Search Results: is he in it for the money

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.

Cybersquatting (Domain Squatting)

Tom Cruise vs. Jeff Burgar: In a 2006 case, Tom Cruise took legal action against a cybersquatter who was using the domain "tomcruise. com" to make money from advertisements. Cruise argued he had "common law trademark and service mark rights" in his name, and a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel agreed, forcing the domain's transfer.

Nicole Kidman: An individual registered a domain name to impersonate Nicole Kidman, but the case was brought to WIPO, which determined the domain was used in bad faith and ordered it transferred to her ownership.

Dell: The computer company sued three website registrars in 2007 for registering and profiting from 1,100 domain names that were confusingly similar to Dell's trademarks. The company's successful lawsuit sent a message about its commitment to protecting its brand online.

ClintonKaine. com: When Tim Kaine was named Hillary Clinton's running mate, a lawyer who had registered clintonkaine. com for $8 tried to sell the domain for a high price. The website had previously featured political fan fiction, and the situation became a high-profile example of domain squatting for profit.