in the past by them getting bent in my pocket during rigorous activities

I got a 4g nokia dumb phone just for this occasion - few days of battery life, sturdy build, good for small trips/hikes where you usually have signal or as a backup phone

this is my opinion, too. and i do a good bit of time in the backcountry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com