tom tom gps

[CaptainChaos]

The other thing thing is that the google maps mobile software (inc iphone) use the telenav maps which are owned by TomTom. So it does make sense that when satnav software arrives it will be from TomTom and no one else. The only other maps are the Navteq ones which are now owned by Nokia and theres no way they will allow their maps to power anything other than Nokia smartphones.
So we will not see turn by turn from Google. It will either come from Telenav's own solution which streams the maps to you like Google Maps or it will be TomTom where you preload the maps. I hope its the latter but i've got a feeling it will be the former as it will be less of a headache for Apple to implement in the appstore. ie. all programs are the same no matter what region and there's no massive maps to download.

I think Telnav has exclusive rights with AT&T for the software.

[Eurisko]

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. I have yet to see a case number for the mythical "cruise control" lawsuit anywhere, it's urban myth until proven otherwise.

You might use the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, but guess what that's real, and MC was serving coffee above a safe temperature.

As for Apple not implimenting navigation due to "liability risk" if someone turns into a building, that's simply rediculous, no offense. Most likely the reasons are most likely due to something like (and this are assumptions like everything else here):

1. The phone's GPS implementation is not yet ready for prime time (hence the rumors around the 2.1 gps update providing a proper gps data feed.
2. GPS apps are simply not ready for prime time. These things do take some time to produce.
3. The charger "inadequacy" issue is real and running the phone as a full time navigation system is not feasible as the phone will run out of power even if plugged in.

As for the "against SDK rules" arguments, care to elaborate? I don't see anything in the rules that rule out GPS navigation. Now if you had said that the current SDK doesn't support the features to properly support turn by turn navigation, that might make sense.

Ha, my my you certainly have an axe to grind don't you. Tell you what, why not provide me with the case number of that hot coffee law suit. Until you do, don't talk to me about urban myths.

And I'm not sure, but maybe you haven't been in school long enough to learn the difference between literal and figurative descriptions. I guess I need to repeat, I used extreme "figurative" descriptions to get the point of liability across. If you still don't get it, you can contact Apple or read the Terms of the SDK. And let's be clear on one thing, its not what "I" said, its what Apple stipulated.

Thanks for coming out.

EDIT: In case you're unable to locate the information and did ask for elaboration. Article 8 of the SDK states: Location data provided by any Service is for basic navigational purposes only, and is not intended to be relied upon in situations where precise location information is needed or where erroneous, inaccurate or incomplete location data may lead to death, personal injury, personal or environmental damage.

Now you tell me, does TomTom meet or not meet this requirement?

[CaptainChaos]

"Apple's iPod and iPhone marketing head Greg Joswiak recently sat down with AppScout to clear up some of the confusion. Greg says that Apple has an internal priority list of features for the iPhone, and that the company went as far down the list with the 3G as it could -- and that copy / paste support simply didn't make the cut. Similarly, there are no technical issues preventing turn-by-turn directions, just other "complicated issues" (read: legal agreements) that need to be sorted out, and Josiwak expects developers to "amaze us." as things "evolve."

It will happen. As soon as everyone feels like they are in a comfortable enough position to be able to point fingers when things go wrong.

[reeko]

The other thing thing is that the google maps mobile software (inc iphone) use the telenav maps which are owned by TomTom. So it does make sense that when satnav software arrives it will be from TomTom and no one else. The only other maps are the Navteq ones which are now owned by Nokia and theres no way they will allow their maps to power anything other than Nokia smartphones.

and there i was thinking that my nokia n95 8gb nokia maps was being fed from google? how stupid of me.

[MiltyKiss]

Ha, my my you certainly have an axe to grind don't you. Tell you what, why not provide me with the case number of that hot coffee law suit. Until you do, don't talk to me about urban myths

That hot coffee law suit is actually a very famous one (it's normally brought up to prove how dumb some people/laws are). The following link has all the information regarding it:
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the subject, the current SDK ToS does not allow Turn-by-Turn directions, and until anything is confirmed everything is a rumor (there are rumors of companies working closely with Apple on making Turn-by-Turn Nav applications).

[Edit: Also, amusingly enough, there have been reports of people following their GPS a little too closely]

[Eurisko]

That hot coffee law suit is actually a very famous one (it's normally brought up to prove how dumb some people/laws are). The following link has all the information regarding it:
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, not good enough. People here seem to want case numbers to provide legitimacy of their claims, so either provide the case number or keep quiet.

[idolpunk]

rv urban myth

Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway–Tort Reform « Law Offices Of Guy W. Murray

[Eurisko]

Interesting article. Where's the case number?

[marys25]

its an urban legend too...snopes.com: Cruise Control as Auto Pilot

Snopes.com is the best place to find out if something is real or fake....like the hundreds of emails your friends and family send you about outrageous events.

[Eurisko]

That's the trouble with the wondrous internet. For every site that says something is black, another says its white. But we're getting way off topic here.

[.:MirrorminD:.]

Sorry, not good enough. People here seem to want case numbers to provide legitimacy of their claims, so either provide the case number or keep quiet.

Hate to do this to you buddy, but even i remember this case when it happened years ago. You couldnt turn on a tv without hearing about it. And the reason she sued wasnt because she sipped it and it was hot, it was because she had it between her legs to put cream in it and it splashed on her thighs giving her 3rd degree burns. If i recall she was in the hospital for almost 8 days....so to clear some things up: Here is the case # for the McDonalds lawsuite Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants: D-202 CV-93-02419 you can go here to view court documents: Caselookup - Disclaimer

Case Number Current Judge Filing Date Court
D-202-CV-9302419 ROBERT H SCOTT 03/12/1993 ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT


The iphone will have turn-by-turn eventually but i dont see it happening anytime soon. As for liabilty, usually the software waives it and defers it to the hardware. Hence all the warning messages when you use TomTom on a Tilt or something similiar. As for SDK there are ways around it that is why Navteq has said they are confident in bringing turn by turn to the iphone

[Eurisko]

Haha, I was being facetious I don't really care about case numbers, but when someone goes on a rant like that, I like them to put their money where their mouth is.

I think if turn by turn does come, it'll be from Apple itself. But I guess we'll see.

[.:MirrorminD:.]

facetious

oooh big word

[swiftbmx]

I want a built in NASA satellite in mine. I'm looking to get GPS with turn by turn directions on the moon. Anything less and I hate Apple.

[MiltyKiss]

Haha, I was being facetious I don't really care about case numbers, but when someone goes on a rant like that, I like them to put their money where their mouth is.

I think if turn by turn does come, it'll be from Apple itself. But I guess we'll see.

I wasn't ranting (I didn't feel like I was), but I linked that Wikipedia article because it has the case numbers and such (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994)) along with more information. I understand that a case number probably means close to nothing to most people, so linking to the wiki also provides more information.

My feeling on the matter is that you were too quick to answer my post (a simple click and check would have given you the case number).

[Eurisko]

My feeling on the matter is that you were too quick to answer my post (a simple click and check would have given you the case number).

You must be a politician, I asked for a case number and I'm provided with a weblink? Is a weblink a case number? It's even simpler to answer the question asked.

[MiltyKiss]

You must be a politician, I asked for a case number and I'm provided with a weblink? Is a weblink a case number? It's even simpler to answer the question asked.

For the record, I'm not the one that was talking about case numbers. I just posted to provide information for those that wanted to know more about it.

Yes, it would have been easier for me to post the case number, but like I said the case number means nothing to most people.

I didn't mean to get in this silly argument that santiagodraco and you were having. :P