I am so glad that I insisted on buying a car with CarPlay five years ago. At the time a number of our options did not have CarPlay, but were otherwise quite solid cars. If I'd gone with any of them I'd likely be a lot less happy than I am now: given that I use CarPlay on literally every drive, it's probably the single most important feature to have.
I get that GM doesn't want to cede the important center console to third parties because it feels like giving up their control, but man, is it ever going to be the wrong choice for them.
I agree with you that it's the wrong choice, but it's not just about ceding control. It's also about ceding the revenue.
For example, to connect their system to the internet, that'll be $20/mo. I'd guess GM gets a large portion of that revenue. If you're using CarPlay, there's no reason for you to buy their service.
It looks like GM makes around $1,000 in profit per vehicle. If half of their customers give them $20/mo for a decade, that's $1,200 in additional revenue. If AT&T takes half of that, it's still $600 which is a solid boost to their profits.
Now, you might say that fewer people would buy their cars and I'd agree - but companies make short sighted plays all the time that backfire. Someone does the kind of back of the envelope math that I did above and says "omg, I can increase our profits by 60% with this one easy trick" and it's wrong because the world doesn't work like that, but you put together some consultants and consumer surveys that are favorable and you get the green light.
I know: GM is just killing their relationship with consumers. I agree with you. But think about what Unity did to their developers. Unity saw the chance to charge a fee every time a game was installed and all the money that would bring - and didn't think about the predictable developer backlash. Companies do these types of things.
I know I'm slippery sloping but I wonder if they won't get rid of bluetooth and aux ports in the future. Letting people play spotify on their phone's data connection is money on the table when they could be selling their own data plans, getting a cut from their own app stores etc.
My manual Spark is pretty fun and beats Civic Sis and other fast cars in rallycross. I have done 100+ redline clutch dumps in that car. It still drives fine.
It's about GM and Google getting the data (https://www.motortrend.com/features/apple-carplay-android-au...). Switching from Android Auto and CarPlay to the Android Automotive OS (AAOS) means the auto manufacturer gets the data that was going through the phone.
CarPlay is a purchasing factor for me personally. I've always liked Volvo, but now that they all run AAOS the last few times I rented one I had to reboot the head unit when I got in the car to get CarPlay to work. Funny how vehicles running AAOS don't really integrate well with a competitor...
O/T, but I'm getting a cert error on this page - wonder if it's just me or if this site is just serving a weird cert. Looks like it's signed by some Fortinet appliance - maybe I'm getting MITMed? Would be kind of exciting/frightening if so.
EDIT: I loaded the page from a cloud box, and wow, I'm getting MITMed! Seems to only be for this site, wonder if it's some kind of sensitivity to the .family TLD.
CarPlay/Android Auto is how you can get a modern infotainment system on a car that's a decade old. A new phone - a fraction of the cost of a new car - and you get access to all the new shiny stuff. That also means that people are less incentivized to upgrade a car that has CarPlay/Android Auto support - probably exactly the reason why GM wants to drop support for them.
I had a 2012 Toyota Camry once that I upgraded the stereo system so I could use CarPlay. Huge improvement. I think this is a really terrible move by GM considering all the people who have android and iPhones, why would you want this vehicle? It's a step backwards.
First, you still need to optimize the solution to fit the constraints of mechanical solving. It needs to be as few moves as possible, some of them are parallelizable, etc. Not a trivial problem.
Second, nanosecond? You know that a GHz CPU does a single clock tick in one nanosecond, right?
uBlock just takes stuff off of a page that shouldn't be there in the first place. All the content that should be there is still there, unchanged.
An AI browser is choosing to send all the stuff you browse, to a third party without a demonstrated interest in keeping it all private, and getting back stuff that might or might not be true to the original content. Or maybe not even true at all.
Oh and - Atlas will represent your interests, right up until OpenAI decides it's not in their financial interest to do so. What do you do when the entire web browser UI gets enshittified?
There’s clearly functionality to push more work to the current window’s queue, so I would not be surprised if the data structure needs to be continually kept sorted.
(Somewhere in the pile of VSCode dependencies you’d think there’d be a generic heap data structure though)
The poster was receiving a SIGFPE (floating point exception) on a C program that is simply “int main() { return 0; }”. A fun little mystery to dive into!
You kind of can in C with bit size specifications on struct members, but you’ll still face the problem that C’s minimum alignment is one byte - so a struct containing a single 1-bit field will still occupy a byte in memory. However, it does let you “allocate” different bits within a byte for different member fields.
C++ has vector<bool>, which is supposed to be an efficient bit-packed vector of Booleans, but due to C++ constraints it doesn’t quite behave like a container (unlike other vector<T>s). Of course, if you make a vector<bool> of a single bit, that’s still going to occupy much more than one bit in memory.
There are plenty of hardware specification languages where it’s trivial to “allocate” one bit, but those aren’t allocating from the heap in a traditional sense. (Simulators for these languages will often efficiently pack the bits in memory, but that’s more of an implementation detail than a language guarantee).
Not quite; the first attack happened at approximately UNIX time 1000210380, which isn't quite as round as "1 trillion milliseconds". (It was about 2 days after 1e9).
The St Nicholas Orthodox church sat at the base of the Twin Towers, because it was there for 100 years and they wouldn't take the money to rebuild it elsewhere. They probably served their last Divine Liturgy there on Sunday 9/9/01 as a last blessing before it was destroyed that Tuesday.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ai-chatbot. There's also right-click integrations and such that turn on when you use this. It's thankfully not as intrusive as the options from other browser makers.
I get that GM doesn't want to cede the important center console to third parties because it feels like giving up their control, but man, is it ever going to be the wrong choice for them.
reply