> This is a decision. It's generated, I said there's many millions of decisions, many of them will never get noticed and they're just under the surface. One of those decisions that's been noticed quite a bit is the fact that we've intentionally not included CarPlay in the vehicle. And that's not to say we don't think a close partnership with Apple is important. So we have Apple Music integration, we have a bunch of Apple integrations that are yet to come, we have a great relationship with the team at Apple. But it was more to say, we just felt and continue to feel very strongly about creating a consistent, fully integrated digital experience where you're not jumping between apps, let's say from a CarPlay app back to the vehicle app. And it's quite jarring when you don't have, let's say vehicle level controls when you're in the CarPlay environment. That view we've had since the early, early days. I think that's going to become even more important and more true in a world of integrated AI.
Readit News it will become Generally Obvious that Apple has the best consumer AI story among any tech company.
Local LLMs will never be better than cloud LLMs. They can close the gap if/when cloud LLM progress stalls.
Let's not conflate Apple's failure in cutting edge transformer models with good strategy.
Personally, Google lost me as a search customer (after 25 years) when they opted me into AI search features without my permission.
Not only am I not interested in free tier AI services, but forcing them on me is a good way to lose me as a customer.
The nice thing about Apple Intelligence is that it has an easy to find off switch for customers who don't care for it.
Not even only that, but the setup wizard literally asks if you'd like it or not. You don't even have to specifically opt-out of it, because it's opt-in.
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/docs/specs/jar/jar...
What is wrong with such structure? How would you structure this code? Genuinely asking
This typically creates artifacts like each "Manager" owning too much of its implementation (not benefiting from or contributing to shared structures, such as a proper domain suffix list), inconsistency between different parts of the app (since different "Managers" don't necessarily share common patterns between them), and tons of hooks into random "Managers" all over the code.
To me, it feels a bit like an "emotionally driven" architecture, where the organization of the code is based on the list of features of the app, and not based on the implementation of those features. So rather than having, for example, a drag and drop component for the tabs to use, you would have, for example, a ReorderingTabsManager, and the implementation may behave differently than drag and drop in other places. So rather than factoring out code into modules for deduplication, you're making modules ("Managers") based on where they are in the product, and duplicating functionality across each module, to varying standards of completeness and/or quality.
Now I don't know if this project is quite that egregious, but it hopefully illustrates why I raise an eyebrow when I see a project architected this way.
CarPlay would be a complete non-issue for me, its absence would even be a positive. I just use my phone anyway; integrating it with the car is just added hassle and one less thing I have to worry about remaining compatible 5-10 years from now.
In my experience, Apple Maps gives the names from the signs. It could be that the signs in your area are using those obscure state route names?