or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

They can't. CarPlay isn't designed to run a car. But CarPlay can run over sync, which is. Just as it runs over QNX. But Sync is buggy, and causes problems. Drivers don't like the UI either.
We'll all be better off with self driving cars. I can't wait.
I really wonder about that. Apple seems to be lagging there. While Google buys robot manufacturers, and has a lot of publicity witheir driverless cars, Apple does noting public, and we don't see any purchases that would show them leaning in that direction. As we know from other articles point out that Apple has made purchases that we don't know about, except for the number.And Cook just recently said that their saphirre plant was, at least partly, going to be used for a...
There needs to be two parts to controlling a vehicle. One is the OS that actually controls the vehicle. That could be QNX, for example, with a simplified UI for changing temperature, and other basic auto mobile functions such as engine control, brakes, etc.The other, and layered on top, or completely separate, is what Apple is doing. They control the nav system, entertainment and communications with the outside world. The two systems aren't mutually exclusive, unless...
Unless Google has been doing a vast amount if R&D that they don't patent. Which they don't, up until they gegan massing patents from companies and patents they bought, they only had about 300 patents. That was far less than any other major competitor. And everybody patents. Everybody.I've read that Google does a lot of R&D, but if you look at those numbers very closely, you will see that it's not mainly R&D, but software development costs. That's very different.
There's enough. We're all aware that a large number of patents that Apple has sued over with third parties were Google software. This is common. You sue the party who is easier. Google makes no products, so it's hard to sue them. So they don't get sued for software that their OEM's use. The OEM's get sued. This has been discussed plenty.
Not necessarily. It does take time to come up with a new product, and two years ago, large phones weren't selling well yet. That only became apparent in 2013. So some months for Apple to decide they needed to respond, and a year for the new product to come out. Sounds about right.Now, we'll have to see how they handle it, assuming that large phone, or two does make it. The biggest question is the resolution. Do they break their contention that around 325ppi is enough for a...
To a certain extent, yes. Product cycles are something that bothers me as well as it does you. I understand that things come out at certain times. But I also remember Jobs saying, as a reason why they stopped going to MacWorld, and a couple of other conventions, is that they were restrained by those conventions, because they needed to have something new, or updated at particular times of the year, and they wanted to come out with products when they were ready, no matter...
Weird, but it sounds like a controller.
I think that Apple is truly interested in the things they patent. But that doesn't mean that it will result in anything for any number of reasons.But before they lost that famous lawsuit with Microsoft all those years ago, they began to patent more of what they did. Getting ripped off will test anyone.
New Posts  All Forums: