Do you really think that Apple would have the satisfaction ratings they get, year after year, if their hardware was shit?
Apple could market an iRock, and the lemmings would stand in line for it. Sometimes ratings mean less and less when blind worship maintains a 5-star rating. Apple has produced you're-holding-it-wrong products before, and it's not even made a dent in their ability to market hype and fashion. Ironically enough, when sales start to drop, often one of the first things a manufacturer does is extend the standard warranty as a sales tactic. This tends to define exactly how minimal a financial impact that action is, and how easily Apple could afford to offer it.
The point is, they have calculated their average warranty-burden over time into the purchase price. And at this point, they have a pretty good idea what that number is.
People often favor certain auto manufacturers due to longevity and durability of the product. Most cars come with at least a 3-year warranty, and many come with much longer warranties, which are often used to sell hardware. Suddenly, you find your favorite auto maker changed their warranty to one year based on warranty burden. Would you still feel confident in the product, or would you have a pretty good idea as to just how durable the product now is? My argument is the exact same; if you're going to claim you make a durable product, then back up that claim with a reasonable warranty, plain and simple.
If you don't like those terms, you are free to purchase any one of a number of other phones. No one forces anyone to purchase an iPhone, FFS!
As far as everyone else out there, a lot of the market follows Apple's arrogance; if Apple charges the customer for durability and gets away with it due to little impact on demand, then others follow suit. We've seen it time and time again. Doesn't make it right by any means.
By your reasoning, the cell phone carriers should be on the hook for the extra year, not Apple, as it was the carriers that decided to sell a device with a one year warranty along with a two year contract. In that case, this court decision was correct to not hold Apple accountable.
No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.
Apple backs up it's claim of durability with its reputation. Organizations like Consumer Reports rate Apple as a manufacturer with lower defect rates that others in its segment. In theory, a longer warranty is less valuable on a durable product than it is on a shoddy product.
Guess I don't follow your logic with that theory, since I believe a warranty is used to demonstrate the actual durability of a product. I have non-electronic products warrantied for life with bulletproof warranties, which a lifetime warranty is not superfluous; it tends to define quality and confidence. I have electronic products that are warrantied for up to a decade. Yes, customer support is critical, but I also want a company to stand behind their products. If Apple actually has lower defect rates and they already charge a lot for their product, then they have even more of a reason to stand up and support their product claims with minimal warranty concern by offering a standard 2-year warranty.
Yes, consumer expectations are mostly now dictated by the average cellular agreement length, but that has little to do with who is "on the hook". If you're going to try and stand above the rest of the market by marketing a durable product, then back up your claim. Besides, the ask here is very reasonable.
If you are arguing that Apple (and presumably their competitors) should be required to have a longer warrantee, then they are going to have to raise prices.
Claiming they'll be forced to raise prices is a rather tough sell when talking about the richest companies on the planet. Apple eating the cost of 2-year warranty claims is going to bankrupt them? I think not.
There may be good side effects to that (manufactures building more durable goods), but let us not forget that those goods are going to come at a greater price.
They already claim they make durable goods. The only side-effect I want to see from that is for them to prove it by backing up that claim with a reasonable warranty without making the consumer pay more for what amounts to a marketing lie.
Forced? Really? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
This reminds me of a friend of mine who was looking for a house to buy and wanted to sign up for a month-to-month lease on their apartment. The landlord came back with a monthly cost 2.5x higher than the standard 12-month price.
Forced. Coerced. Convinced. Pick whatever word you want to describe little or no options left on the table that make financial sense.
"Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"
"the highest quality and most durable devices" =/= "Reality"
Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.
And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.
Since a "warranty" is essentially another BOM component with an associated "cost", do you really think that Apple should withstand the burden of DOUBLE the potential cost of warranty work for no additional increase in the product's MSRP?
If they actually make a durable product, then there should be a minimal concern from Apple from a burden standpoint.
If the product is actually so bad that they can't even offer a reasonable warranty included with that obscene price tag, then I don't have any reason whatsoever to believe their claims of making a durable product. And regardless of standard business practice, demand should not be a justified reason to fuck over the consumer any chance you can.
And the fact that all smartphone vendors have colluded so that none of them offer a reasonable warranty doesn't make this any more acceptable. Quite frankly, they should all honor a two-year warranty, which matches the collusion of 2-year contracts.
Assertion without evidence. They offer a 2 year warranty if you are willing to pay. And the standard in Europe is 2 years but it is not in the US.
The reason it is longer in Europe is due to them wanting a "high level of consumer protection." There are certainly times when US law could take a lesson from others. This would likely be one of them.
No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.
Some offer some a longer warranty. Some do not. The point is that the bank does not have the ability to change your warranty which is what you are asking the court to do with Apple.
Two-year contracts are now pretty much the de facto standard, and tend to define consumer expectation. Every auto manufacturer could limit the factory warranty on every car sold in the US to one year regardless of consumer expectation or loan lengths, if they wanted to be a greedy dick about it. Third party terms or product demand have far less to do with my argument than the bullshit claim that Apple makes a durable product. If they do, then prove it with a decent warranty that conforms to consumer expectations.
If you don't like their "bullshit marketing" then don't buy their phones. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy an iPhone. Move on instead of posting your useless dribble repeatedly on/.
Wake the hell up. The rest of the industry is no different with their blatant collusion with hardware warranties, contract lengths, and pricing. Doesn't mean it's right, and it sure as hell doesn't leave the consumer with options.
Well if you read the article or the summary, Apple is not saying their devices only last 1 year. They are saying their warranties are 1 year which is standard for the US. But please show me the wide ranges of cell phones that has more than a 1 year warranty in the US. Also you realize that when you enter into a contract with a cellular carrier that is not Apple, that is the legal definition of 3rd party contract.
Putting gas in my car is using a 3rd party service and does not alter the vehicles warranty, so that argument is rather moot. And the fact that all smartphone vendors have colluded so that none of them offer a reasonable warranty doesn't make this any more acceptable. Quite frankly, they should all honor a two-year warranty, which matches the collusion of 2-year contracts.
What you are asking for is that your contract with Verizon, AT&T, etc whatever overwrites Apple's warranty to which Apple didn't agree. It's the same as saying when you get a 5 year auto loan for your new Honda (3 year limited, 5 year powertrain) from your bank, your 5 year bank loan should supersedes Honda's warranty and force Honda into a full 5 year warranty.
No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.
"they should be able to offer a factory warranty longer than a year."
and they probably could be able to offer it for more than a year, but they wont because they don't have to. People will continue to buy their products and on top of that they are able to sell warranty extensions which nets them even more money!
I guess asking Apple to back up their "durable" product with an equivalent warranty is too much to ask. Fuck the customer, because demand. Greed is all that matters.
When you buy an iPhone, as I understand it, the warranty is for one year, unless you buy extensions. So why would anyone expect the warranty to be longer than one year (assuming one did not buy any warranty extensions)? To me it looks more like the problem of Apple corporation has a lot of money, so let's try this approach to a lawsuit and see how much money we can get out of Apple.
Semantics aside, the bottom line is if Apple is going to boldly claim that they make "the highest quality and most durable devices", then they should be able to offer a factory warranty longer than a year. Offer a warranty to match your claims of durability, or stop with the bullshit marketing.
I have other electronic products that are factory warrantied up to a decade, and was included in the base price. It can be done.
"Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"
"the highest quality and most durable devices" =/= "Reality"
Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.
And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.
The corrupt Financial Industrial Complex is the real reason cryptocurrency was invented and continues to be justified.
And the real reason why the governments will want it to stay in place is full traceability. Yes, for now, BTC is totally anonymous. But wait till the governments put their nose into it, and require all wallet holders to be IDd. Then ALL the transactions you will ever have done in your life can be tied to you.
I want to still be able to use paper money, and they will make it more and more difficult to use it.
With the amount of surveillance in the world today, not even paper money transactions should be considered private or anonymous.
This is precisely why cryptocurrency was invented - to skirt the law and avoid moral responsibilities. Its sole purpose is as an enabler of criminal activity.
Just fucking ban this fake monopoly money bullshit already.
I'll support this mentality right after I see CEOs of banks behind bars for skirting laws and violating moral responsibilities.
The corrupt Financial Industrial Complex is the real reason cryptocurrency was invented and continues to be justified.
" it does raise some questions about the security... Q.rads are naturally still going to be physically unsecured as they can be in anyone's house."
When you have to reach for physical security to try and identify a flaw, it tends to dismiss the concern altogether. A lot of hardware is vulnerable if you can get your hands on it.
all we have to do now is sit back and wait to hear that apple tracked down his phone id, then his phone, and bricked it for carrying out "unsanctioned" modifications...
If Apple did choose to "attack" a customer like this (who knows damn well they're voiding their warranty), it will be interesting to sit back and watch the backlash from Apples own engineering and design staff, who likely share much of this same maker/hobbyist/hardware hacker mentality.
But advancements in mechanical technology, combined with standards, enforcement, liability etc. have led to a massive reduction in the number of random dangerous mechanical failures in correctly maintained vehicles.
30 years ago, you mainly had to worry about the adult-aged drunk on the road. Today, you have to worry about damn near every driver on the road, since 99.999% of them have a smartphone with them, and the majority of them like to distract themselves by using it behind the wheel. Oh, and did I forget to mention the added bonus of a pill-popping society of opiate addicts driving around? Can't forget to give credit to Big Pharma for that one.
Leave it to the masses to counteract all those technological advancements by building a better idiot.
Oh, and they don't teach people how to properly maintain their vehicles anymore. That whole DIY mentality died off long ago when an $800 wrench and a diagnostic analysis was needed to change the fucking oil. Random dangerous mechanical failures still happen; you simply don't hear about them until enough deaths occur to justify the class-action lawsuit and recall. Liability and punishment has become a joke for mega-corps these days.
Replace every instance of "self-driving car" you just wrote with "plane" and you have the same argument. Except it hasn't happened.
Every commercial airliner is equipped with autopilot. You still will not see one leave the ground without a trained and certified human pilot. There's a reason for that.
The move for autonomous cars is looking to eliminate the human driver altogether. We're even questioning the need for training or licensing human drivers in the future.
And from a regulatory standpoint, they aren't even fucking close, so lets stop trying to compare apples and oranges.
That will make dying hurt less right?
No, but the ~90% reduction in auto-related fatalities will.
Have advancements in computers caused a ~90% reduction in the number of bugs, debilitating hacks and successful attacks?
I rest my case. Removing human drivers will do little more than create a massive risk from autonomous solutions rushed to market, riddled with shit security. Deaths will occur, and manufacturers will get a slap on the wrist for causing it, just like they do with inferior solutions today.
From a psychological point of view, it's a lot easier for humans to accept when a human makes a deadly mistake behind the wheel. Won't be so damn easy to watch a vehicle mega-corp get away with vehicular manslaughter because drivers clicked "I Agree".
You can't have laws that are so vague that you can unintentionally violate them.
No, but you can certainly have punishments so weak that manufacturers will find it worth it to intentionally violate them. You know, like bypassing security in order to be first to market. Not that we've ever seen that shit happen before...(cough, IoT, cough)
The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.
Let's see how the masses feel when they find out a loved one was one of 100,000 people killed after a DDoS-style mass attack against autonomous vehicles takes place in a major city. Watch as the manufacturer demands closed-door legal proceedings and produces redacted shit detailing their fault, negotiating death caused by an insecure product down to a free cup of fucking coffee for the next of kin.
If companies are already looking to push this technology by requesting a pass on current regulation, then it will probably go to market like damn near every other mass-produced thing we make, meaning shit for security. And I've already explained why they will do this; because it will be worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung's battery tests routinely beat the equivalent i thing by 2 HOURS, but don't let that get in your way of rabid fanboyism.
Just curious, did that rigorous testing mandate come out before or after they released the Samsung Torch?
Samsung's been fast charging for years now.
Obviously Scotty wasn't in the engine room last year when Captain Samsung called for more power.
That's a ridiculous argument.
Do you really think that Apple would have the satisfaction ratings they get, year after year, if their hardware was shit?
Apple could market an iRock, and the lemmings would stand in line for it. Sometimes ratings mean less and less when blind worship maintains a 5-star rating. Apple has produced you're-holding-it-wrong products before, and it's not even made a dent in their ability to market hype and fashion. Ironically enough, when sales start to drop, often one of the first things a manufacturer does is extend the standard warranty as a sales tactic. This tends to define exactly how minimal a financial impact that action is, and how easily Apple could afford to offer it.
The point is, they have calculated their average warranty-burden over time into the purchase price. And at this point, they have a pretty good idea what that number is.
People often favor certain auto manufacturers due to longevity and durability of the product. Most cars come with at least a 3-year warranty, and many come with much longer warranties, which are often used to sell hardware. Suddenly, you find your favorite auto maker changed their warranty to one year based on warranty burden. Would you still feel confident in the product, or would you have a pretty good idea as to just how durable the product now is? My argument is the exact same; if you're going to claim you make a durable product, then back up that claim with a reasonable warranty, plain and simple.
If you don't like those terms, you are free to purchase any one of a number of other phones. No one forces anyone to purchase an iPhone, FFS!
As far as everyone else out there, a lot of the market follows Apple's arrogance; if Apple charges the customer for durability and gets away with it due to little impact on demand, then others follow suit. We've seen it time and time again. Doesn't make it right by any means.
By your reasoning, the cell phone carriers should be on the hook for the extra year, not Apple, as it was the carriers that decided to sell a device with a one year warranty along with a two year contract. In that case, this court decision was correct to not hold Apple accountable.
No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.
Apple backs up it's claim of durability with its reputation. Organizations like Consumer Reports rate Apple as a manufacturer with lower defect rates that others in its segment. In theory, a longer warranty is less valuable on a durable product than it is on a shoddy product.
Guess I don't follow your logic with that theory, since I believe a warranty is used to demonstrate the actual durability of a product. I have non-electronic products warrantied for life with bulletproof warranties, which a lifetime warranty is not superfluous; it tends to define quality and confidence. I have electronic products that are warrantied for up to a decade. Yes, customer support is critical, but I also want a company to stand behind their products. If Apple actually has lower defect rates and they already charge a lot for their product, then they have even more of a reason to stand up and support their product claims with minimal warranty concern by offering a standard 2-year warranty.
Yes, consumer expectations are mostly now dictated by the average cellular agreement length, but that has little to do with who is "on the hook". If you're going to try and stand above the rest of the market by marketing a durable product, then back up your claim. Besides, the ask here is very reasonable.
If you are arguing that Apple (and presumably their competitors) should be required to have a longer warrantee, then they are going to have to raise prices.
Claiming they'll be forced to raise prices is a rather tough sell when talking about the richest companies on the planet. Apple eating the cost of 2-year warranty claims is going to bankrupt them? I think not.
There may be good side effects to that (manufactures building more durable goods), but let us not forget that those goods are going to come at a greater price.
They already claim they make durable goods. The only side-effect I want to see from that is for them to prove it by backing up that claim with a reasonable warranty without making the consumer pay more for what amounts to a marketing lie.
people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract
Forced? Really? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
This reminds me of a friend of mine who was looking for a house to buy and wanted to sign up for a month-to-month lease on their apartment. The landlord came back with a monthly cost 2.5x higher than the standard 12-month price.
Forced. Coerced. Convinced. Pick whatever word you want to describe little or no options left on the table that make financial sense.
"Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"
"the highest quality and most durable devices" =/= "Reality"
Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.
And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.
Since a "warranty" is essentially another BOM component with an associated "cost", do you really think that Apple should withstand the burden of DOUBLE the potential cost of warranty work for no additional increase in the product's MSRP?
If they actually make a durable product, then there should be a minimal concern from Apple from a burden standpoint.
If the product is actually so bad that they can't even offer a reasonable warranty included with that obscene price tag, then I don't have any reason whatsoever to believe their claims of making a durable product. And regardless of standard business practice, demand should not be a justified reason to fuck over the consumer any chance you can.
And the fact that all smartphone vendors have colluded so that none of them offer a reasonable warranty doesn't make this any more acceptable. Quite frankly, they should all honor a two-year warranty, which matches the collusion of 2-year contracts.
Assertion without evidence. They offer a 2 year warranty if you are willing to pay. And the standard in Europe is 2 years but it is not in the US.
The reason it is longer in Europe is due to them wanting a "high level of consumer protection." There are certainly times when US law could take a lesson from others. This would likely be one of them.
No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.
Some offer some a longer warranty. Some do not. The point is that the bank does not have the ability to change your warranty which is what you are asking the court to do with Apple.
Two-year contracts are now pretty much the de facto standard, and tend to define consumer expectation. Every auto manufacturer could limit the factory warranty on every car sold in the US to one year regardless of consumer expectation or loan lengths, if they wanted to be a greedy dick about it. Third party terms or product demand have far less to do with my argument than the bullshit claim that Apple makes a durable product. If they do, then prove it with a decent warranty that conforms to consumer expectations.
If you don't like their "bullshit marketing" then don't buy their phones. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy an iPhone. Move on instead of posting your useless dribble repeatedly on /.
Wake the hell up. The rest of the industry is no different with their blatant collusion with hardware warranties, contract lengths, and pricing. Doesn't mean it's right, and it sure as hell doesn't leave the consumer with options.
Well if you read the article or the summary, Apple is not saying their devices only last 1 year. They are saying their warranties are 1 year which is standard for the US. But please show me the wide ranges of cell phones that has more than a 1 year warranty in the US. Also you realize that when you enter into a contract with a cellular carrier that is not Apple, that is the legal definition of 3rd party contract.
Putting gas in my car is using a 3rd party service and does not alter the vehicles warranty, so that argument is rather moot. And the fact that all smartphone vendors have colluded so that none of them offer a reasonable warranty doesn't make this any more acceptable. Quite frankly, they should all honor a two-year warranty, which matches the collusion of 2-year contracts.
What you are asking for is that your contract with Verizon, AT&T, etc whatever overwrites Apple's warranty to which Apple didn't agree. It's the same as saying when you get a 5 year auto loan for your new Honda (3 year limited, 5 year powertrain) from your bank, your 5 year bank loan should supersedes Honda's warranty and force Honda into a full 5 year warranty.
No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.
"they should be able to offer a factory warranty longer than a year."
and they probably could be able to offer it for more than a year, but they wont because they don't have to. People will continue to buy their products and on top of that they are able to sell warranty extensions which nets them even more money!
I guess asking Apple to back up their "durable" product with an equivalent warranty is too much to ask. Fuck the customer, because demand. Greed is all that matters.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
When you buy an iPhone, as I understand it, the warranty is for one year, unless you buy extensions. So why would anyone expect the warranty to be longer than one year (assuming one did not buy any warranty extensions)? To me it looks more like the problem of Apple corporation has a lot of money, so let's try this approach to a lawsuit and see how much money we can get out of Apple.
Semantics aside, the bottom line is if Apple is going to boldly claim that they make "the highest quality and most durable devices", then they should be able to offer a factory warranty longer than a year. Offer a warranty to match your claims of durability, or stop with the bullshit marketing.
I have other electronic products that are factory warrantied up to a decade, and was included in the base price. It can be done.
"Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"
"the highest quality and most durable devices" =/= "Reality"
Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.
And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.
The corrupt Financial Industrial Complex is the real reason cryptocurrency was invented and continues to be justified.
And the real reason why the governments will want it to stay in place is full traceability. Yes, for now, BTC is totally anonymous. But wait till the governments put their nose into it, and require all wallet holders to be IDd. Then ALL the transactions you will ever have done in your life can be tied to you. I want to still be able to use paper money, and they will make it more and more difficult to use it.
With the amount of surveillance in the world today, not even paper money transactions should be considered private or anonymous.
This is precisely why cryptocurrency was invented - to skirt the law and avoid moral responsibilities. Its sole purpose is as an enabler of criminal activity.
Just fucking ban this fake monopoly money bullshit already.
I'll support this mentality right after I see CEOs of banks behind bars for skirting laws and violating moral responsibilities.
The corrupt Financial Industrial Complex is the real reason cryptocurrency was invented and continues to be justified.
" it does raise some questions about the security... Q.rads are naturally still going to be physically unsecured as they can be in anyone's house."
When you have to reach for physical security to try and identify a flaw, it tends to dismiss the concern altogether. A lot of hardware is vulnerable if you can get your hands on it.
all we have to do now is sit back and wait to hear that apple tracked down his phone id, then his phone, and bricked it for carrying out "unsanctioned" modifications...
If Apple did choose to "attack" a customer like this (who knows damn well they're voiding their warranty), it will be interesting to sit back and watch the backlash from Apples own engineering and design staff, who likely share much of this same maker/hobbyist/hardware hacker mentality.
Creative minds, make creative products.
Next they will pas a law to make it illegal... Yea, that will fix it! See how well it works in Chicago on the gun problem.
Chicago bullshit aside for a moment, the true crime here is charging that fucking much for a degree that you can Google your way through.
But advancements in mechanical technology, combined with standards, enforcement, liability etc. have led to a massive reduction in the number of random dangerous mechanical failures in correctly maintained vehicles.
30 years ago, you mainly had to worry about the adult-aged drunk on the road. Today, you have to worry about damn near every driver on the road, since 99.999% of them have a smartphone with them, and the majority of them like to distract themselves by using it behind the wheel. Oh, and did I forget to mention the added bonus of a pill-popping society of opiate addicts driving around? Can't forget to give credit to Big Pharma for that one.
Leave it to the masses to counteract all those technological advancements by building a better idiot.
Oh, and they don't teach people how to properly maintain their vehicles anymore. That whole DIY mentality died off long ago when an $800 wrench and a diagnostic analysis was needed to change the fucking oil. Random dangerous mechanical failures still happen; you simply don't hear about them until enough deaths occur to justify the class-action lawsuit and recall. Liability and punishment has become a joke for mega-corps these days.
Wait. $60 a month is too expensive for a cell phone plan?
Since it takes a minimum of two unlimited lines to get "free" Netflix, the actual cost is $120 a month.
Ironically, this is also a perfect example of Millennial Math...
Replace every instance of "self-driving car" you just wrote with "plane" and you have the same argument. Except it hasn't happened.
Every commercial airliner is equipped with autopilot. You still will not see one leave the ground without a trained and certified human pilot. There's a reason for that.
The move for autonomous cars is looking to eliminate the human driver altogether. We're even questioning the need for training or licensing human drivers in the future.
And from a regulatory standpoint, they aren't even fucking close, so lets stop trying to compare apples and oranges.
It's not in Beta - it was released on 21st August.
Yes, it was released...to a larger pool of beta testers.
It was RTMd about a week ago ... do keep up.
The 2017 definition of RTM - "A larger pool of beta testers."
Do keep up.
That will make dying hurt less right? No, but the ~90% reduction in auto-related fatalities will.
Have advancements in computers caused a ~90% reduction in the number of bugs, debilitating hacks and successful attacks?
I rest my case. Removing human drivers will do little more than create a massive risk from autonomous solutions rushed to market, riddled with shit security. Deaths will occur, and manufacturers will get a slap on the wrist for causing it, just like they do with inferior solutions today.
From a psychological point of view, it's a lot easier for humans to accept when a human makes a deadly mistake behind the wheel. Won't be so damn easy to watch a vehicle mega-corp get away with vehicular manslaughter because drivers clicked "I Agree".
You can't have laws that are so vague that you can unintentionally violate them.
No, but you can certainly have punishments so weak that manufacturers will find it worth it to intentionally violate them. You know, like bypassing security in order to be first to market. Not that we've ever seen that shit happen before...(cough, IoT, cough)
The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.
Let's see how the masses feel when they find out a loved one was one of 100,000 people killed after a DDoS-style mass attack against autonomous vehicles takes place in a major city. Watch as the manufacturer demands closed-door legal proceedings and produces redacted shit detailing their fault, negotiating death caused by an insecure product down to a free cup of fucking coffee for the next of kin.
If companies are already looking to push this technology by requesting a pass on current regulation, then it will probably go to market like damn near every other mass-produced thing we make, meaning shit for security. And I've already explained why they will do this; because it will be worth it.
"...the freebie only works if you have at least two T-Mobile One unlimited data plans..."
Gee, I only have to spend an obscene amount of money per month on a cell plan in order to get this "freebie".
Fuck common sense budgeting and financial planning...who needs that shit when you have millennial math and YOLO.