I would very much like to see this in action. Is there a YouTube video showing this feature in action, that anyone knows of? I've looked and it just shows videos of it coming but none showing the feature off.
You still need a physical card handy for driving across states.
What country do you live in? I don’t have to show my drivers license anywhere except at hotels. I haven’t been asked for my DL when using a credit card in years. Last I heard there aren’t any border stops on highways.
Explain that to the cop in the next state who just pulled you over. I'm sure he'll understand.
“You’re not a hotel so you don’t need to see my driver’s license officer.”
So, pretty much all of the things a state would need to do to implement a digital ID, or app, of its own -- allocating personnel, resources to development and testing, as well as driving internal and external adoption-- don't magically go away if Apple is involved. Quite obvious, to anyone but the author. Taxpayers will be paying the cost for digital IDs regardless of whether Apple is involved, or not.
ID verification is the ultimate responsibility of the issuing authority of the credential, and that does not change either. I suspect most people don't have any issues with that, versus placing that in the hands of a private company like Apple.
That leaves the queston of control. It can be argued that Apple is trying to exert too much control. On the flip side, Apple is trying its best to not allow the governments to affect its user experience, and at least enforce some minimum standards it sets for its platform. As a practical matter, which is more likely to successfully develop and manage such a project, meeting budgetary, technical and scheduling goals? Bet on the government, or Apple? Hmmm…perhaps not a tough question in many minds. The success, or more pointedly, the lack thereof, of the mishmash of COVID passport apps might provide some clues.
There are definitely tradeoffs involved, and no right or wrong answers, but couching it as the evil Apple taking states and taxpayers for a ride isn't quite justified by the story, or the facts.
Ultimately, states, as well as individuals, are free to participate, or not, in such a program.
Exactly!
CNBC approached this as if it were a profit making venture for Apple. It isn't. It's a service that everybody (except Apple) benefits from. In fact, it is costing Apple's shareholders the cost of development and maintenance.
Obviously Apple reaps no profit from this. So, CNBC instead attempted to claim: "The end result is that states bear the burden of maintaining technology
systems at taxpayer expense, a move that ultimately benefits Apple and
its shareholders by making its devices even more essential than they
already are."
I'm disappointed in CNBC. They generally avoid false arguments like that in order to push and agenda.
You’re saying that the statement that you bolded is not the case? Of course it would benefit Apple, it’s users, and by extension, the shareholders.
So, pretty much all of the things a state would need to do to implement a digital ID, or app, of its own -- allocating personnel, resources to development and testing, as well as driving internal and external adoption-- don't magically go away if Apple is involved. Quite obvious, to anyone but the author. Taxpayers will be paying the cost for digital IDs regardless of whether Apple is involved, or not.
ID verification is the ultimate responsibility of the issuing authority of the credential, and that does not change either. I suspect most people don't have any issues with that, versus placing that in the hands of a private company like Apple.
That leaves the queston of control. It can be argued that Apple is trying to exert too much control. On the flip side, Apple is trying its best to not allow the governments to affect its user experience, and at least enforce some minimum standards it sets for its platform. As a practical matter, which is more likely to successfully develop and manage such a project, meeting budgetary, technical and scheduling goals? Bet on the government, or Apple? Hmmm…perhaps not a tough question in many minds. The success, or more pointedly, the lack thereof, of the mishmash of COVID passport apps might provide some clues.
There are definitely tradeoffs involved, and no right or wrong answers, but couching it as the evil Apple taking states and taxpayers for a ride isn't quite justified by the story, or the facts.
Ultimately, states, as well as individuals, are free to participate, or not, in such a program.
Exactly!
CNBC approached this as if it were a profit making venture for Apple. It isn't. It's a service that everybody (except Apple) benefits from. In fact, it is costing Apple's shareholders the cost of development and maintenance.
Obviously Apple reaps no profit from this. So, CNBC instead attempted to claim: "The end result is that states bear the burden of maintaining technology
systems at taxpayer expense, a move that ultimately benefits Apple and
its shareholders by making its devices even more essential than they
already are."
I'm disappointed in CNBC. They generally avoid false arguments like that in order to push and agenda.
You’re saying that the statement that you bolded is not the case? Of course it would benefit Apple, it’s users, and by extension, the shareholders.
Evidence is the requirement that governments actively promote Apple and the feature, and run all statements thru Apple first. They plainly want state agencies to imply this is a uniquely Apple-designed feature, one available only on iPhones. Yes, Apple expects to benefit monetarily thru the sale of more Apple iPhones, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I would like to see this for people who don’t have their ID in them and can avoid a citation for simply not being able to identify themselves. We all have been in a situation where you forgot your wallet but we NEVER forget our phones! Go technology!
Comments