This report is ridiculous, plain and simple. There are so many other places where Apple could make improvements to OSes. Why on earth would they go after the NAV system market?
Speaking of fixing OSes, how can Apple conquer the portable media market, launch a ginormous attack against the Cell Phone industry, and still can't manage to FTFF?!?!?!?!?!??!?!
-Clive
Wow...content free. Your thesis statement claims that this isa a ridiculous venture for Apple. Your supporting statements center around areas that Apple could improve the OS yet mysteriously you offer no suggestions. Then your grand finale is a specious argument against the Finder which we already know has improvements in Leopard.
Try to engage both halves of your brain next time please. Your post basically made me have to scroll that much further to get to "meaningful" content. So as to make my post worthy of reading and inject a bit of content the reasons for Apple looking into this area are easy.
The iPhone delivers excellent OS X functionality in a small portable configuration. GPS based navigational system are becoming more and more popular as options for automobiles. 3G, WiMax and other WWAN technologies are proliferating. Bonjour now supports Wide Area networks and work is ensuing to allow you to deliver services via your computer without the need for a static IP address.
Many people commute, which can easily take 2 hours out of your day. Apple has the OS and Google has the extensive work with Mapping to form a strategic alliance.
Can we get some "real" reasons why this union shouldn't happen? Other than hyperbole and stale commentary about issues that are already addressed and waiting to be delivered in October.
BTW, why would you need an iSight for backup camera operation? Or is it just necessary to throw that in there to make 10 (since mine does this without the need of iSight or OS X).
I think backup cameras in current cars do need some sort of embedded digital electronics. OS X can probably allow more control or flexibility in how it is handled.
Does anyone who is into Apple/iPod/Macs drive Mercedes-Benz? I sort of associate M-B it with being an old folks' car (not that I am a spring chicken) -- I mean, more like the Caddy crowd...?
Some cars use cameras for backing up..... It's been shown to be much more accurate for people to use than those mirrors with the ubiquitous " Objects are closer than they appear" imprinted on the mirror surface.
I've now been driving a vehicle with a back-up camera for over three years now, and can't imagine not having one anymore when I need to back up -- it's a bit scary how one can get totally used to it.
PS: I now sweat bullets when I have a large-ish car, e.g., rental, w/o the camera, and need to back up!
Anyone willing to bet that Apple has a skunkworks project in development to co-develop vehicle navigation systems for future cars (like DARPA's self-navigating vehicle). Apple could be on the forefront of 'intelligent vehicle' systems integration...
Can we get some "real" reasons why this union shouldn't happen? Other than hyperbole and stale commentary about issues that are already addressed and waiting to be delivered in October.
Checking e-mail, making phone calls, surfing the web, and watching movies which are a thing that drivers should not be doing. The only usefulness of those functions would be on a per-passenger basis and would undoubtedly be cheaper than each passenger having an iPhone. Offering no advantage over individual iPhones the only thing it would do is lose Apple money.
The only remaining capability would be GPS and the NAV system navigation itself, neither of which are much worth Apple's time. Google, yes, but Apple, no.
As for the Finder and Leopard, Stacks is the only actual enhancement I see. It eliminates a couple more items from Bruce Tognazzini's list regarding the Dock's shortcomings, but others still remain. As for the iTunes Finder windows, many will soon find out that Cover Flow is only good for folders with a lot of pictures. It is one task that Windows XP has outshown OS X on for many years. For anything else, it's sheer glitz.
NAV systems are not a natural progression of Apple's realm. I can only think of one other device that didn't fit Apple's realm initially (the iPod) and that was a 1:1,000,000 shot at becoming as popular is it did. Everything that followed - the iTMS, color/photo iPod, tv content on iTS, video-capable iPod, movies on iTS, games on iTS, AppleTV, iPhone - were natural progressions of that product's untamed market. The NAV system in a car could very well be an extension of this line (more along the lines of an iPhone-type interface) but I don't see Apple going that way. Checking e-mail, making phone calls, surfing the web, and
Safari for Windows ate my post, that son of a bitch. It was really good, too. Now I'm forced to paraphrase and likely lose the meaning of half of what I was saying.
Checking e-mail, making phone calls, surfing the web, and watching movies which are a thing that drivers should not be doing.
Most car systems I've heard of lock out most of those features when the car is in drive, if the driver can see the screen. I think the lock-out is a legal compliance issue.
Checking e-mail, making phone calls, surfing the web, and watching movies which are a thing that drivers should not be doing. The only usefulness of those functions would be on a per-passenger basis and would undoubtedly be cheaper than each passenger having an iPhone. Offering no advantage over individual iPhones the only thing it would do is lose Apple money.
The only remaining capability would be GPS and the NAV system navigation itself, neither of which are much worth Apple's time. Google, yes, but Apple, no.
As for the Finder and Leopard, Stacks is the only actual enhancement I see. It eliminates a couple more items from Bruce Tognazzini's list regarding the Dock's shortcomings, but others still remain. As for the iTunes Finder windows, many will soon find out that Cover Flow is only good for folders with a lot of pictures. It is one task that Windows XP has outshown OS X on for many years. For anything else, it's sheer glitz.
-Clive
It's fairly trivial to have your emails read through your speakers via Text to Speech. Didn't Apple just create a new voice that performs much better. How hard is it to drive and listen? We do it everyday with music and conversation. Ditto for making calls via Bluetooth. WA state just passed a law where you can be fined for driving with one hand on the wheel one hand on the cell. Hands free takes care of that and keeps both hands on the wheel. Problem solved
As Jeff and I have said the other features are operational in a parked car. I think you're the only one calling the idea itself ridiculous so the burden of proof really is with you.
The Finder updates look benign and I wasn't happy until NDA bustin' data hit. Performance has improved, no more network mount issues. Cover Flow is eyecandy...the steak is in a more organized look with the ability to search local and shared computers as well as take control. I don't mind having Remote Desktop features available. Cover flow is also a UI element that translates well to touch based screens which is likely why Apple is adding it everywhere.
Truth be told those who are traveling significantly want smaller and smaller devices. Navigation capabilities are the bread and butter but there's so much more that can be done to make travel/communication/safety synergize in a dashboard product.
That's a big difference. MS's OS has warnings not to use it for life critical purposes. It also states that it isn't to be used for nuclear power plants. What does that have to do with it? It's in BMW's now.
OS X has the same warnings, as do most pieces of computer hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
It's fairly trivial to have your emails read through your speakers via Text to Speech. Didn't Apple just create a new voice that performs much better. How hard is it to drive and listen? We do it everyday with music and conversation. Ditto for making calls via Bluetooth. WA state just passed a law where you can be fined for driving with one hand on the wheel one hand on the cell. Hands free takes care of that and keeps both hands on the wheel. Problem solved
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
As Jeff and I have said the other features are operational in a parked car. I think you're the only one calling the idea itself ridiculous so the burden of proof really is with you.
That depends on the system. My NAV system works while the car is moving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Truth be told those who are traveling significantly want smaller and smaller devices. Navigation capabilities are the bread and butter but there's so much more that can be done to make travel/communication/safety synergize in a dashboard product.
But having a carputer makes no financial or practical sense. Do you notice that no one has a 'car phone' anymore? Because once they realized they could only use it in the car, people went for the ones not tied to the auto itself. Who wants to spend $2000 on a NAV system that only works while you're sitting in the parking lot of your office, or your driveway at home? Where's the sense in that?
But having a carputer makes no financial or practical sense. Do you notice that no one has a 'car phone' anymore? Because once they realized they could only use it in the car, people went for the ones not tied to the auto itself. Who wants to spend $2000 on a NAV system that only works while you're sitting in the parking lot of your office, or your driveway at home? Where's the sense in that?
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.
Comments
This report is ridiculous, plain and simple. There are so many other places where Apple could make improvements to OSes. Why on earth would they go after the NAV system market?
Speaking of fixing OSes, how can Apple conquer the portable media market, launch a ginormous attack against the Cell Phone industry, and still can't manage to FTFF?!?!?!?!?!??!?!
-Clive
Wow...content free. Your thesis statement claims that this isa a ridiculous venture for Apple. Your supporting statements center around areas that Apple could improve the OS yet mysteriously you offer no suggestions. Then your grand finale is a specious argument against the Finder which we already know has improvements in Leopard.
Try to engage both halves of your brain next time please. Your post basically made me have to scroll that much further to get to "meaningful" content. So as to make my post worthy of reading and inject a bit of content the reasons for Apple looking into this area are easy.
The iPhone delivers excellent OS X functionality in a small portable configuration. GPS based navigational system are becoming more and more popular as options for automobiles. 3G, WiMax and other WWAN technologies are proliferating. Bonjour now supports Wide Area networks and work is ensuing to allow you to deliver services via your computer without the need for a static IP address.
Many people commute, which can easily take 2 hours out of your day. Apple has the OS and Google has the extensive work with Mapping to form a strategic alliance.
Can we get some "real" reasons why this union shouldn't happen? Other than hyperbole and stale commentary about issues that are already addressed and waiting to be delivered in October.
BTW, why would you need an iSight for backup camera operation? Or is it just necessary to throw that in there to make 10 (since mine does this without the need of iSight or OS X).
I think backup cameras in current cars do need some sort of embedded digital electronics. OS X can probably allow more control or flexibility in how it is handled.
Some cars use cameras for backing up..... It's been shown to be much more accurate for people to use than those mirrors with the ubiquitous " Objects are closer than they appear" imprinted on the mirror surface.
I've now been driving a vehicle with a back-up camera for over three years now, and can't imagine not having one anymore when I need to back up -- it's a bit scary how one can get totally used to it.
PS: I now sweat bullets when I have a large-ish car, e.g., rental, w/o the camera, and need to back up!
You think i can fit a mac pro in a car? And two 30 inch screens?
Depends on the car.
Wow...content free.
Can we get some "real" reasons why this union shouldn't happen? Other than hyperbole and stale commentary about issues that are already addressed and waiting to be delivered in October.
Checking e-mail, making phone calls, surfing the web, and watching movies which are a thing that drivers should not be doing. The only usefulness of those functions would be on a per-passenger basis and would undoubtedly be cheaper than each passenger having an iPhone. Offering no advantage over individual iPhones the only thing it would do is lose Apple money.
The only remaining capability would be GPS and the NAV system navigation itself, neither of which are much worth Apple's time. Google, yes, but Apple, no.
As for the Finder and Leopard, Stacks is the only actual enhancement I see. It eliminates a couple more items from Bruce Tognazzini's list regarding the Dock's shortcomings, but others still remain. As for the iTunes Finder windows, many will soon find out that Cover Flow is only good for folders with a lot of pictures. It is one task that Windows XP has outshown OS X on for many years. For anything else, it's sheer glitz.
-Clive
NAV systems are not a natural progression of Apple's realm. I can only think of one other device that didn't fit Apple's realm initially (the iPod) and that was a 1:1,000,000 shot at becoming as popular is it did. Everything that followed - the iTMS, color/photo iPod, tv content on iTS, video-capable iPod, movies on iTS, games on iTS, AppleTV, iPhone - were natural progressions of that product's untamed market. The NAV system in a car could very well be an extension of this line (more along the lines of an iPhone-type interface) but I don't see Apple going that way. Checking e-mail, making phone calls, surfing the web, and
We are waiting in anticipation.
and...
What?
We are waiting in anticipation.
and...
What?
Safari for Windows ate my post, that son of a bitch. It was really good, too. Now I'm forced to paraphrase and likely lose the meaning of half of what I was saying.
-Clive
Checking e-mail, making phone calls, surfing the web, and watching movies which are a thing that drivers should not be doing.
Most car systems I've heard of lock out most of those features when the car is in drive, if the driver can see the screen. I think the lock-out is a legal compliance issue.
Checking e-mail, making phone calls, surfing the web, and watching movies which are a thing that drivers should not be doing. The only usefulness of those functions would be on a per-passenger basis and would undoubtedly be cheaper than each passenger having an iPhone. Offering no advantage over individual iPhones the only thing it would do is lose Apple money.
The only remaining capability would be GPS and the NAV system navigation itself, neither of which are much worth Apple's time. Google, yes, but Apple, no.
As for the Finder and Leopard, Stacks is the only actual enhancement I see. It eliminates a couple more items from Bruce Tognazzini's list regarding the Dock's shortcomings, but others still remain. As for the iTunes Finder windows, many will soon find out that Cover Flow is only good for folders with a lot of pictures. It is one task that Windows XP has outshown OS X on for many years. For anything else, it's sheer glitz.
-Clive
It's fairly trivial to have your emails read through your speakers via Text to Speech. Didn't Apple just create a new voice that performs much better. How hard is it to drive and listen? We do it everyday with music and conversation. Ditto for making calls via Bluetooth. WA state just passed a law where you can be fined for driving with one hand on the wheel one hand on the cell. Hands free takes care of that and keeps both hands on the wheel. Problem solved
As Jeff and I have said the other features are operational in a parked car. I think you're the only one calling the idea itself ridiculous so the burden of proof really is with you.
The Finder updates look benign and I wasn't happy until NDA bustin' data hit. Performance has improved, no more network mount issues. Cover Flow is eyecandy...the steak is in a more organized look with the ability to search local and shared computers as well as take control. I don't mind having Remote Desktop features available. Cover flow is also a UI element that translates well to touch based screens which is likely why Apple is adding it everywhere.
Truth be told those who are traveling significantly want smaller and smaller devices. Navigation capabilities are the bread and butter but there's so much more that can be done to make travel/communication/safety synergize in a dashboard product.
why exclusively for benz tho???
Perhaps they are working on it together.
That's a big difference. MS's OS has warnings not to use it for life critical purposes. It also states that it isn't to be used for nuclear power plants. What does that have to do with it? It's in BMW's now.
OS X has the same warnings, as do most pieces of computer hardware.
It's fairly trivial to have your emails read through your speakers via Text to Speech. Didn't Apple just create a new voice that performs much better. How hard is it to drive and listen? We do it everyday with music and conversation. Ditto for making calls via Bluetooth. WA state just passed a law where you can be fined for driving with one hand on the wheel one hand on the cell. Hands free takes care of that and keeps both hands on the wheel. Problem solved
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.
As Jeff and I have said the other features are operational in a parked car. I think you're the only one calling the idea itself ridiculous so the burden of proof really is with you.
That depends on the system. My NAV system works while the car is moving.
Truth be told those who are traveling significantly want smaller and smaller devices. Navigation capabilities are the bread and butter but there's so much more that can be done to make travel/communication/safety synergize in a dashboard product.
But having a carputer makes no financial or practical sense. Do you notice that no one has a 'car phone' anymore? Because once they realized they could only use it in the car, people went for the ones not tied to the auto itself. Who wants to spend $2000 on a NAV system that only works while you're sitting in the parking lot of your office, or your driveway at home? Where's the sense in that?
But having a carputer makes no financial or practical sense. Do you notice that no one has a 'car phone' anymore? Because once they realized they could only use it in the car, people went for the ones not tied to the auto itself. Who wants to spend $2000 on a NAV system that only works while you're sitting in the parking lot of your office, or your driveway at home? Where's the sense in that?
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.
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.