If you want a map that includes both newfoundland and cape horn you're not likely to find any native american maps from before 1504 that has what you're looking for. If you want to find any native american maps that include european or asian coasts from before 1500 you're SOL.
This is without a doubt the big weakness in the android and windows phone markets. People will find exploits in your software, that's inevitable. But this problem of not being able to get updates unless you know how to root your phone and install a new build is just not going to work going forward. We cannot have a computing ecosystem where you cannot get updates unless you have significant technical skill to install them. It's just not going to work and it's going to cost a lot of people a lot of money.
When MS entered the market with WP8 they should have said 'no carrier interference' like Apple does. I can see Google was trying to be carrier friendly to win marketshare at the time, but this system is not sustainable.
But if you were a hardware maker, why would you even bother with windblows when you have established systems around that you know people *will* buy as opposed to what m$ hopes people *might* buy.
Because the market could change. Windows 8 hasn't caught on because it's terrible, but you don't necessarily know what the market is going to do until it gets there.
The only problem is that a lot of people have tried Fone7, and the declared 'this sux like goatse, and we hate it'.
Windows has 5.6% of the market, which is probably better than most android makers except samsung, and nokia has most of that market. They're actually doing reasonably well some places. Oddly.
As I say, the crux of the problem is that windows 8 is terrible. Even on a tablet (either definition of tablet) it's terrible. There's no doubt that it's terrible. But if you're one of the android makers that isn't samsung anything you can do to get sales is good. And Surface Pro particularly is a laptop competitor, not really an ipad competitor. People still want proper computers to go with their tablets, and will for some time yet. Although I certainly agree that the laptop market is going to get squished, all those guys (asus, alienware, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, Sony) are still making and selling laptops for the moment, and so want to have something in that segment worth buying.
Unfortunately, no one wants windows 8 or linux on a productivity device, at least not in any significant volumes, so sales are weak overall. But well. We've already agreed that windows 8 is a trainwreck, and linux with its 2% marketshare isn't magically exploding at the moment.
You have to remember this was back when the pickets ships were the primary means of defence of the fleet still, you don't want your own ships accidentally shooting down their own air cover, so they positioned the picket well forward. Not necessarily the best plan, but you can see the problem - ultimately the goal is to defend the carriers, not the picket ships. The picket ships actually took out a number of enemy aircraft with missiles because that's their job.
No one likes to say 'sorry, but your job is to get killed before someone on a bigger more important ship' but that's very much the job of destroyers and frigates. You force the enemy to destroy the escorts first, or take the risk of flying over them and getting shot down.
The royal navy suffered very much from several problems, one of having some engineering problems with their ships (turns out aluminium can catch fire), two that they couldn't lock on to ships coming in low, and three couldn't deal with exocet missiles.
The royal navy faced the unenviable challenge of not having enough aircraft (only about 50 total). The Argentine situation meant they could (early on at least) put 30 or 40 aircraft anywhere in a large area of operations. That's a serious problem. You can't have too wide an air cover, you'd have too many aircraft spread out and not be able to defend, and you can't risk a carrier. That problem is overcome by defeating the enemy in detail in small pieces until he doesn't have the force to concentrate. Which is what the royal navy did essentially, they traded destroyers and frigates for aircraft kills until the Argentinians didn't have enough aircraft or exocets, at which point the british had air superiority for a ground invasion.
That's not necessarily a good metric either, as systems built for that amount of traffic are not necessarily indicative of what is suitable for the rest of us. That's sort of the formula 1 versus a regular driving vehicle problem.
They should stay out of the hardware business and work on the operating system for tablets, let anyone make them and encourage development of premium hardware.
That's what surface is. Surface isn't really a serious consumer product strategy. It's Microsoft making clear to the hardware makers that if they refuse to produce anything innovative or worth buying MS will do it for them.
The problem with this strategy is that MS doesn't really seem to have anything innovative to push, in large part because windows 8 is terrible (so is 8.1).
For the better part of a decade MS has been making software work for an iPad like slate device (they even had a term for it: a slate, a tablet is a convertible laptop with a rotating screen). And how many of those did we see on the market? None. MS has been burned badly by their 3rd party partners not rising to the challenge of making devices that aren't shit. If anything the market has gone the other way, to shovelling cheaper and cheaper stuff out that is in many cases junk.
Try and buy a haswell tablet right now. How many can you find? There are a couple, but they are in very few product segments. MS recognizes this problem, and sees surface as the way to address this, but isn't able to implement. Which is sort of ok, if 2 months from now they launch and awesome surface pro 2, and that forces the other vendors to do the same. Late to the market, but forcing some progress maybe. And that's what Surface is there for, it's not to really making microsoft billions directly, it's to make sure that the hardware partners make things worth buying and force them to keep pushing new technology, or they're going to look bad compared to Surface. I'm sure MS would be thrilled if Surface was the most expensive and one of the worst windows 8 devices you could buy - because that would mean windows 8 would be moving at a good pace somewhere.
Aside from a lot of companies having a 'cameras past this point are grounds for immediate dismissal', there's also a question of securities liabilities, insider trading, and all of that stuff.
Also, he was probably looking for an excuse to be rid of the guy.
I would think we'll see a surface refresh, one with a Haswell chip (and potentially a 3rd party such as nVIDIA GPU, but unlikely), and one with a Tegra SOC.
That would be what a sane person would call a Surface Pro 2, and a Surface RT 2 or 2013/2014 type thing. Given microsofts recent efforts to name things don't be surprised if it ends up being Surface Pro One, and Surface RT Compatible or some other stupid confusing assbackwards name just to make life hard for everyone.
Without a doubt a haswell Surface would be appealing for some market segments. I'm not really sure how well an (ARM) Surface RT 2 is going to go over. I don't think business was really clamouring for one, a couple of hundred dollars here or there isn't an IT priority if you can see value for the the device. It's not like top executives are walking around with Surfaces just waiting for a price drop so us peons can get one.
. When I visited China, computer security didn't seem to be one of the top priorities among the computer users
Remember that China has it's own state filtering and spyware software they install and run. And woe to you who are not happy to be spied on by the government. Unlike the US, who basically get to talk a lot, the PRC government feels no legal limits to doing whatever it wants to whomever it doesn't like.
There's no point in trying to have a secure system if the government itself is mandating an insecurity and is primarily the one spying on you, and is free to throw you in jail arbitrarily for complaining about it.
Wrong product segment. The Samsung note competes with the Surface RT.
Surface pro is... a touchscreen windows laptop with an intel processor. Integrated onboard GPU, a shortage of ports and a sorta kinda nifty cover. And that's about it.
If you want an intel 10 inch touch screen with windows you're going to have a tough time finding anything with the same specs as a surface in the same price bracket as a galaxy note.
What will be really interesting to see is what they can get the battery life to with a haswell though, and that's the biggest strike against pretty much any tablet or laptop from 6 months ago (well other than windows it Windows 8). For a device like this there is literally no reason to buy an ivy bridge version when there's a haswell one in the pipe which will likely have close to double the battery life at more or less identical performance.
Whether or not having a sort of laptop wintel device is worth the premium depends on what you're doing certainly, but the Surface is sort of kinda in the direction of a replacement for your laptop and tablet, whereas a tablet isn't really a productivity device. Surface pro isn't quite there, there are some issue with a lack of ports, and windows 8 is terrible, but with some slightly better hardware and a better creative vision Surface pro 2.0 or 3.0 could actually be interesting offerings.
I was making a not so subtle reference to a yahoo mail bug that caused the app to redownload all of you last 50 messages every day, and not cache them.
I'm not talking about specifically downloading a new OS. However you get the OS, what it does day to day on 3G *could* be a problem. Naturally, it generally isn't because people actually test these things, but mistakes happen and if you push out an update to 10 million users who all accidentally do 1gig of 3G downloading before you fix it you're going to have a LOT of very unhappy customers.
My guess it that Apple has a deal with the carriers that if they do that, Apple has it covered. No one else seems to have been willing/able to make such a deal.
yes, exactly. Someone else should have done that. Handing control to the carriers is a bad idea. Apple understood that.
I'm sure Apple assumes a certain amount of the risk for accidentally breaking the network with the carriers though.
Samsung is officially larger than Apple now
And have been for a while. Of course they're huge because hacker geeks loved them for being easy to root and they have great hardware. If you were trying to enter the market against samsung having a 'the carriers don't control your updates' policy would be a big competitive advantage.
I singled out MS for a reason. They had (have?) a developer programme, where you could pay 100 bucks and do whatever you wanted to your device. Right idea, wrong implementation. If you attract hackers who will do interesting things on the phone you'll attract customers to but the phones that do the most interesting things.
Apple is where it is, and has the market it has because there's a minimum of carrier bullshit to go with it, it's simple - great for some people. Samsung is where it is because it has the most power and the most options in phones. But we'd all be better off if there was someone in the market had the best of both worlds, with a wide offering of phones and a 'minimal carrier bloatware interference' policy. The obvious candidate for that would have been Microsoft after none of the Android guys did it, though it philosophically makes the most sense on android.
Google kinda does it, but well, google seems to be happy to take a back seat to samsung.
Yes, iTunes is hated, but it certainly has some useful features.
Well it's bloated. iTunes was really excellent grandma and technically illiterate user software for a long time and it I agree it definitely has its uses.
You take the chance on your end that your phone accidentally uses 50MB of data a day doing that, or no longer works or the like.
Well, apple I'm sure has a special deal. But with a droid, that's your problem if you do that. But if the carrier is pushing it out they want control over it.
This is definitely somewhere MS or one of the big Android players could have gone for the jugular in the market and said 'the carrier is a dumb pipe and you control updates to YOUR device".
BSkyB is a shortform for British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC.
They use "Sky" in branding for all sorts of stuff, notably Sky Broadband and Sky Subscriber Services (which is their TV offering).
In that context, an internet cloud service calling itself Sky-something sounds like it's part of the Sky services, which it of course isn't. And Microsoft has no real claim on the 'Sky' brand, so they're SOL.
The only way it's "dickish" is that it leaves VW customers in a [now-aware] potentially bad spot.
depends on what exactly would be redacted. Customers are no more informed with or without just the keys. As I say, it depends on what exactly VW wanted redacted.
And the other shoe drops. You see, researchers have to show their proof.
I'm a researcher, and you're somewhat confused. They made a claim about some or all of their results being on the internet already. Those claims aren't verifiable for the moment, nor is it clear what exactly they mean that the numbers are out there already. I can do a search for a lot of random strings of numbers and come up with results, that doesn't mean they have any useful context to them.
No, the "problem" is that you're making excuses for why a potential security flaw in a car should be any treated any different than, say, a security flaw in a door
I'm not sure you understand how the car recall process works. There is a whole lot of asking what is the risk/cost of doing nothing versus the cost of a recall. Recalling 100k vehicles to put in new locks gets very expensive very quickly. Not to mention the lost time of car owners getting their vehicles fixed.
No, it's an upper bound on the relevant complexity in the lock. So long as you can just smash a window the best lock in the world isn't getting you far.
If a high schooler wants your car he uses the brick and screw drive method, not the fancy laptop.
If he can download a program from a website that will let him use an IR transmitter and a laptop I would expect to see the laptop method become quite popular.
Fixing it is simple, replace the locks or replace the cars. VW sold them and as such has that responsibility. They should not have the option to not fix it.
Which, like all recalls is then priced into the future cost of the car, and passed on to consumers.
If you notify they will just sue you instead of fixing it.
My point was that fixing it may not be particularly reasonable.
Car locks could be very secure, car companies chose POS methods.
Not really no, they can't. They never have been. It's a matter of degree. You can always break a window in a car, or failing that simply hire a tow truck over to the one you want to steal and tow it away. Being able to get into a car when you have locked your keys in is a major design problem, and so long as you let people do that easily you're going to have tools out there for easily getting into a car.
$100,000 is not a big deal when you can do the research and sell the results to crime rings.
Note the crime rings part there. If a crime ring wants your car your options are limited. What you don't want is a highschooler and his laptop to be able to steal your 300k car.
If you have to replace say 3-5 keys for every vehicle, it takes 10 minutes of employee labour per key you're talking about a lot of money every time.
It seems like the BMW remote starters run in the 160-250 range, the one for my shitty ass GM is 100 dollars, whatever the actual costs, trying to do a recall on the keys for vehicles could get expensive fast.
It's not necessarily an obvious consumer cost sure, but it's still a cost, and how much padding do you want in the cost of your vehicle for key fob replacement every time something goes wrong with a key? Are we going to price 5 key replacements into the projected lifetime cost of a car?
Did you link the correct video? Because his video doesn't seem to show anything related to what we're talking about. What we're talking about is a remote wireless unlocking by some sort of key spoofing (perhaps a master key for the whole system, or perhaps they can extract the encryption key used, and it's the same for each model of car or... not sure). That video was with physical access inside the vehicle being able to program a key to access it, using well, a key reprogrammer.
Slashdot Mirror
Not of the world.
If you want a map that includes both newfoundland and cape horn you're not likely to find any native american maps from before 1504 that has what you're looking for. If you want to find any native american maps that include european or asian coasts from before 1500 you're SOL.
If only I could give you mod points.
This is without a doubt the big weakness in the android and windows phone markets. People will find exploits in your software, that's inevitable. But this problem of not being able to get updates unless you know how to root your phone and install a new build is just not going to work going forward. We cannot have a computing ecosystem where you cannot get updates unless you have significant technical skill to install them. It's just not going to work and it's going to cost a lot of people a lot of money.
When MS entered the market with WP8 they should have said 'no carrier interference' like Apple does. I can see Google was trying to be carrier friendly to win marketshare at the time, but this system is not sustainable.
I didn't say it wasn't common, only that no one likes admitting it.
That's the job though, England confides that every man will do his duty.
But if you were a hardware maker, why would you even bother with windblows when you have established systems around that you know people *will* buy as opposed to what m$ hopes people *might* buy.
Because the market could change. Windows 8 hasn't caught on because it's terrible, but you don't necessarily know what the market is going to do until it gets there.
The only problem is that a lot of people have tried Fone7, and the declared 'this sux like goatse, and we hate it'.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57596548-94/android-nabs-record-80-percent-market-share-in-q2/
Windows has 5.6% of the market, which is probably better than most android makers except samsung, and nokia has most of that market. They're actually doing reasonably well some places. Oddly.
As I say, the crux of the problem is that windows 8 is terrible. Even on a tablet (either definition of tablet) it's terrible. There's no doubt that it's terrible. But if you're one of the android makers that isn't samsung anything you can do to get sales is good. And Surface Pro particularly is a laptop competitor, not really an ipad competitor. People still want proper computers to go with their tablets, and will for some time yet. Although I certainly agree that the laptop market is going to get squished, all those guys (asus, alienware, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, Sony) are still making and selling laptops for the moment, and so want to have something in that segment worth buying.
Unfortunately, no one wants windows 8 or linux on a productivity device, at least not in any significant volumes, so sales are weak overall. But well. We've already agreed that windows 8 is a trainwreck, and linux with its 2% marketshare isn't magically exploding at the moment.
You have to remember this was back when the pickets ships were the primary means of defence of the fleet still, you don't want your own ships accidentally shooting down their own air cover, so they positioned the picket well forward. Not necessarily the best plan, but you can see the problem - ultimately the goal is to defend the carriers, not the picket ships. The picket ships actually took out a number of enemy aircraft with missiles because that's their job.
No one likes to say 'sorry, but your job is to get killed before someone on a bigger more important ship' but that's very much the job of destroyers and frigates. You force the enemy to destroy the escorts first, or take the risk of flying over them and getting shot down.
The royal navy suffered very much from several problems, one of having some engineering problems with their ships (turns out aluminium can catch fire), two that they couldn't lock on to ships coming in low, and three couldn't deal with exocet missiles.
The royal navy faced the unenviable challenge of not having enough aircraft (only about 50 total). The Argentine situation meant they could (early on at least) put 30 or 40 aircraft anywhere in a large area of operations. That's a serious problem. You can't have too wide an air cover, you'd have too many aircraft spread out and not be able to defend, and you can't risk a carrier. That problem is overcome by defeating the enemy in detail in small pieces until he doesn't have the force to concentrate. Which is what the royal navy did essentially, they traded destroyers and frigates for aircraft kills until the Argentinians didn't have enough aircraft or exocets, at which point the british had air superiority for a ground invasion.
That's not necessarily a good metric either, as systems built for that amount of traffic are not necessarily indicative of what is suitable for the rest of us. That's sort of the formula 1 versus a regular driving vehicle problem.
They should stay out of the hardware business and work on the operating system for tablets, let anyone make them and encourage development of premium hardware.
That's what surface is. Surface isn't really a serious consumer product strategy. It's Microsoft making clear to the hardware makers that if they refuse to produce anything innovative or worth buying MS will do it for them.
The problem with this strategy is that MS doesn't really seem to have anything innovative to push, in large part because windows 8 is terrible (so is 8.1).
For the better part of a decade MS has been making software work for an iPad like slate device (they even had a term for it: a slate, a tablet is a convertible laptop with a rotating screen). And how many of those did we see on the market? None. MS has been burned badly by their 3rd party partners not rising to the challenge of making devices that aren't shit. If anything the market has gone the other way, to shovelling cheaper and cheaper stuff out that is in many cases junk.
Try and buy a haswell tablet right now. How many can you find? There are a couple, but they are in very few product segments. MS recognizes this problem, and sees surface as the way to address this, but isn't able to implement. Which is sort of ok, if 2 months from now they launch and awesome surface pro 2, and that forces the other vendors to do the same. Late to the market, but forcing some progress maybe. And that's what Surface is there for, it's not to really making microsoft billions directly, it's to make sure that the hardware partners make things worth buying and force them to keep pushing new technology, or they're going to look bad compared to Surface. I'm sure MS would be thrilled if Surface was the most expensive and one of the worst windows 8 devices you could buy - because that would mean windows 8 would be moving at a good pace somewhere.
I used to drill out cell phone cameras for GE.
But seriously, you get a cell phone without a camera.
Aside from a lot of companies having a 'cameras past this point are grounds for immediate dismissal', there's also a question of securities liabilities, insider trading, and all of that stuff.
Also, he was probably looking for an excuse to be rid of the guy.
I wish I had mod points for funny.
I would think we'll see a surface refresh, one with a Haswell chip (and potentially a 3rd party such as nVIDIA GPU, but unlikely), and one with a Tegra SOC.
That would be what a sane person would call a Surface Pro 2, and a Surface RT 2 or 2013/2014 type thing. Given microsofts recent efforts to name things don't be surprised if it ends up being Surface Pro One, and Surface RT Compatible or some other stupid confusing assbackwards name just to make life hard for everyone.
Without a doubt a haswell Surface would be appealing for some market segments. I'm not really sure how well an (ARM) Surface RT 2 is going to go over. I don't think business was really clamouring for one, a couple of hundred dollars here or there isn't an IT priority if you can see value for the the device. It's not like top executives are walking around with Surfaces just waiting for a price drop so us peons can get one.
. When I visited China, computer security didn't seem to be one of the top priorities among the computer users
Remember that China has it's own state filtering and spyware software they install and run. And woe to you who are not happy to be spied on by the government. Unlike the US, who basically get to talk a lot, the PRC government feels no legal limits to doing whatever it wants to whomever it doesn't like.
There's no point in trying to have a secure system if the government itself is mandating an insecurity and is primarily the one spying on you, and is free to throw you in jail arbitrarily for complaining about it.
Wrong product segment. The Samsung note competes with the Surface RT.
Surface pro is... a touchscreen windows laptop with an intel processor. Integrated onboard GPU, a shortage of ports and a sorta kinda nifty cover. And that's about it.
If you want an intel 10 inch touch screen with windows you're going to have a tough time finding anything with the same specs as a surface in the same price bracket as a galaxy note.
What will be really interesting to see is what they can get the battery life to with a haswell though, and that's the biggest strike against pretty much any tablet or laptop from 6 months ago (well other than windows it Windows 8). For a device like this there is literally no reason to buy an ivy bridge version when there's a haswell one in the pipe which will likely have close to double the battery life at more or less identical performance.
Whether or not having a sort of laptop wintel device is worth the premium depends on what you're doing certainly, but the Surface is sort of kinda in the direction of a replacement for your laptop and tablet, whereas a tablet isn't really a productivity device. Surface pro isn't quite there, there are some issue with a lack of ports, and windows 8 is terrible, but with some slightly better hardware and a better creative vision Surface pro 2.0 or 3.0 could actually be interesting offerings.
I was making a not so subtle reference to a yahoo mail bug that caused the app to redownload all of you last 50 messages every day, and not cache them.
I'm not talking about specifically downloading a new OS. However you get the OS, what it does day to day on 3G *could* be a problem. Naturally, it generally isn't because people actually test these things, but mistakes happen and if you push out an update to 10 million users who all accidentally do 1gig of 3G downloading before you fix it you're going to have a LOT of very unhappy customers.
My guess it that Apple has a deal with the carriers that if they do that, Apple has it covered. No one else seems to have been willing/able to make such a deal.
Except Apple has pretty much DONE that.
yes, exactly. Someone else should have done that. Handing control to the carriers is a bad idea. Apple understood that.
I'm sure Apple assumes a certain amount of the risk for accidentally breaking the network with the carriers though.
Samsung is officially larger than Apple now
And have been for a while. Of course they're huge because hacker geeks loved them for being easy to root and they have great hardware. If you were trying to enter the market against samsung having a 'the carriers don't control your updates' policy would be a big competitive advantage.
I singled out MS for a reason. They had (have?) a developer programme, where you could pay 100 bucks and do whatever you wanted to your device. Right idea, wrong implementation. If you attract hackers who will do interesting things on the phone you'll attract customers to but the phones that do the most interesting things.
Apple is where it is, and has the market it has because there's a minimum of carrier bullshit to go with it, it's simple - great for some people. Samsung is where it is because it has the most power and the most options in phones. But we'd all be better off if there was someone in the market had the best of both worlds, with a wide offering of phones and a 'minimal carrier bloatware interference' policy. The obvious candidate for that would have been Microsoft after none of the Android guys did it, though it philosophically makes the most sense on android.
Google kinda does it, but well, google seems to be happy to take a back seat to samsung.
Yes, iTunes is hated, but it certainly has some useful features.
Well it's bloated. iTunes was really excellent grandma and technically illiterate user software for a long time and it I agree it definitely has its uses.
You take the chance on your end that your phone accidentally uses 50MB of data a day doing that, or no longer works or the like.
Well, apple I'm sure has a special deal. But with a droid, that's your problem if you do that. But if the carrier is pushing it out they want control over it.
This is definitely somewhere MS or one of the big Android players could have gone for the jugular in the market and said 'the carrier is a dumb pipe and you control updates to YOUR device".
As someone else here pointed out, it's apparently fairly common in the ROK.
across every single industry.
Sky Broadband would tend to put them at least in the same basic industry as a cloud storage service.
What about Sky Broadband or Sky Subscriber services? Kind sounds like a product they might offer. And they're both parts of BSkyB.
It's not on BSkyB,
BSkyB is a shortform for British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC.
They use "Sky" in branding for all sorts of stuff, notably Sky Broadband and Sky Subscriber Services (which is their TV offering).
In that context, an internet cloud service calling itself Sky-something sounds like it's part of the Sky services, which it of course isn't. And Microsoft has no real claim on the 'Sky' brand, so they're SOL.
The only way it's "dickish" is that it leaves VW customers in a [now-aware] potentially bad spot.
depends on what exactly would be redacted. Customers are no more informed with or without just the keys. As I say, it depends on what exactly VW wanted redacted.
And the other shoe drops. You see, researchers have to show their proof.
I'm a researcher, and you're somewhat confused. They made a claim about some or all of their results being on the internet already. Those claims aren't verifiable for the moment, nor is it clear what exactly they mean that the numbers are out there already. I can do a search for a lot of random strings of numbers and come up with results, that doesn't mean they have any useful context to them.
No, the "problem" is that you're making excuses for why a potential security flaw in a car should be any treated any different than, say, a security flaw in a door
I'm not sure you understand how the car recall process works. There is a whole lot of asking what is the risk/cost of doing nothing versus the cost of a recall. Recalling 100k vehicles to put in new locks gets very expensive very quickly. Not to mention the lost time of car owners getting their vehicles fixed.
Breaking windows is not a flaw in the door locks.
No, it's an upper bound on the relevant complexity in the lock. So long as you can just smash a window the best lock in the world isn't getting you far.
If a high schooler wants your car he uses the brick and screw drive method, not the fancy laptop.
If he can download a program from a website that will let him use an IR transmitter and a laptop I would expect to see the laptop method become quite popular.
Fixing it is simple, replace the locks or replace the cars. VW sold them and as such has that responsibility. They should not have the option to not fix it.
Which, like all recalls is then priced into the future cost of the car, and passed on to consumers.
If you notify they will just sue you instead of fixing it.
My point was that fixing it may not be particularly reasonable.
Car locks could be very secure, car companies chose POS methods.
Not really no, they can't. They never have been. It's a matter of degree. You can always break a window in a car, or failing that simply hire a tow truck over to the one you want to steal and tow it away. Being able to get into a car when you have locked your keys in is a major design problem, and so long as you let people do that easily you're going to have tools out there for easily getting into a car.
$100,000 is not a big deal when you can do the research and sell the results to crime rings.
Note the crime rings part there. If a crime ring wants your car your options are limited. What you don't want is a highschooler and his laptop to be able to steal your 300k car.
If you have to replace say 3-5 keys for every vehicle, it takes 10 minutes of employee labour per key you're talking about a lot of money every time.
It seems like the BMW remote starters run in the 160-250 range, the one for my shitty ass GM is 100 dollars, whatever the actual costs, trying to do a recall on the keys for vehicles could get expensive fast.
It's not necessarily an obvious consumer cost sure, but it's still a cost, and how much padding do you want in the cost of your vehicle for key fob replacement every time something goes wrong with a key? Are we going to price 5 key replacements into the projected lifetime cost of a car?
so that cat's out of the bag
Did you link the correct video? Because his video doesn't seem to show anything related to what we're talking about. What we're talking about is a remote wireless unlocking by some sort of key spoofing (perhaps a master key for the whole system, or perhaps they can extract the encryption key used, and it's the same for each model of car or... not sure). That video was with physical access inside the vehicle being able to program a key to access it, using well, a key reprogrammer.