Android Automotive Will Let Video Streaming Apps Switch to Audio-Only When Driving
Google is preparing to let video apps on Android Automotive switch to audio-only mode when the car is in motion. If your vehicle is not in neutral or park, you won't be able to watch the game, but you'll still be able to listen to the commentary. Currently, video apps on cars with Android built-in only work when the vehicle is parked.
According to Google, this update is starting as a test for cars running Android 14 and newer with Android Automotive. App developers will need to add this function themselves.
Google also says video apps are coming soon to Android Auto. This means that the audio-only option could be added to those apps as well, as reported by PhoneArena. If users can watch videos when parked using Android Auto, having the option to continue listening as they drive could be wonderful.
Another welcome update is for Spotify users, who will soon be able to start a "Jam" session in the car. Everybody gets to play their tunes one by one.
The rollout is still in its early stages, and the full set of updates will depend on app developers and car manufacturers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Judge wrestles with far-reaching remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google
WASHINGTON (AP) — The fate and fortunes of one of the world's most powerful tech companies now sit in the hands of a U.S. judge wrestling with whether to impose far-reaching changes upon Google in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared an illegal monopoly. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard closing arguments Friday from Justice Department lawyers who argued that a radical shake-up is needed to promote a free and fair market. Their proposed remedies include a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google's legal team argued that only minor concessions are needed and urged Mehta not to unduly punish the company with a harsh ruling that could squelch future innovations. Google also argued that upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already is reshaping the search landscape, as conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. It was an argument that Mehta appeared to give serious consideration as he marveled at the speed at which the AI industry was growing. He also indicated he was still undecided on how much AI's potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling. 'This is what I've been struggling with,' Mehta said. Mehta spoke frequently at Friday's hearing, often asking probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides, while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps' proposed remedies. 'We're not looking to kneecap Google,' the judge said, adding that the goal was to 'kickstart' competitors' ability to challenge the search giant's dominance. Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. Google's attorney John Schmidtlein asked Mehta to put a 60-day delay on implementing any proposed changes, which Justice prosecutor David Dahlquist immediately objected to. 'We believe the market's waited long enough,' Dahlquist said. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine i nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines 'does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship' of their personal information. Mehta said Friday that compared to some of the Justice Department's other proposals, there was 'less speculation' about what might happen in the broader market if Google were forced to divest of Chrome. Schmidtlein said that was untrue, and such a ruling would be a wild overreach. 'I think that would be inequitable in the extreme,' he said. Dahlquist mocked some of the arguments against divesting Chrome. 'Google thinks it's the only one who can invest things,' he said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
AI dominates as judge weighs penalties in Google search case
A federal judge grappled Friday with the way artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the internet, as he weighed what penalties Google will ultimately face for illegally monopolizing search. Google and the Department of Justice (DOJ) presented their closing arguments following a three-week hearing to determine the proper remedies after the tech giant was found to have improperly maintained its search monopoly through a series of exclusive agreements. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta peppered both sides with questions over eight hours Friday, focusing heavily on what AI means for Google and the search market. The DOJ has argued that Google's dominance over search gives it a leg up in the AI race. It has pushed for more forward-looking remedies, including forcing the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google has contested this assertion, underscoring the competition it faces in the AI space from the likes of OpenAI's ChatGPT, xAI's Grok, and DeepSeek. It has suggested a much more limited set of remedies that would bar the company from entering into the exclusive agreements the court deemed anticompetitive. Mehta appeared skeptical of Google's proposed remedies, noting they 'could have all closed up shop' if he simply needed to issue an injunction blocking the company's exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browsers. However, the judge didn't seem entirely convinced by the DOJ's wide-reaching proposal either, pushing the government to explain how AI fits into the search case. David Dahlquist, the government's lead attorney, dismissed Google's proposal Friday as 'milquetoast remedies that it knows will maintain the status quo.' He argued the remedies can go beyond the confines of the search market identified in the case to prevent Google from taking advantage of its existing market power, underscoring the way generative AI could drive more users to its search engine. 'We do not have to have complete blinders as to what's going on in the rest of the world, and we should not,' Dahlquist said. Google seemed keen to get ahead of these concerns, noting that as part of its own proposal, it would not enter into exclusive agreements with its AI chatbot Gemini. 'Gen AI technology is influencing how search looks today,' John Schmidtlein, Google's lead attorney, said Friday. 'To the extent the court was concerned that somehow gen AI products could in the future find themselves in the relevant market … we're addressing it.' AI was central to Google CEO Sundar Pichai's testimony last month, in which he detailed the push to make Google an 'AI-first company.' 'I'm pleased with the progress [on AI], but we have a big gap between us and the market leader in this space,' he said at the time, referring to OpenAI, which recently beat out Google for a deal with Apple. Since Pichai's appearance on the stand, Google has rolled out a new feature further integrating AI into its search engine. The new 'AI Mode' tab gives users a chatbot-like experience within Google Search. Mehta separately pressed the two sides Friday on the DOJ's data-sharing and syndication proposals. The government has pushed for Google to share search data and syndication to boost potential competitors. When questioned by the judge, the DOJ acknowledged that AI rivals such as OpenAI and Perplexity could also receive access to this data. Google has resisted almost any form of data-sharing, arguing it exposes the company's intellectual property and poses numerous privacy problems. But Schmidtlein gave some credence to the idea of a 'tailored' approach to syndication Friday. The search giant is struggling to maintain hold of its tech empire in the face of dual antitrust cases. Just days before Google was set to appear in court for the remedies hearing, a separate judge ruled the company had an illegal monopoly over advertising technology. Google ultimately plans to appeal the decisions in both cases, but it has to wrap up remedies first. Mehta has previously said he hopes to rule by August, and the remedies trial in the ad tech case is set for September. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Verge
3 hours ago
- The Verge
OpenAI wants ChatGPT to be a ‘super assistant' for every part of your life
Thanks to the legal discovery process, Google's antitrust trial with the Department of Justice has provided a fascinating glimpse into the future of ChatGPT. An internal OpenAI strategy document titled 'ChatGPT: H1 2025 Strategy' describes the company's aspiration to build an 'AI super assistant that deeply understands you and is your interface to the internet.' Although the document is heavily redacted in parts, it reveals that OpenAI aims for ChatGPT to soon develop into much more than a chatbot. 'In the first half of next year, we'll start evolving ChatGPT into a super-assistant: one that knows you, understands what you care about, and helps with any task that a smart, trustworthy, emotionally intelligent person with a computer could do,' reads the document from late 2024. 'The timing is right. Models like 02 and 03 are finally smart enough to reliably perform agentic tasks, tools like computer use can boost ChatGPT's ability to take action, and interaction paradigms like multimodality and generative UI allow both ChatGPT and users to express themselves in the best way for the task.' The document goes on to describe a 'super assistant' as 'an intelligent entity with T-shaped skills' for both widely applicable and niche tasks. 'The broad part is all about making life easier: answering a question, finding a home, contacting a lawyer, joining a gym, planning vacations, buying gifts, managing calendars, keeping track of todos, sending emails.' It mentions coding as an early example of a more niche task.
