Please Clarify: Why Are Runners and Riders Concerned About the Strava and Garmin Feud?

Josh, there’s been quite the buzz online among runners and cyclists regarding Strava’s lawsuit against Garmin. As a runner, I must admit that I hit the pavement to escape reality, not to get involved in more online debates. What is going on?


Miles, Strava is the essential app for runners and cyclists to log their workouts. Its social features enable users to compete against each other’s times in a friendly rivalry and discover popular exercise spots.

If you’re eager to showcase your workouts to everyone, this is the Instagram for fitness.

While workouts can be tracked via smartphones or Strava’s integrated GPS, many prefer wearing fitness watches for their perceived accuracy. This is where Garmin comes into play. Strava lets Garmin fitness tracking watches interface with its app through Garmin Connect.

The collaboration between both companies has worked well for several years, but now Strava is suing Garmin in US court, claiming that Garmin has infringed on two of Strava’s patents: segments and heatmaps.


Segments and heatmaps… I’m feeling lost.

Segments allow users to monitor their times on specific sections of a route and compare against others, while heatmaps help users identify popular locations for running worldwide.

Strava alleges that Garmin has copied these features, thus violating a 10-year-old agreement they had where Garmin promised not to reverse engineer certain functionalities of the Strava app.

But why do runners seem so obsessed with their sport (see what I did there)? Why does my Reddit feed overflow with enthusiastic runners?

Perhaps you’ve heard someone annoying say, “If it wasn’t on Strava, it didn’t happen.” Runners fixate on their metrics and strive for the quickest segment times. It almost resembles a cult. Some people are even sharing coffee mugs, t-shirts, and their unique creations, with wedding photos on Strava.

The surge of Strava coincides with the running boom, and like other cultural shifts, it’s manifesting both in real life and online. Strava simplifies data sharing, making it a hotspot for fitness influencers.

Despite some unrest since early November regarding Garmin compelling users to watermark Strava workouts with Garmin device details, much of the backlash centers on Strava’s lawsuit that may impede users from sharing their runs.

Some users worry that this conflict might hinder their workout plans, with reports like tracking no longer available. Others express that while they enjoy the Strava app, it feels too closely associated with their Garmin devices for comfort. Tracking training.

One user pointed out that much of the data forming Strava’s heat maps is sourced from Garmin users, meaning a lack of this data could spell trouble for Strava.

So what does Strava seek from Garmin? Or are they just looking to end the partnership?

Matt Salazar, Strava’s Chief Product Officer, addressed the situation on Reddit recently. He indicated the lawsuit was filed after Garmin mandated Strava to comply with new watermarking protocols, which threatened the continuation of Garmin data usage by November 1st. This lawsuit attempts to address that issue.

In its court filings, Strava is demanding Garmin halt the sale of devices that allegedly infringe on their patents.

Salazar’s Reddit post bore the title “Setting the record straight on Garmin.” However, comments under his post revealed users stating they would stop using Strava if it were discontinued, accusing Strava of hypocrisy regarding its claims to safeguard user data.

Currently, Garmin has yet to comment on the allegations or requests for statements. The company plans to hold a conference call for investors later this month, ahead of the Strava deadline on November 1st, so we can expect more information then.

What steps should runners take? Which side should they support in this clash?

If you head out for a run and it doesn’t appear on Strava or Garmin, remember, it truly took place. Log off, lace up, and reconnect with nature.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk Takes Legal Action Against Apple Over Open Ally, Sparking Feud with Sam Altman

Elon Musk has threatened to take legal action against Apple on behalf of the AI startup Xai, alleging that the iPhone manufacturer is favoring OpenAI and breaching antitrust laws regarding App Store rankings. This statement drew a sharp response from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and ignited a feud between the two former business associates at X.

“Apple is operating in a manner that prevents non-OpenAI AI companies from achieving the top position on the App Store. This clearly violates antitrust regulations. Xai is prepared to take swift legal measures,” Musk declared in a post on X.

In another post that day, he stated:

Currently, OpenAI’s ChatGPT occupies the top spot in the “Top Free Apps” category of the US App Store, while Xai’s Grok sits in fifth place. Apple has partnered with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT across iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Neither Apple nor Xai provided any comments.

Altman replied to Musk on X, saying, “This is an unexpected claim considering we’ve heard Elon is attempting to manipulate X for his own benefit and to undermine his competitors, including those he dislikes.” Reports indicate that Musk has tweaked X’s algorithm to favor his own posts.

Altman and Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015, but Musk departed the startup in 2018 and withdrew his funding after proposing they take control. Musk has since filed two times for a planned shift to commercial entities, alleging “Shakespeare’s proportional deception ceit.” Altman has characterized Musk as a bitter and envious ex-partner, resentful of the company’s achievements post-departure.

Musk responded to Altman’s tweet, stating, “You got 3 million views for dishonest posts. You’re a liar; despite having 50 times your followers, my engagement has far exceeded yours!”

Altman retorted to Musk several times, initially calling the lack of views a “skill issue” or “bot-related” before posing legal questions.

Users on X highlighted through the Community Notes feature that several apps, aside from OpenAI, have claimed top positions on the App Store this year.

For instance, the Chinese AI app Deepseek reached the No. 1 position in January, while Perplexity ranked first in the App Store in India in July.

One user inquired about Grok, X’s native AI. The chatbot replied: “Based on confirmed evidence, Sam Altman is correct.”

Skip past newsletter promotions

Musk’s remarks come as regulators and competitors heighten their scrutiny of Apple’s App Store dominance.

Earlier this year, an EU antitrust regulator ordered Apple to pay a fine of 500 million euros ($581.15 million).

In early 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, accusing the iPhone manufacturer of establishing and maintaining “broad, persistent, and illegal” monopolies in the smartphone market.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk’s Feud with Trump Mask Reveals the Consequences of Unregulated Money in Politics

Elon Musk has remarked on the loud and public nature of money’s role in American politics, pointing out that it’s typically a quieter affair.

“Without me, Trump would lose the election, the Democrats would control the House, and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. That kind of dissatisfaction,” he stated on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump.

When right-wing commentator Laura Rumer mentioned Capitol Hill Republicans debating their allies in the intraparty conflict, Musk hinted at the extent of his influence. “Ah, food for thought, as they consider this: Trump has 3.5 years left as president, but I’m over 40 years old…” Musk wrote on X.

US billionaires frequently wield significant influence in politics, using their wealth to sway government actions. However, few have been as overt and impactful as Musk in the past year, demonstrating the transactions and dysfunction within US governance.

The Trump Judicial War offers a united snapshot of American politics. As the world’s richest individual, Musk has played a notable role in a new governmental initiative targeting the dismantling of unfavorable agencies after financially backing his preferred candidates.

We find ourselves amidst a clash between a billionaire president and an even wealthier Republican donor, both vying over how to reduce aid to the impoverished. As one satirical website observed: “Yeah! These billionaires are arguing over how much money they can siphon from the poor.”

Fifteen years ago, the US Supreme Court determined that corporations and outside groups could spend unlimited amounts on elections, leading to a ruling by Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy:

Since then, it has become clear that such wealth injections are undermining democracy. Musk’s actions exemplify the already soaring levels of money’s influence in politics, with reports indicating he spent nearly $300 million to support Trump in 2024. We are now witnessing a government dominated by billionaires.

“Fifteen years post-decision, we observe the full consequences of living in a society where not just elections are for sale, but the entire government structure is for sale,” he told Bluwork earlier this year.

Musk is not alone in this arena. During election cycles, ultra-wealthy donors frequently fund candidates of their choice. This has become the standard landscape in current American politics across both parties. Bernie Sanders challenged the Democrats at last year’s convention, stating, “Billionaires in both parties cannot buy elections, even primaries.”

Earlier this year, Musk invested heavily in Wisconsin’s judicial elections but lost to a Democratic opponent. He also donated a smaller amount to Republicans seeking to oppose a judge who resisted the Trump administration. Despite an inconsistent success record, his financial threats remain significant for both parties.

However, due to his unelected status, Musk has been somewhat restricted in his ability to block Trump’s key spending bill. Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” didn’t meet Musk’s stringent expectations for budget cuts or support, and once the administration ceased to fulfill his wishes, he publicly expressed his discontent.

This reflects the volatile alliance between Trump and Musk, which began with mutual affection and a central role for billionaires during Trump’s administration. The fact that Musk has such sway over the budget process is troubling. Trump indicated that Musk was aware of the bill’s contents, suggesting that the administration sought his approval before any public fallout.

Musk has adopted a bold approach to political spending, which is rare among the ultra-wealthy, who generally let their financial contributions do the talking. A charitable expert previously noted to the Guardian that Musk’s distinctiveness lies in his “permanent discretion as a mode of political engagement.”

Now, Musk rallies his followers on X to sway Congress and halt the bill. This could prove effective as Republican lawmakers grapple with the ideological pressures of a president and a mega-donor known for his vindictive tendencies.

Within right-wing media, these conflicts have created divisions. At Breitbart, one commentator remarked that Trump “pokes a finger in the eyes of his biggest donor and it never ends well.” Another piece in American Spectator claimed Musk hadn’t picked Trump. However, the Washington Examiner praised Musk’s opposition to the bill, suggesting that Trump’s budget plan “deserves to fail.”

“I don’t care if Elon disagrees with me, but he should have voiced that a few months ago,” Trump said as he wrapped up a series of critiques targeting Musk. The president also remarked that Musk had “lost his nerve” during a recent television interview.

So far, Republican figures have rallied behind Trump, with JD Vance proclaiming, “President Trump has done more than anyone else in my lifetime to gain the movement’s trust.”

If Musk ultimately falters, he could take his wealth and seek influence elsewhere. He has floated the idea of forming a third political party, a notion that has failed in the past, but his financial clout and forceful personality might invigorate this endeavor. The Democrats already rely heavily on wealthy benefactors and would welcome a potential shift from Musk. Democratic Representative Ro Khanna proposed that the party should reach out to him.

Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and encourages the left to embrace economic populism, faced significant backlash from his party for his comments but stood by them.

“If Biden criticized a major supporter, Trump would have embraced him the next day,” he posted on X.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk’s Feud with Trump Reveals the Risks of Concentrating Power in One Individual

After a year of mutual admiration and affection, Elon Musk and Donald Trump dramatically severed their political ties this week. This notable split featured the world’s wealthiest individual accusing the President of the United States of having connections with notorious sex offenders. Trump remarked that Musk had “lost his heart.”

The fallout from their disagreement poses real threats, with both Musk and Trump publicly shaming each other on their respective social platforms. Trump hinted that all of Musk’s government contracts and subsidies could be scrapped – labeling it “The Best Way to Save Money,” a move that could have disastrous implications not just for tech billionaires, but also for federal agencies relying on them. In response, Musk announced that NASA would start withdrawing the SpaceX Dragon Spacecraft from transport missions, though he later backtracked on this decision.

While their feud plays out like a sensational reality show, the confrontation between Trump and Musk highlights the dangers of entrusting vital public services to private companies led by unpredictable billionaires. It showcases how something once seen as a proud national endeavor, like space travel, can become jeopardized by the emotional whims of a single individual.

The previously cordial relationship sparked months of concerns about potential corruption and calls for investigations into how Tesla’s CEO could leverage his government ties for personal gain. This division illustrates the hazards of Musk’s deep entanglements with the government, where his services could become collateral damage in personal conflicts. Millions of dollars hang in the balance as their rivalry unfolds.

The chaotic manner in which this dispute is transpiring reminds us of the unpredictability of their actions. Musk’s SpaceX spacecraft and its commitments, if disrupted, could prevent the United States from promptly reaching the International Space Station.

“In response to the President’s statement about canceling my government contract, @Spacex will soon begin to abolish the Dragon Spacecraft,” Musk tweeted unexpectedly on Thursday.

“Good advice. Ok, we won’t abolish the Dragon,” Musk replied the next day, responding to an anonymous user with approximately 5,000 followers who suggested “we’ll calm down for a few days and take a step back.”

Had the Musk-Trump feud disrupted governmental operations or used them as political leverage, it wouldn’t have been unforeseen. Since Musk declined in 2023 to allow Ukraine to utilize Starlink in Crimea, the government has faced the harsher reality of relying on Musk’s global infrastructure, a precarious position in case of an unexpected attack on Russian forces. Musk’s assertion that he could disable Starlink almost led to a diplomatic incident earlier this year. Meanwhile, European authorities have recently rushed to seek alternatives to Starlink amid concerns over Musk’s erratic behavior.

Musk has positioned himself as an unpredictable global power broker, yet the U.S. continues to grant him contracts, further entrenching his corporate influence. Specifically, space operations have become synonymous with Musk.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Since winning its first NASA contract in 2006, SpaceX has been awarded approximately $15 billion in government contracts, tasked with transporting astronauts and cargo into orbit. NASA has also contracted SpaceX for a mission to explore one of Saturn’s moons with a planned crewed endeavor. Last year, SpaceX was called upon to rescue two astronauts stranded on the ISS.

The government’s dependence on Musk extends beyond NASA. The Department of Defense maintains extensive contracts with Musk for launching intelligence satellites through SpaceX. The company has also emerged as the front runner in the Trump administration’s initiative to establish a “Golden Dome” missile defense shield, a priority for U.S. defense. Musk’s Starlink communications system has become integral to government operations, reaching the White House this year.

Musk remains a powerful figure in the market and among investors, as illustrated by the nearly 14% drop in Tesla’s share price during his fallout with Trump. Musk has indicated readiness to incur losses for his principles, and his immense wealth provides a buffer against major downturns in his business. The decline in Tesla’s shares on Thursday erased about $34 billion from his net worth in a single day, yet he remains the world’s richest person, with a margin exceeding $90 billion.

The significant reliance on Musk and the privatization of government functions have long drawn scrutiny from ethical watchdogs and industry specialists, but the current climate seems particularly precarious now that Musk has hinted at holding certain services hostage. This situation also highlights the consequences of the privatization initiatives that Musk supported during his tenure in the Trump administration. While Musk has firmly criticized bureaucracy, courts, and regulators as barriers to progress, they also serve as safeguards against the type of personal power and instability displayed by both him and Trump amid their escalating conflict.

Source: www.theguardian.com

White House-Amazon Feud Ends with Trump Describing Bezos as “Very Nice”

President Trump’s 100th day in office commenced with what seems to be a rapidly developing dispute between the White House and Amazon.

During a press conference on Tuesday morning, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt took a strong stance. Amazon had accused the administration of being “hostile and political” following a report from Punchbowl News claiming that the online retail giant’s products reflected an increase in tariff-related prices.

Displaying import fees would have clarified to American consumers that they bear the costs of Trump’s tariff policy, rather than China.

Following the report, Trump reportedly spoke with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos over the phone, as confirmed by three sources familiar with the conversation. An Amazon spokesperson quickly denied that any such policy was active, and by Tuesday afternoon, Trump was back to complimenting Bezos.

“Jeff Bezos is really good,” Trump told reporters during a trip to Michigan for a rally celebrating the first 100 days of his second term. “He solved the problem very quickly. He did the right thing. He’s a good guy.”

The relationship between Trump and Bezos seemed to shift dramatically in just a few hours. Bezos, one of the billionaires aligning with the White House, was courted by Trump due to his business acumen. Yet the administration was quick to publicly challenge Bezos when it appeared his business interests could potentially undermine Trump’s political position.

This strategy appeared effective.

Leavitt criticized Amazon on Tuesday morning while standing beside Treasury Secretary Scott Bescent. She mentioned her recent phone conversation with the president regarding the Punchbowl report and questioned why Amazon didn’t react similarly to price increases during the Biden administration amid inflation.

Leavitt referred to a 2021 Reuters article declaring, “Amazon is affiliated with Chinese propaganda arms,” stating it was “not a surprise.”

An Amazon spokesperson later indicated that while they acknowledged some points from the Punchbowl report, the new feature Amazon Haul—aimed at competing with Chinese retailer Temu—would display “import fees” to eliminate customs loopholes.

“The team is always discussing ideas,” said spokesperson Ty Rogers in a statement. He clarified that this concept has not been contemplated for the main Amazon site, adding, “This will never be approved and will not happen.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick shared on social media that this development was “good news.”

Trump’s assertive tariffs on Chinese goods initiated an escalating trade war, despite his administration withdrawing from wider global negotiations, citing talks with numerous countries regarding new trade agreements.

Leavitt’s criticisms of Amazon were particularly significant given Bezos’ long-standing efforts to curry favor with the White House. Amazon contributed $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund and reserved prime seating for Bezos and his wife.

Before the election, Bezos canceled editor support for Kamala Harris at the Washington Post. Recently, Amazon Prime has added multiple seasons of “Apprentice” to its lineup and struck deals with the Trump family for a documentary about Melania Trump.

In December, Bezos discussed the move to Trump at the New York Times Dealbook Summit, commenting, “What I’ve seen so far is that he’s calmer compared to his first term.”

He remarked, “I’m very hopeful. He seems to have a lot of energy in reducing regulations.”

When asked about his relationship with Bezos in a recent Cover Story in Atlantic Magazine, released Monday, Trump stated, “He’s 100%. He was amazing.”

However, when Levitt was posed a question on Tuesday morning about whether Bezos would still be seen as a Trump supporter, she deflected.

“Look, I’m not going to discuss the president’s relationship with Jeff Bezos,” Levitt replied.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Elon Musk and Sam Altman’s Feud Unpacked: A Technology Showdown

After OpenAI’s launch in December 2015, co-founder Sam Altman spoke to Vanity Fair about the company’s mission to save the world from a dystopian future. Altman discussed the vision of keeping artificial intelligence safe and widely accessible, highlighting his strong relationship with co-chairman Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla.

Nearly a decade later, Musk and Altman find themselves in a public disagreement and facing a legal battle. Musk filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in California court, alleging that Altman and other executives deviated from the company’s original mission by pursuing private commercial interests. The lawsuit questions the direction of OpenAI, now valued at $80 billion, and the shift towards profitability.

The legal dispute highlights the tension between Musk and Altman, two prominent figures in the AI field. Allegations of breach of contract and divergence from OpenAI’s founding principles have escalated the conflict, with Musk accusing Altman of changing the company’s course towards commercial success.

In response to Musk’s lawsuit, OpenAI published a detailed blog post defending its actions and countering Musk’s claims. The post addresses the history of OpenAI, Musk’s involvement, and the evolution of the organization into a for-profit entity.

As the legal battle unfolds, Musk has publicly criticized OpenAI and Altman on social media, fueling further controversy surrounding the dispute. Legal experts question the grounds of Musk’s lawsuit and its implications for OpenAI’s future.

The feud between Musk and Altman traces back to their initial collaboration and shared vision for AI’s role in shaping the future. However, diverging interests and strategic decisions have led to a breakdown in their relationship, culminating in a legal confrontation over OpenAI’s direction and objectives.

Despite their past camaraderie, Musk and Altman now find themselves at odds, each defending their beliefs and actions in the realm of artificial intelligence innovation.

The origins of Musk and Altman’s feud

Prior to their discord, Musk served as a mentor to Altman, fostering a relationship based on shared aspirations for AI advancement. Their dialogue on AI’s societal impact led to the creation of OpenAI, but differences in approach and strategic direction strained their partnership over time.

The evolution of their feud sheds light on the complexities of navigating the ethical, commercial, and technological landscapes of artificial intelligence. Musk and Altman’s diverging viewpoints encapsulate the broader debates surrounding AI governance and responsibility.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk and Bob Iger’s Feud Leads to Tesla Removing Disney+ from Screen

The Disney+ app has been removed from video displays in some Tesla cars, with some drivers complaining they were caught in the middle of a nasty feud between CEO Elon Musk and Disney president Bob Iger. It’s leaking out.

A Tesla owner posted on Musk’s social media platform X a screenshot of the vehicle’s video screen showing the Disney+ app missing.

“So, Disney+ has been removed from my Tesla,” an X user using the account name “The Tesla Hoe” posted over the weekend.

“I think this is retaliation for Disney pulling advertising from Company X (which they have a right to do).”

A Tesla owner lamented the fact that “we have to let young children know what’s next.” [that] You can’t sit in a Tesla and watch Disney+ and deal with their upset emotions.

“Because two grown men can’t have a civil discussion and move on. These happens like a tantrum,” @TheTeslaHoe continued. “And now Tesla owners feel like they’re caught in the crossfire of something that’s not their fault at all.”

Tesla owners reported over the weekend that the Disney+ app was removed from their cars’ theater screens. Tesla Theater/YouTube

Another Tesla fan with the username “Hall Mars Catalog” confirmed that the Model S does not include Disney+.

last week, Tesla-centric news site Electrek Tesla reportedly notified Disney of its decision to remove the Disney+ app from video displays, without providing an explanation as to why.

A subsequent post informed Tesla users that they could still access Disney+ by manually entering the URL into their car’s web browser.

But the Disney+ app, which typically appears alongside major platforms like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and TikTok, is no longer visible on theater home screens.

The Post has reached out to Disney and Tesla for comment.

During an appearance at the business conference DealBook Summit on Nov. 29, Musk told companies that have stopped advertising on X to “take a hard look at themselves.”

A Tesla owner posted a screenshot of a theater screen without the Disney+ app installed. The image above is a stock photo of a Tesla theater screen. Tesla Theater/YouTube

Earlier in the day, Iger told Dealbook that Disney’s decision to stop advertising on He said it had an impact on him.

“He took a very public position and we felt that the association of that position with Elon Musk and X was not necessarily a positive thing for us,” Iger said.

Musk has denied that he is an anti-Semite.

Musk was asked about companies that had stopped advertising on the platform following a Media Matters report that said their ads were running alongside pro-Nazi content.

Last month, Tesla CEO Elon Musk attacked Disney CEO Bob Iger after the Mouse House suspended Musk’s advertising on social media platform X. Getty Images for The New York Times

“If someone’s going to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself,” Musk said, referring specifically to Iger.

A week after Musk appeared on DealBook, the Mouse House began advertising on rival social media platforms Facebook and Instagram, even though those sites had allowed the targeting of underage users. Mr. Musk publicly called on Disney to fire Mr. Iger after a lawsuit alleges that he had published the following.

“Bob Iger thinks it’s cool to run ads next to child exploitation material. A real stand-up guy,” Musk posted, misspelling the longtime media mogul’s name. did.

Source: nypost.com