Apple Watches and iPhones are Placing Dozens of False Distress Calls About Skiers (yahoo.com) 124
Dispatchers for 911 emergency calls "are being inundated with false, automated distress calls from Apple devices owned by skiers who are very much alive," reports the New York Times:
"Do you have an emergency?" [911 emergency dispatcher] Betts asked. No, the man said, he was skiing — safely, happily, unharmed. Slightly annoyed, he added, "For the last three days, my watch has been dialing 911."
Winter has brought a decent amount of snowfall to [Colorado]'s ski resorts, and with it an avalanche of false emergency calls. Virtually all of them have been placed by Apple Watches or iPhone 14s under the mistaken impression that their owners have been debilitated in collisions. As of September, these devices have come equipped with technology meant to detect car crashes and alert 911 dispatchers. It is a more sensitive upgrade to software on Apple devices, now several years old, that can detect when a user falls and then dial for help. But the latest innovation appears to send the device into overdrive: It keeps mistaking skiers, and some other fitness enthusiasts, for car-wreck victims.
Lately, emergency call centers in some ski regions have been inundated with inadvertent, automated calls, dozens or more a week. Phone operators often must put other calls, including real emergencies, on hold to clarify whether the latest siren has been prompted by a human at risk or an overzealous device. "My whole day is managing crash notifications," said Trina Dummer, interim director of Summit County's emergency services, which received 185 such calls in the week from Jan. 13 to Jan. 22. (In winters past, the typical call volume on a busy day was roughly half that.) Ms. Dummer said that the onslaught was threatening to desensitize dispatchers and divert limited resources from true emergencies.
"Apple needs to put in their own call center if this is a feature they want," she said.
Apple acknowledged this was occuring in "some specific scenarios," the Times reports — but a spokesperson also "noted that when a crash is detected, the watch buzzes and sends a loud warning alerting the user that a call is being placed to 911, and it provides 10 seconds in which to cancel the call."
But the Times points out that "skiers, in helmets and layers of clothing, often do not to detect the warning, so they may not cancel the call or respond to the 911 dispatcher."
Winter has brought a decent amount of snowfall to [Colorado]'s ski resorts, and with it an avalanche of false emergency calls. Virtually all of them have been placed by Apple Watches or iPhone 14s under the mistaken impression that their owners have been debilitated in collisions. As of September, these devices have come equipped with technology meant to detect car crashes and alert 911 dispatchers. It is a more sensitive upgrade to software on Apple devices, now several years old, that can detect when a user falls and then dial for help. But the latest innovation appears to send the device into overdrive: It keeps mistaking skiers, and some other fitness enthusiasts, for car-wreck victims.
Lately, emergency call centers in some ski regions have been inundated with inadvertent, automated calls, dozens or more a week. Phone operators often must put other calls, including real emergencies, on hold to clarify whether the latest siren has been prompted by a human at risk or an overzealous device. "My whole day is managing crash notifications," said Trina Dummer, interim director of Summit County's emergency services, which received 185 such calls in the week from Jan. 13 to Jan. 22. (In winters past, the typical call volume on a busy day was roughly half that.) Ms. Dummer said that the onslaught was threatening to desensitize dispatchers and divert limited resources from true emergencies.
"Apple needs to put in their own call center if this is a feature they want," she said.
Apple acknowledged this was occuring in "some specific scenarios," the Times reports — but a spokesperson also "noted that when a crash is detected, the watch buzzes and sends a loud warning alerting the user that a call is being placed to 911, and it provides 10 seconds in which to cancel the call."
But the Times points out that "skiers, in helmets and layers of clothing, often do not to detect the warning, so they may not cancel the call or respond to the 911 dispatcher."
10 seconds, right. (Score:2)
Because when I'm skiing in full gear I would:
a) Be able to feel the watch buzz and beep under my jacket.
b) 10 seconds would be surely enough to remove my gloves and other layers to get to my watch in time.
Dumb Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
Because when I'm skiing in full gear I would:
a) Be able to feel the watch buzz and beep under my jacket.
b) 10 seconds would be surely enough to remove my gloves and other layers to get to my watch in time.
Dumb Apple.
Or... potentially smart Apple, when the company introduces its line of phone/watch compatible ski wear: iSkiHelmet, iSkiGloves, etc ...
a) Create iProblem.
b) Invent iSolution.
c) iProfit !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 10 seconds, right. (Score:2)
Or plan B - block the offending Apple IMEI numbers from being able to contact the phone net.
"Apple devices have been blocked due to disruption of emergency services"
Re: 10 seconds, right. (Score:3)
Have you ever been engaged in an intense activity like downhill skiing or hard work?
You might not feel the vibration.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore him, he commented left and right on this story, with a massive sense of entitlement, spewing the same irrational crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have. And I would agree with maybe not feeling your phone in your pocket vibrating as there are at a minimum two layers between the phone and your leg, or wherever you store your phone. The watch is touching your skin. If it's not, you already fucked up and don't deserve to talk. I know what the watch feels like when it vibrates for texts and calls and emergency alerts. If you cannot feel the watch vibrating for emergency while touching your bare skin, no matter the activity, you fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, I'm so scared of the coward slinging insults. Waaaah, my feelings...they are ever so crushed.
Lmao, fucking loser.
Re: (Score:2)
And even when you do feel it, 10 seconds is not enough to stop what you're doing, take of your gloves and go find your phone and see what is going on. Assuming that you know it is calling 911. Because if my phone is buzzing, it can also be just a call or text coming in. And I will deal with that when I have the time.
You're the dumbass.
They're wearing it wrong? (Score:2)
They're wearing it wrong? OK, that's a weak attempt at humor. However, the watch use case is not unreasonable, so it's on Apple to handle that use case. Apple seems to consider the incidence of false positives to be minimal. However, sometimes internal testing doesn't directly test integration with external (non-Apple) systems and the severity or criticality of that interaction. In the case of skiers, it seems that Apple should have designed the algorithm to suspect a false positive if the watch wearer
Re: (Score:2)
Or, Apple will just contend that people are skiing wrong. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Heres an idea, it even says it when you turn the feature on the first time:
It says you will be charged if you fuck up and waste resources? Oh, wait..
Re: They're wearing it wrong? (Score:2)
How mant times has an apple saved a life compared to false calls?
Put all those calls into a low prio queue serviced by a call center that bills Apple for every call made.
Re: (Score:2)
How mant times has an apple saved a life compared to false calls?
I would be VERY interested to see that statistic.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that it would be very embarrassing for Apple.
Start fining repeat offenders (Score:3)
Either they'll stop using their iShit devices, or they'll complain enough to Apple and they'll have to fix it.
Re: Start fining repeat offenders (Score:3)
It's unlikely it's a repeat offender. Unless the offender is Apple. And they just won't pay.
Catch-22 (Score:5, Funny)
That reminds me of how my Android phone went into a boot loop. First I thought it was a dead battery, but plugging in the charger didn't help. Then I suspected bad memory or bad storage. I managed to get it out of the boot loop but then it started calling 9-1-1. Of course it warned me first, but it wouldn't let me cancel. This happened twice before I figured out the problem.
The problem was that the power button was flaky. The boot loop was because the power button kept powering the device on and off. Dialing 9-1-1 is what happens by default if you press the power button rapidly 5x in a row. And the power button has priority over the touchscreen, so if it's flaky you can't cancel the emergency call.
I tilted the phone on its side with the power button facing down and transferred my data to a new phone. It's still on its side because I'm afraid to move it.
Re: (Score:3)
I tilted the phone on its side with the power button facing down and transferred my data to a new phone. It's still on its side because I'm afraid to move it.
Have you though of using a hammer?
Limited information leads to a bad roc curve (Score:2)
A single mems accelerometer strapped somewhat arbitrarily to someone's wrist can only give you so much information about the quantity you care about: the acceleration of the wearer's center of mass or of his skull.
Feynman famously said that you're the easiest person for yourself to fool. And in this case, there actually *is* a pretty tight relationship between a swinging wrist during a normal gait and center of mass acceleration.
And if all you see is the tightness of that relationship, you can easily fool y
Who is paying for time wasted (Score:2)
by the 911 dispatchers ? Yes: it does cost. It also hurts others who genuinely call 911 and who are delayed.
Gimmick that never should have made it out of beta (Score:2)
Steve Jobs would have fired an entire department over this kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said it's out of beta? They should use some of the apple tax to pay for this.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that it never should have left beta (assuming it was even ever considered to be in such state), but not that it's a gimmick. Google has had it since 2019 without issues.
Chicken Little Apple Device. (Score:2)
I get it, if it even saves one life - but what if it loses at least one other from spamming emergency calls?
Doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a real solution, that's just a band-aid, and a bad one at that. The problem isn't that the user is in a ski resort, the problem is that the watch is falsely detecting certain actions performed by the user as an automobile crash.
Re: (Score:3)
Google has had the feature since 2019 and hasn't had any issues, geofencing wasn't their solution so....
HELP, I'VE (Score:3)
Help! I'm Skiing, And I Can't Shut Up!
It had to be an Apple user... (Score:4, Insightful)
"For the last three days, my watch has been dialing 911."
So take off your watch when you're skiing, goof. Buy a cheap little GPS device of some kind if you're skiing so far off the beaten track you wouldn't be found by the ski patrol in a few minutes.
Re:It had to be an Apple user... (Score:5, Interesting)
So take off your watch when you're skiing, goof.
But then how will you know when it's time to meet your friends for apres-ski? I think it would be more reasonable to assume a watch could function as a watch than be forced to do without.
Buy a cheap little GPS device of some kind if you're skiing so far off the beaten track you wouldn't be found by the ski patrol in a few minutes.
Literally no one with a functioning braincell is using an Apple watch for this purpose. Ski patrol does not rely on emergency services telling them a GPS co-ordinate. The first thing any ski patrol would do is look for a transponder beacon of which there are many available on the market specifically for skiiers.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ski patrol does not rely on emergency services telling them a GPS co-ordinate. (sic)"
Better let these people know they're doing it all wrong:
https://www.holidayextras.com/travel-insurance/winter-sports/ski-with-mobile-phone.html [holidayextras.com]
"If you're skiing off piste, get separated from your companions and end up in an accident, your phone can help others locate you and get to you fast."
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't doing it wrong. They are doing something completely different from what we're talking about: recovering lost, injured but otherwise capable people.
In the meantime we're talking about crash detection, a feature to alert emergency services when you cannot. Please focus, and if you think taking a phone is some substitute for taking an emergency beacon off piste then you're an absolute moron who deserves your Darwin award.
Re: (Score:2)
You're very good at "making a distinction without a difference". You should offer classes...along with your other masturbatory time-wasting indulgences.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just turn off that specific feature?
"4D" movies (Score:2)
Idiot skier. (Score:2)
You obviously know about the problem, so turn off that feature, or don't take your watch skiing. Hopefully, since you're aware of the issue, and are continuing to create problems, you're getting fined up the ass for abusing the E911 system.
New smartwatch mode... (Score:4, Funny)
Software fix (Score:3)
People who've had a ski crash typically aren't laying inert like a car crash victim might be. They're moving around a bit, and then within a minute or so, they're moving quite quickly again.
So, if the watch user is still moving around (easily detectable by the acceleromater) extend the countdown to a minute. And if within that minute the person starts moving around quickly assume it's an athletic activity and they've simply resumed.
If won't remove all the false positives, but it should put a pretty significant dent.
Add to that the option of using the GPS to see if someone is on a road (where they might be in a vehicle accident) vs another setting where the collision setting might require different settings.
What an asshole (Score:2)
The first time was probably a shock. "WTF is wrong with this watch?"
The third time was probably one of the most embarrassing situations in the user's life, and would have most people tearing the watch off and removing its batteries until Apple supplies a bugfix.
The fifth time was voluntary: a malicious desire to waste 911 resources. "Ha ha, I just called 911 again. Hopefully I was able to delay another caller."
By the second day, I bet the guy was shaki
Re: (Score:2)
Or, look up how to turn if off?
1. Open the Watch app on the paired iPhone.
2. Check the bottom of the screen to make sure you're in the My Watch tab.
3. Now tap on Emergency SOS.
4. In the Crash Detection section, tap the toggle labelled “Call After Serious Crash,” and then confirm Turn Off.
Should be a simple solution (Score:2)
Re:"For the last three days" (Score:5, Insightful)
If your watch is randomly contacting emergency services, you need to turn off the damn watch! How selfish and entitled can a person get?
Re:"For the last three days" (Score:5, Funny)
How selfish and entitled can a person get?
They're skiers.
Re: "For the last three days" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
a spokesperson also "noted that when a crash is detected, the watch buzzes and sends a loud warning alerting the user that a call is being placed to 911
with the warning on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying âBeware of the Leopard.â
A helmet with bluetooth audio ... (Score:2)
It's their own fault, they're wearing it wrong.
They kinda of are. If you are going to leave such a feature enabled while skiing, especially after witnessing a false report, then you should be wearing a helmet with bluetooth audio so you can hear the phone/watch warning that its about to dial 911. :-)
Admittedly, the phone/watch should desensitize when skiing. Don't call 911 short of crashed into a tree / brick wall sort of deceleration.
Re: (Score:2)
How selfish and entitled can a person get?
They're skiers.
You've obviously never met any snow boarders
Re: (Score:2)
How selfish and entitled can a person get?
They're skiers.
You've obviously never met any snow boarders
They aren't selfish, they are just oblivious. :-)
Re:"For the last three days" (Score:5, Informative)
Is it not illegal to waste emergency services' time like that? Okay the first time it might be excusable, but the fourth or fifth?
Apple have had issues with rollercoasters too. Google has this feature too but it seems to be more reliable. You can set if you want to it call emergency services, text some specific person, or various other things.
Re: (Score:3)
If your watch is randomly contacting emergency services, you need to turn off the damn watch! How selfish and entitled can a person get?
Ah yes, because the consumer asked for this, right?
Powered off. Now that's how you get your money's worth out of a "smart" watch. Brilliant.
Nope. No way in hell is this Apples problem. They just created it, that's all.
Re: (Score:3)
An obvious solution is for Apple to geo-fence locations where bumps and jostling are common, and exclude them from the 911 reports.
Obvious examples are ski resorts, bumper car arenas, and NYC sidewalks.
Re:"For the last three days" (Score:5, Interesting)
An obvious solution is for Apple to geo-fence locations where bumps and jostling are common, and exclude them from the 911 reports.
The problem with a geofence solution is that skiing is a pretty dangerous activity and having your phone/smartwatch automatically contact 911 if you wipe out is actually a desirable feature (if it actually worked properly). It seems like the real problem here is whatever fall/crash detection algorithm Apple is using is just straight up garbage. A genuine accident which renders the victim unconscious should result in immobilization. If you're still in motion after some bumps or jostles, it shouldn't trigger a 911 call.
Re:"For the last three days" (Score:4, Interesting)
A genuine accident which renders the victim unconscious should result in immobilization.
I'll make sure to tell that bear which attacked me to stop wiggling my body around. /joke
You are correct, though, this should solve most fake 911 calls.
Fall detection requires mobility? (Score:2)
A genuine accident which renders the victim unconscious should result in immobilization.
You are correct, though, this should solve most fake 911 calls.
My understanding is that fall detection requires being immobile for a minute. Maybe crash detection does not?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the accelerometers can't tell the difference between being immobile and moving at a steady velocity down the side of the mountain without any skidding, slaloming, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the accelerometers can't tell the difference between being immobile and moving at a steady velocity down the side of the mountain without any skidding, slaloming, etc.
You had to accelerate to that steady velocity at some point so the phone should know it. No additional changes in acceleration would imply that velocity is being maintained.
Re: (Score:2)
You had to accelerate to that steady velocity at some point so the phone should know it. No additional changes in acceleration would imply that velocity is being maintained.
Sure, but being still is also maintaining velocity and plenty of accidents can involve sliding to a stop at the end. Accelerometers can't tell one steady pace from another. So 30 mph is the same as 0 mph if there are no changes in velocity. So the accelerometer might not be able to tell the difference between sliding to a stop after an accident (an acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, after all) and accelerating and reaching a steady state. I mean, they probably can with a good profile for the
Re: (Score:2)
>Sure, but being still is also maintaining velocity and plenty of accidents can involve sliding to a stop at the end.
Being still is a constant velocity of zero. Sliding is a constant velocity of non-zero.
Accelerometers can't tell one steady pace from another.
But the phone can because it is using cumulative acceleration data to estimate a current speed. After a fall or crash, starting a slide involves going from zero to non-zero.
So the accelerometer might not be able to tell the difference between sliding to a stop after an accident and accelerating and reaching a steady state.
The current speed estimate from the cumulative acceleration data would help differentiate between the two.
What can be done with accelerometers is impressive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Being still is a constant velocity of zero. Sliding is a constant velocity of non-zero.
While there is no absolute surety that there isn't a universal coordinate system, most modern branches of physics are based on a model that does not use one. Relativity is very clear on there being no universal frame of reference. In other words, physicists tend to agree that there is no "constant velocity of zero or constant velocity of non-zero" as you put it outside of a specific frame of reference. The only frame of reference that the accelerometers in the watch operate in is the frame of reference that
Re: (Score:2)
So, purely from watching acceleration, there is no difference, at any given point in time, between moving at 0 kph, 10, kph, 20 kph, etc. They don't feature an acceleration, so they can all look the same.
You are ignoring the watch's history. These velocities only appear equivalent at their respective moments in time absent history. However when you look at history and when at the constant 10 kph moment you find a previous zero to 10 kph acceleration. So if the logged history includes a known position at zero kph, by summing all additional movement we can tell a current position. This is how inertial navigation works.
So, if the accelerometer information is cross-referenced against position and motion information from such other sources.
Cross referencing inertial navigation and GPS is nice, it can help remove a cumulative error
Re: (Score:2)
You are ignoring the watch's history. These velocities only appear equivalent at their respective moments in time absent history. However when you look at history and when at the constant 10 kph moment you find a previous zero to 10 kph acceleration. So if the logged history includes a known position at zero kph, by summing all additional movement we can tell a current position. This is how inertial navigation works.
I am not ignoring the history of the watch. I thought I was fairly clear that the watch will not have a suitable history for determining that in the even we are discussing because the watch thinks that it was just in a car accident. This is a watch, attached to a semi-independent wrist. There is no way it could incorrectly think it was just in a car accident while simultaneously deriving a remotely accurate velocity from accelerometer data. The two things are mutually exclusive. Beyond that, accurate measur
Re: (Score:2)
This is a watch, attached to a semi-independent wrist. There is no way it could incorrectly think it was just in a car accident while simultaneously deriving a remotely accurate velocity from accelerometer data.
Car accidents with serious injury can occur as low as 20 mph. This is well with skiing speeds. Naively written software could mistake a skiing fall with a car crash.
The two things are mutually exclusive.
Wrist movements tends to cancel themselves out.
Beyond that, accurate measurement of velocity from cumulative accelerations still requires on a solid starting point - the last time that the skier is known to be at rest. If the watch does not even know that the wearer _is_ skiing, I believe this would be very hard to calculate.
Not really, To reduce the amount of data one periodically creates a waypoint with current position, course and velocity. Recreate a new waypoint as needed. Incremental data always relative to a waypoint.
The best way it could know would seem to be identifying characteristic movements that indicate stopping but, in skiing, those movements will be virtually identical to those you would use to slow down without stopping.
Again, history, the waypoint, is including time and motion before skiing. And again, the movement
Re: (Score:3)
If you crash at a ski resort, calling 911 makes little sense.
Far better would be to report the crash directly to the facility's SAR, which are already on the slopes.
So geofence the resort, raise the threshold for what is reportable within the boundaries, and then report directly rather than going through 911.
"Crashes" vs "falls" (Score:2)
If you crash at a ski resort, calling 911 makes little sense.
Actually for "crash" it does, trees, etc. Perhaps you meant for "falls"?
Re: (Score:2)
no, your first call should always be to ski patrol, they are the ones close by with the knowledge on how to rescue you. they will contact 911.
Re: (Score:2)
no, your first call should always be to ski patrol, they are the ones close by with the knowledge on how to rescue you. they will contact 911.
In a "crash" you may not be the one doing the calling, the phone may very well be doing it with this new feature. And 911 can inform the patrol given your GPS.
Re: (Score:2)
An obvious solution is for Apple to geo-fence locations where bumps and jostling are common, and exclude them from the 911 reports.
The problem with a geofence solution is that skiing is a pretty dangerous activity and having your phone/smartwatch automatically contact 911 if you wipe out is actually a desirable feature (if it actually worked properly).
You know what would be an even greater feature than that? Having any one of the three dozen skiers on the slopes with you actually give a shit enough to stop and help someone in need during a "dangerous" activity that's been known to kill humans before.
Also, let's not forget skiers actually had the guts to go down double black diamonds long before the dial-an-ambulance was strapped to their wrist.
And perhaps it's not "straight up garbage". Perhaps this problem, is that fucking hard to get right. Find som
Re: (Score:3)
When the feature first rolled out, they were getting a lot of false positives from roller coasters. I doubt there's a need for geofencing, they just need to look at the data and figure out how to filter out the non-life threatening skiing incidents. But certainly if a skier falls off a cliff or collides with a tree or something, they want to it send a distress call.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a both problem. The consumers are stupid as fuck.
"I didn't feel/hear it!" Bullshit.
"Too many outer layers to get to it!" Bullshit.
These are not Apple's problem. These are stupid people problems. These excuses tell me the person has no business wearing the watch in the first place. If these are your excuses, you might as well not even be wearing the watch in the first place, as it's providing you absolutely zero benefit (tracking your "workout" is not a valid benefit here as you don't need a device capa
Re: (Score:3)
Easy, dude. Take a chill pill.
This is in no way customer's fault.
They bought the device and expect it to work, well, "as expected". That includes the emergency call to take place when an accident actually occurs. The business wearing it in the first place while performing a dangerous activity is EXACTLY the one outlined above (place a 911 call when there is an accident which incapacitates the victim).
people wear those watches for a very good reason, the watches call 911 for a bad reason. It's the watch, mat
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's still both Apple and the customer's fault. Technically, it's working as designed and expected. It thinks something bad happened and tries to get you help. This is the expected result. The customer just also expects it to not get triggered accidentally when it's not needed. Apple makes no guarantees about this, and it is in fact why they give you 10 seconds to cancel it. So, Apple has passed on the responsibility to the customer to make sure you cancel it if it does get accidentally triggered. Opti
Re: (Score:2)
These skiers misunderstanding, or incapable of using correctly, the technology they have bought is 100% their own fault.
Isn't the whole point of using Apple technology that the consumer isn't required to understand anything at all? "Computers for the rest of us", they once said.
Re: (Score:2)
They've said that, but they have literally never meant it, because all technology will always require a certain basic level of understanding. And these people don't even begin to have a fraction of that.
Re:"For the last three days" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're zooming down the side of a mountain do you think it's EASY to just suddenly come to a complete stop, get a glove off, roll up a sleeve, and interact with a watch on your wrist in TEN SECONDS? Let's be real here; that's patently unrealistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. As you don't have to take your gloves off if you are smart enough to use gloves that work with touchscreens, and you don't need anything heavier than a fleece lined hoodie which is real easy to roll the sleeve up quickly. I do it all time when I regularly go snowboarding. In Colorado, just like these folks. Granted, since I'm snowboarding, my hands are free by default, but I'm pretty sure that's still a moot point because those poles have straps on them so you can just let go. Your fault if you aren't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. If you try to keep skiing while trying to turn it off like some sort of moron. Stopping on the side of the trail is not one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you have never been to any American ski resort.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, its ok. I don't mind explaining over and over again to the morons like you just how stupid they are. At least I don't hide like a pussy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you're zooming down the side of a mountain do you think it's EASY to just suddenly come to a complete stop, get a glove off, roll up a sleeve, and interact with a watch on your wrist in TEN SECONDS? Let's be real here; that's patently unrealistic.Z
It’s actually trivially easy if you’re zipping along to just suddenly stop, with your gloves off, sleeves pushed up for sure. Of course when this happened to me I had the sudden urge to take a 15 minute nap and when I woke at least one bystander looked over to their buddy “I told you he wasn’t dead”.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think if Apple put "NOT APPROVED OR RECOMMENDED FOR SKIING" printed in 72-point font in the EULA on the first page, even a single skiing Apple consumer would have read it?
It's patently unrealistic we all don't already know that answer, so your argument is rather invalid as it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have ten seconds to realize the vibration is there and is not just from the recent impact with the ground (I'm guessing a lot of these false positives are from jumps and the like), find a place to stop where you won't get someone ACTUALLY colliding with you a moment later, get your sleeve up, AND find the correct way to stop the watch from dialing 911.
Ten seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Diable feature, not turn off watch (Score:2)
Ah yes, because the consumer asked for this, right?
Well they did select a watch with the functionality. Paid extra for it as a matter of fact.
Powered off. Now that's how you get your money's worth out of a "smart" watch. Brilliant.
More likely there is a setting in system preferences where auto 911 can be disabled.
And yes, setting the skiing activity should desensitize that point where auto 911 would invoke.
Re: (Score:2)
If your watch is randomly contacting emergency services, you need to turn off the damn watch! How selfish and entitled can a person get?
We can only hope they get sent a large bill for this.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because it saved "at least 5 people" doesn't mean that Apple (and it's users) should suddenly be above and beyond the law. At some point, the longer this is an issue, the more likely Apple is risking a lawsuit over it. Once it was a noticeable issue, Apple should have done something to fix it, not ignore it.
A simple "Pause 911 function for X amount of time" patch is all it would tak
Re: (Score:2)
So if you know you are skiing for the day, the user could press "Pause 911 call function for the next 5 hours" when they are at the ski hill and the device
Re: (Score:2)
So, wait.
You are saying that users should pause the one function that might save their lives during a dangerous activity, while performing said dangerous activity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I despise Apple. never bought one piece of hardware from them, and never will.
My point was about a feature, not who makes it and whether it's good or not (hint: Apple's implementation sucks donkey ass). The feature should be useful, and turning it off exactly when you might need it the most is a stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A pausing 911 feature sounds insanely stupid. For one, nobody will remember to use it, unless there are real and severe consequences for failing to do so. It would be the equivalent of Airplane mode. Sure, the airline asks that you put your phone in airplane mode, or turn it off, but do they have any way of actually enforcing that? No. Do they have anyway to detect if you didn't do it? No. Are there any actual real-world consequences/interferences for the individual? No. One of those questions needs to be a
Re: (Score:2)
"at least 5"
... apple fad gadget consumers. not really worth the inconvenience or disruption.
i'm probably joking. maybe.
Re: (Score:3)
I am asking you for the numbers. We should have those numbers before deciding.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not useless, it's pointing out we don't yet have enough information to make a decision either way.
Re: (Score:2)