command_f

Apple desperately needs to improve their search (eg I always use Google to find Apple developer documents because Apple's own tools are so poor).

If they had their own search engine, they could then make Maps a whole more useful informative about businesses etc.

pjorlando said:

Sounds like Sonos is a sponsor. Only Apple rumor site I see peddling this Sonos garbage.

What don't you like about SONOS kit? Which models did you try?

Apple Insider's decision to review the Ray is sound because the overall experience is likely to appeal to Apple users and SONOS devices have native support for AirPlay.

Stabitha_Christie said:

Not exactly, Musk and Twitter signed a contract and that becomes the governing document for the deal. As part of the deal Musk waived his right to due diligence. Per your analogy that would be like making an offer for a house and waiving your right to have it inspected. Per the contract he did have the option to drop out of the deal for no reason but only if he paid Twitter a billion dollars. He is trying to get out of the deal without paying the billion and using bots as the reason but waiving his right to due diligence is what will potentially sink him here.  Correction, he doesn't have a billion dollar exit option, the contract allows Twitter to force him to get the financing and close the deal.  

Agreed. I was surprised when Musk waived due diligence (see, eg, here); IIRC he said at the time that it was to speed up the process. That means he waived his rights to crawl through the worth of the business and the truth of what was being claimed before signing-up to buy - bit of a rookie mistake.

I think he's now on a sticky wicket (difficult position) in demanding information and then saying he will walk away if he doesn't like it because that's precisely what the due diligence phase would have been about.

There is a problem here: Apple has designed the App Store and wider ecosystem to protect its users even when they don't know they're being protected: "it just works". So it's important that people know what they will be giving away when they are offered what I'm sure was offered primarily as a cheaper option.

Do the majority of users know how they are protected and hence value it? Probably not but I think they very much would if the issue was first explained to them but I don't suppose this exercise did that. It's a classic example of the cheap option seeming just as good as the more expensive option right up to the moment you look closely.

I very much value the protection provided by the App Store and I hope it is not damaged by hose seeking to make a quick buck.

crowley said:

MplsP said:

“According to statistics published by Apple, 79% of U.S. car buyers wouldn't even consider purchasing a vehicle without CarPlay“

wow - I’m not sure how that statistic works since iPhone has far less than a 79% market share. Apparently people want to buy cars based on compatibility with a device they don’t own?

On Gruber's Talk Show, Greg Joswiak clarified that that number was a survey of people buying new cars, i.e. not used.  Which changes the maths a bit.

Which Apple Store did they do the survey in?    And do US new car sales bear this out (ie do less than 20% of them not support CarPlay)?

Seriously, I still find it hard to believe. There are people out there that use Android by choice, not just to spend less on their phone. And people who buy base-model cars.