gatorguy

MplsP said:

AppleZulu said:

cropr said:

sflagel said:

robin huber said:

sflagel said:

it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better. 

Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?

CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.

Are you sure of that.  I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.

But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music.  What if  Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash.  Who will take responsibility?

The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level  than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Ultra is meant to do. It will Apple-ize the instrument cluster display (with carmaker-branded customization) and perhaps let you control some things like A/C via touchscreen or Siri, but I don't think they're moving control of features like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking or lane assist onto your iPhone. Displays related to these things might be tweaked with Apple fonts and color schemes, but the features themselves would still live in the car, and revert to the car's default display if your iPhone crashed while you're driving. I'm pretty sure the carmakers' and and Apple's lawyers would be in complete agreement about that. 

This. If you are confused, watch one of the videos. 

As far as I can understand, one of the more obvious differences between Android Automotive and CarPlay Ultra is that Apple requires an iPhone running iOS12 or higher and Apple Services to make it work. Using Android Automotive does not mean automakers also have to accept Google Services, or that the owner must have an Android phone. But if you do have a phone it will operate the same whether it's Android or iOS. Apple CarPlay Ultra will not.

I see things as Apple trying to limit the advantages of in-vehicle smartphone use to iOS devices since the CarPlay Ultra interface won't work without one, disadvantage anyone who owns not-an-iPhone. Android Automotive doesn't care.

TLDR: Android Automotive works as the UX whether the owner has an Android phone, iPhone, or no phone at all. CarPlay Ultra will not.  If my understanding is wrong, feel free to post a correction source. 

AppleBighter said:

gatorguy said:

IreneW said:

Both Renault and Volvo are mentioned in the article, and both of them are flagship partners implementing Android Automotive.
So it is not a question of total control, I guess, but in what way the product is offered.

There's a good reason for that. Android Automotive does not require the manufacturer to commit to Google services. It can offer most if not all the same UX benefits of Car Play Ultra while letting the manufacturers determine the services. Android Automotive is also user-friendly for both iPhone and Android owners.  Want to use CarPlay under Android Automotive, no problem.

I don't know whether Car Play Ultra offers the same freedom, but perhaps someone here knows the facts. My sense is it does not, thus more reticence on the part of automakers to rely on Car Play Ultra integration.

I have a car with Android Automotive (Perhaps the most confusing name ever) and it's an abomination.  And no it does not, at least on GM, work with CarPlay or Android Auto.  The whole system in confusing to use and horribly laid out and after over a week at the dealer, over the course of a year, for software updates, is still buggy as hell.  I would suggest that anyone thinking of buying a car with "Automotive" consider their tolerance and patience for crappy software. 
And to be clear, The UX benefits are not what make CarPlay so useful.  It's the fact that I have my information, usage records, everything on one device - my phone and don't have to transfer it between the car and my phone.  I'm not an Android user and probably never will be so I don't know if "Automotive" makes this simpler with those phones.  But, I'm pretty sure it would do it through Google's cloud services with all privacy concerns and connection issues that implies as you must be logging into Google all the time to us any of there services in the car.

Google is not restricting it, nor does Android Automotive. Using Android Automotive does not require the OEM to use Google services either, so your guess would be inaccurate. Whether to use Google Services is a separate decision. It's GM who made a choice not to allow either Android Auto or Apple CarPlay. Oddly IMO, customers overall seem fine with it. Weird.

Anyway, with all the confusion around Android Automotive and Android Auto, just search "what is Android Automotive" using your favorite browser, so the differences are more clear.

sunman42 said:

22july2013 said:

If everyone who writes a comment on this page will send a fee to Dr Seuss for learning from his books to read and speak, then I will pay attention to their views if they oppose AI learning from published sources. But if you aren't willing to pay everyone that you learn from, for every word that comes out of your mouth, then I don't see why AI should have to pay either. Next, are we going to charge aliens for learning English by reading the radio waves that are being sent into deep space?

That’s the point, though: libraries, schools, or whatever grownup bought that book that helped you learn to read paid Dr. Seuss’s publisher, who paid him and his agent. And school teachers, under the fair use clause, could make copies of excerpts of those books to help in reading lessons. Where does any AI outfit other than Apple pay for anything the engines are scraping?

But you’re on the right track on one thing: we should definitely start beaming Dr. Seuss books to the stars.

Google pays for some training data, signing licensing deals, as does OpenAI.

What hasn't been explained is how services that are run on-device fail without an active data link to Apple. On-device is assumed to mean it works off-line. 

9secondkox2 said:

Xed said:

AppleZulu said:

spheric said:

9secondkox2 said:

spheric said:

9secondkox2 said:

The point is, that some on this forum have been attacking the president for @lying” about the phone, when in fact, up to this point? He’s said nothing. That is a false claim. 

Again: 

https://www.trump.com/media/trump-mobile-launches-a-bold-new-wireless-service

“Trump Mobile is also excited to announce it will release the “T1 Phone” in August. It is a sleek, gold smartphone engineered for performance and proudly designed and built in the United States”

That is a lie. It’s on Trump.com — which, I must assume, is the current president’s commercial website. 

You said president Trump made that quote. He did not. Period. 

That is the website of the trump organization which was handed off to his kids years ago. 

Ah, I wasn’t aware. Yep, he still owns it, but his kids are running it since 2017. Okay. Fair point. 

Notably this is not a blind trust. The president is free to ask questions and give direction as his sons “run” the company that he still owns and profits from. 

I can't even fathom how deep someone has to be into the MAGA cult to claim that the convicted felon has no knowledge of the very organization that he's running. I feel bad for the American people in general for being raped (literally in some cases) by this convict, but I don't feel bad for the enablers that both support him on the top end or the idiots on the bottom end, which are the oddly the loudest voices that prop him him as some sort of deity.

No one made that claim. Another straw man. In my family, we are all in different businesses. When we get together we catch up. No doubt the Trump family does at least that - like any other human beings. 

That wasn’t the issue. It has been claimed that President Trump was involved in the venture, even claiming that he made marketing statements on its behalf. Simply not true. Don’t know how deep you have to go into the hater club to pretend people don’t act like people or put words into their mouths to pretend to have something against them. 

You're at a point where you should give up the talking point that he has no responsibility for what his kids do. Donald Trump owns the Trump Organization. The buck stops at his desk.

In your personal scenario I'll assume you have no ownership of the extended family member businesses. You can't tell them how you expect them to be run, even broadly. Donald Trump absolutely can and should advise his family how he expects his own business to be run, what products and services he's comfortable with them pursuing, and which to stay out of.

A couple decades ago, my brother came up with a business idea which I primarily funded but he ran. For the most part I stayed out of it, but near the end he in effect stole a customer's deposit, which reflected on me. He disagreed, vehemently. Long story, I pulled my funding, dissolved the corporation, paid back most of the deposit myself, and left my brother on his own. He subsequently failed. 

I sincerely doubt you believe our President has no influence over or responsibility for an organization he owns. His children are appointed caretakers, no more than that, while he attends to the Presidency. He can fire, demote or reposition any of them at his whim. The Trump Organization is not a blind trust (it should be IMO), which is absolute proof he has proactively chosen to maintain ultimate control and decision-making over his businesses. His children cannot move forward with this cell-phone project without his blessing.

Perhaps it's time for you to admit as much and move on, as you probably should have several pages ago. It's not a hill worth dying on.