I don't know what the current state of the art is, but it sounds considerably easier to use than old satellite phones. Plus you don't have to lug around a satellite phone.

It sounds worse than current dedicated emergency beacons (which afaik usually are both satellite uplink and lower-frequency beacon), and I'd expect many/most people using them today will continue to carry them. But many people don't, and even if you do it is another fallback.

The best camera is the one you have with you, and no-one[*] carries around an SLR camera these days.

Similarly, the best emergency-alert system is the one you have with you. Apple is playing the long game, getting their feet wet in a new area, and providing some value. They will iterate, it's what they do.

[1] For some definition of "no-one". Obviously some people do carry around SLR's but it's a tiny minority.

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

I carry an InReach mini in my airplane when flying over wilderness areas. Unfortunately I don’t think I could trust the iPhone. With the Garmin you can press one button and it’ll send out an emergency beacon without having to aim it.

Where are you flying out of curiosity? Flying over sparsely populated areas of rockies in Colorado, I very frequently have cell service. Having said that, nothing wrong with being prepared, I'm just curious about your situation. I might start doing that too. I always figured if I actually went down, landing would be the hard part, not staying alive once I landed.

Those full bars of coverage you had at altitude are probably going to disappear the moment you lose line-of-sight.

That said, aircraft have ELTs which are supposed to trigger on impact and can be manually activated as well, so an InReach probably wouldn't make a life-or-death difference very often.

Utah and Nevada, for the most part.

There are lots of great places to land, but being stuck in the desert without any way to communicate is a very real possibility (Ironically, even at many small town airports I’ve landed at).

Of course that's the hard part. But if you do survive the landing you'll be very glad you have communications available :)

To be fair I barely trust my InReach either. Overcast days, canyons, and any kind of tree cover consistently result in delayed or failed messages. And even if they report as "sent" on the device sometimes the recipient doesn't get them.

And for a dedicated device, the tracking feature is laughably bad with worse accuracy than my friend's watch.

Better than nothing in case of emergency but the reliability leaves a lot to be desired.

Are the messaging and emergency functions the same with those? For emergency beacons there is also a ~400Mhz frequency that is monitored independently (vs satellite communication at higher frequencies)

InReach uses the same 16xx Mhz Iridium frequency for everything. It does not have a 400Mhz PLB transmitter (which usually come with extendable antennas by the way, due to the ~ 70cm wavelength).

I would guess this feature is more for hikers, etc. who wouldn't really want to carry extra things if they could avoid it.

Even if it is a little worse, NO ONE is shelling out $600 for an InReach after this announcement. I am an avid backpacker who has resisted SatComs (partly for the price, partly because they ruin the experience maaaaan) and I can tell you with certainty that this put to bed any last chance of me purchasing an InReach

> In the event of an emergency, fumbling with my phone to find service sounds like a nightmare.

It doesn't have to be perfect, compared to the current alternative of 1) Having nothing to fumble around or 2) Be one of the few people with a full on expensive satellite phone I think it's a valuable addition.

Similar to how Chase Jarvis said "the best camera is the one you always have with you", this is also the case for emergency equipment.

The other option is 3) a satelite distress beacon, but most people don’t have them

If you’re in the middle of nowhere and have an emergency where seconds count, you’re dead anyway. This is the difference between rescue in 2 hours and 2 days (or even 2 weeks). Spending 5 minutes finding the transmitter isn’t a problem if you’re stuck with a broken leg. If you’re struggling to control critical bleeding or are doing CPR and are on your own (thus you can’t spend the 5 minutes finding a signal) then you’re screwed anyway.

In my state, emergency services point out that if you use an emergency locator such as a Garmin, you should expect that it may be a couple of days before rescue comes anyway. It depends on exactly where you are, of course.

Matthew Power and his expedition had a proper kit, satellite phone, etc.

They tried getting helicopter evacuation but even that took hours he didn’t have.

But it will probably reduce the number of casual pranksters.

Also, difficult-to-use is better than zero connectivity, which is the current situation.

The tens of thousands billed for a frivolous rescue request probably will stop the casual pranksters too, getting a helicopter out to wherever you're stuck isn't a free service. If you're really out in remote places often, you probably know this well enough to get rescue insurance.

Actually it depends. In Canada, many rescue services are free (North Shore Vancouver is a well known one here) as well as in the National Parks (the cost is essentially insurance paid for by the park pass fee) and many provincial parks.

There is an argument that pay for rescue causes people to hesitate to call and that can lead to worse outcomes and/or more dangerous rescue scenarios.

There is also an argument that free rescues lead to reckless behavior and worse outcomes, because if the worst happens you can always get a chopper to pick you up….

In my state, the bill will be in the five or six figures -- but if you were legitimately in real danger, they will usually opt not to charge you. If you called them by mistake or as a prank, you'll pay.

And rescue insurance would not cover pranks either by the way. So be careful :)