Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I see your point, I suppose I should have reworded that as "I believe consumers would prefer...". I did not intend to offend via assumption. I had the prefix "Opinion:" on the article when I initially submitted it.
Everyone thinks you are over-analyzing the submission. (j/k)
Airplay is not an open standard and as such does not let the consumer choose which mobile device they use.
Mobile operating systems and their associated hardware have a rapid release cycle that significantly outpaces vehicle infotainment systems. Additionally, mobile OSs are developed by specialized companies that can spend dump trucks filled with money on their platform. I'm sorry Dodge, Toyota, Honda and all your friends, you simply can't compete.
The in-house infotainment systems being brought to market by the automotive industry typically try to replicate a limited subset of features provided by a mobile operating system (ex: Android, iOS), while impelenting a clunky interface that feels like a blast from the past. Replicating features that already exist in a consumer's device with a clunky interface does not offer any value to the end consumer.
Stop throwing money at developing a "doomed to fail" in-house infotainment solution, and start catering to the consumer by developing a system that allows the consumer's mobile device of choice to control in-vehicle assets (speakers, in-dash touchscreen, noise-cancelling microphone) directly.
Consumers would prefer to see a standards-based system that allows the interface of their existing mobile OS of choice duplicated or extended on an in-dash touchscreen, while having audio redirected from their device to the vehicle's speakers. Start focusing on technologies like Miracast and Bluetooth and how they can be used to augment a customer's mobile device, rather than replace it. Manufacturers that choose to adopt this focus not only provide better value to the end consumer, but also be able to reduce the size of their development budgets. Win-Win.
What are your thoughts? Am I crazy, or does it seem like the automotive industry has lost sight of what will best serve the consumer?"
Although I am all for not having your cell phone out in a theater, I have to disagree with your 911 point. If someone opened fire in a theater one of my family members was in, I wouldn't want to have to go to the lobby to make that call. I would like them to be able to duck for cover and call 911 right away.
Officer: What is your passcode to unlock your phone.
Driver: I decline to provide you that information as it would potentially violate my rights as outlined by the fifth amendment.
Am I the only person that pictured an elderly retiree running from a giant snail in a slow motion chase after reading the title of the article?
I don't even want to know how much Monster would charge for a cable made with this stuff!
If you have to ask... you can't afford it.
Amen, I'll stick with Silverstone cases - minimalistic design, well engineered, and quiet. Why do enthusiast cases have to be lit up like christmas trees or look like they came out of some teenage mutant ninja turtles cartoon. Efficient and functional design in and of itself can be beautiful.
Correction: The press release from the Microsoft Czech subsidiary outlining the release has since been denied by Microsoft:
"The information shared by our Czech subsidiary is not accurate. We do not have anything further to share at this time."
Microsoft announced that Office will be available for iOS and Android in March 2013.
Normally, I weigh in on the side of individual privacy... but
I consider this information to be relatively public by nature and there are considerable benefits to having this type of system in place.
Resolving amber alerts faster, Locating stolen vehicles faster, Improved efficiency of local governments, etc...
Balancing the need for individual privacy/rights with protecting the individual rights of other citizens, while operating within a limited budget is a tricky thing. The need to avoid the "slippery slope" is great, and the loss of individual privacy should always be considered a great cost, but a cost-benefit analysis should be done. The following should be kept in mind though:
1.) Individual privacy is not priceless.
(How much Individual Privacy have some people freely given up just to use facebook?)
2.) How does the cost of hiding information like X impact the individual rights of others?
City budget cuts are pretty common these days and often translate to fewer police. I would argue that a system like this could improve efficiency and help lessen the impact of cuts like these.
I believe the information should be purged when it is older than 2 months in order to help limit the scope of the system to a near-time discovery tool as oppose to a long-term tracking mechanism.
Wish I had some mod points: +1
"Depressed students used file-sharing programs, like torrents or online sharing sites"...
Wouldn't you be depressed if you recieved threatening letters from the MPAA?
I wonder how long until it falls apart and creates more debris, which will need to be cleaned up by more satellites.