iPhone 14 Users Get Free Emergency SOS via Satellite for Another Year

[gank41]

We have no idea how Apple will monetize this feature; as you said, they could easily add it one of their plans or just eat the costs int he name of good PR if their three years of research demonstrate that the costs are relatively low.

But I was replying to the crazy claim that someone would be denied SOS help just because they weren't enrolled in the service.

Sorry I got to rambling I guess..

I suppose this is what we all would really like to know: If the service HAS expired, how will Apple handle it? Will they just say in some very Apple way, sorry you're SOL. Or will there be an option to purchase this feature in any way.

Just letting the option lapse and no longer being available, even though it was one of the phone's selling points, seems unreasonable. Offering an option to buy in still seems like a Bait & Switch to me. And considering this isn't something people use all the time? Car insurance is crazy expensive, but people KNOW they have insurance. People were just told it's a feature built into the iPhone.

 

[fwmireault]

I assume this is only because they couldn’t figure the pricing yet. I have no idea how much Apple expects us to pay for that

 

[webkit]

I didn't even know Apple were planning on charging for this? What are they looking to charge?

Garmin charges $14.95/month or $143.40/year for its inReach Safety Plan but it provides more than just emergency satellite communication services. If/when Apple does start charging for this service, it will depend in part on what sort of competition there is at the time. It's quite possible Apple will end up rolling the cost into the price of the phone and charge nothing.

 

[alexandr]

I called this, along with a lot of other people) I suspect they will keep generously extending

 

[Joe The Dragon]

I think it may be because of legal issues.

In the UK, Ofcom puts obligations on telecoms (under General Condition A3.2) to ensure their customers have “uninterrupted access to emergency organisations”— which is the reason why phones can make emergency calls through other providers.

I’m unsure how satellite phone companies are regulated, but they do fall under the definition of telecom…

and they must work with no sim as well

 

[webkit]

You’ll find that hotel guests are not charged for its use.

The reality is that you are charged whether you use it or not as part of your overall room charge. Same is true for the pool, fitness center, "free" breakfast, etc.

 

[webkit]

So far... Apple has invested 450 million dollars in the Globalstar satellite infrastructure. With more to come.

At some point Apple would like a return on their investment.

If Apple continues to sell around 230 million iPhones a year, that initial $450 million would equal around $1.95 per phone. Adding $10 per phone would equal $2.3 billion.

 

[XXPP]

Residents of many countries pay even more for iPhones and do not have this service. They are the ones who subsidize apple customers in rich countries.

 

[segfaultdotorg]

Now, roll it out to older iPhones!

We (you and I, based on my previous column) already knew, for example, that ANY iPhone can be made to work with Globalstar.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Apple has been heavy on the spin lately, I am intensely curious how they are going to word it when they do start charging. They just said it has saved lives around the world. What, are they going to add “and maybe we’ll save yours too, for the low low price of just $X per year”

 

[jlc1978]

If Kaiann is "so happy that users can take advantage of service for 2 more years for free", then Apple should keep it free forever.

The problem with advertising ot for free forever is then Apple can never get rid of it without screams of "you took away a feature that I paid for when I bought my phon" and regulators could step in and take action. Some countries have laws that govern removing features that originally came with the phone.

By time limiting it Apple reduces their exposure if they stop it and nothing prevents them from constantly offering it for free.

At some point in the future, it may be technically impossible for the 14 and 15 to connect to the satelites, or the satelite provider may cease operations, Apple has to be able to deal with that without getting into a regulatory issue.

This epitomizes pure profit greed over happy users and for the benefit of society at large (ppl can call SOS when they need it)

How so? It's free, and Apple has a right to protect the huge profit margin a free service has.

People are assuming Apple will charge for it, but there are other reasonable explanations for why Apple chose to offer it on a yearly basis.

I think it may be because of legal issues.

I agree, but for different reasons.

In the UK, Ofcom puts obligations on telecoms (under General Condition A3.2) to ensure their customers have “uninterrupted access to emergency organisations”— which is the reason why phones can make emergency calls through other providers.

The US as well. You don't even need a provider to dial 911 (which is why companies could sell "emergency phone" back when cell phone service was expensive and people didn't realize any working phone is an emergency phone) as long a sit could connect to a tower.

I’m unsure how satellite phone companies are regulated, but they do fall under the definition of telecom…

Interesting question, since most phones don't have satellite capability; and Apple isn't a satellite phone company, although having the back end to make the connection makes it a gray area.

I suspect the requirement is on the provider end, not the phone vendor.

Residents of many countries pay even more for iPhones and do not have this service. They are the ones who subsidize apple customers in rich countries.

Welcome to capitalism; where even some rich countries subsidize products in other rich countries.

 

[aParkerMusic]

I wouldn't even know how to subscribe to it like there is no interface for it?

I mean, they’d probably release an interface once they decided to charge for it? Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

 

[sparkinstx]

It'll be interesting to see if they do that for us iPhone 15 users.

 

[contacos]

I mean, they’d probably release an interface once they decided to charge for it? Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

But usually you get a trial of something (to try it) and then it automatically renews unless you cancel it. Seems weird to offer something for free for 2 years (most people probably do not even know they have it) and then suddenly be like "oh btw you have to pay now". Does not seem like it really is a priority to Apple.

 

[Seanm87]

Isn't this basically insurance in a nutshell? It's like if I break my phone, I can't possibly go running to Apple, attempt to purchase AppleCare for it and then try to have it apply retroactively to cover the cost of having it repaired. You have to decide at some point whether you are able to handle the risk or not.

My guess is that Apple will eventually fold it into iCloud+ or an Apple One subscription, rather than it be its own bill. This is the challenge of attempting to market a feature that everybody needs, but which nobody wants.

I don't think someone's life is equivalent to breaking your phone.

But I guess where I live I don't have to pay for an ambulance.

 

[gank41]

I'm curious how they'd even be able to get previously working iPhones to connect again if they actually offered this as a feature you could subscribe to. It's not really something people think about until they NEED it. And if the Satellite option is "off", and you've crashed and have no cell service, how is the iPhone supposed to communicate with a satellite at all if that option's not even available? You need to be able to communicate back to Apple's infrastructure to communicate with your iPhone so that the feature can be added, even if you paid for it. That would require cell service. Unless the phone is ALREADY still communicating with satellite service, even when it says it's not available??

 

[aParkerMusic]

This really doesn’t feel like something that should be paid for. Imagine if you are in a life or death situation, and your phone is like ”Nah sorry you haven’t subscribed” and then someone dies when they could have been saved.

You could make that point about anything in and of itself. Even having a phone. “Ugh, if they had a phone, they could’ve gotten help! That means they should’ve been given a free phone!!” If we weren’t allowed to charge for products and services because someone might be worse off without them, what do you think is the outcome of that?

 

[tharitm]

THAT ^^^^^^

You paid $1000 for a phone, give it away for christ sake.

it'll probably be merged into iCloud+, but interesting to see what'll happen next year. I wonder if there will be antitrust issues because the satellite connect technology is already there in iPhone 14/15 but Apple is providing the service, does it mean other competitors could also come in hypothetically like Starlink and provide the service part only? So we'll connect to startling satellites instead of the Apple partner one?

 

[CPmav]

For anyone wondering, it’s definitely one additional year. (Per Tim Cook on Xwitter)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1724805288640098656

 

[WilliApple]

They should just make it free forever, like why add a subscription to something I won't buy...

Apple is literally making this pay to live lol, like not everyone is going to use it... Some people don't even know it exists.

 

[gank41]

They should just make it free forever, like why add a subscription to something I won't buy...

Apple is literally making this pay to live lol, like not everyone is going to use it... Some people don't even know it exists.

Exactly!! I can almost guarantee if a poll was done (not here in a tech forum, but maybe to random folks on Twitter- I mean "X") most folks would be sad to find out this previously unknown lifesaving feature will be removed. If it works today, why remove an option that's already proven to save lives.

 

[AeroEd]

Reeeeeeeeeeee Reeeeeeeeeeee how dare Apple extend the free satellite coverage!! Monopoly!!!

it’s amazing that some people will actually complain about this lol

Great feature. I think Apple will probably never charge for it.

Who would subscribe for it? .01% of iPhone users?

 

[barkomatic]

The emergency part of it will be always free. They would charge for messages and calls (when available).
And when the technology enables it, for bragging photos “look how far of the civilization I’m”…

This. I think that is Apple's strategy long term. Perhaps the network isn't quite ready to introduce additional, paid features.

 

[webkit]

Seems weird to offer something for free for 2 years (most people probably do not even know they have it) and then suddenly be like "oh btw you have to pay now". Does not seem like it really is a priority to Apple.

Apple may still be trying to gauge usage and determine what kind of resources will be needed to continue offering this service going forward. The more data they have, the better they will be able to determine what (if anything) to charge as a subscription and/or what to roll into the price of the phone.

 

[julesme]

Here's a thought: Suppose you are stranded in a national park in say, January 2025 (after the free subscription is no longer offered) and you suddenly realize you are not paying and don't have access to call for help. I would imagine that you can use your phone to subscribe right then and there (as the hardware is built into the phone).

What's to stop someone from simply signing up in that emergency scenario, receiving emergency help, and then cancelling the paid subscription immediately afterward?

My point is that SOS doesn't really make sense as a paid feature. I think Apple should just offer this for free as part of iCloud (or at the very least, included in iCloud+). Free for everyone, and another example of a premium feature that is built into the Apple ecosystem.