fright's comments

I wasn't thinking about the cameras I guess.

Still seems like it would be better to just include what's required and then let a phone handle the software.

I've always been at a complete loss as to why and how we ended up with the archaic and clunky in-car systems we have today.

If you look at a smartphone from 5 years ago and a vehicle from 5 years ago, the capability of the phone is going to dwarf that of the in-car infotainment system. In all honestly, that 5 year old phone will likely out perform most of the infotainment systems in vehicles rolling off the assembly line right now. I don't even want to think what consumers are being charged on a line item basis for the outdated hardware in vehicles.

I still can't figure out why car companies are even attempting to build these systems themselves (besides profit, I suppose). Pretty much every American has a phone in their pocket that is much more capable than any infotainment system, and it specializes in the things we mainly want from an infotainment system (music, maps/gps, txt, calls).

Wouldn't it be so much better if vehicles just had a barebones screen in the dash with a connector for smartphones to power the system? You could even have the screen size mirror the resolution of the phone so it's just scaled up and rotated. Doesn't seem like much else would have to be done.

I'm sure I'm over simplifying things to some extent, but it still seems like a setup like this would be much easier to produce and much better to use than anything coming from car companies who are typically pretty terrible at software and UX design.

*of course not all vehicles are for Americans and not everyone has a smartphone.

Most tutorial writers are terrible at what they are trying to teach. They may have a vague grasp of a concept, but that's about as far as it goes. If they were more capable they wouldn't be writing tutorials.

There are of course exceptions to this, but it covers at least 90% of the people who create courses for sites like Udemy.

Comes back to the old saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

Adventures in Game Development is the perfect example of the risks of giving assholes your money for crowdfunded projects.

The guy that runs it spent years bragging about doing drugs and drinking to all hours of the night with nothing to show for it and then shits on his backers for asking about the progress of the project (none).

While it's frustrating if taken at face value, Sensor Tower's numbers aren't totally valid. They get the number for a few of my apps really wrong. The download stats are more or less true, but the revenue can be way off.

The healthcare industry almost always looks better from an outside perspective, but once you're on the inside you become just another part of the problem.

Lowering costs is a good example, but once you're inside you realize that the entire industry has been built from the ground up to create high profits and gains, and trying to change that leads to a quick exit. So once most people are on the inside they just go along with it and play ball because it's the safe and profitable thing to do.

Everyone wants change with healthcare, but short of the industry collapsing and being re-built, I don't see way that it's going to happen, though I'd love to be wrong.

In almost every case, the lawyers are the problem not the solution.

The idea of solving any problems for an industry that you haven't worked in for at least a couple of years is ludicrous. I'm sure there have been examples of this happening a few times, but it's almost always the exception rather than the rule.

This is especially true when it comes to high level problems in most industries. In most cases there are a few hundred or more smaller issues that add up to create the bigger high level problems, and those issues are almost never even considered when the startups try to disrupt the industry.

Every industry, no matter how small is going to have issues the derive from third parties and outside players that can't be solved by a twist of the business model.

There are a lot of old timers using very old dos era applications in their day to day business, and if you really spend time with them and learn their business you'll learn there is almost always a very valid reason that they haven't switched the latest greatest web-app software that startup founders tend to think can solve all of their problems.

The moral of the story is, founders need to stop trying to swoop in and disrupt industries where they don't even have a clue of the real pain points, and their SaaS solution would just be a new coat of paint on on old issue that isn't solved.