Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
TomTom employees have the app on their iphones
- Thread starter aok1975
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not exactly. They admit they used "undocumented" calls, not "private frameworks" which is a guaranteed rejection/removal. Using undocumented methods is sort of a "use at your own risk" thing because they can and will change in any software update without Apple informing the developers of the changes. There are other apps that use undocumented code that haven't been pulled either.
You are kidding right? Do you not know anything about apple? You think apple will give you something they can make millions and millions off for free. The apple stock earphones dont even come with the soft cushions covers anymore.
All this talk about why Apple isn't allowing turn by turn navigation apps is pure speculation and a waste of time. Bottom line is that most of their peers are able to offer this and once again Apple is bucking the trend. Why? Because they can.
The most likely reason for not allowing TBT GPS is the same reason NetShare was pulled - AT&T. AT&T is loosing out big time on additional monthly fees it could be charging for; that's how ALL the carriers in the US operate.
It could have been part of the originaly agreement between Apple and AT&T.
It could have been part of the originaly agreement between Apple and AT&T.
Well, you just said "they've been pulled" without any explanation. So before the intarwebz conspiracy police starts speculating too much, I just posted the info from the source.
The issue here is not TBT, that already exists. The issue is TBT with voice guadiance. How is ATT loosing out, there is no app from ATT to do this and its been almost a year since the 3g came out.
Who cares, xGPS = free, voice + Google map.
TomTom likely will have a structure similar to the other GPS app already approved in App store, high price tag for the app itself, and then additional cost for maps.
For someone that needs GPS on day to day basis, it just not quite practical enough for the hassle.
TomTom likely will have a structure similar to the other GPS app already approved in App store, high price tag for the app itself, and then additional cost for maps.
For someone that needs GPS on day to day basis, it just not quite practical enough for the hassle.
If this is the real reason, the the person making this decision for this reason should be fired immediately for being, well, a moron.
As it is now, I have to LOOK at my maps app and that stupid little blue dot moving around to figure out where I am going.
If the thing talked and TOLD me where to go then I could keep my eyes on the road.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)
A woman sued mcdonalds for spilling coffee on herself. She won the case.
A robber sued a store's employees for excessively protecting themselves. He won.
******** lawsuits happen all the time and people win them.
Aurial said:
A woman sued mcdonalds for spilling coffee on herself. She won the case.
A robber sued a store's employees for excessively protecting themselves. He won.
******** lawsuits happen all the time and people win them.
Not this again. She was a 79 year old grandmother, got third degree burns over 6% of her body, spent a week in hospital getting skin grafts, and two years of recovery.
In the ten years before that, McDonalds had quietly paid out over a half million dollars to previous burn victims. (McDonalds figured that was a small price for serving super hot coffee that sold well.) When she asked for medical compensation, McD's refused the full amount, so she sued and won that plus lots of extra compensation. She would not have won if the twelve person jury had not agreed with her.
If so, then it would only be missing from the US App Store and available everywhere else. I can't see O2 having any reason to block it here in the UK. They already do it for a bunch of other phones.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)
You're missing the point. She spilt the coffee on herself. I don't care how old you are. I'm sure she ordered coffee there multiple times without issues. It was just that one time she dropped it on herself.
I'm not surprised hot liquid burned her intensely. The thing is she spilt it on herself.
Other people didn't claim anything until she sued mcdonalds. Everyone else probably figured they did something stupid and had no one else to blame.
Many still consider this case to be the start of all the BS cases from that point.
Oh yeah. And I don't buy the sympathy card. Stupid things done by grandmothers are still stupid things.
kdarling said:
You're missing the point. She spilt the coffee on herself. I don't care how old you are. I'm sure she ordered coffee there multiple times without issues. It was just that one time she dropped it on herself.
I'm not surprised hot liquid burned her intensely. The thing is she spilt it on herself.
Other people didn't claim anything until she sued mcdonalds. Everyone else probably figured they did something stupid and had no one else to blame.
Many still consider this case to be the start of all the BS cases from that point.
Oh yeah. And I don't buy the sympathy card. Stupid things done by grandmothers are still stupid things.
Personal responsibility is very underrated here in the U.S.
Besides that, what the heck is going on with G-Map? My guess is that Apple is meddling with it, looking for some way to cripple it. If they really wanted to add "improvements," why not just go the traditional route and offer an update?
Personal responsibility is very underrated here in the U.S.
Besides that, what the heck is going on with G-Map? My guess is that Apple is meddling with it, looking for some way to cripple it. If they really wanted to add "improvements," why not just go the traditional route and offer an update?
yep, I think gmaps is discontinued.
McDonald's was at fault because they sold a "defective product" (word of the law/court, not my words). They served coffee at a temperature ABOVE what would cause serious injury to humans. If the coffee was just just 10 degrees lower when she spilled it she would not have suffered the injuries she did. It was actually McDonald's policy (at the time) to serve it extra hot, they claimed for maximum flavor. They put each and every customer at risk by serving their coffee too hot for human consumption. And the fact that they paid out numerous other claims prior to her case should have been a wakeup call for them. Other people didn't wait until her to come forward. There are MANY documented cases prior to hers. In fact, they were all brought up during her case to show just how negligent McDonalds was. That particular lawsuit was in no way frivolous. It was a valid suit and it was right for her to win.
It would be no different then me handing you a bar of soap full of pieces of glass to wash your face with. I know it'll cut your face if you use it (they knew it would cause scalding if it came in contact with skin due to the temperature they were told to serve it at) and I didn't tell you or warn you (they did not tell customers the coffee was hotter than typical coffee and would cause scalding). So if you wash your face with the soap and get all cut up, you can, and should, sue me. The problem with the McDonald's case is that the media spun it to make it sound ridiculous, when in fact it was a legit case.
Pretty much any business or law program in college covers this case now, mostly because of the public's misconception of what happened.
I agree with the sentiments of the poster above with regards to the McDonalds case.
As for the other one you mention, well I'm not familiar with the exact case you're refering to as I'm not in America. However, it sounds like it's it's an excessive force case to me, and if so you'll find that most countries have laws governing the amount of force you can use to detain a suspect or defend yourself. The force must generally be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.
If that robber sustained injurries as a result of being restrained by the shopkeeper, and that level of force was not required or appropriate in the circumstances then I can see where he would have had a case.
We need to remember that as members of the public, we're not privy to all of the information in the cases we're talking about. The only person who hears the full story from every angle is the judge, and he's the one who makes the decision. In cases like this most of what we hear either comes from the losers side, or the tabloid press which is notoriously biased towards one side.
Anyway, we're getting off topic here.
If Apple were genuinly worried about being liable for lawsuits resulting from people crashing their cars whilst concentrating on the phone screen, then why have they even included the functionality in Maps which allows you to plot a route and then track your position via the blue dot? What's the difference if people are using this method to navigate and crash their cars?
Problem is, AGPS puts a strain both on packets of data over the air, and also on the telco suppliers servers. Processing of location is done via a server elsewhere, not by the iPhone.
Wait, can we go back to McDonald's?
No doubt McDonald's was at fault. Yes, they were über-wrong. But what makes this lady deserve millions of dollars? What exactly did she do to deserve millions of dollars? Be don't say she got burnt because I would gladly pour that coffee on my crotch for that amount of money. Sure, you want to punish McDonald's, then fine. Take away millions of dollars to them and give it to something cheritable. Give the woman enough money to cover all medical bills, lost wages, and a new dress because her old one was ruined by the coffee. But, no, give her millions for "punitive damages" when she actively did nothing to earn it. This is the problem with litigation, it's not about slapping (or crushing) McDonald's hand, it's about how much the lawyers can make and how plantiffs can win the lottery.
No doubt McDonald's was at fault. Yes, they were über-wrong. But what makes this lady deserve millions of dollars? What exactly did she do to deserve millions of dollars? Be don't say she got burnt because I would gladly pour that coffee on my crotch for that amount of money. Sure, you want to punish McDonald's, then fine. Take away millions of dollars to them and give it to something cheritable. Give the woman enough money to cover all medical bills, lost wages, and a new dress because her old one was ruined by the coffee. But, no, give her millions for "punitive damages" when she actively did nothing to earn it. This is the problem with litigation, it's not about slapping (or crushing) McDonald's hand, it's about how much the lawyers can make and how plantiffs can win the lottery.
Wait, can we go back to McDonald's?
No doubt McDonald's was at fault. Yes, they were über-wrong. But what makes this lady deserve millions of dollars? What exactly did she do to deserve millions of dollars? Be don't say she got burnt because I would gladly pour that coffee on my crotch for that amount of money. Sure, you want to punish McDonald's, then fine. Take away millions of dollars to them and give it to something cheritable. Give the woman enough money to cover all medical bills, lost wages, and a new dress because her old one was ruined by the coffee. But, no, give her millions for "punitive damages" when she actively did nothing to earn it. This is the problem with litigation, it's not about slapping (or crushing) McDonald's hand, it's about how much the lawyers can make and how plantiffs can win the lottery.
All she initially asked for was just enough to cover medical expenses and McDonalds told her no, even though they paid out more money to other people prior to that. That's when the lawyers went to town on them. The woman didn't ask for tons of money, but since McDonalds were being douchebags the lawyers kicked them in the balls.
It doesn't have to make sense, and a suit doesn't even have to be successful for it to cost a company many millions in legal fees, if not also in bad PR.
And it might not be Apple. It might be one of their component suppliers. Chip companies have been know to refuse to sell parts for any medical, avionic or navigation uses. Same reason.