European Teslas to have built-in Rdio | Hacker News Reader

European Teslas to have built-in Rdio

engadget.com

24 pointsMustafabei17 comments

I hope Tesla won't bundle crapware you can't uninstall.

This feels like the crapware that gets bundled on some phones.

I was gonna say, "but Rdio is free and ad supported now", but yeah, still feels like "Free* 1000 AOL minutes!"

It's nothing new. It's been going on for _years_ with Sirius XM, even on luxury cars.

Have you used the Tesla music system before? I use Slacker extensively in the car, and it's entirely skinned to match the car interface. I have no commercials or ads in my streams and the only branding is a small logo in the corner of the music display (which I don't have to have on screen to use). It's not an "app" in the typical sense, just a service that powers the music player.

I would expect it to operate much the same way with Rdio. You'd buy the ad-free plan ($9.99/mo vs $3.99/mo for Slacker) and get the same experience.

Have you used the Tesla music system before?

No. Can you install your preferred streaming music sources, such as Grooveshark or Pandora or Last.fm?

Can you remove all signs of Slacker if you decide you don't want to be bothered with it?

Rather than downvote, perhaps someone could answer the questions. I'm genuinely curious how things are set up in a Tesla. I've not used one so I don't know what options are provided.

Weird that asking how something works pisses people off.

Theres no 'Rdio App' in the car, it's just another provider in the music library (along there with your phone or USB stick), and it uses the normal controls and interface.

That's how Slacker support works, anyway.

Source: http://gigaom.com/2014/02/06/rdio-teams-up-with-tesla-for-it...

Wow a CEO talking to users. What good idea.

Electric Cars Will Help to Kill the Planet https://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/electric-cars-w...

I am very in consent with the outrage that William Rees dares to disseminate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugv0OY6LyuE#t=450

Will they fix the problem? Certainly not. Are they a step in the right direction? Almost certainly yes.

The main problem with cars I see is that they're inefficient as opposed to mass transport (as Rees seems to suggest in the first article). Additionally, by suggesting that they are the solution, this creates a false sense of security in people having "done their part" to save the planet. For example, if I recycle, that's good, but it hardly means I've eliminated my carbon footprint.

However, where I disagree is that I believe developing these technologies -- engines that can run more efficiently on electricity -- are inherently useful to us building a more sustainable future. If we're able to build electric tractors, boats, ambulances, ATVs, etc. built on top of this technology, then that is no doubt useful.

I had to come up with the aspect of sustainablity because it is of utmost importantance in the postoil we have entered whereas it remains outside the mainstream, as opposed with the topic (the electric car), which are deceptevly sold as a synonym of sustainablility, whereas it is opposite because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

There is also one problem with your recycling analogy. Recycling is always a good thing (after Reduce and Reuse, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy#How_the_hierar..., of course), no matter what. But, relaying on automobiles is not. The automobile is the source of evil - itproduces antisustaibale environment, aka "urban sprawl" www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPS1y81b1Bw

"Sprawl" is sustainable when materials are recycled in a closed loop (as aluminum is close to being) and energy is sourced from clean, renewable sources.

You could make the same argument about recycling. Making unnecessary packaging is a source of evil, in that it uses tons of unnecessary energy and resources. Recycling makes this system incrementally better. Additionally, recycling in some cases uses more carbon than it saves (through transportation, processing, etc.) -- I've heard this figure in relation to NYC's recycling program, in particular (although I don't have a source offhand).

I see what you mean about the idea of efficiency vs. consumption (Jevon's Paradox), although this still ignores the idea that certain automobiles will continue to be used (such as ambulances, construction vehicles, etc. as I mentioned before), and also ignores resources should be eventually used in as much of a closed loop as possible (i.e. solar power to charge your Tesla). For the time being, we don't have the infrastructure to support solely public transportation, so in the meantime it is reasonable to use electric vehicles.

> For the time being, we don't have the infrastructure to support solely public transportation, so in the meantime it is reasonable to use electric vehicles.

You put everything upside down. You do not have the efficient infrastructure _because of automobiles_ and, by representing automobiles as something recycled, your perpetuate this wasteful infrastructure.

Why do you sensationalize the linked article title?

Personally, I'd prefer an electric car because it's more efficient, better torque, and no evaporative emissions. The environmental angle is just another benefit. All the same concern trolling was hashed out 8-10 years ago when Prius hit the mainstream.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com