iPhone SDK Shows Off Emergency Calling on iPad
By Evan Selleck
Published: Mar 03 2010 / 07:49 PM
Category: archive
Tags: Beta, emergency calls, ipad, iPhone, SDK 3.2
Here we go again: the iPhone SDK has let slip a few juicy tidbits. We realize that Apple releases the SDK in Beta forms for a reason. The staggered format makes it easier to catch up on any bugs and other problems that may show up, even before launch. Of course, there’s another reason as well. They don’t want to give away every feature right out of the gate. They want everyone to be as excited as they are about what’s coming down the pipe, and what better way to do that than by burying it within a Software Developer Kit, and making people work to find it?
By now though, it should be pretty obvious that most of these features found in the iPhone SDK are meant specifically for that. The iPhone. So if we know that, then why do we constantly post this stuff here at Everything iPad? Simply because, if it works on the iPhone, it will work on the iPad. As you can see from the images herein, by running the simulator on the iPad, it works just as it would on the iPhone. We think that’s more than just a coincidence. According to Gumball Tech, they could activate the emergency call feature simply by failing the passcode lock five times.
If this feature does actually exist within the iPad’s systems, then we can definitely expect it to show up in the 3G+WiFi models. There’s no reason to think that it would be on the WiFi-only versions, simply because without a service like Skype, then calling isn’t a possibility. (Yes, they could make the system work with a service such as that, but it’s not likely.) Secondly, the FCC requires that all wireless “phones” are able to make emergency calls. In case of, you know, an emergency. And even if the iPad isn’t featured as a phone, it will have 3G service, so there might not be that large of a gap here. Especially not big enough that Apple can leave a feature like emergency calling out of the system.
[via Gumball Tech]




Join the Discussion (0 comments)