ihatescreennames

Waiting for the Spotify CEO to publicly whine about this, even though it appears it was Spotify that erred here.

tyler82 said:

ihatescreennames said:

tyler82 said:

Waze is still 100x better than Apple Maps on CarPlay. 

100%? Tell that to my friend who stopped by my house just this weekend. As she got into her car to come over she said to her husband, “we have to use Apple Maps.” He looked at her and said, “I’m using Waze.”  20 minutes later, when they were at the destination that Waze directed them to she informed him that it wasn’t our house and not even our street (it was the right town, though). Oops. Out came Apple Maps and they made it to us. 

It's idiotic how Apple Maps shows your route zoomed in within 50 feet or so of where your vehicle is on the map as you are traveling. You can't even see upcoming cross streets, traffic incidents, etc. Waze is so much more dynamic how it zooms in and out depending on how far you have to go. And traffic reporting and alerts are just more reliable. Maps is prettier, but Waze is more reliable and efficient.

If I’m understanding this correctly, you’re saying having dynamic zoom is more important than getting directions to the proper location. 

avon b7 said:

My phone can support Google Pay, Huawei Pay, BBVA Pay and even, theoretically at least, even Apple Pay. 

How is it an advantage to have multiple wallets available? On the surface it seems less convenient. 

tyler82 said:

Waze is still 100x better than Apple Maps on CarPlay. 

100%? Tell that to my friend who stopped by my house just this weekend. As she got into her car to come over she said to her husband, “we have to use Apple Maps.” He looked at her and said, “I’m using Waze.”  20 minutes later, when they were at the destination that Waze directed them to she informed him that it wasn’t our house and not even our street (it was the right town, though). Oops. Out came Apple Maps and they made it to us. 

beowulfschmidt said:

Once again, what Apple is doing now isn't as relevant as what Apple did then.  Without commenting on the merits of the case the DOJ thinks it has (about which I know no more than most here, and less than many), if Apple committed violations of law within whatever, if any, statute of limitations might apply, they are still liable for those violations, regardless of whether or not they've stopped those violations since then.

Can you imagine a thief using "well, I don't do that anymore, so this case is invalid" as a defense in court?  It wouldn't be a valid defense for the thief, and it isn't for Apple.

I hear you. There’s also a statute of limitations, so if you stole a pack of gum from your local pharmacy when you were a teen nobody is coming after you 10 years later with shoplifting charges. Granted, I have no idea how that works with antitrust or monopoly issues.