gatorguy

Blackwhitepanda said:

Right move. What Prosser did, was not a rumor. It was stealing secrets. 

According to Prosser's text string, Apple's claims are inaccurate https://x.com/jon_prosser/status/1946058379085943243

whitehusky said:

chasm said:

Thanks for this eye-opening article. This is a lot more information than I would have guessed smart TVs collect. We watch, but we are truly being watched as well.

One alternative way to minimize this issue is to use the Apple TV hardware device rather than your smart TV's interface, which is usually ad-cluttered and poorly-designed anyway. The Apple TV's interface is far more pleasing and doesn't offer any direct ads, though it does show images and previews of shows for various services (including Apple TV+) at the top. This can be

I don't have one of the brands profiled above, but it's likely that some degree of what's detailed in the article is probably happening with most other brands, or soon will be.

If you don't have an Apple TV box, get one. If you can't get one for some reason, disconnect your smart TV from the internet after first checking for a firmware update and allowing that if one is available. Most cable companies now offer services like Disney+ and Netflix (et al) through your cable service rather than you having to subscribe directly, and in some cases that works out cheaper (and consolidates those services into one bill).

You can reconnect the TV to an internet connection on an annual basis to check for firmware updates, but I'd suggest leaving the TV "dumb" as much as possible for your situation.

This is what we do - the TV is not connected to the internet/wifi, and we watch literally everything through all Apple TV box. Maybe one a year or so I'll look online to see if there's a firmware update and update it manually. I just want the TV to be a dumb monitor and Apple TV to be the box I watch everything from.

If eliminating all viewership data sharing is your goal, be sure to disable all data collection gathered via AppleTV as well.  

williamlondon said:

MplsP said:

Don’t disagree with the above comments, however it was a free app, and if the app is free then who’s the product?

It’s amazing 1) how many people don’t understand that principle, and 2) how many people do and don’t care and still use those services.

It's not that simple, though you wish it were.

Google Keep emphasizes user privacy by keeping your saved content private by default. It is not a toggle you need to turn on, or something that requires opt-out. You have control over what is yours, chose to share it or not, and with who if you do. Google does not access your private content unless you request permission be granted for specific reasons pertinent to you. Your data is stored securely in Google's data centers and is encrypted both in transit and at rest. 

Much of what Google does is primarily intended as lock-in, much the same as Apple does. An example might be Google Keep. The more you can do in-house so to speak, all the better for the two of them. Neither company wants users to wander elsewhere. And for those times when “you (!) are the product”, any personal data still remains safely and securely in Google vaults, not shared with advertisers, or with outside parties*. Of course Google derives significant income from acting as an on-line advertising clearinghouse. Unlike some companies, that does not mean your private data isn't yours anymore. Google's advertising platform places users into segments based on shared characteristics, allowing advertisers to target groups of anonymized users with similar interests or demographics. You aren't being identified by name and address or as a unique person. Guess who else does that?


As for Keep, it's hardly abandoned. It just wasn't used very often on Apple watches, as the article alludes to. With the service being replicated by Apple, (are folks here using it on their Apple Watch?) there's no benefit to maintaining it for watchOS. On the Android side, Keep is currently being updated to version 5.25.252.00.90 as I type this. 

EDIT:
By the way since I forgot to mention it...
Google does not use your Keep data for advertising purposes, no matter which platform. 


*Just as with Apple there are exceptions for legal demands, and for companies operating on Apple/Google's behalf to deliver services you request. 

MplsP said:

gatorguy said:

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. 

Again, you appear to be conflating the manufacturer’s use of Android Automotive OS with Android Auto and CarPlay. Yes, google totally botched the naming, since Auto is short for automotive the names are incredibly confusing but the two are separate. 

The car OS, whatever it is, interfaces with either an iPhone or an Android Phone. 
If the car OS allows it and the phone is new enough, the driver can take advantage of CarPlay ultra features.
If the phone is older or the car doesn’t allow for CarPlay Ultra features it can still use CarPlay Classic or Android Auto
Note GM uses Android Automotive as an OS for its cars and doesn’t allow either CarPlay or Android Auto. 

The compatibility is entirely dependent on the manufacturers implementation and decisions. Likewise, you can use Android Automotive to build either a stellar interface or the world’s crappiest interface. Google just makes the basic OS, the manufactures write the code that runs on it.

CarPlay Ultra is not an OS and is not assuming control of any of the car’s functions. It’s an extension of CarPlay whereby the car OS uses the CarPlay interface. It’s essentially a ‘skin’ for the car displays.

See the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Automotive

“ In contrast to Android Auto, Android Automotive is a full operating system running on the vehicle's device, not relying on a smartphone to operate.”

I certainly understand the distinctions, but my comments were mostly directed to forum readers who don't.

This is the essential paragraph. Note I did not reference the OS but instead the UX. I've never stated that CarPlay Ultra is an OS. 
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.

So Is my understanding wrong? Further, Android Automotive allows for vehicle friendly apps to be downloaded to the system, with functionality that is platform-agnostic. It does not care whether you purchased an iPhone or a Pixel. Apple doesn't offer anything that competes with its capabilities. CarPlay Ultra's dashboard control integration is limited to an iPhone user. It might serve some of the same uses, but Any UX benefits are lost to most purchasers. 

*All that out of the way, watch for a major update to Google's Android smartphone-required Android Auto very soon. Some beta testers are already aware of it We'll soon know if OEM's hold a similar view of Google smartphone-delivered services deeper integration with the dashboard. It won't shock me if they do. 

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.