Rumor puts Apple Nav System in Mercedes models by '09

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 54
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Louzer View Post


    OS X has the same warnings, as do most pieces of computer hardware.



    That was the point I was making.



    A car OS is not the same as the others, where liability is concerned.
  • Reply 42 of 54
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Because not everyone wants a smartphone. Hell I know people who could give a shat about color screens, cameras and GUI on their phones. They want the phones small and reliable. Having an iPhone and a Carputer may be overkill. But having a Carputer and a simple phone makes financial as well as. Do I really need a GPS in my phone? If I don't mind carrying around a larger screen.



    A Carputer is indeed redundant if you have a mobile computer aka smartphone. Thus a Carputer has to be part Nav ..part communcation center part media center. I used to think that having DVDs pumped into a LCD for the kids was silly until some parents told me their children were much more tolerable on longer trips.



    I like the concept of a carputer because it offers more space (6" plus screens) and more room for components and more power since I don't have to worry about batteries. Hell If I'm going to pay $1700 for a Nav system I may as well demand that they give me enough bells and whistles.



    I think you need to re-read my post a little. I wasn't talking about the redundancy of the carputer and a smartphone. I was talking about how limited a 'carputer' is, comparing it to car phones. No one has car phones anymore, because it limited their use to one place, the car. Once cell phones became portable, no one gets a phone tied their car!



    The carputer is the same problem. Its stuck to your car. So the only time you can use it (esp. with restrictions people would assume would be included) is when you're not driving. How many people really need or want a computer (which would cost $$$ to add to the car) that only works while sitting in a parking lot. Hey, drive an hour to work, then sit in car for 15 minutes reading mail. So you can get out of your car to go into the office to, read your email.



    And lest we forget, you'd need a computer that's also got a high range of operating temperatures and conditions.
  • Reply 43 of 54
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    I think that the integration of iphone and nav + car will be a winner. You can just plug in your iphone have it charged then use the car's touch screen interface to have access to all of your addresses, phone calls, movies, etc. When you are done with the drive you unplug your fully charged iphone and away you go.
  • Reply 44 of 54
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Murch is right. The potential for Apple is huge. I do have one thought however. How ironic would it be if MB uses an Apple OSX based nav system running on a Freescale chip? There's a good chance it could happen.
  • Reply 45 of 54
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Louzer View Post


    I think you need to re-read my post a little. I wasn't talking about the redundancy of the carputer and a smartphone. I was talking about how limited a 'carputer' is, comparing it to car phones. No one has car phones anymore, because it limited their use to one place, the car. Once cell phones became portable, no one gets a phone tied their car!



    The carputer is the same problem. Its stuck to your car. So the only time you can use it (esp. with restrictions people would assume would be included) is when you're not driving. How many people really need or want a computer (which would cost $$$ to add to the car) that only works while sitting in a parking lot. Hey, drive an hour to work, then sit in car for 15 minutes reading mail. So you can get out of your car to go into the office to, read your email.



    And lest we forget, you'd need a computer that's also got a high range of operating temperatures and conditions.



    Cars already have an average of 12 computers. You can't separate those computers from the cars. Having one central computer to control everything, including the interface to the human will come. It will be part of every car, and you will expect it to be there.



    Several cars already have interactive computers. There are ads on Tv showing them. It's the future.



    The question is who will be making them. Will it be like after marker radio in the old days, or like aftermarket air, later on?



    Will third parties make these for a few years, and then the auto companies will take over?



    It's complex. More complex than radio, audio, or air.



    There is no question that voice control in cars is here to stay. also, GPS, with a trip computer integrated. Some cars even allow you to make voice activated phone calls, and upon your asking, will find the nearest hotel, restaurant, theater, etc.



    But, if you look at the audio car market, the car manufacturers are using, as sales points, the fact that their audio systems are made by well known audio manufacturers.



    The same thing could happen with car computing systems.



    Apple could be a big brand name here.
  • Reply 46 of 54
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Murch is right. The potential for Apple is huge. I do have one thought however. How ironic would it be if MB uses an Apple OSX based nav system running on a Freescale chip? There's a good chance it could happen.



    While PPC chips are the most popular for auto control systems in embedded areas, such as engine control and sensor reading, it's likely that a car computer system would use x86.
  • Reply 47 of 54
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Louzer View Post


    Sorry, but listening to music is completely different then listening to conversation or emails. One requires no thought, its background plather (I'm talking music here). Its been shown that cell phone use, even 'hands free' devices, still distract users from paying attention to the road. As would listening to emails and such. The reason being you actually have to spend part of you're attention on trying to comprehend what's being said, rather then what's happening around you.



    I agree, but the law isn't that way. For example, IIRC, hands-free calling hasn't been found to be any safer than holding onto the phone while talking, but some laws distinnguish the two, the first is illegal, the second is not.



    Quote:

    That depends on the system. My NAV system works while the car is moving.



    That's why I didn't say all features were cut off, I think I said "many", I was referring to the video & internet entertainment stuff. I don't think navigation systems apply in any of the laws I've heard of, and it doesn't make sense to disable this.
  • Reply 48 of 54
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    While PPC chips are the most popular for auto control systems in embedded areas, such as engine control and sensor reading, it's likely that a car computer system would use x86.



    Why do you say that? I went to Freescales website and it seems like they do it all. Are you thinking Apple would develop a system that relies on Intel chips?
  • Reply 49 of 54
    tigertiger Posts: 20member
    The original German article in "Focus" magazine does not say "2009 calendar year."



    I think they meant 2009 car model year which means mid to late 2008.



    The authors of the Left Lane News to which the Apple Insider article links agree. They call it "the 2009 model year."
  • Reply 50 of 54
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Why do you say that? I went to Freescales website and it seems like they do it all. Are you thinking Apple would develop a system that relies on Intel chips?



    Yes, I do.



    Why would Apple want to go back to PPC development? I can't find a reason why they would. An x86 chip would work well to integrate into the cars systems, if that would be required.



    Remember that Mac's have always been able to communicate with PC's. Intel Mac's even use the same OS, and can communicate as well.



    But, the PPC OS will be discounted after a few more years. Why would they want to continue on a track that serves no purpose? I also think that they would want to stay away from suppliers they no longer need.



    Let's say that Apple kept the Mini. Stripped down, that could be a good foundation for a sophisticated car computer.



    Actually, even the ATv would serve. One doesn't need anything too powerful, and the ATv will see hardware upgrades after a while as well.



    Even if one would want the car computer to control the display of movies for those in the back seat, only one of many things it could do, it wouldn't need to be too powerful.



    But, the PPC line is not following the track that x86 is following, with it's media instructions and such. So, I don't see any advantage to Apple in using them.



    And, Jobs did say, when introing the new Intel machines that:



    "We're through with Power." That in name, as well as for the actual chips. This, I believe.
  • Reply 51 of 54
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Yes, I do.



    Why would Apple want to go back to PPC development? I can't find a reason why they would. An x86 chip would work well to integrate into the cars systems, if that would be required.



    Remember that Mac's have always been able to communicate with PC's. Intel Mac's even use the same OS, and can communicate as well.



    But, the PPC OS will be discounted after a few more years. Why would they want to continue on a track that serves no purpose? I also think that they would want to stay away from suppliers they no longer need.



    Let's say that Apple kept the Mini. Stripped down, that could be a good foundation for a sophisticated car computer.



    Actually, even the ATv would serve. One doesn't need anything too powerful, and the ATv will see hardware upgrades after a while as well.



    Even if one would want the car computer to control the display of movies for those in the back seat, only one of many things it could do, it wouldn't need to be too powerful.



    But, the PPC line is not following the track that x86 is following, with it's media instructions and such. So, I don't see any advantage to Apple in using them.



    And, Jobs did say, when introing the new Intel machines that:



    "We're through with Power." That in name, as well as for the actual chips. This, I believe.



    I understand you now.
  • Reply 52 of 54
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Yes, I do.



    Why would Apple want to go back to PPC development? I can't find a reason why they would. An x86 chip would work well to integrate into the cars systems, if that would be required.



    Remember that Mac's have always been able to communicate with PC's. Intel Mac's even use the same OS, and can communicate as well.



    But, the PPC OS will be discounted after a few more years. Why would they want to continue on a track that serves no purpose? I also think that they would want to stay away from suppliers they no longer need.



    Let's say that Apple kept the Mini. Stripped down, that could be a good foundation for a sophisticated car computer.



    Actually, even the ATv would serve. One doesn't need anything too powerful, and the ATv will see hardware upgrades after a while as well.



    Even if one would want the car computer to control the display of movies for those in the back seat, only one of many things it could do, it wouldn't need to be too powerful.



    But, the PPC line is not following the track that x86 is following, with it's media instructions and such. So, I don't see any advantage to Apple in using them.



    And, Jobs did say, when introing the new Intel machines that:



    "We're through with Power." That in name, as well as for the actual chips. This, I believe.



    I understand you now. PPC does have a nice niche in embedded systems however. Wouldn't it be interesting if your scenario did play out. If so that would make Apple a very valuable customer for Intel as that would basically open up a new market for them. IIRC they don't have much of an embedded chip business since they sold off their ARM division.
  • Reply 53 of 54
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    I understand you now. PPC does have a nice niche in embedded sytems however. Wouldn't it be interesting if your scenario did play out. If so that would make Apple a very valuable customer for Intel as that would basically open up a new market for them. IIRC they don't have much of an embedded chip business since they sold off they ARM division.



    Absolutely.



    What I see with Apple these days is a very interesting strategy—if they are following it. If not, then Jobs should resign, and I'll take over and follow it through.



    Apple is a small niche computer company. By that, I mean that even with the iPod, Apple's computer business is still a very small percentage of the industry. Even if that business grows very well, it will just get to 20 million a year after a number of years.



    But, with the ATv, the iPhone, and possibly a car computer, things can be very different.



    If Apple is successful with the ATv, they could sell a few million a year, possibly more, if they open it up to more things.



    The iPhone, as we've seen, has been estimated to have a potential, with additional, lower priced models, of selling 50 million a year. If Apple plays its cards well, they could own 10% of the world phone market. That would be a good 100 million units a year.



    The iPod could see the same OS Xization happening. Maybe a few tens of millions a year there as well.



    If they then have a really good car computer system, and open up a new market for that, they could sell, what, 10 million a year there as well? Possibly.



    What Apple would be doing is moving OS X from maybe 10 million copies a year, to 150 million or more.



    Suddenly, OS X is the second most used OS, with half of Windows sales, abet, on different platforms.



    With Web apps, a lot of this could bypass MS's software, including OFFice.



    Oh oh! Wither MS's future growth?



    Apple will have done a runaround the computer industry.
  • Reply 54 of 54
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Absolutely.



    What I see with Apple these days is a very interesting strategy?if they are following it. If not, then Jobs should resign, and I'll take over and follow it through.



    Apple is a small niche computer company. By that, I mean that even with the iPod, Apple's computer business is still a very small percentage of the industry. Even if that business grows very well, it will just get to 20 million a year after a number of years.



    But, with the ATv, the iPhone, and possibly a car computer, things can be very different.



    If Apple is successful with the ATv, they could sell a few million a year, possibly more, if they open it up to more things.



    The iPhone, as we've seen, has been estimated to have a potential, with additional, lower priced models, of selling 50 million a year. If Apple plays its cards well, they could own 10% of the world phone market. That would be a good 100 million units a year.



    The iPod could see the same OS Xization happening. Maybe a few tens of millions a year there as well.



    If they then have a really good car computer system, and open up a new market for that, they could sell, what, 10 million a year there as well? Possibly.



    What Apple would be doing is moving OS X from maybe 10 million copies a year, to 150 million or more.



    Suddenly, OS X is the second most used OS, with half of Windows sales, abet, on different platforms.



    with Web apps, a lot of this could bypass MS's software, including OFFice.



    Oh oh! Wither MS's future growth?



    Apple will have done a runaround the computer industry.



    I used to think the the Mac was the thing that was going to 'stitch' together all these new devices(iPod, ATV ect..) that Apple was developing. It's not the Mac it's OSX.
Sign In or Register to comment.