It sort of worked. But it was too much of a pain but it worked when I tried. Eventually I stopped updating the data and carried around long obsolete phone numbers, addresses etc for a long time. It had super good battery life. Lasted 12 years or so. Then I went back to a simple Casio GShock.
To imagine the same weapon used so heavily in the tropics, mud and monsoon being noted for its reliability in Arctic conditions is amazing. But this is a very simple basic weapon. Even India is phasing them out, apparently.
Why wouldn't they just provide a simple docking station, allow the docked device access to the car speakers and stay away from building their own navigation and music players? They still think they can hold their customers up for ransom by demanding 1800$ for an integrated navigation system or 1200$ for the music player. No, just put in good speakers and allow us to bring our own devices into the car.
The lack of imagination of the auto makers is astounding. WiFi is what 15 years old? iPod is 10 years old? Why didn't they build a car with WiFi that will connect to your home, down load daily news, weather, traffic reports into the hard disk 10 years ago? After missing the boat then, now they are coming up with walled gardens of WiFi, memory storage in the car etc.
Cheerios are very good baby sitters too. Empty a small portion of them in the tray of the high chair and the infants will have hours of fun picking them one at time and inspecting them individually and find their mouth with their tiny hands by trial and error.
Software development is not making the same widget again and again. This is the fundamental misapplication that is messing up agile implementations.
Software grows more like a city. Any new functionality needs to interface with and restricted by existing infrastructure. A large software project is like adding a new skyscraper to an throbbing downtown. If we could distill the collective wisdom of the town planners about clearly marking existing interfaces, existing users, the typical use case scenarios that will be affected by the reengineering, detours and diversions needed while the project is going on, we would get a better process. Agile is simply promising too much to the top management and then blaming the developers for "not doing agile right".
Looks like a desperate team trying to generate headlines to keep their funding going.
Sacrificing backward compatibility and interoperability for radical changes would lead a large population of rapidly mutating code and runtime environment. You see this both in biology and software. Malware proliferates, ditches backward compatibility and interoperability and tries to adapt as quickly as possible to exploit newly discovered vulnerabilities. Giant organisms and big pieces of software change slowly, spend enormous amount of energy and effort in maintaining a thriving eco-system.
Radical changes (saltations) has its advantages but also limitations. Slow incremental changes has its limitations but also advantages.