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.

Yes it is. That's the whole point.

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.

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.

"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.

So if you thought you would be using your phone to replace the expensive navigation package, think again.

To fix bluetooth issues such as "next track" button not working and phone disconnecting on car startup? Track name is not even displayed on the LCD.

Having just an iPhone is not enough to be locked-in. But if you purchased a lot of applications, are relying on iCould and iTunes, have an Apple TV and an iPad, tons of Apple-only accessories such as cables, chances that your next phone will be an Android are close to 0. The cost of switching would be too high.

I get your point about lack of post-sales support and upgrades. However, I don't understand how hardware/software permutation is a problem. You only need one good device. Why would I care if a cheap device I didn't buy from one of these chinese vendors is buggy and lacks support?

No single company will always make the product that conforms the most with your life, and which you like the most (if you take the time to compare with alternatives, of course). That's why it's important not to be vendor locked-in, so that you can move the best vendor easily.

I am not saying JavaScript can't perform in some specific scenarios. Just like C isn't always fast (code can be badly written in any language). But globally, JavaScript isn't known as a performance language, unlike say C, C++, Fortran and of course assembly.
Also, according to these benchmarks, JavaScript is much slower than C: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.d...

Since when are VB6 and JavaScript "performant" languages? I can't think of anything slower than JavaScript.

I know there are many different ARM processors. But ART can't target ARM v4. So again, how many targets do ART actually have?

How many different targets are there? I don't think ART has more than 3 possible targets currently used.

Why must the ART compiler be installed on any phone? Can't Google compile the code ahead of time? There are like 3 architectures out there (arm, arm64, x86-64) so Google could afford to store 3 binaries isn't it?