If this becomes the norm, I think I'll find the last decent car which doesn't have any of this data mining crap masquerading as an infotainment system, buy a few of them, and rotate among them as cars, hopefully to last until I can't drive anymore. It's good to see that Porsche didn't get suckered in, but seriously, this is getting ridiculous with the amount of data they want to know.
As for the connected car, well, I think the concept of a car has worked reasonably well for the last 100 years, maybe people can make apps for cars or something which is google's excuse for the data, but seriously, this 'innovation' is the google equivalent of razor blades; add more blades. I can't see much of an advantage just throwing 'smarts' into everything.
My question is; is going to mars really a challenge?
Reason I'm asking this is because it's my opinion that when compared to the moon landing, where many challenges had to be overcome and a lot of learning had to take place, I'm of the opinion that the real challenge in a mars mission would be getting the money, whereas the difficulty of the science and engineering wouldn't be that immense.
Well, I probably shouldn't have spoken about incandescent bulbs (although the phoebus cartel does seem a little suspect), but I worked at a heating element manufacturer, and we made elements with no consideration to limiting life at all. As a result, we had elements in processes that were lasting well beyond 30 years. This couldn't be compared with competitors elements, who we were continually replacing. Heating elements essentially work in a very similar manner to an incandescent light bulb.
Then you consider planned obsolescence in many other devices. If you ever compare electric motors for domestic applications, to proper commercial applications (and I'm not talking about something with a label saying 'Heavy Duty'), you'll know what I mean, they're chalk and cheese between the two.
There's a heap of manufacturers in China who are making no-name devices. I'm sure one of them would be more than happy to attach themselves to the Nokia name, as it would pull them out of the pit of insignificance, pretty much immediately.
As to your later part of your comment, Nokia really dropped the ball at the start of the smartphone era. They were in a great position, with some solid offerings for the time, but realistically had nothing to offer when the market moved to the 'slate' form factor. Nokia's first slate phone was about 4 years after they were introduced by competitors. Then couple that with some really dud offerings, plagued with hardware issues, by the time their lumia series was released, it was much too late. Their lumia phones, in terms of hardware, have been nothing short of excellent. Windows Phone, has been quite good, but for too long as well, it lacked basic functionality, meanwhile, the great features have gradually been dropped because they were too difficult to maintain, when integrated with the OS.
My gripe with the phone industry now is that flagship phones are going to absurd levels of specmanship. At some point, makers should realise that 1440p displays on a phone is just getting silly. I'd much prefer a ~720p display, for purposes of; it's good enough, and it should use less power, in terms of the display and processing requirements.
"It's like deja vu all over again." -- Yogi Berra