Apple Executives Offer Closer Look at iPhone 14's Crash Detection

[I7guy]

Those are forces outside the system. Apple's flaws lies within the faulty software.

It’s not faulty software nor is it buggy. Not every case can be accounted for. Being conservative is better than nothing

They can brag about its usefulness in a few years when the work out all the kinks.

They can brag about it now.

I guess some people think Apple's system is good enough the way it is.🙄

So are you saying it doesn’t have to be improved, ever?

I just hope Apple engineers don't have the same attitude as Apple zealots.

Please do explain.

If Apple only listens to the Yes Man zealots, Apple Maps would still be directing fanbois onto nonexistent streets.😒

Really? As if no other gps software ever had that issue, once ever.

Will do. I might turn it back on once it works as advertized. My wife uses Apple Maps as her exclusive GPS now, something she would never have done a few years back.

 

[dk001]

You can’t ask an honest question that only apple can answer. If I misread your post and it was all about speculation as to why and roi then I apologize. But if you were asking what apples rational and roi and cba no one save few in the know can answer that. And if you a seasoned veteran can’t discern cost benefit analysis or roi, how are us mere mortals supposed to?

If you’re a shareholder wanting to ensure apples feet are held to the fire you should bring it up at the next meeting.

This question would be better asked jn the apple tech forum.

What? ROTFLMAO!!!!
It's an honest question AND only Apple can answer it. To bad it wasn't mentioned in the interview.

Unless ... what is your definition of an "honest question"?

btw - tech forum? Be better if they had a Marketing forum.

 

[dk001]

Those are forces outside the system. Apple's flaws lies within the faulty software. They can brag about its usefulness in a few years when the work out all the kinks.

I guess some people think Apple's system is good enough the way it is.🙄 I just hope Apple engineers don't have the same attitude as Apple zealots. If Apple only listens to the Yes Man zealots, Apple Maps would still be directing fanbois onto nonexistent streets.😒

Will do. I might turn it back on once it works as advertized. My wife uses Apple Maps as her exclusive GPS now, something she would never have done a few years back.

To your point, on my Apple Watch 7 I disabled the Fall Detection. It would go off when doing activities like playing with my dog, mountain biking, or level 2 hiking. Nice function, just never seemed to get tweaked right.

 

[I7guy]

What? ROTFLMAO!!!!
It's an honest question AND only Apple can answer it. To bad it wasn't mentioned in the interview.

Unless ... what is your definition of an "honest question"?

btw - tech forum? Be better if they had a Marketing forum.

Ok thanks for confirming it was a rhetorical question. Because other than to say “it’s what we heard our customers want(sic), I never once heard roi or cba from Apples mouth when discussing a new feature…ever.

Just musing out loud, if someone who regularly decides features based on roi how can us mere mortals even guess at apples rational?

 

[Mousse]

It’s not faulty software nor is it buggy. Not every case can be accounted for. Being conservative is better than nothing

Software that does what it isn't supposed to do (detects a rollercoaster ride as being a crash) and doesn't do what it is supposed to do (doesn't detect a crash in the junkyard crash test) is buggy software.

The first it should determine is if what appears to a crash involves a vehicle or not. One easy way to determine with high accuracy is to link it to Apple Maps. If the crash occurred on a road or within 30 feet of a road, it is most likely a crash. If it occurs far from any pavement, it probably ain't a crash. Yes, offroader do wreck their Jeeps rock crawling, but police ain't gonna respond to that.
The other benefit of linking crash detection to Maps is the phone can send the location to emergency services when the victim is unconscious.

Please do explain.

Any time someone writes something negative about Apple, the zealots/fanbois be like

 

[I7guy]

Software that does what it isn't supposed to do (detects a rollercoaster ride as being a crash) and doesn't do what it is supposed to do (doesn't detect a crash in the junkyard crash test) is buggy software.

I disagree. The software seems like it was doing exactly what it should have been doing, detecting high g-forces and responding to it. There will never be 100% guarantee that this type of detection (along will fall detection, afib detection, airbags etc) will be able to detect all unforeseen circumstances. There probably will be a certain percentage of absolute reliability and a certain percentage of false positives. It's the nature of the beast. But we are better off with it than without it.

The first it should determine is if what appears to a crash involves a vehicle or not. One easy way to determine with high accuracy is to link it to Apple Maps.

You are welcome to give your feedback to Apple in case they haven't thought about this.

If the crash occurred on a road or within 30 feet of a road, it is most likely a crash. If it occurs far from any pavement, it probably ain't a crash.

The word probably is key in the above. It shows that it is difficult to account for every circumstance. And the tighter the parameters of what constitutes a crash, the more that will be missed in the event there is one.

Yes, offroader do wreck their Jeeps rock crawling, but police ain't gonna respond to that.

If there is an injury police should respond.

The other benefit of linking crash detection to Maps is the phone can send the location to emergency services when the victim is unconscious.

Again, you are welcome to provide this feedback to Apple.

Any time someone writes something negative about Apple, the zealots/fanbois be like

Ok.

 

[jav6454]

Ok.

I have found that arguing with that poster is several times useless as they refuse to accept reality. I agree with your assessment that the software is doing exactly what is was programmed to. That said, the whole g-forces on a roller coaster is an overlooked bug on programmers like any new feature.

I have a feeling that likely in 16.1 we will get roller coaster mode.

 

[Mousse]

I disagree. The software seems like it was doing exactly what it should have been doing, detecting high g-forces and responding to it. There will never be 100% guarantee that this type of detection (along will fall detection, afib detection, airbags etc) will be able to detect all unforeseen circumstances. There probably will be a certain percentage of absolute reliability and a certain percentage of false positives. It's the nature of the beast. But we are better off with it than without it.

Okay. The software is incomplete then. It's not crash detection, it's radical change in G-force detection. It's marketed as crash detection and it isn't yet. That's what I've been saying the entire time, "It's not ready for primetime." Don't hold up a hamburger and claim it's a cheeseburger. Don't point to a glider and claim it's a airplane.

In a few years, once they finally have a complete system, then it will be something good. Until then, I view it as proof of concept project. It can detect sudden changes in velocity, but it can't tell if it's in a vehicle or not.

This was typical MS back in the 90's. Marketing kept pushing stuff out before the development team had a chance to complete the project.

 

[I7guy]

Okay. The software is incomplete then.

Your take that this has to be 100% is not viable. Just like afib detection is not 100%. Fall detection isn't 100%. Airbags sometimes go off when not supposed to and don't go off when needed etc.

It's not crash detection, it's radical change in G-force detection. It's marketed as crash detection and it isn't yet.

No that's exactly what this feature is.

That's what I've been saying the entire time, "It's not ready for primetime.

Yes it is. It's better to have some false positives than lose a life because this type of detection will never be 100%. (the trolley problem)

" Don't hold up a hamburger and claim it's a cheeseburger. Don't point to a glider and claim it's a airplane.

The glider is a form of plane. Unlike crash detection, neither hamburger or cheeseburger is likely to have serious instant repercussions on your life.

In a few years, once they finally have a complete system, then it will be something good. Until then, I view it as proof of concept project. It can detect sudden changes in velocity, but it can't tell if it's in a vehicle or not.

Okay view it as you want or even turn it off.

This was typical MS back in the 90's. Marketing kept pushing stuff out before the development team had a chance to complete the project.

Those were bugs. Referencing a dereferenced pointer in C is a bug. Trying to detect a car crash is much more difficult as I'm sure onstar can attest to.

 

[dk001]

Ok thanks for confirming it was a rhetorical question. Because other than to say “it’s what we heard our customers want(sic), I never once heard roi or cba from Apples mouth when discussing a new feature…ever.

Just musing out loud, if someone who regularly decides features based on roi how can us mere mortals even guess at apples rational?

You really need to look at the definition of "rhetorical question" vs "honest question" without interjecting your apparent pro-Apple bias.

 

[I7guy]

You really need to look at the definition of "rhetorical question" vs "honest question" without interjecting your apparent pro-Apple bias.

Since you are looking for answers to your "honest question", here are my answers:

After seeing this in vids, in podcasts, and threads like this, here’s a thought: Where is the ROI? Apple and other companies don’t do this stuff out of the good ness of their money grubbing hearts.

Yes, it's part of the overall healthy and well-ness initiative that we embarked on years ago. We expect this initiative to net us about $10 billion dollars in additional revenue. Crash detection alone will net us about $1 billion. We spent about $50M developing this.

How many lives will this really save?

We expect this to save annually about 10,000 lives.

At what cost?

No cost, just an upside.

I can hear the “if it saves just one…” … I get that however that is not the going in premise for any corp. It all comes down to $$$

We at apple don't think like that. We do things that are right for our customers and in return our customers buy our products. You can't buy loyalty. We don't always do things that result in a net profit, but we do things that result in a net win for our customers.

Answer: Sales (Markewting)

Again, we at Apple don't think like that. We do things that benefit our customers even if the ROI isn't there. Ultimately when we do right for our customers, they do right by us.