So I’m assuming that means that they’re admitting that they put a safety hazard in all those prior cars and are assuming liability for every accident where infotainment systems may have been involved, right?
If they’re going to lie to pretend they can’t include it because it’s unsafe when every single person on the planet knows with 100% certainty that it’s because they want their own cash/data hungry alternative instead, then putting said “unsafe” thing in their vehicles should absolutely expose them to liability.
There absolutely is not a theoretical possibility that “safety” was a genuine consideration in any way in this decision.
So I’m assuming that means that they’re admitting that they put a safety hazard in all those prior cars and are assuming liability for every accident where infotainment systems may have been involved, right?
I don’t think that’s how it works, and is a pretty toxic and non-constructive way to look at this.
If they’re going to lie to pretend they can’t include it because it’s unsafe when every single person on the planet knows with 100% certainty that it’s because they want their own cash/data hungry alternative instead, then putting said “unsafe” thing in their vehicles should absolutely expose them to liability.
There absolutely is not a theoretical possibility that “safety” was a genuine consideration in any way in this decision.