The problem isn't just use of bands outside of the permissible frequencies, it's also power levels and broadcast patterns. Ultimately it all falls under limiting interference, and with both licensed and unlicensed spectrum.
An MVNO business is low margin (relative to iPhone margins) and requires a lot of marketing to become effective. If Apple were to launch an MVNO, they would have to massively increase their marketing budget for a low margin service, while competing directly with carriers that sell their phones AND provide their wholesale network access. Keep in mind average revenue per user is declining for wireless carriers and MVNOs. Apple has no interest in investing in a declining martgin service that hurts its ability to maximize phone sales.
It's not an attractive business model for Apple, while it may be for Google. Google doesn't make hardware (not even Nexus devices), while Apple does - quite profitably. Apple depends on carriers to sell that hardware for profitability, while Google wants to increase software (Android) and search usage, and low cost network access does just that.
The injury lawyers for the plaintiff are most likely working on a contingent basis, and even if they aren't, they're looking for someone who can pay out significant damages. The driver is 18; Snapchat is valued at around $16 Billion as of March. The injury lawyers smell cash only in the latter.
Except there's been a long history of bogus espionage cases against Chinese scientists, going all the way back to Quan Xuesen, one of the founders of the JPL. We suspected that he was sharing his knowledge with China, so we exiled him to China, where he became the father of the Chinese missile and space programs.
Your point may be valid in general, though in this specific case, the accused is from Taiwan and naturalized as a U.S. citizen, as the spelling of his name and a quick Google search confirmed. It's highly unlikely we would target and exile a Taiwanese born U.S. citizen as if they were from People's Republic of China.
WAP!
So platform agnostic it will even work well on your Nokia 3310!
Product managers will love dealing with 7 year testing timelines.
Testing aside, what a ridiculous way to kill innovation.
The fundamental parts of the engine are all mechanical. They work without a battery.
Resilience to electrical failure is important.
The fundamental parts of the engine are all mechanical. They work without a battery.
Resilience to electrical failure is important.
Critical components of your engine, i.e. fuel injectors, ignition, your high pressure fuel pump all work with electricity from the 12V system. On most newer cars, so does the throttle body (it's no longer actuated by a cable from the accelerator).
Resilience to failure in an interference engine can be achieved by failing closed, i.e. if the valve actuators lose power, they should close to move out of the way of rising pistons.
The bigger reluctance on the part of auto manufacturers is probably reliability given actuators would need to sit near or on valves that are close to the combustion and therefore rapidly heat up and stay hot for drive cycles. Since electrical impedance changes as metals heat up, the issue is even more complicated. These parts are difficult to access and expensive to repair or replace if there are widespread reliability issues (think recalls). Finding a way to transmit the motion to control valves, e.g. via a pushrod, might help with some of these factors, but not eliminate them and reintroduce mechanical complexity.
The person who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.
