You won't get rich with a $30,200 robotaxi, you won't even have a viable business. The game is the mass market and there the usual unit of currency is not cents, its tenth of cents.
All taxis are variants of mass produced cars, that will not be different for robotaxis. The mass market is the enabler and there every tenth of cent counts.
I don't particularly agree with Epic's victory in the Google/Epic case, but the one thing I hope it accomplishes is to convince those in charge of the Play Store that it's finally time to have developer-friendly policies (otherwise someone else will). Play Store policies constantly virtue signal about security and privacy while continually making it harder for developers to release high quality apps.
This makes sense though, right? Flash-Lite is intended to be weaker than Flash - the comparisons should be flash-2.0 vs flash-2.5 and flash-lite-2.0 to flash-lite-2.5.
That's only enabled by the difference in culture though, right? Japanese culture has a much higher emphasis on order and following the rules - I don't know that this "open-by-default" system would work in, for instance, the US.
Japanese transit-using society is old and middle-class; those are the kind of people who follow rules.
Americans are often more rule bound than Japanese people (we have HOAs and Nextdoor), but we just don't respect transit systems as much because we think of them as gifts we give to the poor/mentally ill/homeless.
And then a lot of Americans have an anti-gentrification ideology ("rent-lowering gunshots" or "neighborhood character") which says that anything made for poor people must be kept old and dirty or else rich people will show up and take it away from them.
I had never noticed it like that but now I’m dead.
When I moved to my current neighborhood I asked why there was no public transportation and someone said it was so poor people couldn’t be around and I hadn’t connected this to the wider culture.
I was talking to someone about some existing bicycle road infrastructure that ran through several neighborhoods, rich and poor, in a large city. They said when it first was built, some people in the rich neighborhood objected because they said criminals would use it to come to their neighborhood. (The city is mostly on a grid, including this neighborhood, making the whole idea absurd anyway.)
I had long ago pointed out to them that much of the bike infrastructure connects wealthy neighborhoods with wealthy neighborhoods.
Along the public transit line (ha!), the person primarily in charge of NYC’s road design and public transit planning back in the day made several anti-poor design choices, like ensuring overpasses crossing roads to less-poor (I.e. more-white) areas were just low enough that public busses couldn’t pass under them, as well as planning off-ramps that dumped a majority of the smog-ridden traffic into poorer neighborhoods, and let’s not forget how public parks in poorer neighborhoods had little monkeys adorning the fences. If you’ve ever wondered why a dangerously busy road with little in the way of safety measures for pedestrians cut between a neighborhood and a shopping district, you can thank Robert Moses.
Old meaning not young. Pretty much all crimes or any other forms of messy behavior worldwide are committed by young men.
But the median age in NYC is 38 and Tokyo is 45. (source: two Google searches I just did). That means a lot!
It's true they don't jump the gates often and they don't have loud panhandlers. Instead the societal transit ills are passed out drunks, suicides and molesters. (Not meaning these actually happen all the time, it's just my impression of what people talk about.)
> it’s pretty much everyone who is not filthy rich isn’t it?
Hmm, it's more about what you're doing, I think? Rich people use transit all the time if it serves their purposes afaik. One thing that helps in Japan is the culture of wearing face masks means you won't be recognized in public. (Obviously this doesn't work if you're like a 7' NBA player.)
For going between cities the trains are actually the nice expensive option, and flying or taking a night bus is cheaper.
But trains are also basically only good at carrying yourself. If you're traveling in a group, or carrying equipment with you, or don't want to walk a lot then you'd still want to drive or take a taxi locally.
while it's not an apples:apples comparison, in contrast, only 5% of American workers commute by public transportation[1], which means >90% commute by car. From this, one can make educated guesses on the socioeconomic status slices that make use of public transit for each respective group - 5% vs 50%
> we just don't respect transit systems as much because we think of them as gifts we give to the poor/mentally ill/homeless.
> And then a lot of Americans have an anti-gentrification ideology ("rent-lowering gunshots"
I think the ideology is in the parent comment. I ride lots of public transit and don't hear or see these things. The largest American public transit system, in NYC, certainly isn't seen as a gift other than by New Yorkers to themselves.
FWIW, I've seen American transit systems that let people board without even being asked to pay. I've seen plenty of bus drivers wave through people who couldn't pay. On one bus a teen boarded and walked straight to their seat. The bus driver, in an authoritative parental voice, kept summoning them to the front. There they lectured them: It's ok, but you need to talk to me first.
Please don't read too much into it. Outside of the peak demand at least here, in Kansai area, gates will close when they sense you approaching to indicate that you actually need to touch the card or insert a ticket. They stay open only if there is a continuous flow of passengers going one after another.
Another interesting fact is that gates' actuators are not super rigid and it's completely possible to force enter not realizing in time your card has failed (you will be approached by station attendant though).
To summarize, culture may play a role but the main differentiator is the high traffic volume.
As I said in another comment, I've used US systems where you board the vehicle (bus/train) before paying, and bus drivers wave you past if you can't pay. On the train, you get a free ride to the next stop.
On the Phoenix area light rail the only way they (used to, at least) tell if you have a valid ticket is random security patrols checking everyone on the train. No gates, no nothing.
During covid they even stopped checking the validity of the tickets and all you needed was to be in possession of 'a ticket' -- I used the same one for a couple years and still have the thing in my wallet in case I ever go back there again.
Couldn't even begin to count the number of times I saw people get off the train as soon as they saw security get on and just wait for the next train.
They went to a stored value card in the last year or so. It's the ugliest one I've seen (big ugly UPC code on the front, I guess maybe for convenience to sell them at retailers outside the transit stations)
Oof. I actually really like the majority (with some notable exceptions) of what Material 3 Expressive does from a pure design perspective, but this article is the worst reflection of that.
"Big button easier to find" (let's think about whether "easy to find send button" is the top priority for an email composition screen, because these folks apparently didn't) and "We can make an existing UI less functional by taking up the entire screen" seem to be the writer's favorite parts of M3E.
It's ironic that they got rid of the tall bottom navigation bar and brought back the short one with less padding (likely after all of Google's own 1P properties decided it wasted too much space), because now it feels like that took that failed philosophy and applied it everywhere else.
People bringing up this site in this specific way is a pet peeve of mine. What's the largest product that they sunset with no replacement? Stadia? Given the number of products Google has, I wouldn't consider their track record below average.
Well their press releases indicate long term support and then they cancel the projects. This _has_ to have more serious consequences (on businesses mostly, but consumers too) than you are implying. This sort of thing naturally effects consumer/brand loyalty. With such a clear lack of focus on any one solution, why would anyone trust Google going forward with their new products/services?
This is the end result of trying to run your massive corporation like some kind of start-up incubator. No wisdom or strategy, just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
A question for Googlers who may be responsible/adjacent - what is the intended function of this warning? It seems to be attempting to filter out low quality apps, but instead seems to be killing any attempt to change the status quo. If the app has fewer users than competing apps, the message Google is sending is "we don't need any new apps that do similar things to existing apps" and "if you're a small app, don't even think about unseating the dominant players."
Google's Play Store policies have been harebrained for quite some time - previously with the 15 reviewer approach they decided to make it even harder for developers with fewer resources to distribute their apps. It's ironic that even though the iOS App Store is arguably more of a walled garden, it's so much friendlier to human beings who are trying to build a product. But at this point it seems ingrained in Google to release self-defeating features (remember the finder network that prioritized "first of its kind privacy" over being able to find things?)
> we don't need any new apps that do similar things to existing apps"
I’m not a “Googler who may be responsible”, but my understanding is that Apple does this too… and Google App Store has a reputation for being lower quality.
I assume it’s because unoriginal apps at some point are just “polluting” the market and making it harder to find higher quality products. Which is generally what users want. Some things are redundant - how many flashlight apps, weather apps, ChatGPT wrappers, etc are needed? I guess Google doesn’t see value in hosting and distributing such apps.
I’m not sure I agree with this, but I understand it. Target or Walmart don’t need to sell your random trinkets that no one buys, and Google is deciding that the same applies to their store. At least with Android you can generally side load and access alternative stores, so you can build a richer marketplace where different “stores” can serve different customers.
> Some things are redundant - how many flashlight apps, weather apps, ChatGPT wrappers, etc are needed?
For what it's worth, the wording Apple uses in their App Review Guidelines [1] is:
> 4.3(b): Also avoid piling on to a category that is already saturated; the App Store has enough fart, burp, flashlight, fortune telling, dating, drinking games, and Kama Sutra apps, etc. already. We will reject these apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality experience.
I’ll give credit to Apple for formally writing a policy to this extent, but it’s disappointing. There’s always the risk of putting in a lot of time for an app that is genuinely unique but Apple may not think so.
I’d much rather Apple let in junk apps but do more to promote curated lists of good apps. I like the “Editors Choice” section. I think it is generally a step in the right direction to surface decent apps.
Plus there’s also already some kind of precedent: Maps does an acceptable job promoting third-party “Guides” to attractions and food for many cities.
For what it's worth, that bit of the policy was written early in the life of the App Store, when there really was a glut of low-effort novelty apps, particularly in the categories they mentioned, and when app discovery features in the store were more limited. It's probably not as necessary nowadays, but it does help guide developers away from writing apps which users are unlikely to find useful. (And if you've genuinely put in the effort to create something novel, it shouldn't be difficult to convince the reviewer of that - App Store review is a two-way street.)
quoting from a nice piece: https://lmnt.me/blog/app-stores-and-payment-methods.html "It still blows my mind how little the App Store has improved over the last decade. It’s barely changed. Almost every bad thing about the App Store still exists. And almost every good thing that happened for app distribution and payment methods is just the result of regulation."
I don't really understand this thinking. If a long tail of mostly unremarkable apps make the good ones hard to find then that is a flaw of the ranking algorithm.
If an app is not even in the app store, how can it possibly attract user interest? What if users happen to like some quirky feature that seems unremarkable to app store reviewers?
I used to think this, but then I just abandoned their search and now use Kagi. (I use the !gp bang for the Play Store, no App Store bang seems to exist.)
I can't imagine ever going back to native store searches now that they're full of ads.
Sure, could be a neat feature, but practically, 95% of the time that I’m searching for an app I know the specific app I need already and am just searching by name. The !gp bang doesn’t search Kagi, it directs to the app with the matching name on the Play Store, but skips having to wade through ads to get there.
The other 5% of the time where I’m looking for an app for a particular function, there usually don’t exist enough apps that perform that function for filtering on search results to be worthwhile.
I’ve had some luck asking ChatGPT “How does AppX make money?” I’ve also asked it to find me games based on genre, style, and control constraints “without ads or with removable ads” and it does a fair job.
> I’m not a “Googler who may be responsible”, but my understanding is that Apple does this too… and Google App Store has a reputation for being lower quality.
It doesn't help much for Apple. You can search for pretty much anything on the App Store and get at best a handful of useful results, followed by page after page of complete dreck.
Speaking as a user, I do find that low number of downloads and reviews for an app strongly correlates with low quality and outright scams. The problem is that you have all those shops cranking out barely functioning apps for trivial things just to get into the listing and hopefully capture a few installs from users who don't have the time or the inclination to do proper vetting. And those apps are so pervasive that they drown out the genuinely useful and well-made new apps.
i'm guessing it's intended to warn that you're about to download one of the 500 apps that look like the ChatGPT app, but aren't actually the ChatGPT app.
Correct. Google's incentive is not to maximize players in the space. Their user isn't the developer; it's the person who downloads things onto an Android phone. If those users get burned too often because it's too hard to tell legitimate apps from knock-offs, they'll stop trusting the whole Play store and probably the whole phone platform (in favor of Apple instead).
Google has the numbers to know that "buyer [or in this case, downloader] beware" isn't good enough because people aren't smart enough. It sucks, but at scale it's a pattern we see over and over and over again (see also "Why does Windows force updates," "Why is Apple so paranoid about side-loading," "Why is it so hard to get an app on Apple's App Store in the first place," and "Why does Facebook log a big warning in the browser console to not paste any code in there and hit enter").
Its a nice theory but if Google actually cared about that Play Store would periodically take out the trash by prompting users to confirm they DON'T want recently installed/unused apps to be sent to /dev/null.
Weird - it's hard to beat widespread online narratives, but as someone who worked at Google there's no company I'd trust more with the "handling" part of my data. There's no doubt that on device is always a more private option, but if you've decided to keep data in the cloud, then Google is probably one of the most secure options you could choose.
Same, as another former Googler. I worked on a team that had a relatively large amount of data access, and the amount of protection in place - technical and procedural, preventative and remedial - made me extremely comfortable giving Google basically all of my personal data, knowing that only the bare minimum would ever be looked at, and even then securely and in an anonymized or (usually) aggregated format.
as an outsider, Google is one of the companies I trust the most to prevent unintended leaks of my data, but also one of the ones I trust with my data least.
I think there’s a bit of a mismatch here between data Google collects on me as a regular user which they can and due process in a million different ways in order to sell shit to you. This extends to AI unless you’re paying for it in which case it’s a very different ballgame.
Then there is data that I put into a Google service like drive or cloud which genuinely is probably the single safest consumer option I know of in 2025.
> but also one of the ones I trust with my data least.
What thing have they done with user data that you feel will negatively affect you? As far as I know people just don't like that they have a lot of data, nobody every said they did bad stuff with that data.
