C7 Navigation
10-14-2011, 12:00 PM
#61
Safety Car
And this is where the disconnect is. Sure some people want a customizable interface. Millions and millions of people don't care, they don't want it to get in the way - they want it to "just work".
4 different vendors you get 4 different interfaces - fine for the geek and the technically savvy - what about the other 95% of the world?
And I'm sure it will be on IOS platforms when it doesn't suck out all of the battery life too. See it's not about having a hardware pissing contest, it's about the experience for the user - something that seems to be lost on most Android hardware manufacturers.
Is this standard on all Android devices or just from some vendors? Is it part of the Android spec for hardware? Touting specifics from only certain manufacturers isn't making a case for the system as a whole.
THANK GOD - do you really think flash is going to be viable in 3-4 years given your background? Not supported by IOS, by Mango, or others that care about battery life. The fact that Adobe is contributing to HTML standards now that mimic exactly flash capability (because they want to sell content delivery tools, they don't care about the end presentation layer).
Nope - and a conscious design decision. The latest Android phones are in a race for the biggest screen... hardware pissing contest again. Think about the usability (you can touch the whole screen using one hand) - how big do you want a device that's supposed to fit in your pocket to be?
Yep pissing them so much that they've pulled their fully capable software apps to get at their content .... oh wait
See above about relevancy and implementations in some but not all hardware platforms....
As fast as other "4G" speeds. Fourth generation LTE networks? Not yet - not until battery life for the handset is acceptable. As fast? You betcha.
Another conscious decision - get Skype or another accepted app if you don't like that the built-in software limits you to networks where it knows it can deliver a quality experience.
Not built into the phone - recurring theme here - thinner, lighter. There are adapters for all the times you want to use your phone and TV together >.<
So you don't have to buy other DLNA devices to use with other DNLA devices? I don't see your point.
Wireless - yes. Bluethooth - No
Obviously not a problem to a few hundred million people who have the phone ... When you design the device for effective battery life you don't have to carry additional batteries with you. Do you count those towards the weight of your phone? Probably not.
Not needed with cloud storage. Which is free.
Please don't - it's clear that we disagree, and I think that's just the fundamental nature of certain things like politics, religion, and technology.
Enjoy using your hardware, I'll enjoy using mine. The best part is we can both do that in our vettes.
4 different vendors you get 4 different interfaces - fine for the geek and the technically savvy - what about the other 95% of the world?
And I'm sure it will be on IOS platforms when it doesn't suck out all of the battery life too. See it's not about having a hardware pissing contest, it's about the experience for the user - something that seems to be lost on most Android hardware manufacturers.
Is this standard on all Android devices or just from some vendors? Is it part of the Android spec for hardware? Touting specifics from only certain manufacturers isn't making a case for the system as a whole.
THANK GOD - do you really think flash is going to be viable in 3-4 years given your background? Not supported by IOS, by Mango, or others that care about battery life. The fact that Adobe is contributing to HTML standards now that mimic exactly flash capability (because they want to sell content delivery tools, they don't care about the end presentation layer).
Nope - and a conscious design decision. The latest Android phones are in a race for the biggest screen... hardware pissing contest again. Think about the usability (you can touch the whole screen using one hand) - how big do you want a device that's supposed to fit in your pocket to be?
Yep pissing them so much that they've pulled their fully capable software apps to get at their content .... oh wait
See above about relevancy and implementations in some but not all hardware platforms....
As fast as other "4G" speeds. Fourth generation LTE networks? Not yet - not until battery life for the handset is acceptable. As fast? You betcha.
Another conscious decision - get Skype or another accepted app if you don't like that the built-in software limits you to networks where it knows it can deliver a quality experience.
Not built into the phone - recurring theme here - thinner, lighter. There are adapters for all the times you want to use your phone and TV together >.<
So you don't have to buy other DLNA devices to use with other DNLA devices? I don't see your point.
Wireless - yes. Bluethooth - No
Obviously not a problem to a few hundred million people who have the phone ... When you design the device for effective battery life you don't have to carry additional batteries with you. Do you count those towards the weight of your phone? Probably not.
Not needed with cloud storage. Which is free.
Please don't - it's clear that we disagree, and I think that's just the fundamental nature of certain things like politics, religion, and technology.
Enjoy using your hardware, I'll enjoy using mine. The best part is we can both do that in our vettes.
Using terms like innovation and pioneer is completely lost in every single one of the arguments above.
You claim they want a system that works. People like you are smart Iphone users but you also understand your device is not first with anything.
The people I hate dealing with on a daily basis are these people...
"what do you like about the Iphone?"
"I don't know I just want an Iphone, it is the most advanced device out there"
and I'm sorry, but I work in the industry and these users right here make up WAY more than the people like you who can even make a half way intelligent argument.
Iphones are a lot like Hondas. They have a ton of "perceived quality" but at the end of the day they are just another good phone.
I have an android device for all the reasons you list above. I try to be an early adopter and sometimes that comes with some trouble, but Apple doesn't actually "target" the "early adopters" segment, and the frustrating part is these masses of people really truly believe "they got it first".
You like your device and I like mine, but don't you dare put it in my Corvette without asking.
10-14-2011, 12:08 PM
#62
Safety Car
SCM about the Book apps. The point I was making is Apple's terms and conditions state that applications cannot have in app links to outside sources from the "App store"
Can you get Kindle and Nook on an Iphone yes, but the problem is in your ability to actually purchase new content. Apple is basically squeezing these ebooks with its T&Cs in an attempt to sell more of their own products by "limiting competition" and innovation through reduced functionality.
This was the point I was making. It is a really big pain to make these apps work the way they were supposed to, causing many iphone users to abandone them in favor of an Apple App.
Can you get Kindle and Nook on an Iphone yes, but the problem is in your ability to actually purchase new content. Apple is basically squeezing these ebooks with its T&Cs in an attempt to sell more of their own products by "limiting competition" and innovation through reduced functionality.
This was the point I was making. It is a really big pain to make these apps work the way they were supposed to, causing many iphone users to abandone them in favor of an Apple App.
10-14-2011, 12:36 PM
#63
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
Ah. I get ya now.
Apple is actually going back to basics... I remember back when Apple was squeezing developers and manufacturers. It was the reason Apple almost went out of business with Microsoft having to come in a back them so M$ didn't get sued for having a monopoly.
At that time, if you were a software developer, you first had to pay for the rights to MAKE an Apple application. Even if you paid for it with a different version of the same software, new versions required a new license. Then once you created the software, you had to pay Apple rights to sell it and a royalty on each purchase.
For hardware manufacturers, you had to purchase hardware plans from Apple for each device you planned to develop for. And even if you had the plans already and you wanted to build a different piece of hardware, you had to purchase the plans AGAIN. Then once you were ready to market and sell, you had to (once again) pay Apple a royalty on the devices you sell. And the devices could be anything from add-on cards to monitors, to input devices... Things that shouldn't have required "plans".
It was no wonder there almost no aftermarket for Apple. Their operating system AND hardware platform was closed source with a fee around every corner. As a developer, it cost you more money to develop software than you'd make since it was a catch 22 with Apple: No software/hardware development, no consumer market share, which in turn meant nobody would be there to buy your products if you DID happen to develop products for Apple.
With OS X, they finally got into open source and instantly there was a huge market for Apple software since Apple wasn't wringing out the developers anymore. Then with the Intel architecture in place, hardware manufacturers didn't have to build hardware for both the IBM (G processors) and Intel architecture that Apple ran on. So now there's more hardware.
All of this pushed Apple's ability to compete and Apple got a BIG market share. The iPod was the kicker, though. Pushing the iPod was the way Apple got their home-market share back completely and then some.
Now that there's a huge market share for Apple, they're going back to their old tricks with closed source operating systems (like iOS), DRM, proprietary hardware/software and so on... Twice bitten, people. Think about it. Apple has never been about the consumer. It's been about the consumer's money. And the more Apple spends on marketing, the more Apple pockets your cash. Superior product? No. But great marketing that makes you feel like you really got the best product. Placebo effect, but some people rather have it that way.
Apple is actually going back to basics... I remember back when Apple was squeezing developers and manufacturers. It was the reason Apple almost went out of business with Microsoft having to come in a back them so M$ didn't get sued for having a monopoly.
At that time, if you were a software developer, you first had to pay for the rights to MAKE an Apple application. Even if you paid for it with a different version of the same software, new versions required a new license. Then once you created the software, you had to pay Apple rights to sell it and a royalty on each purchase.
For hardware manufacturers, you had to purchase hardware plans from Apple for each device you planned to develop for. And even if you had the plans already and you wanted to build a different piece of hardware, you had to purchase the plans AGAIN. Then once you were ready to market and sell, you had to (once again) pay Apple a royalty on the devices you sell. And the devices could be anything from add-on cards to monitors, to input devices... Things that shouldn't have required "plans".
It was no wonder there almost no aftermarket for Apple. Their operating system AND hardware platform was closed source with a fee around every corner. As a developer, it cost you more money to develop software than you'd make since it was a catch 22 with Apple: No software/hardware development, no consumer market share, which in turn meant nobody would be there to buy your products if you DID happen to develop products for Apple.
With OS X, they finally got into open source and instantly there was a huge market for Apple software since Apple wasn't wringing out the developers anymore. Then with the Intel architecture in place, hardware manufacturers didn't have to build hardware for both the IBM (G processors) and Intel architecture that Apple ran on. So now there's more hardware.
All of this pushed Apple's ability to compete and Apple got a BIG market share. The iPod was the kicker, though. Pushing the iPod was the way Apple got their home-market share back completely and then some.
Now that there's a huge market share for Apple, they're going back to their old tricks with closed source operating systems (like iOS), DRM, proprietary hardware/software and so on... Twice bitten, people. Think about it. Apple has never been about the consumer. It's been about the consumer's money. And the more Apple spends on marketing, the more Apple pockets your cash. Superior product? No. But great marketing that makes you feel like you really got the best product. Placebo effect, but some people rather have it that way.
10-14-2011, 03:12 PM
#65
16 Vettes and counting…..
10-15-2011, 05:46 AM
#66
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
People lined up to see Star Wars Episode 1. Your point is invalid. It's all about marketing, as I've already stated. If people knew they could get the iPhone for 1/2 the price and the only thing they had to give up was the logo on the back, they'd stay in line for the expensive item because that's how good Apple marketing is.
10-15-2011, 07:32 AM
#67
Racer
Of course Apple is good at marketing. They do it better than anyone and it's to their credit. But many companies before them have discovered that marketing alone isn't enough.
People aren't as dumb as you think they are.
10-15-2011, 12:30 PM
#68
Race Director
you're right - sorta......
Nonsense. How would you know that? And you say my point is invalid.
Of course Apple is good at marketing. They do it better than anyone and it's to their credit. But many companies before them have discovered that marketing alone isn't enough.
People aren't as dumb as you think they are.
Of course Apple is good at marketing. They do it better than anyone and it's to their credit. But many companies before them have discovered that marketing alone isn't enough.
People aren't as dumb as you think they are.
No, most people are even dumber yet!
A very few like you actually make an informed choice to buy Apple products. Most I have talked to do so just "because It's cool" or "to be first" or "because all my friends have one" - victims of that marketing. Most confuse marketing with product quality. That's whats "dumb"!
10-15-2011, 02:14 PM
#69
Le Mans Master
Still with the Apple discussion? I'm bored. This is boring. You're boring me! 
Actually, it was kind of entertaining to read. Of course, you're all wrong, and you're all right.
I don't give a flying fork about smartphone technology. I don't follow it. I don't have an iPhone or an Android or a Windows Phone 7 device. But I see why other people do.
The smartphone is the new automobile. It is a device with a single basic purpose and a whole lot of nuance. Not having one is social stigma; having the right one improves social status; one's choice sparks passionate debate, starting with whether one person's criteria are more or less valid than another's. So much energy spent carving out one's social niche, justifying one's worth. The choice is important! The technology has dramatically altered society and advanced humankind! So much potential, we can do things and experience things heretofore undreamt!
Discussions about smartphones (and now tablets) remind me so much of discussions about SUVs. Remember all the invective spewed about whether or not SUVs were better than cars and whether or not people were suckers or stupid for buying them?
It seems weird that sports car buyers will be swayed by the qualities of the information experience, but that's the reality we're in. Such is the transformation of the personal information age. Debates over pushrods and transverse leaf springs are far more nerdy and far less mainstream now, and we're reaching the point where they're less important to Corvette's future.
It's making me feel old...
.Jinx
Actually, it was kind of entertaining to read. Of course, you're all wrong, and you're all right.
I don't give a flying fork about smartphone technology. I don't follow it. I don't have an iPhone or an Android or a Windows Phone 7 device. But I see why other people do.
The smartphone is the new automobile. It is a device with a single basic purpose and a whole lot of nuance. Not having one is social stigma; having the right one improves social status; one's choice sparks passionate debate, starting with whether one person's criteria are more or less valid than another's. So much energy spent carving out one's social niche, justifying one's worth. The choice is important! The technology has dramatically altered society and advanced humankind! So much potential, we can do things and experience things heretofore undreamt!
Discussions about smartphones (and now tablets) remind me so much of discussions about SUVs. Remember all the invective spewed about whether or not SUVs were better than cars and whether or not people were suckers or stupid for buying them?
It seems weird that sports car buyers will be swayed by the qualities of the information experience, but that's the reality we're in. Such is the transformation of the personal information age. Debates over pushrods and transverse leaf springs are far more nerdy and far less mainstream now, and we're reaching the point where they're less important to Corvette's future.
It's making me feel old...
.Jinx
10-15-2011, 04:13 PM
#70
Successful Plumber
Member Since: Feb 2001
Location: Top of the hill, 3rd mailbox on the right. Texas
Posts: 43,830
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
6 Posts
CF NCM Ambassador
CI 6-7-9-10 Veteran
St. Jude Donor '06-'07-'08-'09-'10
NCM Member '09
I love the Apple haters. The guys who think that multitouch app driven phones existed before Apple invented the iPhone, or that since Apple products are designed to be simple for people to use they are inferior.
"I worked in IT for 12 years and I know that if you don't have years of experience and a guy as smart as me to do it, then you can't even get on the internet. much less do anything... blah, blah blah..."
Dude - it's a telephone. you use yours, I'll use mine. why do you even care what I think is a superior product? I'm not trying to sell you one.
The whole idea isn't technology for technology's sake. Its making it easier for people to do things. All the nifty spec sheet lists don't matter if the battery only lasts 4 hours or its a stupid kludgy interface.
The nav-info-tainment system should be easy to use and not interfere with the driving of the vehicle. It would be GREAT if it interfaced with the existing technology we already use. I'd like to have my car wirelessly pickup my music library and get to it through voice activation. I'd like to be able to set the temperature by telling the car I want it warmer or cooler. Or to reroute me around traffic problems.
But I can't be typing a bunch of instructions or flipping through menus to do it.
"I worked in IT for 12 years and I know that if you don't have years of experience and a guy as smart as me to do it, then you can't even get on the internet. much less do anything... blah, blah blah..."
Dude - it's a telephone. you use yours, I'll use mine. why do you even care what I think is a superior product? I'm not trying to sell you one.
The whole idea isn't technology for technology's sake. Its making it easier for people to do things. All the nifty spec sheet lists don't matter if the battery only lasts 4 hours or its a stupid kludgy interface.
The nav-info-tainment system should be easy to use and not interfere with the driving of the vehicle. It would be GREAT if it interfaced with the existing technology we already use. I'd like to have my car wirelessly pickup my music library and get to it through voice activation. I'd like to be able to set the temperature by telling the car I want it warmer or cooler. Or to reroute me around traffic problems.
But I can't be typing a bunch of instructions or flipping through menus to do it.
10-16-2011, 11:38 AM
#71
Race Director
I love the Apple haters. The guys who think that multitouch app driven phones existed before Apple invented the iPhone, or that since Apple products are designed to be simple for people to use they are inferior.
"I worked in IT for 12 years and I know that if you don't have years of experience and a guy as smart as me to do it, then you can't even get on the internet. much less do anything... blah, blah blah..."
Dude - it's a telephone. you use yours, I'll use mine. why do you even care what I think is a superior product? I'm not trying to sell you one.
The whole idea isn't technology for technology's sake. Its making it easier for people to do things. All the nifty spec sheet lists don't matter if the battery only lasts 4 hours or its a stupid kludgy interface.
The nav-info-tainment system should be easy to use and not interfere with the driving of the vehicle. It would be GREAT if it interfaced with the existing technology we already use. I'd like to have my car wirelessly pickup my music library and get to it through voice activation. I'd like to be able to set the temperature by telling the car I want it warmer or cooler. Or to reroute me around traffic problems.
But I can't be typing a bunch of instructions or flipping through menus to do it.
"I worked in IT for 12 years and I know that if you don't have years of experience and a guy as smart as me to do it, then you can't even get on the internet. much less do anything... blah, blah blah..."
Dude - it's a telephone. you use yours, I'll use mine. why do you even care what I think is a superior product? I'm not trying to sell you one.
The whole idea isn't technology for technology's sake. Its making it easier for people to do things. All the nifty spec sheet lists don't matter if the battery only lasts 4 hours or its a stupid kludgy interface.
The nav-info-tainment system should be easy to use and not interfere with the driving of the vehicle. It would be GREAT if it interfaced with the existing technology we already use. I'd like to have my car wirelessly pickup my music library and get to it through voice activation. I'd like to be able to set the temperature by telling the car I want it warmer or cooler. Or to reroute me around traffic problems.
But I can't be typing a bunch of instructions or flipping through menus to do it.
EXACTLY !!!
10-16-2011, 02:19 PM
#72
Melting Slicks
With the introduction of Siri, by the time the C7 comes to market...we will be controlling many functions of our cars simply by voice control using ordinary common conversation that is understood unlike today's voice commands that are hit or miss at best. Mark my words.
10-16-2011, 04:08 PM
#73
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
Right, because voice command wasn't around before Siri. 
My mom's Infiniti's voice command is pretty smart and can do just about everything with voice command. There's nothing I can think of that it CAN'T do with voice command.
My mom's Infiniti's voice command is pretty smart and can do just about everything with voice command. There's nothing I can think of that it CAN'T do with voice command.
10-16-2011, 08:39 PM
#74
Melting Slicks
The voice command available right now on any automobile is nothing like siri. Until you experience it, it is hard to comprehend.
10-17-2011, 08:28 AM
#75
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
I'm 99% sure I can comprehend technology and how it works. But it must be hard to explain how good siri is, since you cannot.
Either way, the voice command in many products I've used lately is really good. Google's voice command that comes on my phone is amazing. I'm sure siri is going to be better, but please don't insult my intelligence. And you should know that even if siri is the next great thing in voice command, it doesn't mean that current voice command isn't good. I seriously have no issues with current voice command. Pioneers and worked great for me. Infiniti's has worked great for me. Google's has worked great for me.
Maybe I'm in a small margin of people that have had no issues with voice command, but I since I've had great experiences with today's voice command I don't see what the big fuss is. I'll youtube Siri and see if there's anything jaw dropping. (Excluding the fake videos, of course since I've seen a ton of fake voice command videos.)
Edit:
I just watched a LOT of youtube videos on siri (Apple demos and other people showing it off on their new phones). My analysis is that siri is impressive in some ways, while as a programmer I can see that it's still keyword dependent. Just like Siri, I can listen, send and review text messages and emails the same way. I can look for restaurants, setup alarms, and set navigation destinations just the same way. There are a number of keywords I see that it's smart enough to understand which isn't really that impressive, but what is impressive is that it can cross-reference the new voice queries against previous ones. Android/Google can't do that, yet.
Either way, there's hardly anything new about any of that. I've been able to do 99% of that stuff for a long time, and I don't need to hold down a button to do that. My voice command is always waiting in the background (when I drive) waiting for a keyword to be spoken before each voice query. I'm 99% sure that the Apple software will have that too in the near future if it doesn't already. Holding down a button to use the voice query is so 1999.
Last edited by SCM_Crash; 10-17-2011 at 08:44 AM.
10-17-2011, 08:38 AM
#76
Racer
We'll be there when you can get in your car and say something like "Turn on Rush and find the nearest grocery store".
Last edited by BobRBob; 10-17-2011 at 08:40 AM.
10-17-2011, 08:56 AM
#77
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
Well, I must admit to some skepticism - we've been hearing about computers with natural language ability since HAL in "2001 A Space Odyssey" and we all know how natural today's voice control systems are... But I won't knock it till I try it!
We'll be there when you can get in your car and say something like "Turn on Rush and find the nearest grocery store".
We'll be there when you can get in your car and say something like "Turn on Rush and find the nearest grocery store".
My voice command on my Android is good enough that I can do just about anything Siri can do and it's just as accurate. What it lacks is the ability to use previous voice queries.
A really good natural language voice recognition system would be able to weed out the unnecessary information in a long query:
"I'm bored. Find something to do that involves physical activity." <-- Expected results would be batting cages, bowling alleys, etc.
vs.
"Find something to do that involves physical activity." <-- In this case, since you didn't mention that you're bored, you'd expect the same results with the addition of things like a gym.
REAL natural voice recognition shouldn't require you to talk like a robot as well. The query should be natural. Not stopped between each word. Listen to how each person was using their Siri, no different from how anyone uses other voice recognition systems.
This is why Siri isn't impressive to me. Siri isn't necessarily the voice recognition itself, but rather what to do with the data it converts to a query. I'd be impressed if you didn't have to talk like a robot.
