AppleBighter

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.

I watch baseball on MLB TV and Apples ads there are absolutely intolerable. I usually just suffer through the ads, but Apple's, I have to mute.  I've never watched a game on Apple+ and probably never will just because of their ads. As a long time Apple user and advocate, I find it rather depressing. 

tedz98 said:

Limited provider choices in any geographic area are primarily due to the high cost of installing infrastructure, especially problematic in low population density areas. Comcast and it’s ilk are successful because of the investment made installing coax cable into homes to support cable tv services over the past forty years. Their ability to leverage that infrastructure to provide internet service gave them an amazing financial advantage. New regulations won’t change the financial challenges faced installing new infrastructure. If there’s money to be made, providers will make the investment to build new services such as seen with fios and many new local fiber providers. Comcast deliberately sets their data caps at the 95th percentile because they know if they impact too many customers it will invite regulation. If you are a consumer in the 95th+ percentile you really have no basis to complain about being charged more. 1.2 trillion bytes is a huge amount of data. It doesn’t really matter that your games are 300 gigs.

I just couldn't agree less. It does matter if your games are 300 gigs. The world moves on and if the US doesn't keep up then it affects our world wide competitive stance. The problem is that big cable has no incentive to update their infrastructure unless there is real competition. Which, in most of the US, not just rural areas, there is not. If you live somewhere that has competition and don't read anything about the industry you might not realize this. Big Cable has done everything in it's power to stifle competition. Changes are needed in regulations and in law.

JWSC said:

Everyone here is bitching about market economics that are ultimately self correcting.  One bitches about Comcast being a monopoly but, in SF Sonic is beating them on cost.  Another bitches about Comcast and then moves to AT&T.  What do you guys want - the Government to regulate everything and stifle infrastructure development?  Come on!

You must acknowledge that a small percentage of households are extreme bandwidth users compared to the rest.  It’s not necessarily fair to the rest that this small percentage take advantage of everyone else’s bandwidth.

We don’t necessarily have to like any of these companies.  But they do spend billions on infrastructure.  Do you want that to continue?  All I’m saying is, be careful what you wish for.  You may get it.

You seem to be assuming there is completion.  For a lot, if not most of the US that just isn't true.  And Comcast has worked hard and spent a lot of money to make sure it has no completion.  Broadband in the US is the very antithesis of a free and open market.  The government do in fact regulate broadband buy restricting who can enter markets.  So yea, I'd like to see the regulation changed to allow competition, not hand incumbents wads of cash.

I have Ring cameras outside. I'd never allow one inside my house.  I just always assume whatever is visible by them is public.  I'd like to think the comments from Ring spokesperson Yassi Shahmir, were true and non-evasive, but in this day and age there is no way I'd believe the any spokesperson from any company let alone Amazon (or Google). 
I've played around trying to set up my own cameras with RaspberryPI and it's a huge pain. I suppose I've accepted the intrusion for convenience sake.