IreneW

9secondkox2 said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

pixeltini said:

Hmm, who could have guessed interfering with law enforcement efforts would be illegal? It's no different than attempting to block a police vehicle doing its duty to protect Americans against those who would do us harm. You know… gang members, drug dealers, convicted felons, cartel thugs, human traffickers, and so on.

And let's call out the specious idea that Ice Block is no different than a radar detector or warning drivers of a speed trap. A speed zone warning is an alert to POTENTIAL law breakers. Ice Block interferes with police efforts to apprehend individuals who have ALREADY BROKEN AT LEAST ONE LAW. Do you see the difference? Well do you?

Pardon me for using logic and pointing out the obvious. Now go ahead and hurl the Leftist phrases you learned from CNN.

It is exactly what I have bolded. Courts for decades have upheld the right of people to do exactly that. Apple Maps now will warn you of a speed trap, and the administration doesn't seem to care about that.

Why? Because it's legal. Because ruling after ruling, it's been ruled as protected by the first amendment. 

So has freedom of the press, which is what the administration is apparently more pissed about.

Totally different issues. 

The key difference between the red light / speed trap warnings is that they help limit the POTENTIAL of committing a crime/violation - it's actually a great deterrent - whereas ICE raids are about addressing ALREADY COMMITTED crime/violations. You can't deter an already committed crime. 

Speed trap warnings in Apple Maps are helpful to avoid breaking the law and getting busted for it. ICE maps apps are simply helping criminals get away with crime. Huge difference. 

You don't aid and abet a criminal in escaping the police during a raid or chase. In the same way, you don't aid and abet illegal aliens to escape the law.  

This is likely not going to go well for the maker of the app. 

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.