The software part of Apple still fight against Google and Microsoft on the OS market. Just like Qualcom competes against Apple in the mobile SoC market, even if Apple doesn't sell its chip to other manufacturers.
Google doesn't care about making profit out of Android yet. They are buying market share. They want to position themselves as a dominant player in order to profit in the future, once the smartphone market will be a lot larger than what it is today. A good comparison is Microsoft with their Xbox. They lost money with the first Xbox, but they placed themselves as an important player in the gaming console market. And then they made money with the Xbox 360 and Xbox One. It's all about the long term.
It's not as simple. Apple is both a software and a hardware company. In fact they are now a smartphone company, as their profit from other sectors is becoming negligible. It doesn't mean they will stop selling PCs. It's because they are also a fashion company (a true hardware company doesn't put that much effort/time/cost into looks and design). They sell fashion accessories (Macbooks, iPhones, iWatch, iPad) that work well together and work as bad as possible with the competition to make sure you are locked-in their products.
The cars do have auto-braking features as standard, but only for avoiding other cars — if they are to avoid crashing into pedestrians, too, then owners must pay extra.
You only have an estimate of the price with Uber X. The real price is calculated per minute and per kilometer. No different from a meter. The only difference is that the price is a little cheaper, because they don't pay for the license.
Passengers don't like Uber because the fare is calculated using the mobile application. They like Uber because it's: 1. convenient and 2. cheaper.
Nothing in the law in London or anywhere that I know of forbids cab companies from developing a smartphone software which is just as convenient and easy to use, while at the same time calculating the cost with the legal meter. The meter could even send its data to the cell phone.
Uber is cheaper for only one reason, because they don't pay for licenses.
What doesn't make sense is having to pay for the built-in GPS unit and navigation software, since you are going to use your phone. Navigation packages often add over $1000 to the car cost.
It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost.
Yes it is. That's the whole point.
Uber absolutely works within the licensing law in countries & cities such as mine who's regulations have provision for the mobile phone based service they offer.
No country outlaw the use of mobile phone application to call a cab. Some Uber services (Uber black) even use licensed drivers. But we are talking about Uber X/Pop/Whatever where anyone can be a driver without paying for the license and having insurance.
They only operate illegally in places with outdated laws that have not been updated for 21st century technology.
You don't need 21st century technology to offer taxi service with no license. The old phone/dispatcher model works just fine with unlicensed drivers too.
So again, the Uber debate has nothing to do with technology.
But where regulation is not being updated to allow new mobile phone app services which are good for passengers, drivers and even other road users, then clearly there is a legislation problem.
"New mobile phone app services" are allowed everywhere in the world. They just have to get their taxi license like everyone else.
Uber is cheaper only because they don't pay for licenses. Remove the licenses for other taxi companies, and they will offer the same price as Uber.
So the debate isn't whether "new mobile phone app services" should be allowed, but rater if licenses fees should be lowered. And the rules should be the same for everyone.
To enable Android Auto, existing 2015 Hyundai Sonata owners outfitted with the Navigation feature can download an update to a USB drive, plug it into the car's USB port, and rewrite the software installed in the factory on the head-unit
So if you thought you would be using your phone to replace the expensive navigation package, think again.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as manufacturers do not start making Apple of themselves by having their own proprietary port, that's fine.
The software part of Apple still fight against Google and Microsoft on the OS market.
Just like Qualcom competes against Apple in the mobile SoC market, even if Apple doesn't sell its chip to other manufacturers.
Yeah 10-15 years sounds about right.
Google doesn't care about making profit out of Android yet. They are buying market share. They want to position themselves as a dominant player in order to profit in the future, once the smartphone market will be a lot larger than what it is today. A good comparison is Microsoft with their Xbox. They lost money with the first Xbox, but they placed themselves as an important player in the gaming console market. And then they made money with the Xbox 360 and Xbox One. It's all about the long term.
It's not as simple. Apple is both a software and a hardware company. In fact they are now a smartphone company, as their profit from other sectors is becoming negligible. It doesn't mean they will stop selling PCs. It's because they are also a fashion company (a true hardware company doesn't put that much effort/time/cost into looks and design). They sell fashion accessories (Macbooks, iPhones, iWatch, iPad) that work well together and work as bad as possible with the competition to make sure you are locked-in their products.
There are two fights. The smartphone maker fight is one. The OS fight is another. Just like there is a fight between OS X and Windows in the PC world.
Because the author consider a "power user" someone who gets the 128 GB iPhone 6+ and fill it with music and movies bought on iTunes.
I've never, ever heard someone choosing a phone based on it having iOS or Android
That's my main criteria and I am sure it is for a lot of people out there.
Exactly what we don't need.
Blocking is still better because you save download time and resources (RAM, CPU)
The temperature record in Bengalore is only 39C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
That's why the temperature record in India is only 50C, and it is not even in Bengalore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
They don't. The temperature record is Qatar and Kuwait is about 53C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
60C is probably bullshit. Even 53 is considered high: http://www.habibtoumi.com/2010...
hex code would be fine
They do not publish it in TFA.
Getting notifications on an Apple Watch also protects the iPhone from the bug.
They have to push sales of the iWatch some ways...
The cars do have auto-braking features as standard, but only for avoiding other cars — if they are to avoid crashing into pedestrians, too, then owners must pay extra.
You only have an estimate of the price with Uber X. The real price is calculated per minute and per kilometer. No different from a meter. The only difference is that the price is a little cheaper, because they don't pay for the license.
Passengers don't like Uber because the fare is calculated using the mobile application. They like Uber because it's: 1. convenient and 2. cheaper.
Nothing in the law in London or anywhere that I know of forbids cab companies from developing a smartphone software which is just as convenient and easy to use, while at the same time calculating the cost with the legal meter. The meter could even send its data to the cell phone.
Uber is cheaper for only one reason, because they don't pay for licenses.
What doesn't make sense is having to pay for the built-in GPS unit and navigation software, since you are going to use your phone. Navigation packages often add over $1000 to the car cost.
You are wrong. London do not ban the use of mobile phone to call a cab.
It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost.
Yes it is. That's the whole point.
Uber absolutely works within the licensing law in countries & cities such as mine who's regulations have provision for the mobile phone based service they offer.
No country outlaw the use of mobile phone application to call a cab. Some Uber services (Uber black) even use licensed drivers. But we are talking about Uber X/Pop/Whatever where anyone can be a driver without paying for the license and having insurance.
They only operate illegally in places with outdated laws that have not been updated for 21st century technology.
You don't need 21st century technology to offer taxi service with no license. The old phone/dispatcher model works just fine with unlicensed drivers too.
So again, the Uber debate has nothing to do with technology.
But where regulation is not being updated to allow new mobile phone app services which are good for passengers, drivers and even other road users, then clearly there is a legislation problem.
"New mobile phone app services" are allowed everywhere in the world. They just have to get their taxi license like everyone else.
Uber is cheaper only because they don't pay for licenses. Remove the licenses for other taxi companies, and they will offer the same price as Uber.
So the debate isn't whether "new mobile phone app services" should be allowed, but rater if licenses fees should be lowered. And the rules should be the same for everyone.
To enable Android Auto, existing 2015 Hyundai Sonata owners outfitted with the Navigation feature can download an update to a USB drive, plug it into the car's USB port, and rewrite the software installed in the factory on the head-unit
So if you thought you would be using your phone to replace the expensive navigation package, think again.