No. My argument was it would be helpful if Apple voluntarily subsidized rural 911 call center upgrades to support the life critical feature they added to their devices.
You say “cash grab”, I say “corporate responsibility”.
So Apple builds a feature that could potentially save lives. But they are lacking "corporate responsibility" because they aren't also directly funding emergency call center upgrades nationwide.
This viewpoint makes me sad. It's like someone built a house for a homeless family and then they get criticized for not covering the cost of utilities for the lifetime of the house.
> This viewpoint makes me sad. It's like someone built a house for a homeless family and then they get criticized for not covering the cost of utilities for the lifetime of the house.
Likewise, I see it as handing someone a good or service they desperately need with no thought to the recurring costs involved. Just because you believe you've done a good deed doesn't mean you've necessarily helped (see food aid in Africa that has ruined their ag markets).
Call centers can elect not to opt into this if the costs are high. It's not as if Apple has done anything to degrade the existing emergency service process.
You say “cash grab”, I say “corporate responsibility”.