And the only time I see those tails unfurled is when it's an owner-operator driving at 55 (they know they're getting paid by the mile and so run as fuel efficient as they can).
I dunno. I get annoyed just having to unbuckle and get out of my seat for parking tickets that are out of reach.
I can't imagine having to do repeatedly do this while maneuvering a big rig around a stockyard. Or did you mean it was one of the most valid criticisms?
I had wondered about that before. My guess is that Google considers Waze and Maps users to be different type of "navigators", with Waze being a self-selecting group of folks who want crazy routes to shave a few seconds here and there, while the Maps users are more mainstream and just want a sensible route with options. So they may have hesitated to give the "crazy" option to them.
Another thing, I suspect there's a significant resource cost in constantly re-evaluating these few-second saving opportunities that may not scale well to the size of Map's user base. Could be wrong here.
I am exactly one of those users which you describe and only use Waze for long trips and Maps for the rest. Waze urban navigation drives me crazy with the route it picks sometimes, hoping of shaving off a few seconds.
>Let's assume they do eventually flip their brand on its head and turn on the users.
Chinese customers don't need to wait. Apple flipped sometime in 2017 and gave up all user emails, photos, messages, etc. to the CCP to stay in the market.
People complain about TikTok spying for China, but Apple is one of the biggest CCP spies around. That runs counter to the brand headspace they keep investing in though.
I'll never understand people who expect Apple to try and fight the CCP and inevitably get themselves barred from the Chinese market. It's not principled, it's just dumb and will completely screw over all of their current customers in the country who will now have useless devices. Apple is not a nation-state and has no judiciary or military power, and if they're to have any hope of making positive change in the country they need to play ball to some extent and become a large player who can actually exert some influence.
>I'll never understand people who expect Apple to try and fight the CCP and inevitably get themselves barred from the Chinese market.
People have this expectation because other companies have done this.
For example, Google employees revolted when dragonfly was leaked, and got the CCP search-spying project killed. It's weird to think that Google cared more about user privacy than profits than Apple does, but that's how weird the branding works here.
The times have changed in the past 5 years, going all out on China is simply untenable. Leaving China on the other hand is positive PR.
Just because Apple couldn't officially sell any iPhones in China doesn't mean that the Chinese public would suddently stop coveting them. I don't think they'd blame Apple if it came to that.
Your link doesn't support your claim about shopping around.
Most health insured patients can "shop around" in their network, which is a list of pre-negotiated priced providers that the insurance company has approved. Providers that are already vetted to be the lower cost for insurance, created through purchase power. And that's assuming it isn't an HMO, for which there is no shopping around.
There are not enough options for real market competition in healthcare.
You're not wrong that competition helps, but you're being naive if you think healthcare is a market, or that it would not eventually be captured like so much else in the USA.
In fact, I think you'll find most of healthcare has already been captured by private equity, resulting in worse outcomes for the both doctors and patients.
Healthcare is inefficient for many reasons, most of which stem from poor laws/controls, lack of individual incentives, and poor transparency. All of which can be solved trivially via well structured laws without radically overhauling the healthcare system.
Protectionism limiting the number of doctors inflates wages, lack of price transparency removes ability to comparison shop, max out of pocket plans remove incentives to consider cost in care. All of these are easy to solve once they're identified and understood as problems.
When you look at disciplines where pricing is transparent and insurance isn't generally involved, like cosmetics/plastic surgery, the costs are quite cheap. Because it actually acts as a competitive market with incentive for consumers to comparison shop
If you're not going to bother to be right about that, I can't take you seriously saying that our situation is trivial to solve, but that also the solutions that work in other countries won't work here. Call be crazy.
Elective plastic surgery is hardly inexpensive in the U.S., or representative of healthcare in general. I don't know why you're so hung up on price transparency, it simply isn't the silver bullet you think it is for reasons repeated throughout this thread.
My comment's point was that it's theoretically possible for healthcare to allow for shopping around, but in practice it's not. Due to lack of price transparency and lack of incentives for consumers to care (max out of pocket)
I think if you visit a place like Australia you'll realize it's much more of a melting pot than here.
Believe it or not, you were raised by American education to believe this is the best country in the world. Take some trips, you'll change your mind if you get out into the world.
>In what world can I not know the price of something before hand?
In a world where you're not the primary payer.
The complexity of healthcare prices is an artifact of decades of negotiations between providers and insurers, with the added headaches of linked diagnosis and procedural dimensions.
IME the pricing is so overtly complex that transparency into it isn't going to make much of a difference, it's just going to create more questions. If you want simplicity, switch to single payer.
