Certainly fair enough. If Google has done something to lose your trust then so be it. . . .
And IMO that's why Google can probably be trusted for the most part. They couldn't afford a billion people like you losing trust, their entire business depends on it.
Sure doesn't require "moving both hands from the steering wheel", does it.
California law prohibits any interactions with your smartphone, period, one handed or two. Just because the interactions are now proxied to a touchscreen on the dash will make no difference in the end run. It's no different than mounting your smartphone in the dash.
So why does California Law permit interactions with any vehicle controls, such as audio, navigation touch screens, heating, gear lever etc.? With that inconsistency your extrapolation of existing law on cell phone interactions leads to absurd conclusions. You are speculating, and not very intelligently.
So why does California Law permit interactions with any vehicle controls, such as audio, navigation touch screens, heating, gear lever etc.? With that inconsistency your extrapolation of existing law on cell phone interactions leads to absurd conclusions. You are speculating, and not very intelligently.
You have to look where all this is going. More and more car makers are adding more and more features to car dashes in an attempt to attract buyers. It won't be long before these will all be restricted as well.
How hard is it to extrapolate that if touching the screen of a smartphone in any way is illegal, that touching another screen which is displaying data/graphics generated by a smartphone is also illegal?
This is where it is going and will get to the point that the interfaces are so dumb and restricted that they become pointless.
>>>>>
Automakers would have to rethink the kind of electronic devices and the number of these devices used within a vehicle
The first guidelines for reducing distracted driving were proposed by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood yesterday, where automakers would be challenged to cut the number of in-vehicle entertainment and information electronics.
"Distracted driving is a dangerous and deadly habit on America's roadways -- that's why I've made it a priority to encourage people to stay focused behind the wheel," said LaHood. "These guidelines are a major step forward in identifying real solutions to tackle the issue of distracted driving for drivers of all ages."
So why does California Law permit interactions with any vehicle controls, such as audio, navigation touch screens, heating, gear lever etc.? With that inconsistency your extrapolation of existing law on cell phone interactions leads to absurd conclusions. You are speculating, and not very intelligently.
You have to look where all this is going. More and more car makers are adding more and more features to car dashes in an attempt to attract buyers. It won't be long before these will all be restricted as well.
How hard is it to extrapolate that if touching the screen of a smartphone in any way is illegal, that touching another screen which is displaying data/graphics generated by a smartphone is also illegal?
This is where it is going and will get to the point that the interfaces are so dumb and restricted that they become pointless.
>>>>>
Automakers would have to rethink the kind of electronic devices and the number of these devices used within a vehicle
The first guidelines for reducing distracted driving were proposed by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood yesterday, where automakers would be challenged to cut the number of in-vehicle entertainment and information electronics.
"Distracted driving is a dangerous and deadly habit on America's roadways -- that's why I've made it a priority to encourage people to stay focused behind the wheel," said LaHood. "These guidelines are a major step forward in identifying real solutions to tackle the issue of distracted driving for drivers of all ages."
It's not clear at all where it is going. You are guessing at a particular direction based on one state law, recent proposals to restrict driver activities unrelated to driving, such as texting, and then making a blanket (and impossible) suggestion that drivers will be banned from hands-on interactions with any device in a vehicle, integrated or not. However, the current proliferation of mobile devices as primary navigation tools raises different considerations. One could argue strongly that these navigation tools are much safer for drivers to use than, for example, trying to read paper maps, and so it would be foolish to ban them and I doubt very much whether that will happen. Mobile and auto technology will instead adapt, as it is already doing, and enable safer use of devices.
Google Maps is the best Maps solution for iOS, but it is missing a key feature, at least for me (traffic in the bay area is crazy!), i.e., re-routing based on traffic and Waze does this so well. Waze almost re-routes me through parking lots of downtown hi-rises to save tons of time everyday! But Waze has issues with its search and Points of Interest and now, like predicted, Google is integrating the good stuff from both of these mapping solutions!
Chrome upon its release exceeded Safari in several respects, such as security. Safari didn't isolate each tab in its own sandboxed process until later. In fact per tab processes appears to be one of the upcoming features announced at this year's wwdc.
Excuse me, but you are really missing the point of my post in that what Steve Jobs had to say about introducing features. He basically said that Apple may not always be the first to introduce some new feature, but when Apple does it, they make sure that they do it the best. When we read about which browser is used most on OS X, Safari is by far the choice over Chrome - Chrome may be fast, but Safari is these days just as fast and Chrome uses more resources; a wiki when it comes to Chrome vs. Firefox will tell anyone that Firefox is more secure than Chrome. What it boils to in the end is the user experience and when we look at why Chrome and Android gets looked over sometimes, it's simply because that they are products that were made in a rush and that their developers cared more about market share than the user experience.
What it boils to in the end is the user experience and when we look at why Chrome and Android gets looked over sometimes, it's simply because that they are products that were made in a rush and that their developers cared more about market share than the user experience.
Here's a question then. If the user experience is so poor with Chrome, how did it become the most-used web browser in the world by some accounts? It's not automatically installed with Windows like Explorer is, nor is the automatic default browser choice with Apple products where Safari rules. Folks need to consciously choose it as their browser. Why would they do that, and why would they stick with it if it's so bad?
Here's a question then. If the user experience is so poor with Chrome, how did it become the most-used web browser in the world by some accounts? It's not automatically installed with Windows like Explorer is, nor is the automatic default browser choice with Apple products where Safari rules. Folks need to consciously choose it as their browser. Why would they do that, and why would they stick with it if it's so bad?
It's definitely not always by choice; install any kind of Windows utility (most of which should already be embedded in any OS) and bang, you got Chrome. Like PDFcreator, tools like that. They hide the option where you can deselect to install Chrome for a reason.
Whether it gets used or not I don't know. I do know that Google Maps on Windows tells me I shouldn't use Safari, but a 'modern browser (whatever that means, many people still using IE8, so that must be modern as well) so I can enjoy the full experience. Well, I looked at the data throughput on that Windows box and saw a slowdown when using Safari compared to IE10. Not rendering Maps, no data throughput.
It's definitely not always by choice; install any kind of Windows utility (most of which should already be embedded in any OS) and bang, you got Chrome. Like PDFcreator, tools like that. They hide the option where you can deselect to install Chrome for a reason.
Whether it gets used or not I don't know. I do know that Google Maps on Windows tells me I shouldn't use Safari, but a 'modern browser (whatever that means, many people still using IE8, so that must be modern as well) so I can enjoy the full experience. Well, I looked at the data throughput on that Windows box and saw a slowdown when using Safari compared to IE10. Not rendering Maps, no data throughput.
And that puts me off.
I've never come across Chrome as a tag-along with some 3rd party utility but I've no doubt it has been done. What totally riles me is Oracle using a Java update to install the Ask Toolbar by default, regarded as malware by many and really tough to get rid of. Or more recently a terrible change to Advanced System Care, a top Windows maintenance utility, which now adds invisable tracking toolbars for Amazon, Bing and Yahoo among others enabled by default within the first dialog box. Worse, even if the user becomes aware they were installed and removes them ASC will just reinstall them when it's next run.
There's some sneaky activities going on with some of the 3rd party add-ons and users gotta be careful what they're approving.
Chrome upon its release exceeded Safari in several respects, such as security. Safari didn't isolate each tab in its own sandboxed process until later. In fact per tab processes appears to be one of the upcoming features announced at this year's wwdc.
Excuse me, but you are really missing the point of my post in that what Steve Jobs had to say about introducing features. He basically said that Apple may not always be the first to introduce some new feature, but when Apple does it, they make sure that they do it the best. When we read about which browser is used most on OS X, Safari is by far the choice over Chrome - Chrome may be fast, but Safari is these days just as fast and Chrome uses more resources; a wiki when it comes to Chrome vs. Firefox will tell anyone that Firefox is more secure than Chrome. What it boils to in the end is the user experience and when we look at why Chrome and Android gets looked over sometimes, it's simply because that they are products that were made in a rush and that their developers cared more about market share than the user experience.
Your post doesn't say anything about Apple introducing features correctly but not necessarily first. Your examples try to support the claim that Google tend to create half-baked copies of Apple products that were, a fortiori, first to market.
Here is your post, which I've reformatted slightly to highlight your examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macm37
For starters, we can thank Google for giving credit to which company is to be more like - and that's Apple.
They have copied Apple's web browser by taking an earlier build of Webkit; creating a more resource consuming version called Chrome - which does not even do all of which Safari and Webkit do.
They have also copied Apple's mobile OS by having a former employee who worked in the same department of when multi-touch was being made and they have created Android, an OS that although on most phones and on all carriers, these carriers beg for the opportunity to become an official seller/carrier of the iPhone to keep their business alive in the near future.
Once again, they have taken a group of former Apple employees whom Apple is not interested in rehiring - this being Waze - and have included a me too feature to show consumers that they are just like Apple....
You dinged Chrome for being more resource consuming when it actually does something useful with those extra resources -- namely, by isolating each tab in its own process. While most browsers today are fairly comparable in security features, that wasn't the case when chrome first came out. Chrome is an example of a product done right that was last to market.
I've never come across Chrome as a tag-along with some 3rd party utility but I've no doubt it has been done. What totally riles me is Oracle using a Java update to install the Ask Toolbar by default, regarded as malware by many and really tough to get rid of. Or more recently a terrible change to Advanced System Care, a top Windows maintenance utility, which now adds invisable tracking toolbars for Amazon, Bing and Yahoo among others enabled by default within the first dialog box. Worse, even if the user becomes aware they were installed and removes them ASC will just reinstall them when it's next run.
There's some sneaky activities going on with some of the 3rd party add-ons and users gotta be careful what they're approving.
Wow, that's truly pathetic. That shouldn't even be legal, actually.
Microsoft have their Signature Program, creating a crapware-free PC. Doubt it will make an impact, but its an effort.
Huh, fancy that, a 10 minute delay for the Ask toolbar execution. Well, at least 'browsers are taking action'. Good to read on Ninite, thanks for the link.
California law prohibits any interactions with your smartphone, period, one handed or two. Just because the interactions are now proxied to a touchscreen on the dash will make no difference in the end run. It's no different than mounting your smartphone in the dash.
Yeah, no, that's completely and utterly wrong in every respect. For the reasons, see the many examples of vehicle interaction I've already provided. If you choose to ignore them again, that's your problem. I'm not really big on arguing with willful ignorance anymore.
Originally Posted by patpatpat
You have to look where all this is going.
No, we have to look at where it is right now, because that's the only thing you seem to care about until it doesn't suit your argument. Then you move it to the future. Right now, you can touch your car. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. If it's physically part of the car, you can interact with it. Therefore if there is integration with the physical aspects of the car, it doesn't matter what is being integrated. If there's a Siri button on my steering wheel, it cannot possibly be illegal to touch said button.
Comments
Gatorguy says you can trust Google.
Now who's been drinking the Gatorade?
This is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Sure doesn't require "moving both hands from the steering wheel", does it.
California law prohibits any interactions with your smartphone, period, one handed or two. Just because the interactions are now proxied to a touchscreen on the dash will make no difference in the end run. It's no different than mounting your smartphone in the dash.
So why does California Law permit interactions with any vehicle controls, such as audio, navigation touch screens, heating, gear lever etc.? With that inconsistency your extrapolation of existing law on cell phone interactions leads to absurd conclusions. You are speculating, and not very intelligently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
So why does California Law permit interactions with any vehicle controls, such as audio, navigation touch screens, heating, gear lever etc.? With that inconsistency your extrapolation of existing law on cell phone interactions leads to absurd conclusions. You are speculating, and not very intelligently.
You have to look where all this is going. More and more car makers are adding more and more features to car dashes in an attempt to attract buyers. It won't be long before these will all be restricted as well.
How hard is it to extrapolate that if touching the screen of a smartphone in any way is illegal, that touching another screen which is displaying data/graphics generated by a smartphone is also illegal?
This is where it is going and will get to the point that the interfaces are so dumb and restricted that they become pointless.
>>>>>
Automakers would have to rethink the kind of electronic devices and the number of these devices used within a vehicle
The first guidelines for reducing distracted driving were proposed by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood yesterday, where automakers would be challenged to cut the number of in-vehicle entertainment and information electronics.
"Distracted driving is a dangerous and deadly habit on America's roadways -- that's why I've made it a priority to encourage people to stay focused behind the wheel," said LaHood. "These guidelines are a major step forward in identifying real solutions to tackle the issue of distracted driving for drivers of all ages."
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
So why does California Law permit interactions with any vehicle controls, such as audio, navigation touch screens, heating, gear lever etc.? With that inconsistency your extrapolation of existing law on cell phone interactions leads to absurd conclusions. You are speculating, and not very intelligently.
You have to look where all this is going. More and more car makers are adding more and more features to car dashes in an attempt to attract buyers. It won't be long before these will all be restricted as well.
How hard is it to extrapolate that if touching the screen of a smartphone in any way is illegal, that touching another screen which is displaying data/graphics generated by a smartphone is also illegal?
This is where it is going and will get to the point that the interfaces are so dumb and restricted that they become pointless.
>>>>>
Automakers would have to rethink the kind of electronic devices and the number of these devices used within a vehicle
The first guidelines for reducing distracted driving were proposed by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood yesterday, where automakers would be challenged to cut the number of in-vehicle entertainment and information electronics.
"Distracted driving is a dangerous and deadly habit on America's roadways -- that's why I've made it a priority to encourage people to stay focused behind the wheel," said LaHood. "These guidelines are a major step forward in identifying real solutions to tackle the issue of distracted driving for drivers of all ages."
It's not clear at all where it is going. You are guessing at a particular direction based on one state law, recent proposals to restrict driver activities unrelated to driving, such as texting, and then making a blanket (and impossible) suggestion that drivers will be banned from hands-on interactions with any device in a vehicle, integrated or not. However, the current proliferation of mobile devices as primary navigation tools raises different considerations. One could argue strongly that these navigation tools are much safer for drivers to use than, for example, trying to read paper maps, and so it would be foolish to ban them and I doubt very much whether that will happen. Mobile and auto technology will instead adapt, as it is already doing, and enable safer use of devices.
http://thefrustum.com/blog/2013/8/9/the-ios-maps-problem
Originally posted by d4NjvRzf,
Chrome upon its release exceeded Safari in several respects, such as security. Safari didn't isolate each tab in its own sandboxed process until later. In fact per tab processes appears to be one of the upcoming features announced at this year's wwdc.
Excuse me, but you are really missing the point of my post in that what Steve Jobs had to say about introducing features. He basically said that Apple may not always be the first to introduce some new feature, but when Apple does it, they make sure that they do it the best. When we read about which browser is used most on OS X, Safari is by far the choice over Chrome - Chrome may be fast, but Safari is these days just as fast and Chrome uses more resources; a wiki when it comes to Chrome vs. Firefox will tell anyone that Firefox is more secure than Chrome. What it boils to in the end is the user experience and when we look at why Chrome and Android gets looked over sometimes, it's simply because that they are products that were made in a rush and that their developers cared more about market share than the user experience.
Here's a question then. If the user experience is so poor with Chrome, how did it become the most-used web browser in the world by some accounts? It's not automatically installed with Windows like Explorer is, nor is the automatic default browser choice with Apple products where Safari rules. Folks need to consciously choose it as their browser. Why would they do that, and why would they stick with it if it's so bad?
It's definitely not always by choice; install any kind of Windows utility (most of which should already be embedded in any OS) and bang, you got Chrome. Like PDFcreator, tools like that. They hide the option where you can deselect to install Chrome for a reason.
Whether it gets used or not I don't know. I do know that Google Maps on Windows tells me I shouldn't use Safari, but a 'modern browser (whatever that means, many people still using IE8, so that must be modern as well) so I can enjoy the full experience. Well, I looked at the data throughput on that Windows box and saw a slowdown when using Safari compared to IE10. Not rendering Maps, no data throughput.
And that puts me off.
I've never come across Chrome as a tag-along with some 3rd party utility but I've no doubt it has been done. What totally riles me is Oracle using a Java update to install the Ask Toolbar by default, regarded as malware by many and really tough to get rid of. Or more recently a terrible change to Advanced System Care, a top Windows maintenance utility, which now adds invisable tracking toolbars for Amazon, Bing and Yahoo among others enabled by default within the first dialog box. Worse, even if the user becomes aware they were installed and removes them ASC will just reinstall them when it's next run.
There's some sneaky activities going on with some of the 3rd party add-ons and users gotta be careful what they're approving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macm37
Originally posted by d4NjvRzf,
Chrome upon its release exceeded Safari in several respects, such as security. Safari didn't isolate each tab in its own sandboxed process until later. In fact per tab processes appears to be one of the upcoming features announced at this year's wwdc.
Excuse me, but you are really missing the point of my post in that what Steve Jobs had to say about introducing features. He basically said that Apple may not always be the first to introduce some new feature, but when Apple does it, they make sure that they do it the best. When we read about which browser is used most on OS X, Safari is by far the choice over Chrome - Chrome may be fast, but Safari is these days just as fast and Chrome uses more resources; a wiki when it comes to Chrome vs. Firefox will tell anyone that Firefox is more secure than Chrome. What it boils to in the end is the user experience and when we look at why Chrome and Android gets looked over sometimes, it's simply because that they are products that were made in a rush and that their developers cared more about market share than the user experience.
Your post doesn't say anything about Apple introducing features correctly but not necessarily first. Your examples try to support the claim that Google tend to create half-baked copies of Apple products that were, a fortiori, first to market.
Here is your post, which I've reformatted slightly to highlight your examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macm37
For starters, we can thank Google for giving credit to which company is to be more like - and that's Apple.
They have copied Apple's web browser by taking an earlier build of Webkit; creating a more resource consuming version called Chrome - which does not even do all of which Safari and Webkit do.
They have also copied Apple's mobile OS by having a former employee who worked in the same department of when multi-touch was being made and they have created Android, an OS that although on most phones and on all carriers, these carriers beg for the opportunity to become an official seller/carrier of the iPhone to keep their business alive in the near future.
Once again, they have taken a group of former Apple employees whom Apple is not interested in rehiring - this being Waze - and have included a me too feature to show consumers that they are just like Apple....
You dinged Chrome for being more resource consuming when it actually does something useful with those extra resources -- namely, by isolating each tab in its own process. While most browsers today are fairly comparable in security features, that wasn't the case when chrome first came out. Chrome is an example of a product done right that was last to market.
Wow, that's truly pathetic. That shouldn't even be legal, actually.
Microsoft have their Signature Program, creating a crapware-free PC. Doubt it will make an impact, but its an effort.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404520,00.asp
Here's what the Oracle and Ask Toolbar scheme is about. Yes, absolutely pathetic.
http://www.zdnet.com/a-close-look-at-how-oracle-installs-deceptive-software-with-java-updates-7000010038/
Huh, fancy that, a 10 minute delay for the Ask toolbar execution. Well, at least 'browsers are taking action'. Good to read on Ninite, thanks for the link.
Originally Posted by patpatpat
California law prohibits any interactions with your smartphone, period, one handed or two. Just because the interactions are now proxied to a touchscreen on the dash will make no difference in the end run. It's no different than mounting your smartphone in the dash.
Yeah, no, that's completely and utterly wrong in every respect. For the reasons, see the many examples of vehicle interaction I've already provided. If you choose to ignore them again, that's your problem. I'm not really big on arguing with willful ignorance anymore.
Originally Posted by patpatpat
You have to look where all this is going.
No, we have to look at where it is right now, because that's the only thing you seem to care about until it doesn't suit your argument. Then you move it to the future. Right now, you can touch your car. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. If it's physically part of the car, you can interact with it. Therefore if there is integration with the physical aspects of the car, it doesn't matter what is being integrated. If there's a Siri button on my steering wheel, it cannot possibly be illegal to touch said button.