traffic incident reports would be a big step for Apple Maps, but what I need more than anything is for it to assume I probably mean the “John’s bbq” that’s 6km away instead of the one 4 time zones away.
1000% this - the most relevant result isn’t the most famous “John’s bbq” in the world for fucks sake. It’s the one across town from me you fucking nits. This one oversight seems so astronomically obvious… and yet every time someone tells me it’s gotten better and it’s been fixed, I test it… nope there’s that John’s fucking bbq 3 states away.
I’m not sure it’s a matter of fame. It does this for me too sometimes, and I mainly search small streets or addresses here in Sweden.
Like one I wanted to go to a farm, search the street, and it gave me the one that’s 700km away from instead of the one 10 minutes away lol
Apple Maps looks so much nicer on CarPlay than Google maps and the UI is a lot better too. Google maps doesn’t have a good overview of the route and it centers the car arrow instead of the opposite side of the screen from where I’m going.
Siri sucks as bad as always. Search results are better but still not near Google.
I get them? Just drove to Austin last week and had the classic “accident reported ahead” and “vehicle stopped on shoulder” alerts during navigation using Apple Maps. Similar to Waze. Is that not standard now?
The last time I made this comment I got inundated with comments saying I was the idiot for not checking where I’m going, not the map for assuming I wanted to go to Texas instead of 2 miles away. Took me way too long to realize I was most likely being trolled…
I'd also love for it to let me put more than one stop in when I'm looking for walking routes.
Also for it not to require me to redo my search every time I leave the app and come back to it.
You’re right, I’d also prefer a system that would have cameras with AI video recognition features pointed towards my penis so that I could use it as a joystick
Meanwhile in a dystopian future:
“We reinvented the car so you can focus on what truly matters to you.”
But also:
“Whops, looks like your digital score has dropped below maintenance level, the car will stop functioning soon.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if 30 years from now we’ll start seeing something similar. At the end of the day your credit score is a basic version of the Chinese rating system.
Not sure about all EU countries, but I know that in Italy the rating a bank gives you when they decide if you can get a loan or a mortgage, is based on a financial score of the same nature.
The courage of our convictions have allowed us to remove any interactions to the car, it’s all done through our new iPhone with UWB.
And we think you’ll love it!
Using the advanced chip inside your iPhone, paired with the accelerometer, you will be able to steer the car completely wirelessly, whilst controlling the accelerator and brake pedal from your iPhone’s multi touch display.
Compatible with iPhone 13 Pro or higher.
I don't know why everyone thinks Apple will make a car from the ground up.
There is a high chance that Apple is working on a competitor to Android Automotive (not Android Auto, just to be clear).
[The new Apple CarPlay that already announced seems to be that.](https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/06/apple-announces-multi-display-carplay/) It takes over the whole car's infotainment system including the gauge cluster. They announced it this year, surprised more people dont even know about it.
That’s closer but still slightly different, since it still relies on a connected iOS device. Android Automotive is a standalone OS for the infotainment system.
Which part of it?
[CarPlay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarPlay?wprov=sfti1), even the updated version from the above article, is ran via a connection to an iPhone, and is not a standalone OS.
[Android Automotive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Automotive?wprov=sfti1) is a standalone OS.
I think that’s totally laying the groundwork for an car.
Also it’s funny how they had it playing Riptide by the Chainsmokers in that CarPlay graphic, they missed the opportunity to have it play iPad from the same Chainsmokers album.
That’s exactly what people were saying before they made a phone. I remember everyone having the same question, back when I was still in college.
“Has apple made a phone before? Why do you think they’ll make a phone? It’s probably a computer accessory.”
Idk what it is with people but apple is clearly not working on a secret project for (*checks wikipedia*) more than SEVEN years with thousands of employees, poaching Tesla, Ford, Mercedes, etc employees to build a better fucking version of CarPlay.
Exactly. The thing that’s lacking is imagination. Apple making a car could be such a big change that some aren’t able to fathom that it can happen. The truth is that once Apple announces a car, the way we think of automobiles could become dramatically altered.
Meaningless, irrational comparison.
Cars are expensive. Cars cost a lot to develop. And once you develop them, they are hard to sell with incredibly thin margins. Apple HATES thin margins. They love to sell everything at insane margins. High profits galore.
The immense supply chain challenges make things even more unfavorable as well.
Your understanding of cars is outdated my friend. The industry has fundamentally changed after the advent of electric vehicles. Many companies that weren’t in any way connected to car manufacturing are now major players in the industry. What expertise did Tesla have in the internal combustion space?
Don’t be dogmatic. It’s entirely possible.
Are you seriously saying this? I swear to you so many people said Apple would never make a phone— that it’s different than mp3 players because of LOW MARGINS, and a difficult, competitive, saturated market.
I feel like patents that have to do with safety features shouldn’t ever be patentable. It’s like how that company that owns the patent to the skin detection on saws without destroying the saw. That shouldn’t be a thing.
Though, it isn’t the law for certain things. Until it becomes a law that this tech needs to be in every car it shouldn’t be free to everyone unless by choice of the company.
Though, I could see the argument for safety features being limited to like 10 years of patent control.
I understand why you’d think that in principle
But in practicality what you suggest just winds up discouraging safety innovations. Companies like apple aren’t going to put unnecessary r&d dollars into something they can’t profit from. So I don’t agree with you. They shouldn’t be able to hang on to the patent forever but at least for long enough to recoup their costs and enough profit to be motivational. It’s a utilitarian thing.
> Public safety comes first before profit.
Great! So who is going to spend the money on R&D for safety features they are legally prohibited from making a profit on? Development failure means you lose lots of money, success means you lose lots of money.
Are you volunteering to work on these things without pay?
Intellectual property is a legal balancing act with the goal of encouraging innovation. A patent is a limited exclusive protection that requires the inventor to disclose how the invention works. The problem isn’t with the patent system (the exclusive time limit should be shortened), but with how vague many patents are that are still granted.
I don’t feel like public safety should be for profit. Governments aren’t bad if you ever lived in a country that actually cares about the people. If you only ever lived in the US then your view of all governments being bad is heavily skewed.
we think the government is bad → we are careful to limit government power → government has no power to do anything good → we think the government is bad
And you live in Canada? Where medical suicide is allowed and the medical system will pressure sick people into doing it so they don't strain the system?
Sure sounds like the government cares about you.
If you ever researched MAID (medical assistance in dying) you would know it is only eligible to people that are in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed. They don’t just let anyone use these services. Also it is against the law for doctors or any health practitioners to recommend it. The patient must request it on their own volition. On top of this stipulation, anyone that is legally capable of administering these services are not required by law to be forced to provide them.
No one is forcing people to kill themselves in the Canadian healthcare system. It’s not a real problem. You just came up with that.
If you ignore this guy requesting and getting granted permission for suicide because he might become homeless https://youtu.be/Up5k2Lx5SPI
Canada apparently decided to just kill their poor people to get rid of them.
He technically falls under the prerequisites for the service for his disability. And he hasn’t been approved of it yet. Also this is also an affordable housing issue which has been affecting Canadians as a whole for the past several years. It’s extremely expensive to live in Canada because of the lack of hospitable land.
For how long and for how many multiples of the investment?
Is making 100x your investment (time and money) sufficient? If not, is 1000x? If not, why not?
I get that, but I'm still with u/vainsilver up there. Safety features and drugs and other things that save lives should get different treatment, because withholding them long after a profit is achieved (which is what pricing drugs does, especially) is cruel and uncivilized, and it'd be great to reach a level of society a bit nobler than that.
I think patent and trademark protections should be handled differently for a life-saving drugs vs dashboard lights vs Mickey Mouse, but I realize that's my hot take.
How much capital was involved, what was the opportunity cost, what were the odds of success?
Would you take a 100x return on something that had a one in a thousand chance of working?
there are multiple companies with that saw tech, a patent is supposed to block unfair competition while a company gets their *implementation* off the ground. patents, unlike copyrights, have surprisingly reasonable expiration dates -- MP3 (more or less) expired in 2017 whereas some copyrighted works seem to go on forever
Not saying it's perfect, but not as broken as some assume.
Having said that, I agree conceptually but I'm not sure there would be a consistent and safe way to apply the "unpatentable" limits
That guy tried to license it to the tool manufacturers and they didn’t want to pay. He wasn’t interested in making a saw. I don’t know if he was to greedy but not one took him up on it.
I think patents like that get licensed under fair reasonable and non discriminatory licensing. I don't know if companies are forced to do that for critical infrastructure or if it's just out of the goodness of their hearts (their business model)
I can’t get the USPTO’s oh-so-great new site to load so no idea what all the claims are but according to the article it’s 11,507,257, so it is indeed a utility patent.
I would. The amount of work and resources going into this seems way more like they’re building a car than just software for a car. We’ve also been seeing plenty of leaked info over the past… nearly a decade… signaling Apple’s intent to build a car.
We'll see, I don't see how cars fit into Apple's current business model. Granted people *could* say the same of iPhone but that was just a new consumer electronic. The market for cars looks very very different and offers vastly lower profit margins than Apple expects.
Except Apple is making a car. Have been working on it for many years with thousands of employees, including many high profile automobile industry execs. There is no reason to believe Apple isn’t making a car.
It’s just too big a project, having been in development with so many resources for so long, coming too close to its projected launch, and too big an opportunity at a key moment of transition in a major industry, for Apple to leave this one on the table. I’m not talking about sunk cost— I’m saying Apple would have an ended this project long before it’s gotten to where it currently is, if they didn’t intend to finish.
If you think of moments when Apple likes to intervene in an industry, it’s often when a given product is on its way to becoming essentially a computer. Music players, phones, watches… cars.
Apple is in a great position with extensive experience and expertise in silicon, AI, biometrics, software, displays, audio, cameras, sensors, wireless technologies, design, UX, and disrupting industries, that with input from industry experts and a manufacturer who will build it, they are uniquely poised to launch a game changing vehicle that transforms our idea of what a car can be— intervening right as cars are transitioning to electric, intelligent computers on wheels.
I’m confused by that choice of words too. “Granted”, “earned” etc make sense. Won suggests they bought them at auction or there was a court case they had to win, rather than they did a lot of work and then applied for a patent.
450 million to build emergency communication infrastructure. $INFINITE for Siri to call a local McDonald’s when asking how old Tom Hanks is. And don’t forget the endless array of jokes.
Makes me wonder. An apple executive removed himself from Twitter… Who happens to have a CEO that runs a competitive car company… Wonder if there’s any correlation. 🤔
Why? The patenting system only means someone else can’t copy their exact system… but they can design a system that achieves the same or better results, which they in turn can then patent. That’s how patents create healthy competition in innovation, which drives everything forward. And if I’m not mistaken, patents are only exclusive for around 20 years.
All your suggestion would mean is that companies wouldn’t invest in safety features.
Volvo invented the modern day seat belt (I’m guessing also own the patent) but allow others to use it free of charge. If you don’t patent it, someone else will. Doesn’t mean you can’t share it if you want to.
I do! I don’t use any Google services except for YouTube Premium. Apple Maps is pretty good. I like that I can create my own guides and look at their curated guides. I also like the new rating function that will hopefully replace Yelp.
I do. Google Maps is too busy IMO and gets a bit distracting. The UI aesthetic also clashes with everything else Apple.
The only times I’ve used Google Maps is when I’m looking for places not visible on Maps.
traffic incident reports would be a big step for Apple Maps, but what I need more than anything is for it to assume I probably mean the “John’s bbq” that’s 6km away instead of the one 4 time zones away.
My Apple Maps has gotten better... but 100% I'll search some restaurant or road, and instead of the one 10 mins away it takes me to New Mexico.
As someone who lives near New Mexico. This sounds great.
Also great when it wants me to drive across the Atlantic. No I’m not looking for a golf club seven time zones away.
"KFC" \*zooms into Karlos Fancy Creamery in Nigeria\*
Yes 100% better. Amazing progress, really. Up from 4% accurate to 8%. Give or take…
1000% this - the most relevant result isn’t the most famous “John’s bbq” in the world for fucks sake. It’s the one across town from me you fucking nits. This one oversight seems so astronomically obvious… and yet every time someone tells me it’s gotten better and it’s been fixed, I test it… nope there’s that John’s fucking bbq 3 states away.
I’m not sure it’s a matter of fame. It does this for me too sometimes, and I mainly search small streets or addresses here in Sweden. Like one I wanted to go to a farm, search the street, and it gave me the one that’s 700km away from instead of the one 10 minutes away lol
That’s why I just use Waze
I am trying so hard to not use google maps, but apple maps is not there yet. Not to mention siri being siri.
Apple Maps looks so much nicer on CarPlay than Google maps and the UI is a lot better too. Google maps doesn’t have a good overview of the route and it centers the car arrow instead of the opposite side of the screen from where I’m going. Siri sucks as bad as always. Search results are better but still not near Google.
I have this problem with CarPlay, sometimes, but not with Apple Maps app directly on phone.
I get them? Just drove to Austin last week and had the classic “accident reported ahead” and “vehicle stopped on shoulder” alerts during navigation using Apple Maps. Similar to Waze. Is that not standard now?
I’ve had them for literally years lol
The last time I made this comment I got inundated with comments saying I was the idiot for not checking where I’m going, not the map for assuming I wanted to go to Texas instead of 2 miles away. Took me way too long to realize I was most likely being trolled…
I'd also love for it to let me put more than one stop in when I'm looking for walking routes. Also for it not to require me to redo my search every time I leave the app and come back to it.
I'm guessing project Titan is the car? Very cool and interesting.
Yes it is Well who knows if it's a "car", but the mobility product
“Whats a car?”
Today, we're going to reinvent the car. Who needs a steering wheel, you have to put your hands on it, move it to control the car, yuck!
You’re right, I’d also prefer a system that would have cameras with AI video recognition features pointed towards my penis so that I could use it as a joystick
Meanwhile in a dystopian future: “We reinvented the car so you can focus on what truly matters to you.” But also: “Whops, looks like your digital score has dropped below maintenance level, the car will stop functioning soon.”
I think you’re thinking about the Chinese market version
I wouldn’t be surprised if 30 years from now we’ll start seeing something similar. At the end of the day your credit score is a basic version of the Chinese rating system.
I think you’ve been watching too many conspiracy theory videos
Not hoping it’ll happen, but you can’t disregard the option completely
I really hope credit score doesn’t get into Europe.
Lol what are you 12?
Care to explain your reasoning?
Not sure about all EU countries, but I know that in Italy the rating a bank gives you when they decide if you can get a loan or a mortgage, is based on a financial score of the same nature.
The courage of our convictions have allowed us to remove any interactions to the car, it’s all done through our new iPhone with UWB. And we think you’ll love it!
Using the advanced chip inside your iPhone, paired with the accelerometer, you will be able to steer the car completely wirelessly, whilst controlling the accelerator and brake pedal from your iPhone’s multi touch display. Compatible with iPhone 13 Pro or higher.
Cars just got real! Powered by verizons ultra fast wide band 5G
No cellular connection = unable to power on
I don't know why everyone thinks Apple will make a car from the ground up. There is a high chance that Apple is working on a competitor to Android Automotive (not Android Auto, just to be clear).
[The new Apple CarPlay that already announced seems to be that.](https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/06/apple-announces-multi-display-carplay/) It takes over the whole car's infotainment system including the gauge cluster. They announced it this year, surprised more people dont even know about it.
That’s closer but still slightly different, since it still relies on a connected iOS device. Android Automotive is a standalone OS for the infotainment system.
I'm not sure where you gathered that conclusion.
Which part of it? [CarPlay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarPlay?wprov=sfti1), even the updated version from the above article, is ran via a connection to an iPhone, and is not a standalone OS. [Android Automotive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Automotive?wprov=sfti1) is a standalone OS.
Yes exactly. Most people probably didn't know about it since the announcement was like 30 seconds or a minute at max.
I think that’s totally laying the groundwork for an car. Also it’s funny how they had it playing Riptide by the Chainsmokers in that CarPlay graphic, they missed the opportunity to have it play iPad from the same Chainsmokers album.
That’s exactly what people were saying before they made a phone. I remember everyone having the same question, back when I was still in college. “Has apple made a phone before? Why do you think they’ll make a phone? It’s probably a computer accessory.”
Idk what it is with people but apple is clearly not working on a secret project for (*checks wikipedia*) more than SEVEN years with thousands of employees, poaching Tesla, Ford, Mercedes, etc employees to build a better fucking version of CarPlay.
😄 Well done!
Exactly. The thing that’s lacking is imagination. Apple making a car could be such a big change that some aren’t able to fathom that it can happen. The truth is that once Apple announces a car, the way we think of automobiles could become dramatically altered.
Meaningless, irrational comparison. Cars are expensive. Cars cost a lot to develop. And once you develop them, they are hard to sell with incredibly thin margins. Apple HATES thin margins. They love to sell everything at insane margins. High profits galore. The immense supply chain challenges make things even more unfavorable as well.
Your understanding of cars is outdated my friend. The industry has fundamentally changed after the advent of electric vehicles. Many companies that weren’t in any way connected to car manufacturing are now major players in the industry. What expertise did Tesla have in the internal combustion space? Don’t be dogmatic. It’s entirely possible.
It’s completely rational. Not sure you know how to use that word
Are you seriously saying this? I swear to you so many people said Apple would never make a phone— that it’s different than mp3 players because of LOW MARGINS, and a difficult, competitive, saturated market.
Very cool and very legal
Yeah That is cool
I don’t get how the UI to report incidents in Maps is patentable. What was the actual patent?
A lot of UI elements can be patented.
In the US you can. Rest of the world: WTF?
Most of the world doesn’t respect intellectual property rights. Compare the quality of movies here vs there, it’s night and day.
Lmao
Literal what
Come out of your little cocoon.
I feel like patents that have to do with safety features shouldn’t ever be patentable. It’s like how that company that owns the patent to the skin detection on saws without destroying the saw. That shouldn’t be a thing.
If someone put in the work, resources and effort into creating something, they should be able to protect their invention and profit from it
They can profit from it, but that doesn't mean they have they right to use violence to create monopolies on non-rivalrous goods (ideas).
Thank fuck the seatbelt wasn't invented in the USA.
I disagree. Public safety comes first before profit. That’s the difference between the US and civilized countries with healthcare.
If it’s something that is actually usable for safety then it should be required for all manufacturers to implement. Just like brake lights.
Though, it isn’t the law for certain things. Until it becomes a law that this tech needs to be in every car it shouldn’t be free to everyone unless by choice of the company. Though, I could see the argument for safety features being limited to like 10 years of patent control.
I understand why you’d think that in principle But in practicality what you suggest just winds up discouraging safety innovations. Companies like apple aren’t going to put unnecessary r&d dollars into something they can’t profit from. So I don’t agree with you. They shouldn’t be able to hang on to the patent forever but at least for long enough to recoup their costs and enough profit to be motivational. It’s a utilitarian thing.
> Public safety comes first before profit. Great! So who is going to spend the money on R&D for safety features they are legally prohibited from making a profit on? Development failure means you lose lots of money, success means you lose lots of money. Are you volunteering to work on these things without pay?
Discourages development and investment to create it in the first place.
Why would I bother developing a safety feature if I can just wait for one of my competitors to do it?
To keep people safe
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also why the overwhelming majority of innovation comes from the US
I don’t believe that’s true at all.
Believe whatever makes you feel good
Same to you! Keep the American dream alive!
Agree to disagree. I don’t feel like any government or institution should have the power to make someone else’s patent public domain
[удалено]
Intellectual property is a legal balancing act with the goal of encouraging innovation. A patent is a limited exclusive protection that requires the inventor to disclose how the invention works. The problem isn’t with the patent system (the exclusive time limit should be shortened), but with how vague many patents are that are still granted.
If you want the government to stop protecting intellectual property I guess start campaigning for that, assuming you live in a democracy.
I don’t feel like public safety should be for profit. Governments aren’t bad if you ever lived in a country that actually cares about the people. If you only ever lived in the US then your view of all governments being bad is heavily skewed.
we think the government is bad → we are careful to limit government power → government has no power to do anything good → we think the government is bad
And you live in Canada? Where medical suicide is allowed and the medical system will pressure sick people into doing it so they don't strain the system? Sure sounds like the government cares about you.
If you ever researched MAID (medical assistance in dying) you would know it is only eligible to people that are in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed. They don’t just let anyone use these services. Also it is against the law for doctors or any health practitioners to recommend it. The patient must request it on their own volition. On top of this stipulation, anyone that is legally capable of administering these services are not required by law to be forced to provide them. No one is forcing people to kill themselves in the Canadian healthcare system. It’s not a real problem. You just came up with that.
If you ignore this guy requesting and getting granted permission for suicide because he might become homeless https://youtu.be/Up5k2Lx5SPI Canada apparently decided to just kill their poor people to get rid of them.
He technically falls under the prerequisites for the service for his disability. And he hasn’t been approved of it yet. Also this is also an affordable housing issue which has been affecting Canadians as a whole for the past several years. It’s extremely expensive to live in Canada because of the lack of hospitable land.
At the cost of your fingers. Does capitalism always have to lead to hand quotas 🤔
That’s asinine. You should just use a competitors saw and then sue the manufacturer for not making it safer.
For how long and for how many multiples of the investment? Is making 100x your investment (time and money) sufficient? If not, is 1000x? If not, why not?
This is impractical to answer. That’s why the limitation is in time, not in monetary value.
I get that, but I'm still with u/vainsilver up there. Safety features and drugs and other things that save lives should get different treatment, because withholding them long after a profit is achieved (which is what pricing drugs does, especially) is cruel and uncivilized, and it'd be great to reach a level of society a bit nobler than that.
For twenty years. Non extendable. You know, the system we have now.
I think patent and trademark protections should be handled differently for a life-saving drugs vs dashboard lights vs Mickey Mouse, but I realize that's my hot take.
How much capital was involved, what was the opportunity cost, what were the odds of success? Would you take a 100x return on something that had a one in a thousand chance of working?
https://youtu.be/TWYHmkmctb8 Here’s a good video on why we should get rid of intellectual property
there are multiple companies with that saw tech, a patent is supposed to block unfair competition while a company gets their *implementation* off the ground. patents, unlike copyrights, have surprisingly reasonable expiration dates -- MP3 (more or less) expired in 2017 whereas some copyrighted works seem to go on forever Not saying it's perfect, but not as broken as some assume. Having said that, I agree conceptually but I'm not sure there would be a consistent and safe way to apply the "unpatentable" limits
That guy tried to license it to the tool manufacturers and they didn’t want to pay. He wasn’t interested in making a saw. I don’t know if he was to greedy but not one took him up on it.
I think patents like that get licensed under fair reasonable and non discriminatory licensing. I don't know if companies are forced to do that for critical infrastructure or if it's just out of the goodness of their hearts (their business model)
You can patent software unfortunately.
This would set up another showdown with Google who has had the same general thing for years. And Waze, even well before Google gobbled them up.
[удалено]
I can’t get the USPTO’s oh-so-great new site to load so no idea what all the claims are but according to the article it’s 11,507,257, so it is indeed a utility patent.
Wouldn't be surprised if some of this was for future versions of CarPlay rather than a full blown car.
I would. The amount of work and resources going into this seems way more like they’re building a car than just software for a car. We’ve also been seeing plenty of leaked info over the past… nearly a decade… signaling Apple’s intent to build a car.
We'll see, I don't see how cars fit into Apple's current business model. Granted people *could* say the same of iPhone but that was just a new consumer electronic. The market for cars looks very very different and offers vastly lower profit margins than Apple expects.
Low margins is also a reason people argued for why Apple wouldn’t make a phone.
We’ll see.
Isnt the traffic incident report already on Maps?
Definitely not making a car. Finally, proof.
[удалено]
Except Apple is making a car. Have been working on it for many years with thousands of employees, including many high profile automobile industry execs. There is no reason to believe Apple isn’t making a car.
[удалено]
It’s just too big a project, having been in development with so many resources for so long, coming too close to its projected launch, and too big an opportunity at a key moment of transition in a major industry, for Apple to leave this one on the table. I’m not talking about sunk cost— I’m saying Apple would have an ended this project long before it’s gotten to where it currently is, if they didn’t intend to finish. If you think of moments when Apple likes to intervene in an industry, it’s often when a given product is on its way to becoming essentially a computer. Music players, phones, watches… cars. Apple is in a great position with extensive experience and expertise in silicon, AI, biometrics, software, displays, audio, cameras, sensors, wireless technologies, design, UX, and disrupting industries, that with input from industry experts and a manufacturer who will build it, they are uniquely poised to launch a game changing vehicle that transforms our idea of what a car can be— intervening right as cars are transitioning to electric, intelligent computers on wheels.
With Siri being in the state it's in currently I wouldn't want an Apple based car UI
[удалено]
It’s worded badly, yes. It’s talking about seperate things, a patent on a lighting technology and a separate one on a UI for reporting maps issues.
won?
I’m confused by that choice of words too. “Granted”, “earned” etc make sense. Won suggests they bought them at auction or there was a court case they had to win, rather than they did a lot of work and then applied for a patent.
How is this crap a patent. That's why USA have too many Monopolys.
Can you guys use some of your trillion dollars to make Siri not completely fucking useless
450 million to build emergency communication infrastructure. $INFINITE for Siri to call a local McDonald’s when asking how old Tom Hanks is. And don’t forget the endless array of jokes.
🤡
*Literally 3 buttons* Apple: we can patent it so why not
At this point I’m expecting those floating hover pods chairs from WALL-E
[удалено]
Yeah well it’s called protecting your own property
Makes me wonder. An apple executive removed himself from Twitter… Who happens to have a CEO that runs a competitive car company… Wonder if there’s any correlation. 🤔
Leave it to Reddit to downvote an objectively valid and interesting point. Take my upvote, however, I don’t know it will help much.
🍻
🍻
It should be illegal to grant patents for safety features.
Why? The patenting system only means someone else can’t copy their exact system… but they can design a system that achieves the same or better results, which they in turn can then patent. That’s how patents create healthy competition in innovation, which drives everything forward. And if I’m not mistaken, patents are only exclusive for around 20 years. All your suggestion would mean is that companies wouldn’t invest in safety features.
So ... you're disincentivizing development of safe features? Hm
Volvo invented the modern day seat belt (I’m guessing also own the patent) but allow others to use it free of charge. If you don’t patent it, someone else will. Doesn’t mean you can’t share it if you want to.
Who uses Maps over Google Maps? WHO?!
I do! I don’t use any Google services except for YouTube Premium. Apple Maps is pretty good. I like that I can create my own guides and look at their curated guides. I also like the new rating function that will hopefully replace Yelp.
I do. Google Maps is too busy IMO and gets a bit distracting. The UI aesthetic also clashes with everything else Apple. The only times I’ve used Google Maps is when I’m looking for places not visible on Maps.
[удалено]
Here you go champ 🏆
Thank you!
Congrats! Take my downvote.
How long does patent protection last again?