cropr

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.

hummerchine said:

As has been said countless times, if you don’t like the way Apple manages its App Store then buy an Android phone and shut up!  ߤ렉 do not see any reason for the courts to be legally mandating that Apple make a single change to the way they run their App Store.  Personally I prefer it exactly the way it is and am upset that some judge on a power trip is messing with me.

As has been said countless times, the issue is not about the end users, who have the choice between an iPhone and an Adroid phone, but about the app developers, who want to offer their apps on both platforms because their customers are using not only iPhones but also Android phones.

anonymouse said:

This so-called "law" known as the DMA, and the regulatory bodies "enforcing" it, is not actually law at all. What it is is a purported "legal" framework that erodes the very concept of law in a way that leads to lawlessness. Much is talked about the "spirit of the law" in regard to the DMA, but that's not how law works. Law works according to the letter of the law, and anything that depends on "spirit" is not actually law.

anonymouse said:

Like everything else the EU and Eropean countries do, this is like a bad joke. "We didn't say what you needed to do, but, because you didn't do what we wanted, we're fining you."

That's like deciding you want a low speed limit, not setting or posting it, then fining "speeders" for being over the limit by whatever amount you want them to be. Europe and the EU no longer operate under the rule of law, they operate under the whims of the "regulators".

There is a fundamental difference between the way American laws and European laws are applied.   American laws are applied very strictly.  You must do exactly X to comply to the law.  In Europe the spirit of the law is as important as the letter of the law, and it is up to the people to apply the law in good faith according to common sense.   Disclaimers for  products sold in the US are on average 5 times longer than their European counterparts.

I understand that a lot of Americans have cultural issues accepting the way European law is working.  In this case, the court stated that Apple did not fulfill the requirements and that is for Europeans more than sufficient to understand what is meant: Apple should apply ATT for its own apps as well, but it is up to Apple to decide which changes should be made to comply to the rule.

You last sentence is clearly an indication that you fail to understand that any non US law system can have its own merits