Search Results: move out

By Apple projecting a simplified iPhone layout onto the car’s central screen, CarPlay lets you use apps such as Apple Maps, Spotify, make hands-free calls, and dictate text messages. It is seamless, free, and loved by millions of iPhone owners.

Last month, General Motors announced that new cars made by the auto giant won’t support CarPlay and its counterpart, Android Auto. Surveys suggest that CarPlay and Android Auto are considered must-have features among many new-car shoppers. But according to GM, the company can create an even better experience for drivers by dropping Apple and making its own software. And like it or not, car makers are watching carefully.

GM has gone as far as invoking Apple in defending its decision: Remove a feature, such as the disk drive on a laptop, and people eventually adapt and move. GM the change “will happen over time, not overnight” and “if your car supports Apple CarPlay or Android Auto, that will continue.” Before its announcement, GM had already nixed CarPlay and Android Auto in EVs. But it’s not CarPlay. Some popular apps are missing, such as Apple Podcasts and Apple Music.

There is one other crucial difference. Because GM’s software isn’t tied to a phone like CarPlay is, access to the full suite of software requires its own data plan—through GM, of course. (The cheapest plan costs $10 a month.) Get used to these kinds of subscriptions, regardless of what kind of car you drive. In recent years, automakers have realized how much money they can make from in-car technology: Maybe they charge a subscription fee for hands-free highway cruise control. Maybe they charge for apps that let you control aspects of the car from your phone. Maybe they sell data that your navigation system collects about you.

Apple sees tremendous value in expanding its presence in your car: The next step is CarPlay Ultra, which enables your phone to temperature? Ask Siri to do it. It’s an Apple lover’s dream and a car company’s worst nightmare.

"The suicide bomber made his away across Bagram air base in Afghanistan in 2016, heading toward a Veterans Day 5-K race featuring hundreds of U. S. soldiers. As U. S. Army Spec. Winston T. Hencely moved to grab the man, the bomber detonated an explosive-laden vest that left Hencely with severe injuries and killed six.

Hencely was credited with saving lives, and the military later concluded that a contractor, Fluor Corp., which employed the suicide bomber, had failed to properly supervise the man before the attack.

Under federal law, Hencely cannot sue the military for his injuries. And when he sued Fluor for negligence, courts dismissed his case, saying federal law preempted it as well.

On Monday, the Supreme Court grappled with Hencely’s last-ditch appeal to revive his lawsuit. The case will determine what recourse soldiers hurt in combat zones might have if they allege that contractors — a fast-growing part of military operations — are responsible for their injuries.

The case revolves around the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which in some instances waives the sovereign immunity the government typically enjoys against lawsuits. The law sets up some clear barriers to suits, including those related to “combatant activities” during “time of war.”

In 1988 SCOTUS held that the tort law barred suits against military contractors when the claims involve a “uniquely federal interest.”.

Mark Mosier, an attorney for Fluor, told the justices the readiness of the U. S. military to fight a war could be undermined by suits like Hencely’s because trust between the military and contractors is paramount.

“The purpose of tort law is to discourage risk-taking, but waging war often requires contractors to take risks, putting their lives and the lives of others in danger,” Mosier said. “Petitioner’s claims also weaken the military’s control over combat operations. Contractors are part of the total force, and the military cannot successfully wage war without them.”