I own a Garmin InReach that I regularly take with me on hiking expeditions (mostly Scotland, Iceland and South Africa) and it’s super handy on remote areas with no coverage. The ability to send an SOS is the main feature, but the two-way messaging system is just amazing for peace of mind, for me and my family. However, the main thing about the InReach is its ruggedness and battery life, which I consider essential. I always carry an iPhone with me that I use when and if I get reception, but I need to carry a battery pack for it and it’s always in the back of my mind that an iPhone is a relatively fragile device and it’s one misstep away from cracking/breaking/etc, hence the inReach.

Moving forward, having both will be great, but I think having to rely only on an iPhone would make me a bit nervous, so I’m not sure how much of a threat this is for the inReach devices (at least for now).

I think this drastically underestimates or at least undersells the impact of convenience, or in this case the maximum possible level of convenience which is already having the feature even if you don't know it. Similar arguments could have and indeed were made for every other small electronic device the smartphone has replaced. It's not that the advantages you listed don't exist, it's just that they won't hold a candle to the explosion of smartphones with satellite messaging built in by default. I feel like even just 1 year (and 200 million satellite-enabled iPhones) from today pointing out these advantages is going to look like people pointing out that land lines have better audio quality and lower latency than cell phones.

I always carry my InReach with periodic location sharing enabled when I'm on backpacking trips. I also almost always carry it during international travel and road trips, but not usually with periodic location sharing. If iPhones start offering plans with periodic location sharing, I'm fairly confident that I'd stop carrying the InReach unless I was on a particularly remote trip that was outside of my comfort zone (which isn't something I really do anyway).

I may be taking trips you’d be uncomfortable with, but the InReach is invaluable for two-way messaging and weather updates. I haven’t needed the emergency service (knock on wood), but I’ve used most of the other things it does. My phone is a much better GPS, though, and if Apple makes it possible to do those two things I mentioned at first without it using much of the battery life I’d consider only keeping my InReach for extended trips.

There’s something to be said for convenience that worries me a bit with this. The amount of people that may be “misusing” this feature and the strain that it’s going to put on,say, mountain rescue. If people start feeling more confident than their capabilities, or they ignore weather reports just because they can be rescued with an iPhone, I don’t know what effect that’ll have on these resources.

It’s a reasonable question to ask what’s the effect of millions of people in cell-less areas who now can make a AFAIK SOS with no other context. I assume Apple has discussed this with various authorities however.

Some of these effects are already seen with cell phones. OTOH while no panacea, cell phones can help when someone is in genuine danger.

Genies and bottles and all that. Of course authorities may get more liberal with levying significant fines for people who get rescued because they were unprepared.

I'm a Paramedic in a California county that isn't even that far from San Francisco and we have a LOT of mountain range area with zero cell service at all. Even worse, our Motorola radios don't work up in the same hills either. We frequently get very vague and difficult to pinpoint locations for car accidents, medical emergencies, etc.

Now someone that is in a wreck or sees one can stay put and contact emergency services with a way more accurate location, and I think that's awesome.

Thank you for serving humanity!

I’m thinking of backcountry hunting applications personally. When I’ve been completely away from cellular service and put my phone on airplane mode and low brightness it goes for several days without a charge as a (not always on) gps and camera. Since these trips have usually been in groups of 3-4 the fragility of the phone is a smaller issue.

But I get what you’re saying, if you have 2 you have 1 and if you have 1 you have none. Some redundancy so nice and the iPhone as a backup to the inreach will be a likely set up.

I suspect Garmin is not immediately worried about the watches.

I'm currently wearing a Garmin Fenix 7, which recently replaced a Forerunner 645. I look forward to seeing the Ultra reviews, but it doesn't strike me as competitive yet. E.g., the 36 hours of battery life is surely exciting for Apple Watch fans, but my Fenix 7 gets 18 days of battery life. Or if I turn Battery Saver on, I get 57 days of usage vs 2.5 days for the Apple Watch Ultra.

And what really makes the Garmin stuff suited for sports is years and years of carefully designed specialist features. I'm not even much of an athlete but I really appreciate so much of what they offer.

If the price were better I could see it being a threat for Garmin's low-end models. But at $800? Even if I were an Apple fan I'd struggle at paying more money for less watch.

Agreed. There’s so much functionality in the Garmin watches. There are modes for every conceivable sport (and if it doesn’t have it, it’s in the add-on store for a few bucks). It’s got superb navigation features. And if the battery life is a worry you can get one with solar charging via the watchface.

An interesting bit about the solar stuff: when I was at REI and comparing the Fenix models, I asked if the Solar was really worth it. Even according to Garmin, the solar gets you an extra ~20% on battery life. The REI employee pointed out that for the $100 extra it cost, I could get a much more effective solar panel/battery combo that could not only charge my watch but other devices.

So I ended up getting the regular model, figuring if I ever needed solar anything, I'd come back and get the right panel for the trip. Yet another reason I'm happy to support my local REI store.

Very true! I do the same thing myself, since I prefer the sapphire crystal for durability (solar is not available on that one). I can see how it would be very useful for someone who's on an ultralight type of thing where they may not even have a cell phone.

I switched from Globalstar to Zoleo (Iridium) because Globalstar wasn't reliable enough for use cases like messaging the float plane pilot. I'd often have to wait for certain times of the day to send messages or make calls. This was at about 54 deg lat, so not in the fringes at all.

It may have been my device (older Qualcomm branded phone), but my experience seems consistent with what others report.

On the contrary, I've been very happy with the Zoleo device and service. It's been 100% reliable in all conditions even in the middle of the bush.

I'm pretty sure there won't be a two way feature here. They're using the same network as SPOT and the feature set looks very similar. With the classic SPOT, you can send one of three preset messages along with your coordinates, or send an emergency message. SPOT also lets you track, which is the same message format but the device sends it automatically at regular intervals.

Communication is one-way only and there is no way to verify delivery.

I agree that this will cut into InReach sales, because it provides about 70% of the capability and it's built into your phone. That said, the two way full text messaging and confirmation of delivery are huge advantages, especially if you actually plan to use it as opposed to it being a "just in case" communication device.

Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41EdCXjotmo

It's clearly two-way.

>This covers the most important thing that backcountry types pay monthly fees and carry an extra device for, which are emergencies,

I am not a backpacker, so maybe I am missing something but if it is JUST for emergencies what do the Paid services offer than a NOAA Registered PLB Device would not?

Being able to have a 2-way conversation with search & rescue to explain the situation and get updates is the biggest one.

As for other things worth paying for: being able to text your family back home and let them know you're running a day late but everything's ok so not to report you as missing goes a long way to helping everyone involved have some peace of mind.

Coordinating pickups and getting weather updates are also big value-adds.

Not clear the phone will have two way capabilities.

Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41EdCXjotmo

It will definitely be two-way.

Ah. Ok. Though apparently just with emergency dispatchers. Though that is more useful than just a beacon in a number of respects.

Other have pointed out what the satellite communicators offer, but one feature that the PLBs exclusively have is a radio beacon which enables you to be found by triangulation. (I carry a PLB, who cares about texting. I just want to get rescued if I break my femur.)

You don't need to pay for an extra device and carry it around.

Well I guess my comment was around the assertion that people would buy the Commercial service solely for emergencies, so in my view the PLB would fine if your use was only for Emergency Rescue.

If you need the other features then that makes a different argument but the original statement was that iPhone feature would kill these over devices because iPhone could be used to send emergency messages.