uroshnor

polymnia said:

racerhomie3 said:

polymnia said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Yess!

This would be perfection!

They would also spend way less money building an iOS app over a custom system.

Not so fast. The manufacturers will always need to provide some non-CarPlay interface. So manufacturers will have to maintain 1: the native interface 2: CarPlay and 3: Android Auto (I know we don’t acknowledge it here, but it is just as popular as CarPlay based on my recent car buying experience)

i think it’s great that the manufacturers will do this, but I’m under no illusions of it being easier or cheaper. 

People buying cars, most likely don’t use Android.

That's a funny joke on AI, but lots of people sporting Android phones own cars. Maybe they don't have taste

Any manufacturer who is going to do one mobile OS integration pretty much has to do the other.

They don’t actually.

More than one car manufacturer has balked at how privacy invading Android Auto is. 

leighr said:

Surely there should be some protection for Apple against having to fix problems that have been caused by dodger, cheap, third party components. If I throw non genuine parts in my new Mercedes and cook the engine does that mean Mercedes has to fix it? I’d like to see the ACCC take on other industries with this law. 

In Australia, you are completely free to have your log book services on a car done by a third party using 3rd party components.

IF the third party components were the cause of the engine cooking, then the 3rd party repairer is on the hook, but if the engine cooking was unrelated or peripherally related to them, then Mercedes might be on the hook to fix it, yes.

This has already been litigated in other industries, its not a new law - been around a long time. in the car industry it is in part why businesses like ultra tune are able to exist, and are able to buy both genuine and third party parts, as well as why so many medium sized service garages exist. And frankly, if you have a good third party repair shop, you'll stick with them.

Rayz2016 said:

dicebier said:

I rarely chime in here but COME ON!

iDevices trigger an error code if a third party attempts to perform a repair and the only company that can repair such device without generating an error code is Apple?

Read it again. You can have the device repaired by Apple or an authorised Apple repair shop.

In much the same way that I can my Prius Hybrid engine repaired by Toyota or an authorised Toyota Repair Shop. If I take it somewhere else then Toyota won't honour the guarantee, and quite right too. They have no idea what some idiot with no training might have done to the car. If they repair it and it breaks, then they're the last people to touch it, even if the fault was caused by Honest Bob's Hybrid Chop Shop (No job too big, or too small. Cash Only please)

But do chime in again. 

Thats not the case in Australia. Generally, "authorised repair shop" are viewed as polite racketeering.

The fact that the non-authorised repairer touched it doesn't mean the consumer rights are voided. The non-authorised repairer would have to have done something specifically and likely immediately damaging in order to void the obligation on the manufacturer - set it on fire, sure, not the manufacturer's problem - but if something continued to work for an extended period, and then failed totally, it doesn't necessarily follow that the third party repair was the cause.

dicebier said:

I rarely chime in here but COME ON!

iDevices trigger an error code if a third party attempts to perform a repair and the only company that can repair such device without generating an error code is Apple?

As if they don't make enough money 300 to 400 percent on the sales of a product, they make it impossible to repair without paying their high charges. it's not right .... period.

If the repair shop incorrectly performed the physical repair itself then it should be on them to deal with the repair, but this is wrong.

Sorry sir, you replaced your own windshield and that triggered an error that leaves your car unusable, if we replaced your windshield everything would've been fine.....BTW cost to replace windshield with us ,  $1500.00.

LOL

You haven't described the situation. Typically it was something more like this:

- Phone had a broken screen
- Owner took phone to 3rd party repairer to get screen replaced
- Phone was fixed and worked fine ....

<insert lifestyle montage of temporarily happy phone owner here>

Several months later...

- Owner applies a software update to their phone that has been working fine the whole time
- Phone is totally bricked with error 53

Apple's response was "we can't do anything because you want to a 3rd party repairer. Here buy a new phone"

In Australia, that response is not legal, and the ACCC totally made the right call here. The Error 53 behaviour was Apple's fault, and they should have either replaced the hardware or issued a software patch to fix it, at no cost to the customer. For some customers who were already stuck, a hardware repair at Apple's cost might have been the only way to fix the problem, and Apple ought to have worn that cost, and not refused service. They eventually did all the right things here (before the fine was issued).

If the failure mode had been "touch ID won't work again on a phone with a 3rd party screen repair" (which is kind of where it landed up after Apple released a later software patch) this whole thing would have been a non-issue. If the error 53 bricking had never happened, it would have been a non-issue.

For the benefit of our American cousins - this is what protection of consumer rights and not being ruled by corporations and kleptocrats looks like.

eightzero said:

Hum. I don't think I fully understand this, but it seems like Apple is prohibiting certain uses of your CPU in a fundamental way. Very interesting.

Nope. 

You can can use an ad-hoc or an enterprise App to mine to your hearts content, without jailbreaking. 

Apple is just saying you can’t distribute it via the App Store. There’s many plausible reasons eg mining is a continual high intensity activity that would suck resources from other apps, drain the battery faster, cause overheating issues etc if running such an App often increased the chance you’d need a battery replacement - odds on, most people would blame Apple.

Given their goal in part is to make the App Store somewhere people can trust to get Apps, that won’t screw with their phones, this decision seems broadly consistent with that. You might be ok with making a trade off in battery life , overheating and usability, but many users are users are not. In addition, mining to pay for using the App is something that is extremely hard for most people to fully weigh the trade offs for.

the last thing is that mining in the CPU is horribly inefficient from a cost perspective, the only way you can possibly make money from it is to get the electricity to do it for free, and from many many CPUs. Ie mining make no economic sense to do it for yourself, but it makes a lot of sense to get many other people to do it for you for free of near free.

Apple made the right call here