Softcard was shutting down anyways. They really never recovered from heavily investing in branding a product named ISIS and then having to change their name after that budget had been spent. On top of that, the early adopters that would have spread the word of the product were annoyed that the phone carriers were actively blocking Google Wallet installations in order to push ISIS adoption in the beginning. Google Wallet had to change business models and use a reloadable card because the carriers prevented Google from using the secure element on NFC to store the user's actual credit card on their own device. After Softcard began to fold, Google just bought what was left.
Nobody cared about Google Wallet. It was never more than a tech industry niche item (aside from being an account for Play Store purchases), and phone carriers only blocked it because Google was trying to create a monopoly.
If you understand the history behind the secure element, you'd realize that it was those phone carriers which forced Google to adopt HCE, which allows payment options. Google's plan was to be the sole payment provider across the entire industry.
You're off in bizarro land here. The brave carriers blocking evil Google's payment monopoly by allowing only ISIS payments on their phone? I know you're trolling the rest of this thread, but seriously?
That article is not even a source for what you're claiming! It just says Verizon wasn't illegally acting when it blocked Google Wallet on its phones.
Read the article, magicalist. Particularly the bottom few paragraphs. Google mandated exclusive use of the Secure Element for the payment system on Android. This would have prevented carriers from offering a competing payment service.
In short, carriers were not being greedy by blocking Wallet. Google was being greedy by designing Wallet. Carriers, if anything, saved us from a Google Wallet monopoly. Now anyone can make an app that uses NFC.
> Google mandated exclusive use of the Secure Element for the payment system on Android
The article's only claim in that area is that the Secure Element can only contain the credentials for one credit card (which wouldn't incidentally, lock developers out of using NFC). I'm not sure if that's right, but even assuming that, it appears to be a function of the hardware, not some evil plan to monopolize the phone.
The carriers only saved us in the sense that they forced Google to design around the Secure Element (which, notably, they could have also done themselves, another hole in your narrative...), giving a pure software solution and allowing Google Wallet to not ever be blocked on a hardware level.
> Google Wallet is doing something few apps do - asking for direct, exclusive access to a secure piece of hardware in the phone. Not only that, once Google takes over the secure element, it wants total control. Because of the security concerns (and related technical difficulties) involved in sharing a secure element, Wallet and only Wallet is able to utilize the internal secure element on a Wallet-enabled device. That means Google is directly managing every layer of the process.
No, that's exactly what I'm referring to. The article claims that the Secure Element can only be used by one set of credentials. If that's true, that's not locking out other people, that's just using the thing. Note also the "asking" part of that quote: Google Wallet wouldn't have used the Secure Element if you never used Google Wallet.
Meanwhile I'm still not sure how you're rationalizing the carriers as savior thing when they turned around and did exactly that dastardly thing (using the Secure Element) while also mandating that no one be able to decline the use of their payment system and use a different app. It was either ISIS or nothing.
Some proof? I live in South Africa, and last I checked I couldn't use Wallet. Was Google going to force Samsung to install Wallet on my phone? As far as I know, all the Google Apps that came with my phone are on someone else's phone in Australia or US.
Wallet is definitely still US-specific. As is Apple Pay, and was Softcard. I have no idea when and if any of these companies will ever expand NFC payments internationally, though some countries have local providers.
The waste brine water is pretty toxic to the environment. Nobody believes that this will cause people to die of dehydration. Worst case scenario, if you look beyond the severe inconvenience factor of having to regulate when you can water your lawn, or if you can fill your pool, lots of farmers would lose their jobs. Almonds and rice won't be able to continue under these conditions. Beyond that, there is plenty of water to go around to keep people hydrated.
More or less, that is a contradictory statement. As per the FAQ, the story is on topic if it's something that good hackers find interesting. This subject obviously appears to fit the bill considering the amount of votes and discussion on the topic.
This might be an attempt to use existing means to pressure mobile device manufacturers from enabling full device encryption by default. I know the executive branch hasn't been too happy with the latest announcements from Google and Apple.
This site is literally talking about the entire planet being forced to rotate 90 degrees due to a rogue planet passing nearby. This sudden rotation would supposedly cause the crust of the planet itself to slip and rotate due to inertia.
I feel that since I truly don't do anything that the NSA could be interested in, if I do something that puts me on their list for higher monitoring, I'm just wasting resources that they could be spending on looking for people who might be communicating with another Snowden. If I download and play with Tor, I'm really helping out people who are trying to exercise their rights. If the NSA 'list' includes everybody, then the list doesn't really have much value to them.
I live in a very cold place with weather comparable to Norway. There are lots of problems when it comes to dealing with cars in the winter. I have no doubt that Tesla could be a decent choice for a car, but it makes perfect sense to be a bit wary about electric vehicles manufactured in California sunshine, especially if you don't have a garage to store the car in.
In addition to battery life and cabin heating issues, there can be lots of small problems. I'm a bit worried about the fancy electric door handles, for example. I've been locked out of my car because the locks were frozen and sometimes even the doors themselves frozen solid.
I have no doubt that Tesla can overcome these issues but they will have to do extensive testing as well as make it known to the public that their car is a reliable vehicle even in wintertime.
People up here in the north tend to favor simple and solid cars and marketing Teslas and other electric vehicles is going to be difficult. The issue is half technical and half marketing.
> "it makes perfect sense to be a bit wary about electric vehicles manufactured in California sunshine"
It makes no more sense than a Florida driver being wary of overheating a car made in Detroit. There may actually be some winter weather technical problems that Tesla has yet to resolve, I honestly don't know. But everything in your post is either speculation or a fallacy called argumentum ad populum .
If I were to speculate, I'd assume that an electric vehicle would be more reliable than a gas powered one in the winter, not less. Ignition is simpler, there are less moving parts, etc. But it's still speculation, and you can't make an argument from a point of ignorance.
Detroit manufacturers have desert proving grounds for hot weather. Tesla doesn't seem to have the same for the cold, having just done 'days' of pre-launch testing in the cold: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/cold-weather-climate-testing.... Even my parents' Prius, from a long-established manufacturer, runs far less efficiently in Wisconsin winter.
Even still, it's probably much less controversial to say that most drivers in cold-weather climates will have less certainty of how the car will perform and hold-up. Maybe it will be a better cold-weather car, maybe worse, maybe the same. I'm of the mindset that I were buying a car in a cold weather climate, I'd prefer to let everyone else learn those lessons first while I stick with something more predictable.
> "Electric cars have been especially popular in Norway because of generous subsidies, free parking, government-provided re-charging stations, the right to use express lanes on highways and exemptions from tolls."
Yeah, Michigan has (almost) none of that.
Cold weather battery performance could be ignored here if there were charging stations all over. Sure, there are a handful of charging stations scattered around if you live in Ann Arbor or something, but it's not like I can drive from there to Traverse City and reliably find charging stations. Especially in cold weather where I couldn't make it on one charge without freezing in the cabin. And good luck in the Upper Peninsula.
I'd love to own a Tesla / other electric vehicle. But between the cost, the winter performance, and the current lack of infrastructure, it's just not smart IMHO.
No, I think I understood your point, and the point of the second article. (Thanks for that, by the way, I wasn't aware that Tesla had improved battery performance by keeping them warm. A neat idea.) I just didn't write my response very well, and for that I apologize.
What I was referring to was mostly the amount of energy the climate control system uses. Heating the cabin is going to suck some juice. I've talked to Chevy Volt owners about their winter performance and they say heating is their biggest problem in the winter. Even with the gasoline engine running to provide some waste heat for the cabin, they still get 50% of their normal range if they turn the heat on. If they're OK with driving to work wearing thick gloves and a winter parka while scraping the ice from the inside of their windshield, they only lose about 20% of their range which I presume is purely due to cold-weather battery performance at that point. Elon claims in the second article only 10% loss due to heating the cabin which frankly I don't believe and am chalking up to "MPG benchmarking nonsense." I admit I could be wrong, but I'd have to see some compelling numbers.
I believe my main point still stands though, which is that the government of Norway has built up the infrastructure and given people incentive to drive these cars. This doesn't exist in Michigan. Chargemap.com says that there are 1,416 charging stations in Norway. According to energy.gov, Michigan has 700. Meanwhile, according to the population density map on Wikipedia (1994 was the newest I could find, sadly) almost all the population in Norway is condensed into very small areas along the edges. Michigan is all over the place (except for the UP, which is noticeably lower). Assuming they only installed charging stations where there are people, this means that while in Norway, you likely have access to a charging station wherever you drive, unlike Michigan. So basically, we're comparing apples to kumquats here and you can't just point to the popularity of Tesla as proof of anything other than Norway's government was forward thinking.